Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine War Updates, new Russia sanctions and Netanyahu's plan for indefinite occupation.
Ukraine War Updates.
1. Avdiivka setback and Ukrainian gains elsewhere.
There are credible reports that the withdrawal from Avdiivka was disorderly and a lot of Ukrainian servicemen (several hundred) were captured as POWs by the advancing Russian forces.
Russian forces are advancing west of Bakhmut too (and there are reports of Russians executing captured Ukrainian POWs).
Ukraine is suffering some significant setbacks on the ground.
Against this however, there have been some successes too.
Ukrainian special operation forces (SOF) have targeted Russia’s largest metallurgical plants in a successful drone strike - these plants account for 18% of steel production in Russia and are thus highly valuable strategic targets.
In addition, Russia lost a very important aircraft last week: the A-50, a long-range radar detection aircraft, was shot down.
It is unclear whether Ukraine was responsible for the downing of this aircraft (distance, and few other clues suggest an erroneous friendly fire), regardless however, this is a significant loss for Russia: their AWACS-alternative aircraft is very important for combined-arms warfare, and there are not many in stock.
Russia reportedly had only six operational A-50s left prior to this most recent crash, and they clearly cannot afford to utilize all of them for this one war.
2. Europe continues to rebut false narratives around Ukraine aid.
Congress is yet to pass the $60bn Ukraine aid bill, but after announcing a $54bn new fund for Ukraine (and having overtaken the US in total commitments to Ukraine) the EU continues to fill in the leadership vacuum on Ukraine.
On her visit to Ukraine (on the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion), EU’s Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen reiterated the promise to back Ukraine for ‘‘as long as it takes”.
She was accompanied by other heads of state that were present to announce their own new strategic partnerships/defense agreements with Ukraine.
Most notably, Italy joined France, UK and Germany to become another major European and NATO state to sign a bilateral security agreement with Ukraine.
(side note: Italy’s Georgia Meloni is also a welcome reminder to American MAGA Republicans that you can be both anti-woke and pro-Ukraine/anti-Russian invasion. There is no contradiction here… In fact, it is a travesty of epic proportions (and really bad luck for Kyiv) that Ukraine somehow got entangled with the pro-left forces in America.. and this is actually very strange since pro-peace at all costs, the unbearable dovishness/softness of most lefties stands in contradiction to calls for assertive foreign policy and full military support for Ukraine. But that is 2024 for you…)
In general, it is very welcome that individual European countries are finally demonstrating seriousness of intent that was unfortunately largely absent in the first year of the war.
Last week, Denmark announced that it was going to donate all of its artillery systems and ammo to Ukraine.
What at first may seem rather reckless, is actually, very prudent.
Why would Denmark need artillery of its own?
It doesn’t have a land border with Russia (unlike, say Finland), and so a conventional war with Russia is extremely unlikely to ever take place.
Either there is a large NATO vs Russia war (and Denmark has plenty of buffer space) or at most, there could be some Naval/Air skirmishes.
So donating its artillery to a country that is trying to stop Russia much further in the east is very prudent.
Not having 155mm shells for its own defenses will not really hamper Denmark’s own defenses in any significant/material way.
(side note: just as donating these to Ukraine won’t matter much when it comes to US capacity to deter China in the Pacific. It is highly unlikely that a potential conflict with China would ever involve trench warfare and fighting over small towns... where exactly would that take place? Taiwan is a small island and either China is blocked from successfully crossing the strait or isn’t. Artillery shells ain’t stopping the PLA once it is on the island. And any other engagements are likely to take place in the air or in Naval skirmishes - over long distances too.)
In addition, (and following in the footsteps of France, Germany, and UK) the Netherlands had just announced a 10-year security deal with Ukraine encompassing military support, reconstruction aid, and enhancement of cyber defenses.
In announcing this new agreement, the Dutch Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins made the following harrowing remarks: “Without western support, Ukraine as we know it will cease to exist.”
Unfortunately, in this grim assessment he is largely correct.
3. New US Sanctions on Russia.
For Navalny’s death.
The US imposed sanctions on three Russian officials in response to the recent death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Among the sanctioned individuals is Valery Boyarinev, the deputy director of Russia’s federal penitentiary service, responsible for overseeing Polar Wolf, the penal colony where Navalny died.
Boyarinev was reportedly promoted to "colonel general" by Vladimir Putin following Navalny's death, according to statements from the State Department.
The other two sanctioned individuals are officials involved in administering the penal colony.
Broader sanctions against Russia.
These sanctions are part of Joe Biden's wider sanctions against Russia, announced on Friday to mark the second anniversary of Russia's war on Ukraine.
Below are some highlights (of the total 500 new sanctions) from each crucial sector that is targeted by the new US sanctions.
Russia's Financial Infrastructure:
More than a dozen Russian banks, investment firms, venture capital funds, and fintech companies were targeted.
SPB bank, owned by SPB exchange, and Russia’s second-largest stock exchange, are among the entities affected.
Sanctions are also imposed on the state-owned National Payment Card System, operator of the Mir payment system, deemed critical due to US rivals' suspension of operations in Russia.
Russia's Nuclear Sector:
Alexandrov Research Institute of Technology, a subsidiary of Rosatom, targeted for involvement in designing, testing, and supporting nuclear power and naval propulsion reactors.
Russia's Military Industrial Base:
Nearly 60 entities and individuals involved in manufacturing weapons, ammunition, and associated material sanctioned.
Trade Restrictions:
In total, 93 entities from Russia, China, Turkey, the UAE, Kyrgyzstan, India, and South Korea face new trade restrictions for supporting Russia’s war effort in Ukraine.
These entities were placed on the commerce department’s "Entity List," essentially banning US shipments to them.
Russia's Metals and Mining:
Gold producer Uzhuralzoloto, Pipe Metallurgical Company, Samara Metallurgical Plant, and major steelmaker Mechel targeted.
(side note: Mechel subsidiary's steel is used in Russia’s KA-52 attack helicopter.)
Russia's Energy Production:
Further sanctions were also imposed on the Arctic LNG 2 project in Siberia, targeting companies with ties to the project's development, operation, and ownership.
Sanctions Evasions:
Entities based in China, Turkey, the UAE, and Kazakhstan were sanctioned for evading western sanctions on Russia and backfilling.
Russia-Iran Military Cooperation:
Sanctions were also imposed on Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) under a Russia authority for the first time, previously under US sanctions.
Netanyahu’s proposed peace plan is anything but.
A plan announced by the Israeli Prime Minister, would entail an indefinite military occupation of Palestinian lands.
Netanyahu proposes Israel to maintain security control over the entire area west of Jordan, encompassing land, sea, and air.
Naturally, this would preclude any possibility of Palestinians forming their own state - to be sovereign, a state must maintain monopoly of force over its territories.
This doesn’t mean that Palestinians need to have a formal military force - in fact, the most likely outcome is that even if/when Palestine does become a state, they are de facto demilitarized.
They can take the path of Costa-Rica or Monaco (for which they will surely, and rightly demand security guarantees from the neighboring states).
But when it comes to the law-enforcement within its own territories, the ultimate power and responsibility must rest with the newly formed Palestinian state.
(side note: in practice, it would be prudent for this new state to form security cooperation agreements with richer Saudi Arabia or Gulf states to help in training and working with their own law-enforcement agencies.)
When it comes to long-term strategic interests too, this would harm - not benefit Israel itself.
An indefinite military occupation will only prolong the Palestinians’ misery and sense of helplessness, and would therefore essentially guarantee a consistent pipeline of future terrorists eager to take on Israel.
But, should it come as a surprise that Netanyahu’s proposal would serve to prolong the current status quo?
After all, after years of duplicity and pretense, he did openly reveal his opposition to Palestinian statehood.
And why did he do this?
Why did Netanyahu drop his mask after so many years?
Because: 1) there is a huge international momentum to solve this problem once and for all, and 2) all statesmen of the key powers like the US, UK and other EU states understand that the path to a durable regional peace must involve a formal statehood for Palestine, and 3) stalling for time and delaying with clever tricks will no longer work.
As such, and precisely because duplicity and pretense had outlived their utility, Netanyahu instead chose to take on the outside powers directly, and gain at least something from this strategic challenge: an opportunity to present himself to the domestic audience as the most capable person to resist the outside pressure.
In other words, if stalling and tricks won’t work, then better oppose outside powers openly, and galvanize rally ‘round the flag effect among (now majority) Israelis opposed to Palestinian statehood.
But there is one area where Netanyahu is correct: his plan envisages no future role for the current Palestinian Authority (PA).
We have looked at this issue on a number of previous cables: PA is rotten to the core.
It is corrupt and ineffectual: it cannot even maintain and administer basic security in the West Bank - leading to the creation of new paramilitaries (like Lion’s Den) that aim to fill the gap.
If PA is totally illegitimate and useless even in the West Bank, how could it possibly hope to play any meaningful and productive role in the day after Gaza?
This is the one area where Blinken is wrong to insist on a continuous role for the PA.
The “but this is best that we have/there are no better alternatives” argument is also wrong.
Realistically, post-conflict Gaza should be administered and governed under a UN supervision and a coalition of states - before new UN-observed elections are held, and governance is gradually handed over to a new generation of Palestinian leaders.
We have outlined this before, but for new readers, let us briefly revisit the key ingredients and preconditions for a sustainable two-state solution:
1) Prolonged ceasefire: remaining Hamas leaders are either eliminated or allowed to self-exile into a third country.
Ordinary Hamas operatives are allowed to surrender - international coalition forces oversee governance and law & order missions.
(side note: Israel is trying to kill more of the Hamas leaders in the latest stage of the fighting - but it looks more unlikely than ever that this will happen anytime soon. A more realistic possibility is a self-exile (there is a historic precedent for this with Yasser Arafat). Israel can then pursue retribution ultimate masterminds much later - once a final peace deal is done and there is a new political order in Palestine. In the meantime, Hamas counteroffers for a ceasefire, with demands for the release of hundreds of hardened operatives serving long sentences is a pure fantasy and it is only natural that Israel rejected this outright. Hamas must be warned that either they surrender and self-exile in the shortest period of time, or Israel will simply continue its lower intensity operations and will sooner or later reach them all. There is a little chance of a third option: Washington is not going to pressure Israel to stop fighting as long there is no realistic pathway to Hamas’s ultimate surrender. This much must be made clear to Hamas leaders via their Qatari interlocutors.)
2) A new and competent political power in Gaza and West Bank is formed.
Elections are held after basic reconstruction takes place and the humanitarian crisis is over.
In the meantime, territories would need to be governed and supervised under a UN mandate - with a significant presence from the US and other allied nations - as well as from the gulf Arab states.
3) a US-led NATO coalition (similar to forces in Kosovo) administers internal order and security - together with police forces from the UAE/Saudi and Qatar.
The latter three assist with training of new civil servants and invest into reconstruction.
4) A new United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) is formed and guards borders between West Bank/Gaza and Israel - similar to what happened pre-1967 war between Israel and Egypt.
5) Israel recognizes Palestine and Saudis recognize Israel: this last part may be delayed until Netanyahu is removed. But if all previous elements are in place, it will only be a matter of time before Israeli leaders see that a new status quo is in their interests as well. And in the meantime, the rest of the world can still recognize Palestine and treat it as a state.
None of this is easy, but it is achievable.
Crucially, there is enough global momentum, and a local interest (from strategically invested Arab states) to make it work.
Washington’s welcome pushback against Netanyahu.
We have previously discussed how much effective leverage Biden can allow himself to exercise over Netanyahu - there is plenty.
And it is good to see some tough love finally delivered by America’s chief diplomat.
To his credit, Blinken was quick to rebuff Netanyahu’s unworkable fantasy ‘‘peace’’ plan.
In a meeting with G20 ministers, Blinken maintained that there should be no Israeli reoccupation of Gaza, and that the size of the Gaza territory should not be reduced.
Importantly, he furthermore reiterated America’s ‘‘firm opposition’’ to Israeli settlement expansions in the West Bank.
Blinken reminded that this was ‘‘inconsistent with international law’’ and that this would only “weaken” and not strengthen Israel’s own security.
And this repeated firm stance against illegal settlements (with accompanying sanctions on settlers) is a very welcome reversal of the previous administration’s strategic mistake.
Blinken’s predecessor, previous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did a lot of right things in the Middle East: from Abraham Accords to campaign of ‘‘maximum pressure’’ on Iran.
But his State Department’s 2019 announcement that Washington no longer viewed settlements as being in breach of international law was a highly damaging mistake: this only empowered maximalist fanatics in Israel, and in convincing extremists that an indefinite occupation was a viable policy option, it essentially precluded the possibility of a genuine long-lasting peace.
It is good to see that mistake reversed: Blinken and the rest of the administration must now remain firm in their present stance.
Ultimately, either Netanyahu will be reasonable and play ball or events will start to unfold without his formal approval.
Washington must therefore remember that it finally enjoys momentum and leverage to make things work and push through the decades long diplomatic stalemate.