Tag Archives: Vladimir Putin

Nemtsov’s Death No Accident, Comrade

The assassination outside the Kremlin last week of Vladimir Putin’s most prominent and effective critic was, as the communists used to say, “no accident, comrade.” Boris Nemtsov was reportedly about to disclose proof that the Putin regime was engineering the violence in Ukraine.

To be sure, this is not exactly news. The Ukrainians and the West have contended that Putin was responsible ever since so-called “separatists” engineered Crimea’s take-over and annexation by Russia. Still, the prospect of Nemstov courageously marshaling the evidence of Kremlin complicity, given his stature as a former Russian Deputy Prime Minister, evidently was seen as intolerable by Putin’s friends.

Such a conclusion seems inescapable since Vladimir Putin has announced that he will personally oversee the investigation into the Nemstov assassination. That should ensure the perpetrators are never found.

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.

Cold War Copy Cat

Last November, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would begin initial talks with Peru and Nicaragua regarding technical and military cooperation. This week, Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu began a three-day Latin America tour by first meeting with Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, a vocal anti-American leader and Russian ally. From there, Defense Minister Shoigu flew north to meet with his Nicaraguan counterpart.

It has been reported that the two nations have signed bilateral agreements regarding Russian involvement in the region. These agreements outline a partnership where the Nicaraguan army will receive Russian fighter jets in exchange for increased Russian access to the country. The Nicaraguan army claims that these MiG-29 aircraft will be used for combating narco-trafficking, something that the Colombian government does not believe.

The most worrying fact of this partnership is what Putin’s representative received in return. Russian war vessels will have, as stated by the media, “simplified port entry protocols” in Nicaraguan harbors.

Russians are known for being master chess players. This generalization is rings true for Putin, who is implementing a strategy to restore the former Soviet Union to what he believes is their rightful place as a global super power.

Putin is enjoying the opportunity presented by the conflict in Ukraine, as well as the peace treaty of Minsk, to distract from his plays in the Western Hemisphere. While the world’s focus has been on the Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, the former KGB boss has been moving his most important pieces into place.

This round of chess resembles the Soviet Union’s push against NATO influence in eastern European affairs during the Cold War. Beyond the established ties that Russia has had with Cuba, China and Iran, he picked off where the Soviet Union left off: Latin America.

The Russian Federation realized that their influence could one day be weakened in Latin America following President Obama’s announcement to begin diplomatic talks with Cuba. In order to combat this perceived encroachment of economic influence, Putin’s government moved a Russian spy ship into a Havana harbor. The sole purpose of this move was to remind the United States, and Cuba, that Russia reigns supreme on the island.

Additionally, Soviet activities during the Cold War continue to influence not only the Cuban government, but also other Latin American countries. The Soviets set up the Cuban intelligence apparatus during the Cold War in the same model as that of the KGB; dedicated to manipulating the populous. This influence in turn has pressured other Latin American nations, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, to adopt similar styles of governance.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan knew that the strategic importance of Nicaragua lied in the fact that it was an essential connecting point of North and South America. The CIA even went as far as to covertly plant mines in the ports to prevent Russian warships from docking in Managua. In that Administrations’ eyes, losing Nicaragua to the Soviets would be unacceptable.

This only shows that Russian influence in Nicaragua was once seen as dangerous; however, now it is quietly and quickly brushed off. The international community has shown their inclination of short-term memory, evident by the obliviousness that Russian aggression is a direct cut out of the Cold War ideology.

Vladimir Putin has continued to show hints of his global ambition; sadly the Western world is only focused on his queen in Europe and not the pawns spread across the map.

What is Merkel Telling Putin?

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel last came to the White House, she was furious over revelations by an NSA turncoat that U.S. intelligence was listening to her phone calls. President Obama promised it wouldn’t happen again.

Well, when she visits the White House today, the reason for monitoring such foreign communications will be obvious. Ms. Merkel is currently leading secret negotiations with Vladimir Putin that seem likely to sell out Ukraine – just at the moment when Mr. Obama reportedly is considering helping Ukrainians defend themselves from intensifying Russian aggression.

True, the President is really no more interested in punishing Putin than are the Germans, who depend critically on Russia for energy and trade. Still, we have a need to know whether our German allies are steadfastly opposing the Kremlin, or doing its bidding.

ICYMI: Fred Fleitz on Obama, Intelligence, and Russia

Center for Security Policy Senior Fellow Fred Fleitz was interviewed on the September 4th, 2014 edition of Secure Freedom Radio. The entire interview may be listened to here.

On President Obama’s attitude towards his Presidential Daily Briefs:

My view is that [President Obama] is taking after one of the worst presidents in American history, Bill Clinton, on foreign policy. He thinks he knows better than the experts, and he has very bad plans that he’s come up with himself. I think he reads this intelligence in the [Presidential Daily Brief], and since it doesn’t match his policy assumptions—and we saw Bill Clinton do this—he’s just rejecting it…I think that there is an arrogance here, and it is made worse by incompetence.

On Vladimir Putin:

I’m writing a piece write now that looks at statements by Obama officials that nations simply don’t engage in military operations to bully and invade other nations in this century like they did in the 19th century. Putin has done this repeatedly: in Georgia, in Moldova. Look at the outrageous crackdowns in Chechnya. He’s done this again and again and again. There are still troops in Georgia, there are still troops in Moldovan territory. The West protested, then moved on. Putin has no reason to believe NATO won’t do the same thing with Ukraine.

Restore NATO’s Deterrent

NATO is expected today to respond to the growing threat from Vladimir Putin’s Russia by reconstituting a rapid-reaction force. It’s to be capable of deploying anywhere in a handful of days. Such a capability would be welcome, and maybe even helpful.

But if the objective is actually to prevent further Russian aggression, the alliance is going to have to do much more.

After all, Putin is an old KGB colonel, one with extensive experience in understanding – and countering – Western military capabilities. For years, he has been building up his nuclear and other forces as the NATO allies have been cutting defense budgets and the U.S. nuclear umbrella has atrophied. He has even threatened thermonuclear attacks.

The alliance must reestablish a credible nuclear deterrent if it expects actually to check Vladimir Putin’s aggression.

Russia’s energy hegemony

Recently, NATO officials announced that Russian tanks and armored vehicles have charged into the southern Ukraine, which is held by Russian rebels.

For most people, the announcement of Russia’s recent invasion is not a surprise but merely an escalation of what has been building up for months. Suspicions were aroused, after Russia attempted to send a humanitarian aid convoy into the war torn area without Kiev’s permission. Moreover, Russia has announced a second “humanitarian aid” convoy will be sent in next week.

Since the beginning of the year, pro-Russian militias have gradually taken control of the Crimea peninsula in Ukraine. Initially, Russian President Vladimir Putin disavowed any direct involvement with these militias groups only to later acknowledge that Russian Special Forces have played a role in assisting the militias groups.

Following a referendum that called for Crimea’s unification with Russia, Putin took steps to annex the region. Though the majority the international community considers the referendum invalid and Russia’s annexation illegal, Russia continues to exert its influence in the region.

Not only has Russia shown a strong interest in absorbing Crimea, it makes very overt statements regarding further territorial ambitions throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Ukraine is not the first former Soviet country that Russia has invaded. In 2008, Russian troops invaded the country of Georgia, where Russian troops remain to this day.

It has come to be that people stop asking if Russia will overrun another country and now spend their time questioning which country they will invade. Additionally, will the next country on Putin’s list, incur a military incursion by Russia and/or their puppet militia’s? Or will they be coerced in some other fashion into give up their sovereignty?

Energy security is a large and growing source of concern for many European lawmakers; especially those in Central and Eastern European countries which are heavily dependent on Russia for over 70% of their total gas consumption.

Currently, the Italian company Enel, which owns Slovenske Elektrarne that provides 77 percent of Slovakia’s power, is in the market to sell its majority stake in the Slovakian energy producer. From the looks of it, the Russian state-owned energy company Rosatom is a serious candidate for a majority stake in power supplier.

While some reports have announced that Enel will not sell to Russian companies due to the Ukraine crisis, other reports deny Rosatom’s exclusion from consideration. Purchase of Slovenske Elektrarne would further monopolize Russia’s control of European energy.

Through the routine exploitation of its position as the region’s primary energy exporter, Russia has been belligerently expanding their power and territory in the region. With so much control over the Europes energy supply, Russia will no longer need to dominate other countries militarily; it can simply turn off people’s lights. In fact, Russia has used this technique in the past. In 2009, the Russian gas company Gazprom halted natural gas exports to Europe, leading to shortages throughout the continent.

Energy exports compose approximately one-eighth of Russia’s total exports. Past sanctions have not had a wide impact on the energy industry. By imposing additional sanctions that target the Russian energy industry, would send a strong signal from the U.S. and other NATO countries that Russia should discontinue its territorial expansion.

Additionally, the French bank BNP Paribas, which was appointed to advise on the sale of the utility, has received heavy fines in the past for violating U.S. sanctions when the bank failed to cancel a Russian deal to purchase two Mistral-class naval ships from France. New sanctions would be a clear signal to BNP Paribas that it should not consider Rosatom as a potential purchaser of Slovenske Elektrarne.

While initial sanctions placed on Russia hasn’t stopped it from incurring in Ukraine, the potential cost to the Bank from future sanction violations will weigh heavily on any decisions they make regarding Slovenske Elektrarne’s sale. This in turn will help keep the lights on throughout Central European countries worried about their sovereignty.

Putin’s New ‘Nuclear’ Option

The escalating crisis in Ukraine being engineered by Vladimir Putin is taking on the feel of the Guns of August: an inexorable march towards a wider conflict, and perhaps a conflagration. Having few good options to prevent the Russian autocrat from taking whatever he wants from Ukraine and possibly other neighboring states the Kremlin in what calls “the Near Abroad,” Europe and the Obama administration have been ratcheting up economic sanctions on individuals, banks and companies known to be favored by the Putin regime.

The London Daily Telegraph gives a flavor of what is in store in the wake of murderous attacks on Ukrainian military personnel by Russian special forces and others and retaliatory action by the government in Kiev:

“The International Monetary Fund said the conflict risks deep damage to Russia’s economy, starving it of foreign funds and know-how. ‘Geopolitical tensions have brought the Russian economy to a standstill. Russia’s actions have increased the uncertainty of doing business in Russia and are having a chilling effect on investment. Capital outflows could reach $100 billion in 2014.”

“This comes at a crucial moment when the old growth model based on energy has been exhausted, [the IMF] said. [It] expects growth to fall to 0.2 percent this year, with risks ‘starkly to the downside.’”

“Russia’s central bank chief Elvira Nabullina said capital flight was playing havoc with exchange rate policy. ‘Rouble stability is impossible unless we slow capital outflows.’”

If Putin intensifies his interference in Ukrainian affairs, the Russians seem likely to experience still worse economic dislocation. The Telegraph reports that German chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union has issued a strategy paper that “called for a complete change in policy, deeming it impossible to work with the Kremlin so long as Vladimir Putin is in charge.” That would mean that the Western government heretofore most determined to avoid harsh sanctions on Russia (not least because they would harm Moscow’s many trading partners in Germany) will no longer run interference for the Kremlin and will seek the downfall of its long-time master.

So far, Vladimir Putin is responding to such economic measures and strategic developments by doubling down. He declared on July 1, “I want everyone to understand: Our country will continue to defend the rights of Russians abroad and to use our entire arsenal.”

Such statements would be ominous under any circumstance. That arsenal is formidable and has, to varying degrees already been brought to bear:

Putin has put into place the ground forces needed to seize the industrial heartland of Ukraine. Other nations on Russia’s littorals – including NATO member nations in the Baltics – could also suddenly face Kremlin-manufactured separatist movements that ask Mother Russia for solidarity and protection.

Putin has already engaged in economic warfare against Ukraine, most recently cutting off its access to natural gas imports – ostensibly over payment arrearages, but clearly with an eye toward euchring accommodation of Russian demands.

President Putin has made no secret of his determination to brandish Russia’s nuclear weapons stockpile. He is comprehensively modernizing it, in contrast to the steady atrophying of America’s strategic forces, rationalized by President Obama’s reckless, unilateral pursuit of a “world without nuclear weapons” – starting with ours. The Russian despot has resumed provocative Cold War-style penetrations by long-range nuclear-capable bombers of U.S. and allied airspace. He has also threatened to engage in nuclear attacks on adversaries, near and far.

It appears, however, that Putin may have just added to his “arsenal” a new weapon, one that could give him a new and devastating “nuclear option.” In fact, the mere threat of its use against the Europeans and the Americans may be sufficient to impel their acquiescence to his demands on Ukraine and, for that matter, just about anything else he wants.

According to a CNBC report on July 1, “The industrial control systems of hundreds of European and U.S. energy companies have been infected by a sophisticated cyber weapon operated by a state-backed group with apparent ties to Russia.” If true, Putin could threaten to unleash at any time via a Stuxnet-like computer worm an attack on the electric grids of the United States and Europe. Such a cyber attack could potentially disrupt the distribution of power to their respective critical infrastructures for protracted periods.

Should that occur, societal breakdowns, economic collapse and losses that run to the hundreds of millions of lives are distinct possibilities, if not certainties. The Free World as we have known it could cease to exist, without a shot being fired.

Such a scenario was among those validated in London this week at a meeting of top government officials, legislators, public utilities regulators, electric industry leaders, scientists and other experts from the United States, Britain, Israel and a number of other countries. The good news is that, in light of such very bad news about the dangers we face – with or without a Russian Stuxnet 2.0, this Electric Infrastructure Security Summit seemed to precipitate an unprecedented willingness on the part of the various stakeholders represented to collaborate for the purpose of protecting the grid against all hazards.

The prospect of Vladimir Putin or any other adversaries being able, one way or another, to pose such an existential threat to our nation demands corrective action without further delay. What is needed now is nothing less than a crash, supreme-priority Manhattan Project-style national effort. We must bring to bear the best minds and the necessary resources to protect our critical infrastructure and, thereby, help preserve this country and the rest of the Free World in the face of the present danger – and those in the offing.