Turkey’s Failed Coup May Dismantle Turkish Democracy

As the fallout from Turkey’s failed coup d’état continues to unfold, it is clear that a significant portion of the judiciary and military were involved.  According to Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag, 6000 people have so far been detained over the failed coup, 265 people have died and 1,400 were wounded.

Of the 6000 detained, 2,700 were judiciary officials including ten members of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors and two members of the Constitutional Court, 3000 were military personnel, with 50 being senior military officials from the Denizli Garrison including the base Commander Major General Ozhan Ozbakir. 

Other top ranking personnel arrested included General Erdal Ozturk, commander of the Third Army, General Adem Huduti commander of the Second Army, Akin Ozturk the former Chief of the Air Staff and one of Turkey’s most senior judges Alparslan Altan.  

Coup d'état or Protecting Freedom

The individuals involved in Friday’s uprising were dissatisfied with the rule of President Recep Erdogan’s government. The military in Turkey have long considered themselves to be the protectors of the secular traditions established by the countries first President, Kemal Atatürk. 

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is considered the founder of modern Turkey and his moves towards secularisation of Turkey’s state and society changed it into a modern society where education was state controlled, women were given equal civil and political rights and poverty was reduced.

President Erdogan’s commitment to Atatürk’s legacy and to democracy has often been questioned. Erdogan is a political Islamist who has divided the country with his rejection of Turkey’s secular history and his desire to exchange Turkey’s secular constitution for a more Islamic based authoritarian one with a strong emphasis on an executive Presidency and Islam. 

His political party, the Justice and Development Party or AKP, despite being popular, has also had a controversial few years. In 2014 the AKP announced a raft of plans to revise the role Islam has within Turkey’s state and society. There were announcements that religious education would now be extended to children as young as six and that there would be new policies implemented to allow children in grades four and above to take up to two years off from school to memorise the Koran.

Furthermore, all high school students would start to learn Ottoman Turkish, an Arabic and Persian based language developed and utilised by the more elite sections of society during the Ottoman Empire. This language has little in common with modern Turkish. 

Each of these measures and policies were met with significant opposition from adversaries. There have been numerous efforts to censure the party with accusations of corruption levelled against senior members in the past two years and the AKP being the subject of two closure cases in an effort to disband the political group. These attempts to moderate Erdogan and the AKP have achieved little.  

Empowering Erdogan

Each failed attempt to discredit Erdogan and the AKP has strengthened their appeal. Erdogan’s successful FaceTime mobilisation of the Turkish people clearly illustrates his popularity as a leader. His CNNTURK interview, during which he called for his supporters to go out onto the streets, was the turning point for the coup which faced significant civilian opposition. Erdogan supporters are reported to have made civilian arrests and assisted police in restoring order while repelling the military who were trying to seize major roads and infrastructure. One day on from the cessation of hostilities, Erdogan has continued his call for people to gather in public squares stating ‘This is not a 12 hour affair’. Answering this request, Erdogan supporters have come out in their thousands throughout Turkey to show their support for the President. 

Opposition Removed

Many believe that Erdogan’s swift response to the coup indicates that the arrests are more about decimating his political opponents. The move against such large numbers of judges and members of the bureaucracy indicates President Erdogan had previously drawn up a list of opponents and was utilising this opportunity to secure his position. As the European Union Commissioner overseeing Turkey application for membership Johannes Hahn stated

"It looks at least as if something has been prepared," 

 "The lists are available, which indicates it was prepared and to be used at a certain stage.

"I'm very concerned. It is exactly what we feared."

NATO throws down the Gauntlet but will Russia Pick It up

This month, from June 7-17th over 24 NATO and partner countries will be engaging in one of the largest NATO military exercises ever endeavoured since the end of the Cold War. Running in Poland on Russia’s Baltic doorstep, the exercises are touted as part of NATO’s growing efforts to reassure eastern European and Baltic countries of their security within Europe, after Russia’s belligerent actions in the Ukraine.

Over the 10 day period 31,000 troops accompanied by large numbers of military vehicles, aircraft and ships, will be deployed into Poland for Anakonda-16. The exercises are said to include night-time manoeuvers with helicopter assaults and paratroopers dropping into the region of the Vistula River to build a temporary bridge.

Show of Strength or Preparation for Protection

Clearly designed to demonstrate the strength of the NATO Alliance, the involvement of 14,000 United States soldiers and that of non-NATO members Sweden and Finland make this exercise more than just a chance to train.

The exercise provides NATO and Europe with a chance to integrate militarily prior to the event of a Russian incursion. As stated by the US Army, the goal of Anakonda is to ‘exercise and integrate Polish national command and force structures into an allied, joint, multinational environment.’

This practice at integration also has the benefit of demonstrating NATO’s defence capabilities, something NATO has been serious about showing off in the Baltic and Nordic regions since the start of the year. Out of the 150 military exercises NATO has programed for 2016, the largest 8 of all the joint exercises were scheduled for the countries on Russia’s doorstep.

Increasing Fears across Europe

Exercises like Anakonda-16 are placing further stress on the existing deep fractures in the West’s relationship with Russia. A fact that is not missed by the Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway and Finland who are already worrying over their close proximity.

Sweden, in particular, is feeling acutely concerned after NATO released documents detailing Russia’s 2013 military exercise which targeted Sweden with a nuclear attack. Understandably the Swedish government has upped its defence spending with more than US $2.1 billion to be invested in strengthening the military's readiness and warfare capabilities in the 2016-2020 period.

A recent military brief given to the Swedish armed forces personnel attending the Markstrids (Land Combat) conference in Boden stated that Sweden needed to decrease its peacekeeping missions abroad and focus instead on prioritising national defence readiness and capabilities. Swedish Armed Forces’ Maj. Gen. Anders Brännström stated that

"The world situation that we are experiencing, which is clear from strategic decisions made, leads to the conclusion that we could be at war within a few years. For all of us in the military we must, with all the force we can marshal, implement the political decisions,"

This view is echoed by Allan Wildman who is the Chairman of the Swedish Parliament’s Defence Committee who stated,

"The time will come, and it will happen sooner or later, where [Russian President Vladimir] Putin becomes pressured politically. The question is how he will respond to such a situation. Will he become humble and exit Crimea, or will he take other measures. Because of Putin’s track record, Sweden should prepare itself for the latter,"

Russia’s Response?
Sweden’s concerns appear to have some grounding in fact. Over the past 3 years Russia has staged 18 large scale snap military exercises, including the simulated nuclear attack on Sweden, some with over 100,000 military personnel involved.

So in this tit for tat scenario will Russia respond militarily? In a word, no.

According to Andrey Kelin the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s European Cooperation Department,

“American warships do enter the Black Sea now and then. Certainly, this does not meet with [Russia’s] approval and will undoubtedly lead to planning response measures,”

These measure may involve such developments as new bases on the border with Europe which, according to Spanish News Outlet Telesur, is currently underway. Telesur reports that just 50 kilometres away from the Ukrainian border Russia is building a base near the town of Klintsy.

Mr Kelin then went on to signal that there may be another way to resolve the increasing tensions in the form of The NATO-Russia Council. Originally created to forge ties for dialogue and cooperation, the meeting ceased in 2014 thanks to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and have just recently restarted. Mr Kelin signalled that these meeting might hold the key to diffusing the increasing tensions stating,

“We will see how things move forward. But overall, we can absolutely not give up on the most important channel of cooperation and dialogue,”

Why is Central Asia forgoing Russia for China

Central Asia has long been stuck between a rock and hard place in terms of its geopolitical environment. Landlocked, with China to the east and Russia to the north and west, Central Asian leaders have had to balance their alliances with the powers that surrounded them.

In pre-soviet times Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Uzbek leaders would utilise these relationships to gain wealth for their country. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union it became more about security, making sure the newly formed states were not overrun by the bigger boys. To this end the Central Asian states entered into regional cooperative organisations with China and Russia like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in the hopes of controlling the influence each power exerted in the five nation-states.

Twenty-five years on, this struggle to balance relations has failed and China is now poised to make a spectacular economic conquest of the Central Asian markets. In 2015 China was reported to have become Uzbekistan’s largest trading partner with 3 billion dollars’ worth of trade and Kazakhstan’s largest investor with 33 deals delivering 23.6 billion dollars to the nation. China has also focused heavily on Turkmenistan’s energy sector where it has been purchasing some 30 billion cubic meters of gas a year since 2009 while providing substantial military aid. China also took over in Kyrgyzstan last month as the builder and partner in 2 hydro-power projects.

Russia out and China In

The reversal in Russia’s dominant role in Central Asia is hardly surprising. Russia’s recent economic woes are well documented. Quite simply, they no longer have money to support the region. As a result many countries have been left hanging, as is the case of Kyrgyzstan which recently had to cancel a Russian partnership for a hydropower project that suffered serious setbacks due to the Russian government’s inability to fulfil their commitments.

Additionally Russian ties may be becoming compromised due to Russia’s domineering behaviour. The Economist suggests that Russia has been treating the region like its exclusive hoard. Buying oil and gas at below market rates only to re-export it to elsewhere at a mark-up, pushed countries like Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan into the arms of China who has better terms of trade. In this environment it is easy to see why China came to be viewed as an economic stabiliser and a necessity by Central Asian governments in the past few years.

The Eurasian Bear turning into a Dragon

This is not to say that China has not worked hard to cultivate its current position in Central Asia. Starting with a one billion dollar investment in the region in 2000, it has spent up to 50 billion dollars in trade and investments in the region according to the IMF. From developing its western border region’s to ensure its capabilities for trade to building infrastructure like highways, pipelines and railways throughout the region via the 2013 Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) initiative, China is determined to secure the region as its own zone of economic interest and appears to be achieving this goal.

The risk in sidelining Russia for both Central Asia and China is Russia. Russia likes to view Central Asia as it personal Achilles Heel and prefers to keep close ties to the region economically, politically and militarily. Understandably, China’s SREB project and their new round of investment in Russia’s backyard has set off alarm bells in Moscow.

According to Alexander Gabuyev of the Carnegie Moscow Centre , "When China announced its Silk Road plan in Kazakhstan, it was met with a lot of scepticism and even fear by the Russian leadership…..The feeling was, 'It's a project to steal Central Asia from us, they want to exploit our economic difficulties to be really present in the region'."

Countering this push, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the development of a Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) as a way to tie Russia and the Central Asian region together more securely. However, the Union floundered when the financial crisis hit Russia and it has since merged with China’s SREB Initiative.

Bears are tenacious creatures and, like them, Russia has not stopped trying to maintain its status. In the past months it has completed large scale military exercises with Central Asian partners like Tajikistan. Clearly sending a message to both China and Central Asia that they are still in the picture. Vladimir Putin has also made an attempt to slow down China’s entry into these markets by imposing new import restrictions through the EEU.

Central Asians Anti-Sino Relations

There is some risk to China large investments in Central Asia with there being much public distrust and opposition to the Central Asian leaders love affair with China. Anti-Sino sentiment is quite high in many Central Asian states. In Kazakhstan last month there was a series of large protests over a proposal to privatise unused arable land, which Kazakhs feared would be sold off to China. The government has since backed down from the planned privatisation due to the public outcry.

These protests are not isolated to just Kazakhstan. In Kyrgyzstan last year the Prime Minister resigned due to a scandal over the awarding of a contract to a Chinese company, and in 2012, 200 protestors blocked access to a Chinese operated gold mine.

Economic Pragmatism

However Central Asian leaders are pragmatists and many were left scrambling to fix their economies after the Russian collapse. The long term economic surety and prosperity that China is offering is not just an attractive offer it will be a boon to their economies. They will have roads, railways and other infrastructure built or updated without heavy costs to themselves. Through engagement with China, Central Asia will have new goods being imported and new industries and markets for each of the five states. As Kazakh Foreign Minister Erlan Idrissov stated,

"Our philosophy is simple: We should get on board that train…We want to benefit from the growth of China and we don't see any risks to us in that growth."

Fighting the Silent Cyber Wars?

As diplomatic tensions between Russia and America continue to decline after the fallout over the Ukrainian crisis, Syria and the recent Black Sea incident, America has made a surprising public overture of rapprochement. 

As of March 30th 2016, Russia and America will recommence a raft of bilateral agreements on cyber-security, that had been halted due to the cooling relations. Included in these agreements will be the implementation of a hotline between Russia and America to prevent an escalation of cyber security incidents and the signing of a non-aggression pact in the field of information technology.

Coming on the heels of a cybersecurity pact signed by Russia and China during May last year, it is far from a comprehensive agreement. Russia and Moscow, for example, agreed not to attack each other and mutually prevent the use of modern technology "for terrorist purposes" and "interference in internal affairs", as well as destabilizing "the internal political and socio-economic situation".

Britain and China have likewise created a cyber security agreement which they argue will lead to increased cooperation as have China and the United States.

Why the proliferation of these treaties? Quite simply it is because cyber warfare has emerged from the bedrooms of teenage hackers and criminal gangs to become one of the most impressive forms of covert soft power known in the modern world.

Attack of the Codes

Hitting public awareness in 2007 in Estonia with the three week long Distributed Denial-Of-Service (DDoS) attack against a number of divisions of the Estonian economy including the government, media, and financial institutions, Russia began using a combination of threats, cyber capabilities, proxies, and plausible deniability to harass those with whom they did not see eye to eye.

From there it has snowballed with incidents such as WikiLeaks, the Snowdon Papers, the Sony Hack and the Panama Papers demonstrating the reach of hackers globally. Events like the pre-Christmas attack on a Ukrainian power station, which left thousands of people freezing in the Ukrainian winter, illustrated their power.

Cyber-Warfare Now A Reality

Cyber warfare is now an ongoing threat for countries and multinationals around the globe. It enables aggressors to punish rivals or engage in terrorist activities, as in the case of Russia’s attack on the Ukraine or the suspected US actions to neutralise threats such as Iran’s nuclear program with plausible deniability and little domestic collateral damage.

This reality argues Dr. Philippa Malmgren, a former White House official and presidential advisor, has led to a situation where the three major powers are already involved in a cyber war.

“The difference to warfare of the past is that this is being conducted surreptitiously through cyberspace, rather than through traditional and conventional forms of weaponry.”

Trust No One

As each of the countries try to cooperate the problem appears multiply, despite the treaties and talk of cooperation, countries like Russia and China are not always prepared to play by the rules. Leaving countries like America and Britain to even the playing field.

The result is that no one trusts one another and instead the cyber war increases in its severity as countries engage in a steady stream of attacks and counter attacks, some coming just hours after they have signed cooperation treaties.

As described by J.J. Wirtz in a recent publication by the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression against Ukraine,

“ it seems an escalation in such intrusions is already underway. Russian state-sponsored hackers are believed to have recently compromised the US Department of State….. Unlike during previous intrusions linked to Russia, on this occasion the digital spies did not back out of the system once they were discovered, but fought back in order to maintain their foothold in the network”

Future Development

Considering the difficulty in monitoring these intrusions and attacks it seems likely that cyber warfare will inevitably become a much utilised weapon in the new grab for international power. In order to count this governments will need to ramp up spending on cyber security, developing their cyber divisions which will hopefully lower the risks of infrastructure attacks and the chaos these will bring.

A version of this is published in The Vision Times

Kazakhstan Prefers Political Stagnation ?

Recently I became a Global Risk Insight Analyst this is a slightly altered version of a recent article, if you enjoy please share, or comment and check out Global Risk Insight.

As the political environment in Kazakhstan becomes increasingly tense due to the government’s recent plan to privatise unused land for investment, it is clear that once more a free and open political dialogue will not be an option for a discontented public.


Instead the authoritarian government of President Nursultan Nazarbayev is executing a soft crackdown on the protests. Starting with the April 28th notification that spreading disinformation about land reform is a crime, the government has gone that one step further on April 29th by detaining the organisers of a press conference and public discussion, scheduled to be held at the National Press Club in Almaty.


So like the hardline crackdown on the Zhanaozen oil workers protests in 2011, that saw 15 people die, it is clear that while these protests signal popular discontent, the momentum surrounding the campaign over land privatisation will be halted by any means necessary. In Kazakhstan, political freedom stands second to political stability which is seen as vital to the administration of nation.


Stability or Chaos


For Kazakhs, after witnessing the chaos from the democratic upheavals and civil strife that has plagued the Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan the stability offered by the political regime of Nazarbayev provides a sense of security. As one opposition candidate for last year’s parliamentary (Mazhilis) elections stated in the Diplomat,


“In Kazakhstan you give up some rights in exchange for security. You give up pluralism and the right to say what you want, but that’s how it is, and we are doing ok.”


But there is little strength in the Kazakh political institutions. The super-presidential system means that the political system is weak and ineffectual, with parliament being a rubber stamp to the President’s wishes and the judiciary being similarly controlled.


Clan and Patronage Politics


Kazakhstan is a product of its own birth; formed from the ashes of the Soviet Union’s bureaucratic nomenklatura system and a clan based society, Kazakhstan has a long history of utilising secondary political channels like identity (clan) or patronage networks for true political dialogue and decision making in the country.


The risk is that these networks operate only for the good of themselves instead of the good of all and this creates little trickling down of riches and political power to those outside of the networks, often causing dissatisfaction with the ruling power. The President’s answer to this problem is the appointment of members from his patronage network to positions of power like regional governors (Akims), who then act as intermediaries to resolve issues, such as land reform, away from the public eye. The most recent use of this system appeared in the land privatisation protests on Friday where the Almaty governor Bauyrzhan Baibek, Nazarbayev’s one time former deputy director of administration, offered to parley with the detained protestors over the issues.


Nazarbayev, on the whole, is a popular leader. Called by the titular Elbasi (father of the nation) in recent presidential elections he was returned with 97.5% of the vote with a voter turnout of 95.22%. Despite the valid scepticism around such figures by many political observers, including the OSCE, Nazarbayev’s popularity is genuinely high among many of the populace because of the continuity that he offers. As another member of the opposition party, Ak Zhol, stated “whether we like it or not, Nazarbayev is our future,… we live in a dangerous world, and Kazakhstan has not experienced any terrorism or civil war, thanks to Nazarbayev.”


Economic Surety


Thus in spite of this lack of political pluralism and entrenched authoritarianism Kazakhs are not rushing to force political change and this has had the unexpected side effect of providing Kazakhstan with the best chance of making it through the recent economic downturn.


According to a recent GRI article by Ian Armstrong, President Nazarbayev micro-management of the of the country’s economy has enabled him to orchestrate a variety of changes that will diversify the nation’s financial system away from its origins as an energy based rentier economy and turn it into Central Asia’s strongest market.


From initiating measures in the 2014-2015 period that ease the ability to do business in Kazakhstan for small and medium investors to attaining a much sought after membership to the WTO, Nazarbaev has managed his country’s economy to enable it to attract lucrative deals with competing major powers and multinational corporations. As is evidenced by the advance of big western brands into Kazakhstan in 2016; from Starbucks and MacDonald’s to the French supermarket firm Carrefour. Kazakhstan is seen as a promising investment opportunity for newcomers despite the fact that the economy is predicted to shrink in 2016 for the first time in two decades.

Furthermore, President Nazarbayev has also managed to navigate the intricate international diplomatic waters surrounding Russia and China, his strongest neighbours in the past 4 years. Traditionally a weak point for Kazakh leaders the balancing of international powers has often led to a weakening of their own position. Nazarbayev has so far bucked the trend by  diversifying Kazakhstan’s economic projects with other major powers such as Saudi Arabia, India, Iran and Europe.

Reform ?…Maybe Later

Kazakhstan has a fairly laid back attitude to the pace of political development. Currently Nazarbayev’s management of the country is placing it in an enviable position which will only bolster his legitimacy in the eyes of the nation. This fact is well known amongst his opposition, thus with the majority of the population leery of agitating on a large scale for political reform and the current economic crisis being foremost in their minds, development will instead be focused on keeping the country stable and secure.


This attitude along with the President’s utter control over the political system will see off political change in the near future. Given Nazarbayev is 75, this may not be as long as many would believe (although in a recent lecture Nazarbayev did encourage scientists to discover the key to immortality). The danger then is in the power vacuum that would follow the death of such a strong leader.


Currently Nazarabev has not publicly declared who will be his heir apparent. Many fingers are pointing to his eldest daughter who currently heads up the Presidents party Nur Otan. But there relationship is complicated by her ex-husband's power grab and his recent suicide in an Austrian jail. Other members do not have the popularity to hold together the many factions and clans that exist in Kazakhstan so there is every possibility that the country could face a difficult transition and a messy struggle for power between those at the top of the clan and patronage networks. Until this time reform will be an afterthought.

Partitioning Syria for the New Middle East ?

As the battle smoke in Syria and Iraq continues to cloud the sky, it is abundantly clear that the Syrian and Iraqi political landscapes are going to be forever changed. Five years of civil war has not just destroyed infrastructure and buildings but it has also created a series of societal divisions that were not in place in before the conflict began.

Sunni, Alawite, Shia, Druze, Yazdi and Kurd; many of these divisions between the groups in Syria were in existence but the society was not overwhelming divided along these lines. As the next wave of peaceful negotiations fall apart it is clear that the sheer multitude of groups that are now represented in the conflict in Syria will mean that the political system will need an overhaul.

It is a foregone conclusion that most regions of Syria will no longer tolerate Bashar Assad's political domination. The government’s formation of security forces that robbed, tortured and raped young men and women, as well as the bombing of opposition towns and cities instead of al-Nusra and ISIS over the past five years has eroded any legitimacy Assad had. This was demonstrated by the recent swathe of 104 anti-government protests around the country on March 4. Simply put, many people distrust the al-Assad regime. As one organiser of the protest in Aleppo commented,

“We came to confirm that our revolution is ongoing, no matter what happens. We are a resilient and determined people, and we will not back down from our demands: a free Syria for all Syrians and free of Assad and terrorism. Thousands of martyrs have fallen, which makes us more determined not to back off on our rightful and legitimate demands.”

So the question now becomes what will bring peace.

The Dream of Partition

According to the United States Secretary of State John Kerry, plan B for Syria if the peace talks failed is the partitioning of Syria along sectarian or ethnic divisions. Secretary Kerry stated to the US Foreign Relations Committee that ,

“this can get a lot uglier and Russia has to be sitting there evaluating that too. It may be too late to keep it as a whole Syria if we wait much longer”.

Although Secretary Kerry has not given details of how such a partition would be completed, the plan was previously outlined by Condoleeza Rice in 2006 as part of the United States Foreign Policy entitled The New Middle East Plan which had its roots in the Israeli foreign policy from the 1980sby Odid Yinon. The United States is said to have a plan to separate Syria into a federal system of states, like the United States, Russia or Australia. Thus the Alawites would have a state in the west near Lebanon, a Sunni Arab State would dominate the centre and the Kurds would control the north.

This may solve some issues. Firstly, many Alawites are concerned about a Sunni backlash against them due to the perception of the Assad regime being coterminous with the Alawite population. As a result they are seeking protection from the ethnic retribution of the Sunni based opposition groups. Secondly, it will cement the north, also known as Rojava now by the Kurds, into a functioning state which will calm their attempts to separate from Syria altogether.

The Reality

Unfortunately, this sort of partitioning is little more than a recipe for disaster. Firstly, it does not include many of the minority groups like the Druze, Yazdis or Armenians that have coexisted in Syria for generations. Furthermore, with interfaith and interethnic marriage occurring regularly it is hard to see how such a heterogeneous society would operate under a more homogenous rule.

In the current climate the separation also does not demonstrate how such a division will provide an equal amount of resources to all divisions in Syria. As the Alawite and Kurdish territories would control most of the arable land, water supplies and oil and gas fields this partitioning would mean that large portions of the Syrian population in the Sunni section would be left without ready access to arable land, oil and most importantly water. This could lead to further conflicts within the federal state system as resources and control over the government becomes an issue for the have-nots.

As Jacob Purcell from Global Risk Insights argues

A federal system like the one described above could simply set up the next wave of fighting as various ethnic groups contend with each other to control the central government and entrench themselves.

It should be noted that the argument for partitioning has been overruled by more than one participant in the war.

Lack of Syrian and Russian Support for Plan B

The Assad regime for one has stated they will not agree to anything that compromises the integrity of Syria as a whole. While the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, has echoed these sentiments when he stated that it is best to keep Syrian territorial borders unchanged and the people unified.

Syrian opposition coordinator Riad Hijab has stated that "any mention of federalism or something which might present a direction for dividing Syria is not acceptable at all".

The Winner is Kurdistan

One place that supports this plan is found in an autonomous Kurdistan. The civil conflict has allowed for the creation of large autonomously governed sections of Kurdish territory, which are now backed by organised and battle hardened militia and governing bodies. In March this year the Syrian Kurdish political party the Democratic Union Party or P.Y.D declared that it would be putting together a plan to unite the regions controlled by the Syrian Kurds into an autonomous region to operate within a federal based system. 

"What you call it isn't important," the PYD's Saleh Muslim told Reuters on Tuesday. "We have said over and over again that we want a decentralised Syria - call it administrations, call it federalism - everything is possible."

Brussels Bombings Expose Europe’s Soft Underbelly

The bombings in Brussels shocked Belgium and Europe to the core. The senseless violence that left 300 injured and 35 dead in the attacks at the Maelbeek Train station near the EU headquarters and the Brussels airport struck at the heart of the Europe and the European Union.

Even as the hunt for the elusive white jacket bomber has ended with the arrest of Mohamed Abrini, any relief will be short lived.  Europe is now back to square one in its fight against the Islamic State global terrorist campaign. 

As was discovered when Belgium authorities arrested Europe’s most wanted fugitive and the only survivor of the Parisian attack cell, Saleh Abdelslam, the new wave of Islamic extremists are predominantly  European nationals who know the ins and outs of the European Union and have large familial networks that provide them support in Europe.

This has led many to agree with French President Françoise Holland who stated “This is not over,” and that security forces are trying to uncover the ‘wide, extensive’ network of jihadists who are behind these attacks.

A Game of Cat and Mouse

For now it is a game of hide and seek. Belgium Foreign Minister Didier Reynders has admitted previously that Brussels authorities thought there were at least 30 terrorists remaining at large in the city. Finding these terrorists will be difficult because these groups have morphed into something more than religious extremists.

According to security experts, many of the terrorists operating in Europe have become integrated with organised crime groups or the Mafia. Intelligence experts like Yan St-Pierre, CEO and counter-intelligence adviser for the Modern Security Consulting Group, have argued that the Islamic State have tapped into

‘Mafia-type organized crime, with highly sophisticated smuggling operations, for logistics support like transporting people, issuing fake identity papers or selling weapons’.

The Islamic Mafia

The development of such an entity is not surprising  given the clan based nature of many Arab and North African societies. In Belgium for example, Moroccan-Belgiums often existed within a very tight knit expat community. Brothers, cousins and extended family relations are often very close and will provide support to one another without asking questions due to clan based loyalty to their friends and family.

Infiltrating and monitoring these identity networks is extremely difficult due to their close nature.  One only has to look at the Paris and Brussels attacks to note that many of the attackers in both incidents were family or friends, some from childhood (Mohamad Abrini for example was friends with Saleh Abdeslam and his brother Ibrahim who blew himself up in Paris) and both the el-Bakraoui brothers and Mohamad Abrini were known criminals and had spent time in jail, as had Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the leader of the Paris attacks.  

Europe’s Soft Underbelly

While these gangster-style Islamic networks make infiltration difficult, both the Paris and Brussels attacks were a study of the miscommunication that hampers the European Union. The open nature of the European Union and the freedom of movement provided by the Schengen Agreement means that it is a hard to coordinate security measures between countries and share relevant intelligence. Security forces in the Netherlands, Sweden, France and Belgium were clearly aware that there were terrorists operating within their borders but due to miscommunication and protocol failures many warning signs were missed or discounted.

After the Brussels attacks it was revealed by the Turkish Prime Minster that Turkey had deported one of the suicide bombers Ibrahim el-Bakraoui after catching him on the Turkish-Syrian border in July 2015, but worse than that was the information that the FBI had informed the Dutch government that both el-Bakraoui brothers were wanted by the Belgium authorities in March in connection with the Paris attack and yet both remained free.

Border controls in Belgium were also lacklustre during the weeks prior to the attack in Brussels with a recent report detailing the use of untrained border guards to identify those arrivals who were high risk against an EU-wide terror database, SIS, which contains alerts for the names of several thousand foreign fighters, as well as stolen and forged passports. Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the Belgian architect of the Paris massacre, had boasted that he was able to go from Syria to Belgium as border guards failed to identify him, despite his face being in the media. 

Perhaps this was sheer luck but more likely this oversight was caused by the economic cuts many European nations have made to their security  budgets over the past few years. Many are now simply relying on sophisticated facial recognition software and high tech surveillance which does not utilise costly human investigators who can monitor suspects daily.

As a result, intelligence experts such as Claude Moniquet, a retired agent for France’s external intelligence service, DGSE, who now runs a private intelligence company in Brussels, fear that Europe will face further attacks.

                  “What we expect is a multicity, multi-target attack at the same moment, and it will have terrible consequences,”

Racism and Radicalisation

Many are not surprised. For years racism against Muslim immigrants has been a problem in various European nations. In France it has lead to heated debates and riots over Islamic headdress. In Belgium, Moroccan Belgiums often face discrimination and marginalisation due to their nationality.

Many believe this lack of opportunities and societal rejection is the reason behind many of Europe’s youth becoming radicalised. One young Belgium Moroccan told a CNN reporter that,   

            "The Belgian state rejects children and young people; they say, 'They are all foreigners, why               should we give them a job?' They fill us with hate, and they say we aren't of any use, so when             young people see what's going on over there [in Syria], they think 'Well OK, let's go there and be useful.'"\

Is Russia Really Withdrawing

Is Russia Really Withdrawing?

Monday’s announcement of the Russian withdrawal from Syria was surprising to western analysts and media.  Unused to a quick insertion and withdrawal from peacekeeping missions, many had believed that Russia had engaged itself in the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics for the discernible future.

 Putin certainly appeared sincere in his intention to withdraw in the Kremlin’s televised cabinet meeting with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, stating that,

“the objective set before the Defence Ministry and the Armed Forces is generally fulfilled, so I order the Defence Ministry to begin withdrawing the main part of our military group from the Syrian Arab Republic beginning tomorrow”

Soon reports began to circulate that Washington and Moscow had come to a secret deal over the Ukraine, or that recent economic sanctions would soon be lifted.

War or Something Like it

The reality is somewhat less surprising; Putin, ever the politician,  was engaging in some good old fashion doublespeak.  In the meeting it can be noted that Putin remarks that he wants the Russian run maritime base in Tartus and Hmeymim Airbase to continue to function and be protected from land, sea and air. Arguing that,

This part of our military group was located in Syria over the course of many previous years, and today, it must continue to fulfil the highly important function of monitoring the ceasefire and creating conditions for the peace process.

So in reality the withdrawal is merely a drawdown of certain military platforms like the Su-25 strike aircraft and Su-34 bombers that were inserted into Syria after October 2015. Remaining will be the Su-24 bombers and Mi-24 and Mi-35 attack helicopters, as well as the Su-30SM and Su-35 multirole fighters with the deadly S-400 long range air defence missiles and the shorter range systems.

Ground troops and naval cover forces protecting and operating these bases will remain and any of those forces advising and helping Syrian forces will remain in an advisory capacity. In short this announced withdrawal is merely another way for Russia to change around its equipment and personnel while at the same time not really changing its presence or undermining its assets in the country.

Reports in the last few days that Russia has continued to provide air support during the battle for Palmyra support this hypothesis as do the statements of Moscow’s ambassador to the UN’s Vitaly Chulkin  that drones would still be in use over Syria supporting the government forces. Russia also has plans to expand the Tartus naval base and utilise Syria as combat training for its new helicopters the Ka-52 and Mi-28N.

Training Grounds

If Russia is still maintaining its position in Syria, what else does it want? Thanks to the Kremlins transcript it is possible to see the reason for Putin’s sudden involvement in Syria last October. Putin was simply shooting two birds with one arrow. By supporting the Assad regime and defending its strategic interests it allowed Russia to test its weapons systems and tactical operating concepts. Or as Putin’s states,

In a short period, Russia has created a military group that is small in number but quite effective – one consisting of different types of forces and diverse capabilities.

Soft Diplomacy

Now that Russia has met its goal of supporting the Assad regime to a position of control, it appears that it is prepared for the transition to soft diplomacy as the next step. Prior to Russia’s announced withdrawal the Assad government had been playing tough at the peace negotiations. According to Joshua Landis the Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma the Assad regime had expressed “a constant drumbeat of confidence that they’re going to take back every inch of Syrian soil, and Russia is their partner.” 

However President Putin does not seem to have received that memo. Instead, Vladimir Putin has clearly indicated to Bashar al Assad that he is not wearing the big boots anymore. Rather, Putin, by announcing his withdrawal, is reminding Assad of who has provided his power in the hope that this will force the Assad regime to the negotiation table in Geneva. 

Concessions

While it is hoped that a peace deal can be reached, getting everyone to agree will be difficult. Currently the plan being tossed around by the Russian and Western powers is a one devised by John Kerry, US Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. According to The Economist both men discussed the possibility of partitioning of Syria into a federalist state based along clan, and sectarian divisions.

In this vision the territory in the west, running roughly from Latakia in the north down to Damascus in the south would be controlled by the Alawites of whom Bashar al Assad is a member. While the Syrian-Kurdish region in the north-east, known as Rojava, would be an autonomous Kurdish region and the rest of the country would be left to the Sunni opposition forces. 

Putin Russia and the New World Order

Over the last six months Vladimir Putin has changed Russia’s international role significantly. After being consider an international pariah and fading superpower after the annexation of the Crimea, the international community is now lauding Putin for his realpolitik diplomacy in the Middle East.


By combining Russia’s military power and strong-arm diplomacy, Putin has catapulted Russia back into the role of an indispensible world power , returning the international order to a multiplayer system, much to the chagrin of America. America has declared that Russia is one of the greatest threats to the international system, according to the United States Secretary of Defence Ash Carter

“Some actors appear intent on eroding these principles and undercutting the international order that helps enforce them… Of course, neither Russia nor China can overturn that order. But both present different challenges for it …..Moscow’s nuclear sabre-rattling, raises questions about Russian leaders’ commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and whether they respect the profound caution nuclear-age leaders showed with regard to the brandishing of nuclear weapons.”


Secretary Carter went on to state that ,

“We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia. We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all”

Challenging America or Playing by the Rules?

The problem with the United States overtly aggressive stance is that it makes Putin look calm and rational. Quite simply he appears to be the elder statesman arguing that everyone must play by the agreed upon rules. In his most recent address to the United Nations President Putin highlighted the danger he saw in arbitrary actions amongst the international community.

‘Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.’

In a later speech Putin also pointed out that the United States, is trying to keep itself as the only hegemonic power in the world, in order to support its economy. Arguing that the United States keeps its allies as vassals he declared the Americans desire to democratise the world in unattainable. Explaining how Russia had already attempted that route with socialism and failed to achieve anything other than bring itself into conflict, Putin argued that we need to accept governments for what they are instead of seeking change.

Reality is not Black and White

While this all sounds like an American dressing down, taking a closer look at many of Putin’s actions over the last year proves that this is all just rhetoric.

Russia’s involvement in the Middle East for example has provided Russia with large financial benefits from contracts to construct weapon systems in Iran and a contract to construct a dome like air defence system in Syria. Each of these systems is worth millions of dollars, and will forge new markets for Russia in the future. Likewise Russia’s military actions in Syria will open up dialogue with other nations who could then fall into the Russian sphere of influence and not America’s.


Certainly Putin has already made approaches last year to the European Union to join with the newly developed Eurasian Union in an attempt to remove them from the grasp of NATO.

Pistols at Dawn ?

So does all this posturing mean that Russia and America are preparing for a global game of Risk, where Russia and America divide the world between themselves competing constantly for military, political and economic supremacy around the globe. Certainly the return of Russia from its isolationist foreign policy has meant that the international system as we know it is now in a state of flux. As America has already identified, many nations are already acting outside of the American world system to further their own sphere of influence.

For the past year and half China has been advancing its interests in the South China sea and in Eurasia. Iran, by supporting the Assad and Iraqi government, and Hezbollah in Lebanon has long seen its role in the international system as a global player. Turkey in Syria, Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Japan in the northern pacific see themselves in a similar light.

The reality then is that the new world order is really just a return to the multiplayer world order which existed prior to World War II. The question now is how will the world cope?
A Putin World Order






Vladimir Putin in his address to the United Nations last year provides a hint of how he would like the system to work. In his address he stated


‘the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders.’



For those not aware, the 1945 Yalta Conference in the Crimea was the meeting between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt where the three leaders attempted to reorganise Europe so that peace could be maintained. While each leader had an agenda for the conference it was where it was decided that the USSR could have a sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe, to protect them.


By basing his address on the foundation of Yalta, Putin is signalling that he would like to return to a world divided by spheres of influence. In such a system Russia could demand a free hand in the former soviet territories of Central Asia, Eastern Europe and in each of its former allies like Syria.


Given the tragedy that the Yalta system created in Eastern Europe and Central Asia it appears the west may need to be aware of any further rhetoric from Putin about dividing and zoning the world.