Scenarios for Ukraine's Future: Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, or Libya 2.0?

June 12, 2016 - 

Yuri Sergeev, PolitRussia -

Translated by J. Arnoldski

Ukraine is in the midst of crisis and is faced with three of the most probable variants of the development of events: the Syrian, Egyptian, and Tunisian scenarios. This was recently stated by the Kiev political analyst Yuri Romanenko during his speech at the forum “Pulse of Change.”

Let us attempt to analyze this thesis in depth. For starters, it can be noted that the first, “Syrian” scenario which Mr. Romanenko specified as one of Ukraine’s possible futures, is in fact not at all out of character for the “great European state,” albeit, of course, with the correction that in Syria what is happening is a civil war instigated from abroad and carried out by the hands of insurgents against a legal government. In Ukraine, on the contrary, healthy forces are in fact defending their legal rights from the Kiev government seized by gangs of putschists with an ill-concealed “brown tint.” But the essence of the two situations is similar - in both places, a real civil war is ongoing. 

The second point is recognizing the sad fact and taboo that in “independent” Ukraine, “freedom and democracy” are under the harshest censorship. Sure, certain politicians have risked calling things by their names, but most prefer to dress up the punitive action against the rebellious population of Donbass as a “fight against Russian aggression” and, of course, against the ubiquitous “vatniks,” “kolorados,” “separatists,” and “terrorists.”

Romanenko’s caution in this case is clear. On the other hand, he deserves credit for not bringing up the ridiculously lauded “Ministry of Truth’s” account of the “Croatian scenario,” according to which the valiant Ukrainian “army” is merely awaiting leadership before victoriously regaining control over Donbass in a several-day-long blitzkrieg as was Croatia’s much lauded “Operation Storm” against Serbian Krajina in 1995. [He does not mention this] because this punitive action was successful and possible thanks to the treacherous policies of the Serbian leadership who chose the illusory hopes of “Euromembership” to the detriment of the armed defense of their compatriots’ interests. This clearly does not apply to the current policies of Russia.

Therefore, a checkmark can confidently be put next to the Syrian option for Ukraine in view of the fact it has long since been put into action on the territory of this “great European power.”

A Tunis was not prepared against Russia 

The less publicly known “Tunisian scenario” refers to the revolution (or coup, as you prefer) of 2011, which the events in Ukraine resemble to a large extent. Only instead of a Yanukovich concentrating evermore significant assets and power into his and his family’s hands, in Tunisia there was the figure of President Ben Ali whom the local “revolutionary youth”, dissatisfied with a  considerably unemployment rate (no matters its offset by serious benefits), decided to overthrow with the unofficial green-light of the US, thus initiating the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Fast forwarding, we can say that the Tunisian “kids” turned out to be the same “broken record” as their Ukrainian colleagues. After the “victory of the revolution,” unemployment and inflation grew and the standard of life dropped in the country. But there was “real democracy!,” i.e., the right to choose candidates for parliament not only from the only ruling party of Ben Ali, but also from several competing political forces who (to their credit) still had enough sense not to drag the country to civil war, which obviously favorably compares the Tunisian situation to the Ukrainian or, let’s say, the Libyan one. 

On the other hand, the “head sponsor” of the “Jasmine Revolution,” the US, didn’t need such a large upheaval in such a fairly small North African country. Changing the old corrupt regime was possible even without shooting. But Ukraine is a whole different matter. Ever since the time of Brzezinski, who dreamed of conflict between Ukrainians and Russians, the US planned an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to be put at Russia’s borders and to use Ukraine as “cannon fodder” to fight Russia not with American, but other hands.

For Washington, the result of the war isn’t even important which, as was quite predictable, gave at least a 40-fold superiority of Russian defense spending over Ukrainian. The main point was creating a zone of instability on the territory of “independent Ukraine” up to the point of a “European Somalia” which could deliver all the more of a “headache” to both Russia and the US’ “sworn friends,” i.e., its EU competitors. 

Thus, seriously considering the possibilities of the emergence in Ukraine of sensible, influential elites, alas, is not worth it. In the meanwhile, as a temporary measure during the period of presidential campaigns in the US, the American administration can pretend that it is attempting to guarantee that obstinate, Nazi Kiev will be “compelled to Minsk.”

The Egyptian scenario: it’s not that army…

The last option voiced by Romanenko is called the “Egyptian” one. In its pure form, at least, this is impossible for Ukraine. After all, the Egyptian army (which ever since the beginning of real independence had remained one of the main “pillars” of real government), following the temporary triumph of the Islamists, once again seized power in the “country of pyramids." In fact, all Egyptian presidents without exception were high-ranking military men, and not even “former” ones at that.

The overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood president Morsi by the army was a mere return to the usual order of governance. This was in fact acceptable for the majority of the population with the exception of the most notorious radicals. Thus, everything worked out without the cost of turning stadiums into concentration camps in the spirit of the Chilean dictator Pinochet.

In Ukraine, the army has never played such a weighty role in society. According to polls, only a small percentage of the population trusts it, and this is only as an abstract institution. When talking about concrete individuals, such unpleasant things as embezzlement, incompetent generals, the reluctance of youth to serve, etc. immediately manifest themselves. Since the beginning of the crisis, the situation has only worsened  in this regard. Radical patriots speak of “betrayal” among generals allegedly thanks to whom the Ilovaysk and Debaltsevo “cauldrons” were possible. And recruits already don’t merely shy away from “honorary duties,” but even dare to jump from the windows of military offices, risking their lives.

Expecting such an army to not only seize power but, moreover, make use of it and gain at least come credibility in society is not worth it. If in the Ukrainian army discipline is maintained now not so much thanks to respect or at least fear of commanders but just from the fear of criminal cases opened by “civil” prosecutors, then what will everything be like if the soldiers “break” civil institutions in the case of a next “Revolution?” The majority of soldiers will run away and the rest will turn into bandits. 

Of course, Ukraine has some “motivated” people with weapons, who usually have pronounced Nazi convictions. Apparently, it is these people that Romanenko has in mind in speaking of a situation in which “someone from a financial-industrial group, plus some kind of progressive force with foreign support and relying on any social group, can carry out a coup and by authoritarian means bring about change by destroying or suppressing part of the elites and social groups.” 

“The Ruin”: Ukrainian know-how from the 17th century to the present day

The whole problem of the Ukrainian elite since time immemorial is that among such “vigorous and progressive” forces, it has a significantly greater amount of the former. Hence the ironic saying “Two Ukrainians - three hetmans.” In fact, with very real reasons, during the time of “Ruins,” i.e., the 30-year period after Bogdan Hmelnitsky’s death, Ukraine had at least two, and sometimes three-four hetmans at the same time. This is not even counting the colonels who back then were a sort of governors who were only weakly subordinated to the supposedly supreme power, and this was even more true when their ranks included bright personalities.

So, let’s imagine that the Dnepropetrovsk oligarch Kolomoysky, with the aid of his financed Nazi battalions in the shape of Azov and Aidar, attempts to replace Poroshenko’s regime (which has more than once nearly happened if it wasn’t for the phone call of Vice President Biden with the order “lights out.”). This is a possible scenario. But a very big question is whether the beneficiary, Kolomoysky, will be able to reach agreements with the other oligarchs such as Pinchuk, Akhmetov, Firtash, and the Transcarpathian “boss” Baloga, etc. After all, they also sponsor their own official and semi-official armed groups. Would the actual federalization of Ukraine not be a gift to them and the ever-growing number of regional councils openly demanding a redistribution of power from Kiev?

Even if the punitive battalions were to free themselves from the control of the oligarchs (which wouldn’t be so difficult given their widespread disdain for these individuals), then seizing the government would still be very difficult. After all, doing so demands having one single “Fuhrer”, and in the Ukrainian political tradition there are more than a few candidates always ready for this. Recently, this “growing number” has found another claim for the role of “Fuhrer” in the face of the Nazi Savchenko.

Thus, a more likely scenario for Ukraine in this trajectory of events is not so much the “Egyptian” one as the “Libyan” one. When divided Libya was on the brink of civil war in the mid-1980’s, the country, according to conservative estimates, had 3 armies, 2 police forces, and 42 militias belonging to different religious and tribal groups…

On the other hand, should the experience of the Middle East even be used to assess events in Ukraine? After all, “independent” Ukraine has long had its own “brand” of suicidal power struggles, as in the case of the aforementioned “Ruin” period. During that period, over the course of 3 decades the population of the right-bank Ukraine, in contrast to the left-bank which became a protectorate of Moscow, came under the rule of the Polish Commonwealth, the Ottoman Empire, and the Crimean Khanate. The Ukrainian population decreased 10 times (!), which is an absolute record not even beaten by the infamous Thirty Years War in Germany at the beginning the 17th century when the population of affected principalities decreased only five times.

Unfortunately, this is a very likely scenario at the present moment as long as official Kiev maintains its suicidal policies and political analysts in Ukraine will be afraid to speak. It won’t be too long before the situation could fully accord with this gloomiest scenario. 

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

Iran as a Multipolar Anchor

June 7, 2016 - 

Daahireeto Mohamud, Katehon -

Iran has proven to be one of the staunchest anti-US hegemony states in the world. Since the 1979 revolution Tehran has fought bitter US/Israeli-induced wars in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon and occupied Palestine, either directly or indirectly, while also facing harsh economic sanctions from the West. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a capable and shrewd regional power that will always affect the fate of the Middle east as history has shown for centuries past. The country occupies a geostrategic position that straddles the Middle east, the Persian Gulf region/Arabian sea, Central Asia, South Asia and the Caucus/Caspian region. Those key regions will be a crucial ''pivot'' for the 21st century  great power geopolitical competition. 

The Unipolar US will try to isolate the Eurasian great powers, Russia and China, by controlling "the rimlands'' of Eurasia and by destabilizing the above mentioned regions with its preferred hybrid wars. Iran will be a key node that the US will need to connect its NATO/Turkey military bases with its Iraq/GCC/Afghanistan/Pakistan military presence through potential actual military presence in India, and all the way to Mynamar and into its Asia Pacific military hubs. If Washington gets its way in having military presence in Iran and as it seems in India, then "the Great Geopolitical Wall" against Eurasian great powers will be completed from the European/NATO theater, through the Middle east and South Asia and all the way to the Asia Pacific theater. Only Iran and a potential Pakistani strategic re-alignment with Multipolarity could be the obstacle of such a "Great  Geopolitical Wall".  The US defense secretary Ash Cater's terming of ''strategic handshake" between the US's Asia pivot and India's act east policy is another name of this Wall.

Geopolitically

Iran is key for the multipolar world: Tehran's influence in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon and potentially in Yemen and its geographic location in the Persian Gulf region and the Arabian sea/Indian ocean, will help the Multipolar leading states to break free into the rimlands of the Mediterranean sea and Indian ocean. In deed, the country is on the crossroads between the Eurasian heartland and the Middle eastern rimlands.

Iran's strategic thinking

The current composition of the Iranian regime is a solid Multipolar anchor, the pro-Multipolar conservative/nationalist forces in Iran control nearly all key institutions of the state and the regime including the Supreme Leader's office, the Guardian Council, IRGC,the Assembly of Experts, the Ministry of Intelligence, the judiciary, all kinds of law enforcement agencies, and nearly all major media outlets. Only the presidency is out of their hands, the new parliament is a ''contested'' institution, but it is very powerful body. Larijani's re-election as speaker, will likely tilt  the parliament more to the conservative camp than to the reformist. Yet the moderates and reformists will still have greater say than before in the new parliament. However, the election of the hardline conservative Ayatullah Janati as the chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts cements the conservative control of this key body and dispels the Unipolar media hype that the reformists/moderates have won big in recent elections.

Iran's strategic culture will make it hard for the Unipolar West to woo Tehran into its camp, there are forces on both sides (Israeli lobby in the US, Isreal itself, the neocons, US Congress and Saudi Arabia, to name few on the one hand, and Iran's conservatives and nationalists on the other), that will block any potential Iranian defection to the Unipolar camp. 

There is deep anti-hegemonic strategic culture in Iran enforced by its Islamic principles and the Wilayatu Faqih theological political system. Iranian security and strategic elites rightly believe their country faces a huge strategic threat from the US military presence in the Persian Gulf and Israeli nuclear weapons. Indeed, Iran fought a direct actual war with US in the form of the Gulf tanker war during the Iran-Iraq war. The animosity between Iran and the US is so huge that the recent nuclear deal is unlikely to make them friends or strategic partners as some may have hopped.

All US white papers,military assessments and other official documents show Iran, with Russia and China, as their strategic adversary, or even enemy. North Korea and US "hybrid war allies" ISIS/Al Qaeda are also mentioned in such documents probably for propaganda reasons.

Arguably Iran is even more anti-hegemonic and Multipolar than Russia and China, those three countries form the bedrock of Multipolarity.

 That is said, a Western induced regime change always looms large over Iran because of susceptible youth with social media, and Western-influenced activists and reformists. One thing that may mitigate this risk is the failed Arab Spring and its resultant disastrous wars. If the Iranian Multipolar media plays this card well and informs the population of the grave danger such Western engineered protests and revolutions can bring on their lives and country, then there is every reason to believe that majority of the Iranians will listen to such a message.

Guarding against Unipolar regime change after the nuclear deal

There is one strategic risk that Iranians and Multipolar leading states, Russia and China, should recognize and then develop policies to guard against it. It is what I call "Soft evolutionary regime change" which means the West has concluded that '' hard regime change" in Iran is nearly impossible and the only option available for them to  get their hands on Iran is long term 'soft regime change"; the strategy seems to follow two optional directions. 1) "Quick soft regime change" which calls for using trained activists, Western influenced youth and reformists and social media to engage in concerted campaigns against the conservative clergy, IRGC and other Multipolar institutions, hoping to weaken and de-legitimize them in front of the public, while also spreading Western liberal ideas and way of life. This plan envisions that when the Multipolar conservative institutions are weakened enough, the Unipolar youth, reformists and activists could make their final push with large protests and violence  and bring about regime change or they will vote out most of the conservatives in a Western-engineered elections, or  even some type of ''constitutional coup", like the one that has taken place in Brazil. ''Voting out hard-line conservatives'' was a strategy used in recent elections, and it has been successful in Tehran regional elections where what the conservatives call the ''British list" won in a landslide. If such scenario is replicated all over the country in future elections, then the Unipolar forces could easily take over power in Iran. 2) The other options is " long term evolutionary regime change" many US strategists and intelligence agencies are apparently strategizing how to put in place a moderate, reform-minded Supreme Leader or group of leaders when the current Leader passes away, they have recognized that without the Supreme Leader's approval no president or parliament can make U-turn policy change in Iran. The Western ''point man" for this long term strategy seems to be Ayatollah Rafsanjani with clear support from the current president, Rouhani. The two men and their supporters are seemingly in the process of recruiting a reform-minded prospective Supreme Leader to replace the current one, this strategy has been hit badly by the election of Janati to the chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts, at least, in the short term.

In post-nuclear deal Iran, there is a fierce political battle between Western induced-Unipolar reformist forces and Multipolar principled conservative forces.  The West sees the nuclear deal as the key to long term regime change in Iran; without that, it sees the deal as a strategic victory for Iran and the Multipolar order. They know well that Iran's intentions of building actual nuclear bomb has never been proven.

Multipolar leading states' policy 

In Iran today, opposing forces argue that the other side's international partners - Conservatives associated with Multipolar leading states, Russia and China, and reformists associated with the Unipolar West - are not helping the country enough. The conservatives rightly argue with the reformists/moderates cannot demonstrate what the West has done for Iran while the reformists argue cannot demonstrate what China and Russia has done, conversely. It seems both parties want to rely on their preferred international partners for economic development and improving their domestic position.

With that in mind Multipolar leading states, Russia and China should frame a coordinated policy to help Iran fend off Unipolar advances and attempts, for that purpose China should step up its already growing economic engagement with Iran and bring more investments, infrastructure projects and technology transfer, Russia's supply of S 300 air defense missiles to Iran is a good step forward ( though the delays since 2007 created Iranian strategic unease with Russia). Moscow's susceptibility to US and Israeli pressures on arms sales to Iran is a clear challenge to Russian-Iranian strategic relations. Iranians hate to be bargaining chip between the US and Russia or the US and China for that matter, and honestly they do not deserve to be dealt like that according to their rich glorious history and their current capability and future potential. However recent Russian direct military support for the Syrian anti-terror war and its positive effects on the ground has deepen Russian-Iranian strategic relations. Russian leader Putin is now popular among not only the Iranians but also Iran's regional allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, he is called "Abu Ali Putin" suggesting he is close to their hearts.  To cement Iran as a long term Multipolar anchor, Russia and China should embrace full strategic relationship with Tehran and decouple the relations of Washington and Tehran.

Iran badly needs military modernization and advanced arms sales should follow the S 300 missile system delivery,so that Iran can feel secure from Unipolar military attack. It seems to me that the remaining five year sanctions on some of the offensive arms sales to Iran is not clear and Russia and China can argue that Iran has the the right to modernize its military for good defensive reasons since Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE and others are engaging in unprecedented arms acquisition programs. Russia and China can sign arms deals with Iran now and if the UNSC opposes such arms deals then the delivery could be postponed to the post-five year time limit. Such deals will give the Multipolar forces in Iran credibility that they can deliver something from their Multipolar allies. 

On the political side I think it will be good idea for the Multipolar forces in Iran, (with diplomatic support from the leading Multipolar states, Russia and China),to pre-empt US long term regime change strategy by electing a young, dynamic and principled conservative Crown  Supreme Leader before the current Leader passes away. Such a brilliant strategic move will foil US grand strategy on Iran, and will cement Tehran's long term Multipolar status. It seems the current Supreme leaders, Ali Khamanei, understands this importance well and has already begun the preparation for electing a new Supreme leader during his life.  As an outside observer of Iran (there could be deeper internal politics that we do now know), I think there are three potential candidates who will certainly uphold Iran's multipolar status if elected, they include, Mojtaba Khamanei, the son of the current leader, Sadeq Larijani, the brother of Ali Larijani, and the head of the powerful judiciary branch, and Ahmed Khatami, the  prayer-leader of Tehran Friday prayers. There could be others but those three are nearly proven Multipolar conservatives who will likely follow the path of Ali Khamanei, the current leader, who is now 76 years old and may have health issues. It will be wise for Iranian Multipolar conservatives not to wait and risk sudden developments in Khamanei's health and elect one of those three, or any other capable young conservative now, as a Crown Supreme Leader, or even the actual one if the current leaders agrees that.

Russia and China should also fast-track Iran's membership into the SCO organisation since the UN sanctions are no longer an excuse. I would argue the time that Russia and China were hedging their bets on Iran and were engaging  ''wait and see strategy'' has gone, after the nuclear deal it is time for action to deny Western economic or political domination over Iran.

The risk of India's acquisition of Chabahar port

The Chabahar port deal with India seems to be desperation by Iran to get finances for the port project, however India, with its recent "defection" to the Unipolar order, could use the port for malign anti-Multipolar activities. New Delhi has already started the destabilization of Pakistan especially Boluchistan, to scuttle China's CPEP corridor. The US seems to support India's acquisition of Chabahar port because it is counting on Indian influence in Iran to be its strategic interest. The Unipolar media celebrated the deal and portrayed it as an Indian victory over China and a direct challenge to the Chinese CPEC corridor. It seems the reformists/moderates in Iran have pushed the Chabahar deal with India forward because they wanted to balance Russian and Chinese influence in Iran, according to former Indian ambassador to Iran on an Indian tv show. If that is true, then the Chabahar project could be a veiled Unipolar project that is designed to strengthen the Iranian reformists in their quest for power. There are unconfirmed reports that Japan and South Korea may join India in the Chabahar port project. 

To be clear,there is not anything wrong with Iran trading with Unipolar countries, but if the trade and economic ties are designed for regime change operations like weakening the economic power of Multipolar Iranian forces, especially the IRGC as its seems, then that is a strategic threat and should be re-considered. There is growing evidence that the Rouhani government is bent on weakening the IRGC's economic power and Chinese companies' influence in Iran. The Western companies and NGOs that are going into Iran appear to be part of this strategy,  which I call ''keep the IRGC economic power down" and the "Chinese/Russian companies out". 

Conclusion

Although Iran is a solid Multipolar state, it still faces daunting challenges from a hostile Unipolar US, and its regional proxies particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia; the Saudis have positioned themselves as the ''attack dog" against Iran in the region, however their actual capability apart from using terrorist proxy forces is limited and Iran could easily defeat any direct Saudi aggression against its homeland. With the possibility of an Israeli sneak attack on Iran's key nuclear facilities and other military targets, Iran has been relying on its growing ballistic missiles capability and Hezbollah's missile arsenal, its staunch ally in Lebanon. In fact , it can argued that Hezbollah's military capability has been 'strategic stabilizer''  in the region because it seemingly deterred Israel from engaging in a major destructive war with Iran, Syria or Hezbollah itself, not to mention its huge contribution to the fight against terrorism in Syria and Iraq.

To successfully ensure its own security and guard the Multipolar Southern rimland flank, Iran needs strong support from its Multipolar allies, Russia and China, economically, militarily and diplomatically. The Multipolar forces in Iran need generous help from their fellow Multipolar leading states to balance against Unipolar advances in Iran and proxy wars in the region, specially after the nuclear deal and India's''defection" to  the Unipolar order which is positioning itself as a ''lead from behind' Unipolar outpost in Iran.

All of this will depend on the global strategic Multipolar developments which include: 1) Sino-Russian strategic re-alignment and its strengthening. 2) How will Russia and China generally coordinate their policies and strategies toward a given Multipolar regional state or potential one. They can have some limited competition in some aspects of their foreign relations, but the Multipolar strategic goal should always trump.  And 3) Russian/Chinese proactive, creative and substantive diplomatic engagement with regional Multipolar nodes like Iran and other non-US allied potential Multipolar countries, and giving them the military, economic and diplomatic support they need to withstand Unipolar pressures and provocations. 

Absent a strategic shock in Iran, the country is a solid Multipolar node and deserves much more support from fellow Multipolar leading states - Russia and  China.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

Terrorists in Aktobe: An Attempt to Blow up Eurasia From Kazakhstan

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ

6th June, 2016

RIA

Rostislav Ishchenko, columnist for MIA and "Russia Today"

On Sunday, unknown armed men attacked a gun shop and military compound in the Kazakh city of Aktobe, and tried to seize weapons. The attackers were neutralized, and the authorities imposed the "yellow" level of terrorist danger in the country.

Why the terrorists chose Aktobe

There are no obvious causes for this, it would seem. The President of the country Nursultan Nazarbayev has managed to create an effective state based on a relatively strong economic base. Over the last decade, despite all the difficulties and problems, the country has managed to maintain ethnic peace and general political stability.

But in the modern world, problems do not arise in those states that have real internal conditions, but those who are not lucky enough to be at the point of intersection of geopolitical interests of the players.

For example, the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya had been internally stable and economically successful. However, one fateful day some "rebels" (which were later recognized by the world community as Islamist militants, transferred from abroad) stormed a military compound in Benghazi and civil war ended in the complete destruction of the Libyan state.

The armed rebellion in Aktobe was a literal repetition of the start of the Libyan war, only it was unsuccessful. Islamists attacked gun shops and tried to seize military equipment. If they had succeeded, there is no doubt that, using the captured arsenal, they would have armed a small army and tried to create a "rebel government".

The format for the Libyan civil war is very good Aktobe. This is a large enough city to become the capital of the rebels. At the same time, it is remote from all the large centres of Kazakhstan. There is distance between it and the main group of the armed forces of Kazakhstan, which are mainly engaged in the guise of the troubled southern borders. However, the Kazakh army is very small compared to the huge size of the territory. It would be difficult to quickly transfer troops and to create a group sufficient for the suppression of the rebellion (if they managed to enter the phase of expansion).

Aktobe is an intersection of roads that allows volatile rebel troops to be deployed to the South, West, East, and North Kazakhstan, to just a hundred kilometers from the Russian border.

100 kilometers South, a half-hour drive in jihadist traditional "carts" (pickup trucks with machine guns) for which the Kazakh steppe is as accessible as the Libyan desert, is the Kandyagash railway junction.

A railway line passing through Aktobe also leads to the Russian border. By rail or highway from Aktobe to Orenburg is 300 kilometers. Directly across the steppe is half the time.

The border between Kazakhstan and Russia, as between the partners in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) is open. Yes, if it was not, to cover thousands of kilometers of the steppe borders is not a trivial task. For this an army is needed.

Taking aim at Russia and China

Kazakhstan is not only one of the base members of the Union. The shortest path of transit of Chinese goods to Russia and further to Western Europe still runs through it – one of the most promising new branches of the New Silk Road, which should link together the Asian and European markets.

Kazakhstan is one of the main guarantors of stability in Central Asia along with Russia. Moreover, it is through the territory of Kazakhstan that Russia has access to the former Soviet Central Asian republics, including to its base in Tajikistan.

The Central Asian states of the South, experiencing pressure in the form of jihadists from Afghanistan, in the case of destabilization of Kazakhstan, find themselves trapped. Their border loses stability almost throughout its length (except for the Turkmen-Iranian), and they can only get help and support by air.

Thus, in case the insurgency in Aktobe is successful with minimal resources, almost at the expense of local opportunities, it will solve several strategic tasks.

Firstly, the internal conflict would be associated with the army of Kazakhstan, which no longer would be able to play a stabilizing role for south central Asia.

Secondly, it would have put at risk, and in the worst case, blown up Sino-Russian and Sino-European transit.

Thirdly, a continuous and open Russian-Kazakh border would give unlimited opportunities for the penetration of jihadist gangs to the territory of Russia. In turn, this would require Moscow to take urgent measures to ensure the military protection of the border. Russia would be forced to weaken its force in the Western direction and to concentrate a large number of troops to prevent a breakthrough by the jihadists on its own territory.

Given the mobility of the jihadists and the cheapness of their support (they mostly forage at the expense of local resources) from Moscow it would take a long time to tie down repeatedly redundant military forces and material resources against the small, but elusive opponent.

Fourthly, in the case of a minimally successful development of the rebellion, destabilization would threaten the whole of Central Asia. A huge black hole would have opened up on the southern borders of Russia (from Orenburg to the Indian ocean), devouring already scarce resources. Here, any quick closing would be impossible, and would have been a problem for decades.

Finally, such integration projects as the EEU, the SCO and CSTO would have come under threat.

Imagine that under the joint efforts of Russia and Kazakhstan, in the framework of the obligations under the CSTO, the rebellion would have been suppressed relatively quickly, and a large-scale destabilization of the region would have been avoided. But military cooperation between Moscow and Astana in Northern Kazakhstan, where there is a high percentage of the Russian population, would allow our Western "friends and partners" once again to begin to talk about interference in the internal affairs of neighboring states and to label it as an attempt to recreate the Soviet Union. They would attempt to sow distrust, if not between Moscow and Astana, between the Russian and Kazakh population of Kazakhstan, as well as strengthening the militant Russophobic hysteria of Eastern European bordering countries.

The rebellion in Syria has destabilized the entire Middle East. The rebellion in Libya has done the same in North Africa. Both the rebellion and the coup in Ukraine have created serious problems between Russia and the European Union. Against this background, the rebellion in Kazakhstan would complement the picture, plunging into chaos the entire center of Eurasia and completely severing economic and trade ties between Europe and Asia.

Against this background, the American projects of the Transatlantic and Transpacific free trade zones would have had no alternative proposals.

So I'm sure that in Aktobe we had to deal with the first, but not the last, attempt to start a civil war in a key country in Central Asia.

Kazakhstan's power structures have worked effectively enough, and it pleases. But it also means that the next attempt will be better prepared. So it is impossible to relax.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

Algeria Moves Closer to Russia

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ

2nd June, 2016

Topwar

It is believed that the omnipresent Washington can destroy the Algerian state. They did it the old-fashioned way: by instigating riots and "color revolutions". In Algeria there is fear. The government strengthens security, improves its military capability, and is actively in contact with Russia, hoping to strengthen her communication because it is included in the bloc standing on the other side of NATO.

Algeria is moving closer to Russia

This was told by a well-known journalist, author of seven books, and host of his own website - Brandon Turbeville. His new article was published on the website "Activist Post".

The Syrian crisis has dragged on. There is no hope for a speedy return to normalcy in Libya. Will Algeria have time to reflect as it is "in the crosshairs of the Anglo-American gun"?

According to the analyst, there is evidence that Algeria is also destined to a sad fate.

Having survived the attempt to destabilize the situation during the "Arab spring" supported by the West, Algeria is doing everything possible to increase the level of security of the state.

With a steel fist, the authorities stopped all attempts to destroy the functioning of the state with the help of externally inspired color revolutions and destabilizing chains. However, now when the protests of the Arab spring have gone quiet, the Algerian government is not resting. Algeria has strengthened national security measures, improved its military capacity, and cooperated with its neighbors so that they do not fall under the scope of the creators of color revolutions.

In addition, Algeria has decided to strengthen its ties with Russia and the countries that are part of an informal but growing anti-NATO bloc. In other words, Algeria is about to join a group of countries that have relied on a multi-polar world and are trying to act as a counterweight to NATO, says the journalist.

Two of the most well known examples of the expansion of cooperation between Algeria and anti-NATO are the recent acquisition of four dozen combat helicopters from Russia and the recent diplomatic visit to Syria of representatives of the Algerian government.

The Russian helicopter, known as the "Night Hunter" was reportedly one of the best in the world, and is able to perform its tasks both during the day and night, even in adverse weather conditions.

The helicopter comes to the Algerians as the modification Mi-28NE. It provides duplicate controls: for the pilot and the operator.

The supply of Russian helicopters to Algeria is nothing new, reminds the author. In 2005-2006, Russia provided 28 Su-30MKA fighters, 16 jet Yak-130, and 185 T-90S tanks to Algeria. In 2015, a contract was signed for the delivery of 14 Su-30MKA in 2016-2017. The transfer of the Mi-28 helicopters is the result of a bilateral agreement between Russia and Algeria.

Therefore, the new supply by itself does not deserve the attention of the press. On the other hand, the context of the supplies is highly important. Here the author sees the reason for discussion.

Algeria is concerned about the increase in activities of ISIS militants in the region, particularly in Libya and Tunisia. The attention of the Algerian authorities is focused on enforcement at the borders with these two countries, as well as with Niger and Mali for the same reason. The Algerian government was quick to respond to threats from terrorists in the past, and is now it's worried about the fact that the attacks by Islamist militants may lead to a transition across the borders (because some powers of the West in the future will support "measures" aimed at the disintegration of state structures of Algeria).

In February, Algeria and Russia begun to plan for the deepening of bilateral military and economic cooperation, said Turbeville.

The movement of forces of the Islamic State in the region is important to the fighters: bearded men are trying to survive and continue what they call "the struggle". Rebasing them in Libya, indicates the journalist, citing an expert, is required by Washington and its allies to implement the remaining projects of the "Arab spring", including the destabilization and destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and maybe even a new attempt of destabilization and destruction of Egypt.

The White House can also use the presence of ISIS in Libya as a pretext for a broad military intervention in Africa. Here US forces and their allies can openly enter.

That is why Algeria is preparing for a possible confrontation associated with Western scenarios, according to which the expected ISIS militants will flow out from Syria to Libya, and then continue.

The increasing desire of Algeria for the "Russian bloc" is, according to the analyst, another sign that Washington is losing its influence around the world. The position of the US and NATO is becoming increasingly untenable.

On the 30th May, in addition to this, there were messages in the central Russian press about the delivery of the first pair (of the 42 purchased) of Russian Mi-28NE attack helicopters to Algeria. This was reported by "Lenta.ru", citing the Algerian newspaper "SecretDifa3".

The helicopters were delivered on May 26th to the air force base in the African Republic by the military transport aircraft An-124.

Algeria is the second foreign customer of these helicopters. "Lenta" recalls that in 2012, 15 units of the Mi-28NE were bought by Iraq.

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

The US wants to turn Skopje into the Balkan Kiev

April 15, 2016 -

Andrew Korybko, Katehon -

The Republic of Macedonia fell victim to the US’ latest regime change destabilization against it, with “opposition protesters” rioting in the capitalWednesday night and even ransacking one of the President’s offices. While Hybrid War tension has been building for some time already and was described by the author in numerous publications before, the spark that pushed them into acting was President Ivanov’s surprise declaration of amnesty for all the people under investigation as part of the “wiretapping scandal”, with the Macedonian leaderremarking that this is a necessary step in order to move the country forward and out of the political quagmire. The Color Revolution elements inside of the country exploded into fury at the announcement, enraged that their attempt to use the newly created and McCarty-esque “Special Prosecutor’s Office” as an anti-government witch hunting weapon had been dramatically foiled. 

The Enemy Within

In response to the sudden spoiling of its ‘constitutional coup’ plans, the US ordered its subordinate Soros-affiliated “NGO” networks and the “opposition” to turn up the heat against the authorities and initiate the progressive rollout of their second preplanned Hybrid War putsch, setting the Color Revolution wheels into motion in advance of what is expected to be a forthcoming Unconventional Warfare complementary campaign. An unpopular spectrum of anti-government “activists” – including ‘Liberal-Democrats’, Cultural Marxists, and Europhiles (essentially one in the same) – flooded into Skopje in a frenzied effort to turn it into the Balkan Kiev, but once more, the professionalism of the security services and the patriotism of the population played a large role in mitigating the immediate escalation of the urban hostilities and in preventing them from getting totally out of control. The threat still remains and the US’ intention to overthrow the Macedonian government is now out in the open and utterly undeniable to all objective observers at this point, but the hooligans were so far unsuccessful in their plan to exploit their series of violent provocations and create an opening to embed themselves in the middle of the city. 

Having taken a day to assess the events of 13 April, they can be seen in hindsight as an unofficial declaration of the US’ second Hybrid War aggression against Macedonia, pushed forwarded a bit from its original launch date due to President Ivanov’s surprise announcement but still close enough to the 5 June early elections to be able to destabilize them. Washington summoned the country’s internal political enemies out into the street in a treasonous act of anti-government defiance in order to intimidate the rest of the country and gin up more support for the movement among society’s most radical elements. The brief period of rioting was also meant as a signal to the Wahhabi/Irredentist Albanians that are under the US and Tirana’s influence (and for some of them, their direct employ) to prepare for launching the next stage of the Hybrid War. This could likely see them staging a Kumanovo-style attack that would in turn activate the Western mainstream media-manipulated narrative that the Macedonian Crisis is a Huntingtonian ‘Clash of Civilizations’ between Muslim Albanians and Orthodox Macedonians, which in any case would complicate the political turmoil by introducing strong shades of identity conflict.  

Nasty Neighbors

Despite being of critical importance to the stability of the entire Balkan region, the Republic of Macedonia cannot depend on its neighbors for help in overcoming the destabilization, and if anything, all of them besides Serbia have hostile intentions towards it. Before continuing, it’s necessary to expand a bit on Serbia’s projected reaction to all of this, since it’s the first country that would be most immediately affected if Macedonia is thrown into mayhem and at least one million immigrantsconsequently exploit this state of affairs in order to flood across its borders. At the same time, however, Serbia is in no practical position to constructively assist its southern neighbor, and even if it did, it’s all but assured that such moves would instantly and deliberately be misconstrued by the West and each of the two countries’ domestic “opposition” movements and transformed into an anti-government rallying cry . Faced with this reality and the much higher subjective priority that Serbia places on its own internal stability and that of Republika Srpska (which is being rattled by Sarajevo’s institutional attacks against it), Belgrade would probably limit any prospective support to Skopje to the diplomatic-informational realm. 

Greece:

To address the nastiness of the rest of Macedonia’s neighbors which believe they have a stake in the country’s destabilization and potentially even ultimate dissolution, it’s necessary to first and foremost speak about Greece, which has ratcheted up bilateral tension lately by allowing repeated NGO-organized immigrant invasion attempts of the Macedonian border. The lingering “name dispute” is what’s to blame for the Greek authorities’ eagerness to subvert their northern neighbors, believing that if the massive pressure incurred by this cresting human wave can succeed in toppling the authorities and installing Zoran Zaev’s pro-US puppet regime in its place, the new “government” might ‘compromise’ on the Republic of Macedonia’s constitutional name and thereby satisfy Athens’ longstanding will. In order to fulfill the mission that it’s been obsessed with for over two decades now, some Greek authorities are utilizing the tens of thousands of Mideast immigrants that are inside the country’s borders as “Weapons of Mass Migration” against Macedonia, anticipating that they can be employed (both figuratively and literally) as battering rams for pushing forward the US’ regime change agenda and tangentially achieving their own self-interests in the process. 

Bulgaria:

The other two neighbors that are interested in the Macedonian state’s downfall are Albania and Bulgaria, each of which have their own “Greater”/Irredentist aspirations to promote. Nearly a year ago during the last major Hybrid War disturbance in the country, the author wrote about how these two states were poised to exploit Macedonia’s misfortunes in seeking to tear it apart and geopolitically divide it between them, whether formally or via de-facto spheres of influence. The next day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned his Albanian and Bulgarian counterparts against pursuing this dastardly plot, and shortly thereafter the state-to-state tension lightened to a degree and Bulgaria’s “anti-terrorist/anti-refugee” border buildup was revealed to be the naked instrument of bullying pressure that the author predicted it was in the first place. Still, despite backing down from formally trying to unbalance the state and strategically distract the Macedonian authorities, nationalist elements in Bulgaria remain dedicated to turning what they view to derogatorily be an extension of their own country into an outright protectorate or re-annexed territory, and it can’t be dismissed that similar pressures such as the ones from last year will be repeated in the current scenario. Positive media coverage of the “opposition” and any forthcoming extremist Albanian elements would also function in a ‘softer’ but similar way in helping to promote Sofia’s ultimate objectives. 

Albania:

This brings the analysis around to examining Albania’s role in all of the intrigue, which is the most negative one of them all. Amidst its current immigrant outflow and dwindling domestic conditions, the Tirana elite are eager to redirect rising animosity to their rule towards the convenient distraction of promoting “Greater Albania”. Last year the Kumanovo terrorists were reported to have come from the NATO-occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo, and this time it’s believed that any extreme political-insurgent elements within the country will have the full behind-the-scenes support of the Albanian establishment. When it comes to the potential for Wahhabi terrorists and Daesh cells to rear their heads amidst any future conflict, Tirana would probably play a backseat role to all of that by allowing its Turkish ally to take the lead in handling these sorts of terrorists operations, just as it has battletested experience in doing over the past half a decade against Syria, and likely offering up its territory for this purpose. Furthermore, the US already has a brand-new terrorist organization waiting in the wings to act, the “Albanian National Army” that just sprouted up in occupied Kosovo and conveniently, in the reported words of one of its ‘commanders’, “considers NATO to be its friend”. The Albanian-American-Turkish terrorist nexus along the non-Tirana-administered areas of the envisioned “Greater Albania” (NATO-occupied Kosovo and western Macedonia) will definitely play a determining factor in any forthcoming Hybrid War scenarios and presents the utmost greatest threat to regional stability. 

Chaos At The Gates

Targeting Multipolarity:

The Republic of Macedonia is at the literal forefront of the US’ War on Europe, as the author explained in a prior piece for Katehon pertaining to the Immigrant Crisis. It’s recommended that the reader review the aforementioned citation if they’re not yet familiar with the author’s analysis on this topic, but the general idea is that the US is employing “Weapons of Mass Migration” in order to place the EU into a permanent state of Hybrid War tension and facilitate the Color Revolution removal of leaders that have pragmatic engagement with Russia and China. On a more regional level, the US is targeting the Republic of Macedonia and Serbia because they’re the key bottleneck states in actualizing China’s Balkan Silk Road project, which if completed, would complement Russia’s currently suspended Balkan Stream gas pipeline and together create the infrastructural backbone of a multlipolar future for Europe. 

Regional Tidal Wave:

Hybrid War in and of itself is destabilizing for any country and region that suffers from its most intense manifestations, but the most direct and debilitating form of chaos that it immediately leads to is an outflow of immigrants/refugees/undercover terrorists to and from the battlespace. This takes on a particular significance in the present day given the ongoing Immigrant Crisis and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s February dire warning to the world that “hundreds and thousands of extremists enter Europe under the guise of being refugees.” The Republic of Macedonia is literally on the frontlines of this crisis and has amazingly stood strong in the face of the overwhelming odds against it, but faced with the recent commencement of Hybrid War within its borders and the possibility of the Color Revolution disturbances transforming into an all-out Unconventional War, it’s uncertain at this time how effectively it’ll be able to hold out. 

Structural Vulnerabilities: 

Greece’s repeated border subversions and the culpability that some of its government authorities and hosted NGOs have in worsening the Immigrant Crisis and funneling its most destabilizing elements northward to Macedonia can expectedly be taken to mean that the security services will have their work cut out for them in juggling the nascent Color Revolution threat, snuffing out any Unconventional Warfare ones infiltrating in from Albania and/or NATO-occupied Kosovo, and securing the border from an outright immigrant invasion. Furthermore, if Bulgaria once more decides to provocatively send troops to the Macedonian border amidst a rapidly escalating climax of the situation, then it could have the effect of stretching the Macedonian authorities’ concentration much too thin and opening up strategic vulnerabilities on one of these multiple fronts that could then be instantaneously exploited by the US and its allies in accordance to their many preplanned and forecasted scenarios. The end result of a successful regime change in Macedonia would be the barbarian-like storming of the country’s territory and an uncontrollable surge of up to one million immigrants right through the heart of the Central Balkans, precisely at the moment in time when the regional states had begun to finally breathe a collective sigh of relief that the worst point of the crisis was behind them. 

Reinforcing The Front:

In dealing with this possible eventuality, it’s necessary that the Macedonian authorities receive some sort of multilateral physical support from the same stakeholders that most immediately have something to lose if the government falls and becomes a doormat for the US’ “Weapons of Mass Migration” to invade Europe. Right now, as the author previously analyzed in an article for The Saker, the status quo equilibrium and the de-facto closure of the “Balkan Corridor” is presently maintained by joint the Austrian-Hungarian leadership that brought all of the Balkan states together and got them to overlook their bickering in favor of pursuing a collective and coordinated solution to the problem that plagues them all. The most effective way to proactively counter the chances that the incipient Hybrid War in Macedonia will demolish the border ‘floodgates’ and inundate Europe with an uncontrollable flow of “Weapons of Mass Migration” is for this temporary Central European-led security structure to take on a heightened role (by official Macedonian invitation, of course) in patrolling the Greek border and thus giving the authorities more flexibility in responding to the US’ other provocations. 

Concluding Thoughts

Macedonia convincingly appears to be on the brink of a large destabilization, a second Hybrid War that’s directly targeting its government but is also indirectly aimed at destroying the prospects that Russia and China have for progressively liberating Europe from unipolarity. Washington has thrown down the gauntlet, as expected, in using its proxies to send a strong message to Skopje that its democratic security methods in foiling the “Special Prosecutor Office’s” ‘constitutional coup’ plot and in protecting Europe from the uncontrollable ravages of the Immigrant Crisis will be met with the harshest asymmetrical response possible. 

The growing threat that a full-scale Hybrid War will break out in the Republic of Macedonia is very high, and the Moscow-based Katehon think tank wisely suggeststhat harsh anti-riot measures be immediately implemented in order to contain the Color Revolution threat. If the authorities can get a handle on dealing with this latest destabilization before it gets out of control, then they’ll be in a better position for responding to any predicted “Greater Albania” and/or Daesh terrorist attacks that might break out before the 5 June early elections. If these two pressing internal threats can be effectively neutralized, then Macedonia won’t be as vulnerable to the direct subversion that its Albanian, Bulgarian, and Greek neighbors are plotting against it with American and Turkish ‘Lead From Behind’ assistance.  

If worst comes to worst, then Macedonia could greatly benefit from multilateral assistance in reinforcing its border with Greece so that its security services could more easily react to internal provocations as they arise, which would thus enable the government to put down any destabilizing domestic disturbances while relying on its international partners and equal strategic stakeholders in protecting the southern border from a “Weapons of Mass Migration” invasion into all of them. The less than two-month period before the election will be absolutely critical for the stability of the Balkans and the rest of Europe, but if history is any indication, then just as they did last year around this time, the Macedonian people will legendarily succeed in knocking out the Hybrid War threat that the US is once more siccing on them and ultimately landing Uncle Sam another embarrassing black eye. 






     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!