What's Putin's next move - The Russian Playbook

Russian military units began pouring into Eastern Ukraine this past weekend. No longer trying to hide or be covert. Russian war equipment theatrically paraded across the border with their unit designators on display for all to see. It’s no coincidence that a small army of reporters and tweeters were on site to witness the entire show.

They weren’t even trying to hide it. They might as well have been passing in review in the middle of Red Square.

This isn’t surprising at all. In fact it’s a textbook move by Vladimir Putin. A textbook the Russians have been following since the Soviet Union fell in 1991. When the USSR fell there were two main strategic priorities the Russian’s were concerned about. The first and most important was Ukraine which is Russia’s gateway to Western Europe. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said the following regarding Ukraine’s importance to Russia:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

The second was Georgia which is Russia’s gateway to the oil and warm waters of the Middle East. Russia has had aspirations to extend into the Middle East ever since the Stalin days. Both Ukraine and Georgia are the two geographic pivots necessary for Russia to become an empire.

The Soviet Union officially dissolved on Christmas day 1991. The leadership of the new Russian Federation identified their two main priorities and assessed risks. The Soviets had devoted much to Ukraine over the years. The result of which was a heavily entrenched political support base. Ukraine and Belarus along with Russia became the founding members of the new Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Georgia however was another matter. The Russians knew that the Georgian political elite were ready to turn to NATO. To counter this they flamed ethnic fires with two ethnic groups within Georgia. Ossetians in the North and Abkhazians in the North West.

The conflict began as simple protests but it quickly escalated. Ossetians and Abkhazians began attacking Georgian government buildings with home made weapons and hunting rifles. Pretty soon the separatists began getting weapon supplies from Russia. The conflicts came to a close with Russia brokering a cease fire that left Georgia fractured. Two autonomous regions emerged - Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

If this sounds familiar to you….it should be. If you played the news broadcasts of Ukraine today side by side with those from Georgia in 1992 you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. The tactics used are near identical. Remember when the Russian separatists shot down Malaysian commercial flight MH17? That exact same scenario happened in Abkhazia in 1993. Only in Georgia the separatists shot down more than one commercial plane.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-23/news/mn-38196_1_georgian-army       

The process the Russians followed in Georgia is strikingly similar to present day Ukraine. Moscow helps to force a stalemate by supplying the separatists with arms. Once that stalemate happens they help broker a ceasefire.There’s usually a caveat in that ceasefire that states that the Russian military guarantees the peace and will intervene if it’s broken. The end result is an autonomous region within the country that is loyal to Russia.

Fast forward to 2004. Ukraine was on the verge of their “Orange Revolution”. Like the Georgians in 1992 the Ukrainians now looked to the West rather than to Moscow. The uprisings forced a recount in the their ongoing presidential election and the heavily Russian supported Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

The Orange Revolution would spread to both Belarus and Russia herself. Russia had to do something….

Russia had already laid the foundation for their response back in Georgia in 1992. In 2008 “color revolutions” had spread from Ukraine to Belarus and Russia. For seemingly no reason at all the autonomous region of South Ossetia began shelling various Georgian positions. Georgia counter attacked and closed in on South Ossetia. On cue Russia invaded into Georgia backed up by Abkhazian forces from the North West. The conflict would later end again via a Russian brokered cease fire.

The message was clear - the Soviet Union may be gone but the Russians are still in control. The Georgian conflict sent ripples of fear all over the former Soviet Bloc. The “color revolutions” died out and Ukraine began to slide back under Russia’s thumb.

Ukrainians now in 2014 see themselves as the Georgians of 2008. Russia following their textbook has positioned Kiev to have to make the same decisions Tbilisi made in 2008. If the autonomous regions in Eastern Ukraine begin shelling Ukrainian positions, like the South Ossetians did, Ukraine will have to react with caution and restraint. If they over react Russia will use that to send another message and will fully invade Eastern Ukraine.

What happens next?

I really think that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was something the Russians didn’t expect to happen. They assumed they’d always be able to manipulate Ukraine using their political and economic stranglehold they enjoyed in Kiev. However, when Yanukovych’s regime was ousted Putin was forced to escalate the timeline. 2008 Georgia was brought to 2014 Ukraine. If Ukraine continues their push to integrate into the EU and forge a relationship with NATO Russia will push the autonomous regions in Eastern Ukraine to begin shelling Ukrainian positions….a la South Ossetia 2008. Moscow will wait and gauge their reaction.

If Georgia continues their goals of joining NATO Russia WILL annex either Abkhazia, South Ossetia or both. They’ll most probably annex Abkhazia and dangle South Ossetia as a future warning.

Georgia and Ukraine represent Russia’s primary targets, but keep in mind the effect all this will have on the rest of the region. Places such as Moldova, Belarus and even Russia’s own populace will be watching.

Moscow is following a geopolitical playbook using plays they’ve already ran. Realizing and understanding this is key to predicting what they want and what they’re willing to do in the future.

Why is Oil Crashing? - What can history tell us?

James Fairgrieve was a British geographer and geopolititian in the early 1900’s. One of his theories was that imperialists throughout history had been primarily driven by the search for energy. Over the centuries the political center of the world usually shifts toward which source of energy is relevant at that time.

The 1970’s showed the world just how important hydrocarbons had become to the global economy. The Middle East became the political center of the world. OPEC would reduce oil output and embargo the West for supporting Israel. On top of that, the overthrow of the Shah in Iran would all but hault oil production for Tehran.

1970’s Oil Crisis

The result - oil prices went through the roof. Heavily industrialized countries that depended on oil saw stagnant economic growth. The world found themselves grouped as such:

1. Heavily dependant on foreign oil supplies. Recession imminent. (Western Europe)
2. Partly reliant on foreign oil mixed with a steady domestic supply. (United States)
3. Domestic oil production is the primary source of GDP. (OPEC countries and USSR)

Oil became an extremely powerful tool the world’s geopolitical players would use to impose their foreign policy and ensure their interests.

History would later see Kissinger persuade the Israelis to leave the Sinai and the Golan Heights. The oil embargo would soon be lifted. Oil production would normalize and with that the Brent crude price per barrel would go down.

1980’s Oil Glut

Ronald Reagan would use the 1970’s energy crisis as a playbook for economic warfare. It’s rumored that President Reagan sent CIA director William Casey to Saudi Arabia in 1981 to initiate a lethal strike aimed at the Soviet Union’s pocket book.

The deal - Saudi Arabia was weak in military hardware. They were threatened on every border by Iraq, Iran, and the USSR. The Soviets had coveted the Middle East since before WW2.

Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov traveled to Berlin in 1940 for a meeting with Hitler. The reason? Hitler wanted to lure Stalin into an alliance. He knew that the best way to win a war in Western Europe was to ensure he didn’t have to fight the Soviets on his Eastern flank. Hitler and Mussolini both figured that Stalin wouldn’t intervene. Stalin wouldn’t risk spilling Russian blood for the sake of the English and French.

Hitler decided to dangle the idea of inviting Russia into the trio of Germany/Italy/Japan. A “Four-Power Pact” rather than the “Three-Power Pact”. Hitler’s meeting with Molotov was to discuss these terms and to divvy up the spheres of influence they would each inherit after the war.

What was Stalin’s primary condition for joining with Hitler? Straight from Molotov’s mouth:

“The first protocol, dealing with the spheres of influence, must recognise that the area south of Batum and Baku in the general direction of the Persian Gulf is recognised as the centre of gravity of the aspirations of the Soviet Union.”

The Russians were basically quoting James Fairgrieve. They recognized that the Middle East was now the “political center of the world”. It was the Russian “center of gravity”. The German’s, however, invented geopolitics and would never agree to this. Hitler never replied to Stalin’s conditions and the Soviets would never join the Three-Power Pact.

CIA Director Casey and President Ronald Reagan believed the Soviet’s still saw the Middle East as their “center of gravity”. The Saudis believed this as well. The deal was simple. The United States promised military backing and equipment so that Saudi Arabia could solidify their borders. In return the Saudis promised to defy OPEC and over flood the market with oil. The United States would also ramp up production. The result - The 1980’s Oil Glut. Oil prices dropped so low that the USSR lost billions per day. They would never recover and the Soviet Union inevitably would collapse.

There’s the history. What does that show us today?

Has anyone noticed their gas prices lately? Why on earth are oil and gas prices going down in a world that is ripped by instability? Here is a graph that shows oil prices over the past 6 months:

As you can see there’s been a dramatic drop in the price per barrel since mid June. What’s the catalyst making this happen?

1. Dramatic increase in production from the U.S.
2. Dramatic increase from Libya (despite internal turmoil).
3. Saudi Arabia increases production despite OPEC objections (sound familiar?).

First of all, who benefits from this? Who gets hurt?

Russia

It’s hard for me not to quote Sean Connery from The Hunt for Red October, “Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary.”

We’re pulling the same levers we’ve pulled in the past. It’s amazing that the Russians haven’t diversified their economy away from hydrocarbon sales. Reagan furiously opposed the Urengoi pipeline that began Western Europe’s dependency on Russian gas. He warned the Europeans that Russia would gain a significant strategic advantage over them, but the pipeline was built regardless.

We’re seeing the result of that today in the proxy war in Eastern Ukraine. It’s not a coincidence that as the Russians began to support the separatists in Eastern Ukraine the price of oil began to drop out of the cellar. The Ukraine crisis and this modern day “oil crash” happened one after the other. The United States has played this move before and the Russians know they have little to counter it with. Washington D.C. sent a clear message to Russia. That they’re not only willing but completely able to crash Moscow’s economy if provoked to do so.

Putin now has to try and increase demand so that the PPB (price per barrel) goes back up. Look for them to increase cooperation with China. China has the demand to effect the PPB. My guess is that we’ll see news come from that in the near future.

Iran

Tehran is in an interesting predicament here. Their heavily sanctioned economy is also primarily driven by hydrocarbon sales. At the same time they’re locked in intense negotiations regarding their nuclear program. This gives the U.S. and Saudi Arabia a lot of leverage. It may force Iran to make considerable concessions.

It’s important to note that, just like in the 80’s, we must have promised the Saudis….something. The Saudis main struggle right now is Iran. Proxy battles between the Iranians and Saudis are being fought all over the Middle East. In Yemen, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, etc. Even the Iranian/U.S. rapprochement itseIf is a major setback for the Saudis. If a deal was indeed made look for progress on one of these fronts. Would the U.S. consider backing out of the Iranian nuclear talks all together to appease the Saudis? I guess we’ll find out soon.

Libya

The situation in Libya is interesting. Quite frankly I’m shocked that Libya has been able to produce as much oil lately as they’ve been. The central government has had to relocate as militias have gained more and more power daily. Somehow, Libya was able to flood the global oil market with a billion barrels per day.

Where is the Libyan oil coming from? Primarily from the Waha oil field. The Waha oil field is operated by 3 companies: ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp, and Marathon Oil. All U.S. based companies. Draw your own conclusions there…

Conclusion

James Fairgrieve made an observation in the 1900’s that very well could have influenced Russian geopolitical thinkers for the entire century. What was theory in Fairgrieve’s time became very much the reality in the 1970’s and 80’s. The players back then are the same today. The conflicts are a bit different but the circumstances are remarkably the same. The biggest difference from the old Cold War to our new one today is in the timeline. Economic warfare such as this was Reagan’s knock out final blow. The United States this time has used it as their opening salvo.

Scotland’s Independence Referendum - more at stake than just the UK

“When you drop a pebble into a pond, ripples spread out, changing all the water in the pool. The ripples hit the shore and rebound, bumping into one another, breaking each other apart. In some small way, the pond is never the same again.”

-Neal Shusterman

After WW2 the European continent locked it’s borders. The horror of the fascist Nazi military was the manifest of what Europeans have always feared and still feel today. That fear is the feeling of ethnic superiority and nationalism.

The First Ripple

Vladimir Putin was quoted as saying that the fall of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.”

I assume what Putin meant was that all they had worked to achieve was now over. They had attempted to do what Nazi Germany tried to do...to single handedly dominate Eurasia and control the mass production machine of the Eurasian Heartland. The Nazis and then later the Soviets wanted to prove Halford Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory” was accurate. So after WW2 the west fought the Cold War to ensure that didn’t happen.

As I reanalyze what Putin said I now see that the fall of the Soviet Union did one more thing. It unlocked the borders of the European continent that were previously set following WW2.

Suddenly people began to wonder what it takes to be a nation. What defines a nation in Europe?

• Is it a collective of common people with a like mindset?
• Is it an area that has ethnic majority?
• Is it an area that speaks the same language?

Then the Yugoslav wars happened. Ethnic majority was determined to be the deciding factor for statehood and Yugoslavia would break apart.

The West was riding high on the success of the Cold War. It seemed apparent that they were purposely ignoring Russian interests when they backed the separation of Kosovo. Putin would never forget this. You could make the argument that Russia’s renewed rivalry with the west occurred right there.

Putin used that justification as a precedent. He would invade Georgia over the breakaway region of Ossetia, and he used the threat of ethnic Russian minorities in several periphery countries. After all, the UN gave their stamp of approval on Kosovo….they’d be hypocrites not to support Russia in South Ossetia, Transinistria, Ukraine, etc. With Kosovo, the west unknowingly gave Russia a lever to pull in their former Soviet sphere of influence.

You see the reverberations of this today in Ukraine. Putin will continue to support Russian backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine until they gain some level of autonomy. From there he can claim the right of self determination and amalgamate whatever he wishes.

More Ripples

On September 18th Scotland will vote on whether to stay in the United Kingdom or to become a separate independent state.

Again, we see an ethnic majority claiming their right to self determination. I know that the United Kingdom will handle this appropriately. They won’t respond violently and they’ll be good neighbors to the Scots. However, the precedent will have been set for self determination in Western Europe. The previously locked borders after WW2 will be suddenly up for debate.

What now happens in Catalonia, Northern Italy, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, parts of the Balkans, the Caucasus, Belgium, Azerbaijan….all of these regions have similar ethnic disputes….all of them.

Looking past Europe we can see the Middle East evolving as well. Will this precedent be used in the ongoing ISIS/Syria/Iraq war? What’s to stop the Caliphate from forming if their citizens have self determined their right to exist as a state?

The Precedent Is The Key

Forget the ramifications to the Scottish economy, the British economy, what to do with the British bases in Scotland, rights to oil in the North Sea…..etc. Scottish independence creates a precedent that will be felt all over the world. How will the world react?

Syria, Iraq, and the Kurds - Correcting their destiny

It's times like now that I think we really feel the sting of not having General Petraeus around anymore. Say what you want about the man's extracurricular activities, he knew how to deal with an insurgency. He knew how to deal with the various clans and tribes in Syria/Iraq. My guess is that he would see exactly what I'm seeing right now, and that is the Kurds are at a major turning point in their existence.

The Kurds in Syria are in the North East of the country. The very top corner. They are represented by the DBK (Kurdish Supreme Committee). The Kurds in Iraq are in the North and Northeast and are represented by the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government).
Kurdish organizations get confusing and it's easy to get lost in the sea of acronyms. Just know that the DBK govern the Kurds in Syria and the KRG govern the Kurds in Iraq. The YPG (People's Protection Units) are the soldiers of the DBK and the Peshmerga are the soldiers for the KRG. Whew!

The border between Iraq and Syria has already dissolved. We don't even have legitimate governments in Syria and Iraq anymore. The Levant and Mesopotamia are governed more on the clan and tribal level now. It's time to forget the Sykes-Picot governments of Syria and Iraq and deal with the clans/tribes that will rule this region going forward.

As of now we have Kurds in the north battling the Islamic State and Arabs in the west and south battling the Islamic State. What's the common denominator? They all have a common enemy in the Islamic State.
If the United States truly wants to get involved and see true positive change they need to enable/encourage Arab tribes to unite versus the Islamic State in the west and south (like the Anbar Awakening). They also need to arm and build the Kurds. Relations between the DBK and the KRG are crucial. If they're united under the banner of a Kurdistan that spans from Northeastern Syria to Northeastern Iraq they would be a formidable force.

The famous diplomat Robert Strausz Hupe said that geopolitics is about space and peoples struggle for influence over that space.
The struggle for Syria and Iraq is about geopolitically dominated space. The struggle we're seeing now would've happened after the fall of the Ottoman Empire if the UK and French hadn't intervened. The Turks, Kurds, and Arabs all would have sought to dominate the space that is currently called Iraq and Syria (and Lebanon). European and Western influence stunted the transformation.

I see 3 things that need to happen:

1. Arab tribes in Syria and Iraq need work together to encourage the formal dissolution of the Syrian Iraqi border. It's already dissolved informally. The "governments" of Baghdad and Damascus need to be seen as separate tribes or warlord factions. All part of greater Syria.

2. The DBK and KRG need to unite and establish their borders within Syria and Iraq. The United States and the West need to make this their number one priority going forward. Arming and training a professional Kurdish fighting force should happen immediately.

3. The United States would increase military assistance and be the guarantee that Kurdish forces would defeat the Islamic State only if Damascus and Baghdad agree to accept Independent Kurdistan.

Two players (beyond Baghdad and Damascus) would have issues with this. Those being Turkey and Iran. Strengthening the Kurds could endanger them both. But there are levers to be pulled that may be able to see this through.
The Turks are looking to become a major regional player with influence. To do that they need to fix their domestic Kurd problem. This could be the solution they're looking for.
The Iranians are on the verge of having their oil/gas stockpiles unleashed on the world market. To do that they need a reliable and safe pipeline to Western Europe. Through independent Kurdistan sounds like an enticing proposition.

The rebellion of the Assad regime in Syria, the Kurdish awakening, and the tribal rejection of the Iraqi government are all part of a natural progression that was going to happen eventually. It should have been a prophetic fact when the Ottomans fell. Regardless of which outside entity attempts to hold them together the blunt fact is that these map lines don't belong there. We can either continue the madness of trying to patch things up a little while longer, or we can push for an actual solution.

Turkey's new Prime Minister - Ahmet Davutoglu

As expected, Ahmet Davutoglu was named Prime Minister of Turkey. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs is the architect of Turkey's current foreign policy direction.

President Erdogan and Prime Minister Davutoglu represent a Turkish Institution that the world better get used to dealing with. I use the word institution because the AKP (Justice and Development Party) is shaping a Turkey that will run a certain way long after Erdogan and Davutoglu are dead.

Davutoglu believes in Turkey's "Strategic Depth". He's a true geoplitical thinker. His entire foreign policy is predicated on the fact that Turkey's unique geostrategic position has provided them with advantages. Not only has it guaranteed their nation state status, it also enables them to influence multiple adjacent regions. They control the Bosporous, can influence the Caucasus, the Balkans, and have a historical leadership role in the Middle East.

The current institution in Turkey loathes the Cold War days. Turkey was but a handful of nations out on the periphery. Caught in the middle of an argument between two nations playing their own geopolitical chess game.
The AKP is looking to lead Turkey beyond their old alignments and spin the globe in such a manner where the center is on Anatolia. I highly doubt Turkey's membership in NATO lasts much longer. Similarly, I believe their application to join the EU is more about appearances and European diplomacy than anything else. Turkey's plans are to lead not to join.

Davutoglu has coined the phrase "zero problems" when describing relations with Turkey's neighbors. They're trying their hardest to not offend anyone and to repair the relationships that aren't so great. The hope is that eventually Turkey's economic power on top of their "soft power" will begin to seep deeper into their periphery. Eventually the entire Middle East, parts of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans (all former Ottoman areas) will all see Turkey the ideal model and look to them for leadership.

"Zero Problems" is most definitely phase one in the AKP institution's foreign policy plan. We're sure to see a more assertive Turkey in the years to come. They see themselves as leaders blessed with the geography that enables them to influence those around them. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is a defining representation of the current regimes direction. This institution is being built to sustain itself for years to come.

Defeating the Islamic State - Evolving the Middle East

The Islamic State continues to spread their Caliphate throughout the Levant into Mesopotamia. Along their road of plunder and devastation they've begun an ethnic and religious cleansing of Kurds, Christians, and anyone else not willing to convert. The U.S. has begun airstrikes on IS positions, and U.S. lawmakers have encouraged even more extensive military action.

Is this the right action?

The question shouldn't be "How do we destroy the Islamic State" but rather "How do we use this to make the region a better place". My fear is that the Obama Administration isn't thinking along these lines.

The hard truth is that if the United States intervenes too forcefully with the Islamic State Iran stands to benefit the most from the aftershock. The Iraqi government is already borderline proxy status to their neighbor Iran. A quick victory against the IS will help Baghdad consolidate their power base which in turn helps Iran consolidate theirs. Iranian influence would be uncontested from Tehran, to Baghdad, to Damascus. There would be no real change in the region. Just more of the same dysfunction they've seen since after WW1.

What's the solution?

We're now seeing an area (Iraq and Syria) that is battling border lines that should never have been drawn. The Sykes/Picot Agreement was a solution brought forth by outsiders looking down on a foreign land. Sooner or later geography and the people that reside on that geography are going to revolt.
Over the years through shear brutality and force warlords such as Assad and ruthless dictators like Saddam have ensured these border lines have remained intact. However, the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring have both served as a catalyst to enable the Levant and Mesopotamia to draw their own borders along a more natural progression.

You'll often here of Iraq as being divided between 3 areas: Sunni, Shia, Kurd

(map via stratfor.com)

The above map illustrates the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd divisions. It's easy to see this and think that Iraq's problems are a religious war with a minor Kurdish dilemma. This is far from the truth. Iraq's problems go much deeper. They involve tribal, clan, religious....a full spectrum of issues from people that have lived in the area for a thousand years.

Take for instance during the Anbar Awakening. Sunni tribes joined forces with Shia to oppose Sunni jihadists. If it were merely a religious dispute this type of union would have never happened. Even today Sunni tribes in Iraq are joining forces with Shia militias and Iraqi military to battle the Islamic State.

Yes religious differences play a role, but it's only one of their problems.

Quite bluntly, Iraq is not governed anymore from Baghdad. The Baghdad based Iraqi government is only legitimate in that it is recognized by the UN. In country, however, things are quite different. Tribal leaders in Iraq, be they Sunni or Shia, see themselves as Mesopotamian rather than Iraqi. They govern their lands independently. The Iraqi government governs Baghdad and that's about it.

The Middle East evolved.

As of the writing of this blog entry we've been arming and assisting the Kurds in Northern Iraq to fight off the Islamic State. I think this is a fantastic move and we should take it further. It is now time to push for a National Home for The Kurds. More than just an autonomous region in Northern Iraq. An independent Kurdistan where Kurds from the entire region can call home. Be they in Turkey, Iran, etc they would all be motivated to make Arbil their new capital.

Kurdistan would become the "Israel" for the Kurds. A bastion that they could feel safe in and that they would all be willing to die for to defend. Arming the Kurds would be not just a short term project to help them against the Islamic State but a long term strategy. They would be a viable check to the Iranians and radical jihadists.

The right for self-determination (supported by the UN) would be infectious in the region. The fact that tribal leaders in Iraq are willing to cross Sunni/Shia barriers for overall stability is a good sign. It's not too difficult to imagine a new nation state evolving that encompasses both the Levant and Mesopotamia. It also wouldn't be a stretch for it to be named "Greater Syria" or al Sham. Historically that would make since to the residents that live within those current borders. A federalized government that recognizes the differences (cultural, sectarian, religious, etc) in each "state" within Greater Syria.

The moderate Sunni's would eventually overwhelm the radicals. A strong Kurdish nation state in the north and a Greater Syria at peace would transform the Middle East.

Yes, IS must be put down...but the Kurds need to be the ones to do it. They need to use that as leverage to finally make independent  Kurdistan a reality. Syria and Iraq's destiny is joined. A federalized Greater Syria has the chance to erase the sins of post WW1 and evolve the Middle East.