The question preoccupying Europe is whether Russia is on the brink of a surprise breakthrough on the Ukraine battlefield, allowing it to declare a victory on its own terms. The big issue, were this to materialize, is to ask what then?

The artillery battles across the Donbas have recently been going well for the Russian high command. A traditional attack plan has been prosecuted, involving tactics that Russia has favored for almost century. The original presumptions of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s leadership are now within its sights.

Having annexed Crimea and sustained the two breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk since the first round of this conflict in 2014, Moscow wants a contiguous strip of south-eastern Ukraine to say that it has secured the future of the Russian-speaking population in the area.

It has also overcome and vanquished the resistance of the neo-Nazi-tainted Azov Battalion after weeks of resistance to a Russian onslaught in Mariupol, the port city on the Black Sea. That means that the Kremlin’s “denazification” justification for the assault on Ukraine – it said the specter of Nazism had risen in the country – can also be defined as a success.

Any such victory declaration would be viewed from several angles.

The western countries that backed Kyiv would be forced to confront the fear that they had not in the end done enough for their ally to withstand the Russia tempest. Yet, for Russia having drawn the broadest aim for its offensive, the resulting gains look awfully puny on a map.

Faced with this, allies of Ukraine are stepping up the weapons shipments. The shoulder-fired missile systems that proved so effective when Russia’s army was advancing in columns and could be picked off are not the game changer they once were.

Ukrainian forces are only now getting access to mobile artillery. The French Caesar howitzer gun has turned up on the battlefield and offered a tantalizing glimpse of what bulk deliveries could do. The US has been trying to get M777-towed 155-millimetre howitzers to Ukraine’s frontline for a month.

The German government is being criticized for not enabling the next step, which is the delivery of main battle tanks. The Ukrainian military desperately needs these to meet the mass of forces that Russia is bringing to bear in a relatively small section of terrain.

Last week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called for the delivery of M270 multiple launch rocket systems, or MLRS, to Ukraine after receiving a downbeat assessment from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy regarding how long Kyiv’s forces can hold out in the eastern region.

The introduction of this system has escalatory potential. Reports that US officials opened talks with Kyiv over placing limits on the range of outgoing fire for any donations Washington might make underline this. The MLRS can target as far away as 300 kilometers but the US cannot allow its guns to be striking inside Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came out to warn that the “few sane” minds in the West should think twice.

Intelligence reporting indicates that Russia has lost 1,000 of the tanks it sent to Ukraine. Its new-generation tanks have proved to be sitting ducks.

So it has removed from mothballs the hundreds of T-72s left over from the erstwhile Soviet Union’s Red Army. Pictures of its heavy fire power are telling. Iron armour will now have to do the job that was not done by the smart or next-generation technology that Russia gambled on.

Days before the war was launched, a western think tank expert predicted to me that Russia would not rush to war because the modernization of its armed forces was incomplete. To do so now would be to “waste” the heavy expenditure since 2012 under the New Look reform programme, the expert said. He pointed out that Russia’s army could only say that its pace of change was well behind the target of renewing 70 per cent of its equipment inventory by 2020. It is believed to have been hovering near 50 per cent when the war began.

Western officials view any move by Russia to draw a line north of Crimea and along to Donetsk and Luhansk as unsustainable peace. Not only would Russia have an iron hand on the export of Ukraine’s all-important crops as a result. It is not clear that the boundaries it is currently targeting would guarantee the water supply to Crimea, a key Moscow objective.

Yet, this is the type of outcome Henry Kissinger, the realist diplomatic thinker and former US secretary of state, argued for last week in his controversial intervention in Davos. Mr. Kissinger argued about two things: that Ukraine cede territory to Russia for a peace agreement, and that a humiliating defeat for Russia would endanger Europe’s stability.

Currently serving European officials, instead, argue that a peace deal would be more likely to kick off a new eight-year cycle of rearmament by Moscow. The inevitable result would be a renewed effort thereafter to carve up Ukraine. In such an atmosphere, and with global food shortages, there can be no reliable turning point in the confrontation.

If Russia is able to achieve a short-term comeback, the outcome looks likely to merely open the next phase of a deeply destabilizing situation.

Damien McElroy
Damien is a foreign correspondent who has covered politics and conflict across Europe, the Middle East, the US, Africa and Asia. Before joining The National in 2017, he worked for The Sunday Times and Telegraph titles as an editor and roving reporter. He started his career in China and has a degree in finance.

Source: https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/2022/05/30/what-if-russia-succeeds-in-ukraines-donbas-region/

The post What if Russia succeeds in Ukraine’s Donbas region? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The Foreign Secretary will say the only way forward is for Russia to deescalate and pursue a diplomatic pathway

She will make clear that the Kremlin’s current strategy is damaging Russian standing and interests

The Foreign Secretary will also assert the right of Ukraine to self-determination and urge Russia to abide by the international agreements it has already signed up to

Liz Truss will fly to Moscow today to urge the Kremlin to de-escalate and desist its aggression against Ukraine.

The visit is the first by a UK Foreign Secretary in more than four years. During the two-day trip, the Foreign Secretary will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to make clear that the only way forward is for Russia to cease its aggression and engage in meaningful talks.

She will push for Russia to abide by the international agreements it has already signed up to – including the OSCE Helsinki Final Act, Minsk Protocols, and the Budapest memorandum, which ensures the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine is respected.

The UK is spearheading ongoing diplomatic and deterrence efforts – last week the Prime Minister visited Kyiv, and yesterday he hosted the Prime Minister of Lithuania, Ingrida Šimonytė, and spoke to Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte about the situation in Eastern Europe. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, and Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra about the situation on Ukraine’s border in recent days.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said:

The UK is determined to stand up for freedom and democracy in Ukraine. I’m visiting Moscow to urge Russia to pursue a diplomatic solution and make clear that another Russian invasion of a sovereign state would bring massive consequences for all involved.

Russia should be in no doubt about the strength of our response. We have said many times that any further invasion would incur severe costs, including through a coordinated package of sanctions.

Russia has a choice here. We strongly encourage them to engage, de-escalate and choose the path of diplomacy.

This visit follows the announcement last week of legislation for the UK’s strongest ever sanctions regime against Russia. The new approach gives the UK unprecedented power to sanction a much broader range of individuals and businesses linked to Russia’s strategic interests, leaving those closest to the Kremlin with nowhere to hide.

While in Moscow, the Foreign Secretary will also visit Moscow State University, where she will see first-hand how physics and math lessons are building a generation of future science leaders – a shared interest between Russia and the UK.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-flies-to-moscow-to-urge-de-escalation-of-russian-aggression-against-ukraine

The post Foreign Secretary flies to Moscow to urge de-escalation of Russian aggression against Ukraine first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

NATO announced Monday that it will send fighter jets and ships to eastern Europe as tension with the alliance and Russia hit a fever pitch due to the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Denmark will sail a frigate to the Baltic Sea and send four F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania. Spain is also sending ships to join NATO naval forces in the region and is considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria, the statement read. France said it is willing to send troops to Romania, and the Netherlands also said it will send two F-35 fighter aircraft to Bulgaria in April.

The moves come as tension in the region is increasing by the day.

The British Embassy in Ukraine said it will withdraw some staffers from Kyiv in response to the growing threat from Russia — just a day after U.S. officials told Fox News that the State Department ordered families of U.S. Embassy personnel in the city to begin evacuating.

A spokesman for Ukraine’s foreign ministry blasted the State Department’s decision as “premature” and an example of “excessive caution.”

Melinda Simmons, the British ambassador to Ukraine, posted on Twitter that its embassy remained open and “we will be continuing with our work alongside [Ukrainian flag] partners.”

STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES ‘DO NOT TRAVEL’ WARNING FOR UKRAINE AS EMBASSY STAFF IS TOLD TO LEAVE

NATO’s message came a short time after a lawmaker from Moscow warned the U.S. against positioning troops in eastern Europe.

“NATO will continue to take all necessary measures to protect and defend all Allies, including by reinforcing the eastern part of the Alliance. We will always respond to any deterioration of our security environment, including through strengthening our collective defence,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement.

Oana Lungescu@NATOpress
Allies are sending more ships & jets to enhance #NATO defensive deployments in eastern Europe. A strong sign of allied solidarity.

Offers include:
?? F-16 jets to Lithuania
?? troops to Romania
?? F-35 jets to Bulgaria
?? frigate heading to the Black Sea

Russian lawmaker Andrei Kartapolov told Interfax that the Kremlin would “respond appropriately” if the U.S. deploys troops in the region, according to Reuters.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday dodged a question about whether there was “any scenario” in which U.S. troops would be deployed to defend Ukraine, saying that U.S. and European allies are looking at “practical and important” responses to Russian aggression in the region.

The European Union aims to show a united front in the face of what it sees as Russian aggression.

“All members of the European Union are united. We are showing unprecedented unity about the situation in Ukraine, with the strong coordination with the U.S.,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told reporters in Brussels.

BLINKEN DODGES QUESTION ON SENDING U.S. TROOPS TO UKRAINE

Russia has insisted that it has no intention to invade its neighbor, but its recent actions could suggest otherwise. Russian troops have been deployed to the eastern border with Ukraine and tensions were not eased after talks Friday between Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Russia wants concrete assurances that NATO will not continue to expand, because Moscow sees that expansion as a security risk. NATO has said the demands are unacceptable and that joining the alliance is a right of any country and does not threaten Russia.

Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister, said Russia is preparing to hold war games off Ireland’s coast in international waters but also within the country’s exclusive economic zone.

“We don’t have a power to prevent this happening but certainly I’ve made it clear to the Russian ambassador in Ireland that it’s not welcome,” Coveney said, as he arrived for talks focused on Russia and Ukraine with his EU counterparts in Brussels on Monday.

Fox News’ Jessica Chasmar, Lucas Y. Tomlinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Edmund DeMarche is a senior news editor for FoxNews.com. Story tips can be sent to Eddie.DeMarche@fox.com and Twitter @EDeMarche.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-to-withdraw-some-staff-from-embassy-in-ukraine-due-to-threat-from-russia

The post NATO sending fighters, ships to region; UK to withdraw some staff from embassy in Ukraine first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

RIGA, Latvia — NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned Tuesday that the U.S.-led military organization must prepare for the worst as concern mounts that Russia could be preparing to invade Ukraine.

NATO is worried about a Russian buildup of heavy equipment and troops near Ukraine’s northern border, not far from Belarus. Ukraine says Moscow kept about 90,000 troops in the area following massive war games in western Russia earlier this year, and could easily mobilize them.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last week that his country’s intelligence service had uncovered plans for a Russia-backed coup d’état. Russia denied the allegation and rejected the assertion that it is planning to invade Ukraine.

“You can discuss whether the likelihood for an incursion is 20% or 80%, it doesn’t matter. We need to be prepared for the worst,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Riga, Latvia, after chairing talks among NATO foreign ministers focused on the threat posed by Russia.

“There is no certainty, no clarity about exactly what are the Russian intentions, and they may actually evolve and change,” the NATO chief continued. Referring to Russia’s seizure in 2014 of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, Stoltenberg added: “They’ve done it before.”

Asked about the decision to activate NATO’s crisis response planning system, which helps analyze potential crises and prepare a response to them, he said: “Allies agree that we need to have the plans in place to be sure that we are always able to protect all allies against any potential threat.”

The United States has shared intelligence with European allies warning of a possible invasion. European diplomats acknowledge the Russian troop movements, but some countries have played down the threat of any imminent invasion ordered by Moscow.

“We are very concerned about the movements we’ve seen along Ukraine’s border. We know that Russia often combines those efforts with internal efforts to destabilize a country. That’s part of the playbook, and we’re looking at it very closely,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said.

“Any renewed aggression would trigger serious consequences,” Blinken warned.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also said “Russia would have to pay a high price for any form of aggression.”

Maas said “honest and sustainable de-escalation steps, which can only go via the route of talks, are all the more important now.”

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 after Ukraine’s Moscow-friendly president was driven from power by mass protests. Weeks later, Russia threw its weight behind a separatist insurgency that broke out in Ukraine’s east.

Ukraine and the West have accused Russia of sending troops and weapons to back the rebels. Moscow denies that, saying that Russians who joined the separatists were volunteers. More than 14,000 people have died in more than seven years of fighting, which also has devastated Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland, known as Donbas.

A 2015 peace agreement brokered by France and Germany helped end large-scale battles, but efforts to reach a political settlement have failed and sporadic skirmishes have continued along the tense line of contact. Russia has refused recent overtures for talks with France and Germany.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it is NATO that threatens peace in the region.

“Significant units and military equipment of NATO countries, including the U.S. and Britain, are being deployed closer to our borders,” Lavrov said during a news conference in Moscow. He alleged that the West has long provoked Ukraine “into anti-Russian actions.”

Whatever Russia’s intentions, NATO would not be able to provide Ukraine with any substantial military support in time to make a difference against Russian forces, so economic measures like Western sanctions are more likely to be used to inflict a financial cost on Moscow.

Stoltenberg underlined that Ukraine is not part of the military organization and so cannot benefit from the collective security guarantee available to member countries.

Meanwhile, Belarusian Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin announced that Belarus will conduct joint military drills with Russia “to cover the southern borders,” a reference to the border area near Ukraine, according to Belarus state news agency Belta. It’s unclear when this would happen.

Cook reported from Brussels. Dasha Litvinova in Moscow, Geir Moulson in Berlin and Jill Lawless in London contributed.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-warns-russia-avoid-costly-mistake-ukraine-81463502

The post NATO chief says allies must prepare for the worst in Ukraine first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

After recognizing National Assembly head Juan Guaidó’s claim to the presidency on Wednesday, President Donald Trump and his administration have laid out measures intended to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to cede power, including new sanctions against the Socialist-led country’s state-run oil company, at a time the nation is already suffering from a debilitating financial crisis. Washington’s moves have been welcomed by allies, but condemned by rivals such as Moscow and Beijing. The latter said Tuesday that it was “committed to the principle of noninterference in other countries’ internal affairs.”

“We believe that Venezuela’s affairs must and can only be chosen and determined by its own people, and we oppose unilateral sanctions,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang told a press briefing. “History has taught us that external interference or sanctions, instead of helping solve problems, can only complicate matters.”

“Sanctions on Venezuela imposed by the relevant country will adversely impact local people’s well being and should be held accountable for all the ensuing serious consequences,” Geng added, noting that “China will continue to advance across-the-board cooperation with Venezuela to deliver more benefits to the people in both countries.”

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army and National Bolivarian Armed Forces of Venezuela personnel take part in the opening ceremony of the International Army Games in Guangshui, China, on July 30, 2017. The Venezuelan crisis has split the international community, with China and Russia among the major powers opposing U.S. intervention .AFP/GETTY IMAGES

That same day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the U.S. sanctions as “illegitimate” and “cynical,” pledging that his country “along with other responsible members of the global community will do everything to support the legal government of the president.” One day earlier, the Kremlin had denied sending new military assets to protect Maduro, but joined Iran in warning the U.S. against taking any actions in Venezuela, where millions have fled deteriorating economic conditions and alleged human rights abuses.

Russia considers Venezuela to be a close ally in the West and last month Moscow sent an air force delegation to conduct training over the waters of the Caribbean. The moves, which drew Cold War-era comparisons, as they accompanied the White House’s vows to dismiss a landmark nuclear missile treaty and warming ties between the Kremlin and Soviet ally Cuba, drew a negative response from Washington.

Beijing and Moscow have increasingly attempted to align their foreign policies in recent years in the face of what they see as Washington’s hegemony abroad. The U.S. has, for its part, accused its top two global competitors of undermining a “rules-based international order.” The U.S. has also sought to counter growing Chinese and Russia influence in Latin America, where Washington has for decades intervened against leftist and socialist movements, including an alleged CIA role in the 2002 coup attempt against Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez.

China and Russia were joined by leftist-led Latin American nations Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador and Nicaragua, as well as Dominica, Suriname, Saint Kitts, Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean sphere, and Belarus, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Laos, the Palestinian government, South Africa, Syria and Turkey abroad in supporting Maduro. Nearly every other Latin American state has sided with the U.S., as have Albania, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Haiti, Israel, Kosovo, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.

Others, such as Mexico and Uruguay, have remained neutral and offered to mediate between Maduro and Guaidó. India and the European Union have also called for calm and sought dialogue between the Venezuelan rivals as the feud grew increasingly precarious.

Venezuela’s National Assembly head Juan Guaidó and President Nicolás Maduro (from left). On January 23, Guaidó declared himself the country’s “acting president,” accusing Maduro’s ruling United Socialist Party of having rigged last year’s elections, which the opposition boycotted.YURI CORTEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

As White House national security adviser John Bolton announced the sweeping sanctions against Maduro’s government Monday, he held in his hand a notepad with what appeared to be the words “5,000 troops to Colombia” written on it. U.S. right-wing-led allies Brazil and Colombia surround Venezuela, which rallied troops as Bolton reiterated Trump’s promise that “all options were on the table” in response to dealing with Venezuela.

The U.S. has decided to recall some of its diplomatic staff in Venezuela, while keeping others there, despite Maduro’s call for them to be expelled, a decision that the State Department contended he no longer had the legal authority to make. Bolton warned of a “significant response” should any harm come to U.S. citizens, as Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino declared that armed forces supporting the government were “ready to die” to defend the country against “constant attacks from American imperialism.”

Guaidó told BBC News on Tuesday that his “duty is to call for free elections because there is an abuse of power and we live in a dictatorship.” Meanwhile, Maduro told Trump “hands off Venezuela” in an English-language message.

In response to Venezuelan Attorney General Tarek William Saab’s calls for Guaidó to be banned from exiting the country and for his funds to be frozen, Bolton also warned of “serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy and harm Guaido” in a tweet.

This article has been updated with a tweet from White House national security adviser John Bolton.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/china-back-venezuela-warns-consequences-1309716?piano_t=1

The post China joins Russia in backing Venezuela against U.S. moves, warns of ‘serious consequences’ to Donald Trump’s plan first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“I believe everyone will be wise enough to prevent that,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said about the prospects of war, according to state-run TASS. “However, we are certainly very much concerned about the total absence of any professional dialogue between the Russian military and NATO.”

Diplomatic contacts between the two sides slid after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine, while U.S.-Russian relations fell even further during a wave of tit-for-tat sanctions in the wake of the 2016 cyberattacks against the Democratic Party. That dynamic has unfolded as both sides undertake military drills in the region, and while the United States and Russia fight over compliance with arms control treaties.

“The Americans and we have made two fundamental statements since the Soviet era to the effect nobody can win a nuclear war and for that reason it cannot happen,” Lavrov added. “It might be a good idea to reaffirm this postulate in the current context.”

Russia and NATO forces have maintained “deconfliction” communication in Syria, where a complex civil war has brought both sides in close proximity. The most dramatic incident, when Turkish defenses shot down a Russian fighter that violated Turkish air space, sparked a tense period between those two countries but no broader clash.

The dialogue over larger issues that has occurred hasn’t gone well, both sides agree. “Attempts were made to use the NATO-Russia Council as another tool to blame all mortal sins on us, and another way of satisfying the whims of our Ukrainian neighbors who dream of sanctions being endlessly perpetuated and want nothing more than Russia to always be subject to intense criticism,” Lavrov said.

On the other hand, western officials accuse Russia of lying about their violations of a major Cold War-era arms control treaty.

“We have been trying to send a message to Russia for several years that we know they are violating the treaty,” Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison, the U.S. representative to NATO, said during an October 2 press briefing. “But if Russia continues to say they are not violating when the evidence is clear that they are, then diplomacy needs to be strengthened, and we need to look for other ways to bring Russia to the table on this issue.”

Lavrov plans to invoke treaty power that allows Russia to object to a forthcoming NATO-Ukraine military drill. “Ukraine wants to hold NATO drills in the Sea of Azov but it will be impossible to go there because our treaty with Ukraine requires mutual consent for the passage of warships into the Sea of Azov,” he said in the same interview.

Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/russia-nato-should-be-wise-enough-to-avoid-war

The post Russia: NATO should be ‘wise enough’ to avoid war first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

In an astounding series of statements, Russia has made it clear that it expects all foreign forces to withdraw from Syria. Alexander Lavrentiev, President Putin’s envoy to Syria, specified on May 18, 2018, that all “foreign forces” meant those forces belonging to Iran, Turkey, the United States, and Hizbullah.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov added this week that only Syrian troops should have a presence on the country’s southern border, close to Jordan and Israel. Previously, Russia had been a party to the establishment of a “de-escalation zone” in southwestern Syria along with the United States and Jordan. Now, Russian policy was becoming more ambitious.  Lavrov added that a pullback of all non-Syrian forces from the de-escalation zone had to be fast.

The regime in Tehran got the message and issued a sharp rebuke of its Russian ally. The Iranians did not see their deployment in Syria as temporary. Five years ago, a leading religious figure associated with the Revolutionary Guards declared that Syria was the 35th province of Iran. Besides such ideological statements, on a practical level, Syria hosts the logistical network for Iranian resupply of its most critical Middle Eastern proxy force, Hizbullah, which has acquired significance beyond the struggle for Lebanon.

Over the years, Hizbullah has become involved in military operations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and elsewhere. Without Syria, Iran’s ability to project power and influence in an assortment of Middle Eastern conflicts would be far more constrained. Syria has become pivotal for Tehran’s quest for a land corridor linking Iran’s western border to the Mediterranean. The fact that Iran was operating ten military bases in Syria made its presence appear to be anything but temporary.

Already in February 2018, the first public signs of discord between Russia and Iran became visible. At the Valdai Conference in Moscow, attended by both Lavrov and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (and by this author), the Russian Foreign Minister articulated his strong differences with the Iranians over their pronouncements regarding Israel: “We have stated many times that we won’t accept the statements that Israel, as a Zionist state, should be destroyed and wiped off the map. I believe this is an absolutely wrong way to advance one’s own interests.”

Iran was hardly a perfect partner for Russia. True, some Russian specialists argued that Moscow’s problems with Islamic militancy emanated from the jihadists of SunniIslam, but not from Shiite Islam, which had been dominant in Iran since the 16th century. But that was a superficial assessment. Iran was also backing Palestinian Sunni militants like Islamic Jihad and Hamas. This May, Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, told a pro-Hizbullah television channel that he had regular contacts with Tehran.

Iran Supports both Shiites and Sunnis

Iran was also supporting other Sunni organizations like the Taliban and the Haqqani network in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It harbored senior leaders from al-Qaeda. Indeed, when the founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, sought a regional sanctuary after the fall of Afghanistan to the United States, he did not flee to Pakistan, but instead, he moved to Iran. There is no reason why Iran could not provide critical backing for Russia’s adversaries in the future.

But, that was not the perception in Moscow when Russia gave its initial backing for the Iranian intervention in Syria. In the spring of 2015, Moscow noted that the security situation in Central Asia was deteriorating, as internal threats to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan were increasing. On top of all this, the Islamic State (IS) was making its debut in Afghanistan. An IS victory in Syria would have implications for the security of the Muslim-populated areas of Russia itself.¹

It was in this context that Russia dramatically increased arms shipments to its allies in Syria. It also coordinated with Iran the deployment of thousands of Shiite fighters from Iraq and Afghanistan under the command of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). That also meant the construction of an expanded military infrastructure on Syrian soil for this Shiite foreign legion.

At the same time, Russia maintained and upgraded a naval base at the Syrian city of Tartus and an air facility at the Khmeimim Air Base near Latakia. Moscow also had access to other Syrian facilities as well.

Russia Achieved Its Main Goal and Changed Its Policy

What changed in Moscow? It appears that the Kremlin began to understand that Iran handicapped Russia’s ability to realize its interests in the Middle East. The Russians had secured many achievements with their Syrian policy since 2015. They had constructed a considerable military presence that included air and sea ports under their control in Syria. They had demonstrated across the Middle East that they were not prepared to sell out their client, President Bashar Assad, no matter how repugnant his military policies had become – including the repeated use of chemical weapons against his own civilian population. The Russians successfully converted their political reliability into a diplomatic asset, which the Arabs contrasted with the Obama administration’s poor treatment of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt at the beginning of the Arab Spring in 2011. However, now Iran was putting Russia’s achievements at risk, through a policy of escalation with Israel.

The Russian security establishment appeared to understand from the start that Israel’s strategy in Syria was essentially defensive. For example, Israel wanted to prevent the delivery of weapons to Hizbullah that could alter the military balance in its favor. One feature of Russian military policy at a very early stage was the carte blanche Moscow appeared to give Israel to strike at these weapons deliveries and later at Iranian facilities across Syria.

According to one report, a Moscow think tank, closely identified with President Putin, published a commentary blaming Iran for the deteriorating situation between Iran and Israel in the Syrian theater. The Sunni Arab states, which Russia was courting, were also voicing their concerns with growing Iranian activism. Undoubtedly, the Russians noticed the complaints that came from Tajikistan this year that Iran was seeking to destabilize the country by funding militant Islamists.

Russian President Putin meets with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mohammed Khatami in 2015 (Kremlin)

Putin seemed to have growing reservations about Iran’s policy of exporting the Islamic revolution from the soil of Syria. Now, with IS fundamentally vanquished, Iranian military activity in Syria lost its primary justification. And if Moscow was considering to more closely coordinate its Middle Eastern policy with Washington in the future, it needed to adjust its approach to Iran.²

On May 22, 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed aspects of Iranian activism which the United States was now demanding that Iran halt. It was not surprising to see in Pompeo’s list the demand that “Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety [of] Syria.”

Russia is not cutting its ties with Iran. But it is clearly cutting back Iran’s freedom of action in Syria. The idea that Russia would back Iran’s use of Syria as a platform for operations against Israel or Jordan is not tenable. Still, Russia would remain the primary supplier of Bashar Assad’s army in Syria as well as his strategic partner. Unquestionably, Iran would need to reassess its Middle Eastern strategy after Moscow’s pronouncements calling for it to leave Syria and not continue to be perceived as the force that put at risk all that Russia had achieved as a result of the Syrian civil war.

Source: http://jcpa.org/russia-constrains-iran/

The post Russia Constrains Iran first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.