Author: Daria Novak

The “march for justice” led by the head of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, declared that its goal was to “teach a lesson to Russia’s corrupt and deceitful military leadership, whose blunders in managing the war against Ukraine has resulted in huge losses,” according to the publication Meduza. It is not the first time in Russian history that internal leadership conflicts resulted in death. In a video released on June 23 Prigozhin claims the Russian Ministry of Defense was “deceiving the president” and that it is the military “washing with blood.” How it started remains a mystery, as does its ending. What analysts in Washington do surmise is that the so-called mutiny has exposed multiple fissures in the Kremlin’s military-political architecture, says Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation.

The root cause of the conflict appears to date to the Syrian and Libyan civil wars and the 2018 arguments Prigozhin had with Russian Minister of Defense (MoD) Sergei Shoigu. At the time, a large number of Wagner’s man in Syria lost their lives in an allied attack known as the “Deir ez-Zor Massacre.” Sukhankin points out that the strike was the result of an MoD disagreement with the Wagner Group. It did not end with one attack. In 2019 Wagner’s man were again hit in Libya by a strike that killed dozens of battle-hardened soldiers. Although the MoD and Wagner Group were at odds, Putin needed Prigozhin when his special military operation in Ukraine dragged on and he needed results. Kommersant on June 27 reported that Moscow allocated $1 billion in annual support to the group and another $1 billion to Prigozhin’s business contacts.

 The division was further exacerbated when there was a “normalization” of ammunition, meaning Wagner’s forces received lesser amounts comparable to what Russian soldiers received. The mercenary was also restricted from recruiting additional men out of Russian prisons to replace those lost. Sukhankin says that “Prigozhin, and his fighters, began to openly threaten and humiliate various Russian defense officials. Additionally, the Wagner chief presented an ultimatum that he would withdraw his forces from the frontlines if ammunition supplies were not dramatically increased and General Sergey Surovikin was not appointed as the liaison between Wagner and the MoD.” Less talked about in the Western media is that the Chechen leadership joined forces with MoD. Dmitry Utkin, Sukhankin notes, a Wagner commander covertly threatened the Chechens stating, “we have known each other since the First and Second Chechen wars.” Utkin sided with the Russian federal troops. Later, he adds, a “Wagner social media account posted an image of destroyed Grozny with the unambiguous inscription, ‘We can repeat.’”

Western analysts point out that the Wagner Groups claims and threats were not heard by Putin, despite Prigozhin noting that MoD-subordinated volunteer formations deserted strategic positions in Bakhmut and his ridiculing the Gazprom-created PMC “Torch” for surrendering positions after encountering Ukrainian forces. Putin continued to ignore Prigozhin and supported Shoigu’s demand for an all volunteer force that would sign a contract agreeing to their subordination to the MoD by July 1. As the  Wagner-MoD conflict entered its sixth month, the MoD issued an ultimatum that the Wagner Group sign a contract relinquishing its “uncontrollable” status in the hierarchy of the Russian Armed Forces. Wagner reacted as the document meant that his mercenaries, and possibly Wagner himself, would lose their autonomy.

This led to the June 23 YouTube statement in which he criticized sharply a number of actions taken by Putin. He stated that the war occurred because the MoD intentionally deceived the Russian people, Putin ignored that the Ukrainian president was ready to negotiate, and Russian losses were much higher that officially published. Prigozhin also accused Russian authorities of acting as occupiers, not the saviors of the Donbas region. Sukhankin says Prigozhin “declared his intent to punish Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov, whom he had previously accused of enabling the ‘genocide of the Russian people.’” The mutiny ended as quickly with Putin offering three options: go to Belarus, sign a contract with the MoD and remain in the warzone, or “return back home,” according to Izvestiya.

Internal leadership conflicts that end in violence are not unknown in Russian history. What is enlightening is Prigozhin’s statement explaining that these events were “normal” and that he had “shaken everyone up.” He mocked the MoD saying that in Rostov they “demonstrated a master class. That is how February 24 should have looked.” With Russian history as a guide, the world can expect that new events will unfold indicating that the “mutiny” is far from over.   

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

NATO has concluded its most important summit in decades, and the implications for the future of both the organization itself as well as for the world in general are of exceptional significance.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that “We have just concluded an historic NATO Summit. Over the past two days, we took major decisions to adapt our Alliance for the future. We agreed NATO’s most detailed and robust defence plans since the Cold War. We strengthened our commitment to defence investment. We agreed to bring Ukraine closer to the Alliance, and step up support for the long haul. And we deepened our partnerships around the world even more.  I have just chaired the inaugural meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council. From now on, NATO and Ukraine will meet in the Council to discuss and decide as equals. This is a significant step to move Ukraine closer to NATO.”

Earlier this year, Finland became the 31st member of the alliance. At the meetings just held in Vilnius, Lithuania, it was announced that Sweden would be admitted as well, probably by October. This adds an enormous new geographical advantage, both because of the proximity of the two nations to the Russian border, as well as giving NATO a more advantageous position in the Arctic, which Moscow has been militarizing, placing the U.S. and its allies at a severe disadvantage. Both Finland and Sweden had maintained a neutral stance since the end of the Second World War, but reacted with deep concern over Putin’s expansionist plans and actions. It became apparent to both that the former KGB official sought to both rebuild the Soviet Union and to resume that Empire’s threats to all bordering nations.

The Nordic nation’s bid had been delayed by Turkiye’s demands that Stockholm first take steps to address what Ankara maintained was a tolerance for a group President Erdogan considered to be prone to terrorism.  In return, his request for American F-16 fighter jets was approved by Washington.

The organization, which will officially grow to 32 nations once Sweden’s admission becomes official, reaffirmed its commitment to assisting Ukraine, ending Putin’s hope that the west would eventually tire of the ongoing war. Ukraine’s President Zelensky had hoped to gain a specific timetable for his nation to also join, but it was decided that the war must first be won before that could occur.

Equally as important as the admission of Sweden and Finland and the growing assistance to Ukraine was the attention turned to broader threats to the free world. In addition to the North American and European nations, leaders from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea attended. Stoltenberg stated that “NATO is a regional Alliance, but we face global challenges. What happens in Europe matters to the Indo-Pacific, and what happens in the Indo-Pacific matters to North America and Europe. Beijing’s global assertiveness and Moscow’s war against Ukraine require even closer coordination between NATO, the EU and our Indo-Pacific partners.  We condemn North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, including its latest missile launch: These violate multiple UN Security Council Resolutions and pose a threat to regional and global security. NATO is reinforcing our ties with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea with tailored partnership programs, including joint work on issues like maritime security, new technologies, cyber, climate change, and resilience. We will work even more closely together, standing strong for the rules-based international order.”

The growing and already intense military, political and economic relationship between China and Russia makes the concern over Beijing’s vast nuclear and naval strength a major worry for the alliance. Moscow and Beijing have already engaged in joint military maneuvers in the Mediterranean, directly threatening NATO members.

Photo: NATO Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg and Ukrainian President Zelensky (NATO)

As is well known at this point, former President Donald Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, and is currently facing a criminal trial for these charges in the Southern District of Florida.  The Indictment can be viewed here.

In general, the Indictment is predicated upon a search of Trump’s Florida residence, Mar A Lago conducted by 30 FBI Agents from the bureau’s Washington DC office, using a warrant obtained from a Florida Federal Magistrate.  Shortly after the search, we discussed the reasons this search warrant is in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against general warrants.

In Part 1, we explained why this violation of the Fourth Amendment must lead to the suppression of all evidence obtained in the FBI’s illegal and outrageous search of Mar A Lago.  (Frank, please put a link to Part 1 here).  We also explained why the suppression of the allegedly classified documents seized during this illegal search would (and must) lead to the dismissal of most, if not all charges in the Indictment.

Today we will discuss some more issues and problems relating to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Indictment.

The most obvious and glaring concern relates to the first 31 counts brought against former President Trump – that is, 31 separate violations of 18 USC Sec. 793(e). (Each count is predicated on an individual allegedly classified document recovered during the illegal search of Mar A Lago.)  Also known as the Espionage Act, this statute reads as follows:   “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…map…or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”

It is important to highlight this particular language of the statute; “the possessor has reason to believe  (the information) could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 

The typical Indictment brought by the majority of prosecutors only give a bare bones description of the actions of the defendant that are in violation of the law.  For instance, an Indictment charging a Murder would accuse the defendant of causing the death of the victim with the intent to cause that death, by firing a bullet into the heart of said victim.  The indictment would not typically tell you the make and caliber of the gun, nor would it tell you whether or not the victim and defendant were known to each other prior to the shooting.

Here, Smith has provided us with what is known as a “talking” Indictment – that is, he gives us an extensive explanation of the facts upon which the Indictment is based.  27 pages of facts to be precise.

According to the Indictment, “As president, Trump had lawful access to the most sensitive classified documents and national defense information gathered and owned by the United States government…over the course of his presidency, Trump gathered…official documents and other materials in cardboard boxes…the classified documents Trump stored in boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capability of both the United States and foreign countries…the unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States…”

There are two instances described by Smith’s Indictment regarding Trump’s alleged disclosure of classified information.  “In July 2021…during an audio-recorded meeting with a writer, a publisher and two members of his staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, Trump showed and described a “Plan of Attack” that Trump said was prepared for him by the Department of Defense.  Further, “In August or September of 2021…Trump showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map related to a military operation…”

Regarding the first disclosure, Trump allegedly called the “Plan of Attack” “highly confidential” and “secret.”  In the second instance, Trump allegedly said he should not be showing the PAC representative the map. 

It should be noted that a review of the 31 documents which form the basis for each individual count does not clarify which documents are the basis for the two disclosures described earlier in the indictment.  Not a single one of the documents is described as either a “Plan” or a “Map,” although Number 11 is described as an “undated document concerning military contingency planning of the United States.”

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing – that he showed classified documents or maps to several individuals who did not possess a security clearance.  Nonetheless, do either of these incidents as described in the Indictment fit the description of the state of mind necessary to be in violation of 18 USC Sec. 793(e), that is, “the possessor has reason to believe  (the information) could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”?   

For instance, does the Indictment state that Trump expressed any intention to provide any foreign country with an advantage over the United States by disclosing this information?  No, it does not.  Does the Indictment state that Trump intended harm to the interests of the United States by his disclosure?  Again, the answer is no.

Finally, is there any allegation that any of the persons who received this information did then provide that information to any foreign nation, or make any effort to harm the United States and its interests?  Once more, the answer is no. There is no allegation made in the indictment that these individuals went on to either injure the United States or act to the advantage of any foreign nation.  

According to the BBC, however, “(t)he part of the law referenced by the special counsel’s indictment in Mr Trump’s case…does not say that the suspect must be working with another country to deliberately harm the US… Under the law, prosecutors will not be required to prove that Mr Trump knew that the information he possessed could harm national security interests, but rather that any reasonable person would understand the harm it could do.” 

Yet, this analysis is bolstered by reference to other people charged under the Espionage Act, such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Jonathan Pollard and Chelsea Manning – all spies, or at the very least, persons intent on harming the United States and giving an advantage to a foreign government.  

In a time not so long ago, a prosecution under the Espionage Act caused concern among civil libertarians.  As described by the National Constitution Center, “(t)hroughout American history, free speech has often been tested during times of war.  During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson pushed for new laws that criminalized core First Amendment speech.  Congress passed the Espionage Act shortly after the U.S. entered the war. The Act made it a crime to convey information intended to interfere with the war effort… (this law was) directed at socialists, pacifists, and other anti-war activists.  The Wilson Administration argued that (this act was) essential to the war effort and prosecuted thousands of anti-war activists under their various provisions.  While modern scholars view (the Espionage Act) as violating core free speech protections, the Supreme Court at the time upheld these convictions.”   

Now it is mostly those on the political right who are troubled by the prosecution of former President Trump under the Espionage Act.

Another issue to be considered is brought up by former Acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who said “the interplay between the Presidential Records Act, which says all documents are covered by that act, and the Espionage Act…I think is going to be the most important issue that the courts are going to have to decide.” 

In fact, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, “established a…statutory structure under which Presidents…must manage the records of their Administrations… Specifically, the PRA.. Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President… Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records….Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years…(and) Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records.”

“After a presidency, the responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to presidential records shifts to the (National Archives).”  However, significantly, “(t)he PRA does not provide the former President with a process for disposing of presidential records after leaving office.”

As most readers will recall, Trump was involved in extensive negotiations with the National Archives over which of his records were “Presidential” and which were “personal” when the debate was settled by the FBI and a search warrant.  But charging the former President with a violation of the criminal Espionage act, as opposed to suing him under the civil Presidential Records Act does not settle the matter.

To understand the difference, “let’s examine the famous CLINTON SOCKS CASE...Key point: The case is not about Bill Clinton’s cat named Socks…(r)ather, it involves tape recordings of conversations between President Clinton and historian Taylor Branch intended to serve as a personal diary of sorts, and which eventually formed the basis of Branch’s 2009 book, “The Clinton Tapes.” According to Branch, Clinton would store the tape recordings in his sock drawer for safekeeping and to ensure that staff didn’t find, and possibly leak, the tapes.  In 2010…Judicial Watch sued the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), demanding that it obtain custody of the tapes and deposit them in the Clinton Presidential Library. Judicial Watch argued that Clinton should have included the tapes among the records transferred to NARA at the end of his presidency, and that NARA had to take steps to obtain the records. Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the case because Judicial Watch did not identify anything that NARA could do to retrieve the tapes from Clinton. Jackson further noted that NARA was powerless to classify the records as presidential: ‘[T]he PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records.’”  

Trump himself believes that the Presidential Records Act, and not the Espionage Act should be applied here.  “Not only was Bill Clinton never even considered for criminal prosecution based on the tapes he took, but when he was sued for them, he won the case,” the former President said in remarks made after his federal arraignment. “Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision states: ‘Under the statutory scheme established by the Presidential Records Act, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President during the President’s term, and in the President’s sole discretion’…(i)n other words, whatever documents a president decides to take with him, he has the right to do so. It’s an absolute right. This is the law. And that is something that people have now seen and it couldn’t be more clear. They ought to drop this case immediately.”

Naturally, it should be pointed out that Donald Trump is charged with more than just taking allegedly classified documents and declaring them to be personal records.  He is also accused of making use of those supposedly classified records in at least two instances, under circumstances where he had “reason to believe  (the information) could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”  But, if he is authorized to keep these documents under the PRA, whether marked “classified” or not, he is also authorized to make use of those documents as he wishes.

Though many legal minds do not believe the Presidential Records Act is applicable here, there are arguments which will have to be considered by a court before the matter could ever go to trial.  In particular, the PRA “granted an exclusive right of former presidents to maintain custody and control of presidential papers accrued during their terms in office.  Arguably, it includes classified documents…(f)or more than a decade, it was the considered opinion of the Department of Justice that the PRA conferred a unique right on former presidents to keep whatever presidential records they want, and the government has no authority to seize them. The National Archives agreed. A president has the sole discretion to segregate and dispose of records…(f)orty-five years ago, Congress passed the Records Act to memorialize what previous presidents had always been permitted to do as a matter of tradition and practice. This is important since it is incumbent on courts to interpret statutes consistent with legislative intent. As The Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial, ‘If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain any classified documents, then the PRA is all but meaningless.’ Quite right.”  

In other words, if the Court concludes that the Presidential Records Act, and not the Espionage Act is applicable to former President Trump’s retention of all documents seized by the FBI in its raid at Mar A Lago, then the first 31 counts of the Indictment must be dismissed.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities, along with its military weapons cooperation with Russia and North Korea, render it one of the world’s most significant dangers.

The Islamic state has a new ballistic missile, named “Kheibar” that can launch a one and a half ton payload over 1,200 miles. That, combined with Tehran’s ability to place satellites into space, and the shared technology it receives from North Korea’s highly advanced ICBM program, makes the nation a major threat. Haaretz reports that, according to Israeli sources, Iranian Space Tech Brings Tehran Closer to ICBM Capabilities. rockets that send satellites into orbit could also launch nukes.

A Washington Institute study reveals that “Tehran’s nuclear and regional activities are part of a single strategy that aims to paralyze stronger foes, so Washington’s policies for responding to each challenge should likewise overlap considerably.”

Iran cheated from the start of the already flawed nuclear deal, the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA.)  Iran had agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. One of the key weaknesses of the deal was that the restrictions on developing atomic bomb ingredients would only last for about 15 years, after which it was unrestrained. Even if all parties had stuck to the agreement, and there was no cheating (Iran did cheat) the nuclear threat from Tehran would be looming.

According to the Gatestone Institute, “Ever since President Joe Biden assumed office, Iran has been freely enriching uranium … and violating sanctions…Since 2021, the Biden Administration has been cozying up to Iran in a way that has often seemed agonizingly embarrassing to entice it back to the disastrous 2015 “JCPOA” nuclear deal of the Obama Administration. Mercifully those efforts did not succeed: the new deal would still most likely have enabled Iran, after a few years, legitimately to have all the nuclear weapons it liked.

The crisis-point is already at hand. Iran has sufficient nuclear fuel to develop atomic weapons right now.  Their path is similar to that followed by both Pakistan and North Korea. Despite the Biden Administration’s attempt to reach some sort of deal by basically giving Tehran almost everything it wants, the nations military and economic allies Russia and China have the ability to negate any pressure the U.S. establishes.

In a 2022 Time magazine article, Ehud Barak the former Prime Minister of Israel, noted that “This summer, Iran will turn into a de-facto threshold nuclear state. …. After more than 20 years of trying, Iran is about to cross the point of no return in becoming a member of the ‘nuclear club.’”

Similar to the manner in which Russia and the U.S. have used their nuclear arsenals to deter each other, Iran could use its weapons to gain greater regional influence.  There has been, over the past two years, an almost total reversal of America’s Middle Eastern successes during the Trump Administration.  The Abraham Peace Accords, and the close relations between the Saudis and the U.S., as well as the image that America presented a sufficiently muscular presence to deter Iranian (and Russian) aggression has been replaced by growing closeness between Saudi Arabia and China and a perception by others in the region that the current White House is accommodating Iran and has a reluctance to come to the aid of allies.

Iran has stepped into that vacuum.  Its nuclear power combined with its military relationship with Russia presents a new and dangerous environment. Add China’s commercial deals to the mix, and a volatile situation is apparent.

Illustration: Pixabay

The alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom is and has been the linchpin of world peace and western defense for over a century. Joe Biden is threatening to end that “Special Relationship.”

The term “special relationship” was originally coined by Prime Minister Winston Churchill as early as 1944 to describe the close alliance and cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom. According to the U.S. State Department, “The United States has no closer ally than the United Kingdom, and British foreign policy emphasizes close coordination with the United States. Bilateral cooperation reflects the common language, ideals, and democratic practices of the two nations. Relations were strengthened by the United Kingdom’s alliance with the United States during both World Wars, in the Korean conflict, in the Persian Gulf War, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in Afghanistan, as well as through its role as a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The United Kingdom and the United States continually consult on foreign policy issues and global problems and share major foreign and security policy objectives.”

Many believe that Biden’s Irish background has prompted an anti-British attitude. Biden’s family originates from two Irish Counties, Mayo and Louth.  He has frequently discussed his roots. Britain has been the occasional focus of his jokes.  Yahoo News notes that, preceding a trip to England, “…his mother, Catherine Finnegan, hated the English so much that she told her son she would rather sleep on the floor than sleep in a bed where the monarch had slept.”

The latest manifestation of the President’s ill feelings towards the “Special Relationship” is his opposition to the appointment of Robert Ben Wallace a British politician and former soldier who has served as Britain’s Secretary of State for Defence since 2019, as the next Secretary-General of NATO.

Britons were critical of the manner in which Biden withdrew U.S. forces from Afghanistan.  The U,K. had vigorously cooperated with America in its move to punish terrorists for its 911assault on the United States, resulting in thousands of civilian casualties.

At the time of Biden’s Afghanistan move, Wallace, was quoted in the British Guardian newspaper : “I’m absolutely worried that failed states are breeding grounds for those types of people. It’s why I felt this was not the right time or decision to make because al-Qaida will probably come back. “I think the deal that was done in Doha was a rotten deal. It effectively told a Taliban that wasn’t winning that they were winning, and it undermined the government of Afghanistan and now we’re in this position where the Taliban have clearly the momentum across the country. “The United States are leaving, we are leaving alongside them, and that leaves a very, very big problem on the ground developing with the Taliban, obviously with the momentum.

The latest manifestation of the President’s ill feelings towards the “Special Relationship” is his opposition to the appointment of Wallace as NATO’s new secretary general.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had sought Biden’s support for Wallace’s bid. The President admitted the candidate was “Very qualified.” Wallace has been instrumental in assisting the Ukraine in getting vital weapons to oppose Russia’s invasion. He has received key support from Poland and other of NATO’s eastern members.  Biden chose to back two other candidates, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Denmark’s’ Metter Frederiksen.

The U.K.’s Daily Mail publication believes that Biden’s opposition arises from the fact that Wallace once served the British Army in Northern Ireland.

  Biden’s proclivity to insert his personal and partisan goals into official statements  has, according to his critics, violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of official powers to advance partisan political goals.
Illustration: Pixabay

A little-known country in Central Asia may be playing an outsized role in global security. Azerbaijan’s 10 million people live in the transcontinental region spanning Asia and Europe, where the area’s earliest inhabitants date back to the Stone Age. Throughout history the region has been the subject of contests for control over its territory and rich natural resources. During World War II, 80% of the Soviet Union’s oil for their war machine came from the area. Azerbaijan eventually emerged as an independent state in 1991 and now maintains relations with 158 countries and 38 international organizations. Today the Muslim nation is the subject of speculation among the great powers concerning its growing relationship with NATO and moves toward the West. Analysts point to Russian unease with Baku’s policy, despite its balancing policy. 

When President Ilham Aliyev visited NATO headquarters in December 2021, he said “Azerbaijan has proven to be a reliable partner of NATO.” Rusif Huseynov and Samir Hajizad, of the Jamestown Foundation, note that NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg confirmed that Azerbaijan is “a valued partner” and was engaged in strong military cooperation with Turkey. It provides oil and gas supplies through multiple pipelines to several NATO member states and contributes to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. “Baku never sought NATO membership and instead opted for ‘equidistance’ from rivaling blocs,” notes Huseynov and Hajizad. They point out that the country continues to maintain a balancing policy designed to provide it room for maneuvering between Russia and the West and avoid conflict while accepting indirect NATO support. 

Turkey announced plans in 2021 to establish a military base in Azerbaijan under the Shusha Declaration and strengthened their defense partnership despite protestations from Moscow. Baku’s close ties to Turkey helped it modernize its armed forces and move into better alignment with NATO member standards. Over the last year Azerbaijan has increased its cooperation with the West and worked more with NATO on senior level visits and other interactions.

A month ago, Azerbaijan’s foreign policy advisor, Hikmat Hajiyev, joined several meetings with NATO officials in Brussels. In response, NATO secretary general’s special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Javier Colomina, has been to Azerbaijan four times since 2021 to discuss practical cooperation as well as joint defense planning and review processes, says Huseynov and Hajizad. NATO’s website now describes the country as a “key partner nation.”  They point out that according to a senior NATO official, “Azerbaijan successfully uses NATO cooperation tools and is among the most active countries in these programs.”

Although the country wants to keep balanced relations, it is drafting away from Russia and expanding military cooperation with Turkey. The Azerbaijani publication Ordu recently noted that several Russian-made Sukhoi Su-25 fighter jets in the Azerbaijani Air Force have been modernized according to NATO standards by Turkey, rather than Russia. NATO indirectly is supporting mediation efforts with the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace negotiations and the Karabakh issue.

One Central Asian publication, Azertag, pointed out recently that the Azerbaijani side is troubled about possible military aid to Armenia, which is a member of the Russian-led CSTO, by individual NATO states, such as France. The security environment in Central Asia remains complex, especially given recent events in Russia. Azerbaijan and several other Central Asian states are re-evaluating their relationship with Moscow and making overtures to NATO and other western states. The situation warrants careful watching as events unfold in the coming months.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

In the earliest recorded histories of man, the word propaganda was a neutral term used to refer to “human activity,” in general. Later, in its Latin form, the word evolved to mean “to spread.” By the 20^th century, the English form of the word became associated with a negative approach to communication using manipulation to promote certain opinions or ideologies, or to persuade an audience by producing an emotional rather than rational response to information. Today’s Russian propaganda machine is developing such campaigns not only to spread misinformation but using malicious tactics to create an illusory reality. Putin’s bureaucrats are not providing “information support” or developing “strategic communications,” the ground truth is that Moscow is using its so-called “think tanks” to justify Russian actions in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The Valdai Discussion Club, Foreign Policy Research Foundation, and the Russian International Affairs Council, among others, are part of a complex web of propagandist organizations that unlike Western think tanks are tasked with rationalizing Putin’s irrational policies. Ksenia Kirillova, of the Jamestown Foundation, says these centers are often “more dangerous than ordinary propaganda” as they “do not simply take their words from the pages of the Kremlin’s ‘manual’ but create their own theories and ideological principles that then form the basis for Russian policy and serve as further justifications for aggression.”

In a 35-minute-long YouTube video posted June 24, a Belarusian “think tank analyst,” closely linked to Russia, accused the United States of trying to hold back the development of Russia and the rest of the world. This supports the first of three Russian postulates, according to Kirillova, that the US is responsible for instigating the war in Ukraine. It is a dangerous ideological narrative employed by Kremlin authorities to suggest that Washington is losing influence over the world to Moscow, but if Washington does succeed other countries will be too frightened to “stand up to the hegemon.”

As early as May 1, 2022, the Russian publication Global Affairs reported that the Kremlin accused the West saying it “consciously provoked Moscow to adopt a military solution.” This misinformation campaign continued and evolved to openly accuse the West of “attacking” Russia. Kirillova points out that the logical consequence of this postulate is that “support for Ukraine is beneficial only to the United States, but not to Europe, which ‘will not fight with Russia for the sake of the US.’” This line is part of mainstream Russian propaganda echoed by the country’s top officials, including Russian State Duma Chairman Yvacheslav Volodin. Last December he announced on Duma TV that “the United States is trying with all its might to hold back the development of other states in order to preserve its hegemony.”

Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russian foreign intelligence, repeats the narrative regularly in speeches citing how international tensions are caused by “the stubborn resistance of the West, led by the US, to come to grips with the loss of its role as world hegemon.” In June he accused American and British intelligence services of making “greater Eurasia… a priority target for attacks….”

The second postulate Kirillova offers, points to Russian accusations that Western policy is neo-colonial and directed as much against Moscow as the rest of the world. According to Russian ideologues in the publication Global Affairs, the Kremlin today is “at the forefront of this struggle and is a sort of icebreaker that finishes off the residual ice of the neo-colonial system of Western domination.”

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, often proclaims that “the military operation of Russia in Ukraine contributes to freeing the world from the neo-colonial yoke of the West.” On June 16 Putin joined in the campaign saying that “the monstrous neo-colonial system has ceased to exist.”

According to Kirillov, the third postulate argues that, for Moscow, the war in Ukraine is supposedly existential, “where the existence of Russia is at stake.” A Russian YouTube video in late June said for the West, it is only essential to derive maximum benefit from the war, after which it will seek other ways to achieve this goal. It is a battle between ground truth and illusory reality, one that has Putin believing his own propaganda, when Russian officials declare the world is “unconditionally” on Moscow’s side, that Europe is about to negotiate with Russia in an escape from the “dictates of the US.” Kirillov argues that this credo “convinces the Kremlin to continue its aggression believing in the inevitability of victory, which renders the Putin regime incapable of negotiations.” Misinformation and propaganda believed by those creating it may be the most dangerous Russian campaign to date.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay