Russians leaving Chernobyl as fighting rages elsewhere AP - TSA 24. 12 )

 

Russians leaving Chernobyl as fighting rages elsewhere

By NEBI QENA and YURAS KARMANAU20 minutes ago

1 of 19

Ukrainian servicemen ride on an armored transporter driving through a Russian position overran by Ukrainian forces outside Kyiv, Ukraine, Thursday, March 31, 2022. Heavy fighting raged on the outskirts of Kyiv and other zones Thursday amid indications the Kremlin is using talk of de-escalation as cover while regrouping and resupplying its forces and redeploying them for a stepped-up offensive in eastern Ukraine.(AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russian troops handed control of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant back to the Ukrainians and began leaving the heavily contaminated site more than a month after taking it over, authorities said Thursday, as fighting raged on the outskirts of Kyiv and other fronts.

Ukraine’s state power company, Energoatom, said the pullout at Chernobyl came after soldiers received “significant doses” of radiation from digging trenches in the forest in the exclusion zone around the closed plant. But there was no independent confirmation of that.

The withdrawal took place amid growing indications the Kremlin is using talk of de-escalation in Ukraine as cover while regrouping, resupplying its forces and redeploying them for a stepped-up offensive in the eastern part of the country.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine is seeing “a buildup of Russian forces for new strikes on the Donbas, and we are preparing for that.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, a convoy of buses headed to Mariupol in another bid to evacuate people from the besieged port city after the Russian military agreed to a limited cease-fire in the area. And a new round of talks was scheduled for Friday, five weeks into the war that has left thousands dead and driven 4 million Ukrainians from the country.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said it had been informed by Ukraine that the Russian forces at the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster had transferred control of it in writing to the Ukrainians.

Ukraine reported that three convoys of Russian forces had left toward Belarus, while the remaining troops were apparently planning to leave too, the agency said.

Energoatom gave no details on the condition of the soldiers it said were exposed to radiation and did not say how many were affected. There was no immediate comment from the Kremlin, and the IAEA said it had not been able to confirm the reports of Russian troops receiving high doses. It said it was seeking more information.

Russian forces seized the Chernobyl site in the opening stages of the Feb. 24 invasion, raising fears that they would cause damage or disruption that could spread radiation. The workforce at the site oversees the safe storage of spent fuel rods and the concrete-entombed ruins of the reactor that exploded in 1986.

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said it “seems unlikely” a large number of troops would develop severe radiation illness, but it was impossible to know for sure without more details.

He said contaminated material was probably buried or covered with new topsoil during the cleanup of Chernobyl, and some soldiers may have been exposed to a “hot spot” of radiation while digging. Others may have assumed they were at risk too, he said.

Early this week, the Russians said they would significantly scale back military operations in areas around Kyiv and the northern city of Chernihiv to increase trust between the two sides and help negotiations along.

But in the Kyiv suburbs, regional governor Oleksandr Palviuk said on social media Thursday that Russian forces shelled Irpin and Makariv and that there were battles around Hostomel. Pavliuk said there were Ukrainian counterattacks and some Russian withdrawals around the suburb of Brovary to the east.

ADVERTISEMENT

Chernihiv came under attack as well. At least one person was killed and four were wounded in the Russian shelling of a humanitarian convoy of buses sent to Chernihiv to evacuate residents cut off from food, water and other supplies, said Ukrainian Human Rights Commissioner Lyudmyla Denisova

Ukraine also reported Russian artillery barrages in and around the northeastern city of Kharkiv.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said intelligence indicates Russia is not scaling back its military operations in Ukraine but is instead trying to regroup, resupply its forces and reinforce its offensive in the Donbas.

“Russia has repeatedly lied about its intentions,” Stoltenberg said. At the same time, he said, pressure is being kept up on Kyiv and other cities, and “we can expect additional offensive actions bringing even more suffering.”

The Donbas is the predominantly Russian-speaking industrial region where Moscow-backed separatists have been battling Ukrainian forces since 2014. In the past few days, the Kremlin, in a seeming shift in its war aims, said that its “main goal” now is gaining control of the Donbas, which consists of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, including Mariupol.

The top rebel leader in Donetsk, Denis Pushilin, issued an order to set up a rival city government for Mariupol, according to Russian state news agencies, in a sign of Russian intent to hold and administer the city.

The Red Cross, meanwhile, said its teams were headed for Mariupol with medical supplies and other relief and hoped to take civilians out of the beleaguered city, the site of some of the worst suffering of the war.

Tens of thousands have managed to get out of Mariupol in the past few weeks by way of humanitarian corridors, reducing its population from a prewar 430,000 to an estimated 100,000 as of last week, but other efforts to relieve the city have been thwarted by continued Russian attacks.

Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk said 45 buses would be sent to collect civilians from the encircled and bombarded city, where food, water, medicine and fuel were running low.

“It’s desperately important that this operation takes place,” the Red Cross said in a statement. “The lives of tens of thousands of people in Mariupol depend on it.”

With talks set to resume between Ukraine and Russia via video, there seemed little faith that the two sides would resolve the conflict any time soon.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that conditions weren’t yet “ripe” for a cease-fire and that he wasn’t ready for a meeting with Zelenskyy until negotiators do more work, Italian Premier Mario Draghi said after a telephone conversation with the Russian leader.

In other developments, Ukraine’s emergency services said the death toll had risen to 20 in a Russian missile strike Tuesday on a government administration building in the southern city of Mykolaiv.

As Western officials search for clues about what Russia’s next move might be, a top British intelligence official said demoralized Russian soldiers in Ukraine are refusing to carry out orders and sabotaging their equipment and had accidentally shot down their own aircraft.

In a speech in Australia, Jeremy Fleming, head of the GCHQ electronic spy agency, said Putin had apparently “massively misjudged” the invasion.

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Putin is being misinformed by his advisers about how badly the war is going because they are afraid to tell him the truth.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the U.S. is wrong and that “neither the State Department nor the Pentagon possesses the real information about what is happening in the Kremlin.”

___

Karmanau reported from Lviv, Ukraine. Associated Press journalists around the world contributed to this report.

President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump

 FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump

MARCH 31, 2022

•

STATEMENTS AND RELEASES

Americans face rising prices at the pump because of Putin’s Price Hike.  Since Putin accelerated his military build-up around Ukraine, gas prices have increased by nearly a dollar per gallon.  Because of Putin’s war of choice, less oil is getting to market, and the reduction in supply is raising prices at the pump for Americans.  President Biden is committed to doing everything in his power to help American families who are paying more out of pocket as a result.  That is why today, President Biden will announce a two-part plan to ease the pain that families are feeling by increasing the supply of oil starting immediately and achieving lasting American energy independence that reduces demand for oil and bolsters our clean energy economy. 

Immediately Increasing Supply

At the start of this year, gas was about $3.30 a gallon.  Today, it’s over $4.20, an increase of nearly $1.  And now, a significant amount of Russian oil is not making it to market.  The President banned the import of Russian oil – which Republicans and Democrats in Congress called for and supported.  It was the right thing to do.  But, as the President said, Russian oil coming off the global market would come with a cost, and Americans are seeing that at the pump.

The first part of the President’s plan is to immediately increase supply by doing everything we can to encourage domestic production now and through a historic release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to serve as a bridge to greater supply in the months ahead.

Increasing Domestic Production

The fact is that there is nothing standing in the way of domestic oil production. The United States is already approaching record levels of oil and natural gas production. There are oil companies that are doing the right thing and committing to ramp up production now.  Right now, domestic production is expected to increase by 1 million barrels per day this year and nearly 700,000 barrels per day next year.

Still, too many companies aren’t doing their part and are choosing to make extraordinary profits and without making additional investment to help with supply.  One CEO even acknowledged that, even if the price goes to $200 a barrel, they’re not going to step up production. 

Right now, the oil and gas industry is sitting on more than 12 million acres of non-producing Federal land with 9,000 unused but already-approved permits for production. Today, President Biden is calling on Congress to make companies pay fees on wells from their leases that they haven’t used in years and on acres of public lands that they are hoarding without producing. Companies that are producing from their leased acres and existing wells will not face higher fees. But companies that continue to sit on non-producing acres will have to choose whether to start producing or pay a fee for each idled well and unused acre.

Historic Release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a Bridge Through the Crisis

After consultation with allies and partners, the President will announce the largest release of oil reserves in history, putting one million additional barrels on the market per day on average – every day – for the next six months.  The scale of this release is unprecedented: the world has never had a release of oil reserves at this 1 million per day rate for this length of time. This record release will provide a historic amount of supply to serve as bridge until the end of the year when domestic production ramps up. 

The Department of Energy will use the revenue from the release to restock the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in future years. This will provide a signal of future demand and help encourage domestic production today, and will ensure the continued readiness of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to respond to future emergencies.  

President Biden is coordinating this action with allies and partners around the world, and other countries are expected to join in this action, bringing the total release to well over an average 1 million barrels per day.

Achieving Real American Energy Independence

The United States is the largest oil producer in the world and is a net energy exporter.  Despite that, the actions of a dictator half a world away can still impact American families’ pocketbooks. The President will announce his commitment to achieving real energy independence – which centers on reducing our dependence on oil altogether.

The President will call on Congress to pass his plan to speed the transition to clean energy that is made in America.  His plan will help ensure that America creates millions of good-paying union jobs in clean, cutting-edge industries for generations to come. And it will save American families money in theimmediate future – including more than $950 a year in gas savings from taking advantage of electric vehicles, and an additional $500 a year from using clean electricity like solar and heat pumps to power their homes.   

the President will issue a directive, authorizing the use of the Defense Production Act to secure American production of critical materials to bolster our clean energy economy by reducing our reliance on China and other countries for the minerals and materials that will power our clean energy future.  Specifically, the DPA will be authorized to support the production and processing of minerals and materials used for large capacity batteries–such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese—and the Department of Defense will implement this authority using strong environmental, labor, community, and tribal consultation standards. The sectors supported by these large capacity batteries—transportation and the power sector—account for more than half of our nation’s carbon emissions.  The President is also reviewing potential further uses of DPA – in addition to minerals and materials – to secure safer, cleaner, and more resilient energy for America.

This week alone, President Biden announced historic efforts to increase energy efficiency and lower costs for consumers.  The Department of Energy opened applications for more than $3 billion in new Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding—ten times the historical funding levels of the Weatherization Assistance Program—for energy efficiency and electrification upgrades in thousands of homes that will save families hundreds of dollars on utility bills.  The Administration also advanced smart standards that will lower consumer costs, including a roadmap of 100 actions this year that will save families $100 annually through more efficient home appliances and equipment, as well as new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to save drivers money at the pump.  And the Administration is seeking additional opportunities to ramp up the deployment of heat pumps to displace fuel burned in buildings, as well as programs to drive efficiency, electrification, and use of clean fuels in the industrial sector.

How Asian countries are reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

 How Asian countries are reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Ryan Hass, Patricia M. Kim, Tanvi Madan, Mireya Solís, and Andrew Yeo 

Monday, March 21, 2022

The repercussions of Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukrtaine continue to be felt in the region ans around the globe.

On March 8, experts from the Brookings oreign Policy program held a Twitter Spaces conversatiom o implications for Asia and how key Asian countries are reacting.

Mireya Solis, Director, Center for East Asia olicy Studies

Japan’s response to the crisis has been remarkable. Prime Minister [Fumio] Kishida condemned Russia’s war of aggression, really making a link and saying that these acts, using force to change borders, [are] a challenge to the international order and therefore that they’re important not just in the context of European security, but also Indo-Pacific security. So there’s nothing here of a mentality that “this is not our problem, this is happening in faraway lands”… And what I think is even more remarkable is that the Japanese public by and large agrees. There have been a number of polls done in recent days, one by Nikkei that showed that 61% of the Japanese public agreed with the sanctions imposed on Russia. And the more recent one by Yomiuri shows that 80% of respondents agree with taking this course of action because they feel that letting Russia grab land by force could encourage China to do the same in Asia. So Japan has been in lockstep with the G-7 in imposing punishing sanctions, for example, freezing assets of Russian banks, removing those banks from the SWIFT messaging system, restricting central bank transactions, freezing the assets of Putin and his close associates, imposing export controls to limit the access to advanced technology. But there are two other very rare measures here that Tokyo has adopted. One is that it has offered to bring back Ukrainian… refugees, which is something that Japan has not done frequently, and also to the decision to send non-lethal equipment… in addition to humanitarian assistance, which is something that Japan has traditionally done… Former Prime Minister [Shinzo] Abe’s policy towards Russia is basically dead… The idea that economic engagement could prevent a close Russia-China strategic partnership is now discredited… Because the timing of the crisis in Ukraine comes at a time when Japan itself is redrafting, revisiting its own national security strategy, its own defense planning documents… how… this is factored in into the new strategy will have longer term repercussions… In Japan, we’re not seeing the type of security revolution that you saw in Germany, but notable change is afoot.

TANVI MADAN (@tanvi_madan)

Director, The India Project

One thing we know from history about India’s conversations with first the Soviets and the Russians is… if India wanted to be very blunt about what Russian’s actions are doing to Indian interests… those conversations will take place in private, not in public. And we’ve seen this in historical readouts where India will very frankly say potentially, and this is me speculating, that “hey, you know, President Putin, if one more Indian national is killed in Russian shelling, think about what that’s going to do to Russia-India relations”… What is this going to do to Indian economic growth and particularly at a time India, like other countries, is facing concerns about inflation?… What is it going to do to India’s ability to use economic capabilities to enhance military capabilities to use in the Indo-Pacific?… India… is watching China very closely… They are varied views about whether President Xi would take this moment to take military actions elsewhere. In D.C., we often [ask] will China take the option to do something against Taiwan? Well, India’s actually worried that… there could be an escalation at the [China-India] border again… There’s also this concern about supplies from Russia for frontline equipment. It’s not just the question of how do you pay for them, but at this point, if the Russian defense companies… need to be devoted to Russian troops and Russian equipment, are they really going to be able to supply India?

ANDREW YEO (@AndrewIYeo)

Senior Fellow, Center for East Asia Policy Studies and SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korean Studies

North Korea launched another ballistic missile at the end of February. It’s their ninth test this year, and just this morning I was reading reports that… there is satellite images of activity taking place at a nuclear facility where it looks like they’re building some construction sites. Now, in terms of whether North Korea is doing this under the cover of the U.S. and the rest of the world being distracted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I tend to think that the North Koreans move to their own drumbeat. So it may not be a necessary time because of Ukraine, but it certainly is favorable for the North Koreans for them to be able to test ballistic missiles. They’re also doing some testing on a reconnaissance satellite, so they’re improving their satellite technology to potentially develop a new weapons system… So the danger of this is that while the rest of the world is focused, and rightly so, on Ukraine, North Korea could be moving along with its nuclear program, it could be perfecting its missile capabilities. But even though we’re getting reports of this, there isn’t a lot of political will from the U.S. or globally to try to tackle this issue right now. There’s a fire going on that needs to be put out in Europe, and this has broader implications for the Indo-Pacific.

RYAN HASS (@ryanl_hass)

Senior Fellow, Center for East Asia Policy Studies and John L. Thornton China Center

As tragic as the situation in Ukraine is and as heartbreaking and as maddening as it is, it does not foretell events, there is no inevitability to events in Taiwan, and I think it’s important for us to keep those distinctions in mind as we evaluate the seriousness of both of these cases. I think the point you also made about economic determinism is really important because the Chinese foreign policy thinkers for a long time have assumed that countries, particularly Western democratic countries, will be guided by their material interests and that as China becomes more central to global value chains and the global economy that it will become more cost prohibitive to challenge China on issues where China stakes out its interests. And what we’ve seen over the past two weeks is that there are at times principles and ideals that that that supersede material interests. And I think it should be helpful for the Chinese to sort of reevaluate some of their priors and their assumptions on how countries operate in the midst of crisis.

PATRICIA M. KIM (@patricia_m_kim)

David M. Rubenstein Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center and Center for East Asia Policy Studies

I don’t know if this is a situation that the United States can take to its advantage, but I think it’s certainly put a spotlight on the fact that we seem to be dangerously closer to a divided world where we have China and Russia on one half and the Western or the democratic side on the other half. And I think that kind of world, as history has shown us, is dangerous and prone to instability. And I think we would be much better off if China would be willing to support a world that’s less divided but more diverse, in which global civil society can at least agree to stand by fundamental principles like state sovereignty and territorial integrity. And so even though we’ve been disappointed by [China’s actions so far on Ukraine], I think it’s important for the United States and its allies to continue to message to Beijing at this juncture that China has more to gain by playing a constructive role going forward, even though it hasn’t up to this point, and to make good on its promise to be a force for peaceful negotiations in the crisis.

Brooking

Ukraine presents opportunity to test China’s strategic outlook

Ukraine presents opportunity to test China’s strategic outlook

Ryan Hass Tuesday, March 1, 2022

Decisions undertaken by Washington and Beijing in the coming months could have outsized influence over the trajectory of U.S.-China relations, and indeed the international system, for coming decades. At its core, the question confronting both countries is whether the U.S.-China relationship remains capable of being confined to an intense interests-driven competition. The more China clings to Russia following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s barbarism in Ukraine, the stronger that calls will grow in the United States and elsewhere to treat China and Russia as interchangeable enemies bent on imposing their violent might-makes-right vision for the world.

Ryan Hass, Fellow, Foreign Policy, John L. Thornton China Center, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution

Ryan Hass

Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center The Michael H. Armacost Chair Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies Nonresident Fellow, Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School

ryanl_hass

To some, the outcome of this question already is foregone. As this thinking goes, President Xi Jinping made China’s choice when he jointly issued a communique for reordering the international order with Putin on February 4 in Beijing at the outset of the Olympics. Both leaders pronounced that the China-Russia relationship knows “no boundaries.” Many American analysts assume Putin used the meeting to secure Xi’s support for his plans in Ukraine. China therefore must be viewed as having blood on its hands for enabling Putin’s efforts to alter the international order from the muzzle of a gun. Both China and Russia must be treated as common enemies in an ideological contest between democracy and authoritarianism.

There is coherence to this line of thinking and Beijing may validate such analysis through their own actions and choices over time. It would, however, be premature to automatically default to such a conclusion. Blind acceptance of the impotence of the U.S. or its partners to influence how China identifies and pursues its interests would represent a failure of imagination and an abandonment of diplomacy. Successful statecraft entails opening as many pathways for dealing with problems as possible, rather than preemptively closing them.

TIME FOR DIPLOMACY

In response to unfolding events, there have been calls in Washington policy circles to highlight the closeness of the China-Russia partnership to make Beijing pay a reputational price for its support for Moscow. This is the diplomatic equivalent of arm-waving at an impending train wreck.

This approach is built upon two questionable assumptions. The first is that China could be shamed into splitting with Russia. If shame was a driving factor in Beijing’s strategic calculus, China would be responsive to criticism over its gross human rights violations in Xinjiang and would adjust its actions in the South China Sea to adhere to international law. In both cases, Xi doubled down. The second assumption is that nothing can be done to alter Beijing’s thinking on Russia and the objective should therefore be to make China pay as high of a reputational price as possible.

Rather than succumbing to such fatalism, now is the time for America’s most able diplomats to test whether Beijing’s approach to Russia is permanently set in stone. It is a time to probe whether Beijing believes its interests would be advanced by driving the world into rival blocs, where China is aligned with Russia while the United States deepens its partnerships with the rest of the developed world. Now is the time to explore with Chinese counterparts whether they see their ability to achieve their ambitions enhanced by an antagonistic and ideologically fueled rivalry with the United States, and if not, whether other paths are imaginable that would afford China greater opportunities to pursue its national goals. It is a time to press Chinese leaders to clarify whether they have made a permanent and unalterable decision to align with Russia in opposition to the West.

Such discussions would best be explored quietly and dispassionately. Chinese officials are not going to offer American or other country’s diplomats any satisfaction by saying that President Xi made an error in signing a joint statement with President Putin on February 4 and that China will take corrective actions to make amends. Beijing will not announce any split with Moscow. They will not publicly criticize Russia’s invasion or cast Putin as the sole author of the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine. Chinese official media likely will continue to produce anti-American and anti-West vitriol.

Related Books

Mr. Putin

By Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy  2015

Stronger cover

Stronger: Adapting America’s China Strategy in an Age of Competitive Interdependence

By Ryan Hass  2021

The Eagle and the Trident

By Steven Pifer  2017

An objective of drawing the Chinese into a discussion about their future strategic orientation would be to push Beijing to take concrete actions to establish some daylight between Russia’s aggression and China’s interests. Beijing needs to confront the reality that they face a shrinking window to demonstrate China continues to be guided by its own interests and does not view itself as Moscow’s proxy under all circumstances.

China’s alignment with Russia will be tested many times in the coming weeks. There will be scrutiny over China’s posture on a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning Russia that will pass overwhelmingly, over whether China shields Russia from future U.N. investigations into atrocities in Ukraine, over whether China recognizes breakaway republics in Ukraine, over Beijing’s posture on recognizing a puppet regime that Putin seems to want to implant in Kyiv, and over whether China backfills and softens the impact of global sanctions on Russia. There will be examination over whether China makes meaningful efforts to promote offramps to escalation in Ukraine as well.

The rub is that China may be reluctant to arrive at independent decisions on these issues on its own, given the recency of Xi’s embrace of Putin in Beijing. This is where there might be a role for subtle, quiet diplomacy.

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Bill Burns, would be an ideal candidate to lead such efforts for the United States. Given both his depth of knowledge on Russia and the high esteem in which he is held in Beijing, his views would be taken seriously by Chinese interlocutors. Delaware Senator Chris Coons also could play a unique role in probing China’s strategic thinking, given his close relationship with President Joe Biden and his foreign policy expertise. Senator Coons conceivably could draw National People’s Congress Chair Li Zhanshu to serve as his legislative counterpart. Li is among a small handful of people in China who are authentically close to Xi Jinping. Li also is familiar with the China-Russia relationship, given his previous experience serving as Xi’s special envoy to Moscow. State Department Policy Planning Director Salman Ahmed and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Dan Kritenbrink also would be able to test Chinese thinking without attracting intense media scrutiny. Incoming U.S. Ambassador to China Nick Burns also would contribute meaningfully to any such efforts. After discussions have ripened, it would also be important for President Biden to speak directly with Xi to take his measure of China’s future direction.

-------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Biden joins the Putin and Xi miscalculation club

I was worried the U.S. president would follow the folly of his Russian and Chinese counterparts, and he has

• 

  U.S. President Joe Biden speaks in Warsaw on March 26 where he inadvertently said Russian President Vladimir Putin could not "remain in power," a statement the White House has since tried to walk back. | AGENCJA WYBORCZA.PL / VIA REUTERS

• BY KUNI MIYAKE

• CONTRIBUTING WRITER

• SHARE
• Mar 31, 2022

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Russian President Vladimir Putin made a serious misjudgment in his decision to go to war against Ukraine on Feb. 24. Three weeks earlier, Chinese leader Xi Jinping had miscalculated Putin’s odds of success in Ukraine by declaring that the China-Russia friendship “has no limits” and no “forbidden” areas of cooperation.

According to my yet unproven theory of “the era of intuition, coincidence and misjudgment,” I was afraid that U.S. President Joe Biden might eventually follow his Russian and Chinese counterparts.

And, unfortunately, the U.S. president joined the international club of miscalculations on March 26 in Poland when he went off script at the end of a well-prepared speech on Ukraine and democracy, speaking these nine words concerning the Russian leader: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

Although many in the international community — and probably Putin himself — were surprised by the remarks, I was not.

I, for one, couldn’t help but be deeply concerned about a possible ramification of Biden’s remarks.

Of course, those nine words were not originally in the prepared text. If Putin’s misjudgment was a strategic mistake and Xi’s miscalculation only tactical, Biden’s remarks may reflect the president’s “moral outrage” at best, but at worst it was a major gaffe, though not fatal.

The democracy speech, which many of his staff had worked so hard to draft, was marred by the ad-lib he added at the end. The White House was quick to walk back the statement by saying that Biden was not discussing regime change in Russia. Some in Japan commented that it was “interference in domestic affairs and disrespectful.”

The statement, however, was neither a matter of rudeness nor will it have a potential negative impact on the ongoing cease-fire negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

Rather, the issue is whether Biden has crossed the Rubicon and openly picked a fight with Putin that will play out in the years to come. What’s the most worrisome is a potential priority shift in the U.S. national security policy.

Did Biden mean that he would not rule out the possibility of the United States being militarily involved in future NATO-Russia disputes?

Biden’s slip of the tongue came at the worst time. It was only two days before the Department of Defense submitted the classified 2022 National Defense Strategy to Congress. That said, the U.S. defense priorities set out in the NDS by the Pentagon somehow dispelled my concern.

Although the unclassified version of the NDS has also not been made available, the Pentagon’s March 28 press release clarified the top U.S. defense policy priorities.

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. defense priorities are: first, defending the homeland, paced to the growing multidomain threat posed by the People’s Republic of China; second, deterring strategic attacks against the United States, allies and partners; and third, deterring aggression, while being prepared to prevail in a conflict when necessary, prioritizing the PRC challenge in the Indo-Pacific and then being able to deal with the Russia challenge in Europe.

It also said that the Pentagon will continue to step up deterrence capabilities with China in mind as the “most consequential strategic competitor,” work with NATO allies and partners to deter further Russian aggression and manage “persistent threats” posed by North Korea, Iran and extremist organizations.

These are all fine, but the ultimate question is who at the end of the day makes the security policies in the United States. The answer is simple: It is the president and his team, not the bureaucrats, who determine U.S. national security policies and courses of action.

This is exactly why Biden’s “inadvertent” ad-lib was so concerning — and it is not because it could undermine the on-going cease-fire negotiations nor because his statement was diplomatically inappropriate. It is because what Biden said might reflect his real intention to now confront Russia and China simultaneously.

As I wrote two weeks ago, this could be a golden opportunity for China to repeat the diplomatic victory of 2001 and improve bilateral relations with the United States. “From Beijing’s perspective,” I wrote, “if Russia manages to survive the crisis in Ukraine, it would keep the United States bogged down in Europe for years.”

The war in Ukraine could shape up to become a historical inflection point not only for Europe but also for the Indo-Pacific where Beijing may soon find the breathing space for achieving its national ambitions.

It does not matter whether Biden’s remarks were intentional or a slip of the tongue, the latter of which he has long been notorious for.

Despite the clear writings in the 2022 NDS document, it is the president, a mere human being, who happens to make the final decisions on U.S. foreign policy.

Kuni Miyake is president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at Canon Institute for Global Studies. A former career diplomat, Miyake also serves as a special adviser to Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s Cabinet. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Japanese government.

The intel finding indicates that there is now persistent tension between Putin and senior Russian military officials.

 Putin's Advisers Misled Him On Ukraine, US Intel Determines

The intel finding indicates that there is now persistent tension between Putin and senior Russian military officials.

Aamer Madhani and Nomaan Merchant

AP logo

Mar. 30, 2022, 03:22 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. intelligence officials have determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin is being misinformed by his advisers about his nation’s forces’ poor performance in Ukraine.

A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss recently declassified intelligence, said Wednesday the intel finding indicates that Putin is aware of the situation on information coming to him and there is now persistent tension between him and senior Russian military officials. Biden, in an exchange with reporters, said he could not comment.

The administration is hopeful that divulging the finding could help prod Putin to reconsider his options in Ukraine. The war has ground to a bloody stalemate in much of the country, with heavy casualties and Russian troop morale sinking as Ukrainian forces and volunteers put up an unexpectedly stout defense.

But the publicity could also risk further isolating Putin, who U.S. officials have said seems at least in part driven by a desire to win back Russian prestige lost by the fall of the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, Biden told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a 55 minute call that an additional $500 million in direct aid for Ukraine was on its way. It’s the latest burst in American assistance as the Russian invasion grinds on.

Asked about the latest intelligence, Secretary of State Antony Blinken did not confirm the findings, but suggested that a dynamic within the Kremlin exists where advisers are unwilling to speak to Putin with candor.

“One of the Achilles’ heels of autocracies is that you don’t have people in those systems that speak truth to power or have the ability to speak truth to power, and I think that’s what we’re seeing in Russia,” Blinken told reporters during a stop in Algeria on Wednesday.

The unidentified official did not detail underlying evidence for how U.S. intelligence made its determination.

The intelligence community has concluded that Putin was unaware that his military had been using and losing conscripts in Ukraine. They also have determined he is not fully aware of the extent to which the Russian economy is being damaged by economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and allies.

The findings demonstrate a “clear breakdown in the flow of accurate information” to Putin, and show that Putin’s senior advisers are “afraid to tell him the truth,” the official said.

Biden notified Zelenskyy about the latest tranche of assistance during a call in which the leaders also reviewed security aid already delivered to Ukraine and the effects that weaponry has had on the war, according to the White House.

Zelesnkyy has pressed the Biden administration and other Western allies to provide Ukraine with military jets, something that the U.S. and other NATO countries have thus far been unwilling to accommodate out of concern it could lead to Russia broadening the war beyond Ukraine’s borders.

Prior to Wednesday’s announcement of $500 million in aid, the Biden administration had sent Ukraine about $2 billion in humanitarian and security assistance since the start of the war last month.

That’s all part of the $13.6 billion that Congress approved earlier this month for Ukraine as part of a broader spending bill.

Ukraine’s presidential website says Zelenskyy told Biden: “We need peace, and it will be achieved only when we have a strong position on the battlefield. Our morale is firm, there is enough determination, but we need your immediate support.”

The new intelligence came after the White House on Tuesday expressed skepticism about Russia’s public announcement that it would dial back operations near Kyiv in an effort to increase trust in ongoing talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials in Turkey.

Russian forces pounded areas around Ukraine’s capital and another city overnight, regional leaders said Wednesday.

The Pentagon said Wednesday that over the past 24 hours it had seen some Russian troops in the areas around Kyiv moving north toward or into Belarus.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said in interviews with CNN and Fox Business that the U.S. does not view this as a withdrawal but as an attempt by Russia to resupply, refit and then reposition the troops.

Putin has long been seen outside Russia as insular and surrounded by officials who don’t always tell him the truth. U.S. officials have said publicly they believe that limited flow of information –- possibly exacerbated by Putin’s heightened isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic -– may have given the Russian president unrealistic views of how quickly he could overrun Ukraine.

The Biden administration before the war launched an unprecedented effort to publicize what it believed were Putin’s invasion plans, drawing on intelligence findings. While Russia still invaded, the White House was widely credited with drawing attention to Ukraine and pushing initially reluctant allies to back tough sanctions that have hammered the Russian economy.

But underscoring the limits of intelligence, the U.S. also underestimated Ukraine’s will to fight before the invasion, said Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in recent testimony before Congress.

—

AP writers Matthew Lee in Algiers, Algeria, and Lolita C. Baldor contributed reporting.

 

Hediye Levent'in, "Çölde 5'li zirve" başlıklı, 31 mart 2022 tarihli yazısı

 Hediye  Levent'in, "Çölde 5'li zirve" başlıklı, 31 mart 2022 tarihli  yazısı

Muhammed bin Zayid (solda), Abdulfettah es-Sisi (ortada) ve Naftali Bennett (sağda) | Fotoğraf: AA

İsrail Dışişleri Bakanı Yair Lapid şöyle dedi; “Tarihi yazmıyoruz, inşa ediyoruz.”

Lapid, Birleşik Arap Emirlikleri (BAE), Mısır, Fas, Bahreyn ve ABD dışişleri bakanlarının bir araya geldiği ve basında 5’li zirve olarak adlandırılan toplantıyı “tarihi bir diplomatik zirve” olarak nitelendirdi.

Tarihi zirve Tevrat’tan İncil’e kutsal kitaplarda adı geçen ve bölgenin kimliğini şekillendiren birçok dönüm noktasına sahne olan Negev Çölü’nde yapıldı.

İsrail Devletinin Kurucusu ve İlk Başbakanı Ben Gurion’un mezarı da Negev’de. Zaten Arap ülkelerinin İsrail ile bir araya gelmesini kınayanlar buna da atıf yaptılar sık sık. Epeyce insan Filistinli gruplara yakın sosyal medya hesaplarında ve basında zirvenin baştan sonra sembollerle örülü olduğunu savunuyor.

Gerçi neredeyse her santiminin en az bir hikayesi, her saniyesinin birkaç önemi olan bir coğrafyada her girişim, zamanlama, yer elbette manidar olur!

Ancak bu durum 5’li zirvenin birçok açıdan tarihi olduğu gerçeğini zayıflatmaz.

Sırayla zirveyi tarihi yapan faktörlere bakalım;

-Zirvenin yeri yani Negev Çölü’ndeki Sde Boker’de yapılmış olması.

Negev Çölü’nün bir tarafı Mısır ile sınır, diğer tarafı Ürdün ile. Oldukça geniş bir alana yayılan çölün çok küçük bir kısmında yerleşim var. Ancak tarihi olarak Arap Bedevilerin toprağı olarak bilinen Negev, İsrailli yerleşimcilerin ilk öncülerinin yerleştiği yerlerden biri. Çölde tarım yapılabilmesi ve bu bölgede şehirleşmenin teşviki için yüzlerce kilometreden oluşan beton boru ağları ile bir şebeke kurulmuş. Ayrıca Ben Gurion’un Negev’de mutlaka yerleşimin artırılması gerektiğine vurgu yaptığına dair sözleri de var. Ben Gurion’un kendisi de yaklaşık 2 yıl çöldeki kibbutzlarda (bir çeşit kooperatif) çalışmış ve buraya gömülmesini vasiyet etmiş. 1948 Arap-İsrail savaşına da sahne olan çöllük bölgede bugün Yahudi nüfusu Arap nüfusun iki katından fazla. Yahudi yerleşimciler ise bölgede kurulmuş olan üniversite ile iş birliği halinde çölde şaraplık üzüm, sebze, kozmetik sektörünün temel maddelerinden jojoba yağı hatta hastalıklardan arındırılmış ve güçlendirilmiş balık yavruları yetiştirip bütün dünyaya satıyor. Sanırım çölde yetiştirdikleri en çarpıcı şey medikal dolgu olarak kullanılan deniz yıldızları…

On yıllar içinde İsrail yönetimleri defalarca değişse de Negev’e yerleşim birimleri inşa edilmesi, tarım alanları oluşturulması ve insanların çölde yaşamaya teşvik edilmesi için yürütülen projelerden hiç geri adım atılmadı.

Negev Çölü Rusya-Ukrayna savaşında da gündeme geldi. İsrailli bir bakan “Şu anda zaten emlak krizi var. Ukrayna’dan, Rusya’dan, Eski Sovyet ülkelerinden gelecek on binlerce göçmen için hazırlıklı olmalıyız” dedi.

Ki, Negev de geçtiğimiz on yıllar içinde İsrailli yetkililerin “Yol su elektrik, hastane, okul getireceğiz. Karşılığında yüz yıllardır yaşadığınız toprakları elinizden almamıza niye bu kadar tepki gösteriyorsunuz?” mealinde girişimlerine ve çatışmalara sahne olmuş bir yer.

Bu arada tırnak içinde aktardığım ifadeler gerçekten söylendi. Negev’deki bir çatışmaya ilişkin Arap kanallarından birine bağlanan bir İsrailli yetkili söylemişti!

Bu bakana göre, 7 ila 10 yerleşim birimi henüz ufukta görünmeyen, görünse de kalıcı olup olmadıkları tamamen belirsiz göçmenlere barınak olabilir. Ayrıca bakan, göçmenlerin çöle yerleşmesi halinde bölgenin ekonomisinin canlanacağını, nüfusun yoğun olduğu yerlerde yaşayanları da çöle yerleşmek konusunda teşvik edeceğini düşünüyor.

Bu arada Negev’de de az sayıdaki Filistinlinin inşaat, ev yapımı, tarım arazileri için gereksinimlerinin karşılanması gibi talepleri ya ağır bürokrasinin altında eziliyor ya da reddediliyor.

-Zamanlaması; Filistin meselesinde epeydir ibre Filistinlilerin aleyhine dönmüş durumda. BAE’nin başını çektiği İsrail ile normalleşme süreçlerine bölgenin birçok ülkesinin katılması durumu daha da kötüleştirdi. Biden döneminde bu durumun bir nebze de olsa dengelenebileceğini uman geniş bir kesim var(dı). Bütün dünyanın Ukrayna üzerinden Rusya’ya kilitlendiği bir dönemde Rusya’nın Filistin-İsrail meselesine dair süreçlere güçlü bir aktör olarak girmesi ihtimali zayıf görünüyor. ABD-İran arasında devam eden nükleer anlaşmaya dair müzakerelerin İran’a yönelik yaptırımları kısmen de olsa kaldırılması gibi rahatlatıcı sonuçlar vermesi umuluyordu. Ancak bu konuda da BAE, Suudi Arabistan, Bahreyn, İsrail dahil bölgeden epeyce ülke ABD’ye “anlaşma yapma” diye baskı yapıyor.

Zirvenin zamanlamasını manidar kılan epeyce sebep var ancak genel hatlarıyla aktardığım kısmı bile durumun Filistinliler açısından vahametini göstermeye yetiyor.

Bu arada, ABD Dışişleri Bakanı Blinken zirveden hemen önce Filistin Yönetimi Başkanı Mahmud Abbas ile Ramallah’ta görüştü. Görüşmeden ne Doğu Kudüs’teki ABD konsolosluğunun açılacağına dair sinyal çıktı ne de İsrail’in demografiyi altüst eden yerleşim birimleri inşasını durdurması için baskı yapılacağı vaadi.

Mahmud Abbas Blinken’a “Ukrayna savaşı Batı’nın çifte standardını gösterdi” dedi. Blinken da barışı ve iki devletli çözümü desteklediklerini söyledi.

Blinken’dan hemen sonra Ramallah’ın bir başka önemli ziyaretçisi Ürdün Kralı II. Abdullah oldu. Negev Zirvesi’ne katılmayı reddedip aynı tarihte Ramallah’a giden Kral Abdullah, “Buraya Filistinlilerin taleplerini dinlemek için geldik” dedi. Ziyaretin kendisi kadar bu ifadelerin de oldukça çarpıcı olduğu söylenebilir.

-Katılımcılar: Negev Zirvesi’ne katılan BAE, Bahreyn, Mısır, Fas, ABD ve İsrail dışişleri bakanlarının görüşmelerine iki önemli mesele damgasını vurdu;

1-Ortak tehdit İran ve İran’ın bölgedeki uzantıları (özellikle Filistin direniş örgütleri)

2-Arap ülkeleri Filistin meselesini elbette unutmadı ve Doğu Kudüs’ün Filistin’in başkenti olduğu iki devletli çözümde ısrar ediyor.

Bu arada toplantıda Filistinli, Filistin’i temsilen bir taraf yoktu. Zaten toplantıyı protesto eden gruplardan birinin açtığı “Eksik birileri var, farkında mısın?” yazılı döviz durumu özetliyordu.

Peki bu toplantıya Ürdün niye katılmadı?

Çünkü Filistin meselesinde BAE ve Mısır dahil bölge ülkelerinin öne çıkması Ürdün’ü önemli kılan neredeyse en önemli meselenin elinden alınması demek.

Bölgede sadece son 10 günde gerçekleşen tek çarpıcı zirve bu değildi elbette ancak İsrail Dışişleri Bakanı Lapid’in dediği gibi tarihi olduğu kesin.

Hediye  Levent

Evrensel

 

What Russia’s War in Ukraine Means for Europe

 What Russia’s War in Ukraine Means for Europe

ROSA BALFOUR

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks a turning point for the EU. When boosting its capabilities and resilience, Europe must not neglect engagement with the wider world.

March 08, 2022

PRINT PAGE

On February 24, 2022, Europe’s wake-up call finally came. None of the past events that warranted this appellation—the wars in former Yugoslavia, 9/11, the Arab Spring, wars in Syria and Libya, the annexation of Crimea—provoked the remarkable historical shift that took place since Putin chose the path of a full-blown invasion of Ukraine.

In the escalation of the crisis, Europeans had been preparing for the announced “massive” sanctions package, which enabled the EU to respond with unexpected speed. Washington’s very public strategy of announcing the Kremlin’s plans for aggression could not be dismissed. For weeks, the United States has been declassifying non-disputable intelligence about the military buildup. Antony Blinken’s speech at the United Nations on February 17 was precisely worded to acknowledge past military action falsely justified by the United States. Sharing intelligence was part of a wider engagement with Europeans to urge them to take the threat of the military buildup very seriously.

Yet among European leaders, incredulity still dominated until they woke up on February 24. Had the Kremlin chosen to continue subverting Ukraine through hybrid, cyber, and military interventions in the Donbas region, Europe would not have considered such a historical turnaround of its deeply entrenched views of Russia.

Overnight, Putin squandered the extensive influence he had in Europe. How to deal with Russia had been the single most divisive issue for the EU at least since it enlarged to Central Europe and the Baltics in 2004. Strategic convergence around a shared risk assessment has been the most elusive aspiration of those pushing for a stronger EU in global politics. The invasion of Ukraine has finally put the member states on the same page.

The strategic shift will last beyond the pressing emergency of the war against Ukraine. It helped bridge a wide gap in trust between Central and Western Europe that has plagued any discussions about the EU’s role in security.

Germany’s three-party coalition government made a remarkable U-turn by announcing increased defense spending and ending energy dependence on Russia. In one go, each party dropped long-held ideological positions: the Social Democratic Party its historic Ostpolitik, the Greens their opposition to defense spending, and the liberal Free Democratic Party its opposition to public debt.

The list goes on. French President Emmanuel Macron is now even more likely to win the April presidential election while three of the other candidates are scrambling to justify their hitherto pro-Putin positions. The countries that had opposed opening the EU to refugees from Syria and Afghanistan are among those on the frontline welcoming refugees from Ukraine. Finland and Sweden may join NATO. Poland is mending fences with Brussels. The UK is cooperating with the EU.

In the EU, these strategic shifts are already being translated into policy, giving a new momentum to long-stalled good intentions in security and defense, with a revised Strategic Compass to be approved later in March, a few months ahead of NATO’s new Strategic Concept in June.

Efforts aimed at energy diversification are striding ahead after years of ignoring the problem of Russian dependence. The EU’s economic statecraft is being significantly sharpened. It may be possible to find some new understanding on migration policy after years of paralysis. Policies toward Eastern Europe will inevitably be beefed up after a long stagnation. And the demand from Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for a membership perspective will trigger a new discussion on the dwindling process of EU enlargement.

The EU crossed many necessary thresholds over the past ten days in standing united and building its resilience and capacity to respond, but it should not lose sight of the bigger picture. The end game is not yet in sight and the tenure of Europeans will be hard as they begin to feel the repercussions of the sanctions. The energy transition will have winners and losers. As in 2015–16, refugees may become scapegoats for populist politics. European leaders need to prepare citizens for a long war.

As escalation mounts and if the Kremlin does not retreat under the weight of sanctions, a path toward ending the war and avoiding a nuclear confrontation needs to be plotted. What that path may look like we do not know, but it needs to include communication aimed at Russian society and avoid its demonization.

As Europe is sucked into its worst crisis since the Second World War, the world is watching its response. Thirty-five states abstained from voting on the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia. This is not just because of a history of close relations with Russia and previously the Soviet Union, nor because some countries, such as Mali, have Russian mercenary groups controlling its security.

The world is also seeing how Europe treats the refugees fleeing Ukraine, including the racism that many Africans and Asians experienced at the border. It will be concerned that the humanitarian efforts in Ukraine and Eastern Europe may be to the detriment of commitments elsewhere. It will ask questions about Europe’s solidarity in crises geographically further afield.

When Europe asks the world for solidarity, the world wonders about European solidarity in many other recent conflicts. In offering Kenya’s support for Ukraine at the UN, its ambassador offered the most scathing critique of Europe’s double standards by drawing parallels between Putin’s move to redraw borders and the colonial drawing of borders in Africa.

The EU’s geopolitical awakening must not lead to a more introverted gaze, focusing on European capabilities and resilience, at the expense of engagement with the wider world.

Rosa Balfour

Rosa Balfour is director of Carnegie Europe. Her fields of expertise include European politics, institutions, and foreign and security policy.

@ROSABALFOUR

Carnegie Europe

U.S.-EU Joint Press Release by the EEAS and Department of State on the First U.S.-EU High-Level Dialogue on Russia 03/30/2022 07:41 PM EDT

 U.S.-EU Joint Press Release by the EEAS and Department of State on the First U.S.-EU High-Level Dialogue on Russia

03/30/2022 07:41 PM EDT

Office of the Spokesperson

The following is the text of a joint press release by the U.S. Department of State and the European External Action Service.

Begin text:

The European Union and the United States held today in Washington, D.C., the first U.S.-EU High-Level Dialogue on Russia.  Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland represented the United States and European External Action Service Deputy Secretary General for Political Affairs Enrique Mora represented the European Union.  This high-level meeting follows the commitments taken at the June 2021 U.S.-EU Summit, where both sides resolved to coordinate U.S. and EU policies and actions related to Russia.  This inaugural session focused on U.S. and EU strategic objectives and policy coordination aimed at ending Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

Under Secretary Nuland and Deputy Secretary General Mora welcomed the exceptional unity shown at the recent European Council, extraordinary NATO Leaders’ Meeting, and G7 Leaders’ Meeting.  They condemned the Kremlin’s unprovoked, unjustifiable, and barbaric war against Ukraine, also enabled by the Belarusian government.  The Russian military attacks striking civilians are causing massive loss of life and injury to civilians and must stop immediately.  They noted that the United States and the European Union will work to track reports of war crimes and will share information gathered with allies, partners, international institutions and organizations, as appropriate, and use every tool available to hold the perpetrators to account.

Under Secretary Nuland and Deputy Secretary General Mora welcomed the coordination between the United States and the European Union in implementing unprecedented sanctions and export control measures in response to Russia’s aggression and discussed continued close cooperation in coordination with the G7 to ensure stringent implementation of these measures.  They also discussed additional steps to isolate Russia further from the U.S. and EU economies and the international financial system to impose severe costs on Russia for its actions.

The two sides emphasized the necessity of consolidating international support for the government and people of Ukraine and of holding the government of Russia to account.  They welcomed the growing number of countries applying sanctions and export control measures since Russia’s invasion, including countries implementing them for the first time, and reiterated their commitment to further expanding the coalition and strengthening enforcement of these measures.  They underlined the importance of insisting that China supports an immediate end to hostilities, the establishment of humanitarian corridors, and preventing any risks of further escalation.  They also underscored that they will continue to urge China not to circumvent nor undermine sanctions against Russia, and not to provide any form of support to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Under Secretary Nuland and Deputy Secretary General Mora discussed U.S. and EU efforts to increase humanitarian support to all people who have been internally displaced or forced to flee as a result of Putin’s war.  They briefed on U.S. and EU initiatives to provide coordinated political, financial, material and humanitarian support to the government and people of Ukraine.  They recognized the need to maintain high-level attention and support to the Republic of Moldova and to work together to strengthen its resilience.  They also discussed their ongoing efforts to support the democratic forces inside and outside of Belarus in defending and advancing human rights, including freedom of expression, and free and fair elections under international observation.

They took stock of U.S. and EU efforts to counter the Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation and to reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian energy.  They underscored that the United States and EU stand with Russian civil society, independent journalists, and youth whose future and voices are under increasing threat within Russia and with those who have been forced to flee the country.   They also recognized continued U.S.-EU cooperation toward long-term peace, resilience, and stability in the wider region, including South Caucasus.

Under Secretary Nuland and Deputy Secretary General Mora decided to continue meetings in this dialogue, with the next high-level meeting to take place in late 2022.

Turkey’s Imperative to Restore Democratic Rule Posted on March 31, 2022 by Ali Tuygan March 31, 2022

 

Turkey’s Imperative to Restore Democratic Rule

Posted on March 31, 2022 by Ali Tuygan

March 31, 2022

In its early years, Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government launched an open-ended accession process with the EU. From day one, the process ran into difficulties because the EU countries behaved as if they regretted their decision. Ankara gradually came to believe that the process would lead nowhere. This was the first episode in the brief story of the past two decades.

In the second episode, the West launched a misguided regime change project in Syria in which the AKP government assumed an ideologically motivated leading role. This marked the beginning not only of Ankara’s foreign and security policy downturn but also its democratic decline.

In the third episode, Turkey decidedly left the democratic path. And the EU, lacking strategic foresight, failed to keep Turkey on board. President Obama’s initiative to make Turkey’s “vibrant, secular democracy” the centerpiece of his approach to the Middle East vanished into thin air. The AKP’s foreign policy switched to burning bridges.

The fourth episode started with Russia’s military intervention in Syria in October 2015. By this time, Turkey’s partners in the regime change project had either started to leave or already left the stage with one exception: the US. But America’s sustained presence soon led to the emergence of the YPG as Washington’s major partner “in the fight against the Islamic State”.  

The fifth episode opened with a dramatic incident, the downing of a Russian fighter aircraft by the Turkish Air Force in November 2015, and ended with an apology. The highlight of this episode was Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400 air defense systems.

In the sixth episode, Moscow and Washington gradually changed roles, the former becoming the AKP government’s leading partner and mutual distrust characterizing the relationship with the latter.

But the seventh episode opened with a shock: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

How the story will continue keeps many in suspense. Because the global picture has become far more complicated and the main setting is no longer just Ankara.

Even before the invasion of Ukraine, the AKP government came to realize that its foreign and security policy was only leading to dangerous isolation. Thus, it decided to change tack and launched an effort to recover some of what had been lost in the past decade as a result of policy mistakes, aggressive rhetoric, and a misguided ideological approach. This started with the mending of fences with Gulf states and Israel. Had the Gulf states and Israel changed? No. It was the Turkish government that had to recalibrate.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ankara sought the role of a peacemaker. The holding of talks between foreign ministers Lavrov and Kuleba at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum was a welcome development considering the circumstances. The holding of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul on Tuesday also reflected the trust both sides have in Turkey. After the talks, Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin announced that Russia will drastically decrease the military activity in the direction of Kiev and Chernigov. And the parties signaled a path envisaging a meeting of foreign ministers and then perhaps the signing of a treaty by presidents Putin and Zelensky. However, one has to remain cautious because up to now Russia’s words have not matched its deeds.

Ankara is now projecting the Istanbul meeting as the most significant, productive round of talks to date. In other words, it is trying to use the meeting to boost Turkey’s appeal abroad and the government’s appeal at home. To a certain extent, this is understandable but to boost its international appeal Ankara has to do more.

President Biden’s last stop in Europe was Warsaw where he delivered a speech many called “fiery”. He defined the challenge ahead as “The battle between democracy and autocracy. Between liberty and repression.”  Listening to him, I could not help remembering what President Obama had said, in the context of the Arab Spring, in his UN General Assembly speech on September 24, 2013:

“And our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point:  The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.  Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

This policy, as defined by Mr. Obama, is not going to change. The question is where Turkey stands, where it belongs. Because Turkey is not just a Middle East country. It is a member Council of Europe and NATO. It has millions of Turks living in Europe. Its principal trading partner is by far the EU. And, it still has an “on paper only” accession process with the EU.

For decades, our relationship with the Council of Europe had its ups and downs, particularly after coups in Turkey, but reasonably quick returns to the democratic path helped avoid ruptures. Today, we simply ignore the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.

Relations with the EU have always been problematic, characterized by cultural differences, the legacy of history, and a lack of mutual trust. More than a decade ago, in view of the difficulties experienced in the accession negotiations, the AKP said that even if our membership in the EU failed to materialize, we would turn the “Copenhagen criteria” into “Ankara criteria” and continue our pursuit of democracy. This is now forgotten. The AKP no longer considers the separation of powers as the cornerstone of democracy but sees it as an obstacle to “effective government”. Are the members of the EU disappointed? Perhaps a few. But the majority is pleased because the issue of Turkey’s accession is off their agenda for good.

As for our NATO membership, this has provided us with a full-fledged seat in an enduring alliance that remains the cornerstone of European defense and security.        The lack of good chemistry between the EU and Turkey, however, has the potential to adversely affect our standing within NATO.  After all, there are two buildings in Brussels only a few kilometers apart and at one we are a member of the club or at least treated as one and at the other, we are an outsider if not an adversary, creating a contradiction. And since NATO and the EU currently have 21 member countries in common, drawing a line between the two at least from a perception point of view has become increasingly difficult. And Ankara’s relations with Washington, an important NATO ally, are also far from being satisfactory.

Next Monday, April 4, 2022, will mark the 73rd anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty.  During the past months, President Biden has repeatedly said that America’s commitment to Article 5 of the Treaty is “ironclad”, “sacrosanct”. He has also said, “nothing about allies, without allies.” If that is indeed the case, the “Brussels contradiction” which only serves the arguments of Turkey’s Eurasianist school of thought has to be resolved.

Moreover, in an increasingly complex security environment dominated by systemic rivalry, NATO, like the EU, will put greater emphasis on the common values that all allies are supposed to share. In fact, these values like the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law as enshrined in the Washington Treaty that each and every ally has signed up for, will be among the focal areas in strengthening the political dimension of NATO in the next decade and beyond. Therefore, countries lagging behind in their democratic practices will have no other option than to overcome their deficiencies as the distinction between democratic nations and autocratic regimes would become more pronounced in times of strategic competition.

The people of Turkey see the invasion of Ukraine as a tragedy. And some regard it as a development reminding the West of Turkey’s geostrategic importance. Thus, ideas are being floated as to how Ankara may turn the invasion into an opportunity. These extend from the re-energizing of the EU accession process to putting relations with Washington on the right track and opening new avenues of defense cooperation with the West. To a certain extent, this is understandable. But if these “bright ideas” were to ignore the overarching problem of chemistry with the West, they would be doomed to fail.

The biggest challenge for Turkey, going far beyond dealing with the multiple repercussions of the invasion of Ukraine, is the restoration of our democracy. This is a defining moment in European history. Although no one knows for now how long it may last, a new Cold War has been declared. Lines of confrontation are being redrawn. Ever since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the founding of the Republic, Turkey’s greatest source of power was its democracy. As for Turkey’s geostrategic value, this was always closely linked to Ankara’s military power. But Turkey is not at war. Turkey already has enough hard power. What is far more important is our soft power and this is inseparably linked to our democratic performance.

Last week at the Doha Forum, Qatari and Saudi officials pointed to what they saw as unjust inconsistencies in how the West responds to humanitarian strife: acting swiftly to help Ukraine in a way that conflicts and refugees in the Middle East have not seen. The question to be directed at them is, “Yes, but what did you do to resolve Middle East conflicts other than becoming pawns in others’ games?” A democratic Turkey combining hard and soft power with emphasis on the latter would be more than a welcome guest in the corridors of international diplomacy. Political parties across the spectrum owe this to our future generations. This is the most urgent, most important issue on our agenda. It cannot wait. Time is of the essence.

Western reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been “unprecedented sanctions”. In judging Turkey’s position on sanctions, our Western allies should not overlook the fact that Turkey is located at the center of three conflict areas and for decades has paid the highest price for different sets of international sanctions.

The invasion of Ukraine is a dark page in the history of Russia. The loss of life, the devastation of cities, the suffering it has caused will reverberate for decades. And what it would entail for the Putin regime and President Putin himself remains to be seen.