But in all of these areas, it is up to Russia, not America, to take the next step. Our policy remains unchanged: steady cost-imposition until Russia changes course.

But, in an interesting slip of the tongue, he gave away the real policy. I say "slip of the tongue" because the State Department version of his speech leaves out the two sentences that tell you that most of Mitchell's testimony is sleight of hand to distract the audience.

Senate testimony version

The starting point of the National Security Strategy is the recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition, and that past US policies have neither sufficiently grasped the scope of this emerging trend nor adequately equipped our nation to succeed in it. Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21^st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power.

The State Department version leaves out the two emphasised sentences.

So, Mitchell – who ought to know – is telling us that a "foremost [but there can be only one foremost] national security interest" of the USA is to

prevent the
domination of
the Eurasian landmass by
Russia and China

In 1904 Halford Mackinder wrote a paper in which he divided the world into "the World-Island" (Europe, Asia and Africa); the "Offshore islands" (British Isles, Japan and others), and "the Outlying Islands" (the Americas and Australia) and discussed the geopolitical implications. In 1919 he summed his theory up as:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

who rules the World-Island commands the world.

In Mitchell's presentation, the principal "Outlying Island" and its allies in the "Offshore Islands" must prevent Russia and China from controlling the "Heartland". Echoed by George Friedman's remarks that the essence of US policy for a century or more was to prevent Germany and Russia from uniting.

Now Americans have always been a bit uncomfortable about their imperium. Going so far sometimes as to deny that there is any such thing. Perhaps a hegemony but only an empire if President Bush makes the wrong decisions (which I suppose the author would say he did). Niall Ferguson says it's an "empire in denial". Friedman seems prepared to use the word. A "tempered American imperialism" maybe. Not an empire; yes it is but it's a good empire. And so on: there's as much or as little debate as you want but the central reality is that Americans are not comfortable with the idea of being an imperial power. Not so the Romans: they gloried in it; Rome had the power and it used it. Cato the Elder was delighted with the death and enslavement of the Carthaginians. Caesar claimed to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more and there's nothing to suggest he lost a moment's sleep over it. Vae victis.

What Mitchell would be saying, if he were a Roman, is that we intend to remain the world's predominant power and if Russia is an obstacle, we will crush it. That's the way of the world and that's what we'll do. And China and Iran and anyone else. But he's an American so he must pretend that the USA is the peaceful householder and Russia is the troublesome neighbour; he must tell the Senate committee, and it so expects, that Moscow has broken the peace and deserves punishment.

The specific charges he makes against Russia are nonsense.

In Ukraine, we have maintained an effort under Ambassador Kurt Volker to provide the means by which Russia can live up to its commitments under the Minsk Agreements.

The word "Russia" doesn't even appear in the Minsk Agreements; there are no "commitments".

unprecedentedly brazen influence operations orchestrated by the Kremlin on the soil of our allies and even here at home in the United States

A few Facebook ads, most of which appeared after the election and only "Russian" by assertion. Even at the most generous interpretation of "Russian-influenced", it's a negligible number of possibles. And, as I have argued elsewhere, had Moscow wanted to influence the election it would have used the Uranium One case to either blackmail or smear Clinton.

Putin wants to break apart the American Republic, not by influencing an election or two, but by systematically inflaming the perceived fault-lines that exist within our society. His is a strategy of chaos for strategic effect.

I suppose that the "factual basis" for that is that some American who wants to break California into two parts lives part time in Moscow and a Russian professor thought that the USA would break up into a number of pieces. So what? there are lots of opinions around, who cares what some academic says or thinks? Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a lot closer to power than these Russians, thought that a "loosely confederated Russia" of three parts would be a good idea. And Stratfor's Friedman thinks Russia will break up soon. But when a senior US official says that "Putin wants to break apart the American Republic", that's existential; that's a pretty serious charge. Is it a nuclear war kind of charge?

the Putinist system’s permanent and self-justifying struggle for international dominance.

(But didn't Mitchell say something about preventing the "domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers"? Wouldn't his Russian equivalent be able to point to his speech and talk about how Russia must resist Washington's "permanent and self-justifying struggle for international dominance"?). It's not Moscow that has 800 or so military bases around the world; Moscow isn't expanding its military alliance to the US border. Projection.

There's lots of projection in Washington's and its minions' assertions about Russia. As far as official Washington is concerned, Moscow's resistance to the Imperium can only mean that it wants to crush the US, break it up, incite civil war and impose its imperium on the world. (Romans would agree: either Rome eats, or Rome is eaten.) If you look in a mirror you see yourself. Projection again.

Doing so involves an evolved toolkit of subversive statecraft first employed by the Bolshevik and later the Soviet state, which has been upgraded for the digital age. While these tools and technologies differ depending on the context, the key to their success is that the Kremlin employs them within a common strategic and operational framework aimed at leveraging all available means to achieve a decisive strategic effect.

Bolsheviks, Putinists whatever: Russia, the Once and Future Enemy. I think my favourite part – what adjective? – deluded? crazy? insane? McCartheyesque? is this bit:

we formed a new position – the Senior Advisor for Russian Malign Activities and Trends (or, SARMAT) – to develop cross-regional strategies across offices.

SARMAT – a Russian ICBM named after the Sarmatians, who may have been the origin of the Arthurian legends. Is this a joke? But who can tell these days? But one can be certain that the office will grow and grow as it busily finds evidence of Russian involvement everywhere: Star Wars, organic food, guns, Mueller, vaxx; whatever brings in the salaries and promotions. (But a rather unimaginative name though: why not SPecial Executive for Countering Terrorist Russian Excesses? Or Special Ministry for Engaging Russian Sabotage and Horrors?)

Pretty crazy stuff indeed – frighteningly so – but, thanks to Mitchell giving away the secret, we don't have to waste our time debating Russia and Ukraine or how cute puppies "sow discord and chaos". They're only shoved in because Americans have to be the white hats – "Moscow is attacking us!" – when a Cato would bluntly say: "Moscow must be destroyed!" But it's the same thing: it's a Mackinder war. So far with sanctions (the economic fundament) and propaganda accusations (the political fundament). The military fundament fortunately remains offstage.

* * *

But Mitchell is late to the party. Moscow and Beijing know they're on the hitlist and their alliance grows and strengthens. Iran, a significant player on the "World-Island" knows it's on the hitlist too. India is playing both sides. The endless American wars in the MENA do not strengthen Washington's control of the "Eurasian landmass". CAATSA will alienate everyone else. Even Zbigniew Brzezinski came to understand "[the US was] no longer the globally imperial power".

I would argue that the American dominance of the Twentieth Century was principally due to four factors. A tremendous manufacturing capacity; great inventive ingenuity allied to the ability to exploit new inventions; a stable political system; the emotive reality of "the American Dream". How much remains? A recent government report summarises the outsourcing of manufacturing. Is the inventive capacity more than just social media, pop music or a different iPhone button? Political stability wobbles. And as to the American Dream: will your children be better off than you are? One should not forget that Trump was elected on the slogan "Make America Great Again".

Perhaps the Mackinder War has already been won by the "Heartland" powers.

* * *

Statement of A. Wess Mitchell

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

US Strategy Towards the Russian Federation

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Menendez, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I will use my prepared comments to outline in brief form the overarching strategy of the United States towards the Russian Federation. The foundation for this strategy is provided by three documents, as directed and approved by the President: the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the Russia Integrated Strategy.

The starting point of the National Security Strategy is the recognition that America has entered a period of big-power competition, and that past US policies have neither sufficiently grasped the scope of this emerging trend nor adequately equipped our nation to succeed in it. Contrary to the hopeful assumptions of previous administrations, Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest US primacy and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration’s foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments of American power.

Our Russia policy proceeds from the recognition that, to be effective, US diplomacy toward Russia must be backed by “military power that is second to none and fully integrated with our allies and all of our instruments of power.” To this end, the administration has reversed years of cuts to the US defense budget, begun the process of recapitalizing the US nuclear arsenal, requested close to $11 billion to support the European Deterrence Initiative, and, in the past year and a half, worked with NATO Allies to bring about the largest European defense spending increase since the Cold War – a total of more than $40 billion to date. In addition to commitments from over half of the Alliance to meet NATO’s two-percent defense spending requirement by 2024, the United States achieved virtually all of our policy objectives at the NATO Summit, including the establishment of two new NATO Commands (including one here in the United States), the establishment of new counter-hybrid threat response teams, and major, multi-year initiatives to bolster the mobility, readiness, and capability of the Alliance.

In tandem, we have worked to degrade Russia’s ability to conduct aggression by imposing costs on the Russian state and the oligarchy that sustains it. Building on Secretary Pompeo’s recent testimony, I am submitting for the record a detailed list of actions this administration has taken. These include, to date: 217 individuals and entities sanctioned, 6 diplomatic and consular facilities closed or kept closed, and 60 spies removed from US soil. The State Department has played the lead role in ensuring that these efforts are closely and effectively coordinated with European allies through synchronized expulsions and the continued roll-over of sanctions related to Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine.

Our actions are having an impact. Research by the State Department’s Office of the Chief Economist shows that on average sanctioned Russian firms see their operating revenue fall by a quarter; their total asset valuation fall by half; and are forced to fire a third of their employees. We believe our sanctions, cumulatively, have cost the Russian government tens of billions of dollars on top of the broader impact on state-owned sectors and the chilling effect of US sanctions on the Russian economy. Following the announcement of sanctions in April, the Russian company Rusal lost about fifty percent of its market value. In the five days following our August 8 announcement of Chemical and Biological Weapons Act sanctions, the ruble depreciated to its lowest level against the dollar in two years.

Even as we have imposed unprecedented penalties for Russian aggression, we have been clear that the door to dialogue is open, should Putin choose to take credible steps toward a constructive path. In Syria, we created de-escalation channels to avoid collisions between our forces. In Ukraine, we have maintained an effort under Ambassador Kurt Volker to provide the means by which Russia can live up to its commitments under the Minsk Agreements. But in all of these areas, it is up to Russia, not America, to take the next step. Our policy remains unchanged: steady cost-imposition until Russia changes course.

As with the overall strategy, the premise of these efforts has been that our diplomacy is most effective when backed by positions of strength. We have placed particular emphasis on bolstering the states of frontline Europe that are most susceptible to Russian geopolitical pressure. In Ukraine and Georgia, we lifted the previous administration’s restrictions on the acquisition of defensive weapons for resisting Russian territorial aggression. In the Balkans, American diplomacy has played a lead role in resolving the Greece-Macedonia name dispute and is engaging with Serbia and Kosovo to propel the EU-led dialogue. In the Caucasus, Black Sea region, and Central Europe we are working to close the vacuums that invite Russian penetration by promoting energy diversification, fighting corruption, and competing for hearts and minds in the lead-up to the 30th anniversary of the end of Communism.

Our strategy is animated by the realization that the threat from Russia has evolved beyond being simply an external or military one; it includes unprecedentedly brazen influence operations orchestrated by the Kremlin on the soil of our allies and even here at home in the United States. These activities are, as FBI Director Wray recently stated, “wide and deep,” being both extensively resourced and directed from the highest levels of the Russian state. We work closely with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and, and the National Security Council to ensure that all relevant resources are being brought to bear to thwart and punish any Russian influence campaigns in the run-up to the elections.

It’s important to state clearly what these campaigns are and are not about.

What they’re not about is any particular attachment to specific US domestic political causes. They are not about right or left or American political philosophy. The threat from Russian influence operations existed long before our 2016 presidential election and will continue long after this election cycle, or the next, or the next. As the recent Facebook purges reveal, the Russian state has promoted fringe voices on the political left, not just the right, including groups who advocate violence, the storming of federal buildings and the overthrow of the US government. Russia foments and funds controversial causes – and then foments and funds the causes opposed to those causes. Putin’s thesis is that the American Constitution is an experiment that will fail if challenged in the right way from within. Putin wants to break apart the American Republic, not by influencing an election or two, but by systematically inflaming the perceived fault-lines that exist within our society. His is a strategy of chaos for strategic effect. Accepting this fact is absolutely essential for developing a long-term comprehensive response to the problem. The most dangerous thing we could do is to politicize the challenge, which in itself would be a gift to Putin.

What Russian efforts are about is geopolitics: the Putinist system’s permanent and self-justifying struggle for international dominance. As stated by a handbook of the Russian Armed Forces, the goal is “to carry out mass psychological campaigns against the population of a state in order to destabilize society and the government; as well as forcing a state to make decisions in the interests of their opponents.” Doing so involves an evolved toolkit of subversive statecraft first employed by the Bolshevik and later the Soviet state, which has been upgraded for the digital age. While these tools and technologies differ depending on the context, the key to their success is that the Kremlin employs them within a common strategic and operational framework aimed at leveraging all available means to achieve a decisive strategic effect.

The State Department takes this threat very seriously. From my first day on the job, I have established for our team that countering this threat, in both its overt and covert forms, will be among the highest priorities for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. As a co-chair of the Russia Influence Group, I work with General Scapparotti to bring the combined resources of EUR and EUCOM to bear against this problem. Under EUR’s leadership, all 50 US missions located in Europe and Eurasia are required to develop, coordinate and execute tailored action plans for rebuffing Russian influence operations in their host countries.

Within the Bureau, we recruited one of the architects of the Global Engagement Center legislation from the staff of a member of this committee; in addition, we formed a new position – the Senior Advisor for Russian Malign Activities and Trends (or, SARMAT) – to develop cross-regional strategies across offices. Early this year, EUR created a dedicated team within the Bureau to take the offensive and publicly expose Russian malign activities, which since January of this year has called out the Kremlin on 112 occasions. Together with the GEC, EUR is now working with our close ally the UK to form an international coalition for coordinating efforts in this field. The State Department requested over $380 million in security and economic assistance accounts in the President’s 2019 Budget for Europe and Eurasia that can be allocated toward combatting Russian malign influence.

In these efforts, we recognize that Congress has an important role to play in providing the tools and resources that will be needed to deal effectively with the combined Russian problem set. As Secretary Pompeo made clear in his recent testimony, we are committed to working with all of you to make headway against this problem and align our efforts in support of the President’s Russia strategy.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting me to speak today. I welcome your questions.

Something else that was highly interesting was his mention of Belarus along with Ukraine and Georgia as allies. The assistant secretary believes that “[t]he new principle is respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the allies: Ukraine, Georgia and even Belarus. Washington expects states to respect the rights of their neighbors.” This makes one wonder if the Belarusian government knows it has been granted a new status. The official also mentioned Iran, which should not be allowed to sell oil to Europe because it has refused to abandon its ballistic missile program. Washington calls “on our allies to follow our lead and strengthen their laws to better screen foreign investments in their countries for national security threats.”

So, the US laws are flawless, its allies are not viewed as equal partners because they must follow America’s lead, or, in other words, do what they are told, and it’s up to Washington, not the national governments and parliaments, to decide what investments they need and where that money should come from. The leaders of the Central and Eastern European states should find it awkward, being rebuked for having overlooked “the foundational importance of the nation-state and national sovereignty,” while allowing unfriendly China and Russia to move in. “Our allies in Central Europe must not be under any illusions that these powers are their friends,” Mr. Mitchell explained. Obviously, he is quite sure that the governments of these nations are unable to grasp who is their friend and who is not. They are as naïve as small children. It’s good that the US is right here ready to enlighten them.

This highly-placed diplomat went on to explain that the United States should be seen as the protector of sovereignty, as it “rejects Russia’s territorial aggression against its neighbor Ukraine and [rejects] China’s predatory ‘debt-mongering’ throughout Central and Eastern Europe.” 

Unlike its rivals, America does not seek dependencies, but rather independent states that should be “willing and able to share the burden of Western defense.” So, here is what independence à l'américaine is like, with its friends and allies absolutely free to comply with their protector’s instructions offering specific guidance about exactly how much they have to pay for defense, what investments to bring in, who to be friendly with, and how they should properly view the situation in their own region. Whatever happens in Central and Eastern Europe, everything has to revolve around the US.

“The United States has long had a tradition of not interfering in the details of European integration,” Mr. Mitchell assured us. Of course, telling the UK PM to sue the EU and thus expedite Brexit can certainly not be seen as interfering in European integration. Suggesting to French President Macron that he take France out of the EU is another example of noninterference. The Assistant Secretary expressed confidence that the allies could “beat back its competitors in Europe” with a little help from their American friends.

Also addressing the Atlantic Council’s October 18 conference, US Special Representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, revealed that Washington plans to stiffen the sanctions regime against Moscow “every month or two” to make it more amenable over Ukraine. The new policy suggests increasing the sanctions periodically, over time. Those remarks came after Russian President Vladimir Putin told the Valdai Club in Sochi that he hoped that a government more friendly toward Russia emerges from the Ukrainian presidential election that will be held on March 31.

Mr. Volker defied logic. On the one hand, he cited his “estimation… that the chances of their changing position now are lower then they were even a year ago." Nevertheless, the best strategy for the West is to maintain pressure on Moscow through those economic sanctions —i.e., sticking to the very same measures that have proven to be useless, given that the “chances of their changing position now are lower.” So, the US and its allies should continue to implement a policy doomed to failure! But the ambassador states, "I think we need to keep on track. I believe that sanctions do have an impact and we see evidence of that in Russia.” What an bizarre way to convince his listeners!

"This is a shockingly big and important humanitarian catastrophe that no one talks about. We have over 10,000 people killed,” exclaimed this official who represents a nation that has just sent Ukraine, a country notorious for the corruption in its military ranks, a shipment of lethal arms so that it can kill more of its own citizens or let the weapons systems fall into the wrong hands and be used to kill other people outside of Ukraine. The “wrong hands” could use those weapons against US military. With this kind of people you never know.

There is no penetrating insight, no reading between the lines, no wasting time on anything like analysis, and no attempts to find the logic in anything that’s said — nothing like that is required. It’s easy to understand highly-placed US State Department officials. You guys do what you are told, or else. And, just in case, don’t forget that your best friend and closest ally overseas carries a big stick to force you to march in step. These speeches are delivered from time to time to ensure that their “dear allies” remember that. The Atlantic Council’s podium fits the bill.

Photo: @chastime

The House is expected to vote on the legislation this month, with the Senate taking it up in early August. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had warned Congress against punishing Turkey by cutting off transfers of F-35s in retaliation for its plans to buy the Russian anti-aircraft system, but his opinion was ignored. The State Department has been putting pressure on Ankara to try to make it reconsider the S-400 deal, in favor of purchasing the less capable, US-made Patriot system.  US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell told the Senate "We've been very clear that across the board, an acquisition of S-400 will inevitably affect the prospects for Turkish military-industrial cooperation with the United States, including F-35." Turkish officials view the US demand as blackmail.

Turkey is one of twelve partner nations in the F-35 program, nine of which have received the fighters through foreign military sales. Ankara has planned to purchase the 100 F-35 aircraft it technically already owns by investing $1.25 billion into the project. US legislators fear that using the F-35 and the S-400 together could compromise the F-35 and allow Russia to gain access to the sensitive technology.  As a result, the true owner has been denied access to his property by both houses of US Congress.

The bill includes a compromise waiver under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act  (CAATSA) for the countries purchasing Russian military equipment, as long as they are taking steps to wean themselves from it.

The deal with Turkey is a part of a broader picture. The Philippines, also a long-time ally of Washington that has long relied on the United States as its main source of military hardware,  is at risk of falling under US sanctions if it proceeds with its purchase of grenade launchers from Rosoboronexport, a blacklisted Russian firm. India has been threatened with sanctions should it decide to buy the Russian S-400.

The US State Department's Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction has announced a tender for the monitoring of open-source information about arms deals involving the Russian Federation and the CIS countries. The information will be used for shaping the sanctions policy.

This policy goes beyond weapons deals to encompass economic issues as well. One can pay off. Take Germany, for instance. It has been threatened by sanctions in the event that the Nord Stream 2 gas project goes through. The English version of the German newspaper Handelsblatt reported that plans are afoot for a new LNG terminal in Brunsbüttel, a town in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein.  Once the costly infrastructure to cool and liquefy LNG is in place, the German government can demonstrate that the US is wrong to accuse it of being almost fully dependent on Russian gas. There are plans to invest an estimated €450 million ($530 million). Once built, the terminal cannot sit idle. The shipments of American LNG will be guaranteed. 

But indeed there is no such thing as a free lunch. If Berlin wants to get cheap Russia gas, it will also have to spend some time and effort on building the infrastructure to receive Moscow's LNG, and at that point, paying a lot more for American sea-transported  LNG will hike the country’s overall energy expenditures

Perhaps Turkey could come to some kind of compromise with the Americans on the S-400, if it buys the Patriot as well.  Maybe India will find a way to evade sanctions, if it agrees to the US offer of THAAD..

On July 24, US Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), announced that they are working on comprehensive legislation, which officially is aimed at ratcheting up the sanctions pressure on Russia. The text of the proposed legislation does not say so, but the true goal is to lean on other nations to buy US-made goods or else. Forget about the international rules stipulated by the UN Charter and WTO documents — “arms-twisting” has become an element of US foreign policy.

Nobody likes to be ordered around and blackmailed. In the long run, this policy will encourage other countries to reconcile their differences and unify, in an effort to push back against the US. Today Russia China, the EU, and many other actors face a common problem — the “do as I tell you” approach used by the US to tackle international problems, whatever they are. Those who had doubts about the merits of a multipolar world order are beginning to see things in a different light.  Any state structure needs checks and balances to maintain an equilibrium, and so does the world. The BRICS summit that kicked off in Johannesburg, South Africa on July 25 symbolizes some global changes, in which poles of power outside of the US are emerging to reshape the political world map.

Actually, the North Atlantic Alliance was ready to back the idea of initiating the membership procedures at its summit in 2008, but the name dispute with Greece obstructed the process. NATO can extend a membership invitation at its July 11-12 summit. Macedonia was given its Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 1999. The EU summit, which is scheduled for June 28-29, will decide whether to offer a green light for the membership talks to begin. Moscow is an important trade partner for Skopje. EU membership means joining the anti-Russian sanctions and suffering the inevitable financial losses.

NATO evidently wants to speed the process up. Its top leaders, including the Secretary General, exerted pressure on Macedonia and Greece to encourage them to remove the main obstacle to that membership as quickly as possible. US officials openly admit that Washington played a silent role in the process of resolving the name dispute between Macedonia and Greece. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Wess Mitchell believes that NATO should be more active in the Western Balkans in order to counter Russia’s influence. “Greece and the United States share strongly a vision of deeper integration of the Western Balkans into European and Euro Atlantic Institutions,” said US Ambassador to Greece Jeffrey Pyatt just a few days before the agreement was reached.

According to Richard Hooker, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia with the National Security Council, the Trump administration would welcome Macedonia’s entry into NATO. Kay Bailey Hutchison, America’s ambassador to NATO, explained that the US and the allies are in favor of expansion as a way to keep those countries out of what she called “the Russian sphere.” She thinks Macedonia meets the standards and is genuinely close to membership. The ambassador complacently avoids any discussion of Macedonia’s rampant corruption and lingering ethnic tensions.

So, it’s not about making a contribution to NATO or meeting certain standards, the real goal is to keep Moscow at a distance. Croatia and Albania joined the bloc in 2009. Montenegro entered in 2017. New members are needed now so as to make the process unstoppable. Besides, the Vardar River links Central Europe and the Aegean Sea. The plans for the expansion of the Turkish Stream gas project include passage through Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary to reach Central Europe. Skopje will benefit as a transit country. It is in the Americans’ best interests to deny Russia and Turkey this route, as it wants no rivals able to challenge American shale gas exports to Europe.

The landlocked country of Macedonia cannot offer any serious contribution to the bloc’s military might, with an army of 8,000 and no navy or air force. Its weapons systems and equipment are obsolete. The inadequate standards there pose a very serious problem. This means that militarily, Macedonia is more of a burden that must be shouldered than an asset. And at the current time NATO is facing an ongoing rift, as the majority of its member states are reluctant to give in to US pressure and raise their military expenditures to 2% of their GDP.

And that’s not all. The interethnic conflicts in Macedonia will become NATO’s headache. Skopje has a problem with its ethnic Albanian community that makes up a quarter of the country’s population. The North Atlantic Alliance has severed Kosovo from Serbia. This means that one potential scenario would see Macedonia losing some of its northwestern regions that have a predominantly ethnic Albanian population. Why not? They did it once — they’ll do it again. It’ll be a great tragedy and a serious problem for Macedonia but not for America, which is obsessed with driving Russia out of that region at any cost.

The hope is that Serbia can be made more pro-Western and vulnerable to pressure if it is surrounded by NATO members. Macedonia’s accession will serve that goal. It’ll be used.

But membership will complicate NATO’s decision-making process even more. Skopje’s accession was blocked by only one member — Greece. A single government holds veto power over the alliance. Their interests do not always coincide. Just remember 2003, when the US invasion of Iraq was opposed by France and Germany, thus preventing it from becoming a NATO operation. What if a small country like Macedonia were to block a decision that was important for the US? An increased number of members means an increased risk of gridlock.

What the people of that country will gain is unclear. Their national interests will be eclipsed by the foreign-policy goals of other major players.

So, expansion for the sake of expansion is a very dubious policy that is of benefit to neither NATO nor Macedonia. The constantly growing number of member states does not make NATO stronger, quite the opposite. Skopje hardly needs the protection offered under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Who could invade it? And everything else could can be achieved just with special status in the organization, thus leaving more wiggle room for independent foreign-policy decisions. Membership has its downsides, which are being ignored by both NATO and Macedonia. In the end, Skopje’s integration into NATO does not look like a win-win decision.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said Washington would respond with "firm and appropriate measures." But does the US have any legal grounds for responding with any measures at all? What is it actually doing in Syria? And wait a minute … President Trump recently solemnly promised to leave! Indeed, there is no justification for the US military presence, especially after the Islamic State ceased to be a factor influencing the events there, once that force had been reduced to insignificance. It would have been totally routed a long time ago if America had not intervened, allowing the remnants of the militant group to survive. Wasn’t it President Trump who said many times that the only justification for the US presence in Syria was the need to fight the Islamic State and nobody else? Wasn’t it he who happily declared the final victory over the terrorist group? That mission has been accomplished and yet… the US is still there, issuing warnings and instructions that others must comply with or else.

The statement calls on Moscow to use its influence with the Syrian government to prevent the liberation of the captured areas in accordance with last year’s de-escalation agreement between Russia, the US, and Jordan. Moscow has also called on Washington not to destabilize Syria with missile and air strikes and to do something about the humanitarian catastrophe in southwestern Syria, but is anyone listening? Last month, Russian President Putin said in a statement that any cooperation with the US in Syria had been suspended after the April attacks, which the Russian government viewed as an act of aggression against a sovereign state. It was not Moscow who started the whole thing, rendering all previous arrangements null and void. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 18 that Washington was ready for an armed clash with Russia in Syria. This statement did not go unnoticed in Moscow.

Although it is a guarantor of the de-escalation zone in southwest Syria, what has the US done to prevent the rebels from attacking Syrian forces and staging all kinds of provocations?

What about the 12,000-strong Southern Front that has amassed in southern Syria preparing for an assault on Syrian forces? Is that not a violation of the agreement in regard to the de-escalation zone? They plan to capture Daraa and turn it into the capital of a would-be quasi-state supported by the US and Israel. A false-flag chemical attack cannot be ruled out. The militants have some experience staging such provocations. The logistics for this force involve crossing the Jordanian-Syrian border under the guise of providing humanitarian assistance. Has any de-escalation agreement given a green light to such activities?

The situation could have been discussed during the recent Astana meeting, but the US was conspicuously absent while encouraging military preparations in the province of Deir ez-Zor.

The US warning coincides with the news that the US is going to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory. And any “foreign” presence there — such as Iranian, for instance — would be viewed as a threat to Israel’s sovereignty, and of course America would be ready to help its old friend and ally. The Heights are Syrian land. They were captured during the 1967 war and illegally annexed by Israel in 1981. That move has not been recognized internationally but the US is ready to defy the rest of the world. It’s not the first time. The embassy in Israel was moved to Jerusalem, the Iran deal was unilaterally torn up — the list of examples illustrating US scorn for international opinion can go on.

Despite its stated intentions to leave, the US warning shows that it will stay in Syria for a long time and its future plans have little to do with the Islamic State. The goal is the partition of Syria, with large swaths of its territory remaining under America’s control, including the Daraa province. The US absence at the Astana meeting confirmed its plan to stymie the ongoing Russia-led peace efforts in favor of seeing Syria divided and using other venues for peace talks in order to diminish Russia’s influence, isolate the Assad government, and squeeze Iran out. Step by step, America’s uninvited intervention in Syria is exacerbating the situation, increasing the risk of a wider conflict. If this plan to create a quasi-state in southern Syria goes through, this will be the beginning of the reshaping of the Middle East in accordance with Washington’s vision for the world at its best.

Washington’s position is more or less the same. It supports "the gradual, transparent transformation of the Kosovo Security Force into a multiethnic force in line with NATO standards" as long as it complies with the provisions of Kosovo’s constitution, reflecting that “entity’s multiethnic democracy.” That sounds like an approval with a caveat. In March, US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, Wess Mitchell, went so far as to say that Kosovo "has the right to form professional forces" and that this would not pose a threat to Serbia or Kosovo’s Serbs. In his opinion, “Nobody can place a veto on Kosovo’s right to develop its armed forces." If that’s not offering a green light then what is?

Kosovo’s Albanians enjoy political support among US lawmakers. Congressman Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, is known as the Kosovo Albanians’ ambassador to the US without a portfolio. His name is on street signs there and his image adorns postage stamps. He was responsible for an attempt to impeach President Trump, after which Mr. Engel promptly did an about-face to hail the president’s decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. As the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, he has done a lot to spoil US-Russia relations.

The creation of a regular military force in Kosovo is a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. That document states explicitly that no other military presence except KFOR and Serbia’s Army shall be permitted without the mandate of the UN Security Council. The very declaration of independence in 2008 by Kosovo’s parliament was a flagrant breach of that resolution, because no referendum had been held.

The establishment of the force also contravenes the Florence Agreement (Article IV of the 1996 Dayton Peace Accords), which says that regional stability should be maintained with the assistance of the OSCE. The formation of a standing army in Kosovo would mean that a military force was being created within the territory of Serbia, which was a party to the Florence agreement. This is illegal but the president of Kosovo has been pushing hard to achieve this goal. “No turning back,” he says. The plan would increase the number of active-duty lightly armed regular forces to 5,000 and reservists to 3,000 — a considerable force to contend with.

And what do you think justifies such urgency? According to the leader of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci, the threat is coming from “the Russian military bases in Serbia, from Russia's MIG jets in Serbia and from the Russian military exercises in Serbia." So it’s Russia again! But Belgrade is free to possess and purchase any warplanes it wants. Has anyone ever heard of any military exercises being conducted by Russia in Serbia that are large enough to pose a threat to other countries? Or of military bases? Could Mr. Thaci name at least one to prove his point? No, because Russia has no “bases” there and, unlike NATO, it does not conduct military activities in the region. The Russian threat is clearly a fantasy that serves as a pretext for this gross violation of international law that is fanning tensions in the Balkans.

Here is another angle that should be kept in mind. If this military force is created, it will be under the command of a man who has been involved in the illegal trafficking of human organs in Kosovo, as stated by the 2010 Council of Europe report. A standing army headed by a criminal? So, “NATO land” is going to set up a military force led by someone with an extremely dubious reputation. This is all happening in broad daylight with little media coverage!

No US or NATO official has ever commented on this fact. They always shy away from such thorny issues.

Moreover, the commander of KFOR, Italy’s General Salvatore Cuoci, stated on April 7 in an interview with Pristina’s daily newspaper Zeri that any aggression in Kosovo would be tantamount to aggression against NATO. Let’s unpack that for a minute. Kosovo is covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Essentially this illegal entity has become a part of NATO. Unlike in Crimea, no referendum has been held. This is clearly and unambiguously expressed in his statement — Kosovo has been annexed by the bloc. The general added that his command will provide security at those times when the police can’t control the situation.

The plan will entail significant consequences. It is vehemently opposed by Serbia and the ethnic Serbs in northern Kosovo. Continuing terrorist activities may prompt the Serbian Army to intervene. The West could have easily prevented this turn of events. It will have to face up to its responsibility for whatever ensues. Moscow has issued warnings to this effect.

The situation in Kosovo is a glaring example that illustrates how little respect the West has for the international law that it insists others must honor. A part of Serbia has been snatched away to create a territory controlled by NATO. But that does not prevent Western leaders from pontificating about the need to play by the rules in the world today. Is there a better example of hypocrisy?

The move might cause friction with Israel but it was not Russia who started this whole thing. Moscow has respected certain agreements in order to avoid any escalation. The purchase of the S-300 was suspended in 2013 after talks with EU leaders and Israel. On April 9, Israeli warplanes attacked the T4 air base in central Syria. A few days later, the US and its allies launched their strikes so as to give the impression that the Israeli raid was actually one phase of a joint operation. Russian President Vladimir Putin urged the Israeli PM to discontinue the strikes in a phone conversation on April 11. On April 16 and17 Israel launched another attack. Now the S-300 might be on its way. You reap what you sow.

Israel’s April 9 strike resulted in the death of Iranian servicemen. Iran said it would retaliate. As a result, both parties now have their fingers on the trigger.

A group of over 12,000 militants known as the Southern Front, along with armored vehicles, have amassed in southern Syria, bracing for an assault on the government forces. If they do so, that will be a breach of the agreement governing the de-escalation zone. Their mission is to capture the city of Daraa, which would become the capital of a US-controlled quasi-state outside of the Syrian government’s control. The convoys providing arms and logistics are crossing the Jordanian-Syrian border under the guise of delivering “humanitarian aid.”

The attackers may use the “violation of the de-escalation zone agreement” by the Syrian government forces as a pretext for launching an assault. The militants may be plotting a chemical attack. Such a provocation would justify their actions and spur the involvement of the US and its allies.

The de-escalation agreement, brokered by Russia, the US, and Jordan, was reached in the summer of 2017. The region has been quiet since then. Now it is on the verge of a security breakdown. Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell claimed on April 18 during a congressional hearing that the US was ready for an armed clash with Russia in Syria. The American forces stationed at al-Tanf, a US-controlled base in the east, could be involved. They’ll need air cover to increase the possibility of an incident between Russian and US planes. The assistant secretary did not elaborate but the message is clear. And it was a US official, not a Russian one, who resorted to such hostile rhetoric. 

And what about Israel, which considers southern Syria to be an area of special concern? Why has its military decided to withdraw a squadron of fighters from a Red Flag multinational military exercise in Alaska, beginning on April 30? This is a time when Israel needs its aircraft close to home and ready for action.

It has been reported recently that the US has moved nuclear weapons onto Greece’s Araxos Air Base. Its military has also deployed drones to the Larissa airfield.

Diplomatic moves are underway to direct developments away from the peace process advanced by Russia, Turkey, and Iran. On April 4, the leaders of these countries agreed to draft new peace initiatives. Those plans include Russian mediation to encourage Iran and the Persian Gulf states to take a seat at the negotiation table. If Russia achieves that, it will be a real diplomatic setback for the United States.

Attempts are being made to provide venues other than Astana and Geneva where a settlement of the Syrian crisis could be hammered out. Austria is offering to host talks in a new format in Vienna. French President Macron also wants a role in the settlement process. Nobody can explain why is it so important to add a new venue for the talks, if all those talks, wherever the meetings are held, are based on UN Resolution 2254. No doubt the US will endorse any place or format that will diminish Russia’s clout.

If you put all these facts and bits of information together, it leads to the conclusion that Syria is teetering on the brink of conflict, which could spoil all the significant achievements that have been reached so far to silence the guns and make the terrorist groups fade into the background.

On April 20, the Russian president held a meeting with his defense minister and chief of general staff. Syria topped the agenda. On the same day, the Russian foreign minister stated that Vladimir Putin was ready to meet Donald Trump in the US. This is a clear demonstration of responsible behavior and a firm intention to avoid a worst-case scenario. The US has influence over Israel, whose covert or overt support of the rebels in southern Syria is an open secret. Washington can prevent this situation from backsliding into a dangerous confrontation. It can also deliberately fan tensions in pursuit of its political goals. Whatever happens will be its responsibility. Russia has done everything possible to avoid an armed conflict.

Mitchell heads a think tank on Central and Eastern Europe. He founded the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in 2005 and has been its president and CEO since 2009. The nominee serves on numerous policy boards in the United States and Europe. From 2013 to 2016, he chaired the neoconservative Europe Working Group for the John Hay Initiative.

Mitchell is the co-author of two books on geopolitics, including Unquiet Frontier: Vulnerable Allies, Rising Rivals and the Crisis of American Power. This book is often cited by National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster. The authors write that from the Baltic to the South China Sea, newly assertive authoritarian states sense an opportunity to resurrect old empires or build new ones at America's expense. Hoping that US decline is real, nations such as Russia, Iran, and China are testing Washington's resolve by targeting vulnerable allies at the frontiers of American power. The Unquiet Frontier explains why the United States needs a new grand strategy that uses strong frontier alliance networks.

Mitchell’s third book will be published in the spring of 2018. He is also the author of numerous scholarly articles, policy reports and analytical briefs, and is a frequent commentator on NATO and transatlantic security at international security conferences.

During the 2012 US Presidential election, Mitchell served on the National Security Transition Team for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign. He never held any government positions.

Wess Mitchell earned a B.A. from Texas Tech University, a M.A. from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and recently completed his Ph.D. at Freie Universität in Berlin, Germany. He speaks German and has studied Dutch and Czech. Mitchell lives in Virginia with his wife and two children.

Known for his tough stance on Russia, which he called a revisionist country, the nominee is expected to be easily confirmed by Senate. «While the post-Cold War West may have hoped that Russia might eventually become a supersized version of Poland,» Mitchell wrote about Russia, «with liberal institutions and a de-militarized foreign policy, what we got instead was a latter-day version of Carthage — a sullen, punitive power determined to wage a vengeful foreign policy to overturn the system that it blames for the loss of its former greatness». So, another hawk is nominated by the administration that promised to improve the relations with Moscow.

Mitchell is to join the team of other top officials who advocate the «get tough on Russia» policy, like National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Fiona Hill, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the National Security Council. But none of these people enjoys wielding decisive influence on the President as the Putin-Trump meeting at the G20 summit in Hamburg showed. So, it’s unlikely that Wess Mitchell will enjoy the same level of influence that Victoria Nuland, his predecessor, had with ex-President Obama.

Tillerson is believed to be the most undercut Secretary of State since William Rogers way back in the Nixon administration as the foreign policy decision-making power is shifting away from the State Department to a group of advisers, the National Security Council and the Defense Department. Then why should the Assistant Secretary be influential enough to shape the policy on Europe in general and Russia in particular?

True, but nothing as black and white. Mitchell will be able to become the chief architect of the Russia policy if President Trump endorses the new proposals Rex Tillerson has put forward. The State Secretary has crafted a three-point framework for future US-Russia relations. The paper – a classified document that hasn't previously been revealed – takes a narrow view of what can be achieved, but seeks a constructive working relationship with Moscow on a limited set of issues. The document has been reported to win approval at a meeting of White House cabinet officials including Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

According to media reports, the framework emphasizes the importance of «strategic stability» with Russia. It offers to engage Russia on issues that are of strategic interest to the United States, including the long-running civil war in Syria, North Korea's rapidly developing nuclear weapons program, and cybersecurity and cyberespionage. Tillerson is also seeking better coordination with Russia in Syria against the Islamic State.

The State Secretary has tapped his Deputy, Tom Shannon, the State Department’s number three official, to help get US-Russia relations back on track. Mitchell, a vocal Putin critic, may join the effort while implementing Tillerson’s framework if the document gets the president’s approval. Russia hawks can be pragmatic in their efforts to accomplish the missions assigned.

These are the possible scenarios. Nothing can be said with some degree of certitude as the US foreign policy is unpredictable at best. Some say it’s a mess.

The US foreign policy is in flux with many key positions still vacant. It’s a good thing that the State Department’s position of importance for Russia-US dialogue will be filled at last. But it will take time for Mitchell to sail through Senate and then learn the ropes. It remains to be seen who will be nominated for the position of deputy assistant secretary for Russia at the Defense Department and the US special envoy for Ukraine. Until then, the only thing to do is to adopt the wait and see approach while watching closely what’s happening in Washington.