Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2017 Part 19-122-Russia-10-89

CdW Intelligence to Rent; Strategic Intelligence Adviser [email protected]

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2017 Part 19-122-Russia-10-89

What is occurring now is about the bigger picture,” said Theodore Karasik, senior adviser at Gulf State Analytics. He sat on Dubai’s Russian Business Council until this year. “It’s not just about Syria, but all of the Levant and, because of Egypt and Libya, North Africa too.”

This regional chaos added to Mr Putin’s concerns that Islamist terrorism could destabilise Russia, as well as the former Soviet republics in central Asia.

These actions—the simultaneous militarization of two flanks—means first of all that Moscow is trying to conduct its own policy of “containment” with respect to NATO by putting pressure on the Alliance’s most vulnerable areas. The (re)emergence of two major Russian military outposts—Kaliningrad and the Crimean Peninsula—are bolstering the development of an “arc of pressure” stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas.

Part of the war games the U.S. and Norway are currently conducting ought to involve practice in the deployment of strategic narrative. In what may be the understatement of the decade, one Norwegian official said, “we have gradually seen more and more … strategic messages being sent [by Moscow].” It is imperative that coalition forces have a grip on how narrative operates in contemporary warfare. -- Ajit Maan, Ph.D.Strategic Narrative Expert

Russian Chief of Staff Gerasimov: 'The First To Leave The Conflict Zone Will Be The Aircraft Carrier Group… Led By The Heavy Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov'On January 6, 2017, Russian Chief of Staff and Deputy Defense Minister Valery Gerasimov stated that the aircraft carrier group was leaving the Mediterranean.Valery Gerasimov: "My greetings to the respectful comrades. From 00 hours, December 30, 2016, the ceasefire has been in force throughout all Syrian territory. This ceasefire does not include the international terror organizations. In compliance with the decision of

“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 1 of 11 01/05/2023

mailto:[email protected]


Supreme Commander Vladimir Putin, the MOD has started to diminish the scale of its forces deployed to Syria. The first to leave the conflict zone will be the aircraft carrier group of the Northern Fleet Command, led by the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Let me stress that the Navy's involvement in the fight against the terrorist groups enabled us to liberate Aleppo, Syria's economic capital, in a short period of time. Let me ask General Colonel Kartopolov, commanding officer of the Syrian forces, to report on the operational results of the aircraft carrier group. Please go ahead."General Colonel Kartopolov: "Copy that. Comrade, the Chief of Staff of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, on November 8, 2016, the aircraft carrier group of the Northern Fleet Command, including the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, the heavy atomic missile destroyer Peter the Great, and other ships from the Black Sea Command began active duty along the territory of Syria. For the first time in the history of the Russian Navy, the Navy aviation crews flew in an operational environment, including attacking ground targets. During the two months of deployment, the Navy aviation pilots conducted 420 operational sorties, 117 of which were conducted at night. Almost all the flights were conducted in complex hydro-meteorological conditions. In total, 1,252 terror targets were hit." Senator Ozerov: 'The Decision To Begin The Transfer Of A Fleet Carrier Group… Is An Act Of Russia's Good Will'Commenting on the reduction of Russia’s military presence in Syria, the Chairman of the Federation Council's Defense and Security Committee, Senator Viktor Ozerov, said: "Thursday's decision to begin the transfer of a fleet carrier group of the Russian Armed Forces led by the Admiral Kuznetsov from the Mediterranean Sea to Severomorsk [Russian northern military base] is an act of Russia's good will within the framework of the earlier announced ceasefire regime."[1] The senator added that in case of necessity, Russia may use strategic aviation or cruise missiles as it has previously done in Syria.[2]Colonel (ret.) Perendzhiev: Russia Avoided A Second Afghan WarColonel (ret) Aleksandr Perendzhiev, an associate professor of political science and sociology at Plekhanov Russian Economic University, said: "When the deployment to Syria was announced back in autumn 2015, many said that it's going to be a second [disastrous] Afghanistan war for Russia. I think the planned entry and the planned troop reduction last spring and now prove that [Russia] succeeded in avoiding a protracted resource-draining military campaign."Prof. Vladimir Isaev: The Reduction Of Russian Forces In Syria Is VirtualAccording to Moscow State University Professor Vladimir Isaev, the reduction of Russian forces in Syria is virtual, since the aircraft carrier group has never been considered as "reinforcement forces." He stressed that the main group in Hmeimim airbase and in Tartus is not being reduced.[3]Arabist Leonid Isaev, who lectures at the Department for Political Science of the Higher School of Economics, agreed with Prof. Vladmir Isaev. He believes that the Russian troop level in Syria exceeds requirement for maintaining military bases in working order."At least, all sides have stated that the intensity of combat activity has significantly decreased after the ceasefire was announced. It is clear that some exchanges of gunfire will take place anyway, but essentially, this will work in the short term perspective." But then again, this peace is the kind that is advantageous right here and now to the three specific sides. But the situation may change in two months.

And if the Turks, theoretically speaking, feel that they can lay real claim to another bit of Syria and there is nobody to stop them, they will do so. Because no matter what we agree on with Iran and Turkey – we are still rivals. And Turkey’s policy, on the whole, is





to weaken Iran’s position. And vice versa. And both are not really happy about the fact that Russia, too, aspires to something there now. Their potential goal is to make our position not too strong either."Leonid Isaev emphasized that, if other players – the Gulf states and the Western countries – do not join the ceasefire at a later stage, this peace is "provisional" Later, peace may turn into war again. There are plenty of examples – like the March Russian-American agreements on ceasefire in Syria. Then, too, everybody said that fire intensity went down, but since Russia and the US failed to bring other sides to their agreement, there were numerous provocations, and in the end, the Russian-American settlement model went bust", the expert concluded.[4][1] Sputniknews.com, January 6, 2017.[2] Ria.ru, January 6, 2017.[3] Gazeta.ru, January 9, 2017.[4] Gazeta.ru, January 9, 2017.

When the Syrian government and rebels meet in Kazakhstan, the chances of the warring parties agreeing on a political solution to end their near six-year conflict will be slim. But for Moscow, the main sponsor of the peace talks, one crucial thing has already been accomplished: sending out the message that Russia is back as a player in the Middle East.

With a 15-month bombing campaign in Syria and shrewd political manoeuvring, Moscow rescued President Bashar al-Assad from defeat, tilted the military balance in his favour and paved the way for a nationwide ceasefire. Russian officials are now relishing the political triumph — not least the fact that US is invited to the Astana talks as Moscow’s guest, a dynamic that starkly highlights how US influence has waned as Russia’s has grown. But Moscow’s ambitions run much deeper. “The Obama administration’s policy in the Middle East has failed. We stepped in,” said a Russian former ambassador. Citing Russia’s crucial role in helping Mr Assad recapture Aleppo, Syria’s second city, last month, Nikolai Kozhanov, a Middle East expert at the European University at St Petersburg, said Moscow’s “appetite is growing according to their achievements on the ground”. “Syria is now considered as a kind of means [to further regional influence] rather than a goal in itself,” he added. One of the main drivers behind Moscow’s push into the Middle East is the fallout from the 2011 Arab uprising that triggered upheaval across the region. The episode convinced President Vladimir Putin that Russia’s retreat from the prominent regional position his country inherited from the former Soviet Union was a big mistake, Russian foreign policy experts say. This regional chaos added to Mr Putin’s concerns that Islamist terrorism could destabilise Russia, as well as the former Soviet republics in central Asia. In addition, there is an economic incentive — the Middle East has traditionally been a big market for Russian weapons sales, an important export, particularly to Egypt, Syria and Iran. Mr Putin also eyes investment opportunities for Russian companies in the oil and gas-rich region. Moscow has already used its intervention in the Syrian conflict to position itself as an important partner for regional powers regardless of their opposing interests — from Saudi Arabia to Iran and Iraq to Israel. It is also trying to expand its role as a power broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This week, it hosted talks aimed at ending the decade-old internal divisions between Palestinian factions Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas’s movement, and Hamas, the Gaza-based militant group. Related article The battle for Aleppo: ‘It felt like the last goodbye’ The Assad regime’s brutal victory in Syria’s biggest city marks a turning point in the conflict “The fact that the Russians invited us […] indicates that Russia is





ready to get more involved in Middle East issues,” said Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian MP and head of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party. Russia has also set its sights on Libya, which has been blighted by conflict since the 2011 uprising against Muammer Gaddafi, the late dictator. Moscow has deepened ties with Khalifa Haftar, a renegade general who controls most of the eastern half of the country, including crucial oil installations. Mr Haftar, who is refusing to bow to the authority of the UN-backed government in Tripoli, visited Russia twice last year seeking help in his campaign against Islamist groups. Last week, he was invited aboard Russia’s aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, in the Mediterranean, from where he held a videoconference with Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s defence minister. The visit to the ship, the most overt show of Russian support for the general so far, comes amid warnings of a potential renewal of fighting between his self-styled Libyan National Army and militias loyal to the Tripoli government. The Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft carrier, was deployed to Syria to support Moscow's military intervention in the Arab state's civil war © AP Russia has said that it remains committed to the UN arms embargo on Libya, but the strengthening relationship is a boost to the general at a time when his enemies are seen to be flailing.

“The Russians, I think, want to get back to the strong relationship they had with Gaddafi when Russia had docking rights in the port of Benghazi,” said Mattia Toaldo, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Also they may be hoping to get back $4bn of outstanding debt from the Gaddafi years.” A former Russian diplomat said Moscow’s moves in Libya reflected what it saw as a bitter lesson from Iraq — that it would lose out if it stayed away from domestic political battles in countries it had an interest in. Russian servicemen prepare an SU-34 fighter jet for a mission from a military base in Syria's Latakia province last year © AFP “Russian diplomacy is reaching a new level here. They are now no longer just reactive but trying to become architects of the situation,” Mr Kozhanov said. “Their idea may be creating a regime like in Algeria or Egypt, which keeps the domestic political situation under strong control and can build personal ties with Putin.” In Syria, Moscow has achieved many of its goals for now. It is expanding its naval base in Tartus as well as a new air base near Latakia, giving it a large, permanent military foothold to project power. Many Syrians say their country is firmly under Russian influence. “Bashar’s best-case scenario is to control Damascus,” said Firas Tlass, a former regime insider and powerful Syrian business tycoon who fled in 2012. “But he knows he doesn’t really control the coast, Tartus and Latakia — half of that belongs to Russia.” Liberal, non-Islamist elements of Syria’s opposition spectrum have grown more open to Russia’s role and some see it as useful — not only to counter Iran, the other main backer of Mr Assad, but also opposition hardliners supported by Turkey. And yet for all its resurgent influence, Russian officials believe Moscow ultimately needs the US to also play a prominent role in the region. “What is needed to work properly in the region is the Americans and us working together,” the former ambassador said.

NATO keeps close eye on Russian warships as they sail home from MediterraneanPublished time: 20 Jan, 2017 NATO ships are closely monitoring the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and its group as it returns to Russia, a Maritime Command (MARCOM) officer said in a statement.The Admiral Kuznetsov is returning to its home base in Severomorsk as the chair of the





Russian General Staff, Army Gen. Valery Gerasimov, announced earlier in January, having completed its tour of duty in the eastern Mediterranean. To do this, it must pass through both the Mediterranean and the North Sea, where it will be closely monitored and escorted by NATO vessels. The Russian Navy is a capable navy, that’s why their ships are a part of our routine surveillance plans,” Vice Admiral Clive Johnstone said in a statement published on the MARCOM website.“In the case of the Kuznetsov group, we’ve learned what we can from the group and how it operates, [and] we’ll continue to monitor for any changes in behavior and continue to work closely within the Alliance to ensure all Allied navies are comfortable with the level of surveillance and information flowing regarding Russian Navy assets.”MARCOM routinely patrols the territorial waters of nations belonging to the alliance, with the responsibility divided up between regional navies. On the journey back to Severomorsk, the Admiral Kuznetsov has already passed by Gibraltar, off the Spanish coast, where it was monitored by the Spanish patrol boat Cacador, Interfax reported. The Admiral Kuznetsov group, which also consists of a battlecruiser, two destroyers, and a tanker from the Russian Navy, was also surveilled by a US Navy P-8A Poseidon patrol craft which took off from an air base in Rota, Spain on Tuesday.Later, when the group passes the UK, they will be escorted by a Royal Navy frigate and a destroyer, according to the Telegraph.The Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s only aircraft carrier, was initially dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean to assist in counter-terrorism operations in Syria, and is now being withdrawn as part of an overall troop reduction following the negotiation of a ceasefire deal between Russia, Turkey, and Iran.Its initial deployment raised media hysteria in Western Europe, particularly in the UK, where the media described the passage of the Russian warships as the “greatest challenge” to its national security.Dutch, Belgian, British, and Norwegian ships were all sent to either observe or escort the Kuznetsov on its journey to the Mediterranean, while Sweden sent reconnaissance planes to monitor the movement of the Russian air carrier group. The Maltese foreign minister also announced that the Kuznetsov would not be allowed to refuel at their ports. Ultimately, the Admiral Kuznetsov and its escort arrived safely and without incident, despite the fears of Western governments.“The movement of our ships has caused a stir among our Western partners,” Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said at the time.“It is time for our Western colleagues to decide who they are actually fighting – terrorists or Russia. As one poet once said, ‘one cannot sit on one and the same place on different trains.’”The Admiral Kuznetsov was commissioned in 1990, and is so far Russia’s only aircraft carrier. Manned by a crew of 1,960 naval personnel, it has Granit anti-ship cruise missiles and as well as Blade and Chestnut gun systems in its arsenal and can transport more than 50 aircraft.

Up to 11 Russian warships allowed simultaneously in port of Tartus, Syria – new agreementPublished time: 20 Jan, 2017 An agreement signed by Russia and Syria stipulates that up to eleven Russian warships will be able to dock in the Syrian port of Tartus at any one time. The move is designed to boost defense capabilities, the document states.“The maximum number of the Russian warships allowed at the Russian naval facility at





one time is 11, including nuclear-powered warships, providing that nuclear and ecological security rules are observed,” the agreement says. The agreement has been signed for 49 years and could be prolonged by 25 more years if both sides agree.“The Syrian Arab Republic gives consent to the Russian Federation to expand the territory of its naval facility and upgrade its infrastructure to conduct repair works, restock supplies and give crews time for rest,” the document says, adding that the use of the naval facility will be free of charge.Under the agreement, signed and made public on Friday, Russian warships will be allowed to enter the port after an appropriate Syrian body has been notified, not later than 12 hours before the planned entry.However, “in case of operational need Russian warships may enter the port after an appropriate Syrian body has been notified, not later than six hours before the entry.”Russia is allowed to bring in and out any kind of “weaponry, ammunition, devices and materials” to provide security for the facility staff, crew, and their families throughout the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic “without any duties or levies.”

Oct 2016, The Russian military plans to expand its supply base in Syria into a fully-fledged permanent naval base. The Russian facility in Tartus has long been used to resupply Russian warships during Mediterranean Sea missions.“We are going to have a permanent Navy base in Tartus. We have prepared the paperwork, which is now being reviewed by other government agencies. The documents are pretty much ready, so we hope to submit them to you for ratification soon ,” General Nikolay Pankov, deputy defense minister responsible for communication with other parts of the Russian government, told the Federation Council, Russia’s senate.The upgraded base would have comprehensive defense systems and other capabilities, which the current supply post does not have, Leonid Slutsky, the chair of the State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, told Rossiya 24 news TV.“It will have not only docking facilities, but also a command and control system, an air defense system. A naval base needs to be able to defend itself and all its infrastructure,” he said. “Of course it would have anti-submarine defense capabilities.”

Counter-Containment: Russia Deploys S-400 Complexes to Crimea Franz Klintsevych, a high-ranking member of the Russian Federation Council (upper house of parliament), denounced the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), on January 8, for their activities in the Baltic Sea region. According to Klintsevych, who serves as the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council’s Defense and Security Committee, the US and NATO have allegedly “turned Europe into a powder keg.” The senator also warned that Russia’s response to these activities would come soon and be “harsh and decisive” (Newkaliningrad.ru, January 8, 2017). Recently, similar wrathful comments by Russian officials were also made in reaction to the deployment of additional US military equipment to Germany as well as the fact that approximately 4,000 American soldiers are to be deployed to seven eastern NATO countries, ranging from Estonia to Bulgaria (Deutsche Welle, January 6). One could have expected that the Russian response threated by Klintsevych would primarily be limited to the Baltic Sea region. Indeed, this area has already been subjected to pervasive militarization in recent years, with Kaliningrad oblast increasingly occupying





a prominent place in the Kremlin’s regional geopolitical aspirations (see EDM, July 11, 2016; October 12, 2016; November 7, 2016). Yet, as it turned out, for now Moscow’s promised retaliation seems instead to have mainly materialized in the southern direction. On January 13, it was announced that Russia had deployed S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile complexes on the territory of illegally annexed Crimea. In fact, as underscored by several Russian officials, this advanced anti-air missile system was tested in Crimea during the Kavkaz 2016 war exercise, held primarily on the territory of the Southern Military District last August (Rosbalt, January 13, 2017). According to Lieutenant General Viktor Sevastyanov, who commands the 4th Army of the Russian Air Force and Air Defense Forces, the deployment of such formidable weaponry as the S-400 will not only complement already exiting air defences there but also extend Russia’s air control over the area for “hundreds of kilometers” (Interfax, January 13). Designed by Almaz-Antey Central Design Bureau in the late 1990s, the S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft weapon system (NATO classification: SA-21 Growler) was officially introduced in 2007. Its main tasks are primarily concerned with targeting aircraft (both strategic and tactical), ballistic missiles and hypersonic targets. The reported effective kill range of this system varies, depending on the source, from 60 to 400 kilometers. According to Russian military experts, the complex is able to simultaneously track up to 300 air targets, irrespective of their altitude of flight or speed. Incidentally, this complex has been used by the Russian military operating in Syria, at Khmeimim, where Russia’s permanent air base is located (RIA Novosti, November 26, 2015). It has also been claimed that this type of weaponry could be effectively used against the R-17 Elbrus (NATO terminology: SS-1C Scud-B) as well as the United States’ Tomahawk subsonic cruise missile. Lieutenant General Sevastyanov further announced, on January 14, that “additional numbers of S-400 Triumf complexes are to be deployed on the territory of Crimea” (Interfax, January 14). During his press conference in Feodosia, the military official did not specify the exact number or the tentative dates of the deployment. He did, however, promise that this information would eventually be disclosed. He also claimed that with the deployment of these complexes, the Crimean peninsula’s military potential will have grown exponentially within a brief interim. Signs of the imminent militarization of the Black Sea region by Russia were clearly visible as early as 2014, soon after Crimea’s annexation (see EDM, September 24, 2014; December 9, 2014). However, it was during the summer of 2016 that the deployment of S-400 complexes to the peninsula was first publicly raised by the former commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Vladimir Komoyedov. In the meantime, it should not be forgotten that S-400s (along with the Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery system) were publicly exhibited in Kerch, on November 19, 2016, as part of a military recruitment campaign entitled “Contract service—your choice.” Taken together, these demonstrative actions by the Kremlin in broader terms highlight the Russian government’s determination to act assertively and decisively to accrete additional military might to the country’s southern flank. This may (and is likely to) have serious and far-reaching consequences for the balance of power and security in the Black Sea region, putting under immediate jeopardy not only Ukraine but adjacent members of NATO.





In addition to these recent tangible actions in Crimea, Russia has also been conducting similar steps on its northwestern flank for some time (see above) with plans for additional deployments. On January 13, it was announced that four S-400 Triumpf divisional units would be deployed on the territory of the Western Military District over the course of 2017 (TASS, January 13). According to the Russian Federation Council, which plans to host a special session in Kaliningrad this coming July devoted to border security, “Kaliningrad oblast is one of the key regions in terms of Russian national security. The level of military preparation of the entire Western Military District […] depends on Kaliningrad” (Newkaliningrad.ru, January 3, 2017). These actions—the simultaneous militarization of two flanks—means first of all that Moscow is trying to conduct its own policy of “containment” with respect to NATO by putting pressure on the Alliance’s most vulnerable areas. The (re)emergence of two major Russian military outposts—Kaliningrad and the Crimean Peninsula—are bolstering the development of an “arc of pressure” stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas. Another element of this Russian regional military build-up is tightly associated with an attempt to enflame anti-US sentiments in Europe as well as undermine unity among the Europeans. For instance, Vladimir Kozin, a member of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, has openly accused the US and NATO of “keeping Europe in constant distress” while simultaneously urging for Moscow to apply greater pressure on European countries (RIA Novosti, January 10). Indeed, the recent deployment of the S-400s to Crimea—as well as such planned deployments to Kaliningrad—are carefully designed by the Kremlin to push all these goals. --Sergey Sukhankin, The Jamestown Foundation.

Kremlin Learning to Navigate Washington’s New UnpredictabilityPublication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 14 Issue: 3By: Pavel Felgenhauer January 19, 2017 Source: IBT)In the run-up to his inauguration this week (January 20), President-elect Donald Trump has been saying all the right words Moscow would seem to want to hear. The Kremlin openly supported Trump’s recent characterization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as “obsolete.” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, declared, “We fully agree—NATO is hell-bent on promoting confrontation, and we have been for a long time insisting it is a leftover [of the Cold War]” (Militarynews.ru, January 16). Moreover, Moscow has for decades struggled and failed to find common ground with the European Commission—the European Union’s executive arm. So Trump’s prediction to journalists (published in The Times and Bild on January 15) that the EU is likely to disintegrate into disrepair after last June’s Brexit vote is an outcome the Kremlin would surely want to see. Russia has traditionally preferred to broker separate arrangements with individual Western countries instead of dealing with strong multinational institutions—an attitude apparently very similar to that of Trump.Undermining NATO and the EU is absolutely in line with Moscow’s long-term strategic objectives. Putin’s Kremlin may be prepared to just stand back and wait to see what damage Trump himself may inflict on these institutions. But the President-elect’s publicly proposed first offer to Moscow of a major deal to somehow exchange nuclear arms reduction for sanction relief has not been met with applause in Russia. The United States and its allies imposed sanctions on Russia to punish Moscow for annexing Crimea in 2014 and promoting an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Last month (December 2016), Washington imposed additional sanctions in retaliation for Moscow’s alleged hacking





operations aimed at influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. Sanctions are hurting Russia, and Trump seems ready to use the prospect of sanctions relief “to make some good deals” (Intefax, January 16).Sanctions are indeed biting, and removing them without Russia having actually made any serious concessions on, say, Crimea would be seen as a major political victory by Putin. But substantially cutting nuclear weapons stockpiles does not seem high on Putin’s agenda—nor, indeed, does it seem desirable for the Kremlin. Russia spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the last decade to vastly enhance its nuclear arsenal and build an array of new long-range delivery vehicles. The Russian Navy has deployed three newly built Borei-class strategic nuclear submarines and five more Borei-class subs are under construction. A new intercontinental sea-based ballistic missile—the Bulava—has been developed and deployed with the Borei-class submarines. Dozens of nuclear and non-nuclear attack subs are being built, as well as surface warships equipped with long-range nuclear-capable cruise missiles. After the Borei-class submarine building program in complete, a new program is in the works to build a next-generation of strategic ballistic missile-carrying nuclear subs—the Husky class (Nvo.ng.ru, December 23).An array of new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) have reached the stage of launch testing and may soon go into production: Railroad-mobile (Barguzin) ICBMs, heavy silo-based (Sarmat) ICBMs, as well as land-mobile Yars and Rubez ICBMs (Militarynews.ru, November 3). By 2020, Russia may have more than ten types of land-based deployed ICBMs and up to five different sea-based ballistic missiles, while the US has only two deployed long-range ballistic missiles—the vintage land-based Minuteman and the sea-based Trident. Moscow has refused Barack Obama’s offers to agree to substantially cut its nuclear arsenal and will surely reject Trump’s, assuming the incoming US President’s proposal is a strategic hoax. In Moscow’s thinking, Russia spent a great deal of money and sees itself ahead of the United States in nuclear armament, so Washington has an incentive to try to offer to scrap its vintage nuclear delivery systems in exchange for the demolition of newer and more sophisticated Russian ones to achieve a military advantage. Trump may try to style himself as a new Ronald Reagan, the still immensely popular late Republican US President who ended the nuclear arms race in the second half of the 1980s, by making a nuclear arms deal with Russia. But Putin would surely hate to be seen as a reincarnation of Reagan’s late–Cold War counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, who dismantled the Soviet superpower and is seen by many of Putin’s domestic supporters as a traitor. Since coming to power in 2000, Putin has not signed a single arms reduction treaty—which is hardly a coincidence. He delegated his lieutenant, Dmitry Medvedev—who at the time served as Russian president, albeit with more limited powers—to sign the 2010 New START treaty with Obama.Of course, the Kremlin stated for the record that the Russian government fully supports nuclear disarmament in principal, but a link to sanctions is wrong and unworkable—sanctions may be reinstated at the stroke of a pen, while rebuilding a nuclear submarine or silo-based missile is not that easy. Russian officials say they are ready to discuss nuclear security issues with Trump, but any deal to cut nuclear warhead numbers must be accompanied by the US pledging to scrap its missile defense deployment plans. In addition, other nuclear powers (China, France and the United Kingdom) should join the talks and also cut their stockpiles. As long as these preconditions are not met, there is no scope for any further arms cuts (RIA Novosti, January 16). According to a recent





statement by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, “The world is becoming less stable; world powers confront each other to control resources and seek domination. The West refuses to accept Russia’s vital national interests and sees the expansion of Russian influence in the post-Soviet space as a threat.” In response, according to Shoigu, Russia will strengthen its military capabilities and “continue a massive program of nuclear rearmament, deploying modern ICBMs on land and sea, [and] modernizing the strategic bomber force” (Mil.ru, January 12).Trump’s proposed sanctions-for-nukes deal was a nonstarter, but it sent an important signal—the new US administration sees sanctions imposed as punishment for aggression and wrongdoing as bargaining chips that may be traded for something totally unrelated. The incoming US President seems uninterested in the future of Ukraine and may believe Russia could be allowed to take it over as a dependency if it wishes or if it is ready to pay off Trump with some lucrative deal. Or maybe the Kremlin indeed holds some devastating kompromat (compromising material) connected with the President-elect, and Trump is simply seeking a pretext to lift sanctions.

Regards Cees***

19. JANUARY 2017 BY [email protected] Narrative Impacts WarfarePart of the war games the U.S. and Norway are currently conducting ought to involve practice in the deployment of strategic narrative. In what may be the understatement of the decade, one Norwegian official said, “we have gradually seen more and more … strategic messages being sent [by Moscow].” It is imperative that coalition forces have a grip on how narrative operates in contemporary warfare.By Ajit Maan, Ph.D.Strategic Narrative Expert

The connection may seem counter-intuitive: what do stories have to do with bombs and bullets? Everything. What we are seeing right now, world over, is a return to an ancient form of warfare: the art of influence. And stories have everything to do with influence.Warfare has been taken from modern battlefields into ancient battlefields – the grey zones between war and peace. And as a result, public opinion has become the target. Undermining public trust in government is high on the list “to do” list of those forces seeking to destabilize communities. The role of narrative strategies is central to grey zone maneuvering when the battlefield is not limited to physical territory, and even when it is.The center of gravity now is the narrative space. And dominating it should be a priority. That is where violent extremist non-state actors fight best. That is where foreign governments have proven effective in waging war fight without getting dirty hands. And the US and coalition forces are having serious trouble keeping up.Narrative directly impacts the threat environment whether in a physical conflict zone, in terms of the effects of domestic radicalization, or the interference of foreign governments in domestic politics. Any influence operation that fails to account specifically for narrative influence will not be able to accurately anticipate nor calculate human dimension outcomes. And warfare is, ultimately, a human endeavor.Our continued failure to understand, plan, and execute synchronized maneuvers in the narrative space will allow our enemies continued advantage over us. Coalition allies should develop pedagogical from Basic to War College that define narrative from micro to macro, and explain how to coordinate and execute operations in the ever-expanding narrative space. That is precisely where our enemies dominate, and no amount of





firepower will create a win in that space (although denying territory can degrade the enemies narrative if a large part of it is territorial in nature).We need:

A Meta Narrative that influences how the international community regards a situation – one that encourages a perspective that is consistent with coalition interests.Strategic (Master) Narrative that describes what we are doing, why we are doing it, how it will help the situation, and how the TA – national/international community should respond and how they will benefit by such a response.Operational Narratives that connect and synchronize the micro and macro narratives in action.Tactical (personal/micro) level Narratives that address the concerns of local populations, domestic audiences, and soldiers on the ground.

We need to create social resilience to attacks on our narrative; we need to be prepared to adapt and quickly recover from hits. A civil-military alliance is necessary to protect infrastructure, to withstand cyber attacks, and to maintain defense capabilities. We need to develop both offensive and defensive cyber operations, intelligence operations, information and social media campaigns. We need to be able to deal effectively with uncontrolled movements of masses of people. Predictive analysis is increasingly important to the homeland. Unpredictability can be a weapon.What we need are pre-conflict stability operations, both foreign and domestic. And one of the many purposes storytelling has served, since the dawn of man, is to stabilize (or destabilize) populations.Ajit Maan is President of Narrative Strategies, a think-and-do tank focused on the non-kinetic aspects of counter-terrorism, security, and national defense. She is author of Counter-Terrorism: Narrative Strategies, and Editor of Soft Power on Hard Problems: Strategic Influence in Irregular Warfare.

Regards Cees ***

Dec 2016, After reinventing itself as a major power in the Middle East by force in Syria, Russia is now using its other strong suit, energy, to expand its influence across the region.A series of agreements is allowing Russia and the Gulf states to cooperate in areas where their interests meet, looking beyond Syria where they have backed opposing sides in a brutal proxy war. Over the past month alone, Russia brokered the first deal between the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and non-OPEC nations in 15 years to cut oil production, secured a $5 billion investment by Qatar in oil giant Rosneft PJSC, and then saw Rosneft agree to pay as much as $2.8 billion for a stake in an Egyptian gas field.

“Russia is really keen to increase leverage in the Middle East by every means,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. Russian companies and diplomats are making most inroads in the Soviet-era markets of North Africa and Iran, as they revive political, arms trading and energy relationships that withered following the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia has also rebuilt a strong relationship with Egypt through President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. “What is occurring now is about the bigger picture,” said Theodore Karasik, senior adviser at Gulf State Analytics. He sat on Dubai’s Russian Business Council until this year. “It’s not just about Syria, but all of the Levant and, because of Egypt and Libya, North Africa too.”




Documents

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2017 Part 19-122-Russia-10-89