Speaking
at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, US Secretary of State
John Kerry discussed Washington’s foreign policy in Syria.
"The
stakes could not be higher," Kerry said on Thursday, before insisting
that the United States is "on the right track and we are making gains
and we are clear on the road ahead."
The
secretary of state also reiterated the Obama administration's three
principle goals for ending the conflict. The first is the necessity
for defeating the self-proclaimed Islamic State terrorist group, the
second is the intensification of diplomatic efforts, and the third being
a determination to support regional allies to ensure that Syria's
instability does not spread beyond its borders.
Kerry also spent a
good deal of time claiming that the Syrian government was ultimately
responsible for the creation of IS. While the international community
largely agrees that the principle cause for the terrorist group's
formation was the instability created by the US-led invasion of Iraq,
Kerry blamed local dissatisfaction with the leadership of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad.
Armed
men outside an administrative building in Slovyansk, Ukraine. American
officials say Russian troops or pro-Russian separatists under Moscow’s
influence control such buildings.Credit Genya Savilov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Russia of behaving in a “19th-century fashion” because of its annexation of Crimea.
But Western experts who have followed the success of Russian forces in carrying out President Vladimir V. Putin’s policy in Crimea and eastern Ukraine
have come to a different conclusion about Russian military strategy.
They see a military disparaged for its decline since the fall of the
Soviet Union skillfully employing 21st-century tactics that combine cyberwarfare,
an energetic information campaign and the use of highly trained special
operation troops to seize the initiative from the West.
“It
is a significant shift in how Russian ground forces approach a
problem,” said James G. Stavridis, the retired admiral and former NATO
commander. “They have played their hand of cards with finesse.”
The
abilities the Russian military has displayed are not only important to
the high-stakes drama in Ukraine, they also have implications for the
security of Moldova, Georgia, Central Asian nations and even the Central
Europe nations that are members of NATO.
The
dexterity with which the Russians have operated in Ukraine is a far cry
from the bludgeoning artillery, airstrikes and surface-to-surface
missiles used to retake Grozny, the Chechen capital, from Chechen
separatists in 2000. In that conflict, the notion of avoiding collateral
damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure appeared to be alien.
Since
then Russia has sought to develop more effective ways of projecting
power in the “near abroad,” the non-Russian nations that emerged from
the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has tried to upgrade its military,
giving priority to its special forces, airborne and naval infantry —
“rapid reaction” abilities that were “road tested” in Crimea, according
to Roger McDermott, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.
The
speedy success that Russia had in Crimea does not mean that the overall
quality of the Russian Army, made up mainly of conscripts and no match
for the high-tech American military, has been transformed.
“The
operation reveals very little about the current condition of the
Russian armed forces,” said Mr. McDermott. “Its real strength lay in
covert action combined with sound intelligence concerning the weakness
of the Kiev government and their will to respond militarily.”
Still,
Russia’s operations in Ukraine have been a swift meshing of hard and
soft power. The Obama administration, which once held out hope that Mr.
Putin would seek an “off ramp” from the pursuit of Crimea, has
repeatedly been forced to play catch-up after the Kremlin changed what
was happening on the ground.
“It
is much more sophisticated, and it reflects the evolution of the
Russian military and of Russian training and thinking about operations
and strategy over the years,” said Stephen J. Blank, a former expert on
the Russian military at the United States Army War College who is a
senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.
WASHINGTON,
March 25, 2013 – Noting increased cooperation between NATO and Russia
in several key areas, the top NATO and U.S. European Command commander
emphasized today the importance of working through stumbling blocks in
what he called a “complicated partnership.”
In a blog post, Navy
Adm. James G. Stavridis cited concerted efforts by both parties since
NATO’s 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal, where the alliance’s 28 heads of
state and government agreed on the need to pursue “a true strategic
partnership” between NATO and Russia and noted in the strategic concept
that they expect reciprocity from Russia.
Stavridis recognized
several areas where increased cooperation has shown signs of paying off:
counterpiracy; support for the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force in Afghanistan, military exchanges and training
exercises, counterterrorism and counternarcotics, among them.
“Overall,
we enjoy cooperation and some level of partnership in a variety of
important areas,” he said. “On the other hand, there are clearly
challenges in the relationship.”
Stavridis noted Russia’s
objections to the European phased adaptive approach for missile defense.
“Russia sees the NATO missile defense system as posing a threat to
their strategic intercontinental ballistic missile force,” he said. “We
strongly disagree, and feel that the system is clearly designed to
protect populations against Iran, Syria and other
ballistic-missile-capable nations that threaten the European continent.”
NATO and Russia also disagree over Russian forces stationed in Georgia and NATO’s role in Libya, Stavridis said.
“We
maintain that we operated under the U.N. Security Council mandate to
establish a no-fly zone, provide an arms embargo and protect the people
of Libya from attacks,” he said, calling NATO’s actions “well within the
bounds of the [U.N.] mandate and the norms of international law.
“Russia
sees this differently,” Stavridis continued, “and whenever I discuss
this with Russian interlocutors, we find little room for agreement. This
tends to create a differing set of views about the dangerous situation
in Syria as well.”
Stavridis noted Russian Ambassador to NATO
Alexander Grushko’s stated concerns that these differences -- and the
installation of NATO military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders
-- threaten to unravel progress made in their relations.
“Notwithstanding
differences on particular issues, we remain convinced that the security
of NATO and Russia is intertwined,” Stavridis said, quoting the NATO
strategic concept agreed to in Lisbon. “A strong and constructive
partnership based on mutual confidence, transparency and predictability
can best serve our security,” it states.
Stavridis recognized areas in which the growing NATO-Russian relationship is bearing fruit:
--
Counterpiracy: Loosely coordinated efforts by NATO and Russian ships
have reduced piracy by 70 percent over the past year and caused the
number of ships and mariners held hostage to plummet in what the admiral
called “a very effective operation.”
-- Afghanistan support:
Russia contributed small arms and ammunition to the Afghan security
forces and sold MI-17 helicopters and maintenance training to the Afghan
air force. In addition, Russia provides logistical support, including a
transit arrangement that helps to sustain NATO-led ISAF forces and
redeployment efforts.
-- Military exchanges and exercises: Russian
service members are participating in more of these engagements with the
United States and NATO. These exchanges, including port calls in
Russia, have been well-received by both militaries, Stavridis noted.
--
Arctic cooperation: Russia is collaborating with other members of the
Arctic Council, including the United States, Norway, Denmark, Canada and
Iceland, to ensure the Arctic remains a zone of cooperation.
--
Counterterrorism: In the lead-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi,
Russia, NATO is offering assistance and information-sharing via a
variety of channels, Stavridis reported.
-- Counternarcotics: NATO
and Russia are working together to stem the flow of heroin from
Afghanistan, a high priority for Russia.
Expressing hopes that
NATO and Russia can continue to build on this cooperation, Stavridis
said areas of tensions and disagreements need to be addressed.
“No
one wants to stumble backwards toward the Cold War, so the best course
for the future is open discussion, frank airing of disagreements, and
hopefully seeking to build the ‘true strategic partnership’ set out in
the NATO strategic concept,” he said. “Clearly, we have some work to
do.”
The United
States, Russia, Ukraine and European Union together called on Thursday
for an immediate halt to violence in Ukraine, where Western powers
believe Russia is fomenting a pro-Russian separatist movement.
Washington
immediately warned Moscow that it would face further sanctions if it
did not carry out the agreement, reached in four-party crisis talks
in Geneva.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking in Moscow,
accused Ukraine’s leaders of committing a “grave crime” by using
the army to try to quell unrest in the east of the country, and did not
rule out sending in Russian troops.
Putin said he hoped he would
not need to take such a step, and that diplomacy could succeed in
resolving the standoff, the worst crisis in East-West relations since
the Cold War.
The comments came hours after separatists attacked
a Ukrainian national guard base overnight and Kiev said three of them
were killed in the worst bloodshed yet in a 10-day pro-Russian uprising.
Ukrainian,
Russian and Western diplomats held emergency talks seeking to resolve a
confrontation that has seen pro-Russian fighters seize official
buildings across eastern Ukraine while Moscow masses tens of thousands
of troops on the frontier.
“All sides must refrain from any
violence, intimidation or provocative actions,” a joint statement issued
after the Geneva talks said.
“All illegal armed groups must be
disarmed; all illegally seized buildings must be returned to legitimate
owners; all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places
in Ukrainian cities and towns must be vacated,” it added.
“It will
be a test for Russia, if Russia wants really to show willing to have
stability in these regions,” said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy
Deshchytsia.
It was unclear if Russia would meet Western demands
for it to stop stirring unrest in the east and withdraw its troops from
the Ukrainian border. Moscow denies it is active in Ukraine. SCEPTICISM
There was scepticism over whether the agreement could work.
“Diplomacy
cannot succeed if there is no room for compromise,” said Ulrich Speck, a
visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe. “The Kremlin is dedicated to
get Ukraine under its control, one way or another. It feels that it has
well advanced on that goal, and is not ready to back down. The West
simply cannot agree to those conditions.”
US Secretary of
States John Kerry said there would be additional sanctions on Russia if
it did not act to calm tensions in Ukraine.
“If there is not
progress over the course of these next days, and we don’t see a movement
in the right direction, then there will be additional sanctions,
additional costs as a consequence,” Kerry told reporters.
The United
States and European Union have so far imposed visa bans and asset
freezes on a small number of Russian individuals, a response
that Moscow has openly mocked. However, the Western states say they are
now contemplating measures that could hurt Russia’s economy more
broadly.
Pro-Russian Insurgents Balk at Terms of Pact in Ukraine
Play Video|0:25
Pro-Russia Militant Rejects Ukraine Pact
The
leader of a group of pro-Russia separatists, Denis Pushilin, said he
would ignore the diplomatic pact between Russia and Ukraine to
de-escalate the crisis.
Credit Sergei Grits/Associated Press
KIEV,
Ukraine — An American-backed deal to settle the crisis in eastern
Ukraine fell flat on Friday as pro-Russian militants vowed to stay in
occupied government buildings, dashing hopes of a swift end to an
insurgency that the authorities in Kiev portray as a
Kremlin-orchestrated effort to put Ukraine’s industrial heartland under
Russian control.
But
the agreement, reached in Geneva on Thursday by diplomats from the
European Union, Russia, Ukraine and the United States, appeared to
arrest, at least temporarily, the momentum of separatist unrest in
Ukraine’s Russian-speaking east. Armed pro-Russian militants, who have
seized buildings in at least 10 towns and cities since Feb. 6, paused
their efforts to purge all central government authority from the
populous Donetsk region.
It
was clear all along that for the pact to have a chance of success, the
Kremlin would have to pressure the militants to leave the buildings they
had seized. So far, it has shown no inclination to do so, blaming the
Ukrainian government for the turmoil and denying that Russia has any
ties to the rebels.
With
militants vowing to ignore the agreement but halting what had been a
daily expansion of territory under their control, officials in Kiev, the
capital, voiced some hope that a settlement was still possible. They
were skeptical, however, about Russia’s willingness to push the
separatists to disarm and vacate occupied buildings.
“If
Russia is responsible before not just Ukraine but the world community,
it should prove it,” said Andrii Deshchytsia, the acting Ukrainian
foreign minister, who took part in the Geneva talks.
Western
officials said the United States planned to reassure Eastern European
members of NATO by conducting company-size — about 150 soldiers — ground
force exercises in Estonia and Poland. The exercises would last a
couple of weeks and would most likely be followed by other troop
rotations in the region.
In
a sign of the chasm separating Russian and Ukrainian views, Russia’s
Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Friday that made no mention of
the pro-Russian militants driving the unrest. It said the call for
militants to disarm “meant in the first place” the disarming of
Ukrainian nationalist groups hostile to Russia, like Right Sector “and
other pro-fascist groups which took part in the February coup in Kiev.”
The
state-run Russian television channel, Rossiya, reporting from an
occupied building in Horlivka in the Donetsk region, featured a masked
gunman who pledged to “fight to the end for his convictions.” He
displayed an armband emblazoned with a swastika-like symbol, which he
said had been seized from supporters of the Ukrainian government.
Doubts
about the Kremlin’s readiness to push pro-Russian militants to
surrender their guns have been strengthened by its insistence that it
has no hand in or control over the separatist unrest, which Washington
and Kiev believe is the result of a covert Russian operation involving,
in some places, the direct action of special forces.
“I
don’t know Russia’s intentions,” Mr. Deshchytsia said, noting that
during the negotiations, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov,
had repeatedly asserted “that Russia was not involved.” He said Mr.
Lavrov had been “cooperative and aggressive at the same time.”
Russia’s
denials have stirred concerns that it went along with the agreement not
to curb the turmoil in eastern Ukraine, but to blunt American and
European calls for tougher sanctions that could severely damage Russia’s
already sickly economy. Western sanctions have so far been limited to a
travel ban and asset freeze on a few dozen individuals and a Russian
bank.
Secretary
of State John Kerry called Mr. Lavrov on Friday and urged Russia to
ensure “full and immediate compliance” with the agreement, a senior
State Department official said. Mr. Kerry, the official added, “made
clear that the next few days would be a pivotal period for all sides to
implement the statement’s provisions, particularly that all illegal
armed groups must be disarmed and all illegally seized buildings must be
returned to legitimate owners.”
In Ukraine, Pro-Russia Radicals Reject Call To Leave Occupied Buildings
By RFE/RL
April 18, 2014
Pro-Russia
radicals occupying official buildings in eastern Ukraine say they will
only leave if the pro-Western government in Kyiv resigns.
Denis Pushilin, the self-declared leader of the radicals in Donetsk,
told reporters on April 18 that he did not consider his men bound by a
compromise agreement between Russia and Ukraine to disarm and vacate
occupied buildings.
The agreement was reached at four-party talks on April 17 in Geneva also involving the United States and the European Union.
Pushilin said the government in Kyiv was illegitimate and also must
vacate public buildings that he said it was occupying illegally.
Local media reports on April 18 said none of the government buildings seized across eastern Ukraine had yet been vacated.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told parliament on April 18
that the government had drafted a law that would offer an amnesty to
insurgents who would lay down their arms and leave the occupied
buildings.
"History
will reflect on this moment and it will be clear to our children and
grandchildren if you made the right choice," laureates write.
- Andrea Germanos, staff writer
Jimmy Carter with his grandson Hugo. Photo: Jeffrey Moore/The Elders
A group of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates including former President Jimmy Carter has sent a letter
to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry urging them to
reject the "linchpin for tar sands expansion" — the Keystone XL.
The open letter, which appears in a full-page ad in Wednesday's Politico, is thethird
sent by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates to Obama urging him to reject
TransCanada's tar sands carrying pipeline, and the first one to which
Carter has added his name. Carter is now the first ex-president to voice
opposition to the pipeline.
This additional letter shows "the
growing urgency we feel for the hundreds of millions of people globally
whose lives and livelihoods are being threatened and lost as a result of
the changing climate and environmental damage caused by our dangerous
addiction to oil," the signatories, which also include landmine activist
Jody Williams, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and human rights activist Shirin
Ebadi, write.
"You stand on the brink of making a choice that
will define your legacy on one of the greatest challenges humanity has
ever faced – climate change. As you deliberate the Keystone XL tar sands
pipeline, you are poised to make a decision that will signal either a
dangerous commitment to the status quo, or bold leadership that will
inspire millions counting on you to do the right thing for our shared
climate," the laureates write.
As for the argument some have made
that if the pipeline is rejected the Alberta tar sands crude will just
travel by rail, the laureates write that this is "a red herring" because
"[i]ndustry experts agree that the Keystone XL project is the linchpin
for tar sands expansion and the increased pollution that will follow,
triggering more climate upheaval with impacts felt around the world."
Photo: Steven Tuttle/cc/flickrSusan Casey-Lefkowitz, International Program Director at NRDC, one of the groups sponsoring the Politico ad, writes:
As
leaders struggle with what the need to fight climate change means in
terms of energy decisions at home, the voice of moral leaders such as
these Nobel Peace laureates becomes more important than ever. And they
are sending a clear message that political leadership is essential to
stand up to entrenched fossil fuel interests and to take the kinds of
decisions that will put us on the path of a cleaner energy future.
"History
will reflect on this moment and it will be clear to our children and
grandchildren if you made the right choice," the laureates' letter
states.
The State Department recommendation on the project is
expected soon. While the State Department's review is required because
the northern leg of the pipeline crosses an international border, the
final decision sits with President Obama, who has indicated his decision could come in the next few months.
Next week, Carter will join two fellow members of The Elders,
Pakistani pro-democracy activist Hina Jilani and former President of
Ireland Mary Robinson, in leading a discussion on climate leadership and
activism Paris.
___________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Nobel laureates condemn Keystone as climate-change trigger
By William Marsden, Postmedia NewsApril 17, 2014
Former
U.S. president Jimmy Carter sits down for a conversation with Mark
Updegrove, director of the LBJ Presidential Library, on the first day of
the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library on April 8 in
Austin, Texas. Carter is one of 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners who have
issued a letter urging President Barrack Obama to reject the proposed
Keystone XL pipeline that would connect Alberta's oilsands to refineries
on Texas's Gulf Coast.
Photograph by: Ralph Barrera-Pool/Getty Images/File , Postmedia News
WASHINGTON
— Ten Nobel Peace Prize winners from as far afield as Yemen, South
Africa and Argentina have signed a letter asking U.S. President Barack
Obama to deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport
oilsands bitumen to Texas Gulf Coast refineries.
The laureates,
who include former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond
Tutu of South Africa, argue that denial of a permit would send a strong
signal to the world that the U.S. is rejecting a fossil fuels future.
“Let
this reflect the growing urgency we feel for the hundreds of millions
of people globally whose lives and livelihoods are being threatened and
lost as a result of the changing climate and environmental damage caused
by our dangerous addiction to oil,” the letter says.
Rejection of
the pipeline would set “a powerful precedent” and “would signal a new
course for the world’s largest economy,” the letter says.
“History will reflect on this moment and it will be clear to our children and grandchildren if you made the right choice.”
The
letter underscores Obama’s dilemma: By allowing the assessment process
to take so long, he has awakened both national and international
interest in a project that normally would garner only passing concern.
US considers offering military help to Ukraine – Kerry advisor
Published time: April 14, 2014 18:50
An
advisor to Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the United
States may decide to send arms to eastern Ukraine as tensions continue
to worsen there between pro-Russian protesters and supporters of the
country’s interim government.
Reuters reported on Monday that US
State Department Counselor Thomas Shannon — a senior diplomat and member
of Sec. Kerry’s inner circle — said the possibility of providing arms
to Ukrainian forces is indeed currently on the table. "Obviously we are looking at that as an option ... but at this point I can't anticipate whether or not we are going to do that,” Reuters quoted Shannon as saying.
The
counselor’s remarks come following yet another intense weekend in
Ukraine, where government buildings, a military airport and other
facilities in the east of the country were reportedly seized by armed
pro-Russian protesters. Weeks after a similar standoff in the adjacent
peninsula of Crimea led to the severing of ties with Ukraine and the
subsequent approval of a referendum agreeing to join the Russian
Federation, critics in the West are questioning whether or not Moscow
has been involved in the latest series of events. "From our
point of view what we are seeing in a series of cities mimics what we
saw in Crimea both in terms of the tactics and in terms of the people
involved," the State Department’s Shannon told Reuters early this week. "From
our point of view there is a very obvious Russian hand in all of this
and we consider these actions to be destabilising and dangerous." William Hague, Britain’s foreign ministry, has made similar remarks as well.
But
Vitaly Churkin — Russia’s envoy to the United Nations — has denounced
rumors of his country playing any role in the unrest as false, and the
Foreign Ministry has called allegations “irresponsible.”
Also
on Monday this week, Moscow's envoy to the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe said he was worried about the possibility that
force would be used against pro-Russian demonstrators in Ukraine, and
said he strongly believes “it might lead to a civil war.”
Kerry adviser says arming Ukraine forces is an option
BERLINMon Apr 14, 2014 11:30am EDT
(Reuters) - The United States is considering supplying arms to Ukraine,
where unrest in eastern cities bears the hallmarks of a Russian
destabilization drive, an adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry said
on Monday.
Ukraine's president on Monday threatened military
action after pro-Russian separatists occupying government buildings in
the east ignored an ultimatum to leave and another group of rebels
attacked a police headquarters in the troubled region.
Asked
during a trip to Berlin whether the United States could arm Ukrainian
forces, senior diplomat Thomas Shannon said: "Obviously we are looking
at that as an option ... but at this point I can't anticipate whether or
not we are going to do that."
Republican Senator John McCain has suggested providing weapons to the Ukraine government, which says the occupations that began on Sunday are part of a Russian-led plan to dismember the country.
Price tag for Russian gas to Ukraine could rise to $500
Published time: March 20, 2014 12:10
The price of Russian gas to Ukraine could rise to
$500 per 1,000 cubic meters, as future developments in relations between
Moscow and Kiev remain vague.
From April 1 the price Ukraine pays for Russian gas will go up to
$360-$370 per 1,000 cubic metres, after Russia cancelled the discount agreed in late December, Pavel Zavalny, the head of
Russian Gas Society told Izvestia newspaper.
In the worst case scenario, and Ukraine decides to take over
Russian property, as well as new threats from radical
nationalists, the price could jump to as high as to $500, the
paper added.
Russia to redirect trade elsewhere in case of EU-US sanctions
Published time: March 19, 2014 16:59
Russia will switch to other trade partners if
economic sanctions are imposed by the US and the European Union, the
Russian President's Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov has said. "If one economic partner on the one side of the globe impose
sanctions, we will pay attention to new partners from the globe’s
other side. The world is not monopolar, we will concentrate on
other economic partners," RIA news quotes Peskov.
According to him, possible economic sanctions by the US and EU on Russia are
unacceptable, and the Russian Federation intends to offer further
economic cooperation with the European Union.
"We want to keep good relations with the EU and with the US.
Especially with the European Union as it is the main economic,
investment and trade partner of the Russian Federation. Our
mutual economic dependence assumes that we shall have good
relations," the Russian President's Press Secretary
declared. He also emphasized that discussion of global economic
problems without involvement of Russia can't be a complete
discussion.
In a Tuesday telephone conversation between Russia’s Minister for
Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and the US Secretary of State John
Kerry they discussed the situation in Ukraine, and Lavrov said
sanctions imposed by the US and the European Union against the
Russian Federation are absolutely unacceptable and won’t come
without consequences.
According to data from the EU’s Eurostat, Russia accounts for 7
percent of imports and 12 percent of exports in the 28 European
Union bloc, making it the region's third most important trading
partner, behind the USA and China.
In turn, the EU is Russia’s biggest trade and investment partner,
with trade turnover estimated at $330 billion in 2012.
