Ukraine and Belarus potential sources for a United States-Russia confrontation

Geopolitical Futures claims that one of its top priorities is to know what is coming and ensure its subscribers are informed on important issues before they hit the mainstream. 

Till lately, major news outlets were reporting that Russia was amassing troops at its border with Ukraine; an important buffer country, in an effort to reclaim former Soviet Union territory.

 Lately, Geopolitical Futures has shared an excerpt of that original forecast with the readers. The highlights are:

Ukraine and Belarus are the two places with the potential for a US-Russia confrontation. Ukraine is at risk of falling apart. Russian influence in Belarus will threaten Poland.

Ukraine is caught in the crossfire of the United States, the European Union and Russia. Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream are expected to be completed in 2019. These pipelines, which connect Russia’s supply of natural gas to the European Union and Turkey, circumvent traditional and lucrative natural gas transit routes through Ukraine, giving Moscow further leverage over the government in Kiev.

The conflict in eastern Ukraine is frozen but still volatile, and it is unclear whether Ukraine can govern what is left of its territory. Russia is better prepared for intervention there than the West is, but Moscow is betting that Ukraine’s internal dysfunctions will eventually bring much of the country, if not the government itself, back into its orbit.

At the same time, Ukraine is preparing for a presidential election, scheduled for March. Polls show no clear frontrunner, there’s a real chance the political conflict that follows will entangle outside powers, just as it did after the 2014 elections.

Belarus is also concerning. For years, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has juggled relations with the West and Russia, leaning further east or west as necessity dictates. Right now, he is engaging more with the West, much to the chagrin of Russia, which is concerned about increased US military presence in Poland and Romania. Lukashenko has intimated that if a permanent US military base is installed in Poland, Minsk and Moscow may have to respond together. He has insisted that Russian troops will not be stationed in Belarus.

In Belarus, as in Ukraine, Geopolitical Futures does not expect the situation to come apart at the seams – but the competitive forces on both sides are creating tremendous pressure, which, in the shorter term, makes precise developments unpredictable.

Growing port congestion in China and United States

The health of the global supply chains in the next few weeks may partly hinge on the vitality of the trucking sector in a key port near Shanghai. A suspension of trucking services in several parts of China’s Zhejiang province has slowed the transportation of manufactured goods and commodities through one of the world’s most important ports.

There are strict controls on lorries moving goods to or from the Beilun district in Ningbo after the discovery of several cases of Covid-19 in the area, shipping line Maersk said in a recent customer advisory.

This suspension, along with restrictions on truckers in some areas in and around Zhejiang, has halted operations at some yards and warehouses at Ningbo port.

Ports around the world have been struggling to ease congestion as the pandemic heads into a third year. Ningbo is one of the world’s top container gateways and a crucial part of supply chains that connect factories in East China to consumers of automobiles, machines, electronics and toys in the United States, Europe and elsewhere. 

A week’s delay of trade at Ningbo’s port could cost US$4 billion including exports of circuit boards and clothes, according to consultant Russell Group. Some polyester factories in Ningbo have stopped work because they can’t receive raw materials via truck or ship out goods, according to analysts at Wood Mackenzie. Road deliveries of liquefied natural gas, an important fuel for industries unconnected to pipelines has also slowed.

The port was partly shut for weeks last August after a Covid-19 outbreak, causing a slowdown in exports, disruptions and congestion across supply lines.

United States

The Port of New York and New Jersey has largely handled the pandemic-driven jump in imported goods without significant shipping bottlenecks forming. But recently a queue of container vessels waiting to offload has started to form off the coast of Long Island. 

The culprit, the Omicron variant, is keeping hundreds of longshoremen out of work each day because of either illness or the need to quarantine after coming in close contact with an infected person. “We have seen a spike in the number of labour going out into quarantine,” Port of New York and New Jersey Authority Director Sam Ruda, told Bloomberg in an interview.

According to the port authority’s website average waiting time for containerships at the port had increased to 4.75 days in the last week of 2021 as compared 1.6 days as an average for the year. The number of longshoremen unavailable for work was reported to be running at about 350 per day. As of January 07, 2022 the port authority said 11 containerships were currently at anchor waiting to call its terminals. Two of the vessels had been waiting since January 01, 2022.

The port has a seen a significant growth in volumes over the pre-pandemic year of 2019 with in handling 8.12 million teu by the end of November 2021, as compared to 7.47 million teu for the whole of 2019. As compared to US west coast gateway ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the east coast port was largely unaffected by delays and congestion last year. In addition to Covid related worker quarantines last week the port also saw disruption to operations from heavy snow storms.

 

Bangladesh pays huge amount to the US lobby firms

According to a report, Bangladesh’s Awami League government has paid a total of over US$2.3 million to a US firm to lobby the United States government and elected representatives in the last eight years.

The reports show that every year since 2015, the Bangladesh government paid the lobbying firm BGR Government Affairs — previously known as Barbour Griffith & Rogers — about US$320,000. However, in 2021, the government hired two more lobbying firms on short term contracts for a total of US$75,000 — increasing the total lobbying spend to US$395,000.

Earlier, following the US government’s imposition of financial sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion and on those army and police officers who have led it in recent years, Awami League parliamentarians have called on the government to hire a lobbying firm in the United States — apparently unaware that the Bangladesh government already hired three such firms last year.

This lobbying information is known as US law requires organizations or individuals, which lobby the US government on behalf of foreign entities, to provide financial and other disclosures on a quarterly basis.

The exact amount of money the Bangladesh government has paid is not known, since under the law the lobbying firm is only required to approximate the amount that it has spent on lobbying on behalf of a foreign client to the nearest US$10,000.

BGR’s lobbying started on July 01, 2014 — six months after the national election that was boycotted by opposition parties. In that year the government spent only US$160,000.

During the eight year period, filed reports show that BGR Government Affairs lobbied the Senate, the House of Representatives, the US Trade Representative and the National Security Council on behalf of the Bangladesh government. BGR’s website says that it is a bipartisan firm that “specializes in providing strategic advice, advocacy, and communications strategies for a wide range of clients, including governments…”

Little is known on exactly the issues on which the firm has lobbied, with the firm only stating that it concerned “Bilateral US-Bangladesh relations.” However, disclosures show that part of their role was to respond to articles critical of the government as well as to distribute press releases and messages promoting positive news about Bangladesh.

The reports show that three particular staff members of the lobbying firm have lobbied on behalf of the Bangladesh government: Walker Roberts and Maya Seiden, both co-head of the firm’s International Practice division, and Mark Tavlarides, a member of the team.

The reports say that, on behalf of the Bangladesh government, Roberts has met the Deputy Chief of Staff of the House International Relations Committee and the Special Assistant to the President.

Seiden is said to have lobbied the Special Assistant to the Cabinet Secretary at the White House; the Advisor to the Chief of Staff at the Energy Department; the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Energy; the Senior Advisor at the office of the Deputy Secretary of State; and, the Chief of Staff of the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The most recent disclosure by the lobbying firm was on October 20, 2021. However, the disclosed documents show that the business relationship between the Bangladesh government and BGR will continue until at least March 2022. 

A new contract was signed on August 09, 2021 by Shahidul Islam, the Bangladeshi Ambassador to the United States, committing the government to continue paying the lobby firm £25,000 a month. “BGR will provide strategic public relations and government affairs counsel for the Government of Bangladesh,” the contract reads.

Netra news reported that in 2021 Bangladesh Government hired two other lobbying firms on short term contracts.

One was the Friedlander Consulting Group who was hired between September 05 2021 and October 05 2021 to “arrange meetings and exchanges between the top leaders of United States and Bangladesh”. The company was paid US$40,000.

Another was Conewago Consulting LLC who was hired for one month from July 26, 2021 by the Bangladesh government. The submitted documents state that the “foreign principal” was the government of Bangladesh but that it was agreed through the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI). The contract, involving a payment of $35,000, was signed by Salman Rahman, Chairman of BEI, who is also a member of parliament and the Prime Minister’s private sector adviser.

Salman Rahman told Netra News that “BEI requested Conewago Consulting to promote enhancement of trade and investment between the United States and Bangladesh to members of Congress.”

Revival of Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul goods train

Resuming operations after 10 years, the first Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul (ITI) train carrying goods from Pakistan to Turkey via Iran arrived in into Ankara on Wednesday, January 05, 2022.

The ITI cargo train started its journey from Islamabad on December 21, 2021, and arrived in Ankara in around 13 days. Turkey’s Transport and Infrastructure Minister Adil Karaismailoğlu, Pakistani parliamentarian Makhdoom Zain Hussain Qureshi and Iranian Ambassador to Turkey Mohammad Farazmand attended a ceremony held to mark the arrival of the train.

Departing from the Margalla station in Islamabad, the train embarked on its 5,981-kilometer (3,666-mile) route, arriving in 12 days and 21 hours. The cargo train aims at boosting trade between Pakistan, Iran and Turkey. The train comprised of eight loaded wagons, 20 feet (6 meters) in length, each with a capacity of 22 tons.

Karaismailoğlu in his speech said the new railway will offer another option to industrialists and business people on the Pakistan-Iran-Turkey route.

“It will save time and cost as compared to sea transportation between Pakistan and Turkey, which takes 35 days, and will lead to the development of trade between the two countries,” he said.  

“Thus, with the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul train, a new railway corridor will be provided to our exporters in the south of Asia – which has the highest population density globally – reaching Pakistan, neighboring India, China, Afghanistan and Iran. In this way, our country will be one step closer to its goals of becoming a bridge and logistics base between Asia and Europe,” Karaismailoğlu added.

Speaking at the ceremony, Qureshi highlighted that the ITI train would play an important role in enhancing regional connectivity and promoting economic and commercial activities in the ECO (Economic Cooperation Organization) region. Iran, Pakistan and Turkey established the Regional Cooperation for Development organization in 1964, renaming it the ECO in 1985.

Qureshi added that the train would offer Pakistan an opportunity to further increase its exports and strengthen its connectivity with international markets, including in Europe.

“The current government in Pakistan believes in regional connectivity and we feel that to play a role at the national stage we need to be economically reliable. In order to do that, we need to not only have peace in our region but also increase the trade within our neighborhood and this ITI project will become a friendship project.

“We get access to the European markets and Turkey gets access to the central Asian states so it is a mutually beneficial arrangement and I hope it will be sustainable and we can grow from it further,” Qureshi told Anadolu Agency (AA) in an interview.

Ambassador Farazmand in his speech explained that the ITI railway project was first launched in 2009 under the ECO but remained suspended due to technical issues, restarting a decade later.

He emphasized that the three countries also plan to launch a passenger train along the same route in the near future.

The first train from Islamabad to Istanbul was inaugurated on August 14, 2009. Since then, eight trains have been dispatched from Pakistan to Turkey and Turkey dispatched six trains to Pakistan, but the train service was discontinued due to floods in the South Asian nation in 2009.

Chinese sale of fighter jet to Pakistan attracts other markets with ambitious plans but thin wallets

In December 2021, Pakistan Air Force (PAF) announced that it would soon acquire 25 Chinese-made J-10C combat aircraft. This purchase was a long time coming. Speculation that the PAF would acquire the J-10 goes back at least a decade.

Earlier plans to buy up several dozen J-10s were scuttled by a lack of funding, but India’s decision to purchase 36 highly advanced, French-made Rafale fighter jets apparently pushed Pakistan to move forward with their own buy of modern fighters.

Beijing has not had much luck lately exporting its fighter jets. It has tried to flog some of its less capable combat aircraft on the global market but with little success.

During the 1990s and 2000s, China offered export versions of two domestically-built fighter jets, the JH-7 (designated the FBC-1 Flying Leopard) and the F-8IIM (a heavily upgraded MiG-21, a plane that first flew in the 1950s). Neither of these planes secured an overseas sale.

Until now, China’s best result has been a handful of sales of its JF-17 to Burma (Myanmar) and Nigeria. The JF-17 is a rather basic lightweight fighter jet built explicitly for export. Pakistan has been its biggest buyer, with intentions of acquiring up to 200 planes. At the same time, these JF-17s will be manufactured in Pakistan and equipped with Western radar and Russian engines. There is very little Chinese about this aircraft.

Not surprisingly, the Chinese have pinned a lot of hope on the J-10 when it comes to overseas sales. The J-10 was China’s first “fourth-generation-plus” combat aircraft. It is an agile, single-engine fighter jet roughly in the same class as the US F-16C. It features fly-by-wire flight controls and a “glass cockpit,” meaning that it utilizes several multi-function flat-panel displays, as opposed to traditional analog instruments.

The J-10 has had its share of teething problems. Although its development was initiated in the mid-1980s, it didn’t fly until 1998, and it was nearly 20 years before it entered operational service with China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). Even now, it is equipped with a Russian turbofan engine—underscoring China’s ongoing difficulties with developing a usable jet engine.

The latest variant, the J-10C—the version being exported to Pakistan—is considered to be a relatively advanced fighter. The J-10C features highly advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and is capable of firing long-range missiles, meaning that it could engage enemy aircraft as far away as 124 miles.

One report claims that the J-10C is comparable to the most advanced versions of the F-16 (the so-called “Block 60/70” version).

China, despite being consistently among the top 10 arms exporting nations, is still essentially a niche supplier of weapons systems. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Chinese arms exports in 2020 consisted mainly of tactical missile systems (such as anti-tank weapons or anti-ship cruise missiles) and armed drones. After that come artillery systems, mortars, and lightly armored vehicles.

Sales of big-ticket items, such as warships, submarines, main battle tanks, and fighter jets, were few and far between—the major exceptions being the sale of Yuan-class submarines to Pakistan and Thailand, and offshore patrol vessels to Malaysia.

In fact, in 2020 China slipped to number eight on SIPRI’s list of leading arms exporters, behind France, German, and even Spain. Its arms sales for the period 2016–2020 were less than one-sixth those of the United States, the world’s leading arms exporter.

Armed drones, in fact, are China’s main exception to the rule of exporting rather prosaic weapons systems. As noted in an earlier article, Beijing has had great success selling armed drones.

According to SIPRI, China has exported armed drones to at least 16 countries on three continents, including Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These deals have earned Beijing more than US$700 million in export sales.

China has quickly become the developing world’s go-to source for armed drones, and Chinese drones are being used regularly in combat. While perhaps not as advanced as their competitors, Chinese drones are filling a critical—and lucrative—market niche.

Countries may not be lining up to buy most Chinese weapons, but armed drones are a segment where Beijing has several advantages over its competitors: a “good-enough” product—at a relatively low price—to just about anyone who has the cash, and with few or no questions asked.

Will Beijing be able to duplicate its success with exporting the J-10 that is has had with armed drones? It is probably too soon to say. Certainly, China faces a lot of competition in the global fighter business and, therefore, prospects for overseas sales of the J-10 remain dim.

Nevertheless, a successful sale of the J-10 to Pakistan raises the prospects that China could flood the global arms market with a relatively cheap and yet quite capable fighter jet. In particular, the J-10 could appeal to African, Asian, and Latin American air forces with ambitious plans and thin wallets.

Can United States shut down Russian gas pipeline?

Democrats are headed for a showdown with Senator Ted Cruz over his bid to force the Biden administration’s hand over a Russian gas pipeline. 

As part of a deal reached by Cruz and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, the Senate will vote next week on legislation from the conservative firebrand to put sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will carry gas from Moscow to Germany. 

Cruz needs help from 10 Democrats to get the bill through the Senate, and said he thinks his prospects for hitting that threshold are good. But Democrats are raising red flags over the bill, even though they’ve previously supported similar sanctions. 

”I’ve been talking to a number of my colleagues, and they have raised some serious questions about the Cruz amendment. … It’s a little much,” said Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, asked if 10 Democrats would support the bill. 

Cruz’s legislation requires the administration to impose sanctions related to the pipeline within 15 days of the bill becoming law, but a big sticking point for Democrats, raised by senators are restrictions on President Biden’s ability to waive the sanctions, including the ability for Congress to vote to reinstate the penalties if they are waived. 

“I’ve been opposed to Nord Stream 2. I am still opposed to Nord Stream 2. There are some things though in the Cruz amendments are unprecedented. That gives me a pause,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. 

Senator Tim Kaine noted that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he serves on with Cruz, had been pretty uniformly against Nord Stream 2 and in support of sanctions but the question is what are the conditions, does the executive get the ability to waive sanctions?

The vote could be politically awkward for Democrats, forcing them to pick between supporting a president they align with politically or cracking down on a pipeline they oppose even if they disagree with Cruz’s tactics. Cruz has also opened the door to releasing part of his blockade on Biden’s nominees if his bill passes the Senate. 

The Biden administration previously waived sanctions on the pipeline’s project company Nord Stream 2 AG, a subsidiary of the Russian-owned company Gazprom. Voting for Cruz’s amendment would effectively be supporting nixing Biden’s decision. 

Democrats have faced pressure from the Biden administration and European allies to reject slapping financial penalties on the pipeline. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken previously lobbied Democrats to quash Cruz’s proposal last year when he offered it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, a sweeping defense policy bill. 

Blinken, during a speech this week, argued that the pipeline could be used as a check on Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine, where Moscow has amassed troops along the border.

“This pipeline does not have gas flowing through it at present and if Russia renews its aggression toward Ukraine, it would certainly be difficult to see gas flowing through it in the future,” Blinken said. 

Germany is unlikely to certify the pipeline for operation in the first half of the year, according to the head of the federal authority for gas and infrastructure, Reuters reported, citing regulation requirements not yet met.  

Ned Price, a spokesman for the State Department, added that the administration is working with members of Congress and European allies “on a package of sanctions … that maximizes the potential costs to Russia if Moscow does continue with aggression against Ukraine.” 

Underlining the complicated diplomatic dance the White House is undertaking, the vote will coincide with diplomatic summits next week with Russia and other partners to address and tamp down the tension on Ukraine’s border. Russia has amassed nearly 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border, prompting fears of an invasion.

Kaine, who said he is still reviewing Cruz’s legislation, acknowledged that the Biden administration was worried about transatlantic tensions at a precarious moment, but noted that both a new German government and heightened Russian aggression could “change the dynamic a little bit.” 

“I want to hear what the administration position is, but President Obama was a friend and I voted for things he didn’t like. We do our job, and then the president gets to do his job. … If he really doesn’t like what we do he can veto it,” he said. 

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline has sparked a wide, bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill over concerns that it only bolsters Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hand over Europe.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, for example, recently co-authored an op-ed with Senator Rob Portman urging the Biden administration to “seriously reconsider the imposition of [Nord Stream 2] sanctions.”

The House also previously voted to approve Nord Stream 2 sanctions as part of its defense policy bill. But the provisions were dropped from the final House-Senate agreement. 

If Democrats block his bill, Cruz is already signaling that he’ll weaponize a “no” vote as Democrats being soft on Russia. 

 “Virtually every Democrat has voted for sanctions on Nord Stream 2 multiple times. If this were a vote on the merits it would be unanimous or nearly unanimous. There are multiple Democrats who have told me they are going to vote for it, or they are strongly considering voting for it,” Cruz said. 

Cruz added that supporting his bill “should be an easy vote,” before offering a likely preview of how he’ll characterize a defeat of the legislation.

“Each Democrat is going to have to make a choice,” he said, “whether their partisan loyalty to the White House is greater than their willingness to stand up to Russia and stop Putin’s aggression.”

NATO rejects Russian demands to stop expansion

NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg on Friday said the military alliance will not stop its expansion across Europe, denying demands from Russia amid the ongoing security saga with Ukraine.  

“We will not compromise on core principles, including the right for every nation to decide its own path, including what kind of security arrangements it wants to be a part of,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, according to The Associated Press.   

Russian President Vladimir Putin last month laid out demands for the US and NATO as part of efforts to ease tensions over Ukraine, where Moscow has amassed tens of thousands of troops outside its border amid fears of an invasion.  

Included in the draft document are asks that the alliance stop all membership plans, including with Ukraine, and to roll back its military deployments near Russia’s borders. The Kremlin also wants guarantees from Washington that the US won't establish any military bases in former Soviet states that are not part of NATO, nor develop bilateral military cooperation with them.  

In exchange, Russia would limit military exercises — a promise the country made through previous international commitments — and stop low-level hostilities, including aircraft buzzing. 

With Stoltenberg’s recent comments, however, NATO and the US seem unlikely to take Russia up on its offers when the sides gather Wednesday in Brussels for the first NATO-Russia Council meeting since July 2019.  

NATO ambassadors are expected to discuss Putin’s security proposals with Russia’s envoy in person at the meeting. 

Stoltenberg said that NATO is willing to discuss arms control but will not allow Putin to restrict how the alliance protects member countries. 

He also said NATO is still worried over Russia’s military buildup, which along with its new demands “sends a message that there is a real risk for a new armed conflict in Europe.”  

Russia has a track record of violence in recent years, including annexing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and backing a separatist rebellion in the eastern part of the country, a conflict that has left more than 14,000 people dead.