Latest news with #Spetsnaz
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump must not give anything away in Alaska
Many commentators have likened President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the 1938 Munich meeting between Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier over the fate of Czechoslovakia. There certainly are similarities. The Munich meeting took place without the presence of Czech President Edvard Benes, and the Alaska summit will not include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And there is widespread fear, especially in Europe, that Trump will yield to Putin's demands for Ukrainian territory — both that which his armed forces have already seized in Crimea and the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and those still held by Ukraine there and in the oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. As the Institute for the Study of War points out, should Putin successfully obtain control of all four oblasts — and especially all of Donetsk, which contains what the Institute terms Ukraine's 'fortress belt' — he would control several potential vectors of attack on the remainder of Ukraine. This would enable Russian forces to seize the country, just as Hitler ultimately took all of Czechoslovakia. Yet there are significant differences as well. Hitler was determined to seize the Sudetenland, and ultimately all of Czechoslovakia, without firing a shot. He had already effectively incorporated Austria that way in the 1936 Anschluss. And he succeeded in doing so. While Putin also wants to be handed over territories that his forces have not yet occupied without having to fight for them — in this regard following Hitler's precedent — he faces a very different set of circumstances. Russian forces have been fighting a determined Ukrainian military since February 2022. Moreover, despite ceaseless and heavy bombardment of Ukrainian formations and military infrastructure, coupled with terror attacks on cities and civilian institutions, Russia has gained remarkably little territory over the past three years of intense combat. Furthermore, just as Putin mistakenly thought that a Spetsnaz (special forces) attack on Kyiv at the start of the war would decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and install a pliant pro-Russian regimen, he also appears to have erroneously thought that Russian-speaking Ukrainians, many of them in the four provinces he seeks to annex, would also take Moscow's side. Yet Russia's attacks have actually united most of Ukraine's population, most notably those selfsame Russian speakers who once held positive attitudes toward Moscow. For its part, Ukraine not only has limited Russian advances in over three years of war, it has inflicted severe damage to Russia's military infrastructure, hit targets deep inside Russia including Moscow and has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and North Korean personnel. Still another difference relates to Ukraine's neighbors and partners. Whereas the leading European powers in 1938 hastily acquiesced to Hitler's demands, France, Germany, Britain, the Nordic and Baltic states and the European Union have all made it clear that they stand by Kyiv's determination to preserve its territorial integrity and that Ukraine must have a seat at any table that would determine its future. In addition, NATO has not closed the door on the prospect, however remote, of Ukrainian accession; Putin wants that door shut tight and permanently. That Trump has spoken of concessions in the form of land swaps, while Putin has never indicated anything like an exchange of territory, has deepened European concerns that a deal would legitimate a Russian land grab. It also worries Europeans that Trump is so eager to achieve an agreement, regardless of how its terms affect Ukraine, because he covets the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian parliament; since Norwegians generally view Trump unfavorably, it is highly unlikely that the Committee would ever award him the prize. Hitler interpreted Daladier and Chamberlain's willingness to fold at Munich as a signal that he would not encounter British opposition to either his seizure of all of Czechoslovakia or his planned attack on Poland. He viewed both men as 'poor worms,' and Nazi documents released subsequent to World War II reveal that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as so weak that he worried that British prime minister would preemptively give away Poland, thereby robbing Germany of the ability to seize the country by force. Trump needs to demonstrate to Putin when they meet in Alaska that he is no Neville Chamberlain. He must avoid any giveaway to the Russian dictator, which would only whet Putin's clearly insatiable appetite for more conquests, be they remainder of Ukraine, neutral Moldova or one of NATO's Baltic members. As Hitler sought 'lebensraum' — 'living space' for Germans — Putin seeks to restore the Czarist Empire. Whatever the term, the objective was and is the same: territorial expansion. It took a global war to stop Hitler. Hopefully, a strong-willed Trump will obviate the prospect of another devastating conflict. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
The Wire
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Iranians Do Not Want a West-Led Change of Their Repressive Regime
We may have to wait for another moment when, unguided or prompted by the saviours of democracy in the west, the people of Iran will do the needful for themselves. Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty. For the moment the US seems to have decided that regime change is a bridge too far in Iran. They have agreed to a ceasefire and have ordered the Israelis to accept as well. The US realised that they were tempting hubris in getting involved in another war in the region. A regime change may have been the Israelis' fondest goals but they have clearly lacked the means to accomplish it and have also suffered unprecedented battering from Iranian missiles. Without air defence, Iran was helpless in resisting the Israeli-American bombing campaign and so has quickly grasped the ceasefire. The choreographed ending of the war with Iran launching 12 missiles at Al Udeid air base in Qatar – equal to the number of bombs the Americans had dropped on Iran – and that too after warning the Americans in advance, seems to suggest that the parties of the war agree to live to fight another day. Two recent events tell us a lot about nationalism and the resilience of societies. On February 21 and 22, 2022, the Russian attack on Ukraine focused a major thrust by Spetsnaz elements towards Kiev. This was part of a 'shock and awe' strategy of capturing the capital city of Ukraine through a coup de main. The attack devolved into a fiasco. The Russians were repelled, not only did Ukraine stand firm, but the event led to the consolidation of Ukrainian nationalism that continues to successfully battle the Russians today. On June 13, Israel launched a similar 'shock and awe' attack on Iran declaring that not only would they finish off the Iranian nuclear programme, but effect a regime change in the country. The attack was accompanied by decapitating strikes to assassinate a cross-section of the Iranian security and nuclear establishment. The police headquarters was struck, as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) intelligence directorate and the state television broadcaster. The Israelis threatened to 'take out' Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In an interview with Fox News on June 15, Netanyahu said that the government in Teheran was very weak and given the chance '80% of the people would throw these theological thugs out.' Netanyahu was wrong here, as he was in Iraq when he egged on the US to remove Saddam Hussein because the Iraqis would welcome it. But as the Americans and the world learnt to their cost, regime change was not quite the same thing as regime destruction. Iran's central location and size marks it out as a major country in West Asia. The vast country has an ancient history and a strategic location in West Asia and is rich in natural gas and oil. They have a theocratic government system that gives primacy to Mullahs or clerics, and from the outset they have been bitterly opposed to Israel and seek to expel the US from the region. Their defence strategy has involved supporting militants in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and Yemen and they have good ties with Russia, China and North Korea. Necessity has led to the development of a sophisticated defence industry that produces its own missiles, drones, aircraft, armoured vehicles, small arms, naval vessels and electronic warfare systems. With a negligible air force, they have relied on missiles and drones for deterrence. All this has been built by a sophisticated industry, dependent on their substantial educated class which features a large number of STEM graduates, especially engineers. In recent years the Mullah regime has faced a steady attrition of its position – its ally Bashar al-Assad was overthrown in December 2024, between October 7, 2023 to now, the Hamas and Gaza itself has been virtually levelled by Israeli bombs, in September 2024, Hassan Nasrallah's death marked the near-demise of the Hezbollah. In April 2024 Iran and Israel fought their first round of war which saw the destruction of Iran's air defence network. And now in June 2025, Iran has suffered the decapitation of its military and civil leadership and destruction of its nuclear programme. Iran's economy has suffered for long on account of mismanagement and the US-led embargo on its oil exports and from the fact that its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, 86, has no clear successor. The repressive Mullah regime has progressively tightened its grip on the country following the popular unrest in 2022 following the killing of Mahasa Amini, an Iranian woman, for not wearing her hijab. The protests saw the killing of 1500 people and over 20,000 arrested and were spread across social classes, universities and schools. These protests had followed those in 2019 that shook more than 21 cities following the hike in oil prices. The protests saw widespread destruction of public property and affected all classes of people. The protestors called for among other things, the overthrow of Ali Khamanei and were the most violent protests since the 1979 disturbances that saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. The Israeli government, and some elements in the US felt that these events were an indicator that the geopolitical setbacks of 2024 could be translated into an uprising against the regime. But despite the deep unpopularity of the mullahs the people of Iran were not about to work along the plans thought up in Tel Aviv and Washington. No doubt the Mossad and the CIA would have worked hard in the last week to trigger some kind of an uprising, but it just did not occur. The Supreme Leader's (Rahbar) government is a carefully constructed autocracy. Rahbar himself is appointed for life by an Assembly of Experts and is supreme in all affairs. For example, he had issued a fatwa against making nuclear weapons in 2003, and it seems to have been obeyed by his government. The Assembly of Experts are 88 clerics elected from among the clergy every 8 years. Theoretically they supervise and can dismiss the Supreme Leader. Then there is the Guardian Council of 12 members, of which 6 clerics are appointed by the Supreme Leader and 6 jurists nominated by the judiciary and approved by the Majlis or Parliament. The Guardian Council vets candidates for all elections – president, parliament, Assembly of Experts, and all laws. It has veto powers over parliament laws. The President is the head of the government and is elected by popular vote every four years for a maximum of two years. He managed the domestic and economic policies and the foreign policy of Iran, all under the Supreme Leader's supervision. The Majlis is elected every 4 years by popular vote and handles issues of everyday governance, though its laws must be approved by the Guardian Council and have all its members also vetted by it. The Expediency Council is appointed by the Supreme Leader and advises him and resolves disputes between the Majlis and the Guardian's Council. The Judiciary head is appointed by the Supreme Leader is independent, but has to align itself to Islamic laws. It enforces laws and prosecutes crimes. The Supreme Leader's sword arm is the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) which is parallel and even more powerful than the Iranian military itself. But for the average citizen, the most feared is the Basij volunteer militia that is one of the branches of the IRGC and which enforces the Islamic laws. As can be seen, this cruelly constructed autocracy is designed to preserve the authority of the theocracy and repress the average citizen. Contrary to its stated goals of creating an ideal Islamic republic, the Mullah government is riven with corruption and rivalries. Its handling of the economy has been poor and there has been no effort to reform the system. Dissent has been brutally crushed and the Mullah ideological control have alienated the young Iranians for generations. Perhaps the worst aspects of Islamic rule are its treatment of women. Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic 'revolution' took away the rights of the women and removed restrictions on polygamy and child marriage. The ban on the hijab was lifted and complete covering of women's hair made compulsory by imprisonment and even death. Yet in one area Iranian women have achieved a great deal. Education of women is a particular success story. Today the youth literacy rate among women is at 98% and their overall literacy is 85.5%. Fully 70% of STEM graduates are women, more than that of the US and, in some fields like engineering, Iranian women are ranked first globally. But patriarchy has restricted their abilities to get jobs related to their competency, indeed, there are legal and societal limits to their workforce participation, to their rights to divorce and travel. But Iranians who face this repressive system, do not want to participate in western-led regime change because they have seen what has happened in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. People who were promised freedom are instead grappling with chaos and anarchy. Their attitude is that bad government is preferable to no government. So we may have to wait for another moment when, unguided or prompted by the saviours of democracy in the west, the people of Iran will do the needful for themselves. Manoj Joshi is a distinguished fellow with the Observer Research Foundation in Delhi. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
The Independent
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Why Crimea matters so much to Putin
Crimea is footnoted in British history for Cardigan and the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade. To Vladimir Putin it's where history itself must turn. Donald Trump, taking an 18th century approach as a might-is-righter, has said that the peninsula was captured without a fight by Russia from Ukraine and therefore should stay in Putin's fist. Of all the 20 per cent of Ukraine 's territory taken after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and launched its wider Anschluss in 2022, Crimea is the greatest Russian prize. Whoever controls Sevastopol is likely to dominate the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Outside of Tartus, which Russia lost recently in Syria, it is – or was – Russia's only warm-weather port. Moscow's claim to it has been undermined by the fact that it was ceded to Ukraine under the Soviet Union in 1954. The claim, now enshrined in an illegal annexation of Crimea into the Russian Federation, is further underpinned by waves of Russian settlement and forced removal of local people over at least two centuries that have left it with a Tartar heritage by a Russian ethnic and linguistic majority. After 2014 it was common in Moscow's bars and restaurants for people to remark how happy they were for it's 'return' amid rose-tinted memories for sunny beach holidays in a former colony. They've forgotten the Holodomor, when decisions from Moscow led to millions of Ukrainians starving. They've ignored the uprisings against efforts to eradicate every trace of Ukraine's language, its history, and its culture under Russian rule from the Tsars to Stalin and Putin. The mass deportations of Cossacks from their homeland to Siberia? Not even a nod. Trump won't know any of this either. Despite his plea to Putin for an end to airstrikes against Ukraine in the wake of a deadly attack on Kyiv into Thursday – writing 'Vladimir, STOP!' on social media – all Trump cares about is this war being over, no matter the cost to Ukraine's history and future. The latest chapter of Russian aggression was unleashed when 'little green men' – Russian Spetsnaz special forces commandos – used the Russian navy presence, on a leasehold, in Sevastopol, as a bridgehead to seize the peninsular in 2014. It was launched following a well tested Putin programme which he had pioneered in Georgia. Russian speaking residents of Georgia, and Ukraine (including Crimea) were encouraged to complain about discrimination on the basis of their heritage. In Post Soviet nations many missed the certainty that being Russian brought. They resented finding themselves in junior new states, and in a minority. In Crimea, their complaints served as an excuse of a rescue mission. Simultaneously Moscow-backed 'separatists' in Ukraine's east also rose and demanded autonomy from Kyiv. Putin sent in Cossacks from Rostov, Slav nationalists from Serbia, and reinforced the 'uprising' with regular Russian forces. In Kramatorsk, in Donetsk region neighbours turned on each other the police split into rival loyal or pro-Putin factions. I picked my way through the provincial capitol on floors slippery with spent machine gun rounds not long after Crimea fell. The town, 90 per cent Russian speaking, drove out Russian sympathisers and remains a battered and bloodied provisional capital of a province now illegally annexed by Putin. Donetsk, the original seat of government is now ruled by Moscow's proxies on the other side of the front line after intense and bloody fighting. Putin's expansion of territory in 2014 could not have been achieved without the bridgehead of operations being established in Crimea. It was even more crucial to his full scale invasion of 2022. He used the peninsula as a logistics hub, building a bridge to the Russian mainland to supply the forces her has crammed into the arid region. Moscow, following conventional doctrine, destroyed most of Ukraine's navy there and used Sevastopol as its main base. The Kremlin's admirals didn't reckon on Ukraine's innovation. It's navy now reduced to a handful of small craft it switched to missiles and drones. First sinking the pride of the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, before using drones to batter Russia's navy out of Ukrainian occupied areas and into its home ports. If Moscow's allowed back into Sevastopol, as Trump would want, Russia's naval reconstruction and regeneration will continue apace and in now time assume total domination again. Meanwhile Crimea remains in Russian hands and the main source of rockets and missiles fired against Ukraine, Russia's main base for air defences, and its command and control hub for the whole Ukrainian campaign. That's why it matters to Putin. And now Trump.
