EU Hybrid War On Russia Risks Discrediting Green Energy Transition

    The viability of the green energy transition is receiving some of the most significant scrutiny in some time because of the energy crisis in the European Union (EU).  The EU has inflicted the crisis on itself by engaging in a hybrid war on Russia that has undermined EU energy security policy.  For people that do not understand this dynamic, the energy crisis is contributing to the impression the green energy transition in the EU is progressing too fast.  The deployment of alternative energy technology is not happening too fast, but the EU's energy security policy is exposing the limitations of these technologies.

    The EU and their Western allies, most importantly The United States of America, pursued strategies of subjugation and then containment towards Russia following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  The victory of Russia and their separatist allies in the Georgian war of 2008, The debacle in Ukraine that is a consequence of the Western backed Euromaidan coup in 2014, and the Russian intervention in Syria in 2015 that defeated the Western proxy war, has motivated politicians in the West to adopt a strategy of regime change in Russia.

    Motivated by geopolitical considerations the EU attempted to lessen their dependency on Russian natural gas but were unable to find sufficient alternate supply.  The EU was undeterred by the reality Russia is the only country with readily available supplies, of the necessary volumes, to function as a reliable backup source to alternative energy technologies.  The EU could have acted prudently and secured sufficient backup energy supply to avoid the current energy crisis.  Most significantly, the EU decided to prematurely stop contracting new long-term natural gas supply contracts with Russia.  The EU also failed to implement sufficient energy storage technology to compensate for the variability of energy supplied from alternative energy technologies.  Low alternative energy supply is one of the factors contributing to the EU's current energy supply shortage.  It is claimed that it is only a lack of political will that rich countries are not already well underway in their transition to 100% reliance on alternative energy technologies.  There is a robust debate among industry experts, but it is unfortunately becoming clear that ready to deploy energy storage technologies are not sufficient to maintain even the EU's relatively modest level of alternative energy adoption.  In an effort to distract from the EU's incompetent green energy transition and energy security policies, EU politicians have accused Russia of using energy supply as a geopolitical weapon.  In reality, Russia has fully fulfilled existing natural gas supply contracts and the EU has not purchased any additional supply.  At the same time, the EU has criticized EU member states for pursuing bilateral natural gas supply contracts with Russia.  There seems to have been a hope that alternative energy technologies could make up an increasing share of the EU's energy supply without backup, or there was in reality no energy security policy at all.

    The EU energy crisis could undermine faith in the viability of the green energy transition in the minds of people that do not understand this self-inflicted crisis was avoidable.  The EU made geopolitical policy objectives more important than sound energy security policy.  To avoid the conclusion that the green energy transition is proceeding too fast, a public examination of the compatibility of all EU policies with the transition is needed.  Hopefully, an examination will increase public support for a broader green social transition, made up of many components of which the adoption of alternative energy technologies is just one.  The Public also needs to understand that geopolitical competition between countries undermines both the adoption of alternative energy technologies and implementation of a broader green social transition.

Is Russia Paying the Taliban to Kill American and NATO Soldiers?

In Afghanistan the Pashtuns are the single largest ethnic group. It is this group that makes up the majority of Taliban fighters and supporters. It should be clear that the foreign supported government in Kabul does very little governing and could not survive long on its own. To a greater or lesser extent, the Taliban have won the Afghan war.

Regardless of the outcome of the war being a negotiated political settlement or outright military victory, the Taliban are going to be a significant political force in any post conflict Afghanistan. With this inevitability in mind, the widespread reporting for close to a decade that every major regional country is supporting a Taliban faction makes perfect sense. This includes countries like China and Iran who are not supporters of Sunni fundamentalism generally speaking. It is also important to note that what is amorphously called the Taliban is closer to the myriad of rebel factions in Syria than a unified command and control structure.

Various countries support Taliban factions to make political inroads, so they can have influence and pursue their long-term regional interests relating to Afghanistan. This type of engagement works best by building trust and demonstrating each countries' value to the respective Taliban faction they support. It has been reported that Russia and other countries have provided night vision goggles in the past, an example of an item with high value. The goal is to attempt to create a long-term relationship that will endure the end of the conflict. 

The dynamic of many countries competing for lasting political influence in Afghanistan undermines the logic of the headline allegation against Russia. Vladimir Putin is regarded as being a skilled political and geopolitical strategist. It would be newsworthy indeed if Russia under his leadership has abandoned their decade long strategy of building influence in Afghanistan, and has instead adopted a pay per kill transactional relationship with Taliban factions. This allegation is based on the assertion of anonymous Western intelligence sources, with no evidence presented in 'reporting' on the matter. I will continue to give greater credibility to reasoned, fact based analysis than fact free allegations regardless of the source.

Executive Overreach: Use of Military Force Without Congressional Authorization

There are many arguments to be made against the continuation of the American Empire and Wars of Choice.  Making flimsy, legalistic arguments against political opponents, and ignoring clear crimes of a greater magnitude committed by those in the same party, is partisan hackery.  Holding all Presidents accountable in an unbiased fashion is the only way to stand up for the constitutionally mandated division of powers.

Barack Obama’s military intervention to overthrow the government of Libya in 2011, is the most clear, blatant and damaging example of executive overreach for a military intervention not authorized by U.S. Congress since 2001.  This intervention would be the focus of any sincere commitment to challenge executive overreach of unauthorized military intervention.  This clearly impeachable offence by Obama should be cause for an investigation seeking the prosecution of Obama and his administration.  There can only be a real deterrent to future violations with the prosecution of this offence.  Otherwise, it will become clear that such blatantly unconstitutional actions, for all to see, go unpunished.

Libya had nothing to do with September 11, 2001, and had no relationship with Al Qaeda.  Obama intervened not only without congressional authorization, but in defiance of a vote by the House of Representatives, defeating a motion authorizing further military intervention in Libya.  Consequently, Obama specifically violated the War Powers Resolution by continuing to intervene militarily in Libya.

There are some in politics and associated policy and commentary professions that choose to make US military action against The Islamic State the focus of their condemnation.  I will demonstrate that the only argument that has any validity, at best relies on a flimsy legalistic interpretation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The following is the most relevant part of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. 

The following sequence of events should make it clear that The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) should be considered an authorized target for use of military force, regardless of what some commentators and elected representatives contend.

Sequence of Events:

·   Al Qaeda leadership - determined by the President to have committed the attacks of September 11, 2001 - recognized Al Qaeda in Iraq as an affiliate.

·   Al Qaeda in Iraq underwent several mergers with ex Iraqi Ba'athists and other parts of the Iraqi resistance to US occupation, adopting the name The Islamic State of Iraq.

·   After nearly being totally defeated in Iraq, The Islamic State of Iraq was able to reconstitute itself by infiltrating the Syrian opposition in the Syrian Civil War.  They eventually emerge as The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS).

·   Following longstanding tensions between Al Qaeda leadership and their Iraqi affiliate, a full break occurred, severing the organisations.  Around this time period, the truncated name “The Islamic State” is adopted.  This rupture represented a challenge from The Islamic State to Al Qaeda for dominance and leadership of the global Jihadi movement.

·   There is speculation, that I am inclined to believe, that within the Iraqi affiliate the ex Iraqi Ba'athists became dominant and resented following orders from Al Qaeda leadership based primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An interpretation of the intention of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that exempts The Islamic State is flimsy and absurd, especially with regard to the purpose “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States”.  Following the logic of the proponents of this interpretation, the mere development of an internal Al Qaeda power struggle bringing a splinter faction to prominence, in its own right, must be interpreted as reason enough to exempt the newly independent organization from being an authorized target.  It is exactly the same conclusion members of the House Progressive Caucus reached to condemn Donald Trump for escalating the anti Islamic State Syrian intervention initiated by Obama.  It is clear that the argument of executive overreach is extremely weak in the matter of combating ISIS.

There are inconsistencies in positions regarding Obama's and Trump's actions combating ISIS.  There is also a severe lack of condemnation for Obama's 2011 Libyan intervention, which so far has been the far greater crime compared to Trump's so far limited attacks on Syrian government forces recently.  Trump's military engagements against the forces of the State of Syria, and their allies, constitutes his own genuine executive overreach.  Trump has not sought authorization from Congress for these actions, and has not indicated he is intending to, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution is an attempt to allow The President, in their capacity as Commander in Chief, to respond to imminent threats to the United States and maintain the constitutional requirement that vests the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force with the Congress.  It would seem most reasonable to grant the greatest leeway to the President to combat the credible and ongoing threat presented by Al Qaeda and ISIS.  There should be no leeway to allow the President to make unilateral war on a sovereign state that presents no credible threat to the United States, overriding the authority of the Congress in doing so.  Far too many people, judging by their emphasis on the matter, seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion.

There can, and should, be a separate debate if a military response to organisations like Al Qaeda and ISIS is necessary at all, and what is the effectiveness of the actions taken in diminishing the threat.  It is my conclusion that Obama's drone war policy was largely counterproductive.  What should not be tolerated are wars that only serve the personal interests of the President or murky geostrategic and corporate interests.