UK’s Cameron to press Russia’s Putin over #Syria, trade as they watch Olympic judo contest

LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron says he plans to hold talks with Russia President Vladimir Putin next week at an Olympic judo match.

Cameron confirmed Thursday that Putin would attend the Olympics — despite earlier doubts over whether he planned to visit the Summer Games.

Putin is a former judo competitor and a devotee of the sport.

Cameron last year used a visit to Moscow to end a freeze on top-level links following the 2006 poisoning death of dissident ex-Russian security agent Alexander Litvinenko in London. On his deathbed, Litvinenko accused Putin of ordering his killing.

However, Britain last week described Russia’s veto of a U.N. resolution on Syria as “inexcusable and indefensible.”

Cameron is expected to press Putin over ending violence in Syria, and to discuss efforts to boost trade.

Obama, Putin fail to agree on #Syria in phone talks: Kremlin

MOSCOW, July 18, 2012: Russian leader Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama were unable to resolve their differences on Syria in a phone talk Wednesday following a Damascus bomb attack, the Kremlin said.

“Differences in approaches remain that concern practical steps in achieving a settlement,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

A bomb struck at the heart of Syria’s senior command Wednesday, killing at least three of President Bashar al-Assad’s top brass in an attack claimed by rebels, amid fighting in the capital city.

The first such deadly attack against Assad’s inner core came ahead of a showdown Thursday between the West and Russia over a UN Security Council resolution calling for sanctions against Damascus.

Russia has threatened to veto the measure and proposed its own draft that does not provide for punitive measures against its Soviet-era ally while extending a current UN monitoring mission there by another three months.

Western powers had refused to back Russia’s initial proposal or an amended version submitted by Moscow at the United Nations on Tuesday.

The Kremlin spokesman provided few details of the phone call except to say that it was initiated by Obama and included a “detailed discussion of Syria in which the recent escalation was noted”.

Peskov said the conversation showed that the two leaders “have a coinciding view of the general satiation in Syria (and agree) on the end goal of reaching a settlement.”

But the spokesman made no mention of Russia’s refusal to back firmer action against Assad or of Obama’s insistence of imposing sanctions against his regime should it fail to comply with the most urgent points of a peace plan drafted by mediator Kofi Annan.

Erdogan To Moscow To Discuss Ties, #Syria

Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrives on a working visit to Moscow on July 18 to discuss bilateral economic relations and the situation in Syria. 

Erdogan is due to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials.

Russia, the main backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, has repeatedly rejected international efforts to impose sanctions on Damascus.

Turkey, which shares a border with Syria, has been a vocal critic of Assad’s repression of the uprising which killed some 17,000.

Erdogan and Putin are also expected to discuss economic and energy ties. Russia is Turkey’s second largest trade partner after Germany, with bilateral trade at $31.8 billion annually.

Russia is also Turkey’s key partner in the natural gas industry, with exports to Turkey totaling some 26 billion cubic meters in 2011.

Russia to suspend new arms to #Syria - agencies

* Could signal Moscow move away from Syria’s Assad

* Russia will not deliver fighter planes

* White House says move positive if confirmed (Adds White House comment)

By Thomas Grove

MOSCOW, July 9 (Reuters) - Russia will not deliver fighter planes or other new weapons to Syria while the situation there remains unresolved, the deputy director of a body that supervises Moscow’s arms trade was quoted as saying on Monday.

“While the situation in Syria is unstable, there will be no new deliveries of arms there,” Vyacheslav Dzirkaln told journalists at the Farnborough Airshow in Britain, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.

The refusal to send more arms to Syria could signal the strongest move yet by Moscow to distance itself from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom it has defended in the U.N. Security Council from harsher sanctions.

It could also scuttle up to $4 billion of outstanding contracts, including fighter jets and air-defence systems that were expected to be delivered this year.

A spokesman for Dzirkaln’s Federal Service for Military Technical Co-operation would not confirm the deputy director’s comments when contacted by telephone. Reuters was awaiting for a response to requested written questions.

In Washington, White House spokeswoman Erin Pelton said it would be a positive development if confirmed.

“We refer you to Russian authorities for confirmation,” she said. “If it is truly Russia’s intention to halt arms sales to Syria, then we would laud this step and commend Russia for this measure, which would send a strong signal to the Assad regime.”

“We have long called on all nations to cease supplying this regime with weapons, given its continued use against the Syrian people.”

Although legal, Russia’s arms trade with Syria has fueled concerns that Moscow is supplying Assad with weapons being used against protesters taking part in an armed uprising against him.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the arms Moscow delivers cannot be used in civil conflicts and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the supplies are defensive weapons sold in contracts signed long ago.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has termed Russian statements that the weapons are unrelated to the violence in Syria “patently untrue” and Washington has called the delivery of a shipment of heavy Russian weapons “reprehensible”.

FIGHTER PLANES

Dzirkaln was quoted as saying that Russia, one of Syria’s main weapons suppliers, would not be delivering a shipment of 36 Yak-130 fighter planes, a contract for which was reportedly signed at the end of last year.

“In the current situation, talking about deliveries of airplanes to Syria is premature,” he said.

Rosoboronexport, Russia’s monopoly arms exporter, would not comment on Dzirkaln’s remarks, which were also reported by the Russian state news agency RIA.

“We understand the position of (the agency), but we are a separate organisation and will not comment,” said spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko.

Syria’s arms-trade ties with Moscow date back to the Soviet era. It has previously signed contracts worth billions of dollars and hosts a Mediterranean supply-and-repair facility that is Russia’s only naval base outside the former Soviet Union.

A Russian analyst said Moscow had already distanced itself from Assad.

“Russia has stopped signing new contracts with Syria and is delaying the shipments of already signed contracts,” said Ruslan Aliyev, an expert on the Russian-Syria arms trade at the Moscow-based defence think-tank, CAST.

“It’s basically a political decision based on Moscow’s view of Syria.”

Russia faced Western criticism last month after Clinton said Russian attack helicopters were on the way to Syria. Moscow said they were part of an old contract and that it only provided weaponry that could be used against external aggression.

“Previously, we were fulfilling old contracts, including repairs of the machines,” Dzirkaln said. “Until the situation stabilises, we will not carry out any new arms deliveries.” (Additional reporting By Nastassia Astrasheuskaya in Moscow and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Writing by Thomas Grove; Editing by Pravin Char and David Brunnstrom)

Annan to put new ‘approach’ to #Syria rebels

DAMASCUS (AFP) - International envoy Kofi Annan has announced a new political “approach” in a bid to end Syria’s 16-month-old conflict, as the West voices concern over the violence spreading across the Lebanese border.

“We discussed the need to end the violence and ways and means of doing so. We agreed an approach which I will share with the armed opposition,” UN-Arab League envoy Annan said after meeting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on Monday.

Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi called the meeting “constructive and good”.

Stepping up efforts to halt the carnage which monitors say has cost more than 17,000 lives, Annan then travelled on to Iran, Syria’s closest regional ally, in his quest to broker a solution.

The diplomatic efforts were carried out against the increasingly familiar backdrop of bloodshed in Syria, with the United States and the European Union expressing concern at the outbreak of cross-border clashes with Lebanon.

Shells fired from Syria landed overnight in northern Lebanon after an exchange of fire along the border, a senior Lebanese security official told AFP early Tuesday.

The Syrian shells were fired into Lebanon following a cross-border gun battle, the source added.

There was no immediate report of casualties, but the latest incident came just two days after border clashes in which two girls were killed and several other people wounded in Lebanon.

US Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly on Monday called on Damascus to “respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon”.

In Brussels EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s office released a statement saying she “strongly condemns the recent shelling of the Lebanese border area by Syrian artillery, causing several deaths and injuries”.

Monday’s interventions also came as at least 58 people were killed nationwide, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, a day after nearly 100 people died.

Pro-government Al-Watan newspaper said Annan’s discussions focused on the results of the Geneva meeting at the end of June.

They discussed means “to implement the results of the meeting… on forming a transitional government in Syria that groups government and opposition representatives without mention of Assad’s departure”, it said.

World powers in Geneva agreed a plan for a transition which did not make an explicit call for Assad to quit, although the West and the opposition made clear it saw no role for him in a unity government.

On the ground in Syria, the army pounded besieged rebel-held areas of Homs, monitors said Monday, as Qusayr also came under a morning bombardment.

The opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) slammed Annan’s decision to meet Assad, saying thousands of people have been killed despite an April ceasefire.

Annan, whose military observers in Syria have been grounded because of escalating violence, admitted in remarks published by French newspaper Le Monde ahead of his Damascus trip that his peace blueprint has so far foundered.

He also expressed frustration that while Moscow and Iran are mentioned by some as stumbling blocks to peace, “little is said about other countries which send arms, money, and have a presence on the ground”.

Moscow arms export officials said Monday that Russia will not supply new weapons to its Arab ally Syria while fighting there continues, while stressing that old contracts would be fulfilled.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Syria needed dialogue between the regime and opposition, rather than foreign intervention, to ensure a lasting peace.

Putin spoke after prominent Syrian opposition leader and intellectual Michel Kilo met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow.

Later on Monday Annan few to Tehran for talks with Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top security official, and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

Annan has said Tehran has a key role to play in efforts to end the bloodshed.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused the United States and its allies of opposing Assad’s regime with the goal of dominating the Middle East and propping up Israel.

On Sunday US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned time was running out to save Syria from a “catastrophic assault”.

The Observatory, a Britain-based monitoring group, estimates that 5,898 people have been killed since the Annan-brokered April truce.

Russia shows signs of break with #Syria’s Assad

Russian President Vladimir Putin


BEIRUT — Moving further from its strict stance of nonintervention, Russia pressured President Bashar Assad of Syria on Monday to be more flexible about the future of his ravaged country, insisting that he talk with adversaries, inviting an anti-Assad delegation to the Kremlin and restricting shipments of new weapons to the Syrian armed forces. 

Taken together, the developments appeared to signal that Russia, the Syrian government’s most important foreign backer, may be laying the basis for the option of eventually distancing itself from Assad, who has repeatedly cast the uprising against him as the work of foreign-backed terrorists and has insisted that he enjoys popular support. Assad reiterated those themes in a weekend interview broadcast by a German television network. 

The Syrian leader, who has presided over the suppression of an uprising that by some estimates has left as many as 17,000 people dead, has lost much international credibility. His government has been accused by U.N. human rights officials of severe abuses. He has provoked a possible armed confrontation with neighboring Turkey, risked a sectarian spillover in neighboring Lebanon and suffered a rash of high-ranking military defections and desertions, including that of a childhood friend, the son of a former defense minister, last week. 

At the same time Assad has sought to portray himself as a willing peace partner. He met Monday with the special representative from the United Nations and Arab League, Kofi Annan, whose peace plan was announced in March but has foundered. 

Annan said after the meeting that they had devised a new way to proceed but he did not offer an explanation. 

“We discussed the need to end the violence and ways and means of doing so,” Annan told reporters in Damascus, Syria. “We agreed on an approach which I will share with the armed opposition. I also stressed the importance of moving ahead with a political dialogue, which the president accepts.” 

Annan then flew to Tehran for talks with Iranian leaders, Assad’s last remaining regional allies. 

While Russia has insisted throughout the nearly 17-month-old Syrian uprising that it will block any foreign military intervention there, it has shown increasing impatience with Assad. In recent weeks Russian officials have said they were not wedded to his tenure in power and that the Syrians must decide their own leaders. President Vladimir Putin appeared to sharpen the tone of the Russian message in remarks Monday in Moscow. 

“We must do as much as possible to force the conflicting sides to reach a peaceful political solution to all contentious questions,” he said. “We must strive to promote such a dialogue. Of course, this work is much more complex and subtle than intervening by brute force, but only this can provide a long-term settlement and further stable development of the region and of the Syrian state.” 

Putin spoke as a delegation of opposition figures representing the Syrian National Council, the main anti-Assad umbrella group, traveled to Moscow at the invitation of the Foreign Ministry. Delegation leaders, who have insisted that Assad cannot be part of any political transition in Syria, described the visit as exploratory, to test Russia’s willingness to be more accommodating. They were scheduled to meet with Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Wednesday. 

“The Russians should know that the regime has now become a threat not just to Syria but also a threat to the security of the region, and we have started seeing that in Lebanon and Turkey,” said George Sabra, a member of the delegation who represents Syria’s Christian community. 

“Of course, the main headline of this visit is to prepare for what is next. Why would the Russians want to meet with the opposition? Why would they want to build new relations? There are preparations for a new era,” Sabra said.
Why Russia Is Backing #Syria

MANY in the West believe that Russia’s support for Syria stems from Moscow’s desire to profit from selling arms to Bashar al-Assad’s government and maintain its naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus. But these speculations are superficial and misguided. The real reason that Russia is resisting strong international action against the Assad regime is that it fears the spread of Islamic radicalism and the erosion of its superpower status in a world where Western nations are increasingly undertaking unilateral military interventions.

Since 2005, Russian defense contracts with Syria have amounted to only about $5.5 billion — mostly to modernize Syria’s air force and air defenses. And although Syria had been making its scheduled payments in a fairly timely manner, many contracts were delayed by Russia for political reasons. A contract for four MiG-31E fighter planes was annulled altogether. And recently it became known that Russia had actually halted the planned delivery of S-300 mobile antiaircraft missile systems to Syria.

Syria is among Russia’s significant customers, but it is by no means one of the key buyers of Russian arms — accounting for just 5 percent of Russia’s global arms sales in 2011. Indeed, Russia has long refrained from supplying Damascus with the most powerful weapons systems so as to avoid angering Israel and the West — sometimes to the detriment of Russia’s commercial and political ties with Syria.

To put it plainly, arms sales to Syria today do not have any significance for Russia from either a commercial or a military-technological standpoint, and Syria isn’t an especially important partner in military-technological cooperation.

Indeed, Russia could quite easily resell weapons ordered by the Syrians (especially the most expensive items, like fighter jets and missile systems) to third parties, thus minimizing its losses. And even if the Assad government survives, it will be much weaker and is unlikely to be able to continue buying Russian arms.

The Russian Navy’s logistical support facility at Tartus is similarly unimportant. It essentially amounts to two floating moorings, a couple of warehouses, a barracks and a few buildings. On shore, there are no more than 50 seamen. For the Navy, the facility in Tartus has more symbolic than practical significance. It can’t serve as a support base for deploying naval forces in the Mediterranean Sea, and even visits by Russian military ships are carried out more for demonstrative purposes than out of any real need to replenish supplies.

Russia’s current Syria policy basically boils down to supporting the Assad government and preventing a foreign intervention aimed at overthrowing it, as happened in Libya. President Vladimir V. Putin is simply channeling public opinion and the expert consensus while playing his customary role as the protector of Russian interests who curtails the willfulness of the West.

Many Russians believe that the collapse of the Assad government would be tantamount to the loss of Russia’s last client and ally in the Middle East and the final elimination of traces of former Soviet prowess there — illusory as those traces may be. They believe that Western intervention in Syria (which Russia cannot counter militarily) would be an intentional profanation of one of the few remaining symbols of Russia’s status as a great world power.

Such attitudes are further buttressed by widespread pessimism about the eventual outcome of the Arab Spring, and the Syrian revolution in particular. Most Russian observers believe that Arab revolutions have completely destabilized the region and cleared the road to power for the Islamists. In Moscow, secular authoritarian governments are seen as the sole realistic alternative to Islamic dominance.

The continuing struggles in Arab countries are seen as a battle by those who wear neckties against those who do not wear them. Russians have long suffered from terrorism and extremism at the hands of Islamists in the northern Caucasus, and they are therefore firmly on the side of those who wear neckties.

To people in Moscow, Mr. Assad appears not so much as “a bad dictator” but as a secular leader struggling with an uprising of Islamist barbarians. The active support from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey’s Islamist government for rebels in Syria only heightens suspicions in Russia about the Islamist nature of the current opposition in Syria and rebels throughout the Middle East.

Finally, Russians are angry about the West’s propensity for unilateral interventionism — not to mention the blatantly broad interpretation of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council and the direct violations of those resolutions in Libya.

According to this view, the West, led by America, demonstrated its cynicism, perfidy and a typical policy of double standards. That’s why all the Western moralizing and calls for intervention in Syria are perceived by the Russian public as yet another manifestation of cynical hypocrisy of the worst kind.

There is no doubt that preserving his own power is also on Mr. Putin’s mind as his authoritarian government begins to wobble in the face of growing protests that enjoy political approval and support from the West. He cannot but sympathize with Mr. Assad as a fellow autocratic ruler struggling with outside interference in domestic affairs.

But ideological solidarity is a secondary factor at best. Mr. Putin is capitalizing on traditional Russian suspicions of the West, and his support for Mr. Assad is based on the firm conviction that an Islamist-led revolution in Syria, especially one that receives support through the intervention of Western and Arab states, will seriously harm Russia’s long-term interests.

Ruslan Pukhov is director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a research organization. This essay was translated by Steven Seymour from the Russian. 

For Putin, Principle vs. Practicality on #Syria

MOSCOW — For months now, Western policy makers have been racking their brains to figure out what strategic interests have made Russia so intent on supporting the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad — a leader who, facing a popular uprising, seemed to be on his way out anyway.

It is an understandable question, but perhaps the wrong one. Decisions are flowing from President Vladimir V. Putin, whose career has left him overwhelmingly wary both of revolutions and of Western intervention.

This is a man who, during the death throes of the Communist system, personally defended the K.G.B.’s headquarters in Dresden against an angry crowd of Germans. And Mr. Putin’s already suspicious view of street politics only deepened with the “colored revolutions” of the mid-2000s, in which pro-Western protests, some supported by the United States, ousted a series of Moscow-friendly leaders.

Since the recent Arab uprisings began, Russian leaders have viewed them through this lens — as a product not of social change but of interference by the West, intended in part to damage Russia.

Mr. Putin takes little interest in the details of foreign policy, but this notion touches him personally. He memorably blew up in April 2011, when NATO warplanes were attacking Libya against Russia’s protestations, delivering a speech that scoffed at the notion that Western intervention aimed to advance democracy.

“Look at the map of this region, there are monarchies all around,” he said during a visit to Denmark. “What do you think they are — Danish-style democracies? No. There are monarchies everywhere, and this basically corresponds with the mentality of the people, as well as longstanding practice.”

“Libya, by the way, has the largest oil and the fourth-largest gas reserves in Africa,” he added. “This immediately presents the question: Isn’t this the basis for the interests of those now messing around there?”

From the first, Russia’s Middle East experts, most of them Soviet-trained, have been suspicious of the notion that street politics had the power to change governments.

In February 2011, when crowds of more than a million were thronging Tahrir Square, a Russian deputy foreign minister visited Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak. He delivered the soothing message that Egypt’s domestic crisis should be settled through dialogue, and affirmed Russia’s firm stance against foreign intervention in Egypt’s internal affairs. As it turned out, it was Mr. Mubarak’s last meeting with a foreign envoy — he stepped down two days later.

It is impossible to fully disentangle these reactions from what has been going on inside Russia over the last year, as a decade-long contract between Mr. Putin and his citizens began to fray.

Though there is little comparison on the ground between the Arab uprisings and Russia’s unrest — the Russian opposition movement remains small, Moscow-centered and moderate in its tactics — the sudden change has left the government wary of legitimizing any popular dissent. State-controlled news media paint a bleak picture of Arab countries that have seen uprisings, and Russian diplomats have approached new authorities in the Arab world slowly and awkwardly.

Meanwhile, Russian leaders fear that rising Islamism in the Arab world will breathe new life into the armed insurgency in the northern Caucasus, which is mostly Sunni.

In short, Syria has provided Russia with an opportunity to say no — to Western intervention and to the specter of revolution.

The argument has been framed as a matter of principle, making it difficult to dial back. Leonid Medvedko, who covered Syria for Pravda, the Communist Party newspaper, said Russia could not publicly call for Mr. Assad to step down, because it would create “a very serious precedent for anyone who doesn’t like their government.”

“I don’t want to allow such ultimatums, because they could then be presented to any country,” said Mr. Medvedko, who is now a regional analyst at the Russian Academy of Sciences. “We cannot allow this precedent to be established. Now they don’t like Assad. Next they may not like someone in Lebanon. We’ve already seen how they didn’t like someone in Libya — we saw the fate of Qaddafi.” 

Nevertheless, Russia is backing away from explicit support for Mr. Assad, albeit at a glacial pace. Last week, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov said that to accommodate the factions in Syria “it is necessary to have a transitional period, this is obvious.”

Each incremental move is followed by demonstrations that Russia is standing firm: for instance, its refusal, last weekend in Geneva, to approve language suggesting that Mr. Assad could not be part of a transitional government. These tactics serve to draw out the diplomatic process for weeks or months — not such an inconvenience, perhaps, for Western governments that are themselves deeply conflicted about intervening.

As the body count rises, one of Moscow’s real concerns may be the hardening of Arab public opinion against Russia, said a senior Arab diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with protocol. With the increasing reach of news channels like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya — which regularly run gruesome video of massacres in Syria — Russia’s officials have been forced to accept that “unlike the last four decades, now the Arab street has a voice,” the diplomat said.

“I think they are now waking up to a new reality,” the diplomat said. “They are realizing that their analysis was wrong and they have to take a new approach.”

This realization conflicts with the desire to stand on principle, and to repay the abject humiliation of being ignored on Libya, he said: “The question is, will they make a stand in Syria to the end?”

The answer will hinge on the calculations of Mr. Putin. He may judge that bending to Western pressure would hurt him more than losing Syria. Or, if he accepts the idea that Mr. Assad cannot extend his rule past the end of the year, he may seek to trade Russia’s stand for a concession.

All that would remain would be to sit back and watch in silence as opposition crowds celebrate their victory. Not a simple choice for the man who, two decades ago in Dresden, spent panicky days inside the K.G.B. compound, burning documents that represented years of work. Then — convinced he had been abandoned by the country he served — he walked out to defend himself and his colleagues from the crowd outside. 

Kill the Messenger #Syria

What Russia taught Syria: When you destroy a city, make sure no one — not even the story — gets out alive.

BY ROBERT YOUNG PELTON | MARCH 2, 2012 

It was a star-filled night in Chechnya’s besieged capital of Grozny. The snow crunched under my feet as I walked with the Chechen rebel commander away from the warmth of our safe house. When we entered a bombed-out neighborhood 15 minutes away, I put the battery in my Iridium satellite phone and waited for the glowing screen to signal that I had locked on to the satellites.

I made my call. It was short. Then the commander made a call; he quickly hung up and handed me back the phone. “Enough,” he said, motioning for me to remove the battery.

As we walked briskly back to the safe house, it was exactly 10 minutes before the cascade of double wa-whumps announced the Grad rocket batteries pounding the vacant neighborhood we had just left.

It was December 1999, and the Russian assault on Grozny was unfolding in all its gruesome detail. After the dissolution of so much of the former Soviet empire, Chechnya was one country that the newly minted prime minister, Vladimir Putin, refused to let go of. His boss, Boris Yeltsin, and the Russian army had been defeated and then humiliated in the media by Chechen forces in the first war. Five years later, Russia was back. And Putin’s new strategy was unbending: silence, encircle, pulverize, and “cleanse.” It was a combination of brutal tactics — a Stalinist purge of fighting-age males plus Orwellian propaganda that fed Russians a narrative wherein Chechen freedom fighters were transformed into Islamist mercenaries and terrorists. More than 200,000 civilians were to die in this war, the echoes of which continue to this day.

This time, journalists were specifically targeted to prevent sympathetic or embarrassing reports from escaping the killing zone. As such, you can’t find a lot of stories about the second Chechen war. One of the few and best accounts was written by Marie Colvin, who described her terrifying escape from Grozny for the Sunday Times. Last month, Colvin thought she could roll the dice and enter the besieged Syrian city of Homs to defy yet another brutal war of oppression. This time she lost.

It’s impossible to know whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — a longtime ally of Russia — studied the success of the last Chechen war before launching his own assault on the restive city of Homs. However, his Russian military advisors surely know the tactics well. The crackdown in Homs carries a grim echo of Grozny, both in its use of signals intelligence to track down and silence the regime’s enemies and in its bloody determination to obliterate any opposition, including Western journalists.

Assad’s ability to lethally target journalists using satellite-phone uplinks could well have cost Colvin her life. Multiple reports have suggested that Syrian forces used phone signals to pinpoint her location and then launched a rocket barrage that resulted in her death on Feb. 22, along with that of French photographer Remi Ochlik and multiple Syrian civilians.

The use of satellite and cellular transmissions to determine a subject’s location was relatively new a decade ago, when I was in Grozny. Tracking phone transmissions to hunt down targets began in earnest with a covert unit of U.S. intelligence officers from the National Security Agency (NSA), CIA, Navy, Air Force, and special operations called “The Activity.” This snooping unit was also called the Army of Northern Virginia, Grey Fox, and even Task Force Orange. We see much of this technology used to inform modern drone and U.S. Joint Special Operations Command strikes. My decade covering U.S. spec ops, intelligence gathering, and their contractors highlighted the impressive ability of various countries to monitor, locate, network, and act on what is called SIGINT, or signals intelligence.

The Russians have their own version of this capability, which fell under the command of the Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information, now part of the Federal Protective Service. In the United States, it would be equivalent to the NSA and FBI combined, and the agency provides sophisticated eavesdropping support to Russia’s military, intelligence, and counterterrorism units — and to Russia’s allies, including Syria.

Russia has spent a long time perfecting these techniques. On April 21, 1996, Chechnya’s breakaway president, Dzhokhar Dudayev, was speaking on a satellite phonewith Russian envoy Konstantin Borovoi about setting peace talks with Yeltsin. During the phone call, he was killed by a signal-guided missile fired from a Russian jet fighter. The warplane had received Dudayev’s coordinates from a Russian ELINT (electronic intelligence) plane that had picked up and locked on to the signal emitted by the satellite phone. It was Russian deception and brutality at its finest.

It should have been clear even back then that there was a benefit and a distinct penalty to modern communications on the battlefield.

Flash forward to Syria today. The opposition Free Syrian Army is officially run by a former air force colonel who commands a barely organized group of army defectors supported by energetic youth. They rely almost entirely on cell-phone service, satellite phones, the Internet, and social media to organize and communicate. Early in February, according to a Fox News report, Qatar provided 3,000 satellite phones, which the Syrian rebels have used to upload numerous impactful videos and stories.

These past few weeks, under a barrage of mortar, tank, and artillery shells, their plaintive calls for help from inside the besieged Baba Amr neighborhood of Homs sparked international outrage. But without Western journalists filing for newspapers and television outlets, these videos — mostly shaky, low-resolution footage of corpses and artillery strikes — wouldn’t have had the impact they deserve.

In a welcome resurgence of non-embedded journalism, brave reporters like Colvin and many others risked their lives to enter Homs and report from the ground. What they showed us was moving, horrific, and embarrassing. Once again, Western governments were caught doing nothing — while women, children, and innocents were murdered by their own government. It’s a playbook the Syrians are good at: The shelling of Homs began on Feb. 3, 2012 — exactly 30 years after the Hama massacre, in which Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, killed up to 15,000 civilians over three weeks in a similar program of wanton destruction.

What we haven’t seen as clearly is the extent to which the Syrian regime (thanks to its Russian advisors) now has the tools of electronic warfare to crush this popular uprising — and anything that happens to get in the way. Syria is one of Russia’s biggest clients for weapons, training, and intelligence. In return for such largesse, it has offered the Russian Navy use of Tartus, a new deep-water military port in the Mediterranean. Moscow sold Damascus nearly $1 billion worth of weapons in 2011, despite growing sanctions against the oppressive Assad regime. With these high-tech weapons comes the less visible Russian-supplied training on technologies, tactics, and strategies.

The sounds of rockets pulverizing civilians should have brought back memories and warnings to Colvin. She would have recognized all the signs from her previous reporting in Chechnya, where she and her escorts were hunted relentlessly by Russian domestic security agents who sought to arrest, silence, or kill any journalist attempting to report on the slaughter of civilians.

My time in Grozny included being surrounded three times by the Russian army, numerous direct bombardments, and frequent close calls. I paid attention to the safety warnings of the Chechen rebel commanders who kept me alive. These rebels were once part of the Soviet military and intelligence apparatus and were fully schooled in Russia’s dirty tricks. They taught me much. Chief among them was not communicating electronically while in country, not trusting “media guides,” and never telling people where I was going. If captured by Russian troops, they urged me — for my own safety — to say that I had been kidnapped by Chechen forces.

Just as I exited Chechnya, I met Colvin, who was heading in. She wanted to know as much as she could. I warned her of the duplicity and violent intent of the Russian military and their Chechen proxies. Despite my warnings, she bravely entered Chechnya and wrote riveting, award-winning stories that now sound almost identical to her coverage from Syria.

I was distressed to read of Colvin’s death in Syria, and even more distressed to think she might still be alive now if she had remembered some basic warnings. Her first error was that she stayed inside the rebel “media center” — in reality, a four-story family home converted to this use as it was one of the few places that had a generator.

The second was communication. The Syrian army had shut down the cell-phone system and much of the power in Baba Amr — and when journalists sent up signals it made them a clear target. After CNN’s Arwa Damon broadcast live from the “media center” for a week, the house was bombarded until the top floor collapsed. Colvin may have been trapped, but she chose to make multiple phone reports and even went live on CNN and other media channels, clearly mentioning that she was staying in the bombed building.

The third mistake was one of tone. She made her sympathies in the besieged city clearly known as she emotionally described the horrors and documented the crimes of the Syrian government.

Unsurprisingly, the next day at 9 a.m., a barrage of rockets was launched at the “media center.” She was killed — along her cameraman, Remi Ochlik, and at least 80 Syrian civilians across the city — targeted with precision rocket barrages, bombs, and the full violence of the Syrian army.

In Grozny, Russian forces decided that they would eliminate everything, everybody, and every voice that stood up to the state — including journalists who tried to enter. Syria has clearly made the same determination in Homs. This military action is intended to be a massacre, a Stalinist-style lesson to those who dare defy the rulers of Syria.

The United Nations estimates that more than 7,500 Syrians have so far been killed in the yearlong spasm of violence there. Perhaps this ghastly toll would be even higher now if brave reporters like Colvin had not entered. With the recent news that the rebels have retreated from the bombardment of Baba Amr to safer territory, Assad’s forces, as well as their Russian advisors, are claiming victory. According to official news reports from the Syrian Information Ministry, “the foreign-backed mercenaries and armed terrorist groups” have fled, the corpses of three Western journalists have been “discovered,” and Homs is now “peaceful.”

Despite what Damascus claims, this fight is not yet over. And we need more brave and bright journalists who will shine a light in places like Syria, where a regime works diligently to plunge its people into darkness. But let’s not forget whose callous playbook they’re using.

NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in #Syria

Not only will NATO not participate in any military intervention in Syria, NATO assets won’t be used to deliver any military, humanitarian, or medical assistance there, according to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, because any type of Western intervention is not likely to help solve the crisis.

“We haven’t had any discussions in NATO about a NATO role in Syria and I don’t envision such a role for the alliance,” Rasmussen told The Cable in an exclusive interview in Washington Wednesday. “Syria is ethnically, politically, religiously much more complicated than Libya. This is the reason why the right way forward is different. And I think a regional solution would be the right way forward with strong engagement by the Arab League.”

But is order of difficulty the only criterion NATO uses to decide where and when to intervene, we asked Rasmussen? Does NATO feel any responsibility to protect civilians in Syria?

“The guiding question should be: Would it bring a sustainable solution to the problem if we decided to intervene, if we had the legal basis, if we had support from the region?” Rasmussen responded. Even if there was a U.N. mandate for intervention in Syria, the mission simply wouldn’t have a high likelihood of success, he argued. “Syria is different.”

No NATO member state has requested NATO begin contingency planning for Syria, and no contingency planning is happening, Rasmussen said. He also said NATO will not engage in arming the Syrian opposition. As for NATO member countries, such as France, Turkey, or the United States, “I take it for granted that all our allies on an individual basis will act within international law” regarding arming the rebels, he said.

Rasmussen also took the opportunity of his interview with The Cable to “clearly denounce” recent statements by Russia’s once and future President Vladimir Putin, who lashed out against NATO and the United States and accused them of supporting a “string of armed conflicts” as part of a scheme to achieve “absolute invulnerability.”

“Nobody has the right to hijack the prerogatives and powers of the U.N.,” Putin said. “I am referring primarily to NATO, which seeks to assume a new role that goes beyond its status of a defensive alliance.”

Rasmussen defended the NATO intervention in Libya, arguing it stayed within the U.N. mandate, and said the Afghanistan mission is also within its U.N. mandate.

“The core task of NATO is still territorial defense of our populations and our countries. But we also realize that in today’s world, the territorial defense of our borders often starts beyond our borders,” he said. “As a politician, I’m not surprised that during an election campaign you will see some sharpened statements” from Russia.

Rasmussen had a jam-packed agenda on this two-day visit to Washington, almost all of which was related to preparations for the May NATO summit in Chicago. He began Tuesday with a seminar organized by the NATO Allied Command-Transformation, where officials worked on a “defense package” to be adopted at the summit, which will implement the Rasmussen-supported concept of “smart defense”  — i.e., doing more with less.

“The basic question is, in an environment of declining defense budgets, how can we assure that we have the necessary military capabilities in the future. To that end, we need a smarter way of spending defense money. And a smarter way of doing that is by going to the model of a multinational corporation instead of purely national solutions,” Rasmussen said.

Rasmussen said the United States would increase its operational exercises with NATO countries, especially through the new NATO Response Force, to which the United States will contribute a rotational troop presence next year for the first time.

Rasmussen also had meetings with senior Obama administration officials, including a Tuesday evening dinner at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon. He met with two senior senators, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) and Senate Armed Services member Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

One announcement that won’t be made at the NATO summit is the alliance’s intention to mark 2013 as the year when full, lead combat responsibility will be handed over from NATO to the Afghan security forces. That announcement was originally scheduled for the summit, but Panetta surprised his European and NATO colleagues by inelegantly announcing it on the plane to Brussels earlier this month.

That announcement was “not big news,” according to Rasmussen, who pointed out that U.S. and NATO officials were quick to clarify that the 2013 milestone did not change the goal of transferring full control of all territory to the Afghan government by the end of 2014.

“The fact is that we stick to the timetable that we outlined in Lisbon in 2010, so in that there’s nothing new,” he said. “If we are to complete the transition by the end of 2014, then something may happen in 2013, but that’s not an accelerated timetable. You might say that we tried to detail more in the last 18 months of this transition period.”

One administration official told The Cable that the reason Panetta blurted out the 2013 milestone inarticulately and months ahead of the planned rollout was that he accidentally read his internal official talking points to reporters on the plane, instead of the talking points for the press. Rasmussen couldn’t confirm that’s what happened.

“I don’t know about that,” Rasmussen said. “You had many things up in the air at that time. But I think we clarified everything at the defense ministers’ meeting (in Brussels).”

Rasmussen was accompanied in Washington by his new Deputy Secretary General Sandy Vershbow, the recently departed assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, who moved to Brussels and took up his new post two weeks ago without even taking a vacation in between jobs.

“It’s quite historic that an American has the position as deputy secretary general,” Rasmussen said. “Here you see America actually demonstrate a very clear political commitment to our alliance, which I strongly appreciate.”

Arm #Syria’s Rebels

By ROGER COHEN
Published: February 27, 2012

LONDON — Here are some home truths about Syria. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Nobody can put this genie back in a bottle. This is the mother of all proxy fights. The remorseless Assad regime is finished, when it dies being the only question.

Nations get to freedom from tyranny by different routes. When Communism fell, some glided from the Soviet empire into the West as others agonized. Yugoslavia — a beautiful idea that never worked — is one of several nations being invoked as possible exemplars of Syria’s bloody fate; others include Lebanon and Iraq.

The ingredients are familiar: Syria is a multiethnic state ruled with an iron fist by one minority — the quasi-Shiite Alawites — and including Christian, Druze and other minorities that between them compose about a quarter of the population. The majority is Sunni. When the iron fist comes off in countries like this, liberty is more readily seen as getting free of each other than uniting in the give-and-take of a new liberal order.

So it has proved for a year now in the Syria of Bashar al-Assad who, taking a leaf from his father’s book, has attempted to suppress through mass slaughter the quest of a broad uprising to be free of the family stranglehold. Assad is a doctor by training! No doctor ever trampled so brazenly on the Hippocratic Oath.

The Assads are a mafia, a minority (the family) within a minority (the Alawites) within a minority (the Mukhabarat secret police). They co-opted others — notably the Sunni merchant class — through imposed stability, but in essence, like every tyrant dislodged in the Arab Spring, they have ruled a nation as if it was their personal fiefdom, a plaything to be passed from father to son for the benefit of cousins and cronies.

Well, that’s over. Aleppo is the not the new Marrakesh after all. Those lovely tourism posters on London buses have been packed away. Arabs have had it with their Godfathers.

I said it’s going to get worse before it gets better. The Syrian compact is broken; a new compact under the Assads is inconceivable. Wider interests are in play. Iranian Shiite theocracy, increasingly isolated, is defending the regime against a Free Syrian Army funded in part by Saudi Sunni theocracy: that’s the proxy war.

Vladimir Putin, fearful of Russian Springs in his own neighborhood, has with signature cynicism opted to defend an old ally against U.S. demands that Assad go, an objective not pursued with any coherence until now by the Obama administration. Israel knows Assad, who helps arm Hezbollah but is a predictable and largely passive enemy. It does not know what may lie beyond a security state whose habits it can predict.

In short, Syria is dangerous. But that not a reason for passivity or incoherence. As the Bosnian war showed, the basis for any settlement must be a rough equality of forces. So I say step up the efforts, already quietly ongoing, to get weapons to the Free Syrian Army. Train those forces, just as the rebels were trained in Libya. Payback time has come around: The United States warned Assad about allowing Al Qaeda fighters to transit Syria to Iraq. Now matériel and special forces with the ability to train a ragtag army can transit Iraq — and other neighboring states — into Syria. This should be a joint effort of Western and Arab states.

At the same time, mount a big U.N.-coordinated humanitarian effort centered on enclaves for refugees in Turkey, Jordan and elsewhere, establishing, where possible, safe corridors to these havens.

Push hard to bring Russia and China around: They will not defend Assad beyond the point where that defense looks like a liability for other bigger interests in the United States, the Gulf and Europe.

I hear the outcry already: Arming Assad’s opponents will only exacerbate the fears of Syria’s minorities and unite them, ensure greater bloodshed, and undermine diplomatic efforts now being led by Kofi Annan, a gifted and astute peacemaker. It risks turning a proxy war into a proxy conflagration.

There is no policy for Syria at this stage that does not involve significant risk. But the only cease-fire I can see that will not amount to an ephemeral piece of paper is one based on a rough balance of forces. For that, the Free Syrian Army must be armed.

In the end, this course will support, not undermine, Annan’s diplomacy and perhaps open the way for the sort of transition outlined by the Arab League. In return, the divided Syrian opposition must provide a firm commitment to respect the rights of minorities. The treatment of minorities — like that of women — is one of the many pivotal tests of the Arab Spring.

If Assad falls, Iran is critically weakened. Tehran’s established conduit to Hezbollah disappears. Choosing between engineering the downfall of Assad and bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is really a no-brainer: The former is smart and doable, the latter is folly. Assad’s wife has been buying property in London: Make her use it and make the Syrian people free.

You can follow Roger Cohen on Twitter at twitter.com/nytimescohen.

As Nations Line Up Against Syrian Government, Russia Sides Firmly With Assad #Syria

MOSCOW — There are not many world capitals today where President Bashar al-Assad of Syria can count on unstinting support. But diplomats who passed through Moscow this week hoping to secure Russia’s help in forcing him from power were met with cold refusal.

The United Nations estimates that more than 5,400 people have been killed in Syria since the uprising began in March, and among the countries that have called for Mr. Assad to step down are the United States, Turkey and Jordan, as well as the members of the European Union and the Arab League. But Russia remains a staunch defender, providing Damascus with a political lifeline as well as arms and ammunition.

Moscow entrenched itself as Mr. Assad’s political bulwark on Friday, declaring that it would, with China, oppose a Security Council resolution calling on Mr. Assad to step down. A deputy foreign minister, Gennadi Gatilov, told the Interfax news agency that the resolution was “doomed to failure” unless the demand for Mr. Assad’s ouster was dropped and a call for opposition forces to renounce violence was included.

Another deputy foreign minister, Sergei A. Ryabkov, rejected Western criticism of continuing arms shipments to Mr. Assad’s government, including a freshly inked $550 million contract for fighter planes.

“I do not understand why we should justify ourselves for that, constantly blush, turn pale, be damp with sweat,” Mr. Ryabkov told the radio station Ekho Moskvy on Thursday. “We are acting within our rights.”

Russian political support has proved essential to the Assad government, said Peter Harling, a Syria specialist with the International Crisis Group. Statements of support from Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov are featured continuously by Syrian state news agencies, he said, offering reassurance that Mr. Assad’s government still has mighty allies.

“It is central to the regime’s narrative and key to the cohesiveness of the regime’s ranks,” Mr. Harling said. “They believe that the international community is divided. So Russians are providing cover for the regime to push forward with their approach. There is a strong belief that all doors are not closed.”

Russia has staked out this position for a variety of reasons that have little to do with the specifics of Syria’s political crisis, chief among them weapons exports, domestic politics and resentment over the Libyan campaign. It reflects a shift that has taken place as Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin prepares to return to the presidency, deeply distrustful of the West’s intentions both in Russia and in the Middle East. He has accused the United States of orchestrating uprisings in both regions.

“Theoretically, the Western bloc has a few more months of the Medvedev presidency,” said Yevgeny Y. Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Middle East in Moscow. “After that, Putin is a bigger realist than Medvedev, he has more experience, he is much more pragmatic. I don’t think he will have these ideas from the Medvedev side that opened the gate to this campaign in Libya.”

Libya is a particular grievance. Mr. Putin seethed over the aftermath of the United Nations resolution establishing what was supposed to be a no-fly zone in Libya, which China and Russia last March agreed not to veto. Many in the government contend that President Dmitri A. Medvedev was deceived by Western allies who then used the resolution to justify airstrikes to drive Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from power.

“We were naïve and stupid,” said Mr. Satanovsky, an influential analyst. “The Chinese were the same. Trust this: That was the last mistake of such type.”

Another consideration is practical. Syria is a major customer of Russia’s state weapons exporters, who by one estimate have already lost as much as $10 billion in orders during the political turmoil of the Arab Spring and a missile contract with Iran that was shelved as a result of the “reset” with Washington. The military industry holds sway over a significant slice of Russian voters and “will be very angry at the ruling group” if further contracts are lost, said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs.

“We have an election year here, and this time it is a more real election campaign. He is campaigning quite seriously,” Mr. Lukyanov said. “That means all groups of society are valuable, and the military industry is very angry over this chain of events.”

Russia has benefited from Syria’s isolation from the West over the years because it enjoys preferential access for its arms and petroleum industries. Syria places orders worth about $700 million a year, making it a “major, very important, high-priced client by Russian standards,” said Ruslan Aliyev, a defense specialist at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow research center. But Moscow wields little influence over Mr. Assad, he said.

This created problems for Moscow in 2006, when Israel, another Russian ally, found that Hezbollah fighters were using Russian-made weaponry that had been sold to Syria, in violation of Syria’s agreement with Russia. Mr. Aliyev called this “a weighty slap in the face.” Mr. Assad has also defied Russian counsel to “stop the hostilities and bloodshed.”

“It’s difficult to defend a person who does not want to cooperate with you and is not prepared to take advice from you,” Mr. Aliyev said.

Mr. Aliyev, who was present at meetings with American diplomats last week, said that Americans were convinced that Mr. Assad’s government would fall and advocated engaging with the opposition. Russian officials are “more pragmatic,” arguing that change will lead to “a civil war, followed by rampant violence and banditry and terrorism, as it happened in other countries,” he said.

Mr. Lavrov sent a clear signal last week that Russia would not intervene militarily in defense of Mr. Assad’s government.

Some Russian analysts warn that if Mr. Assad falls, it will lead to a broader war pitting Arab nations against Iran. Mr. Satanovsky said that Russia could see “maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of refugees coming from Iranian territory into Azerbaijan and Russia” if that were to occur, as well as ethnic violence against Christian minorities and the spread of terrorism. He said Russia supported not Mr. Assad, but stability.

“After Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Afghanistan, why should Russia once more look at all this with the idea that everything will be all right?” he said. “This is not a choice between good and bad, this is a choice between bad — which we have now — and terrible and apocalyptic.”

via leaveobashar: #Syria

Sign from Kafrnabel - Nabil Al Arabi Trades in Syrian Blood

via leaveobashar: #Syria

Sign from Kafrnabel - Nabil Al Arabi Trades in Syrian Blood

Syria’s Rising Toll #Syria

The death toll from the brutal 10-month war by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria against his own people is now more than 5,400, according to the United Nations and others. Yet the international community still has not mustered the tough pressure that might force Mr. Assad to stop the killing, or Syria’s Army and business elite to toss him out.

For months, Russia has been blocking the United Nations Security Council from imposing any serious punishments. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is far more interested in selling arms to Syria and thwarting democratic forces and their Western backers.

On Monday, Russia proposed a shamefully weak resolution that put equal blame on the protesters and the Syrian Army for the violence and made no mention of sanctions. The United States and other members are trying to toughen it up, but we are not optimistic.

That means it is up to Arab League ministers who need to recognize that the time for the Syrian dictator to go has long past. With his butchery, Mr. Assad has made clear that there is no compromise or deal to be had — and he has made clear his contempt for the Arab League’s efforts to broker peace.

When they meet this weekend in Cairo, the ministers should agree to pull out their failed monitoring mission and impose the sanctions that they originally approved in November and then suspended, including a freeze on Syrian government assets in Arab countries and a ban on transactions with Syria’s central bank. The league should also insist that the Security Council do the same.

The European Union’s oil embargo and an American and European ban on business with Syria’s main commercial bank, in particular, have hit the economy hard. When the European Union meets on Monday, it is expected to place asset freezes and visa bans on 22 more individuals and eight more companies connected to the government. There is little chance of changing Mr. Assad’s mind. But, in time, such pressure could persuade army and business elites to abandon the Assad government.

World leaders must keep speaking out against the slaughter as President Obama did on Tuesday when he met with King Abdullah II of Jordan at the White House. He decried the “terrible brutality” in Syria and pledged to redouble efforts to force Mr. Assad out.

There is no easy solution. But the international community needs to exert whatever diplomatic and economic pressure it can to make clear to Mr. Assad and his cronies that their time has run out.