Monday September 29, 2008
The Criminal-Terrorist Pipeline In Full View
One of the most fascinating dramas unfolding, apart from the Wall Street meltdown, is the fate of the Ukrainian operated ship, hijacked by Somali pirates and loaded with tanks, anti-aircraft weapons and ammunition.
The hijackers of the ship Faina, a Ukrainian-operated, Belize-flagged vessel, are demanding $20 million ransom for the ship, its crew and contents. Several U.S. ships are maintaining visual contact with the ship to try to insure that none of the 33 T-72 tanks or other high value cargo is offloaded.
"We're deeply concerned about the cargo and we don't want it to go into the wrong hands," a U.S. spokesman said. Well, it seems it is a bit late for that, eh?
The Times of London is reporting that the Somali Islamists are already mobilizing to unload what they can.
"The Islamists have sent pick-ups from Mogadishu to go and collect the gear," said an analyst with a network of Somali informers. "There's not much they can do with the tanks — they can't get them off — but the rest of the weapons they are trying to move ashore."
Somalia's insurgents have made a series of impressive gains in recent weeks. They now control the port city of Kismayo and have armed and equipped pirate gangs as part of a campaign to control the seas.
So, radical Islamists supporting piracy that yields not only large amounts of wealth, but obstructs a major world sea lane, while at the same time effectively starving much of their own population by making it virtually impossible to deliver humanitarian aid to the region.
And, while the government of Kenya claims the shipment, including the tanks and other sophisticated weaponry, were for its army, it seems at least a good chunk were actually destined for southern Sudan.
I would like to see the end-user certificate for the transaction. Using a flag of convenience ship to send weapons to one of the world's most volatile regions, and making no efforts to insure the safe passage, despite a record number of hijacking in the very same waters, seems just a bit reckless.
The Islamists, of course, are looking for weapons. The Russians, as we have increasingly seen, are not overly concerned about where their weapons end up, be it Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela or, in the recent past, Mogadishu.
Pirates, of course, look to acquire merchandise of value and resell it. They are part of the facilitating network. If we were willing to pay $20 million, they would likely give the weapons to the U.S. navy. It really doesn't matter to them, as long as their profits hold up.
This is exactly the overlap between criminals and terrorists, through the network of "shadow facilitators" on either side that make the deals happen.
How it ends will be important. If the tanks end up in Somalia, Kenya or Sudan, it will be enough to militarily reshape the region, and likely not in the best interests of most of the people who live there. And, if it strengthened radical Islamist movements to the degree they can create new safe havens, we are all in more danger.
The hijackers of the ship Faina, a Ukrainian-operated, Belize-flagged vessel, are demanding $20 million ransom for the ship, its crew and contents. Several U.S. ships are maintaining visual contact with the ship to try to insure that none of the 33 T-72 tanks or other high value cargo is offloaded.
"We're deeply concerned about the cargo and we don't want it to go into the wrong hands," a U.S. spokesman said. Well, it seems it is a bit late for that, eh?
The Times of London is reporting that the Somali Islamists are already mobilizing to unload what they can.
"The Islamists have sent pick-ups from Mogadishu to go and collect the gear," said an analyst with a network of Somali informers. "There's not much they can do with the tanks — they can't get them off — but the rest of the weapons they are trying to move ashore."
Somalia's insurgents have made a series of impressive gains in recent weeks. They now control the port city of Kismayo and have armed and equipped pirate gangs as part of a campaign to control the seas.
So, radical Islamists supporting piracy that yields not only large amounts of wealth, but obstructs a major world sea lane, while at the same time effectively starving much of their own population by making it virtually impossible to deliver humanitarian aid to the region.
And, while the government of Kenya claims the shipment, including the tanks and other sophisticated weaponry, were for its army, it seems at least a good chunk were actually destined for southern Sudan.
I would like to see the end-user certificate for the transaction. Using a flag of convenience ship to send weapons to one of the world's most volatile regions, and making no efforts to insure the safe passage, despite a record number of hijacking in the very same waters, seems just a bit reckless.
The Islamists, of course, are looking for weapons. The Russians, as we have increasingly seen, are not overly concerned about where their weapons end up, be it Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela or, in the recent past, Mogadishu.
Pirates, of course, look to acquire merchandise of value and resell it. They are part of the facilitating network. If we were willing to pay $20 million, they would likely give the weapons to the U.S. navy. It really doesn't matter to them, as long as their profits hold up.
This is exactly the overlap between criminals and terrorists, through the network of "shadow facilitators" on either side that make the deals happen.
How it ends will be important. If the tanks end up in Somalia, Kenya or Sudan, it will be enough to militarily reshape the region, and likely not in the best interests of most of the people who live there. And, if it strengthened radical Islamist movements to the degree they can create new safe havens, we are all in more danger.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday September 26, 2008
The Real Warning Signs on Afghanistan
Perhaps the single biggest deterrent to a successful insurgency or armed movement is the civilian population. If they are with the insurgency, the armed group will endure, if not necessarily prevail. Without popular support, or at least tolerance, the group will wither.
So it is really alarming to read the Washington Post story about the growing nostalgia for the Taliban in Kabul and other areas under government control in Afghanistan.
Much has been written about how the Taliban is gaining ground, the role that the poppy/opium trade plays in financing the group, the help received from Pakistan's ISI etc. But none to me indicates the depths of the problem there as this changing attitude in what should be the progressive areas where radical Islamism is not a popular concept.
"The government is weak, and it has an enormously high level of tolerance for crime, abuse and corruption," said Nader Nadery, an official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. "If you have power and money, you don't have to account for your actions. Instead of the rule of law, there is a state of impunity, which is one of the factors contributing to the growth of the Taliban."
It is unlikely the dithering and debate in NATO and among U.S. agencies will be the answer.
It is a testament to how badly botched the Afghanistan project is (the weak Karzai government, the rampant corruption, the uncontrolled crime, and, of course, the soaring drug trade) that it would cross people's mind to wax nostalgic for the Middle Ages.
Yet it is not unpredictable. The tragedy is that the failures of the this magnitude are often a prelude to victory for the insurgent groups. In recent history, these groups have been terrorist groups affiliated with al Qaeda.
It is perhaps the radicals' most effective recruitment tool as well as their best claim to represent a legitimate alternative to the weak, abusive and corrupt systems in place.
The Islamic Courts Union in Somalia took power in part by ending the chaos, establishing some basic infrastructure and giving people the small gift of being able to drive from one end of the capital to the other without fear of ambush or robbery.
An invasion by foreign troops, backed by the United States, failed to deal with the same basic issues, allowing the ICU to regroup and rebuilt a support base, and again be operating in and around Mogadishu.
Sound vaguely familiar?
The Taliban initially rose to power in exactly the same way, and received much of their financing from businessmen and transporters who simply could not afford to stop at multiple roadblocks an pay bribes to each group. The Taliban made it safe to drive across the country.
The current government, despite billions in foreign aid etc., has again failed at the most basic tasks of being a government. It is not inconceivable that history will repeat itself again with the Taliban. And we will all pay the price, not just in terms of giving radical Islam a state home again, but in the inability of the much-touted liberal democratic model to actually fulfill basic expectations.
Of course, the radical Islamists don't either, and the pendalum eventually swings, but the price is high, the suffering great and the damage is enormous.
So it is really alarming to read the Washington Post story about the growing nostalgia for the Taliban in Kabul and other areas under government control in Afghanistan.
Much has been written about how the Taliban is gaining ground, the role that the poppy/opium trade plays in financing the group, the help received from Pakistan's ISI etc. But none to me indicates the depths of the problem there as this changing attitude in what should be the progressive areas where radical Islamism is not a popular concept.
"The government is weak, and it has an enormously high level of tolerance for crime, abuse and corruption," said Nader Nadery, an official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. "If you have power and money, you don't have to account for your actions. Instead of the rule of law, there is a state of impunity, which is one of the factors contributing to the growth of the Taliban."
It is unlikely the dithering and debate in NATO and among U.S. agencies will be the answer.
It is a testament to how badly botched the Afghanistan project is (the weak Karzai government, the rampant corruption, the uncontrolled crime, and, of course, the soaring drug trade) that it would cross people's mind to wax nostalgic for the Middle Ages.
Yet it is not unpredictable. The tragedy is that the failures of the this magnitude are often a prelude to victory for the insurgent groups. In recent history, these groups have been terrorist groups affiliated with al Qaeda.
It is perhaps the radicals' most effective recruitment tool as well as their best claim to represent a legitimate alternative to the weak, abusive and corrupt systems in place.
The Islamic Courts Union in Somalia took power in part by ending the chaos, establishing some basic infrastructure and giving people the small gift of being able to drive from one end of the capital to the other without fear of ambush or robbery.
An invasion by foreign troops, backed by the United States, failed to deal with the same basic issues, allowing the ICU to regroup and rebuilt a support base, and again be operating in and around Mogadishu.
Sound vaguely familiar?
The Taliban initially rose to power in exactly the same way, and received much of their financing from businessmen and transporters who simply could not afford to stop at multiple roadblocks an pay bribes to each group. The Taliban made it safe to drive across the country.
The current government, despite billions in foreign aid etc., has again failed at the most basic tasks of being a government. It is not inconceivable that history will repeat itself again with the Taliban. And we will all pay the price, not just in terms of giving radical Islam a state home again, but in the inability of the much-touted liberal democratic model to actually fulfill basic expectations.
Of course, the radical Islamists don't either, and the pendalum eventually swings, but the price is high, the suffering great and the damage is enormous.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday September 24, 2008
A Noteworthy Conviction in the Criminal-Terrorist Nexus
Yesterday a New York jury convicted Bashir Noorzai, a Taliban-linked drug trafficker of being part of an international conspiracy to sell heroin around the world, including the United States.
The case is noteworthy because Noorzai had developed strong ties to the Taliban, and was a pioneer in forging the drug trafficking alliance that now funds the Taliban's rapid expansion.
Prosecutors said Mr. Noorzai developed a relationship with the Taliban, paying it 10 percent of his drug profits and turning over arms and fighters in return for being allowed to continue his drug operations even after the Taliban banned opium production in 2000.
Noorzai was close to the Taliban's Mullah Omar, the one-eyed leader of the Islamist movement that sheltered Osama bin Laden and then allied with him. It was this alliance between Omar and Noorzai that has helped the Taliban rearm, replenish its worn-out weapons stocks, upgrade it communications systems and greatly improve its logistical operations.
This is the type of merging of the organized criminal world and the world of terrorism, whether it is radical Islam, as in this case, corrupted Marxism (the FARC in Colombia) or independence movements and separatist movements, that I believe will be of growing concern in coming years.
The pipelines are the same, and honey pots that yield easy and large amounts of cash, whether they are natural resources such as diamonds or illicit substances like heroin or cocaine, will draw not only the criminal element, but other non-state actors seeking to profit, particularly if they lack state sponsorship.
Noorzai came to the United States thinking he was a guest of the government and would be used as an informant. In a crucial ruling in the case, the judge ruled that his arrest was "entirely lawful," and within the bounds of the permissible to bring a wanted criminal to justice.
As with other major, successful operations (Viktor Bout, whose hearing in ongoing in Thailand, Monzar al Kassar etc.) the group that got Noorsai was the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
It is important to note that the DEA has often run successful, creative human intelligence operations, gathered the information, and acted against individuals of interest. It also highlights my favorite theme, the overlap of these two groups.
In order to operate, Noorzai began paying the Taliban 10 percent of profits, helped them with weapons, and provided them with fighters. As a chief in the southern area of Afghanistan the borders Pakistan, he claimed to be the chief of 1 million people.
This conviction is important, both because it puts Noorzai out of operation, and because it clearly establishes the merging of the criminal and terrorist networks.
The case is noteworthy because Noorzai had developed strong ties to the Taliban, and was a pioneer in forging the drug trafficking alliance that now funds the Taliban's rapid expansion.
Prosecutors said Mr. Noorzai developed a relationship with the Taliban, paying it 10 percent of his drug profits and turning over arms and fighters in return for being allowed to continue his drug operations even after the Taliban banned opium production in 2000.
Noorzai was close to the Taliban's Mullah Omar, the one-eyed leader of the Islamist movement that sheltered Osama bin Laden and then allied with him. It was this alliance between Omar and Noorzai that has helped the Taliban rearm, replenish its worn-out weapons stocks, upgrade it communications systems and greatly improve its logistical operations.
This is the type of merging of the organized criminal world and the world of terrorism, whether it is radical Islam, as in this case, corrupted Marxism (the FARC in Colombia) or independence movements and separatist movements, that I believe will be of growing concern in coming years.
The pipelines are the same, and honey pots that yield easy and large amounts of cash, whether they are natural resources such as diamonds or illicit substances like heroin or cocaine, will draw not only the criminal element, but other non-state actors seeking to profit, particularly if they lack state sponsorship.
Noorzai came to the United States thinking he was a guest of the government and would be used as an informant. In a crucial ruling in the case, the judge ruled that his arrest was "entirely lawful," and within the bounds of the permissible to bring a wanted criminal to justice.
As with other major, successful operations (Viktor Bout, whose hearing in ongoing in Thailand, Monzar al Kassar etc.) the group that got Noorsai was the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
It is important to note that the DEA has often run successful, creative human intelligence operations, gathered the information, and acted against individuals of interest. It also highlights my favorite theme, the overlap of these two groups.
In order to operate, Noorzai began paying the Taliban 10 percent of profits, helped them with weapons, and provided them with fighters. As a chief in the southern area of Afghanistan the borders Pakistan, he claimed to be the chief of 1 million people.
This conviction is important, both because it puts Noorzai out of operation, and because it clearly establishes the merging of the criminal and terrorist networks.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday September 22, 2008
New NEFA Report on the FARC's International Support Network
Almost all terrorist organizations seek to establish international support networks that allow them to operate in countries and regions outside their home bases. The FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) are no exception.
In this new NEFA Foundation report, using internal FARC documents and interviews with former FARC leaders and others in Colombia, I outline the unusual and unexpectedly broad network the guerrillas had established. This paper is the third I have done on the political and military demise of the FARC, which, despite recent setbacks, remains the hemisphere's oldest and largest insurgency.
As I have noted before, the FARC, a designated terrorist entity by the United States and the European Union, is largely a rural-based group, but in many ways is the prototype of terrorist groups we are likely to see as state sponsorship for such groups is cut back.
The size and sophistication of the FARC international network was one of the biggest surprises of FARC documents that have been captured. It had long been assumed that, while the group had some times, it was a relatively isolated entity. That, however, is not true.
The FARC (along with the Taliban) are pioneers in the use of massive drug financing for their political ends. At the same time, the FARC is developing a (so far) unique model of support networks that includes state sponsors (Venezuela and Nicaragua, most notably), non-state supporter networks, and a concerted effort to share tactics, technology and experiences with other terrorist groups (the ETA of Spain and the P-IRA of Ireland, in particular).
Perhaps the most notable aspect of this relationship is the symbiosis between the different actors, and the reactivation of the old Marxist networks, in a much diminished form, in much of Latin America.
For example, the MIR of Chile, the Tupac Amaros in Peru, parts of the FMLN in El Salvador-specifically the Communist Party- and various groups under the umbrella of the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (CCB), are all in contact and cooperate with the FARC. The internal documents make clear that the CCB is funded and directed by the FARC, and its coordinating offices are in Caracas.
Rather than Cuba and the Soviet Union providing the financing, training and safe haven for operations for these groups, it is now Venezuela and Nicaragua, with the support of Iran. The documents show that the FARC often explicitly states that Cuban officials are not to be informed of transactions or meetings.
Iran, and increasingly Russia, are providing support to the regional state actors who support the FARC's political objectives of overthrowing the Colombian government and establishing a Marxist regime, that in turn are providing support to the FARC directly, or its proxies.
This network has been particularly useful as the FARC has sought desperately to acquire surface-to-air missiles, the documents show. The group asks for aid from the Libyan and Nicaraguan governments, discusses the issue with senior Venezuelan officials, and finally makes contact with two Australian arms merchants, through the member of the Communist Party in El Salvador.
While the Australians met with the FARC leadership numerous times, it seems the death of senior FARC commanders in March 2008 put a crimp in finalizing the transactions. The question is, until when?
The Latin American region, the United States and Europe all need to form a strategy for dealing with the network that is growing and rapidly expanding. So far, no one but the Colombians seem to sense any urgency in this matter.
In this new NEFA Foundation report, using internal FARC documents and interviews with former FARC leaders and others in Colombia, I outline the unusual and unexpectedly broad network the guerrillas had established. This paper is the third I have done on the political and military demise of the FARC, which, despite recent setbacks, remains the hemisphere's oldest and largest insurgency.
As I have noted before, the FARC, a designated terrorist entity by the United States and the European Union, is largely a rural-based group, but in many ways is the prototype of terrorist groups we are likely to see as state sponsorship for such groups is cut back.
The size and sophistication of the FARC international network was one of the biggest surprises of FARC documents that have been captured. It had long been assumed that, while the group had some times, it was a relatively isolated entity. That, however, is not true.
The FARC (along with the Taliban) are pioneers in the use of massive drug financing for their political ends. At the same time, the FARC is developing a (so far) unique model of support networks that includes state sponsors (Venezuela and Nicaragua, most notably), non-state supporter networks, and a concerted effort to share tactics, technology and experiences with other terrorist groups (the ETA of Spain and the P-IRA of Ireland, in particular).
Perhaps the most notable aspect of this relationship is the symbiosis between the different actors, and the reactivation of the old Marxist networks, in a much diminished form, in much of Latin America.
For example, the MIR of Chile, the Tupac Amaros in Peru, parts of the FMLN in El Salvador-specifically the Communist Party- and various groups under the umbrella of the Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana (CCB), are all in contact and cooperate with the FARC. The internal documents make clear that the CCB is funded and directed by the FARC, and its coordinating offices are in Caracas.
Rather than Cuba and the Soviet Union providing the financing, training and safe haven for operations for these groups, it is now Venezuela and Nicaragua, with the support of Iran. The documents show that the FARC often explicitly states that Cuban officials are not to be informed of transactions or meetings.
Iran, and increasingly Russia, are providing support to the regional state actors who support the FARC's political objectives of overthrowing the Colombian government and establishing a Marxist regime, that in turn are providing support to the FARC directly, or its proxies.
This network has been particularly useful as the FARC has sought desperately to acquire surface-to-air missiles, the documents show. The group asks for aid from the Libyan and Nicaraguan governments, discusses the issue with senior Venezuelan officials, and finally makes contact with two Australian arms merchants, through the member of the Communist Party in El Salvador.
While the Australians met with the FARC leadership numerous times, it seems the death of senior FARC commanders in March 2008 put a crimp in finalizing the transactions. The question is, until when?
The Latin American region, the United States and Europe all need to form a strategy for dealing with the network that is growing and rapidly expanding. So far, no one but the Colombians seem to sense any urgency in this matter.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday October 28, 2008
Russia Grows Aggressive in Aiding State Sponsors of Terrorism
I am not a Russia expert, but it is clear that the Putin-led government is going out of its way to antagonize the United States and its allies. One of the primary, and most dangerous methods, is the sale of billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry to state sponsors of terrorism, particularly Iran and Venezuela.
These just happen to be the two states most intent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the United States and its allies, as well as the two governments funding the unrest that has pushed Bolivia to the brink of civil war and actions that are turning Nicaragua into the pariah state.
As the Times of London notes,the sales include anti-aircraft missiles and top of the line fighter jets, due in production in 2010.
It is interesting to note that Russia's deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin, one of the closest allies of Mr Putin, the Prime Minister, visited Venezuela and Cuba this week. Sechin is widely reported to be the main backer of Viktor Bout, the notorious weapons trafficker in prison in Thailand, awaiting an extradition hearing next week to determine if he will be handed over to the United States to stand trial.
(In an ominous sign that Bout's extradition will not be approved, the Thai appellate court, for the first time this week, rejected a U.S. extradition request. This one was for Jamshid Ghassemi, an Iranian indicted in the United States for acquiring dual-use equipment and accelerometers for Iran's nuclear program. The court ruling gave no reasons for its decision, which is unappealable, and foul play is suspected.
There are several parallels to the Bout case, where the Russians have been offering large financial inducements, oil deals and preferential weapons deals in exchange for Bout's freedom. Another terrorist supplier under Russian protection.)
The justification for Russia's behavior seems to be that it is now threatened by U.S. and Western European involvement in former Soviet republics. The general deterioration in the U.S.-Russia relationship is likely to have widespread impact.
That may explain Russia's desire to project force into the Western hemisphere, as it did by flying two TU 160s, the world's largest supersonic bomber, to Venezuela. It does not, however, explain the desire to arm regimes with a history of violence and state sponsorship of terrorism against their neighbors.
Kommersant, the financial newspaper, said that Russia was forming "alliance relations" with the two antiAmerican regimes as a response to US involvement in former Soviet republics.
The Russian moves mark a serious deterioration in relations between Washington and Moscow. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, threated to block Russia’s membership of key international organisations. She told the Kremlin that its "authoritarian policies" could prevent it from joining the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which coordinates economic policies among industrialised countries. In an outspoken speech to the German Marshall Fund, an institution promoting greater cooperation between America and Europe, Dr Rice said: "The picture emerging is of a Russia increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad.
Dr Rice said that Russia’s actions in Georgia fitted into a "worsening pattern of behaviour", which included its "intimidation of its sovereign neighbours, its use of oil and gas as a political weapon, its threat to target peaceful nations with nuclear weapons, its arms sales to states and groups that threaten international security and its persecution – and worse – of Russian journalists and dissidents."
I don't know enough about Russia to draw conclusions on what the viable policy alternatives are. But it is clear we have entered a new and dangerous era of alliances, flush with oil money that we are shelling out, that can and will acquire and eventually use the new weapons against us.
These just happen to be the two states most intent on inflicting as much harm as possible on the United States and its allies, as well as the two governments funding the unrest that has pushed Bolivia to the brink of civil war and actions that are turning Nicaragua into the pariah state.
As the Times of London notes,the sales include anti-aircraft missiles and top of the line fighter jets, due in production in 2010.
It is interesting to note that Russia's deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin, one of the closest allies of Mr Putin, the Prime Minister, visited Venezuela and Cuba this week. Sechin is widely reported to be the main backer of Viktor Bout, the notorious weapons trafficker in prison in Thailand, awaiting an extradition hearing next week to determine if he will be handed over to the United States to stand trial.
(In an ominous sign that Bout's extradition will not be approved, the Thai appellate court, for the first time this week, rejected a U.S. extradition request. This one was for Jamshid Ghassemi, an Iranian indicted in the United States for acquiring dual-use equipment and accelerometers for Iran's nuclear program. The court ruling gave no reasons for its decision, which is unappealable, and foul play is suspected.
There are several parallels to the Bout case, where the Russians have been offering large financial inducements, oil deals and preferential weapons deals in exchange for Bout's freedom. Another terrorist supplier under Russian protection.)
The justification for Russia's behavior seems to be that it is now threatened by U.S. and Western European involvement in former Soviet republics. The general deterioration in the U.S.-Russia relationship is likely to have widespread impact.
That may explain Russia's desire to project force into the Western hemisphere, as it did by flying two TU 160s, the world's largest supersonic bomber, to Venezuela. It does not, however, explain the desire to arm regimes with a history of violence and state sponsorship of terrorism against their neighbors.
Kommersant, the financial newspaper, said that Russia was forming "alliance relations" with the two antiAmerican regimes as a response to US involvement in former Soviet republics.
The Russian moves mark a serious deterioration in relations between Washington and Moscow. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, threated to block Russia’s membership of key international organisations. She told the Kremlin that its "authoritarian policies" could prevent it from joining the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which coordinates economic policies among industrialised countries. In an outspoken speech to the German Marshall Fund, an institution promoting greater cooperation between America and Europe, Dr Rice said: "The picture emerging is of a Russia increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad.
Dr Rice said that Russia’s actions in Georgia fitted into a "worsening pattern of behaviour", which included its "intimidation of its sovereign neighbours, its use of oil and gas as a political weapon, its threat to target peaceful nations with nuclear weapons, its arms sales to states and groups that threaten international security and its persecution – and worse – of Russian journalists and dissidents."
I don't know enough about Russia to draw conclusions on what the viable policy alternatives are. But it is clear we have entered a new and dangerous era of alliances, flush with oil money that we are shelling out, that can and will acquire and eventually use the new weapons against us.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH