The Danger of NATO’s Power Play

The past two years has seen a significant rise in the tension between Russia and the West. Aggravated by Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, the tension surrounding Russia’s belligerent behaviour has caused an upsurge in sabre rattling from Central and Eastern Europe to the Nordic and Baltic Regions.

From predictions by former NATO deputy commander, British General Sir Alexander Richard Sherriff, that NATO will be at war with Russia by 2017, to the pronouncements by Swedish Armed Forces’ Maj. Gen. Anders Brännström that: “we could be at war within a few years”, security is paramount for the countries surrounding Russia.

To this end there has been a surge in defence spending throughout these regions. Lithuania, for example, has decided to increase defence spending by 32%. Sweden’s decision to also place an extra 1.2 billion dollars into the defence budget over the coming four years indicates that they are worried by the threat posed by Russia and determined to protect themselves.

NATO’s Power Play

Encouraging this spending is NATO, who is taking its role as European protector very seriously. Over the past year and a half NATO has been mobilising its members to engage with the Baltic and GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) countries in an ongoing strategy of reassurance.

After the collapse of the Minsk Agreement and the continuation of the Crimean conflict, many in these regions now fear that they will be next on the Kremlin’s agenda. Capitalising on this fear, NATO has spent the first half of 2016 demonstrating that it will not stand for more of Putin’s revisionist foreign policies, by engaging countries throughout Russia’s borderlands in military exercises and by integrating military operations.

2016 NATO Northern and Eastern European Manoeuvers

Cold Response	Norway	17-28 March
Brilliant Jump Alert 16	Albania, Poland, Spain and United Kingdom	1-4 April
Steadfast Alliance Ballistic Missile	Multiple European Locations	18-29 April
Flaming Sword	Latvia, Lithuania	1-20 May
Brilliant Jump Deploy 16	Poland	17-26 May
Sabre Strike	Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania	2-14 June
Baltops	Baltic Sea	June 3-26
Dynamic Mongoose	North Sea	26 June-4 July

Two years ago this would have been seen as an imposition by NATO’s member states, who preferred to leave Russia a buffer of former soviet states rather than risk further destabilisation of the region. It was understood that Russia saw its former soviet territories as an extension of itself and that it was Russia’s desire to maintain peace and security within its former empire.

This past arrangement is now over and NATO, with its recent declaration of a Russia Policy at the NATO Ministerial Conference, has made a significant change in the NATO-Russia playbook. The specific mention of countries like Georgia and the decision to provide an increase in the ‘boots on the ground’ along Russia’s north eastern flank, indicates that NATO is worried about the new powerful Russia.

The Risk of Russia’s Response

NATO’s games do not come without some jeopardy. The biggest risk is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reaction to NATO’s aggressive policies. So far the response to NATO’s behaviour has been restrained. There has been a series of vague warnings to Sweden and Finland on the cusp of their meetings with NATO and two minor military incidents. The first  in the Baltic with the Russian flyover of an American aircraft carrier and the second in  Syria where Russian jets entered into territory overseen by America.  Overall, Russia has taken the proverbial high road with Russian Foreign Ministry’s Spokesperson Maria Zakharova declaring in May that 

Russia "has tried to be consistent [in its reaction to NATO's posture] and present facts when it comes to NATO's expansion and Russophobic remarks with regard to Russia's imaginary threat."  

Domestically though it is a different story. Putin has overseen the restoration of a fractured and weak state and throughout this time he has pursued an aggressive foreign policy where Russia’s interests are concerned. From Russia’s involvement in the conflicts in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova to Putin’s recent foray into the Middle East, Russia is not afraid of conflict.

Fortress Russia

Over the past two years alone, Russia has increased and developed its defence capabilities. The Russian military has taken delivery of a swathe of new weapons which they have been field testing in the Syrian conflict.  They have also been restoring and developing the Barguzin (BZhRK) combat railway missile defence system, which is Russia’s answer to NATO’s ballistic missile shield. There is also the extension of the S-300 missile defence system to Iran and Kazakhstan. This expansion will provide protection to Russia’s oil and gas assets from missile attacks originating in the Persian Gulf.

The construction of Fortress Russia is hardly surprising. It is in line with Putin’s formal declaration that NATO is a security threat and his statement that “we are duty-bound to pay special attention to solving the task of strengthening the combat readiness of our country.” The real question now is will Russia respond to NATO’s brinksmanship?

Domestic Risks?

Domestically, Putin needs to be seen to respond. Despite his miraculous ability to remain in power, Putin has faced domestic backlashes. In 2011, when he was re-elected, his approval rating slumped to 69% and there were a number of protests against the state. However, after the annexation of the Crimea and a renewal of tension with the West, Putin’s approval rating has reached 83%, with Russians forgetting their economic troubles and unifying behind their President in a nationalistic pride.

To maintain this support Putin must develop a new hard-line foreign policy. Russia must meet NATO move for move in the European theatre. To this end the recent removal of 50 senior and mid-level commanders of the Baltic fleet after the failed to go toe to toe with NATO during its recent Baltic operations is surmised as one example of the application of this new tough foreign policy in the domestic Russian arena. The risk with this policy is that removing large portions of the military will create a backlash against Putin in upper echelons of the military and state

.

The Risk of Choosing NATO

For the states that border Russia, NATO’s posturing may be leading them down a perilous path. Firstly, by choosing to side with the west they run the risk of Russia seeing them as a threat and taking steps to neutralise that threat. Secondly, they may suffer an economic backlash or other destabilising tactics used by Russia. These governments risk their stability by joining with NATO.

Nevertheless many of these countries see this as a risk worth taking and are seeking European partnerships and ties. Countries deep in Russia’s backyard, such as Moldova, have requested at the NATO Summit in Warsaw this week to remove the Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria because the presence of Russian forces exacerbates the military tension between the two nations.

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.'"\