Putin Eyes Mideast Role for Russia: Ziva Dahl, Jerusalem Post, June 27, 2018— Cold War talk is rampant in Washington. Nevertheless, Russia, the US and Israel have converging interests – removing Iran from Syria, preventing Iranian hegemony in the region and thwarting Tehran’s efforts to export Islamism.
Trump Meets a Weakened Vladimir Putin July 16: Caroline Glick, Breitbart, July 4, 2018— When Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the green light to Russian aerial bombing of rebel-held positions in southwestern Syria two weeks ago, he knew he was asking for trouble.
A Russian Pipeline Threat to European Security: Sohrab Ahmari, Commentary, June 26, 2018— Western Europe’s liberal powers like to lecture the poorer countries to their east on “European values” and “European solidarity.” But when it comes to the Continent’s strategic defense, especially against Russian aggression, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe often find themselves standing alone while the West happily cuts deals with Moscow.
Who Sanctions Russia? Not Germany: Shoshana Bryen and Stephen Ryen, Gatestone Institute, June 14, 2018— While claiming to be appalled by Russia’s behavior in Syria, Germany continues to push trade not only with Russia, but with Russia’s partner in the Syrian genocide, Iran.
On Topic Links
Trump Lashes Germany Over Gas Pipeline Deal, Calls it Russia’s ‘Captive’: Jeff Mason, Reuters, July 11, 2018
The Roots of Russian Aggression: James Kirchick National Review, June 11, 2018
Syria’s Assad, Aided by Russia, Poised to Snuff Out ‘Cradle’ of Revolt: Haaretz, July 10, 2018
Russia as It Is: A Grand Strategy for Confronting Putin: Michael McFaul, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2018
PUTIN EYES MIDEAST ROLE FOR RUSSIA
Ziva Dahl
Jerusalem Post, June 27, 2018
Having left the Iran nuclear deal in early May, the Trump administration’s Iranian policy is taking shape. On May 22, in comments at the Heritage Foundation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated that the US is already re-imposing harsh sanctions against Iran and has demanded that it leave Syria. Just a few days ago, he confirmed that a Russia-US summit is on the horizon.
Ties between Washington and Moscow are currently frayed by US allegations of Russian tampering in our presidential election. Cold War talk is rampant in Washington. Nevertheless, Russia, the US and Israel have converging interests – removing Iran from Syria, preventing Iranian hegemony in the region and thwarting Tehran’s efforts to export Islamism. Putin sees a role for Russia as a power broker in the Middle East – and he wants to encourage an American-Russian rapprochement. Russia’s significant military presence in Syria has successfully prevented the fall of the Assad regime. Putin now realizes that Tehran will not play second fiddle to Moscow, but rather intends to continue building its military presence as a launching pad for expansion in the area and destruction of the Jewish state. Putin considers these intentions to be destabilizing and contrary to Russian interests.
Israel clearly views Iran’s activity in Syria as an existential threat that it will oppose at all costs. Since early February, Jerusalem has carried out preventive attacks against Iranian-backed forces, destroying Iranian military bases and weapons supplies to Hezbollah. To date, the Iranian response has been restrained, but Russia fears that this limited military engagement could spin out of control. President Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have cultivated a close personal relationship. Sympathetic to Israel’s position regarding Iranian behavior in Syria, the Russian president has allowed Jerusalem significant freedom to use Israel’s air power against Iranian military activity, believing that Israel is focused on a defensive strategy and is not interested in toppling Assad.
Russia wishes to finalize the end of the Syrian conflict while retaining its presence there. The last thing Russia wants is to have Israel respond even more forcefully to Iran’s presence in Syria. Moscow continues to maintain good relations with Tehran; both countries oppose US pressure and presence in the region. Putin realizes that Iranian control of Syria could embolden Islamist radicals in Russia. Tehran runs the risk that Russia might decide to stand aside in Syria and let the Israelis annihilate the al-Quds forces, Hezbollah and the mercenaries Iran imported to fight there.
The Russian economy has only two bright spots: arms sales, and oil and gas exports. An extended war in Syria will consume more of Russia’s financial resources when their people are hungry for economic growth. Moscow clearly stated that all foreign forces, except its own, should withdraw from Syria – and that only Syrian troops should be on the country’s southern border. Tehran’s response was a sharp rebuke of its Russian ally. Since Syria is pivotal to Tehran’s quest for a land corridor to the Mediterranean, the mullahs see Iranian deployment as permanent. Their supply network strengthens Hezbollah and projects their power and influence to neighboring countries.
Given his relationship with both sides, Putin may believe that he can play “mediator” between Iran and Israel. “If you want to speak with the Iranians, you have to speak with the Russians,” said a former Israeli ambassador to Moscow. Success here would be a diplomatic coup. At the recent St. Petersburg Economic Forum, he offered a somewhat sympathetic explanation for the Trump administration’s decision to exit the Iran deal, suggesting that Trump left open the possibility for renegotiation. Putin said, “We are ready for dialogue.” He may hope to cajole Tehran to come to the negotiating table with the US. The Iranians have to be worried about a possible thaw between Washington and Moscow. Iran’s economy is a mess, with significant flight of capital, decreasing foreign currency reserves and dramatic depreciation of the rial. Large multinational companies are leaving, even before the US re-imposes economic sanctions. Iranian citizens are protesting and striking across the country.
Pompeo said that the Islamist regime faces a clear-cut choice between saving its economy and continuing its aggressive activities abroad. The US hopes the emerging alliance of Arabs with Israelis will provide us with local partners ready to bear many of the risks and costs of an anti-Iran policy. Israeli air power and Arab ground forces, together with their intelligence networks and local connections, could put Iran on the defensive. Does Putin succeed in enhancing Russia’s position as a global power? Will there be cooperation between Russia and the US? Putin hopes so. Will President Trump succeed in “restarting” our relationship with Russia, despite his domestic problems with the Mueller Russia-collusion investigation? This is a complex situation with interesting possibilities. Stay tuned.
TRUMP MEETS A WEAKENED VLADIMIR PUTIN JULY 16
Caroline Glick
Breitbart, July 4, 2018
When Russian President Vladimir Putin gave the green light to Russian aerial bombing of rebel-held positions in southwestern Syria two weeks ago, he knew he was asking for trouble. And he appears to be getting plenty of it. Putin knows that in approving the operation, he wasn’t simply enabling Syrian President Bashar Assad and his Syrian military forces to extend the regime’s control to an area that has been controlled by various rebel militia for seven years.
The Syrian military is an empty shell. Russia effectively serves as the Syrian Air Force. Iran and Iranian-controlled groups control Syria’s ground forces. Israeli intelligence assesses that thousands of Iranian forces are deployed in Syria. The troops Iran commands are not predominantly Syrian. Rather, most of the ground troops in the so-called Syrian military are Iranian-controlled Hezbollah terrorists from Lebanon, and members of Iranian-controlled Shiite militia, which is in turn comprised of fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Israeli intelligence estimates that some seven thousand Hezbollah forces and 9,000 Shiite militia members are deployed to Syria to fight on behalf of Assad’s regime.
In other words, when Putin ordered the operation against rebel-controlled Deraa province along Syria’s border with Jordan, and signaled that once Deraa was conquered, the operation would extend to Quneitra province along the Syrian border with Israel, he knew that he was fighting to enable Iranian forces and Iranian-controlled forces to take over Syria’s borders with Jordan and Israel.
Since the Russia-led operation against Deraa began, Israeli commentators have assessed that Putin wished to wrap up the offensive ahead of his July 16 summit with President Donald Trump in Helsinki so that he could present Trump with a fait accompli. A Russian triumph would convince Trump that U.S. operations in Syria are futile, and he would have accept Russia’s predominance, with Iran in the war-torn country.
At the outset of the attack, Putin’s assessed position made perfect sense. The implication of the Deraa campaign is that Putin disregarded the ceasefire deal he concluded with Trump last July. In that deal, Putin agreed not to attack southwestern Syria and the U.S. effectively acquiesced to Iranian control of the rest of the country through its proxies – including Assad himself. Rather than stridently object to the operation, as the administration did in May when Assad began a similar one, and so end it before it got off the ground, the Trump administration’s response was muted.
These early responses empowered the Russians and their Iranian partners to push forward and extend their control over much of Deraa province, causing some 270,000 civilians to flee their homes and run to the Syrian borders with Jordan and Israel. But over the past two or three days, there have been indications that both the U.S. and Israel adopted positions regarding the offensive that, according to some reports have stopped the Russian-Syrian-Iranian advance in its tracks. Putin, these reports intimate, has become convinced there is no reason to continue because the operation will extend past July 16.
His plan to negotiate from strength has failed, and now he is looking for an escape hatch. To that effect, on Wednesday, Jerusalem and Moscow announced that five days before his meeting with Trump, Putin will host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow. The situation in Syria will be the focus of their discussions. […]
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
A RUSSIAN PIPELINE THREAT TO EUROPEAN SECURITY
Sohrab Ahmari
Commentary, June 26, 2018
A Western Europe’s liberal powers like to lecture the poorer countries to their east on “European values” and “European solidarity.” But when it comes to the Continent’s strategic defense, especially against Russian aggression, the nations of Central and Eastern Europe often find themselves standing alone while the West happily cuts deals with Moscow. A case in point is the debate over the Russian-backed Nord Stream II natural-gas pipeline.
Nord Stream II is a joint project of Gazprom, the Vladimir Putin-linked Russian energy giant, France’s Engie, Austria’s OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, and Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall. Running on the Baltic seabed, it would allow Russia to pump 55 billion cubic meters of gas directly into Germany, bypassing land routes over Poland and Ukraine. Moscow insists the project is “purely commercial,” as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this month.
But Russia’s ambitions are never purely commercial. Putin never misses the geopolitical angle.
For Moscow, Nord Stream II kills two birds with one stone. The pipeline helps the Kremlin expand its energy dominance over Europe. It also isolates Ukraine, Poland, and other Russian-endangered states on the Continent’s eastern periphery. As Polish Secretary of State Anna Maria Anders told me in an interview recently, “once more Poland finds itself between Germany and Russia. It’s a fear shared by Eastern Europe since 1939—that we would be cut off.”
Ukraine would be especially hard-hit. Currently, nearly half of the gas Gazprom pumps into Europe passes through Ukrainian pipelines, with the transit fees contributing 3 percent of Ukraine’s gross domestic product. In addition to the economic benefits, the arrangement gives Kiev a small measure of strategic leverage over Moscow. Without the Ukrainian pipeline system, Russia loses out on a significant share of its energy income. Once Nord Stream II goes online, “Ukraine would be completely cut off,” says Anders. “Ukraine is already suffering a lot from the Soviets, and we don’t want it to be any worse.”
Yet “Germany is all for this,” she adds. That would be the same Germany whom bien pensants on both sides of the Atlantic hail as the defender of “liberal world order” and whose chancellor, Angela Merkel, they have dubbed the new leader of the Free World. The project has also secured permits from Finland and Sweden. Denmark is still holding out. The Danes last year enacted legislation to block the project should national-security concerns arise. Whether Copenhagen will act on those concerns is another question.
Sandra Oudkirk, the U.S. State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for energy diplomacy, told the Atlantic Council on Monday that there remain legal mechanisms within the European Union for blocking the pipeline, meaning Washington isn’t prepared—yet—to apply sanctions against the companies involved. “I think people ask for U.S. sanctions because they think Nord Stream II is a done deal,” Oudkirk said. “It’s not. There are still levers available to the EU.”
The pipeline’s proponents frame American opposition to Nord Stream II as another instance of President Trump’s heavy-handed, “America First” trade agenda. The U.S., they argue, is determined to scuttle Nord Stream II because Trump wants to see American firms sell liquified natural gas to Europe. But that ignores the fact that the Obama administration was equally wary of Nord Stream II.
Then again, why shouldn’t Europeans prefer to buy energy from their ally over imperialist Russia? As Anders, the Polish secretary of state, told me, “We have now a new terminal in northern Poland, closer to Germany, that has a capability of transforming liquid gas into gas. If the Nord Stream II line were installed, it would provide competition to [American] LNG, making it less profitable.” As it is, less than 1 percent of Europe’s liquid natural gas comes from America. Pushing that share upward, and blocking Nord Stream II, would be a win for the U.S. economy—and for European security.
WHO SANCTIONS RUSSIA? NOT GERMANY
Shoshana Bryen & Stephen Bryen
Gatestone Institute, June 14, 2018
President Trump is taking flak for having introduced a subject to the G-7 meeting that our European friends wanted to keep under the table. Russia. The allies expressed horror when Mr. Trump said, “Why are we having a meeting without Russia? We have a world to run… We should have Russia at the negotiating table.”
Aside from the hyperbole over who actually runs the world, his comment and the allied response are only shocking if one thinks the Europeans have been boycotting Russia. There are sanctions on Moscow since it illegally invaded and seized Ukraine and Crimea, but sanctions are one thing and trade is another. Germany leads the pack in trade with Russia. This may have something to do with the fact that Germany, in particular but not only, stays warm in the winter with Russian natural gas meeting about 40% of its requirements.
This is an old story. The Reagan administration objected to Russian-European plans to build the natural gas Yamal Pipeline from Siberia to Germany from which gas would be distributed to much of Western Europe. The American position was that, In the middle of the Cold War, having the USSR control a majority of the supply of natural gas to Germany’s industrial heartland would make it difficult for Germany to resist Russian political and military demands. But the Europeans wanted to sell Russia the machinery for the pipeline, making money as they mortgaged their energy future to Moscow.
After a bitter fight, the Yamal pipeline was partially blocked and only one strand of two was built. Post-Soviet, the Russians were able, with European support, to build the second strand. In the early 2000’s Europe bought into yet another Russian-originated pipeline — an undersea project called Nord Stream — again providing manufacturing jobs and pipeline work for Europe as well as gas.
Early in 2018, Bloomberg reported, “Russia, which shipped some $38 billion of gas to its most lucrative markets in Europe last year, has diminished thoughts that other suppliers could ensure supplies in Europe anytime soon.” Nord Stream, and its successor Nord Stream 2, will give Russia the same influence its predecessor, the USSR, would have had.
Russia is now a fine partner for Europe. The Vice President of the Bundestag Thomas Opperman said, “Nord Stream 2 is an important economic project, which we support and it should not be threatened by sanctions from third countries.” Mrs. Merkel would agree, no doubt, not only for the warmth, but because the pipeline will enter Germany at Greifswald in the old East Germany, part of her constituency. The underwater Nord Stream 2 will reduce the price of natural gas by about 40% compared to overland pipelines, benefitting Germany, the UK, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands — among the countries most outspoken about the invasion of Ukraine. But to make Nord Stream 2 work, Gazprom has to get out of old contracts with Ukraine and Poland. Gazprom is presently suing Ukraine in the international arbitration court in Stockholm to cancel both its gas supply and transit contracts, stiffing Kiev. Ukraine won the first round, but Russia appealed. In the wake of the Ukrainian victory, the EU offered to “mediate” between the two.
Mediate away a favorable judgment for Ukraine? Isn’t this whole Russia-boycott project about Putin’s interference in Ukraine’s march to democracy? Talk about collusion. So, now that we are clear on Germany and the EU’s interest in maintaining economic ties with Russia, consider why they are pretending to keep Putin out in the hallway. Russia, they say, is out because of its horrendous behavior in Ukraine, but — while no additional sanctions have been imposed for Russian support for the Syrian war criminal regime of Bashar Assad (which may make Moscow complicit in war crimes) — Syria is on European minds.
Germany, in particular, has had harsh words for Russia over its veto of 12 UN Security Council Resolutions on Syria. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters, “We can’t go on like this… So, we’re keeping up the political pressure on Russia and we’d like to increase it further. Getting Russia to change its behavior is a condition for solving the Syria conflict.” Germany has backed allied air strikes on Syria as “necessary and appropriate.”
While claiming to be appalled by Russia’s behavior in Syria, however, Germany continues to push trade not only with Russia, but with Russia’s partner in the Syrian genocide, Iran.
European firms raced to enter Iran under the terms of the 2015 JCPOA; American firms were less aggressive. But since the U.S. has withdrawn from the never-signed deal, major European companies have been winding down or winding up operations in Iran. At the same time, though, the EU has begun to update its ” blocking statute,” the most powerful response it has to prevent European companies from complying with impending Iran sanctions.
In what Mrs. Merkel has said is a bid to “protect European companies” in Iran, the statute will nullify in Europe punishment the U.S. imposes for sanctions violations and allows EU companies to sue for damages caused by leaving Iran for fear of U.S. sanctions. So, the EU will use its leverage to keep companies in a country, Iran, that hangs gay people from cranes in the street, holds American hostages, threatens democratic Israel with annihilation, participates fully in the Syrian genocide, and actively seeks nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. And as Iran seeks military technology, Germany obliges.
In 2016, with government permission, the German company Krempel sold electronic press boards to Iranian companies. The German newspaper Bild reported that Krempel parts were discovered at the site of a Syrian government chemical attack on its civilian population. The Jerusalem Post said the technology was used in the rockets that delivered the chemicals. Krempel didn’t deny it, telling Bild the company was “shocked” to find its product in Syria. A 2018 German intelligence report confirms that Iran is currently seeking nuclear technology in Germany.
Since the 2015 JCPOA, Germany, has been Iran’s largest European trading partner: 2.9 billion euros in 2016 according to the German government and 3.6 billion euros in 2017. Interestingly, the trade goes only one way: in 2016, Germany exported 2.6 billion euros worth to Iran and took back only 300 million euros. According to Deutsche Welle, Germany imports dried fruits, pistachios, rugs and industrial raw materials from Iran and sends machinery and equipment, cars, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and medical products. What could go wrong?
In sum, then, President Trump’s faux pas appears to be having the temerity to suggest that Russia — a key German trading partner — have a place at the table for international trade talks. Perhaps it would be better to leave the hypocritical Germany out in the hallway.
On Topic Links
Trump Lashes Germany Over Gas Pipeline Deal, Calls it Russia’s ‘Captive’: Jeff Mason, Reuters, July 11, 2018—U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sharp public attack on Germany on Wednesday for supporting a Baltic Sea gas pipeline deal with Russia, saying Berlin had become “a captive to Russia” and he criticized it for failing to raise defense spending more.
The Roots of Russian Aggression: James Kirchick National Review, June 11, 2018—As U.S.-Russian relations reach a post-Cold War low, a growing number of observers have concluded that Western behavior, not Russian belligerence, ultimately lies at fault. Our present-day problems with Russia stem from two utterly different understandings of what the end of the Cold War meant.
Syria’s Assad, Aided by Russia, Poised to Snuff Out ‘Cradle’ of Revolt: Haaretz, July 10, 2018—President Bashar al-Assad is poised to snuff out the Syrian rebellion in the place it first began more than seven years ago, as rebels in Deraa city enter talks with his Russian allies on withdrawing or accepting a return of state authority.
Russia as It Is: A Grand Strategy for Confronting Putin: Michael McFaul, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2018— Relations between Russia and the United States have deteriorated to their most dangerous point in decades. Washington must accept that Putin is here to stay and won’t end his assault on Western democracy and multilateral institutions anytime soon. To deal with the threat, the United States desperately needs a new bipartisan grand strategy.
