Dangerous Liaisons

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469–1527)

 

I remember so vividly the many reports surfacing shortly after 911, citing how Russian President Putin and others had warned the CIA and US officials of imminent terrorist attacks against key targets on American soil. A whole list is compiled here. Putin's warnings:

August 2001 (D): Russian President Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02]  The head of Russian intelligence also later states, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001 claims that "Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened." 

I wonder how that ties in with the latest revelations of Russia's betrayal of US military secrets to Saddam Hussein. What kind of game were the Russians playing? What was Putin up to, bearing in mind his deep connection with the former KGB and Russia's current secret service throughout his Presidency. Of one thing I am certain, it is highly unlikely that he did not authorize the release of these military secrets to Hussein. Nothing happens without his knowledge. Period.

WaPo reports:

Russian officials collected intelligence on U.S. troop movements and attack plans from inside the American military command leading the 2003 invasion of Iraq and passed that information to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to a U.S. military study released yesterday.

The intelligence reports, which the study said were provided to Hussein through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad at the height of the U.S. assault, warned accurately that American formations intended to bypass Iraqi cities on their thrust toward Baghdad. The reports provided some specific numbers on U.S. troops, units and locations, according to Iraqi documents dated March and April 2003 and later captured by the United States.

"The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are impossible, and that they have changed their tactic," said one captured Iraqi document titled "Letter from Russian Official to Presidential Secretary Concerning American Intentions in Iraq" and dated March 25, 2003.[...]

Russia was among the nations opposed to the U.S. war with Iraq. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 that an American attack would have grave consequences. He urged Washington to resolve its conflicts with Baghdad peacefully.[...]

"Certainly, sure, I was surprised," said Army Brig. Gen. Anthony A. Cucolo III, director of the Joint Center for Operational Analysis and Lessons Learned under the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk. He said he thinks the alleged Russian intelligence-sharing was linked to Moscow's commercial interests in Iraq. "Essentially, it's driven by economic interests," he told reporters at the Pentagon. "I don't see it as an aberration. I see it as a follow-on to economic engagement." Retired Lt. Col. Kevin M. Woods, the project director, said he has "no reason to doubt the Iraqi documents."

The 210-page study, called the Iraqi Perspectives Project, draws on declassified information from an internal U.S. military report that was based on the examination of more than half a million files of Iraqi documents and dozens of interviews with former senior Iraqi military and political leaders. Some of that information remains classified.[...]

"Significantly, the regime was also receiving intelligence from the Russians that fed suspicions that the attack out of Kuwait was merely a diversion," the study says, citing the March 25 document.

Another captured Iraqi document, dated April 2, 2003, said Russian intelligence had reported to Hussein more detailed and potentially damaging information: The Americans had their heaviest concentration of forces, 12,000 troops and 1,000 vehicles, near the Iraqi city of Karbala and were moving to cut off Baghdad.[...]

One senior Republican Guard commander, Raad Majid Rashid al-Hamdani, issued a warning in line with the Russian intelligence when he told Hussein's son Qusay that the main U.S. attack was coming past Karbala. But Hamdani was largely ignored by Qusay Hussein and other generals, to his dismay, he told the authors of the study while describing the internal debates in an interview. "It was the kind of arguments that I imagine took place in Hitler's bunker in Berlin. Were all these men on drugs?" he said.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, a defense expert at the Brookings Institution, said the passing of information on U.S. troop movements during combat, if true, constituted "a stark betrayal." He added: "I think we should be demanding a fairly clear explanation from Moscow."[...]

"If it were the case that the Kremlin had approved passing along what the Russian military knew about American war planning, that would be extraordinary," Wallander said.

"If it were ordered, it would be a direct action that would in effect help another country to use more effectively their military forces against U.S. forces."

Going on record publicly with his warnings so shortly before 9/11, was Putin merely hedging his bets? Or was his Afghan pipeline headache at the heart of this duplicity?

Ed Morrissey certainly seems to share my suspicion:

As I wrote yesterday, this betrayal carries some consequences, both for the US-Russian relationship and our current negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Moscow deliberately gave Saddam information that, in the hands of a competent military leader, would have resulted in the deaths of many American soldiers and Marines. Vladimir Putin has strong ties to the Russian intelligence community, so this can't be dismissed as a rogue operation, especially given the high profile of the Iraqi situation and the involvement of Putin's diplomatic corps.

Putin allied himself with Saddam and against the US, presumably to protect its commercial interests. However, one cannot discount the motivation Putin has for re-establishing Russia as a power base in the post-Soviet world. He has played at restarting the Great Game for the last several years in Southwest Asia, trying to gain the upper hand over the Anglosphere in the oil-producing regions.

Europe is already entirely 'hooked' on Russian Gas supplies, and demonstrated recently that it doesn't shy away from using such dependencies to blackmail and coerce its supposed 'client-nations'.

All of this is not enough to declare the resurrection of the 'Cold War', but it certainly focuses the mind on who not to trust, as Ed Morrissey correctly concludes:

And that brings us to Iran. After finding out that Putin has a habit of supplying tyrannical enemies of the Western nations with military intelligence to use against us, the last country we should trust with Iran's nuclear program is Russia. We can also kiss off the UN; as long as Russia has its veto, that route will lead nowhere. Russia has revealed itself to be a major part of the problem in the Middle East, and we should stop pretending that they are part of the solution.

But back to the Putin's game plan. With Europe in the bag, he's busy hocking up China or Japan, or both for all we know. Which leaves the longstanding wrangling over oil and gas pipelines in Central Asia wide open and most certainly a keen focus for Putin.

Quite a while back, in February 1998, John J. Maresca, the then VP of International Relations at Unocal (now part of Chevron), informed Congress  about the background, (the entire hearing is still one of the most instructive backgrounders on the challenges involving the geopolitical wrangling over the massive oil and gas reserves in Central Asia and the related problems of bringing them to market). He summarized:

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.

GlobalResearch has an interesting list of facts purported to support their allegation that US oil interests had played a crucial role in our military operation in Afghanistan, and whilst I disagree with their political views and conclusions, this list provides a good contextual snapshot why Putin was playing all sides:

In 1997, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline consortium (Centgas) was formed under the control of the California oil company, UNOCAL (who held a 46.5% stake in the consortium), with the intention of running a trans-Afghan gas pipeline to Pakistan and India. This project was aborted in December 1998 - but has now been resuscitated [...].

As evidence that oil played a crucial role in Afghanistan, it is pertinent to note a few facts:

(a) Condoleeza Rice had been a director on the oil company Chevron’s board from 1991 until appointed by Bush as his National Security Advisor in 2001 - a position she held when America attacked Afghanistan.

(b) 22 Dec. 2001: Hamid Karzai (who had been a paid consultant for Unocal , as well as being deputy foreign minister for the Taliban), was appointed Prime Minister of Afghanistan by the US.

(c) 1 Jan. 2002: Zalami Khalilzad, a former employee of Unocal - and special assistant to Pres. Bush, was appointed special envoy to Afghanistan.

(d) 9 Feb. 2002: Pres. Musharraf of Pakistan & Hamid Karzai agreed to “cooperate in all spheres of activity” including the the proposed Central Asian Pipeline.

(e) 14 Feb 2002: The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv noted: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created (in Afghanistan), one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected pipeline to the Indian ocean”.

(f) 27 Dec 2002: Afghanistan, Pakistan & Turkmenistan signed an agreement to build Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline - a $3.2 billion project.

America's hegemony in Afghanistan and Iraq must be a bitter pill for Putin to swallow. Bringing Iran as close to his chest as possible is thus not surprising, and Iran's nuclear ambitions provide just the perfect opportunity for a tight embrace, Russian style of course...

Things might just again be all about the Oil, stupid.

UPDATE:  Saul Davies' comment prompted this addition: India's on-and-off posturing regarding the US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline and its alternative, the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline (which we obviously oppose), is yet another major focus for Putin in as much as it provides him with a plethora of opportunities to further tighten his grip over the energy supply side.

More @ Captain's Quarters (2), Gateway Pundit, Rick Moran, Mudville Gazette, Right Wing Nut House Penraker, Outside The Beltway, California Conservative, The Officers' Club,  The Astute Blogger, Decision '08, Sister Toldjah, Expose The Left, Below The Beltway,  Right Winged,  Small Town Veteran, Reuters, Associated Press, MSNBC, NYT, Associated Press (2)

Linked to Wizbang, Mudville Gazette, Stop The ACLU, Adam's Blog, Point Five,

Comments

[Washington]

I watched the Pentagon briefing today. Mr. Rumsfeld said that the report cited above might have merit to it but his tone indicated what he thought. Further, General Pace added that the documents used to write this report could have been deceptive-i.e., planted to make it appear as though Russia did indeed provide information.

Two thoughts:

1. There could be nothing to this story.

2. They might be looking into a spy at Centcom and don't want to tip their hat.

[MT]

Putin is not a friend...Russia is not an ally. They are continuing to be HUGE problems for us in the UN...Condi needs to wake up fast. Putin is turning back time.

[Washington]

DavidByron:

You dislike labels!

I think the fact that Mr. Byron refuses to provide any details about his own philosophy, education, and he certainly provides no facts to back up his assertions, speaks volumes about his moral fiber, internal makeup, and his view of reality. His comprehensive education has given him just enough to be able to argue. His exterme views are cultivated not by reasoned research but by books by other extremists.

He should drop Byron and add Duke.

He doesn't deny being an anti-Semite or a sophist.

[DavidByron]

Are you perhaps further left than that? Possibly a nihilist? What seems to be the problem about coming out? You fervently deny being a liberal, so what are you? A Muslim Jihadist?

I've never had much interest in political labels. I don't have a clear understanding of what different people mean by different labels. For example I wouldn't have called you a libertarian based on what you've said. A libertarian would be antiwar because "war is the health of the state".

Also in America certain philosophies are outlawed as I understand it-- a hang over from Cold War days maybe. Maybe. So there seems nothing to gain by my even considering the question of whether I am, say, a "communist", and I never have. The topic is complex and has no interest for me.

Using a label doesn't tell others what you believe. It just makes them believe that you think what they believe that label thinks.

[dhimwit]

I don't understand why everybody's so squeamish about the 'O' word. We need it; without it we die. Simple at that. Putin and every nutjob with an axe to grind against the USA knows its our AAchilles heel. Not only is securing and protecting our supply of the stuff legimate grounds for war; any leader, from either party, who cannot understand this should be sacked on the grounds of feeble-mindedness...or do you all think the oil comes from Lollypop Mountain?

[Alexandra]

Byron,

I think you have a serious Bush hang up which you need to have seen to, as Liquid pointed out. Since you have a knack for quoting me, you might remember that I have declared many times that I am a libertarian, and pro-Bush, even though you are repeatedly reffering to me as a Republican. I do not however remember once you coming out of the closet in your full socialist/communist regalia.

Are you perhaps further left than that? Possibly a nihilist? What seems to be the problem about coming out? You fervently deny being a liberal, so what are you? A Muslim Jihadist? On the other thread you say:"A jihadist is someone who struggles for what is right." Eh?????

You have been incapable even once during your entire commentary on this blog to divorce yourself from your partisan views, even when discussing religion or race, which is why it is alien to you why I should recognize that all roads lead to oil. You have obviously never read my articles dealing with the Administration's bias towards Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. It would never occur to you to think laterally or to take a view that would lead you away from the Bolsheviks, would it, which is why you laugh when you think someone does not blindly follow a hard line.

You have never once surprised me in your arguments, where I saw an objective point of view, but always the hard liner commie mantra in all discussions. You constantly have a Bush fixation in whichever direction you turn, which more often than not hampers your vision. In fact you turn every single discussion into a Bush bashing exercise, and the big bad imperialist America. You even display anti-American traits simply because the American people need to suffer betrayal in your mind for electing Bush:

As for Russia's actions, if this report is accurate, it doesn't seem like a big deal (it wasn't like the Iraqi army was going to beat the US forces). I think these days you can assume that all countries would stick a little knife in America's back given the opportunity. A consequence of Bush's diplomatic skills.

[DavidByron]

Are you saying that even if a couple of hundred US soldiers were unnecessarily killed because of the perfidy of the Russians....

A soldier's life is of little consequence to the empire. Bush threw away thousands of US soldiers' lives through his perfidy and you still suppport him don't you?

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Ché,

Whether or not it caused any harm is irrelevant. What is rélevant however is that Putin probably gave information to Saddam about the US led attack. One does not do that with an ally.

Putin is, btw, everything but an ally. He proves himself to be untrustworthy over and over again. For instance; the leaders who congratulated Lukashenko with his victory were... Castro, Ahmadinejad, whatshisnamefromchina and... Putin...
That should kind of tell you where Putin stands.

[Huan]

I am more concern with how the Russians were able to know so much about our tactical plans. Once they know it they will do as they please with it and we cannot control that. But we can seek to control the availability of information.

[Washington]

Saul:

Global Research, from a historians perspective, is a group of lefty idealists.

[Alexandra]

Saul,

As I said, I discard GlobalResearch's political views and conclusion:

GlobalResearch has an interesting list of facts purported to support their allegation that US oil interests had played a crucial role in our military operation in Afghanistan, and whilst I disagree with their political views and conclusions, this list provides a good contextual snapshot why Putin was playing all sides:

but the list a-f is nevertheless quite a complete and factual compilation (I confirmed its accuracy prior to publishing but as always won't cite without giving credit). I'd hoped to have made it clear, that I was not interested in the article, but instead focus on the quoted information in the context of what I believe to be the core foundation of Putin's possible motives.

India's on-and-off posturing regarding the US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline and its alternative, the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline (which we obviously oppose), is yet another major focus for Putin in as much as it provides him with a plethora of opportunities to further tighten his grip over the energy supply side.

So, I am sorry if I have caused you to be off on a goose chase ;-)

[Saul Davis]

I am examining the article from Global Research quoted by Alexandra, and a number of questions come to mind; perhaps Alexandra or some of the commenters here can answer them.

1. Global Research begins its analysis with, among other things the following statement: "Today, America - another country with visions of global domination - is now on the Afghan scene, with that ex-colonial power, Britain, playing a subordinate role. Supreme irony!"

I must wonder about the background of the author of that article, if he claims that America is another country with visions of global domination; if we were, why did we assist/allow the Germans and the Japanese to not only recover, but to become powerful economic players after WWII; which parts of the world or countries to we "dominate"; investment, building factories, purchasing goods and raw materials, selling goods and raw materials, etc. cannot be comsidered "domination" in the common understanding of that term; I cannot think of any country or part of the world the USA has "dominated" -- as I understand that term; thus it appears that the author of the article maintains a serious prejudice against the USA, to begin with. My immediate reaction is to view his other statements with a very serious "grain of salt." Who is "Global Research"; who funds them; what are their philosphies?

2. the points raised about oil as the raison d'etre of our "invasion" of Afganiston are classical LLL talking points; I find it particularly important that absolutely none of the (a)-(f) points raised in the article have ANY citations to sources, let alone reputable sources.

3. the author leaps from the $200,000 aid package by USTDA to Afganistan (a really miniscule investment for oil exploration) to "Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice will see to this latest venture!" -- the political view behind this article, at least to me, is very clear -- this statement is classical LLL rhetoric that associates any beneficial activity by the USA with imperialistic intentions. While the raison d'etre of USTDA is to assist US companies in developing investment abroad -- as is the case with every governmental develop agency for every country in the world -- how does that mean that the sole purpose of the invasion of Afganistan was "oil," or that the Sec'y of State is somehow involved with ensuring the hegemony of Amrican companies in Afganistan. I am perhaps naive, but I also do not see how this means that our Armed forces, and presumably those of our allies in Afganistan, constitute a "military occupation", when we went in there because of the Taliban assistance to OBL and the terrorist bases that were clearly supported by the Taliban. It would appear to any objective observer that we liberated the Afghanis from a truly cruel totalitarian regime. How can there be a "military occupation" in the normal sense of that term, when the Afghanis seem to possess control over who governs them, through their first free elections, and over their economy, through their elected officials. Again, perhaps I am naive, but the article was clearly written by someone with an agenda, and does not appear to be based on fact.

[Saul Davus]

Mr. Byron: you state: "As for Russia's actions, if this report is accurate, it doesn't seem like a big deal (it wasn't like the Iraqi army was going to beat the US forces). I think these days you can assume that all countries would stick a little knife in America's back given the opportunity. A consequence of Bush's diplomatic skills."

I may be missing something here; I thought that one of the purposes of Alexandra's article was to demonstrate the perfidy of the Russians. They cannot be trusted as "allies" or with confidential information; I do not understand your comment at all. Are you saying that even if a couple of hundred US soldiers were unnecessarily killed because of the perfidy of the Russians -- the fact that they knowingly disclosed highly confidential information to an enemy of the USA in a time of war -- is suddenly rendered harmless or meaningless because the US Army would, in any event, defeat the Iraqis? That statement by you simply makes no sense! What is your real point?

[Edd]

Folks, some of you know me some do not; some of you know that I have a rare brain disease that prevents meaningful debate on a subject some of you do not. I do not have the time to formulate an accurate debate, as I would like on Putin because of having already taken nighttime meds. What I am trying to get around to saying is that Mr. Bryon’s comments not only here but elsewhere does remind me of my old Debate Society days. We had several phrases for Mr. Bryon’s type of writing (speech) “consuming space” but the most prominent was “empty rhetoric.”

[Liquid]

David, do you dream about Bush? Do all things revolve back to Bush for you?

BTW...great choice of pic Alexandra!

[DavidByron]

LOL, funny to hear a Republican admiting Afghanistan has something to do with oil. Is Alexandra a closet Michael Moore fan?

Vladimir Putin has strong ties to the Russian intelligence community, so this can't be dismissed as a rogue operation, especially given the high profile of the Iraqi situation and the involvement of Putin's diplomatic corps.

Funny how we assume competence and malevolence in those we distrust but incompetence is the assumption in those we like. I'm reminded of Alerxandra's comments on Bush over some of the CIA scandals. Now wasn't Bush's father head of the CIA? But it's easy to say that in the Plame scandal for example Bush was simply out of the loop.

As for Russia's actions, if this report is accurate, it doesn't seem like a big deal (it wasn't like the Iraqi army was going to beat the US forces). I think these days you can assume that all countries would stick a little knife in America's back given the opportunity. A consequence of Bush's diplomatic skills.

[Washington]

One further note - the idea that Putin, because of his background, would not be out of the loop is unsound. Granted this may have had his signature all over it but the way in which it has evolved sounds more like an attempt put in place then to damage US-Russian ties at a later date.

[Washington]

I can't deny that it appears as if Putin was hedging his bets...but Russian Intelligence often plays its own games. Whilst I shall refrain from saying that is the case here, it is entirely possible.

During the Soviet period the various bodies often withheld operational details on foreign missions. It's worth a thought.