Thursday 31 March 2022

Russian troops hand over control of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant back to the Ukrainians

Russian troops handed control of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant back to the Ukrainians and began leaving the heavily contaminated site more than a month after taking it over, authorities said Thursday, as fighting raged on the outskirts of Kyiv and other fronts.

Ukraine’s state power company, Energoatom, said the pullout at Chernobyl came after soldiers received significant doses of radiation from digging trenches in the forest in the exclusion zone around the closed plant. But there was no independent confirmation of that.

The withdrawal took place amid growing indications the Kremlin is using talk of de-escalation in Ukraine as cover while regrouping, resupplying its forces and redeploying them for a stepped-up offensive in the eastern part of the country.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Ukraine is seeing a buildup of Russian forces for new strikes on the Donbas, and we are preparing for that.

Russian forces seized the Chernobyl site in the opening stages of the February 24 invasion, raising fears that they would cause damage or disruption that could spread radiation. The workforce at the site oversees the safe storage of spent fuel rods and the concrete-entombed ruins of the reactor that exploded in 1986.

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said it seems unlikely a large number of troops would develop severe radiation illness, but it was impossible to know for sure without more details.

He said contaminated material was probably buried or covered with new topsoil during the cleanup of Chernobyl, and some soldiers may have been exposed to a hot spot of radiation while digging. Others may have assumed they were at risk too, he said.

Early this week, the Russians said they would significantly scale back military operations in areas around Kyiv and the northern city of Chernihiv to increase trust between the two sides and help negotiations along.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said intelligence indicates Russia is not scaling back its military operations in Ukraine but is instead trying to regroup, resupply its forces and reinforce its offensive in the Donbas.

“Russia has repeatedly lied about its intentions,” Stoltenberg said. At the same time, he said, pressure is being kept up on Kyiv and other cities, and “we can expect additional offensive actions bringing even more suffering.”

The Donbas is the predominantly Russian-speaking industrial region where Moscow-backed separatists have been battling Ukrainian forces since 2014. In the past few days, the Kremlin, in a seeming shift in its war aims, said that its main goal now is gaining control of the Donbas, which consists of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, including Mariupol.

The top rebel leader in Donetsk, Denis Pushilin, issued an order to set up a rival city government for Mariupol, according to Russian state news agencies, in a sign of Russian intent to hold and administer the city.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that conditions weren’t yet ripe for a cease-fire and that he wasn’t ready for a meeting with Zelenskyy until negotiators do more work, Italian Premier Mario Draghi said after a telephone conversation with the Russian leader.

 


Biden administration considering largest ever release from emergency oil reserve

The sanctions on Russia and its demand to get paid in ruble have started impacting United States and members of European Union. The latest move to release oil from strategic reserves is the third attempt to reign in prices as OPEC Plus sticks to its plan on increasing output.

The Biden administration is considering releasing up to 180 million barrels of oil over several months from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The move would mark the third time the United States has tapped its strategic reserves in the past six months, and would be the largest release in the near 50-year history of the strategic reserves.

It is evident that the releases have not managed to lower prices as world demand has nearly reached pre-pandemic levels while supply has tightened globally.

Oil prices have surged since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February and the United States and allies responded with hefty sanctions on Russia, the second-largest exporter of crude worldwide.

Brent crude, the world benchmark, rose to about US$139/barrel earlier this month, highest since 2008, and was near US$110/barrel in Asian trading on Thursday.

Russia is one of the world’s top producers of oil, contributing about 10% to the global market (Russia exports 4 to 5 million bpd). But sanctions and buyer reluctance to buy Russian oil could remove about 3 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian oil from the market starting in April, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has said.

The news comes just before the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, an oil producer group known as OPEC Plus that includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, meets to discuss reducing supply curbs.

The United States, Britain and others have previously urged OPEC Plus to quickly boost output. However, the group is not expected to deviate from its plan to keep boosting output gradually when it meets Thursday.

The United States currently holds 568.3 million barrels as SPR, its lowest since May 2002, according to the US Energy Department.

The United States is considered a net petroleum exporter by the IEA. But that status could change to net importer this year and then return to exporter again as output has been slow to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

It was not immediately clear whether a 180 million barrel draw would consist of exchanges from the reserve that would have to be replaced by oil companies at a later date, outright sales, or a combination of the two.

US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said last week while on a trip to Europe that the United States and its allies in the IEA were discussing a further coordinated release from storage.

The IEA has called an emergency meeting for Friday to discuss oil supply, a spokesperson for Australian Energy Minister Angus Taylor said.

IEA member states agreed earlier in March to release over 60 million barrels of oil reserves, with 30 million barrels coming from the US-SPR.

US crude futures fell by US$4.70 to US$103.12/barrel and Brent futures declined by US$4.45, or 3.9% to US$109 a barrel on news of the potential release.

The White House said Biden will deliver remarks at 1730 GMT on his administration’s actions to reduce the impact of Putin’s price hike on energy prices and lower gas prices at the pump for American families. It did not give additional details.

High gasoline prices are a political liability for Biden and his Democratic Party as they seek to retain control of Congress in November elections.

The Biden administration is considering temporarily removing restrictions on summer sales of higher-ethanol gasoline blends as a way to lower fuel costs for US consumers, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Adding more ethanol to gasoline blends could potentially reduce prices at US gas pumps because ethanol, which is made from corn, is currently cheaper than straight gasoline.

 

 

China holds multinational meeting to discuss Afghanistan situation

China is holding two multinational meetings in the ancient town of Tunxi to discuss the economic and humanitarian crisis facing Afghanistan, as Beijing makes a diplomatic push for the country’s stability and development under the Taliban.

Afghan acting foreign minister Amir Khan Muttaqi is attending the two-day meeting to be attended by foreign ministers of Afghanistan’s immediate neighbors – Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Diplomats from Indonesia and Qatar will send their representatives as guest attendees to the regional meeting to be hosted by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

“The talks will echo positively with the third meeting of foreign ministers of the Afghan neighbouring countries, to further cement the consensus of all parties … to help Afghanistan achieve peace, stability and development at an early date,” Wang Wenbin, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, said.

A separate meeting of the “Extended Troika” will be held concurrently among special envoys for Afghanistan from China, the United States and Russia, China’s foreign ministry said.

“China, the United States, Russia and Pakistan are all countries with significant influence on the Afghan issue,” the foreign ministry spokesperson Wang said of the Troika meeting at a daily briefing on Tuesday.

Tom West, the US special representative for Afghanistan, will attend the meeting of the so-called Extended Troika, a US State Department spokesperson said.

The meetings are being held in Tunxi, an ancient town in Anhui province, possibly because of the relative ease of maintaining a bubble amid coronavirus lockdown in major cities.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday arrived in Tunxi for the talks with his Chinese counterpart but it is not confirmed if he will attend the Afghan meetings.

Lavrov has largely stayed in Russia since last month’s invasion of Ukraine but did travel to Turkey on Tuesday for talks with his counterpart from Kyiv.

The talk comes in the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and as Afghanistan suffers an economic and humanitarian crisis worsened by a financial aid cutoff and sanctions following the Taliban takeover as US-led troops withdrew in August.

Taliban, who fought the US forces for 20 years, returned to power in August 2021 after the collapse of West-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani.

The talks also come amid widespread condemnation of the Taliban’s U-turn last week on allowing girls to attend public high schools, which has sparked consternation among funders ahead of a key aid donors’ conference.

The school closure prompted US officials to cancel talks in Doha with the Taliban and a State Department warning that Washington saw the decision as “a potential turning point in our engagement” with the armed group.

The US believes that it shares with other Extended Troika members an interest in the Taliban making good on commitments to form an inclusive government, cooperate on counterterrorism and rebuild the Afghan economy, the State Department spokesperson said.

Diplomats and aid groups have warned that Taliban decision to keep the schools shut could make donors, already facing increased needs because of the Ukraine crisis, scale back their commitments.

On Wednesday, the World Bank put four projects in Afghanistan worth US$600 million on hold over the school ban.

Britain on Wednesday pledged an additional US$374 million for life-saving food and other aid in Afghanistan, a day ahead of an international conference seeking more than US$4 billion, even as concerns mount over Taliban rule.

The UN humanitarian appeal, the largest ever launched for a single country, is only 13 percent funded, UN spokesperson Jens Laerke said ahead of Thursday’s pledging conference.

Roughly 23 million people are experiencing acute hunger and 95 percent of Afghans are not eating enough, while 10 million children are in urgent need of aid to survive, according to the UN.

China has studiously avoided mentioning the limits on girls’ education and other human rights abuses, particularly those targeting women while keeping its Kabul embassy open.

Lately, Chinese Foreign Minister visited the Afghan capital Kabul, where he met the Acting Afghan Foreign Minister to discuss political and economic ties, including starting work in the mining sector and Afghanistan’s possible role in China’s Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, the Afghan foreign ministry said.

The surprise stop in Kabul came as the international community fumes over the Taliban administration’s broken promise a day earlier to open schools to girls beyond the sixth grade.

China, in line with the international community, has not recognized Afghanistan’s so-called “Islamic Emirate”, but has refrained from making harsh criticism against the group.

A month before the Taliban took power, Chinese Foreign Minister, had hosted a high-power delegation from the group on July 28, 2021, meeting in the Chinese port city of Tianjin. Wang referred to the group as pivotal force important to peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

On that and other occasions, the Chinese have pushed the Taliban for assurances it will not permit operations within its borders by members of China’s Turkic Muslim Uighur minority, which has faced repression from Beijing.

 

Wednesday 30 March 2022

Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company bagging ship building contracts

On March 30, 2022, Chinese financial service provider, CITC Financial Leasing placed an order at Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company (DSIC) for the construction of 10 bulk carriers. 

The contract is for 65,000 dwt vessels with a new generation design independently developed by Shanghai Ship Research and Design Institute.

They will be equipped with energy-saving ducts and other devices. The nautical mile fuel consumption of the vessel will be significantly improved comparing with similar type of ships. The energy efficiency index is 25% lower than the Chinese domestic baseline.

Upon delivery, the vessels will be charted to a domestic shipping company, servicing for national energy resources transportation among domestic coastal areas and Yangtze River region.

It may be recalled that on March 14, 2022 DSIC had inked contracts with two European owners for the construction of up to six containerships. DISC has entered into shipbuilding contracts with Germany-based AL Maritime Holding and Greek owner Danaos for the construction of two 7,100 teu containerships and two plus two 7,100 teu containerships, respectively.

These vessels are designed by SDARI, with length of 255 meters and width of 42.8 meter, meeting the latest requirements of Tier III and EEDI phase III.

With the addition of the new deals, DSIC will have order on hand for the same type of 7,100 teu containerships reaching up to 10.

Peeping into not so remote history shows DSIC had won a contract to build two 7,500 cu m LNG powered CO2 carriers for Northern Lights, an Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies joint venture.

The three parties are developing infrastructure to transport CO2 from industrial emitters by ship to a receiving terminal in Norway.

Independently developed by DISC, the vessels will be around 130 meters length, 21.2 meters width. The first of the vessels is expected to be delivered in the first quarter of 2024.

As well as LNG power, the vessels will also apply wind-assisted propulsion system and air lubrication to reduce carbon intensity by around 34% compared to conventional systems.

The vessels will be registered in Norway and classed by DNV.

Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company

Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company (DSIC) was formed in December 2005, as the result of a merger between Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company and Dalian New Shipbuilding Industry Company, and is the largest shipbuilding company in China. It is owned by China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, which is one of the two state-owned enterprises that came into being under the directive of the China State Council of 1999, the other being China State Shipbuilding Corporation.

While the former corporation is listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, the latter is not (yet) listed. Separately, the People's Liberation Army Navy owns military ship yards, such as in Lushun, Dalian, Liaoning.

DSIC located on two shipyards with a total of 3,400,000 square meters of land and 15,000 employees. Its revenue in 2006 exceeded CN¥10 trillion which puts itself as the No. 1 shipbuilding company in China, exceeding Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding Industry Company.

 

Tuesday 29 March 2022

Super powers should stop interfering in oil market dynamics, says UAE Energy Minister

Global oil supply and the market will not work if oil producers are maligned for years, only to be looked on a ‘superheroes’ when oil supply is lower than demand, according to Suhail al-Mazrouei, Energy Minister of OPEC’s heavy-weight the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  

“I think in COP 26 all the producers felt they were uninvited and unwanted but now we are again superheroes, it’s not going to work like that,” Reuters quoted al-Mazrouei as saying on Monday at the Global Energy Forum by the Atlantic Council in Dubai.

The oil and gas industry needs long-term planning and investments every year despite the global push for accelerating the use of renewable energy sources, the UAE minister added.

The country, currently OPEC’s third-largest producer after Saudi Arabia and Iraq, is sticking to its plan to raise its production capacity to 5 million barrels per day (bpd), but it is also committed to continue working with OPEC and OPEC+ Plus in the management of supply to the market, al-Mazrouei said.

“The UAE’s plan to raise production capacity does not mean that we will leave OPEC Plus or do something unilateral. We will work with this group to ensure that the market is stable,” he added.

During the Atlantic Council forum, al-Mazrouei reiterated the importance of OPEC in stabilizing global energy markets and argued that politics around sanctioned countries (such as Russia) must not interfere with the organization’s broader mission.

According to the UAE’s minister, producers cannot immediately boost supply significantly, also due to the production declines in recent years. At least 5-8 million barrels need to be replaced each year through investment, he added.

Al-Mazrouei also called on the financial and analytical institutions, such as the International Energy Agency, to adopt realistic perspectives on long-term investment in oil and gas and recognize the needs of global consumers who need affordable energy and commodities.

 

Prime Minister of Bangladesh criticizes sanctions on elite police unit by United States

In her first public comment on the issue, Prime Minister of Bangladesh lashed out Monday at the United States for ‘abominable’ sanctions against the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) force over alleged human rights abuses, saying Washington imposed them without any fault or cause.

Sheikh Hasina’s remarks at an event marking the anniversary of RAB’s creation came a week before the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister was to hold high-level talks with the US officials in Washington.

Among a range of bilateral issues during meetings on April 4 and 6, the two sides are expected to discuss American sanctions placed on the security force in December 2021 over its alleged role in enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings.

“Imposing sanctions on RAB and some of its officials, after all these successes is very much an abominable act,” Hasina said in a virtual message during a ceremony marking 18th anniversary of RAB’s founding, at its headquarters in Dhaka.

On December 10, 2021 the US Treasury Department issued sanctions against RAB and seven serving and former officials over allegations of grave violations of human rights. The move angered Bangladeshi government officials.

Former RAB Director General Benazir Ahmed – now Bangladesh’s Inspector General of Police – is among the sanctioned officials. He is barred from entering the United States.

Hasina made the comment days after the US Under Secretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland visited Bangladesh to discuss bilateral issues and ahead of a scheduled visit by Foreign Minister A.K. Abdul Momen to Washington.

Before leaving Dhaka, Nuland acknowledged that the human rights climate had improved in the South Asian country but said Bangladesh’s government needed to do more to hold RAB accountable for alleged rights abuses.

In her statement on Monday, Hasina also accused Washington of protecting and sheltering criminals, while ordering sanctions against Bangladesh where, she said, there is no crime.

“This is their character, so what else can I say about them? In their country they do not take any action against any member of their forces, law enforcement agencies, for their criminal activities”, she said.

The Prime Minister was referring to cases of police brutality and extrajudicial killings in the United States, including one where a Minneapolis police officer was convicted of killing George Floyd by kneeling on his neck during an arrest in May 2020.

Bangladesh, by comparison, is the only country where anyone from any law enforcement agency involved in any crime must be punished, the PM claimed.

Officers gather at the Shaheed Lt. Col. Azad Memorial Hall, the Rapid Action Battalion’s headquarters, to mark the elite police agency’s anniversary, March 28, 2022.

Hasina also questioned whether US authorities were bothered by Bangladesh’s successes against militants, drugs and terrorists including those responsible for carrying out a massacre of hostages during an overnight siege at the Holey Artisan Bakery café in July 2016 – the country’s worst-ever terror attack.

She also criticized American officials for sheltering a killer of her father, Bangladesh’s founding president.

“A criminal convicted in the killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is staying in the United States,” she said, referring to her father.

“We requested the US to send him back, but they gave protection in their country and sheltered the criminal while they imposed sanctions on some RAB officials without any fault or cause,” Hasina said.

In 2009, former Bangladesh Army officer Rashed Chowdhury was convicted and sentenced to death in absentia for his role in the coup that led to Sheikh Mujibur’s assassination in 1975. He fled to the US in 1996 when Hasina took power and was later granted asylum, according to media reports.

On Monday, officials at the US Embassy in Dhaka did not immediately respond to BenarNews requests for comment in response to Hasina’s criticism.

In Washington, a State Department spokesperson referred questions to the US Treasury, saying it was that agency which had placed RAB under sanctions framed by Executive Order 13818. Treasury officials, in turn, could not be immediately reached.

 

Monday 28 March 2022

United States getting ready to drag China in Taiwan conflict

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it critically important for Washington to supply arms to Taiwan in the face of Beijing’s threats, said Republican Elise Stefanik.

“China is watching. They’re watching the US foreign policy when it comes to the war in Ukraine,” Stefanik told NTD’s “Capitol Report” program in a recent interview. “I think we need to be thinking very carefully about what that means for the future of Taiwan.”

Stefanik said the mistake President Joe Biden has made with regards to Ukraine should not be repeated.

“One of the lessons that—frankly, Republicans would have never let this happen, but Joe Biden let happen—was they didn’t get the weapons, munitions, in early enough to Ukraine,” she added.

“We need to be arming Taiwan now,” Stefanik said. “We need to be getting the support to Taiwan now, both as deterrence but also making sure that they are armed to self defend.”

Taiwan has been on a heightened state of alert since Russia launched a full-scale invasion against Ukraine on February 24, wary that China might make a similar military move to seize sovereignty of the self-governing island.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claims that Taiwan is a part of the mainland and has never renounced the use of force to absorb the island. Internationally, Taiwan is widely recognized as a de facto independent state with its own military, constitution, and democratically-elected government officials.

Beijing may be tempted to attack Taiwan now, believing that Moscow would lend its support under their “no-limits” partnership, a new Sino–Russian alliance announced three weeks before the invasion of Ukraine. While Beijing has officially stuck with a “neutral” position between Russia and Ukraine, the regime has sided with Moscow on UN votes and amplified Russian justifications for the war.

Under the alliance, Russia has openly supported China’s claims for Taiwan. A joint communiqué announcing the partnership on February 04 said that Moscow “opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.”

Admiral John Aquilino, Head of the US Indo–Pacific Command, shares Stefanik’s concerns about Taiwan. In an interview with the Financial Times on March 25, Aquilino said the lesson from the Russian invasion should be that a Chinese attack on Taiwan “could really happen.”

He said China has “increased maritime and air operations” in what he called a “pressure campaign” against Taiwan. He added, “We have to make sure we are prepared should any actions get taken.”

In recent years, China has repeatedly flown its military aircraft into the island’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ). On Feb. 24, the day Russia began attacking Ukraine, China sent nine military planes into the island’s ADIZ.

Since that day, similar sorties have happened on 18 different days, according to Taiwan’s defense ministry. The latest incursion happened on March 27, when three Chinese military planes, including two bombers, entered Taiwan’s southeast ADIZ, promoting the island to deploy its military aircraft and air defense missile systems in response.

In Taiwan, the majority of Taiwanese do not believe the island can fend off a Chinese invasion by itself. That belief was shared by 78 percent of 1,077 respondents polled, according to a Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation survey released on March 22.

When asked whether the United States would go into a war against China to defend Taiwan, only 34.5 percent of those surveyed said they believed Washington would, while 55.9 percent said the United States wouldn’t.

Washington and Taipei are currently not formal allies and the United States has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” meaning that the United States is deliberately vague on the question of whether it would come to Taiwan’s defense.

Stefanik also criticized Biden for having not used “every tool at his disposal” to confront the CCP, taking exception to the president’s “no threats” remark on March 24 to characterize his phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

At NATO headquarters in Brussels on Friday, Biden said he had a “straightforward conversation” with Xi. The president added that he did not threaten his Chinese counterpart but “[made] sure he understood the consequences of him helping Russia.”

“You are dealing with a China that is strengthening their ties to Russian President Vladmir Putin prior to the invasion,” Stefanik said, before calling Xi and Putin “authoritarian, blood-thirsty despots” who “see weakness in the United States.”

In mid-March, several media outlets, citing unnamed US officials, stated that Russia had requested military assistance and financial aid for its war in Ukraine, and Beijing had signaled a willingness to comply. The two nations have denied the allegations.

 

Iran drills 75 oil and gas wells in a year

According to The Tehran Times, National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has completed operation and drilled 75 oil and gas wells during the Iranian calendar year, ended on March 20, 2022. 

Hamidreza Golpayegani, Managing Director of the company informed that NIDC has drilled six development, five exploratory and 64 workover ones.

The official stated that 56 of the mentioned wells were drilled in the operational zone of the National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC), 10 wells were drilled in the fields under the supervision of the Iranian Offshore Oil Company (IOOC), three in the fields under the operation of Petroleum Engineering and Development Company (PEDEC), one in the field under the supervisor of Iranian Central Oil Fields Company (ICOFC), three wells in the framework of project and two in the operational zone of the drilling management department of National Iranian Oil company (NIOC).

The official said that 76,125 meters of drilling was conducted in the mentioned wells. Collectively 44 light and heavy drilling rigs of NIDC are operating in the operational zone of NISCO, two rigs including one onshore and one offshore, in the zone of IOOC, seven rigs in the zone of PEDEC, six rigs in the zone of the drilling management department of NIOC, and one rigs in the project of using underground waters implemented by the Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology.

NIDC owns 70 light, heavy and super-heavy drilling rigs, including 67 onshore drilling rigs and three offshore rigs.

The company managed to carry out 10,182 meters of horizontal and directional drilling in 43 oil and gas wells across the country during the Iranian year 1399.

Some 654 meters of core extraction drilling was also conducted in the mentioned period which was a huge achievement for assessing the condition of the country’s oil and gas reserves.

Back in July 2021, Shahram Shamipour, Director of Renovation and Upgrading in NIDC had informed that the Company had allocated 5.2 trillion rials, about US$18 million for the renovation and upgrading of its drilling rigs and equipment in the company’s operational, technical, specialized, and logistical departments.

According to him, the renovation and upgrading operations are aimed at improving the performance of these rigs which are active in the country’s oil and gas field development projects.

Shamipour noted that the equipment going through renovation operations include fluid pumps, draw-works machinery, charting tools, pumps for cementing and acidizing trucks, tow trucks, cranes, piping machines, generators, hydrogen sulfide gas treatment systems, acid-coated storage tanks, and cement transport bunkers. 

Considering the National Iranian Oil Company’s strategies for strengthening the presence of domestic companies in the development of the country’s oil fields, NIDC, as a major subsidiary of the company, has been supporting such companies by lending them drilling rigs and other necessary equipment.

After the US reimposition of sanctions against Iran, indigenizing the know-how for the manufacturing of the parts and equipment applied in different industrial sectors is one of the major strategies that the Islamic Republic has been strongly following up to reach self-reliance and nullify the sanctions.

Oil, gas, and petrochemical industries have outstanding performances, with indigenizing the knowledge for manufacturing many parts and equipment that were previously imported.

Among different sectors of the mentioned industries, drilling could be mentioned as a prominent example in this regard.

 

Sunday 27 March 2022

United States to seize assets owned by Russian elites

In a far-flung conflict where Joe Biden has pledged to refrain from military intervention, the United States has largely turned to financial sanctions to exact punishment on Russia. 

Those efforts have been centered on some of the wealthiest Russians with ties to Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin — a group whose connections have led to fortune and an opulent lifestyle directly targeted by Biden.

As the nation’s intelligence leaders gathered before lawmakers earlier this month to offer grim assessments of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there was one topic that sparked both impatience and excitement.

“Are we going to seize some yachts?” Patrick Maloney asked FBI Director Christopher Wray.

“I mean, that sounds great. Are we going to see some of the stuff taken out of their hands?”

“We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains,” Biden said during his State of the Union address.

The Department of Justice the next day announced its KleptoCapture task force to do just that.

But experts say the task force may not be able to immediately deliver the wins — and the seizures — lawmakers are eager for. 

“It's a bit of the fascination with the luxury of asset recovery, and what are in essence sort of the shiny exemplars of corruption, excess, that can be symbols of sort of poetic justice or rightful retribution,” said Juan Zarate, the first-ever assistant secretary of the Treasury for terrorist financing and financial crimes under the George W. Bush administration.

“But asset recovery is more than just the luxury items, and it gets quite complicated,” added Zarate, who helped seize Saddam Hussein's fleet of private jets and return them to Iraq.

Investigators are coming up against what’s designed to be a complex labyrinth.

“These people are extremely savvy when it comes to protecting their ill-gotten gains,” Dennis Lormel, a former special agent with the FBI who served as chief of its financial crimes program, told The Hill. 

“They're going to circumvent controls, they're going to circumvent the system, they are going to be as non-transparent as possible.”

Russia’s uber wealthy seldom directly own their vast holdings, instead creating layers and layers of shell companies.

“Think of these situations as kind of an asset version of Russian nesting dolls,” said David Laufman, who oversaw the enforcement of sanctions at the Department of Justice during the Obama and Trump administrations.

The result means lots of tracking down records from across the globe and sifting through piles of paperwork to determine ownership.

Adding to the complication is that many holdings may be owned by a trusted ally of the person being targeted.

“Russian oligarchs and elites have not openly held their assets. They've held them through shell companies or nominees or proxies,” said Sharon Cohen Levin, a partner with Sullivan & Cromwell who led the money laundering and asset forfeiture unit of the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for two decades.

The combination makes it particularly difficult — not impossible, but challenging — to unwind and understand the true owners of the property.

“The first challenge that KleptoCapture task force is going to face is to be able to not just identify the yacht, but answer the question who actually owns it? The fact that you’ve seen an oligarch on it doesn't necessarily mean that it's their property,” she said — even if the oligarch “named the yacht after their mother.”

While the wealth of oligarchs affords a number of luxuries — high-rise penthouse apartments, private jets, even football clubs — yachts have remained a top focus.

A Twitter account charting the movement of oligarch-affiliated yachts created earlier this month has already climbed to nearly 30,000 followers, while several news outlets have mapped the ports where they are parked.

“Yachts are fancy playthings for very rich people,” Laufman said, “They are symbolically representative of the kinds of vast wealth of these oligarchs and create kind of a feel good ‘we got you’ moment for governments that are participating in this coalition to counter Russia's aggression.”

Some countries have already managed to commandeer yachts. France earlier this month seized Amore Vero, a yacht believed to belong to Igor Sechin, the head of oil giant Rosneft. Italian authorities have also seized at least three such vessels.

But there are only so many oligarchs and so many yachts to seize. 

The number of those sanctioned by the US ballooned Thursday, when the White House announced it would sanction another 400 individuals, including 328 members of the Duma.

Of the smaller group of those initially sanctioned, however, The Associated Press compiled a list of some 56 superyachts believed to be owned by Russian oligarchs. Maps from a number of outlets show the vessels scattered across the globe — with very few in US waters. 

Laufman said the yacht fixation overlooks the vast amount of wealth otherwise held by Russian elites.

“I’m not dumping on seizing yachts,” he said. “I’m a fan of seizing yachts, but that’s not even the tip of the iceberg. That’s just two or three snowflakes on the iceberg compared to the wealth that has likely been squirreled away in accounts that may currently be evading the visibility of US law enforcement or intelligence agencies.”

Once the task force identifies assets belonging to sanctioned oligarchs it can freeze them, but to formally seize them they will need to go to court.

The distinction may matter little to the public. Freezing an asset — whether a bank account or boat — blocks its use, cutting off access to a certain lifestyle.

US law also allows such a status in perpetuity, the reason some Iranian assets have been frozen since the late 1970s.

But the formal seizure requires proving that the assets were used in furtherance of a crime or gained through some form of corruption.

For Zarate, even attempting to seize those assets on the basis of corruption is itself a mind shift.

“We are now judging all of this to be illegitimate or at least worthy of seizure and investigation in a way that we haven't before, right? It's not new that these oligarchs all owned yachts. Everyone knew this. What's different is not just the invasion, but this conversion of an attitude toward what those assets represent. And they represent the proceeds of illicit or corrupt activity tied to the Russian economy and tied to the Kremlin,” he said. 

“That's the shift here that's happened both intentionally and unintentionally.”

To make a case in court, however, Cohen Levin said DOJ’s task force will need not just prosecutors and investigators but data analysts and others that can do the hard work to help demonstrate that an asset is indeed owned by an oligarch.

It’s a case that may have to be built on circumstantial evidence.

“It's absolutely super complex for them,” Cohen Levin said. 

 “What the government's going to have to do is they're going to have to show — they're going to have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that it's more likely than not — that this person owns it. So they're going to have to say, ‘This Company is really owned by this company, which is owned by this company, which is owned by this company, and then this person that runs it really works for this Russian oligarch,’ ” she said.

Experts warned the process will ultimately take months. But law enforcement officials did not seem deterred when questioned by lawmakers watching with anticipation.

“Whatever we can lawfully seize,” Wray told Maloney, “we’re gonna go after."

 

United States does not have a policy of regime change in Russia, says US Ambassador to NATO

Over the years, the US presidents have got so addicted to playing ‘regime change mantra’ that Joe Biden uttered the same for Russian President Vladimir Putin. After having realized the potential repercussions, efforts are being made to twist the statement. 

It appears gone are the days, when United States was able to do ‘anything’ it likes; now the President can face resentment against such statements even from Senate as well as Congress.

United States Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith on Sunday made an effort to walk back President Biden’s comment that Russian President Vladimir Putin should not remain in power, asserting that America does not have a policy of regime change in Russia.

“The US does not have a policy of regime change in Russia, full stop,” Smith told co-anchor Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Biden turned heads on Saturday when, during a speech in Warsaw, he said Putin cannot remain in power. The ad-libbed comment came at the end of the president’s speech.

The White House attempted to walk back the comment on Saturday, with an official saying that the remark was referring to Putin exercising power outside of Russia. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday also said the US has no plans for regime change in Russia.

Asked by Bash if Biden’s comment was a mistake, Smith said the remark was “a principal human reaction” to the stories he heard from Ukrainian refugees earlier that day.

“The president had spent the day visiting with Ukrainian refugees; he went to the National Stadium in Warsaw and literally met with hundreds of Ukrainians. He heard their heroic stories as they were fleeing Ukraine in the wake of Russia's brutal war in Ukraine. In the moment, I think that was a principled human reaction to the stories that he had heard that day,” Smith said.

Pressed on if the US not having a policy of regime change in Russia means officials think Putin should remain in power, Smith said the administration, including Biden, does not believe American can empower the Russian president to wage a war in Ukraine.

“I think what it means is that we are not pursuing a policy of regime change. But I think the full administration, the president included, believes that we cannot empower Putin right now to wage war in Ukraine or pursue these acts of aggression,” Smith said.

 

Saturday 26 March 2022

United States and allies have declared hybrid war on Russia: says Kremlin

The United States and its Western allies have declared a hybrid ‘total war’ against Russia said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

“Today a real hybrid war, a ‘total war’ has been declared against us. This term, which was used by Nazi Germany, is now used by many European politicians when they explain what they want to do to the Russian Federation,” Lavrov said, according to state-run media.

He claimed, “And their goals are not hidden, they want to destroy, to break, to strangle the Russian economy, and Russia as a whole.”

“The desire by the West to maintain its dominance in international affairs, to subjugate everything and everyone and return to a unipolar world … these are, of course, illusions,” Lavrov also remarked, adding, “In fact, we are witnessing the culmination of the policy of containment of Russia, which the West has pursued for a long time.”

Lavrov’s comments appear to be an escalation in rhetoric from Russia’s leadership against the United States and NATO allies.

Since February 24, the start of the conflict, the United States, Europe, Japan, and other like-minded nations have placed heavy sanctions on Russian economy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Lavrov, and other top Kremlin officials.

On Thursday, the White House announced even more sanctions against hundreds of Russian lawmakers, defense companies, and other entities.

The United States also placed a ban on Russian oil imports, although European Union countries have not done so, citing the bloc’s heavy dependence on Russian energy products.

On Thursday, about three-fourths of the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand aid access and civilian protection in Ukraine and claimed Russia was creating what they said is a dire humanitarian situation in Ukraine. 

Ukraine and Western allies have claimed Moscow is attacking civilians indiscriminately, which the Kremlin has denied.

But Russian ex-President and Deputy Head of Security Council Dmitry Medvedev claimed Friday that the sanctions won’t sway the Kremlin. 

The sanctions will only consolidate the Russian society and not cause popular discontent with the authorities, Medvedev told Russia’s RIA news agency in an interview.

“Let us ask ourselves, can any of these major businessmen have even the tiniest quantum of influence of the position of the country’s leadership?” Medvedev said. “I openly tell you: no, no way.”

 

War in Ukraine to wipe out 15 years of Russian economic growth

In today’s time media plays a more lethal role, as compared to weapons. The conventional media, controlled by the West, spreads disinformation by portraying bleaker outlook for the country under the US sanctions.  One such example is the details about Russia released by Institute of International Finance.

According to Institute of International Finance (IIF), Russia is likely to erase 15 years of economic gains by the end of 2023 after its invasion of Ukraine spurred a multitude of sanctions and prompted companies to pull out of the country.

The economy is expected to contract 15% in 2022, followed by a decline of 3% in 2023, leaving gross domestic product where it was about fifteen years ago. This was written by economists Benjamin Hilgenstock and Elina Ribakova in a preliminary assessment of the impact of the war, noting that further sanctions may change their view.

“Sharply lower domestic demand is likely to play a crucial role, while a collapse in imports should offset lower exports, leading to a marginally-positive contribution from net foreign demand,” the economists wrote.

“However, should further sanctions in the form of trade embargos be implemented, exports might fall more than we currently forecast.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 spurred a collapse of its currency (ruble) and threw global supply chains and commodities prices into chaos. This also sparked mass departure of companies from the country. French automaker Renault SA is among the latest firms to pull out, announcing that it will halt operations at its Moscow plant. It is also considering the future of a longstanding Russian venture called AvtoVaz.

Even after the immediate hit to Russia’s economy, the economy will suffer for years to come from a “brain drain” the exodus of educated, middle class Russians with the financial means to leave the country.

Sanctions from United States and European Union, which control export of technology, including microelectronics, will also hinder technological development in Russia for years, according to the IIF.

At the same time, “self-sanctioning” by foreign companies which no longer want to do business with Russia will lead to a weakening of important sectors of the Russian economy, the report said.

 “The negative effect on medium- and long-term economic prospects could be even more important,” the IIF economists wrote.

 

Ukraine war marks beginning of a new world order

Joe Biden, President of United States believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a ‘new world order’. In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a ‘great reset’.

Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten the governments on taxes, diversity, and green policies.

When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.

In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.

We saw that last year, fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.

These ‘new orders’ and ‘resets’ always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.

They preach, common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.

Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank ‘collusion’ narrative will be national headline news for weeks.

Middle class lifestyles will be curbed as they are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.

In truth, the world is about to see a radical reset—of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.

The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10% per year. Ordinary people will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.

The mess was created by those who propagated modern monetary theory. That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.

Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels—and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.

Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects.

They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world’s most repressive regimes.

The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the white male-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendance, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.

Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.

So a reset reckoning is coming—in reaction to the ‘new orders’ championed by Biden and the Davos set.

In the November 2022 midterms, Americans are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility—as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies. What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.

Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the ‘color of our skin’.

The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre ‘mainstream’ media. They will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.

The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.

Courtesy: The Epoch Times

 

Friday 25 March 2022

US oil and gas industry demands increasing local production over easing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela

Many decades ago I had read that United States wishes to keep global sources of energy under its control, directly or indirectly. This became crystal clear after impositions of economic sanction on Iran and Venezuela and invasion on Iraq and Libya. The latest attempt is imposition of sanctions on global energy giant, Russia.

Till yesteryear global supply of energy was controlled by ‘Seven Sisters’. Since other players, particularly OPEC Plus still enjoy substantial leverage, the new name of the game is ‘Shale Oil’. To keep shale oil producers economically viable, oil price has to be kept around US$70/barrel in the global markets.

Under the strategy of cutting supplies from major producers, the first casualty was Iran, then came Iraq and Libya and now the target is Russia. To achieve the success, two pronged strategy is being followed, containing oil supply from OPEC Plus members and boosting indigenous production. To achieve the target the US administration is already in touch with exploration and production (E&P) companies which have already started soliciting ‘incentives’, the latest news is:

The oil and gas industry of United States is positioning domestic crude production as the lesser of environmental evils, as it attempts to dissuade the administration of US president Joe Biden from easing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela.

A US ban on Russian crude imports earlier this month reframed talks to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and rekindled diplomatic ties between Washington and Caracas, with market participants watching keenly for any developments that might offer incremental supply.

The US oil and gas stakeholders claim a move toward Iranian or Venezuelan barrels would signal a step back from the kind of environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards consumers, politicians and investors have called for in recent years.

"If you really care about ESG, compare the United States to other jurisdictions," Hunter Hunt, Chief Executive of Dallas-based oil and gas company Hunt Consolidated, told Argus earlier this month.

"We will have a higher commitment to the environment, a higher commitment to safety, and I think you will see a stronger understanding of all social concerns here in the US than you would see in Iran or Venezuela or other countries that potentially could fill the gap left by Russian oil."

Hunt's comments echo those heard elsewhere in the industry. AFPM President Chet Thompson on March 14, 2022 called against relying on countries with "less stringent environmental and safety standards" like Iran or Venezuela for energy.

ExxonMobil Chief Executive Darren Woods earlier this month said "production will shift to somebody else with potentially higher emissions" if climate hawks push US companies into decreasing production.

Seven Sisters

The Seven Sisters (oil companies) is a classification named by the Enrico Mattei who is an Italian politician for the seven giant oil companies that managed the oil industry worldwide until the 1970s. The company names of seven sisters are: Anglo-Persian Oil Company worked between 1908-1954 after that they became BP, Gulf Oil run within these years 1901-1985 after this year purchased by Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon later joined with Mobil, Texaco (1901-2000) acquired by Chevron in 2001.

The traditional period starts with the Seven Sisters giant oil firms as the authoritative strength in world petroleum businesses for the decades after World War II. Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Gulf, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron, the cartel operated authorizations to oil in sovereign nations with plentiful petroleum sources.

This adjustment proffered the Sister’s attribute powers over oil in Venezuela and newly named OPECs countries, and end of 1950, the Sister’s cartel maintained a 98.3% exchange portion of world petroleum production. BP, Chevron, Mobil, and Shell are remaining today, and we can say that they are the big four for the oil industry of today’s world. As for why this description is accepted.

After the 1940s, these seven big companies built a cartel that provided more than 83% of world oil production and became an oligopoly for the oil industry. They are in steadfast competition with each other, but when the rise of another company comes together, they blend and threaten that company. These companies could be termed a stop at least partially with the later OPEC countries.

According to the freshest statement of the Financial Times, cartels of this century; Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, as well as four major oil giants, as well as Total and ENI. However, especially in recent years, non-OECD countries have included China National Petroleum Co. (CNPC), Gazprom Russia, ConocoPhillips, Petrobras Brazil, Petronas Malaysia, and Saudi Aramco.

However, the share and support of the four major oil giants among these companies, which have achieved significant progress in recent years, is not known. Some energy experts claimed that new companies’ growth occurred with the help of seven sisters.

These seven sisters, who established the international oil industry for nearly a century, developed them through incorporations, takeovers, and incorporations and brought them to the present day, have a higher income than the gross national product of many other countries, and the tonnage of the tankers they possess is higher than the naval forces of many nations.



 

 

 

 

 

 

Tribute to Madeleine Albright

Madeleine Albright was the first woman to serve as US Secretary of State and a ‘Grande Dame’ of foreign policy for the Democratic Party. She wrote books, served on think tank boards and warned of the risk of fascism in the Donald Trump era. 

She died on March 23, 2022 at the age of 84; the cause of death was cancer.

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, halfway through his two-term presidency, Albright became the highest-ranking woman in the US government at the time. As the top US diplomat, she called for the use of force as the conflict in Kosovo descended into ethnic cleansing. That was consistent with the hard line she had pressed during the Bosnian War, when she was Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations. She later described the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the failure to achieve a Mideast peace accord as among her biggest regrets.

“Madeleine’s courage and toughness helped bring peace to the Balkans and paved the way for progress in some of the most unstable corners of the world,” President Barack Obama said upon awarding Albright the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in 2012.

Responding to news of her death, State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters, “The impact that she has had on this building is felt every single day. She was a trailblazer as the first female Secretary of State and quite literally opened doors for a large element of our workforce.”

In a statement, Clinton called Albright “an extraordinary human being” and “a passionate force for freedom, democracy and human rights.”

Albright was famous for well-tailored suits adorned with pins or brooches, ranging from balloons to carnivorous animals and chosen to reflect a mood or an opinion. After learning that the Russians had bugged a conference room near her office at the State Department, for example, she wore a pin shaped like a huge bug.

Albright’s stature and style belied a commanding negotiating skill. When Yasser Arafat walked out of Paris talks in 2000, Albright told guards at the US ambassador’s residence to “Shut the gates!” As UN ambassador, she responded to Cuba’s 1996 downing of two unarmed Cessna aircraft: “This is cowardice.”

In an opinion column published February 23, 2022 in the New York Times, just before Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Albright took direct aim at Russian President Vladimir Putin. She disclosed that while flying back to Washington after her first meeting with Putin in 2000, she recorded her observations of him, “Putin is small and pale, so cold as to be almost reptilian.”

“Instead of paving Russia’s path to greatness,” she wrote in the column, “invading Ukraine would ensure Mr. Putin’s infamy by leaving his country diplomatically isolated, economically crippled and strategically vulnerable in the face of a stronger, more united Western alliance.”

In an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “The Close,” Leon Panetta, a White House Chief of Staff under Clinton, recalled Albright as “a Cold War warrior” who had been “raised to understand what communism was about and what the threat from Russia was all about.”

Thomas Pickering, who served under Albright as Under Secretary for political affairs, said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio’s “Sound On”, “She had little love, I would say, for Russia, and that skepticism and indeed suspicion about Russia has proven to be more true than I think any of us had reason to believe when I worked for her.”

An emigrant who fled Czechoslovakia at the dawn of World War II only to discover her own Jewish heritage more than a half-century later, Albright witnessed firsthand the displacement of those deemed undesirable.

“In the end, no one who lived through the years of 1937 to 1948 was a stranger to profound sadness,” Albright wrote in “Prague Winter,” her personal account of the period. “Millions of innocents did not survive, and their deaths must never be forgotten.”

Albright was born Marie Jana Korbel on May 15, 1937, in Prague, one of three children of Josef Korbel, a diplomat, and the former Anna Spieglova. The family statement on her death gave her surname at birth as Korbelova. When the German army arrived in 1939, the family went into exile in London. 

At war’s end, they returned to Prague, relocating several months later to Belgrade where her father served as ambassador. At the age of 10, Albright was sent to boarding school in Switzerland.

When the Communist Party took control in Czechoslovakia in 1948, her father accepted a post on a UN commission on Kashmir. The Korbels stayed in New York. By then, Albright spoke four languages: Czech, Serbo-Croatian, English and French.

Gaining political asylum in 1949, they moved to Denver, where her father became a professor at the University of Denver. She met her future husband, Joseph Medill Patterson Albright, during a summer job at the Denver Post. They married in 1959, the same year she earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Wellesley College in Massachusetts. They had three daughters -- Anne, Alice and Katharine -- before the marriage ended in divorce

A Catholic who became an Episcopalian in marriage, Albright learned of her Jewish ancestry ‑ along with the death of more than a dozen relatives, including three grandparents in the Holocaust ‑ in 1997 at age 59.

In her 2003 autobiography, “Madam Secretary,” she said of her own parents, “My guess is that they associated our heritage with suffering and wanted to protect us. They had come to America to start a new life.”

Albright obtained a Ph.D. in public law and government from Columbia University where she studied under Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s future National Security Adviser. She also earned a certificate in Russian studies.

In 1976, Albright became the chief legislative aide to Democratic US Senator Ed Muskie of Maine. Two years later, Brzezinski recruited his former student as the National Security Council’s congressional liaison.

When Republicans came to power, she taught at Georgetown University and advised Democrats on foreign policy, including presidential candidates Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 1989, she became president of the public policy think tank Center for National Policy.

With Clinton’s victory in 1992, she became US Permanent Representative to the UN. In 1995, when as many as 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered in Srebrenica at the hands of Bosnian Serbs, Albright presented evidence of mass graves to the Security Council. 

With the lessons of Rwanda fresh in mind, she argued for the use of force. Following the shelling of a Sarajevo market in August, the largest North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission ever got under way, leading to the Dayton Accords that ended the war.

When Warren Christopher, Clinton’s first Secretary of State, announced his plan to return to the private sector, Albright was nominated as his successor. The US Senate unanimously confirmed her appointment.

Albright sought the use of force again in Kosovo, where in 1998 a civil war had ensued. Dubbed “Madeleine’s War,” NATO engaged in combat for the second time in its history, launching air strikes in March 1999 without the approval of the Security Council.

“Madeleine Albright is somebody who grew up learning the lessons of Munich, the danger of appeasing dictators, and she feels we need this more-assertive foreign policy not to back down in the face of people like Milosevic,” historian Walter Isaacson told CNN in a May 1999 interview. By June, Slobodan Milosevic’s troops began to withdraw from Kosovo.

Her efforts toward an Israel-Palestinian peace weren’t as successful. “People ask about my greatest disappointment as Secretary. This was it,” she said in her memoir.

Albright also supported the expansion of NATO and pressured Iraq to end its blockade of UN weapons inspectors. When Iraq didn’t comply, the US and Britain launched a series of air strikes known as Operation Desert Fox.

In October 2000, she became the highest-ranking US representative ever to make an official visit to North Korea, meeting with President Kim Jong Il. “I am sad to say that the Bush administration didn’t pick up the hand of cards that we left on the table there,” Albright said on MSNBC in 2013.

Following her government career, Albright returned to Georgetown as a professor. In 2005, she founded emerging markets investment adviser Albright Capital Management LLC within her Albright Group consultancy. She combined the firm with Stonebridge International in 2009 to form the Washington-based Albright Stonebridge Group, a global business strategy firm.

In addition to her autobiography and “Prague Winter,” Albright wrote best-selling books, including 2009’s “Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box.”

Even into her 80s, Albright’s defense of the ideals of democracy remained strong. The ascendency of authoritarian leaders was “a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II,” she wrote in a 2018 essay in the Times that coincided with the publication of her book “Fascism: A Warning.” She added, “The possibility that fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage is enhanced by the volatile presidency of Donald Trump.”

She led the nongovernmental organization National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the Pew Global Attitudes Project. She also served on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and the boards of the Aspen Institute, Center for American Progress and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Albright never lost sight of the way her career broke through glass ceilings and made a point of promoting the careers of women throughout her professional life. In fact, she made famous a mantra: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

 

Tuesday 22 March 2022

Key takeaways from Imran Khan’s Address to OIC Foreign Ministers

According to Reuters, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan on Tuesday suggested that close ally China and Islamic countries mediate in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and try to bring about a ceasefire.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is holding the 48th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, which more than 600 delegates are attending, including Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi as a special guest, in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

"May I suggest that OIC during its discussion with foreign ministers, we should think about how we can mediate, how we can bring about the ceasefire," Khan told the gathering.

"I want to discuss how, maybe OIC along with China, we can all step in and try to stop this conflict which is going to have, if it keeps going the way it is, it would have great consequences for the rest of the world."

Khan's comments came hours after China and Pakistan echoed concerns about "spill-over effects of unilateral sanctions" on Russia, according to a statement by the Chinese foreign ministry.

Khan was in Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin the day Russian forces entered Ukraine. Pakistan has expressed concern about the repercussions of the invasion but also stopped short of condemning it.

Pakistan abstained from the UN General Assembly vote that condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

According to Pakistan’s leading English Newspaper, Prime Minister Imran Khan delivered a keynote address at the inaugural session of the 48th Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the Parliament House in Islamabad on Tuesday.

While talking about the OIC's role, he said, "We have failed both the Palestinians and the people of Kashmir. I am sad to say that we have been able to make no impact at all."

The premier said Western countries did "not take the OIC seriously" because "we are a divided house and those powers know it.

"We (Muslims) are 1.5 billion people and yet our voice to stop this blatant injustice is insignificant."

Khan said international law was on the side of the people of Palestine and Kashmir, adding that the United Nations Security Council's resolutions backed the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination through a plebiscite. However, the international community never ensured that right was given, he said.

Referring to India's stripping of occupied Kashmir's special status in August 2019, he said nothing happened because they (India) felt no pressure. "They feel we can just pass a resolution and then go back to our usual business."

He said India was changing the demography in occupied Kashmir by bringing in settlers from outside but "no one has pushed about it because they think we are ineffective."

Afghanistan and Ukraine

The premier also spoke about the global situation, expressing his apprehension that the world is "headed in the wrong way".

A new Cold War had almost started and the world could be divided into blocs, he said, stressing that unless 1.5 billion Muslims take a united stand, "we will be nowhere."

No other people had suffered as much as the people of Afghanistan, he said, adding that for the first time in 40 years, there was "no conflict" in the war-torn country. "The only danger now is through the sanctions [imposed on Afghanistan] and non-recognition", which could cause a humanitarian crisis, he cautioned.

Talking about the ongoing war in Ukraine, Khan suggested that the OIC foreign ministers should discuss how the body could "mediate; try to bring about a ceasefire and an end to the conflict".

If the war continued, it would have "great consequences for the world", he cautioned. "All countries that are non-partisan are in a special position to be able to influence this conflict."

He again repeated his suggestion that the foreign ministers discuss the issue, adding that he would also talk about it with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi about how the OIC, along with China, "can influence the events in Ukraine and stop this and have some ceasefire and resolve this conflict".

Meeting agenda

During the two-day conference, more than 100 resolutions will be overviewed. The agenda of the meeting covers a review of the developments affecting the Muslim world since the last CFM held in Niamey in 2020 and efforts undertaken by the secretariat for the implementation of resolutions adopted in previous sessions, especially on Palestine and Al Quds.

The participants would also deliberate on the situation in Afghanistan and India-held Jammu and Kashmir.

Issues pertaining to Africa and Muslims in Europe and developments in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Syria, will also be taken up at the meeting.

The agenda, moreover, includes Islamophobia and issues related to international terrorism and cooperation in economic, cultural, social, humanitarian, and scientific domains.

On March 23, foreign ministers will visit the venue of the Pakistan Day parade. Later in the day, FM Qureshi along with OIC Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha will hold a joint press stakeout following the conclusion of the session.

Heads begin to roll in Russia, claims western media

According to European media reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the house arrest of two senior Federal Security Service (FSB) officers. Colonel-General Sergei Beseda, Chief of the FSB’s “Fifth Service,” reportedly was detained along with his deputy, Anatoly Bolyuk, charged with providing flawed intelligence about Ukraine and their improper use of operational funds.

Separately, Oleksiy Danilov, Ukraine’s National Security Council Chief, claimed that several Russian generals have been fired. The implications portend more suffering yet to come, but likewise opportunities to increase pressure on the Russian leader from within.

Perhaps emulating Joseph Stalin, this could be the onset of a purge and Putin’s desperate ploy to provide his domestic audience with a fall guy for self-inflicted wounds. His call to rid Russia of ‘scum and traitors’ as ‘a necessary self-purification of society’ might be Putin’s theatrical unveiling of not merely a further crackdown against the Russian people, but also his version of a ‘cultural revolution’ to bring further to heel those around him on whom he has counted to take and maintain power. If I were one of the oligarchs or siloviki, those from Russia’s intelligence services who profiteered on Putin’s kleptocracy, I’d be more than just a little worried.

Putin’s rhetoric is victimization, villains and heroes. He casts himself as the people’s champion. Putin chose the FSB, a machine organized and conditioned to execute his autocratic vision and tell him what he wants to hear — whether or not it conforms to reality.

Putin has relied on the FSB as his principal source of power and protection, not merely at home, but also across the former Soviet states over which he is determined to restore Russia’s dominion. His reorganization of the FSB from the KGB’s ashes should have told us precisely the direction he planned to take.

Putin’s outlook was made clear to me during my first meeting as the CIA’s chief of station in a former Soviet state with the local FSB chief, the “Rezident,” a general known for crushing the anti-Russian rebellion in Chechnya. He looked the part of a film noir Cold War villain, comically uncomfortable in the posh local restaurant. FSB protocol required that he bring another officer; Moscow prohibited its officers from meeting alone with the CIA.

Our contact was an education for me, a Russian-speaking CIA operations officer who had worked the target beyond Russia’s borders. The FSB chief wanted to let me know whose turf this was and how the game was played in his house. While we toasted collaboration to fight the evils of terrorism, he depicted the local officials as “members of his team” and the territory as an extension of “greater Russia.”

Although the CIA’s natural official counterpart is Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, it was the Kremlin’s internal security agency, the FSB that ran the show across the former Soviet states. Putin, while FSB director in the 1990s, structured it as such, providing what had been the KGB’s former counterintelligence directorate with a disproportionately larger share of its parent organization’s power and influence. The KGB’s Foreign Intelligence directorate would become the less muscular SVR.

The Fifth Service, or Operational Information Department, was established as a new FSB branch to collect intelligence on the former Soviet states and conduct “active measures” to assure they continued to gravitate around Moscow’s orbit. That meant everything from propping up pro-Kremlin regimes to neutralizing threats from those aiming to move their countries closer to the West.

From 1999 to 2009, the Fifth Service grew and took charge of Russia’s brutal war in Chechnya, where the FSB, not the army, called the shots. It was the Moscow apartment building bombings in September 1999, which killed 300 and wounded over 1,000 that then-Prime Minister Putin used to justify that war, claiming the attacks were undertaken by Chechen militants. The bombings, as it turned out, allegedly were the FSB’s handiwork under Putin’s direction.

Putin does not trust the army, a sentiment likely validated by its poor performance and his natural KGB-era disposition. The KGB spied on Russia’s armed forces, to purge them of reactionary elements, often the country’s best and most faithful officers. Putin’s FSB is modeled after Stalin’s chekists, the secret police, his most trusted means to reconstitute a Soviet-era structure that keeps the public’s civil liberties and those possessing any power within his tent well in check.

My FSB counterpart preached the need to target families who offered leverage against hooligans, as he referred to Russia’s enemies. Better to preempt them early, he said, ridiculing America’s surgical approach. He argued that such enemies were cockroaches whose nests had to be destroyed. The pests turned out to be his own people. The general was ethnically Chechen.

Whatever value Putin might believe exists in casting aside his most important supporters has no upside for him — but possibly does for us. Colonel-General Beseda, the reportedly detained Fifth Service chief, had been in his job for years and was the driver behind Putin’s strategy. He literally knows where the bodies are buried. That Beseda’s reporting and counsel likely was spun to align with Putin’s own warped view of the world and misguided expectations for the invasion of Ukraine is a product of the Russian leader’s own making. In such a system, who’s going to tell Putin anything different? But having done Putin’s dirty work and placated his demand for absolute obedience, only to be thrown to the wolves, Beseda’s removal will reverberate throughout the Kremlin, even if Putin leaves in place his FSB boss, Gen. Alexander Bortnikov.

Unlike Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and SVR Director Sergey Narayshkin, Bortnikov might enjoy greater protection as a career officer, rather than a professional politician. Bortnikov’s elimination could pose too great a risk, given his network and command over the safety net on whose survival Putin depends.

Putin’s desperation does not bode well for whatever guard rails we would hope to constrain him. A purge undermines Putin’s image of infallibility and strength and could precipitate threats from those who see his desperation as an exploitable vulnerability, or an incentive to act before they’re next. As he chances antagonizing the hammer and shield with which he maintains power — the FSB — and mistrusting the army’s ability to win his war abroad, the dynamic could draw him inward, forcing reconsideration of his Ukrainian campaign.

Facilitating this dynamic with continued external pressure, and perhaps internal meddling, is not without risk, but it may be the best means with which to force Putin to pay a dear price for his actions. A purge of scapegoats among those he has enriched, coming as Russia’s economy collapses, could boomerang and create a byzantine backdrop of palace-plotting that compels him to compromise or causes his fall. But insular and paranoid as Putin’s decisions seem to suggest he has become, a darker alternative is his choosing to go down with the ship — and possibly taking us with him.