Russia: Putin Considers Sending Troops to Iraq (Stratfor)

Summary

Moscow is considering a request by the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, just before the U.S. presidential election. The move would be of enormous benefit to U.S. President George W. Bush and a risky venture for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who faces his own Islamist insurgency in Chechnya and public opposition to U.S. policy in Iraq. Torn between his desire to support Bush and his need to address domestic concerns, Putin will delay his final decision to the eleventh hour.

Analysis

Moscow and Washington are quietly negotiating a request by the Bush administration to send Russian troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall, Russian government sources tell Stratfor. The talks are intense, our contacts close to the U.S. State Department say, and the timing is not insignificant. A Russian troop lift to either country before the U.S. presidential election would give U.S. President George W. Bush a powerful boost in the campaign.

Sources close to Russia's Security Council tell Stratfor that Russian President Vladimir Putin has agreed to the request "in principle" and has directed the Russian General Staff to work up a plan by the end of the month. Before making a decision, however, Putin wants to make sure all logistical and international legal questions are resolved -- perhaps with United Nations involvement -- and he will not move without a formal U.S. request. It is a tough decision for Putin, who will carefully weigh the risks and rewards and likely make his decision at the last possible moment.

Stratfor sources in the Russian Energy and Industry Ministry also say the Prime Minister's office has issued a directive to the ministry to prepare a Russian "wish list" for Washington seeking some level of quid pro quo, including steps to return Russian oil companies to Iraq and approval of Russia's joining the World Trade Organization.

If a troop agreement is reached, the Bush administration would enjoy not only a timely spike in the polls during the campaign season, but also the strategic, long-term benefit of having a sizable contingent -- as many as 40,000, Stratfor sources say -- of Russian troops relieve beleaguered American forces and free them up for regional purposes beyond Iraq. Getting a major troop contribution from any country, particularly one that was originally opposed to the war in Iraq, would be a boon for Washington, which is starting to recognize the limits of its unilateral approach. A Russian troop commitment could not only stifle the development of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance against U.S. policy in the Middle East but also could prevent -- over the long term -- the formation of a troika among Russia, China and India to counter U.S. dominance.

And the Russian Army, although certainly not as formidable as it was at the height of Soviet power, is a skillful and resolute ground force seasoned by 10 years of fighting Chechen guerrillas (superb fighters and mentors to Islamist insurgents worldwide). Formations considered for the Russian deployment include three mechanized infantry divisions and one airborne brigade, Russian military sources say. The current general staff scenario has Russian troops spread across Iraq, but Washington would likely want them concentrated in the Sunni Triangle where the insurgency continues to grow. It is not even necessary for the Russian troops to win militarily in Iraq; Washington would not expect that. Tough street fighters, they could effectively tie down and distract Iraqi insurgents while the Americans regroup for strategic missions in the region.

Nevertheless, for Russian President Vladimir Putin, sending Russian troops to Iraq poses far more risk than reward. For one thing, fighting Islamist militants in Iraq would raise Russia's profile as a target for al Qaeda and other jihadists far beyond the scale of Chechen guerrilla activity. A flood of volunteers from a 25-million-strong Islamic community in Russia and foreign Islamic nations-- angry with Russia's major contribution to an Iraq war on Washington's behalf -- could turn all the Russian North Caucasus, predominantly Muslim, into one vast combat zone.

The move could also disrupt Russian society, which has opposed the Iraqi war from the outset, and generate a meaningful challenge to Putin's power. And while the Russian general staff believes it is possible to deploy 40,000 Russian troops, it would definitely put a strain on the Russian army, particularly given its ongoing commitment in Chechnya. Stratfor sources also suggest that some Russian officers would be unhappy with the deployment and might even refuse to go.

Given a move that would be serious high-stakes poker for Putin, why would he do it? Betting on a Bush victory in November, Putin wants Bush to maintain a positive attitude toward Russia in general and Putin in particular during a second term, when Bush would be free to conduct whatever foreign policy he wants to. Also, Putin's mission in life seems to be to irrevocably link post-Communist Russia with the United States -- economically, politically, militarily.

Meanwhile, as long as the Russian people -- who have been grudgingly tolerant of Putin's pro-Western stratagem so far -- can remain patient and relatively undisturbed, the risks in Putin's mind could be worth taking. Someday, if he is slow and prudent with his policies, Putin envisions a tipping point for Russia, when rising consumerism and ties to the West will forever link Moscow's fate with Washington's. His hope may be that sending Russian troops to Iraq would help forge that link.

However, Putin is aware that if he miscalculates the degree to which he can test Russia's patience, having troops in Iraq could cause a huge domestic backlash, cost him his power and return the nation to its anti-American past.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.stratfor.com

There's something going on there. The bizarre Putin annoucement earlier where Putin claimed he had sent Bush some kind of warning about Iraq and al-queda prior to 911 has been quietly dropped by the Bushies and his press cronies. It points to some kind of colusion between Putin and Bush. I could not see Russia going into Afganistan, that's the equivelant of us re-invading Vietnam.

Of course Russian troops in Iraq would fulfill the prophicies of a bunch of prominent Christian fundies, and Putin x-KGB chief and daddy Bush x-CIA chief, man you got Internet black helicopter wonderland going on there. I can hardly wait for the rapture.

Putin is to Russia as Bush Sr was to USA in 1986. Both were political animals appointed to supposedly dead-end jobs: International espionage. Instead, both used their acumen in international affairs to leverage power: Putin obviously more than Bush I.

Putin is smarter than the present Bush but also far more vulnerable as for governance. If Bush loses, So what? But if Putin loses it could easily cost him his life, or it could set Russia on a course of world-dominance or retreat or anything in-between. Which leader is playing with higher stakes? This is why Bush II cuts Putin so much slack.

Given that, StratFor's prognostications are entirely reasonable.

B

Its a One World Government conspiracy, directed from Moscow.

Just ask Jack Van Impe. The only real question left for me is which one is going to preach in the rebuilt Temple of Jereseleum. At that point, I'm converting.

As we sit here, the plot tickens. Russia has tried to get a piece of Iran for 500 years. A warm water port for Russia is their Manifest Destiny. I smell a rat.


9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran
By ADAM ZAGORIN AND JOE KLEIN


Friday, Jul. 16, 2004
Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

The Iran-al Qaeda contacts were discovered and presented to the Commissioners near the end of the bipartisan panel's more than year-long investigation into the sources and origins of the 9/11 attacks. Much of the new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government, including captured Yemeni al-Qaeda operative Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, who organized the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and from as many as 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled by analysts at the NSA. The findings were sent to the White House for review only this week. But Commission members have been hinting for weeks that their report would have some Iran surprises. As the 9/11 Commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, said in June, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

These findings follow a Commission staff report, released in June, which suggested that al-Qaeda may have collaborated with Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a key American military barracks in Saudi Arabia. Previously, the attack had been attributed only to Hezbollah, with Iranian support. A U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in 1998 for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said al-Qaeda "forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." But the Commission comes to no firm conclusion on al-Qaeda's involvement in the Khobar disaster.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran—and through intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia—concerning the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowleded are in the country, including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S. official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as well of other key al-Qaeda figures.

Oh $hit. I concur to some degree with KV. Where's that marijuana patch?

Iran has always been the target in this geo-political game. It gives Russia a warm water port for her oil, and a big boost to the rest of its economy. Solves their and our problems. It might work. If Iran had anything to do with 911, we owe them one anyway, and its ok by me if we kick their ass. This also sounds like real proof instead of the trumped up baloney in Iraq. I am starting to see the emergence of a master plan here. We got a joint US Russia invasion of Iran coming here.

I doubt it that the Afghanis would except any Russian soldier on there soil (again). It would play right in the hand of the Taliban.

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).