The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials.
The CIA-trained forces could soon play a critical role on Ukraine’s eastern border, where Russian troops have massed in what many fear is preparation for an invasion. The U.S. and Russia started security talks earlier this week in Geneva but have failed thus far to reach any concrete agreement.
While the covert program, run by paramilitaries working for the CIA’s Ground Branch — now officially known as Ground Department — was established by the Obama administration after Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, and expanded under the Trump administration, the Biden administration has further augmented it, said a former senior intelligence official in touch with colleagues in government.
By 2015, as part of this expanded anti-Russia effort, CIA Ground Branch paramilitaries also started traveling to the front in eastern Ukraine to advise their counterparts there, according to a half-dozen former officials.
The multiweek, U.S.-based CIA program has included training in firearms, camouflage techniques, land navigation, tactics like “cover and move,” intelligence and other areas, according to former officials.
Peace and order appear to be returning to the major cities of Kazakhstan. But the political landscape, both at home and in Kazakhstan’s relations with its neighbors, is vastly changed.
Despite a week of the most violent and destructive disorder in Kazakhstan since the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago – set off by apparently spontaneous protests over the doubling of gas prices at the start of the new year – the Central Asian republic’s authoritarian regime seems more firmly entrenched than ever. That is due in part to the intervention of Moscow, through its post-Soviet military alliance, the six-member Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).
The crisis in Kazakhstan has turned the CSTO from what formerly looked like a paper tiger into a functioning tool of regional elite solidarity. Now, its future goals will likely be to crush attempts at regime change and enforce pro-Moscow geopolitical alignment across a space that contains several emerging states that have yet to solidify strong national identities amid the turbulence and power struggles of the still-collapsing former USSR.
“Moscow was afraid that the state system in Kazakhstan might collapse, and if that happened the consequences for Russia and the region would be huge,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, a leading Russian foreign policy analyst. “Turmoil across this region is common, and to be expected, so there are signs that Russia has been developing these tools for some time.
“During the recent unrest in Belarus, it was enough to just signal a readiness to intervene, but in Kazakhstan they found it necessary to go in militarily,” he says. “Russia is reassuring local authorities that they won’t be overthrown. But given the symbolic nature of the deployment, the message is that it’s up to those governments to stabilize their own societies.”
What happened?
There are still very different theories about the root causes of the unrest.
Last week a wave of peaceful demonstrations broke out in the impoverished west of the country, apparently over rising fuel prices. The government initially tried to assuage the protesters by capping prices, dismissing the Cabinet, and removing the former president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, from his post as chairman of the Security Council of Kazakhstan.
But that failed to stop the protests, which quickly spread and became violent riots, which some claim were highly organized. The upheaval left the downtown of Almaty, Kazakhstan’s largest city, almost in ruins. Well-armed gangs reportedly fought pitched street battles with police, while mobs ransacked shops and public buildings.
Following a ferocious crackdown by security forces, with at least 164 dead and almost 6,000 arrested, the former Soviet republic is now firmly under control of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the hand-picked successor of longtime leader Mr. Nazarbayev, and the immediate danger has apparently receded.
“Even yesterday there was gunfire in the streets, and it was impossible to go out,” Vyacheslav Abramov, founder of the Vlast online magazine in Almaty, told the Monitor Monday. “Today there are buses running, the streets are being cleaned up, things seem to be returning to normal. … But we have only fragmentary information, and it’s hard to know what’s really happening.”
At an emergency meeting of the CSTO’s Security Council on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin placed the blame squarely on “international terrorism,” claiming that the violence came from “well-organized and well-controlled militant groups … including those who had obviously been trained in terrorist camps abroad.” The Islamist threat to Central Asia has been a deep Russian concern for many years, and has only been magnified since the chaotic U.S. retreat from Afghanistan last year left behind a dangerous vacuum.
But Kazakh leaders have offered a different explanation, pointing to high-ranking internal traitors who utilized the pretext of price increases to trigger protests, then unleashed specially trained armed units in an attempt to stage a coup d’état. At least one top former official, the recently dismissed head of the security services, Karim Masimov, has been arrested and charged with plotting against the state.
Other experts note that no movement has claimed responsibility for the uprising, and no set of unified demands or discernible leaders have emerged from the turmoil. That highly unusual circumstance is hard to square with an organized rebellion, Galym Ageleulov, head of the independent human rights group Liberty, told the Monitor from Almaty on Monday.
“I think what happened was that a peaceful civil meeting of people who are tired of authoritarian government got used by elites in their internal struggles,” he says. “It was a spontaneous upsurge without leaders because there is no permitted legal opposition, and civil activism is not able to grow.
“At some point in the protests, police abandoned their positions and left the streets to bandit formations, and they proceeded to loot the city. Bandits don’t make declarations,” he adds. “What we need here is a new government, one that people can trust. We need reforms and honest elections. Instead, they shuffle a few people at the top, like a deck of cards.”
It seems likely that a combination of factors were in play, says Mr. Lukyanov.
“All the elements are there: socioeconomic tensions, elements of outside interference, and a half-completed transfer of power” from the aging autocrat Mr. Nazarbayev to his chosen successor, Mr. Tokayev, he says. “It is well known that some groups behind Nazarbayev were not happy with his choice. There is a feeling among many observers that it was not a purely spontaneous outburst.”
Russia’s new role
The impact of the intervention by 2,600 troops from CSTO members – mostly Russian paratroopers, but also contingents from Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan – was largely symbolic, confined to securing the Almaty airport and a few other strategic points. But the swift and efficient injection of these forces into the crisis demonstrates an unprecedented level of elite solidarity among emerging post-Soviet states, which are often depicted as allergic to Russian leadership.
“There is a lot of solidarity among ruling elites” in the post-Soviet area, says Andrey Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council, which is affiliated with the Foreign Ministry. “There are no mature democracies in this region, and none likely to emerge soon. This intervention will set a precedent, boost stability, and create more confidence in Moscow” as it deals with the myriad challenges confronting the post-Soviet region. In the past three years alone, political crises have hit Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, and now Kazakhstan.
“Stability is one thing, but it will only work if elites deliver development,” says Mr. Kortunov. “Kazakhstan, with an abundance of natural resources, should be a rich country. But it has a deeply unequal social system and pockets of real poverty. I hope they understand that this needs to be addressed.”
Mr. Lukyanov says that Moscow’s policies are evolving and it is seeking ways to influence the former Soviet states of its neighborhood with a minimum of blunt force. It will be needed, he adds.
“The whole post-Soviet area has entered the period where all states must pass the test of sustainability,” he says. “Russia needs instruments that help maintain political stability, and once that’s accomplished these states will be closer to Moscow. It really doesn’t matter who is in charge there, as long as they understand the objective situation. This limited operation in Kazakhstan may prove an example of how that can work.”
Western media are painting an image of gross failure for Russia at the U.S.-Russia bilateral talks in Geneva, as well as subsequent talks between Russia and NATO in Brussels and the Organization for Co-operation and Security in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna.
Adamant! is the impression being fostered by both Russia and the West (largely for domestic consumption): Russia will continue to oppose NATO membership for countries like Ukraine and Georgia; NATO, for its part, will continue to reject Russian opposition as “none of your business”. (Bear in mind that Ukraine and Georgia are each several years away from qualifying for NATO membership in any case.)
The corporate media takeaway is that Russian President Vladimir Putin abjectly failed to get the West to agree formally on no further expansion of NATO and that, in these circumstances, no one can divine how he might lash out (maybe invade Ukraine?). World War III, anyone?
Did Western pundits really believe that Putin expected early acquiescence to that “non-starter” proposal on NATO expansion? Far easier to make believe he did, show how he went down to defeat, and conveniently ignore signs of real progress with respect to what Moscow’s (and President Joe Biden’s) actual priorities are.
Media mention of those priorities has inched forward into subordinate clauses of lead paragraphs – usually after the word “but.” Here’s how NPR played it: “The United States and NATO rejected key Russian security demands for easing tensions over Ukraine but left open Wednesday the possibility of future talks with Moscow on arms control, missile deployments and ways to prevent military incidents between Russia and the West.”
Likewise, the Washington Post: “The United States and Russia remained deadlocked after crisis talks Monday over Moscow’s desire to block any future NATO expansion to the east, but officials agreed to continue discussions on other high-stakes security issues …”
Other High-Stakes Security Issues?
What strategic challenge does President Vladimir Putin consider most threatening? Watching this 12-minute video – especially minutes 4 to 6:30 – in which Putin tries to get through to Western reporters several years ago, will provide a good clue for Western reporters whose dogs ate their homework.
While Putin has been outspoken for 20 years on the precarious strategic situation following the Bush administration’s tearing up the ABM Treaty that had been the cornerstone of strategic balance, this video is unusually effective in showing Putin’s understandable concern and frustration.
Are dogs the standard excuse? Do Western journalists even do homework? Good question. The NY Times’ Bureau Chief in Moscow Anton Troianovsky has confessed that, after an event-packed week, he, Western officials, and Russian experts are “stumped” to explain Russian behavior. Putin, he says, is to blame for keeping people confused and “on edge”, adding that “the mystery surrounding the Russian leader’s intentions was thick as fog again this week….”. (See: Putin’s Next Move on Ukraine Is a Mystery. Just the Way He Likes It.)
It is precisely in this context that watching Putin explain Russia’s post-demise-of-the-ABM-Treaty concerns five years ago might help lazy or simply inexperienced journalists understand the importance of highly significant events over the past couple of weeks: first and foremost, President Joe Biden’s promise to Putin on Dec. 30 not to emplace offensive strike missiles in Ukraine. And, equally instructive: the importance of the U.S. negotiators’ confirming that Washington takes Moscow’s concerns seriously enough to negotiate about them – and other confidence building measures, as well.
“Progress”: The Forbidden Word
Is it unreasonable, then, to look forward to productive bilateral talks in the coming months that address what might be termed “Putin’s Pet Peeve” (although the issue is dead serious, so to speak, far more serious than the commonly understood “pet-peeve” minor annoyance)? A lot of this comes through clearly in the video, which shows Putin losing his cool watching the sleepy nonchalance on the faces of the Western journalists who are his audience: “I don’t know how to get through to you any more.”
What is important is that Putin got through to Biden on that Dec. 30 telephone call which Putin had called for with some urgency (and which was widely neglected in the Establishment media.) Hours later, the official Kremlin readout included: The presidents agreed to personally supervise these negotiating tracks, especially bilateral, with a focus on reaching results quickly. In this context, Joseph Biden emphasised that Russia and the US shared a special responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe and the whole world and that Washington had no intention of deploying offensive strike weapons in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]
At the same time as the Kremlin readout, Putin’s main adviser on these issues, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters that Moscow was pleased with the Biden-Putin conversation on Dec. 30, adding that Biden’s pledge not to deploy offensive arms in Ukraine amounted to acknowledgment of Russia’s security concerns. Speaking to Russian media, Ushakov pointed out that this was also one of the goals Moscow hopes to achieve with its proposals for security guarantees to the US and NATO.
Ushakov, actually, is understating the case. The US non-deployment-of-offensive-missiles pledge addresses a key issue embedded in no fewer than five of the eight Articles of the Russian draft treaty on security guarantees. In contrast, only Article 4, which includes: “The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, addresses head-on the NATO expansion issue.
Back to the Putin Video
The 12-minute video includes subtitles in English courtesy of translator “Inessa S.” Putin was speaking to reporters attending the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, 2016. I have taken Inessa’s subtitles and strung them together below into a full text for those who prefer to read rather than watch.
Putin to Western Reporters, June 17, 2016
Your people, in turn, do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me.
Now, about the missile defense system, listen to me, we are all adults at this table, and experienced [professionals] at that.
But I am not even going to hope that you are going to relay everything, exactly how I said it, in your publications.
Neither will you attempt to influence your media outlets.
I just want to tell you this, on a personal level
I must remind you, though you already know this, that major global conflicts have been avoided in the past few decades, due to the geostrategic balance of power, which used to exist.
The two super-nuclear powers essentially agreed to stop producing both offensive weaponry, as well as defensive weaponry.
It is simple how it works – where one side becomes dominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first to be able to use such power.
This is the absolute linchpin to international security. The anti-missile defense system [as previously prohibited in international law], and all of the surrounding agreements that used to exist.
It’s not in my nature to scold someone – but when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty of 1972 they delivered a colossal blow to the entire system of international security.
That was the first blow, when it comes to assessing the strategic balance of power in the world.
At that time [2002] I said that we will not be developing such systems also, because A) it is very expensive, and B) we aren’t yet sure how they will work [for the Americans].
We’re not going to burn our money.
We’re going to take a different option, and develop offensive weaponry, in order to retain said geo-strategic balance.
That was all.
Not to threaten someone else.
They said – “Fine, our defense system is not against you, and we assume that your weaponry is not against us.”
“Do what you like!”
As I already mentioned, this conversation took place in the early 2000s. Russia was in a very difficult state at that time.
Economic collapse, civil war and the fight against terrorism in our Caucasus region, complete destruction of our military-industrial complex …
They wouldn’t have been able to imagine that Russia could ever again be a military power.
My guess is they assumed that even that which was left over from the Soviet Union would eventually deteriorate.
So they said, “sure, do what you like!”
But we told them about the measures we were going to take in reaction. And that is what we did.
And I assure you – that today, we have had every success in that area.
I’m not going to list everything, all that matters is we have modernized our military-industrial complex.
And we continue to develop new generation warfare. I’m not even going to mention systems against the missile-defense system!
No matter what we said to our American partners [to curb the production of weaponry] they refused to cooperate with us, they rejected our offers, and continue to do their own thing.
Some things I cannot tell you right now publicly, I think that would be rude of me.
And whether or not you believe me, we offered real solutions to stop this [arms race].
They rejected everything we had to offer.
4-MINUTE MARK
So here we are today – and they’ve placed their missile defense system in Romania.
Always saying “we must protect ourselves from the Iranian nuclear threat!”
Where’s the threat?
There is no Iranian nuclear threat.
You even have an agreement with them – and the US was the instigator of this agreement, where we helped.
We supported it.
But if not for the US then this agreement would not exist – which I consider Obama’s achievement.
I agree with the agreement, because it eased tensions in the area. So President Obama can put this in his list of achievements.
So the Iranian threat does not exist.
But the missile systems are continuing to be positioned …
That means we were right when we said that they are lying to us.
Their reasons were not genuine, in reference to the “Iranian nuclear threat.”
Once again, they lied to us.
So they built this system and now they are being loaded with missiles.
You, as journalists, should know that these missiles are put into capsules
Which are utilized from sea-based, midrange Tomahawk rocket launchers
These are being loaded with “anti-missiles’ that can penetrate distances of up to 500km.
But we know that technologies advance …
We even know in which year the Americans will accomplish a new missile, which will be able to penetrate distances of up to 1000km, and then even further …
And from that moment on they will be able to directly threaten
Russia’s nuclear potential
We know year by year what’s going to happen – and they know that we know!
It’s only that you tell tall-tales to, and you spread it to, the citizens of your countries.
Your people, in turn, do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me.
How can you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction?
Based on Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s remarks in a press conference on Wednesday that followed the nearly 4-hour meeting of the NATO-Russia Council (link to transcript below), while reiterating its position that it will not countenance limiting any future expansion of the alliance, NATO apparently stated a willingness to work with Russia on “reciprocal actions around risk reduction and transparency, improved communication, and arms control.” Of course, this is better than nothing and may keep the parties talking which could maybe lead ultimately to some meaningful agreement that would satisfy Russia’s security concerns. However, it should be kept in mind that First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov commented earlier in the week that Russia’s security concerns about NATO and Ukraine are a separate issue, with strategic stability matters of important but secondary concern at the moment.
Another proposal, according to NATO Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg, was that NATO and Russia restore their respective delegations in Brussels and Moscow. Russia has, of this writing, acknowledged the proposal but not responded to it. It’s no surprise that Russia would not be impressed with this idea since it would merely take the two parties back to a status quo that Moscow made clear had not been working for a long time and that it consequently viewed as virtually useless.
Stoltenberg also suggested that Russia expressed a willingness to keep the dialogue going.
Aside from this, Sherman’s comments (and obnoxious State Department spokesperson Ned Price’s comments in his presser later in the day) had the tone that Russia is viewed as a naughty boy who is solely responsible for all the trouble and that the US-led west might humor him with a piece of stale candy if he agrees to stop being naughty – but the adults will only have so much patience with him if he doesn’t stop his shenanigans:
“Russia’s actions have caused this crisis, and it is on Russia to de-escalate tensions and give diplomacy the chance to succeed….It is Russia that has to make a stark choice: de-escalation and diplomacy or confrontation and consequences. We expect and had expected that the Russian delegations at the SSD here at the NATO-Russia Council and tomorrow at the OSCE will have to report back to President Putin, who we all hope will choose peace and security.”
The mindset reflected here reminds me of an important point made in a post by Paul Robinson today called Why Russia Fears NATO. The point he makes is not only legitimate in and of itself, but as I’ve argued in my book and elsewhere, it is a crucial component of competent diplomacy. You have to be able to show cognitive empathy and try to understand your adversary’s perception of the world and perception of its interests – your agreement with it is not necessary and is not the point.
[M]aybe Russia is indeed “wrong” in its assessment of NATO, but that incorrect assessment is driving what it does, with serious consequences. Ignoring it because it’s wrong is simply stupid. Instead, you need to be thinking about why others think the way they do, wondering if it’s perhaps because you’ve done something that’s given them the wrong impression, and then doing something about it. Charging forward all guns blazing simply reinforces the incorrect assessment, causing a reaction that in the end hurts you.
In short, ignoring other people’s alleged wrongness harms one’s own interests as much as theirs.
All this assumes that the others actually are “wrong.” What if they’re not? Or what if, though wrong, there are good reasons for them to believe what they believe given the circumstances in which they find themselves? In short, what if the reason they misperceive you is because you’ve done and said things that lend themselves to misperception? In that case, ignoring the misperception is a huge mistake – instead, you need to address your own behaviour.
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, who represented Russia at the talks, asserted that NATO’s insistence that each country freely be allowed to choose which alliances it joins was an extreme position that was not in accordance with long-established principles of international law:
“The freedom of choosing ways to guarantee one’s security must not be exercised in such a way as to infringe on legitimate interests of others, and membership of military alliances should take into account the interests of security of others – these are direct requirements of international obligations that are stipulated by multiple international legal instruments.”
RT reported that Gushko also stated that NATO was in a Cold War mindset, bent on containing Russia:
“The US-led NATO military bloc has reverted to full Cold War strategy of “containment” towards Russia and seeks “full spectrum dominance,” Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told reporters on Wednesday.
The diplomat added that Moscow believes NATO’s behavior is creating a “unacceptable” threat to Russia that it will have to counter.”
Below is the US State Dept. press briefing following the bilateral meeting in Geneva between the US and Russia. The main takeaways are 1) US proposed possibility of agreement regarding limits on placement of missiles in Europe similar to INF Treaty between US and Russia (this would be consistent with Russia’s report of Putin’s phone call with Biden on December 7, 2021 in which it was asserted by Putin’s adviser Yuri Ushakov that “Biden made it clear that the US does not intend to deploy offensive strike weapons in Ukraine.”,** 2) US reiterated its position that agreement to not expand NATO membership further is a “non-starter,” and 3) further discussions are expected later this week between the two countries regarding moving forward with more bilateral diplomacy.
**Shoutout to Ray McGovern for discussing this in a recent interview with Regis Tremblay and an article.
Members of the Defense Department also were present at the talks between Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov which lasted for about 8 hours. The Pentagon also held a shorter press briefing that partially addressed the bilateral meeting and related issues.
Below is the press briefing by Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov and Russia’s permanent representative to the UN office Gennady Gatilov. The discussions were described as “difficult” and “detailed.” It was explained that Russia will have a better understanding of progress on their concerns after the NATO-Russia Council meeting to be held in Brussels on January 12th and the meeting between Russia and the OSCE on the 13th. “The key issues are still pending and we do not see that there is understanding from the American side of how imperative these matters need to be resolved in the key that will make us happy.”
With respect to US’s position that agreement to not expand NATO any further is a non-starter: “It goes to show they underestimate the seriousness of the matter and that’s bad.” Ryabkov later made the following comment regarding Ukraine and Georgia in NATO in response to a reporter’s question: “We are fed up with loose talk, half-promises, misinterpretations. We need ironclad, waterproof, bulletproof, legally binding guarantees – not assurances – guarantees with all the words ‘shall’, ‘must’….It’s a matter of Russia’s national security.”
Note: press briefing starts at around the 15 minute mark
