Islamic Military Alliance: Options for Pakistan

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Saudi Arabia has asked for Pakistani cooperation to establish a military alliance of Muslim countries on the footprints of NATO.

Pakistan has accepted the request and has shown its willingness to cooperate with the Kingdom but no details of this cooperation have come fore so far. 

According to media reports, the request was made to PM Nawaz Sharif and COAS Gen Raheel Sharif on their return to home after attending the concluding ceremony of "North Thunder" military exercises where military contingents from 20 Muslim countries participated. 

Super Aircraft Carrier & New Destroyers: Resurgence of Russian Maritime Power

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Maritime developments in Eastern Europe and Baltic states carry all the signs of beginning of a new Cold War in 21st century which would usher a new era of arms race in the region. As the NATO and the US are supplying weapons to the Eastern European and Baltic States' naval forces, Russian response has also been a swift one in mitigating the threat and keeping the balance of power in its favor. 

Poland is looking for anti-ship cruise missiles (ideally US Harpoon) for its submarines while new submarines are also on order. US would gladly supply Poland with these missiles and new submarines as it will serve US interests in the region and would also help to extend the political control by establishing Poland defenses as close NATO ally under a constant Russian threat. US diplomacy in the close proximity of Russia revolves around a containment policy. 

Russian response is a more aggressive posturing in the region. New Russian maritime projects indicate a renewal of Russian Navy's 4 battle commands with 4 carrier groups. A detailed look on these projects makes it obvious that Russia is not ready to accept the expansion of NATO to its borders. From Russian perspective, the execution of this modernization drive has both political and military dynamics. This Russian modernization is a strong signal to Western Europe and Washington about how Moscow feels about NATO expansion in its backyard but more importantly, it is also an indication that Russia is going to play a more assertive role in future geopolitics of the region and beyond. Russian intervention in Syria to save Asad’s regime there is the indistinct manifestation of this.

Once Russia complete the modernization of its naval forces with multipurpose heavy aircraft carriers, it will certainly begin to play a more assertive role in Arctic Circle, Atlantic Ocean and, many be troubled Pacific Rim of Indian Ocean. Below are the details of Russian Super Carrier program and future destroyer program.

Russian Super Carrier Program:

Project 23000E or Shtorm is the name of a new multipurpose heavy aircraft carrier design for Russian naval forces. The project is going to be executed by Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC).

The design features a split air wing comprising navalized T-50 PAK/FA and Mig-29Ks, as well as jet powered naval AEW platforms. The ship is going to house Ka-27 helicopters as well. 

Valery Polyakov, the deputy director of KSC informed media about the design goals of this multipurpose carrier;

"The carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defense," 

The initial specifications show that the ship would be a competitor to USN Nimitz class with its displacement of 90-100,000 tons, and length of 330 meters. Ship will carry 80 - 90 aircraft of various sorts as per mission requirements. The ship would be 40 meters wide with a draft of 11 meters.

Its crusie speed will be 20kt while it will have a top speed of 30 kt. The endurance of carrier in the sea is intended at 4 month time.  The biggest hurdle will be designing of non-conventional propulsion for such a heavy ship.

The project is an ambitious one as it is being designed with provision of dual design angled flight deck with four launch positions: 2 from Ski-Jump and 2 from electromagnetic catapults.

The main design feature which set it apart from conventional carrier design is inclusion of two island concept. It will separate the running of the ship from the flying operations resulting in greater visibility of flying operations and allowing other commander to focus more on maritime maneuvering in the sea.

Russian internet source claims that funds for the project has already been allocated.

Russian Future Destroyer: 

Apart from this heavy duty carrier, a new class of destroyer for the Russian Navy is currently under development by the Krylov State Research Center (KSRC), IHS Jane's was told during a visit to the company.

The new destroyer design called Project 23560E or Shkval (Squall) is being pursued for Russian naval forces by Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC). A scale model of the design was exhibited for the first time during the International Maritime Defence Show 2015 held earlier in St Petersburg.

By looking at its specifications it can easily be labeled as a Cruiser. At full-load its displacement will be between 15,000-18,000 tons. It has a length of 200 meters, beam of 23 meters. It can cruise at speed of 2o kt while its maximum speed is 32kt. It can operate for 90 days in the sea with a crew of 250-300 on board. Despite its massive displacement and size, it will still be powered by gas turbine engine.

Russian manufacturer has plans to install a battle management system integrated with tactical and operational-tactical ACSs on these destroyers which will provide commander a clear situational awareness during the maritime engagements. This battle management system will get data from multiple on-board sensors multi-functional phased array radar, electronic warfare subsystem, communications suite, underwater reconnaissance system. Each ship will be able to house two ship borne helicopters.

The destroyer carries huge amount of missiles in vertical launching arramgenets. These include 60-70 anti-ship or anti-land cruise missiles, 128 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and 16-24 anti-submarine missiles. The ship is also equipped with a 130 mm multipurpose naval gun.

NATO's Response to Russian Hybrid Warfare: Is the Strategy Right?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

"We need a collective defence where Allied forces are more ready to deploy.

And better able to reinforce each other.

Faster.

Sharper.

And more mobile.

We must be able to deter any threat, from any direction.  Including hybrid warfare, and attacks that are aimed at our infrastructure -- our economies -- and our open societies.

This requires resolve.

And resources.

We have shown the resolve.

We are fundamentally changing NATO’s defence posture. To ensure we have the right forces -- in the right place -- at the right time."

This is an excerpt from speech of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the 51st Munich Security Conference, held from 6-8 Feb. in Munich, Germany. Complete text of his speech is available on official site on following link:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_117320.htm?selectedLocale=en

ANALYSIS:

Now when the NATO has officially accepted that age of Hybrid Warfare is here and have announced critical steps to combat the percieved threats from Russian Hybrid strategy. There are two aspects of his speech which demand a critical analysis.

1. As a response strategy, Mr, Stoltenberg has told that NATO has prescribed the  establishment of a "spearhead Force".
2. NATO has decided to established first command and control units in six eastern Allies: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania on war footings these units are ought to provide support to rapid deployment of spearhead force along with regular NATO troops.

Ostensibly, this seems some well devised and coordinated steps in deterring Russian threats which have been classified as 'Hybrid' by NATO's secretary general. But by looking at this NATO's response strategy, which overwhelmingly is Kinetic in nature, it would be prudent to contemplate if these steps are really adequate response to Moscow's aggressive actions in Ukraine, Baltic and other parts of Eastern Europe. Hybrid tactics in their nature are complex and compounded with more focus on Non-Kinetic tactics than Kinetic means. Hybrid strategy includes implementation of multiple conventional, sub conventional. economic, psychological and political tactics simultaneously in order to create more options for own state while at the squeezing the space for opponent in all three decisive battlefields of Hybrid War, as defined by former US Army officer Col. Jack McCuen i.e.

1. Physical Conflict zone & its population; 
2. Home front (Own Population) 
3. International community. 

NATO's strategy, so far, does not cater the delicacies related to dynamics of war which affect directly local and international population. NATO nations just ended one of their longest war in Afghanistan last year and now yet another intense war is lurking around the corner. Most of the troops and member nations are still not clear why they were in Afghanistan and what this prolonged war there has achieved. It can be argued that NATO did respond with non-kinetic measures when economic sanctions were imposed over Russia but in hindsight they, evidently, not only proved ineffective but rather counter-productive.

But question, remains why NATO considers Russian threats as 'Hybrid' in the first place? Latest reference to Russian overtures being Hybrid was made by former NATO secretary general Andres Fogh Rasmussen, who warned that "Russia may use "hybrid war" methods in Baltics to test NATO solidarity" while giving an interview to a UK daily. "There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test NATO's Article 5," Rasmussen said during the interview while referring to the solidarity clause of the North Atlantic Treaty that underpins collective security.  Interestingly, the above mentioned speech of current NATO secretary general also contains the reference to Hybrid nature of Russian threat in almost same sense. Intrinsic problem with NATO's kinetic strategy is that it is devoid of any approach to address the real target of Russian hybrid war i.e. "Solidarity" within NATO. Fear of Red Bear may work for sometime, but with a growing Euro-Zone crisis, asking for more defense funds and spending, making more aggressive military oriented strategies and inability to finish ongoing conflicts will eventually damage NATO's solidarity as Putin has in his mind.

In NATO not all the nations have luxury of spending more on defense right now and this new Kinetic strategy is certainly going to put lots of pressure on stable European economies like Germany and France. By looking at this strategy it seems that NATO perceived Russian hybrid threats posed to 'Sovereignty' of EU instead of 'Solidarity' of its defense alliance which guards European sovereignty but once its solidarity compromised, many East European nations will be 'hoping' for peace. Putin's timing of igniting Ukraine is also an intriguing aspect of this whole crisis. Prolonged economic crisis of Europe, shortness of resources due to budgetary cuts on defense in EU and psychological stress of prolonged deployment in war zones of Afghanistan and other parts are being masterly exploited by Putin and NATO's response is more military oriented that is going to exacerbate all of these nuisances within Europe and at the same time provoking Russia even more with deployment of forces in Baltics and Russian neighbors. This is not how an alliance keeps its solidarity intact, this is how an alliance prepare for a war. If NATO is doing so. Someone there must go through history to all the Western invaders who entered the Russia in the past. And this is the point when many of the European states would start to look at their own interest irrespective to what NATO wants. And this is exactly what Putin is striving for!    

Geopolitics of Pipelines and Energy Wars!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Many analysts around the world has been caught by surprise when, during his visit to Turkey, Russian President Putin announced to stop South Stream gas pipeline project which was to be built through Black Sea, around Ukraine, to Eastern Europe with multi billion dollar investment by major gas production and distribution firms. According to the Russian gas production giant Gazprom, major investor in the plan, the route of this planned gas pipeline was to run from Eastern Russia to Balkans through beneath the Black Sea, avoiding volatile Ukrainian territory, to Germany after passing through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungry etc. Major Russian goal through this pipeline was to follow the strategy to diversify the gas supply routes to the Europe.

South Stream pipeline Route ( Soruce: Gazprom)

According to the Western analysts, the ambitious project became the casualty of Ukrainian crisis and its demise shows the limits of Moscow's energy bullying. This analysis stems from the perception that the construction of South Stream pipeline would have given Moscow more leverage to demand concessions from the government in Kiev, which is seeking closer ties with Europe. It is worth noticing that Gazprom was a major investor in the project investing more than 50% of total cost. This was conceived in EU as a Russian attempt to monopolize the gas supply to Eastern rim of Europe.  On the other hand, Russian sources and analysts believe that the project was doomed by EU.

“If Europe does not want to implement the project, then it won’t be implemented. We will refocus our energy resources to other parts of the world,” Putin said on Monday in the Turkish capital, Ankara, after a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This decision by Preisdent Putin has stirred a heated debate within EU as well. James Henderson of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, believes that countries on Eastern rim of Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary) are pretty exposed to a energy crisis if Ukrainian conflict escalates. Putin may be trying to fracture the discussion within the EU,” Henderson says.

Andras Deak, an associate fellow at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, told Bloomberg News that "the scrapping of South Stream complicates the region’s energy security, making it all the more dependent on the Ukrainian pipeline. The EU and the IMF effectively will have to finance Ukraine’s gas bill now, if they want to make sure that gas keeps flowing through Ukraine to Europe.”

So how does this Russian decision is actually going to affect the regional energy security and geopolitics? Is it really a European win and a Russian lose? Or Russia is playing her cards more wisely on grand chessboard?

ANALYSIS:

This decision of abandoning the gas pipeline project seems inevitable one considering the contentious Russian-EU diplomatic ties over Ukrainian conflict. Ostensibly, it seems that the scrapping of South Stream would haunt Russian interests more than East European states (at least in short to mid term span), but a holistic analysis of this decision in context of bigger geopolitical picture demands a more closer examination of all the factors critical to the regional diplomacy.

European analysts believe that the main reason behind canceling the project is mainly economic and not political. Ruble has slided more than 22% against US Dollars during recent months causing US$90-100 Billions to the Russian economy. This explains why many Western analysts believe that Putin has caught in a perfect geopolitical storm due to its aggressive intervention in Ukraine. Coming out of this situation would not be easy for Moscow without making a compromise on Ukraine. But this Western analysis and narrative does not explains this decision in context of bigger picture of regional geopolitics.

By looking at the Western analyses, it seems that to overcome the financial shock, caused by Western sanctions, Putin is taking some immediate steps. After losing close ally like Germany, it would be difficult for Moscow to compensate the lost ground on economic front in short period of time. To make the matters worse, Russia is in no position to expand its Eurasian energy integration infrastructure towards South through Central Asian States (CAS) as the strategic sand has shifted and one of the major Cold War era Russian ally in South Asia, (India) has become the US strategic partner. Apart from that, CAS want to expand their own energy grid towards South (TAPI pipeline is vivid manifestation) and after that, India and Pakistan would be able to meet their energy demands from this pipeline.


But actually, Putin's decision was not irrational or illogical as Western analysts are trying to paint it.

Russia had already secured the huge Chinese energy market for herself before announcing the abandonment of South Stream. Earlier last month, Russia and China entered into a strategic energy partnership (worth $400 Billion). Apart from that, Russia has announced to built the gas pipeline to Balkans via a new route passing through Turkey.

Apart from that, Putin has outplayed the West on economic front by evading European and American project in Ukraine which was part of encirclement policy of Washington against Moscow. Putin rendered the plans hatched to cage the red bear in Russian mainland using Baltic States and Ukraine into quixotic dreams.

Despite the fact that till the recent deal with China and Turkey manifests into reality, the Russian economy would stay under stress there is no Soviet era like threat to Russian economy. This short term stress explains why National Bank of Russia had to cut its growth forecast for next year to zero sighting the decline in oil prices and Ruble's decline against Dollar. But believing that this stress would dent Russian economy in serious way is nothing more than a fantasy. In order to keep the Russian energy sector alive, the China-Russia deal was secured despite a heavy cost of accepting Chinese influence in Russian energy sector. Due to this deal, Russian oil & gas production company, OAO Rosneft, would sell a 10% stake in a Siberian unit to state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. One can argue that Chinese influence on the Russian policy making is increasing and this compromise by Russia is a manifestation of that. But for Russia, through this arrangement, Chinese would be providing much needed investment to the Russian energy sector. A natural strategic alliance between Beijing and Moscow is in making where former is securing its energy supplies by securing latter's economy.

Lowering the prices of oil failed to work the way it was expected. US-Saudi nexus kept the production of oil  at same oil while dropped the prices to dent the Russian economy but that hasn't work to required extent so far and in future it will not because unlike Iran, apart from oil, Russians are principle suppliers of gas to major part of Europe and the entire hoopla of ending the threat of monopolization of European gas supplies by eliminating the South Stream is a big hoax considering the fact that Russia is still biggest supplier of gas to Europe via Nord Stream pipeline which runs under the Baltic Sea from  Vyborg in the Russian Federation to Greifswald in Germany. 

Nord Stream Pipeline - Major Energy supply route to Germany and Western Europe

This makes it clear that the entire media buzz about the Russian economic and political isolation is nothing more than a well coordinated propaganda. The fact that Russian banks are buying the physical currency like Gold from all over the world which in the long run is going to support Russian currency against US dollars which is rapidly losing its value against gold.

A quiet aspect of this energy war in Eurasia is how Turkish geography would become more relevant in the regional geopolitics. If Russian plans to expand the gas pipeline to Greece via Turkey materializes smoothly, the Bulgarian resistance to South Stream would be another futile European endeavor and by looking at the recent developments, this possibility is not a distinct one!   

Afghanistan: America's Never Ending War!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US president Obama announced on Friday, that the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan would be extended for another year and now much talked pullback would begin in as early as December 2015 provided this extension of US war pay some dividend within one year which seems highly unlikely. Under this new order now the US troops can conduct military operations without seeking approval from Kabul.

Question is, what actually compelled President Obama to expand the US troops combat role in Afghanistan when almost everyone was expecting a draw-down of major portion of US troops from Afghanistan? According to New York Time's report, the decision has been made as combat situation is not what the US had hoped for when cut off date of December 2014 was announced in May, earlier this year by President Obama.

"Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.", reads NYT report.

It is common knowledge that Post 9/11 legislation done in Washington has empowered the private military contractors, manufacturers in the power corridors. For any US government, it would be almost impossible to disengage from military conflicts around the globe. This recent decision by President Obama would also benefit Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Pentagon irrespective to its aftermath. This decision is being considered similar to the one President Obama had to make in 2009 to send 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan under the pressure of Pentagon. Last 5 years' progress in WoT shows that the surge of US troops in Afghanistan failed to achieve its stated goals of degrading, dismantling and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. It is my intention to finish the job." said President Obama in 2009 while announcing the surge in 2009. These bitter realities have played a key role in this latest decision by the White House despite the fact that the US economy has been rattled due to this prolonged Afghan/Iraq wars.

But the problem, for the Obama, is that after 5 years of surge, it is evident that the Obama's Af-Pak strategy failed both on the battlefield and on the negotiation table while, back in the US,  Democrats are going in general elections within the next two years, without attaining half of the goals they set for themselves in 2009 Af-Pak review. The results of mid term elections, recently held in various US States, also point towards the waning public support for this prolonged war. So, understandably, Democrats are desperate for a clear and decisive victory. But can extension of combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan achieve this?  In this backdrop, this new decision by President Obama demands some pondering on its after effects on the regional geopolitical landscape.

Cost of War:

How this decision would change the general complexion of WoT within one year? Would there be another extension to the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan next year? These questions are critical as they are related to the military and financial rationale of prolonging this war. Back in 2009, it was estimated that the surge would cost $30 billion annually on additional 30,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. This cost was in addition to the cost of keeping earlier 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan sent in 2001 after 9/11. The studies conducted recently on cost of this war indicates that the cost would be in between 4 and 6 trillion dollars. This is a very high cost indeed even for a economy as big as America's.

South Asian geopolitics and US strategic interests:

With a strategic shift in power from the West to East, the geopolitical landscape in South Asia is also transforming rapidly. Emergence of China and Resurgence of Russia has affected the geopolitics in this region more than any other part of the world. South Asia is significant for global politics as majority of world population is inhabited here. Apart from China and Russia, India is also positioning itself to become a big and effective player in the region. In the Indian strategy of extending her influence in the region, military power projection and employment of "soft-power" are two most visible means.

The biggest historical dilemma with strategic power shift phenomenon from one region to another is that it is a slow, rare and infrequent and often a process full of conflicts and confrontations of various sorts. Historically, such power shifts always invited conflicts and recent strategic stand-off between China and the US in the Pacific rim of Indian Ocean around Japan, clearly indicates that this strategic flux of global economic and political power can get ugly very quickly. Both, rising and the existing powers (China and the US), have been locked in eyeball to eyeball situation and no one wants to blink. Despite the massive budget cuts and financial constrains, the US is compelled to maintain its current level of defense spending and even an increase in defense expenditure has been forced as the technological edge between the US and China is eroding fast. This explains the announcement of  Defense Innovation Initiative by the US Defense Secretary, Chuk Hegal, ealier this month. Under this initiative the US government would provide more funds for defense R&D (Research and Development). Main aim of this program is to develop new, smart weapons and various combat systems.

Afghanistan is strategically important. Not only for the US but more so for recently announced, "New Silk Route" strategy of China which aims for Asian economic integration. Chinese silk route goes around Afghanistan through Central Asia and Pakistan. This strategic infrastructure build up is a strategic Chinese attempt to secure her vulnerable energy supply lines and open up new markets for Chinese made products in Middle East, Europe and Central Asia by providing a cheap and efficient land-based transportation system. So, Chinese strategy for sustained oil supplies and Chinese export will not only expand her political influence in the region but would also contribute in Chinese military modernization. Chinese infrastructure developments in neighboring countries is going to get challenge US strategic interests in the region. This is why  energy experts like John Foster of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives believe that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden. "Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region.", stated Foster in one of his analysis on Why Afghanistan is strategically so important. Afghanistan lies in center of major energy and trade corridors in the region. It is going to be the root of TAPI gas pipeline (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India).        

Due to these Chinese overtures in the region, the Americans are compelled to maintain a strategic footprint in Afghanistan, directly or through a proxy like India, Recently, Indian interest in Afghanistan and the Indo-US strategic partnership in Afghanistan became vivid trends in South Asian geopolitics. Not only the US praises Indian role in Afghanistan but wants to expand this Indian foot print as well. This US desire was recently expressed by none other than Rear Admiral John Kirby, Pentagon Press Secretary. “I will leave it to India to decide and to speak to what they will contribute to regional security after the end of this year, but we certainly look to India’s leadership and their continued participation.”

Implications for Regional Stability:

US reliance on India as a strategic partner in Afghanistan to safeguard converging Indo-US strategic interests in the region has become a serious concern for Islamabad during the recent years. Pakistan Army Chief has already declared India a hurdle in ongoing War on Terror in FATA region bordering restive Afghanistan. And days after that, Pakistani Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif declared the US as 'unreliable' partner. Pakistani resentment stems from the fact that despite accepting the fact that India has been creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan, Post 9/11 US foreign policy has largely favored India in Afghanistan at the cost of Pakistan's security interests in Afghanistan.   

This decision is also critical for Pakistan's internal security which has been compromised by the violent elements/terrorists of TTP/Al-Qaeda hiding inside Afghanistan. Pakistan Army has been demanding a stiff action against these elements by Afghan government since many months but Kabul didn't accept Pakistani demands in this regard. A prolonged combat in Afghanistan would compound the already volatile security on open-boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is something Pakistan does not want but if the US withdraw from Afghanistan too early, that would be more catastrophic. Furthermore, -despite prevailing hostile local sentiments -the US forces in Afghanistan are part of UN approved international campaign against Taliban.

For Pakistani perspective, there is no military solution of Afghanistan and with her current military oriented strategic mindset the US would not be able to pull troops back.  It is imperative that the US forces must continue their support against insurgency but it is responsibility of Afghan government to seek a broad based political solution of the problem. For now, Pakistan would continue to face security threats from Western front and combat in FATA region would also continue to bleed Pakistan Army and State as well. For Pakistan it is critical to take initiative and unite all noticeable factions in a political process and Afghan stability must be the top strategic priority in Pak-US relations and strategic dialog as well. Even for the US, this is the only way out if Obama really want to disengage from America's never ending war!

(END)

Russians, Americans and Middle East!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The contours of Russian future policy towards the Middle East and the US were made clear by Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov’s, address to the UN annual session. He raised concerns over the current US policy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and proposed a new inclusive and academic approach to address the problem.

“We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the longstanding conflicts should be examined, primarily between Arab nations and Israel."

He also pointed out longstanding issue of Palestine as the core reason behind the regional unrest.

“The absence of settlement of the Palestinian issue over several decades remains, as it is widely recognized as one of the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more and more new Jihadists.”

 Most importantly, he raised some serious concerns over Obama’s new Syrian strategy against ISIS which rely on airstrikes and using local rebels against ISIS.

“We warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed himself an enemy of [Syrian President] Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other ‘fellow travellers’ seeking the change of regime, including ISIS, which today is in the focus of our attention.”

Analysis:

This is something we don't often see from Russians. A diplomatic assault against the entire narrative of the US about ISIS. Washington never consulted with UN about attack on Syria and the reasons for not doing so are also obvious. In the presence of China and Russia, every move to seek a US planned military intervention would have vetoed. Reasons behind relying more on regional allies than on NATO are also obvious. The US and Europe don’t want to face any retaliatory actions by remnants of ISIS even if they succeeded in crushing the main body of this outfit. Apart from this obvious reason, inclusion of Islamic states is critical as it provides a moral and religious narrative in support of this fight against ISIS. Recent verdict by 100 top Muslim scholars is being consider a big moral victory for ongoing campaign against ISIS.

But still this military campaign is against the international law and norms as it has no UN mandate and is pursued under a pretext which is often challenged on the geopolitical grounds. This argument that whatever is transpiring in the Middle East, including the rise of entities like ISIS, is manifestation of geopolitical maneuvering has its own merits. According to the critics of the US policy, this is where the Russians are taking moral high ground in a bid to make the legitimacy of the entire anti-ISIS campaign questionable particularly after Obama's over-militarized strategy for Syria.

For now, the US and allies have a strong pretext of attacking ISIS in Syria and Russians are not in position to do anything more than using diplomatic means and international relations norms to question the legitimacy of Obama's new war in Syria. But Washington has already played that card preemptively "denouncing Russian aggression in Europe" which led Russians to consider cease fire in Ukraine and now Moscow is trying to rectify her mistakes but at the same time cannot allow NATO to expand too close to its borders. But that concern is not immediate one. Till Russia and Ukraine reach a settlement there would be no serious challenge to the US campaign in Syria. The scenario is changing fast in Ukraine as an initial cease fire has been reached which includes formation of a buffer zone. Question is, what if this new US campaign in Syria turns into another protracted war just like Iraq and Afghanistan something accepted even by the State Department as real possibility? What if Russia give her Ukrainian adventure a quick closure?

If that happens one thing is certain that Russian response to American interventionism against Moscow's allies would not remain confined to diplomatic and media overtures. From recent statements of Russian foreign minister it looks like Moscow is looking for a closure in Ukraine and European sanctions against Russia are also driving Moscow to look for a settlement in Ukraine. Despite these sanctions, Russians are well aware of the limitations of NATO. Almost entire Eastern Europe depend onRussian energy supplies particularly in winters. US cannot push too far with sanctions against Russia. This limits US diplomatic and political options against the Russian overtures. 

In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.

On the other hand, any prolonged war in the Middle East would dent the US narrative. Civilian casualties would escalate as Washington is going to rely too much on airstrikes, at least in initial stages of war. The US faced international embarrassment over killings of innocent civilians in FATA region of Pakistan despite the fact that all the governments in Islamabad actually never resisted the US drone strikes. In the presence of a hostile government in Syria, it would be even more challenging for the US and her Gulf allies to justify each and every air strike and still ending the war soon. Any attack on Syrian military infrastructure would complicate the problem further, a scenario Washington would like to avoid but not sure for how long. By looking at the strategic flux the region is going through, one thing is certain that the chaos in Middle East is certainly a manifestation of international geopolitics and is bound to be compounded in coming weeks and months!  

10 Years of War on Terror & Pakistan

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Afghanistan proved strategic black hole for British and Soviet empires in 19^th and 20^th centuries and it looks like that after the destruction of two former superpowers, the US is going to vanish in this black hole in 21^st century. But this time around the war has very distinctive and unique dynamics than any other previous attempts to capture this land lock country.

Pakistan, along with many other Muslim World countries is faced with sub-conventional security threats. The covert war is not hypothetical anymore. The objective of this imposed war is to make Pakistan a dysfunctional state first, denuclearize it in the second phase and then move towards the final balkanization and dismemberment. The threat Pakistan faces today is existential! Pakistan faces a genuine, real and close threat to its very survival in a very hostile regional environment. 





Salala Attack: NATO's Bloody Attack On Pakistan

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The Motive:

In the early morning of Saturday 26 November two NATO Apache helicopters, an AC-130 gunship, and a number of fighter jets perpetrated a sustained and deadly attack on two Pakistani army border posts on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Located high on the Salala mountain ridge, the two army posts were brutally attacked for approximately two hours. In what was evidently a naked act of aggression, the US-led forces bombarded the border posts for forty-five minutes, left for twenty minutes, and subsequently returned – attacking for a further hour. Twenty-four Pakistani soldiers including two officers were murdered in the assault.