Category Archives: Syria

Britain, Foreign Affairs, France, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, Ukraine

UK blames Russia for ‘huge cyber-attack’

SECURITY

War of words: The Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson

BRITAIN has publicly blamed the Russian government for a “reckless and destructive” cyber-attack.

In an extraordinary move likely to spark a diplomatic storm, the Foreign Office accused the Kremlin of “malicious cyber activity”.

The attack, which occurred last year, targeted Ukraine and spread across Europe. Its primary targets were the Ukrainian financial, energy and government sectors.

But it was designed to spread further and affected other European and Russian firms in June.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Vladimir Putin of “ripping up the rule book”.

Mr Williamson said: “We have entered a new era of warfare, witnessing a destructive and deadly mix of conventional military might and malicious cyber-attacks.

“Russia is ripping up the rule book by undermining democracy, wrecking livelihoods by targeting critical infrastructure, and weaponising information. We must be primed and ready to tackle these stark and intensifying threats.” Ukraine has been locked in a simmering conflict with Russia-backed separatists since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.

Foreign minister for cyber-security Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said the UK’s decision to identify the Kremlin as responsible for the attack underlines the fact the Government will not tolerate “malicious cyber-activity”.

He said: “The UK Government judges that the Russian government, specifically the Russian military, was responsible for the destructive Not-Petya cyber-attack of June 2017.

“The attack showed a continued disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. Its reckless release disrupted organisations across Europe costing hundreds of millions of pounds.”

He added: “The Kremlin has positioned Russia in direct opposition to the West, yet it doesn’t have to be that way. We call on Russia to be the responsible member of the international community it claims to be rather than secretly trying to undermine it.

“The United Kingdom is identifying, pursuing and responding to malicious cyber-activity regardless of where it originates, imposing costs on those who would seek to do us harm.

“We are committed to strengthening, co-ordinated international efforts to uphold a free, open, peaceful and secure cyberspace.”

His comments point to UK intelligence agencies discovering evidence indicating the involvement of the Russian military.

Meanwhile, the Defence Secretary has risked igniting a diplomatic firestorm by claiming there is no point in Britain listening to Emmanuel Macron.

Mr Williamson has taken aim at the French president amid growing concerns in London at his hard-line position on Brexit.

He spoke out after Mr Macron threatened to launch strikes on the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians. Mr Williamson, who has been tipped as a potential future Prime Minister, said the UK felt no need to “copy” decisions in neighbouring countries.

“What is the point in listening to French politicians,” he said. “We have our own foreign policy, we don’t need to copy.”

He said he would “dutifully study” Mr Macron’s comments but refused to be drawn on a change in the UK’s policy.

The UK refused to join retaliatory strikes launched by Donald Trump in Syria last year over suspected chemical weapons use. Former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon later said Britain would support similar actions if “legal, proportionate and necessary”.

Mr Williamson’s dismissal of Mr Macron, during a ministerial meeting at NATO’s Brussels headquarters, will stoke fears that ties between Paris and London are under increasing strain.

Mr Macron threatened a major escalation in Syria this week by threatening to launch air strikes against president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The warning followed claims that Syrian government forces dropped a chlorine bomb from a helicopter on Saraqeb, a rebel-held town, earlier this month.

The Syrian Government has denied the accusations, while Mr Macron said that French officials had yet to find enough evidence to launch a strike.

Standard
Iraq, Middle East, Syria, Turkey

A Briefing on The Complexities of the Kurdish Landscape in the Middle East

ETHNIC KURDS

Kurds2

The Kurdish Peshmerga, many of them veterans, are spearheading the defence against IS militants in Iraq.

Conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Turkey have unleashed a tangle of political and military organisations among the Kurds. This is an article concerning who’s who in a struggle that is shaping the Middle East.

Up to 35 million ethnic Kurds are spread across Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran and are at the forefront of multiple conflicts reshaping the Middle East. In Syria and Iraq, US-backed Kurdish forces are leading the fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (IS).

However, “the Kurds” are riven by intra-Kurdish rivalries both within their respective states and across greater Kurdistan. As the United States backs Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, it has found itself in the middle of these rivalries and at odds with NATO ally Turkey.

The main intra-Kurdish fault line is between the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) – and its affiliates – and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Masoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq (KRG).

A divided Kurdish quasi-state

The KRG has many characteristics of a state – an executive, legislature, judiciary and security forces – all recognised under the Iraqi constitution’s federalist structure. The United States, as well as European states including Germany, provide assistance to their long-time Iraqi Kurdish allies.

However, the Iraqi Kurdish army, known as peshmerga, or “those who face death,” are not united under the same command even though they cooperate. Barzani’s KDP and its main political rival, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), each have separate peshmerga forces.

The PUK is closer to the PKK, the Iraqi central government and Iran. These rivalries play out in Syria and with Turkey, which is close to Barzani and his KDP.

US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces

In Syria, the United States backs the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) with weapons, airstrikes and about 900 Special Forces. Considered the best fighters against IS, the SDF is a roughly 50,000 strong force composed of Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen and Christian militia. It was formed in 2015 with US encouragement and in part to address Turkey’s concerns over the dominance of the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

The YPG and the all-female Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) are the armed wings of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), a left-leaning Kurdish political party in Syria. Together they make up about half of the SDF.

Kurdistan Communities Union

The PYD, in turn, is a part of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), a pan-national umbrella political group established in 2005 by Kurdish parties. Alongside the PYD, the KCK comprises the PKK, the Iranian branch Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) and the much smaller Iraqi affiliate, Kurdistan Democratic Solution Party (PCDK).

The KCK and its subset political parties are composed of various political, social and military subunits. They subscribe to the ideology of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, who has been in a Turkish prison since his capture in 1999.

Though Ocalan continues to be the PKK’s nominal head, the de-facto leader of KCK is its co-chair, Cemil Bayik, one of the five founders of the PKK and a top leader of the group.

The PKK has carried out a nearly four-decade long armed struggle against the Turkish state resulting in the death of about 40,000 people. Turkey, the United States and European Union consider the PKK a terrorist organisation.

Turkey considers the YPG/PYD, as well as the SDF terrorist organisations for their ties to the PKK. This view stems in part from the fact that from the 1980s to late 1990s, the PKK and Ocalan operated out of Syria and Lebanon with the support of former Syrian President Hafiz Assad.

Syria kicked out the PKK in 1998 after Turkey threatened to invade, but then essentially handed over parts of northern Syria to the PYD shortly after the onset of the Syria civil war in 2011.

PKK under a different name?

The PKK and PYD deny that they have organic organisational ties. The PKK and PYD say they have a different substructure, command and ultimately different goals in their respective countries, Turkey and Syria, given the different political situation in each with regards to the Kurds.

Unlike the PKK, which primarily fights the Turkish state, the PYD/YPG is focused on fighting IS and on occasion Turkish-backed Syria rebel groups. The PYD/YPG has not sided with Assad, with whom they have a tacit understanding. It also has not aligned with either Islamist rebel factions or Turkish-backed opposition, saying it has no designs on Turkey and wants to avoid conflict.

But the YPG counts hundreds of Turkish Kurds within its ranks, including PKK fighters who transferred to the fight in Syria. The PKK has traditionally drawn about a third of its fighters from Syria, raising further questions over its links to the YPG.

Meanwhile, the United States has said it sees enough difference between the PYD and terrorist-categorised PKK to back the YPG and SDF units fighting in Syria. And, as that relationship has grown over the past two plus years, the PYD/YPG has sought to publicly distance itself from the PKK.

What binds the PKK and PYD, they say, is an adherence to Ocalan’s Marxist-Leninist ideology and a shared desire to beat back jihadist forces. Ocalanism incorporates women’s rights, human rights, environmentalism, communalism and ”democratic autonomy,” a grassroots form of federal governance viewed by its followers as a model for democracy in Middle East.

This political model contrasts with that in Iraqi Kurdistan led by Barzani. There, the system is based on family and tribal ties, crony capitalism and patron-client relationships.

Facts on the ground

Off the battlefield, the PYD has set up an autonomous political structure based on Ocalan’s ideas in areas under its control in northern Syria, known as Rojava. By creating facts on the ground, the PYD hopes to bolster Kurdish political claims in any future settlement in Syria.

Turkey fears Syrian Kurdish gains will embolden its own Kurdish population and create a PKK statelet on its southern border. This has created strains in Ankara’s relations with Washington, including setting up the prospect that Turkey could clash directly with the United States in one of the many attacks it has carried out against the YPG.

A sustained conflict between the SDF/YPG and Turkey would undermine a key US goal, namely defeating IS and rooting it out of its self-declared capital Raqqa.

The PYD’s detractors, including other smaller Syrian Kurdish parties, accuse it of monopolising power and repressing dissent. They also accuse it of allying with the Assad regime.

As a result, Barzani’s KDP has supported other Syrian Kurdish factions and, similar to Turkey, implemented a border embargo over PYD controlled areas, fuelling intra-Kurdish tensions.

The next conflict

Adding to those tensions, the PKK has created armed units among the ethno-religious Yezidi population in Iraq in their heartland around Sinjar to defend against IS. These Yezidi units pose a direct challenge to Barzani, whom many Yezidis accuse of abandoning them to genocide when IS swept through in 2014.

For the PKK, Sinjar is strategic geography. With the retreat of IS, Sinjar will provide the PKK with a potential land corridor and transportation hub linking Syria to the Kurdish group’s headquarters in Qandil. This route would cut south of KDP controlled areas, through Iraqi government territory and onto friendlier PUK dominant territory in the eastern part of the KRG.

Turkey seeks to prevent the PKK from establishing a second headquarters based in Sinjar. To this end, it bombed Sinjar last month and has threatened a military operation to root out the PKK from the area.

Standard
Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Was the attack in Idlib province really sarin – and, was Assad to blame?

SYRIA

The evidence that sarin nerve gas was used against civilians in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun largely comes from reports (from Turkish doctors) who treated survivors of the Syria attack earlier this month.

Victims were choking, foaming at the mouth, defecating and vomiting – all of which are consistent with sarin use.

Sarin, a colourless, odourless liquid at room temperature, is expensive and complex to manufacture.

The two key chemical compounds – a phosphorus variant and isopropyl alcohol – are mixed near the point of use, usually hours before it is released.

This is to avoid accidents and degradation in storage. The level of sophistication required in handling sarin would suggest state involvement.

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was supposed to have surrendered his entire chemical weapons stockpile – including sarin – to Russia after an earlier attack on an opposition-held area near Damascus in 2013. More than 1,000 victims died and only a Russian-brokered deal – with Assad agreeing to give up his chemical weapons for destruction – prevented US airstrikes then. According to some reports which have now surfaced, a consignment of sarin was missing from the stockpile handed over.

At the same time, Assad signed up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, a group of states which ban these weapons. However, chlorine gas, which produces similar symptoms to sarin, was not covered by the removal deal. And unlike sarin (which is 3,000 times more lethal) chlorine is easily accessible and has many everyday uses.

Medecins Sans Frontieres doctors, who treated some victims, have said that both a toxic nerve agent and chlorine may have been used. But until impartial experts establish whether, and what, chemical weapons were involved, sole reliance on the observations of doctors is insufficient.

Central to the issue for many is why Assad would use chemical weapons in a war that he’s clearly winning? It is a perplexing question. Since September 2015, when the Russians first intervened in Syria, Assad’s regime has made steady progress in defeating various rebel opponents, notably when his forces took Aleppo in December.

In recent days, the US has strongly suggested it was prepared to leave Assad in power, as it saw him as a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. Syria’s military continue to categorically deny that it was responsible for the attack, but, of course, Assad has used various weapons indiscriminately against civilians, including barrel bombs (dropped from helicopters) and unfocused artillery bombardment. He has also ‘weaponised’ gases – for example, putting tear gas in shells used by police to quell rioters.

Many are likely to believe, however, that Assad would have to be insanely overconfident to have brazenly used sarin, not least because of the risk – since realised – of heavier US reprisals and greater involvement in the area. All the evidence is that this cruel and calculating man is not insane.

He has remained intent, though, on corralling the remaining rebels in Idlib province where the attack took place. This act of terror may have been a signal that he felt he could act with impunity, particularly following the call by the US Ambassador to the UN that America was no longer seeking for the Syrian president to stand down.

The natural follow-on question is if not Assad, then who was it and why?

Charges of using chemical weapons are a very useful propaganda tool to blacken the reputation of any opponent, however dark already. Conspiracy theorists will see various nefarious hands at work.

The Russians, who back Assad’s regime, claim the Syrian air force bombed chemical munitions held by rebel forces in a warehouse, which then exploded. Another claim is that it was a gas manufacturing plant.

Such a strike would probably have destroyed what sarin there was and distributed the rest over a smaller area, affecting fewer victims.

Given that the highly flammable isopropyl alcohol is one of the chemicals in sarin, a fireball might have been expected but there have been no reports of this.

The numbers of women and children caught up in the attack would also rule against a rebel-held munitions depot in the immediate area.

Sarin can be delivered via shells, but some witnesses saw ‘chemical bombs’ falling. The first reports from the site described a crater where a chemical-bearing rocket was said to have landed. There were no structural remains suggesting an explosion at a warehouse.

While it is possible that rebel forces acquired the chemicals to make sarin, or other nerve agents, these are unlikely to have been in large enough quantities to cause so many casualties.

Standard