SPY EYES

In a interview with Le Monde, afghan president, Hamid Karzaï, blames the United States for acting like a “colonial power” in the way it “pressures” Kaboul to sign a security agreement. This accord is meant to provide military assistance to Afghanistan after 2014. M. Karzaï says he is not ready to sign it unless certains conditions are met.

While the United States and its Nato allies have started to pull out from Afghanistan, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the bilateral security agreement (BSA) your government and the USA agreed to on November 20th. Why won’t you sign this agreement which is meant to provide military assistance to Afghanistan after 2014 ?

My position has not changed for the past 8 years : the war on terror can’t be fought and must not be fought in Afghan villages, in Afghan homes. If there is a war on terror, it has to be taken to the terrorist sanctuaries, where they are trained and nurtured.

This has been my constant position and the main source of tension between myself and the United States. There are also other issues, but as far as I’m concerned, Afghan civilian casualties are the main problem.

There is also a lack of visible and genuine effort on behalf of the USA to help us with the peace process. Neither myself nor the Afghan people are opposed to having a good relationship with the USA or Nato. The Afghan people approved the BSA at the recent loya jirga [Assembly of personalities, on November 24th ]. I’m in favour of the BSA. But I want this agreement to bring peace to Afghanistan and to put an end to attacks on Afghan homes. And the Afghan people must notice that these attacks have stopped.

You recently met James Dobbins, the American special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, on December 5th in Kabul. What was the substance of his message on this agreement ?

I had a long conversation with Mr Dobbins, whom I’ve known for ten years. He said that without the BSA, there will be no peace.

His remarks can be interpreted in several ways. In a positive way: once you sign the BSA, there will be peace. If they can reassure us, provide the trust we need, this is a good thing. You can also interpret his comments in a different way : “ If you don’t sign the BSA, we will cause you trouble and provoke disturbances in the country”.

Either way, Afghanistan will remain committed to its demands, that the BSA must bring peace to Afghanistan. And before it is signed, we must have visible movements towards peace in Afghanistan. That means launching negotiations between the High Peace Council (HPC) and the Taliban. I understand that peace can’t be delivered in one, two or three months. But what I want is the launch of a genuine peace process.

What role do you expect the US to play in the peace process ?

Given my experience and the information I have, I believe the USA can considerably help launch the peace process. When I was in Washington one year ago to negotiate the terms of a peace process with the US, I realised the Americans were speaking on behalf of the Taliban.

Are you saying that the Americans have been keeping secret contacts with the Taliban ?

Indeed, these secret contacts exist. But when I say the Americans can help with the peace process, it’s because they have many other connections. They are friendly with Pakistan and Pakistan is definitely in contact with the Taliban. The USA has the ability, through Pakistan and directly as well, to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.

If I summarize, you want to see an end to attacks on Afghan homes and a verifiable launch of the peace process ? And once you have these guarantees…

In that case, I would be willing to sign the BSA.

Could that happen before the next presidential election in April 2014 ?

If it happens, so the better. If it doesn’t, then it will be for the next president to sign the BSA. My responsibility is to deliver all the guarantees for an agreement that serves the Afghan interests. And until I am convinced that these guarantees exist, I will not sign the BSA. Because the BSA, as much as it serves the interests of the USA and Nato, must also serve the interests of the Afghan people.

I need to be absolutely confident that this document delivers safety, security and peace to the Afghan people before I can approve it. At the loya jirga, the Afghan people told the USA : we want a good relationship with you, but you must change your behaviour, you need to behave in a way that doesn’t harm or weaken Afghanistan. We have given you assurances of our friendship, you must now behave like an ally, not like an adversary.

Do you believe the USA sometimes behaves like an adversary ?

Attacking Afghan homes is an act of aggression. Launching a psychological war on Afghan people is an act of aggression.

What do you mean by a psychological war ?

A psychological war is a war against our economy, a war that encourages companies to leave Afghanistan, that encourages money to leave Afghanistan, that frightens Afghan’s of the consequences of an American departure, is all this not psychological war ?

Do you think this is the outcome of deliberate American propaganda ?

Absolutely, this is the outcome of American state propaganda. Without a doubt. If I were not sure of all these things, I would not have been so adamant in my demands.

In some statements, you have compared the Taliban with the Americans as if they were both your enemies. And such statements have shocked many people in the USA given the number of American soldiers that have been killed in Afghanistan and the amount of financial assistance the USA has provided to your country.

I didn’t say that. I’m grateful, the Afghan people are grateful, for the assistance that has been given to Afghanistan. And we would like to repeat our gratitude. But when and where the USA has behaved against our interests – and in spite of our repeated warnings -, it’s my job to speak out, to tell the truth.

When the Taliban murder Afghan people, I condemn them. At the same time, I call them “brothers” because they are Afghans and I want them to come back to their homes and make peace with the country. To the Americans, I have said : you are here to fight extremism, or terrorism.

Why should the Afghan people pay the price of a war on terrorism ? Why would you attack an Afghan home, in the pursuit of a so-called taleb, of which there are many thousands in Afghanistan, and bring death and suffering to children and women? Would the USA launch drone attacks against homes in America in pursuit of a killer, a terrorist ? No. Why should the Americans do it in Afghanistan ? Do they feel an Afghan life is worth less than an American life ? I expect the USA to have an equal respect for an Afghan child as for an American child. We are not less worthy.

Some American officials have warned that if the BSA is not signed before the end of this year, there will be no BSA at all. And that means no American military presence beyond 2014. That would have huge security and financial consequences for Afghanistan. Do you think these warnings are serious or are they just a bluff ?

Even if they are real, even it’s not a bluff, we are not to be pressured into signing the BSA without our conditions being met. Even if they are serious, the Americans can’t push us into a corner. If the USA wants to be our ally, they have to be a respectful ally. They can’t exploit us. What I hear these days, and what I’ve heard before, sounds like classic colonial exploitation. The Afghan’s don’t bow down, they have defeated in the past colonial powers. They’ll accept a respectful relationship, they are an honourable people and will treat friends honourably.

Do you think the USA is behaving like a colonial power?

Absolutely. They threaten us by saying “We will no longer pay your salaries, we will drive you into a civil war”. These are threats. If you want to be our partner, we must be friends. Respect Afghan homes, don’t kill their children and be a partner. So bluff or no bluff, we want respect for our commitment to the safety of Afghan lives and to peace in Afghanistan.

So you don’t believe there would be dire consequences if the BSA is not signed ?

We will not cease to be a nation if that were to happen. It will be harsher for us, it will be more difficult, but we will continue to live our lives, we will continue to be a nation and a state. If the USA is here, if Nato is here, with us, with their resources, hopefully properly spent and not wasted, or looted, if our homes are respected, if peace is maintained, the American presence is good for Afghanistan, and we value it. But if their presence comes at the price of destroying Afghan homes, at the price of the security and the dignity of Afghans, if their presence here means continued war, and bombs and killings, then it’s not worth it.

The Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, visited Kabul late November. His new civilian government is supposed to be more supportive of a peace process in Afghanistan. Mullah Baradar [an Afghan Taliban leader arrested in Karachi in 2010] was recently released by the Pakistani authorities. You apparently want mullah Baradar to play a role in the peace process. What kind of assurances did you get from Mr Sharif regarding mullah Baradar ?

I’ve met Mr Sharif before and after he became the Prime Minister, three or four times. He has good intentions for Pakistan. He is a patriotic Pakistani. He wants Pakistan to do well.

I’m sure he means well when he says he wants to improve relations with his neighbours, both with Afghanistan and India. And so far, he has tried his best to fulfil his commitments towards us, including towards mullah Baradar. We came to an understanding when he visited Kabul a few days ago. I hope it will be implemented, both on our side and with the help of the Americans.

Can you tell us what this understanding was about ?

Not at this point. When it will be implemented, you will know about it.

So should we expect a big initiative in the coming weeks ?

Let’s not describe it as big or small. Let’s say that we hope to see movements towards a peace process in Afghanistan.

In Doha (Qatar), the opening of the Taliban office on June 18th was a fiasco. You strongly protested after they displayed the emblems of the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan [name of the former Taliban regime]. Would you like to see this office reopen in Doha or be shifted to another country ?

Doha was not our choice. Doha, Qatar, was an American choice and an American plan. We negotiated for almost two years, we told the Americans from the beginning that this is not our place.

We want the peace process to be held in Afghanistan. And if not in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia or Turkey. But the Americans insisted on Qatar. We laid down our conditions. The Americans agreed on these conditions. The American president gave me a letter of assurances. But when the office in Qatar opened, those assurances were not respected. Therefore, Qatar is no longer an option for us.

You will not allow this bureau to reopen ?

Not in that manner, not at all. We want talks with the Taliban. My advice to our Taliban brothers is : they have a country, that country is Afghanistan. They are freeto come here and to talk to us. The first choice must be Afghanistan. But if the Taliban say they want the talks to be held elsewhere, then for the sake of peace, we would agree.

But the Taliban don’t want to talk with you ?

That’s not true.

Officially at least

That’s not true.

In their statement in Doha, they only raised the possibility of talks with “some Afghans” without mentioning your government.

It’s wasn’t the Taliban. The statement was issued in the name of the Taliban, it came from other countries. We know who wrote that statement.

The statement didn’t come from the Taliban ? Was it a joint US-Pakistani initiative?

I wouldn’t go that far at this stage. But we know the statement wasn’t written by the Taliban. We know who wrote it for them.

But the Taliban don’t consider you as a legitimate partner. They consider you as a “puppet” and only want to talk to the “master”. How can you therefore be recognized as a legitimate partner ?

Even those words did not come from the Taliban. They were intended to create an environment in Afghanistan in which peace would not happen.

So you think that the refusal to talk to you doesn’t come from the Taliban. Does it come from another country ?

Yes

A neighbouring country ?

Neighbouring or not so neighbouring. We know the Taliban want to talk to us. We are in contact with them.

Corruption is a very big problem in Afghanistan, do you feel responsible for this problem ?

There is corruption in Afghanistan, no doubt. There is corruption within the Afghan system, no doubt. There is corruption also within the international community, especially regarding American contracts and the way those contracts are implemented. For example, the private security firms that the Americans have employed in Afghanistan were one of the biggest sources of corruption, and lawlessness, and insecurity, and – worst of all – they were also responsible for the creation of a parallel structure to the afghan security forces. They have effectively created a state within a state. And a corrupt one.

I have struggled for five to six years to stop them. But they won’t stop. The USA kept on insisting that they should have them [the private security companies]. To put it in plain words, the USA and the international community have created a flood of corruption. I could have taken tougher measures but they would not have not ended corruption. They would have caused more frictions in the Afghan society.

You often suspect the USA or people in the West of trying to divide Afghanistan. Could you be more explicit?

I was approached by some countries and also by people acting on behalf of the Taliban, who told me that if the Taliban were given a place in Afghanistan, if they were allowed to officially settle there and run their administrations, that would then lead to a peace process. I saw that as a dangerous path to the creation of two states within one country.

I called some Taliban personalities, active in the movement, as well as those who have connexions to them, in order to enquire about this proposal. They said: “Yes, they were also approached and offered places in Afghanistan”. But they refused this offer. And I saw that the movement that lead to the opening of a Taliban office in Doha was related to that process. And the way it was announced proved our point. The manner in which certain other activities were conducted in the name of the peace process also indicated that certain forces in the West didn’t want talks between the High Peace Council (HPC) and the Taliban but talks between the Taliban and other ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

They tried to ethnicize the conflict in arranged talks between warlords and ethnic groups. This has been proved. But this initiative failed because the Afghan people reacted strongly. Whatever the plan was, we know that the West, through some foundations and with the help of certain members of the US Congress, tried to force federalism in Afghanistan. We are convinced that a deliberate effort wasmade to weaken Afghanistan and to turn it into fiefdoms. To have a weak central government. And the reason why the Americans and some European countries tried to undermine the presidential elections in 2009 was also to have a weakened government with less legitimacy.

The next presidential election is due on April 5th 2014. Will it take place on time?

It has to take place on time. I am committed to this.

You will not allow this first round to be postponed?

It’s up to the Electoral commission to decide. As far as I’m concerned, I will not interfere with the commission’s decision. If they want to hold the election on April 5th, I’m very much for it.

Your brother, Qayum Karzaï, will be one of the eleven candidates running in this election. Is he your favourite candidate?

I told him in very clear words : “If you are a candidate, those who want to accuse me of interference will easily be able to do so. So please don’t be a candidate”. But he said no: “I want to be a candidate”. He has that right as a citizen. But I have my views and my concerns.

By Frédéric Bobin
ZONEASIA-PK

For the time being, Ukraine’s Yanukovych chooses to toe the line of its “former Soviet master”: but many in Kiev protesting in favour of a “European future” are fearful of being subjugated to “Mother Russia” yet again – even though the EU offers very little when it comes to dreams as well as reality

Just when everyone thought that the days of the Soviet Union were over, and that Russia is not as powerful a superpower that the U.S.S.R. once was, a recent row – both inside Ukraine and in the Eurasia region – has revealed the extent of Russia’s power in its immediate strategic vicinity as well as its desire to remain dominant over its erstwhile Soviet member/client states. On November 29, 2013, at the EU’s Eastern Partnership Summit in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych confirmed that his country would delay signing the association agreement with the EU until the latter offers more attractive economic aid to his country. According to RT.com, Ukraine has a US$60 billion debt repayment liability – approximately one-third of the country’s GDP – and the EU has offered only 1 billion Euros worth of compensation, with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite stating that the trade agreement terms won’t be changed: “The EU isn’t going to bargain further. All the key terms are known. There will be no new ones”.

According to Yanukovych (who is seen above sitting to the right of European Parliament President Martin Schulz at the Vilnius Summit), Ukraine needs more time to get prepared “to minimalize[sic] any negative effects in the initial period, which will definitely be felt by vulnerable parts of Ukrainian society”, as reported by Interfax. The Ukrainian leader spoke of “short-term economic consequences” that the country might face by signing the EU agreement: without international aid, investors fear that Ukraine will struggle to repay US$ 7 billion of hard currency debt falling due next year, while it is also dealing with a large balance of payments deficit and unpaid gas bills from Russia – which is likely to worsen if Ukraine angers Moscow by ditching the Kremlin for Brussels. For the short term, Brussels has so far offered 610 million euros to Ukraine; but EU officials say that are in discussion with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other major financial institutions on ways to help Ukraine.

However, the reality behind Ukraine’s refusal to sign the 900-page Association Agreement with the EU – or delay it, as its President says – is the overwhelming pressure from Russia, its former Soviet ally and a country which still controls Ukraine’s economy in many ways. Russia, which is forming the “Eurasian Economic Community” and wants Ukraine to join it instead of making what it calls the “suicidal” decision of joining the EU, is still Ukraine’s main source of energy, loans and trade. The Eurasian Economic Community (which can also be abbreviated as the EEC, like the “European Economic Community”, which is the EU’s Customs Union) or the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) is a Russia-led customs union that by 2015 will also include other CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States, a post-Soviet body again led by Russia, and consisting of all the former member states of the Soviet Union/U.S.S.R.) members like Armenia, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

This tug-of-war actually began four years ago, when the EU proposed an “eastern partnership” with Ukraine as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus. The EU offered cooperation, free trade and financial contributions in exchange for democratic reforms: the only thing that was not offered was EU membership. The EU’s other – or perhaps real – goal (even though it was not as openly expressed) was to limit Russia’s influence and define how far Europe extends into the east. For Russia, the struggle to win over Ukraine is not only about maintaining its geopolitical influence, but also about having control over a region that was the nucleus of the Russian empire a millennium ago. The word Ukraine translates as “border country” and many feel the capital Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities.

This helped create Cold War-style grappling between Moscow and Brussels. The Russian president, hardened by his fights in the Kremlin, is more adept than EU bureaucrats at manipulating people with venality and affections: none of the top European politicians made a serious effort to win over Ukraine, with neither German Chancellor Angela Merkel nor European Commission President José Manuel Barroso flying to Kiev to convince its wavering president. Eventually, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton went on a two-day visit to Kiev, and was pictured walking among the demonstrators at Maidan and meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland also traveled to the Ukrainian capital in an effort to help “save Ukraine’s European future”. In Russia, the State Duma issued a statement condemning Western countries for interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs and putting pressure on the country’s government, echoing earlier sentiments communicated by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

On the other hand, there was “unprecedented pressure” from the Kremlin, with Russia using “everything in its arsenal” to woo Ukraine and keep it from signing the EU Association Agreement, according to former Polish Prime Minister Aleksander Kwasniewski. According to sources in Kiev, The official reason for the agreement’s failure is Yulia Tymoshenko, the opposition politician who has been in prison for the last two years. The EU had made her release a condition of the agreement. Yanukovych was unwilling to release his former rival, and last week the parliament in Kiev failed to approve a bill that would have secured her release. A controversial figure himself, Yanukovych is largely blamed for the political persecution of Tymoshenko, who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for abuse of power for signing a gas deal with Russia. Critics say her conviction was a case of political revenge, and many observers see Tymoshenko’s incarceration, as well as a number of unfulfilled political reforms, as reasons Europe hasn’t offered Ukraine full membership in the in the EU.

Even so, it is highly unlikely that Yanukovych would even risk applying for EU membership. From Yanukovych’s perspective, he doesn’t want to make a choice between the EU and Russia. Ukraine has to balance those two sides in order to maintain its sovereignty, its independence: moving towards one side, either Russia or the EU, would damage its relationship with the other side.

Amidst all of this, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decisive move came on Nov. 9, when he met with Ukrainian President Yanukovych at a military airport near Moscow (the above picture shows the two meeting at the Zavidova residence in the Tver region on March 4, 2013). The meeting was so clandestine the Russians initially denied that it had taken place at all. Der Spiegel notes that the inability of European bureaucrats to keep up with the Kremlin’s manipulations – or Kiev’s political calculations – has cost the EU a trade deal with Ukraine, and severely damaged its foreign policy. Though Ukraine’s decision to not join the EU seemed as abrupt and last-minute, it was obvious that Ukraine was under immense pressure from the Kremlin to not move out of Russia’s orbit; and eventually, Ukraine gave way to the latter instead of moving closer to Europe. This was admitted by the Ukrainian President as well as the powers that be in Kiev as well as in Moscow.

In the end, the Russian president seems to have promised his Ukrainian counterpart several billion Euros in the form of subsidies, debt forgiveness and duty-free imports. The EU, for its part, had offered Ukraine loans worth €610 million ($827 million), which it had increased at the last moment, along with the vague prospect of a €1 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Yanukovych chose Putin’s billions instead.

Eurodialogue.org states that “A strong Russia allied with Ukraine gives Moscow confidence and strength, particularly in dealing with Europe, while a Russia without Ukraine is weak to its core”. Russia’s interests in Ukraine go beyond the economic sphere. Ukraine is also important for military reasons; the Ukrainian city of Sevastopol is the headquarters for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine’s strategic location as a borderland between Russia and Europe and its proximity to Russia’s own breadbasket and economic heartland in the Volga region make the country key to Russia’s geopolitical strength and, ultimately, its survival. Eurodialogue.org continues by analyzing the above-mentioned strategic importance of “Ukraine to Russia [which is] is not lost on the Europeans and the Americans, who have been trying to lure Ukraine into the Western camp since the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine did turn pro-Western under the Orangist government of Viktor Yushchenko from 2005-2010, but Russia’s resurgence reversed this trend when the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych became president in February 2010”.

Even now, more than 20 years after Ukraine’s independence, many Russians don’t accept its autonomy. “They don’t see the Ukraine as an independent state. They’ve never accepted it psychologically”, according to Rand Corporation’s Stephen Larrabee. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security adviser to president Jimmy Carter, famously wrote that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”

The Ukrainian President’s decision was met with protests in Kiev, from Ukrainian citizens (pictured above) who were hoping for a future with Europe, and were tired of living in Russia’s orbit even after the fall of the Soviet Union (The Business Insider referred to Russia as Ukraine’s “former Soviet master”). Angry protesters in Kiev are demanding President Yanukovych’s resignation, saying that he has compromised Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity at the behest of the wishes and desires of the Kremlin rather than the Ukrainian people who elected him. Russian lawmakers called on the Kiev protesters to “stop the illegal actions” that they said were destabilizing the country. According to Stratfor, Moscow is carefully gauging the current demonstrations since Ukraine is one of the most important countries to Russia’s defensibility and security: but considering the multi-dimensional foreign support for the movement, and the prospect that protests will resume, the Kremlin’s silence is “peculiar”. With Ukraine so critical to Russia, one would expect that its leaders would be more publicly active in Ukraine and in the countries that support the protesters. Its silence has caught Stratfor’s attention. “We do not necessarily know how Russia will respond, but given Ukraine’s importance, we know that it will”, says Stratfor’s latest analysis (published December 12, titled “In Ukraine, Why is Russia So Quiet?”) in unique take on the issue.

Western support to the Kiev protesters is not purely rhetorical or diplomatic; Western non-governmental organizations and state-sponsored groups are on the ground supporting the protesters as well. In fact, these groups have operated in Ukraine for a long time. They were instrumental during the 2004 Ukrainian election and subsequent Orange Revolution that brought in a more Western-friendly government. The Western NGOs provided financial support, organizational and political support, training for the civil and political leaders and propaganda. Two of the three most popular opposition leaders have ties with Western NGOs. Vitali Klitschko and his political party, the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms, have deep ties to Germany, particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union Party and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Yatsenyk’s foundation Open Ukraine also has German partners, such as the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, and lists among its American partners the U.S. State Department and prominent NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy. The Russian government has long accused such NGOs of meddling in others’ domestic affairs, including the “color revolutions” in Ukraine in 2004, Georgia in 2003 and Kyrgyzstan in 2005.

CBC News’ Andre Mayer analyzes Ukraine’s latest protests (which have also been dubbed the Second Orange Revolution, or “Eurolution”) and its “love-hate relationship” with “Mother Russia” by talking to specialists on Ukraine and on Ukraine-Russia relations. Taras Kuzio, a research associate at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, says that “We have to understand that Viktor Yanukovych is neither pro-Russian nor pro-European – he’s pro-Yanukovych… He’s going to do anything he can to try and stay in power”. Eugene Chausovsky, a Russia analyst for the global intelligence firm Stratfor, says that had Yanukovych opted for the EU association agreement rather than the Russian custom union, “we would have probably also seen protests, except from a completely different segment of society…It shows the difficulty of ruling Ukraine. It’s a split country”.

To an extent, Vijai Maheshwari agrees: what has become increasingly clear is that the Kiev protests are not only against the European ‘nyet’: the European snub was just a catalyst. They’ve snowballed into a populist movement against the venial, autocratic government of Yanukovych. Having watched passively for the past three years as the president and his henchmen have amassed vast wealth, clamped down on the media, and jailed their political rivals, common Ukrainians have finally had enough. A sticker pasted on the front door of Maheshwari’s building read, “This revolution is not about Europe. It’s against the corrupt dictator Yanukovych”.

However, experts note that Yanukovych is hedging his bets by making no commitment to join the Moscow-led customs union, while also holding out the possibility that Kiev could still sign an association agreement that would deepen cooperation with the EU, if not serve as a free trade agreement. According to Public Radio International, Ukrainian President Yanukovych is strategizing to get the best of both worlds: though he might prefer lower gas prices from Russia than any promises or perks offered by the European Union, Yanukovych is dealing with massive protests in Kiev over his decision to turn away from the EU in favor of a trade deal with Russia, and now, he appears to be courting both sides for the best deal he can get to help his country out of a recession that has lasted more than a year. As the Ukrainian President “assured an EU official” (according to the BBC) that he will sign a trade and security agreement with the EU, no timeline has been announced. With Russia and the West dug in to their positions of trying to sway Kiev toward them, the Ukrainian government appears torn over how to proceed, and national polls show a roughly equal division in the country’s population over which path to take. The government has had to station riot police in areas where protesters congregate (pictured below), sometimes leading to violent confrontations and high-handedness by security officials – reminiscent of the Soviet era – which have apparently “disgusted” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. “For weeks, we have called on President Yanukovych and his government to listen to the voices of his people who want peace, justice and a European future. Instead, Ukraine’s leaders appear…to have made a very different choice,” he said, referring to the attempted clearing of Maidan by riot cops.

According to The Moscow Times, Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said Wednesday that Ukraine was not going to discuss joining the Russia-led Customs Union at an intergovernmental meeting with Moscow next week, and that talks with the EU were ongoing over an association agreement. But, speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Azarov also said Russia and Ukraine were close to a decision on bilateral trade, while Yanukovych said Tuesday that it was not possible to talk about the future of Ukraine without talking about restoring trade relations with Russia. “I want to draw attention to the motives behind the protests of our citizens,” Azarov said. “Those who came to Maidan demand the immediate signing of the Association Agreement with the EU. The government also is in favor of signing the agreement as soon as possible, but we want to create conditions under which losses for the Ukrainian economy will be minimized”. Azarov also said European officials were “not in a hurry” to help Ukraine financially, but Reuters reported late Wednesday that the EU was holding talks with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on arranging assistance for Kiev were it to sign the association deal.

Viktor Mironenko, head of the Ukrainian Research Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said Western politicians’ statements did not represent serious pressure on Ukraine when compared to the actions of Russian authorities. “Today, Russia announced that it would no longer buy delivery vehicles produced in Dnepropetrovsk, so both economic and political pressure on Ukraine will be continued,” Mironenko said, “but the pressure that started this summer has been so strong that it is difficult to imagine how much stronger it can be in the future”. Russia tightened customs controls at the Ukrainian border over the summer, signaling to Kiev that economic punishment was in store if it signed the EU deal. Mironenko also said that even though Ukraine did need economic help, it was unlikely that the EU would provide it until the situation in the country became stable, adding that 20 billion Euros was a “fantastical amount” and the mechanisms for the EU to give it were unclear.

According to Vijai Maheshwari of The Daily Beast, the Ukrainian people’s “Eurolution” – the second time the streets of Kiev have been full of protesters since the Orange Revolution pro-democracy protests of 2004 – is a “public relations godsend for the European Union”, which is eager to paint the narratives as a contrast between an “open Europe” and a “closed Russia”. In fact, many Europeans – especially those who are full-fledged members of the European Union – are baffled as to why Ukrainians are so determined to join a broken bureaucracy and what one Italian citizen termed “the iron rule of Berlin”. For the protesters, however, a weak Europe was still vastly preferable to their country’s corrupt and sclerotic oligopoly. An accession agreement with Europe represented a chance for this struggling, isolated nation to become part of the modern world. Though Russia still enjoys support in the eastern parts of the country, many in the capital – Kiev – and Western Ukraine view Moscow with suspicion. Their worst fear is that the country could fall under the thumb of the Kremlin and become a vassal state of “mother Russia” yet again. As Ukrainian protesters in Kiev want their country to be more like Poland and less like Russia, a statue of Lenin in central Kiev was ruthlessly demolished by youths from the far-right Svoboda nationalist party.

Public Radio International states that, in a sense, the protests in Ukraine may have produced the results they were meant to achieve. Nevertheless, the political damage to the Yanukovych regime is done, and he must make significant repairs to his local image and prestige if he wishes to remain in office, much less get re-elected. In the age of social media and mass public awareness thanks to online connectivity, the Kiev protests against Yanukovych and in favour of the Ukraine joining the EU have acquired the name “Euromaidan”. Yanukovych’s decision to suspend talks with the EU on political and free trade accords have sparked the largest protests in the country since the pro-democracy Orange Revolution in 2004. According to Yevgen Sautin of The Independent, “the failure of the Yushchenko Presidency led to apathy and disillusionment among many erstwhile supporters of the Orange Revolution; the new “Euromaidan” protests have rekindled public demands for change. This provides a tremendous opportunity to channel public grievances into real political impetus for economic upgrading and improvement of governance. A stronger, more prosperous Ukraine would not have to build its entire national strategy on playing off Russia against the West”.

European leaders say the trade pact with Ukraine would have brought investment. But the country’s Soviet-era industry relies on Russian natural gas, giving Moscow enormous leverage. Moscow has condemned what it sees as fierce foreign pressure on Ukraine, and the EU has accused Russia of using economic blackmail against Kiev. Russian media have raised the specter of civil war in Ukraine to wave the flag for Putin.

A day after European and U.S. officials held talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Kiev, Putin used a state of the nation address to tout the economic benefits of joining the Eurasian Economic Community customs union that he wants Ukraine to be part of. The Russian President directly addressed the criticism of Ukraine (and its decision) by EU leaders as well as the U.S., saying that the free trade deal between the EU and Ukraine would have been a major threat to the Russian economy. “Our integration project is based on equal rights and real economic interests,” Putin said of the customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, which he wants to turn into a political and trading bloc to match the United States and China. “I’m sure achieving Eurasian integration will only increase interest (in it) from our other neighbors, including from our Ukrainian partners.” Putin’s ambition to create a Eurasian Union stretching from the Pacific to the EU’s eastern borders depends largely on whether Ukraine signs up, bringing in its rich mineral resources and its large market: a bridge to the 28-nation bloc.

A clearer picture of the EU versus Russia’s ECU emerges thanks to the following map and statistics:

The big red/orange mass that represents the ECU already has a clear size/territorial advantage over the EU, and it covers a natural resource-rich land in Russia and Kazakhstan. The three nations currently involved have a combined population of around 165 million people and a US$ 2.3 trillion GDP. Adding in Ukraine and Georgia, the ECU would constitute around 205 million people and US$ 2.5 trillion GDP. Even though these are big numbers, they still pale in comparison to the EU which has more than 500 million inhabitants and a GDP of more than US$ 16 trillion – despite the fact that the EU and its member states are facing financial crises that are bordering on the dissolution of the Euro currency, while Russia is enjoying relative economic stability because of strong fiscal policies instituted in the first Putin presidency, during which the Kremlin saved foreign currency reserves generated from oil and gas sales, and consolidated its global economic position when the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 virtually shattered if not decimated the economic supremacy of capitalist countries in the West. As a further comparison, China has a population of 1.3 billion and a GDP of US$ 8.2 trillion, and the U.S. has a population of 313 million people and a GDP of almost US$ 16 trillion. The ultimate hope, which may also seem like a far-fetched dream, for the Eurasian Customs Union is that countries like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan will join in. More fantastical plans exist too: One Russian politician (a member of the Putin-linked United Russia party) has floated the idea of eventually broadening the union to include historical allies such as Mongolia and Finland, or even Cuba and Venezuela, thus taking the ECU from a regional bloc to a global customs union that is not limited to territorial linkages or advantages incurred by sharing borders.

In conclusion, Ukraine has become a new battleground for the EU and Russia, with both asserting their strategic dominance in terms of economic “carrots” and “sticks” as well as securing their future regional hegemony in their respective spheres of influence through economic if not military means. The economic, political, and geostrategic realities for all three parties concerned – the European Union, Russia, and most importantly, the lynchpin Ukraine – have been thoroughly discussed and analyzed in this article, to the maximum extent possible given the available public information as well as views and analyses of other experts on the subject: including their conclusive thoughts on how things may develop and what the future holds for all the three parties. Stratfor’s Russia analyst Chausovsky estimates – and polling suggests – that about 60 percent of the Ukraine population is pro-EU, even though it is difficult to gauge public sentiment, and angering 40 percent of the population that is pro-Russia is also not a wise policy option. Most of the pro-EU population is in Kiev – the center of the anti-government protests – and in the Western part of the country. Rand Corporation’s Stephen Larrabee ominously states that “this is the beginning of the end, in my view, of an independent, stable Ukraine”, even though other Ukraine watchers aren’t so sure of that outcome, and see the current turmoil as part of a delicate balancing act that reflects the country’s inherently divided loyalties. Viktor Mironenko, the head of the Ukrainian Research Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences, says that given the aggressive tug of war over the country, the future of Ukraine was definitely unclear: “Ukraine has turned into a reason for a fight between Russia and the West. The situation in the country could develop in a completely unexpected direction”. With Russia and the West dug into their positions of trying to sway Kiev toward them, the Ukrainian government appears torn over how to proceed, and national polls continue to show a roughly equal division in the country’s population over which path to take. As of now, it seems that the Ukraine has chosen Russia over the EU, simply because of the ground realities and hard facts: because the EU wasn’t offering as much as Russia was, and also because rebukes and repudiations from the EU and/or the West (regardless of their frail economic state after 2008) do not have as much of an impact on Ukraine as they do when they come from the Kremlin; to put it simply, due to a variety of social, cultural, economic and historical reasons, the Russian “stick” is bigger for Ukraine than the Western one, even if the “carrot” cannot really be quantified for the long run (though Yanukovych is not coming out from a bad economic deal with Putin, even if citizens of Kiev think that it is time to stop living in the shadow of “Mother Russia” and adopt pro-West, pro-European politics – despite the disillusionment and disenchantment of full-fledged EU citizens with the supranational system and the “iron rule of Berlin” that the protesters want Ukraine to submit to). It appears that the protesters in Kiev – who are enjoying overwhelming support from the EU, the U.S. and the West, and oblivious to the fact that if they eventually succeed in getting their government to sign a pact with the European Union, they would still not get EU membership, and would invoke the wrath of Russia with whom they remain deeply interconnected in many facets; and ultimately, that they will be sacrificing some part of their national sovereignty to willingly invite a new regional hegemony upon themselves (instead of sticking to the hegemony that they know and are familiar with, as President Yanukovych has done).

Spain’s leading newspaper, El Pais, has adequately summed up the prevailing mood and public sentiment in Eurasia (Europe, Ukraine and Russia) with the headline “Putin 1 Europe 0”.

TACSTRAT ANALYSIS
By Shemrez Nauman Afzal

Whenever a big, media-hyped attack or atrocity happens, the mainstream media always says the same thing: “The bad guys did it.”

And who are these “bad guys”? The enemy-du-jour of the powers-that-be.

The authorities blamed 9/11 on “radical Muslims.” They blamed the Boston Marathon, Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado massacres on “gun nuts” and “extremists.”

The mainstream media have not yet admitted that these atrocities were false-flag operations. They are too recent. People would be too angry.

But mainstream journalists and historians do admit the truth about past false-flags.

During the Cold War, Western governments and media blamed the Operation Gladio massacres in Brabant, Belgium and Bologna, Italy on “anti-American leftists”. . . just as they blamed the fake Gulf of Tonkin attack on the North Vietnamese. Today, everyone admits that these were all false-flag operations commanded by the US military.

During Operation Ajax – the CIA’s overthrow of Iran’s prime minister Mossadeq in 1953 – CIA operatives repeatedly committed mass murder and falsely blamed Mossadeq supporters. They blew up mosques, targeted religious leaders for assassination, machine-gunned crowds, then scattered thousands of leaflets claiming Mossadeq was responsible.

Former CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt has admitted to committing these murders and spreading these lies. CIA documents released this year confirm the Agency’s role in the atrocities.

The Israelis, world champion false-flag terrorists, have admitted that their agents dressed up as Egyptian Arabs and bombed American targets in Egypt during the Lavon Affair in 1954. It took the Zionists fifty years to admit the truth. When the Israeli government finally confessed in 2005 to its attack on America, it lavished honors on the false-flag terrorists.

When will Israel finally admit that its slaughter of the American sailors of the USS Liberty in 1967 was a botched false-flag designed to be blamed on Egypt and trigger a US attack on Cairo?

Today, thanks to the power of the internet, more and more people are learning about false-flags. The media are finding it more and more difficult to ignore this critically-important, massively-censored topic.

A few days ago, award-winning mainstream journalist Seymour Hersh forced the mainstream media to talk about false-flags. In his article “Whose sarin?” Hersh confirmed what alternative media outlets like Press TV and Veterans Today reported back in August: The chemical weapons attack in al-Ghouta was almost certainly perpetrated by Saudi-supported militants, not the Syrian government.

That was the only conceivable purpose of such an attack. Obama had drawn a “red line” around the chemical weapons issue. Hence, the only way the rebels could hope to convince the US to bomb Syria was by staging a chemical weapons attack and falsely blaming Assad on such an attack.

In August, no mainstream publication even raised this as a possibility. They all mindlessly echoed Israeli and US government sources assuring the world that Assad must have been responsible for the al-Ghouta atrocity. Yet they offered no convincing evidence of Assad’s responsibility.

If you were paying attention to Press TV, Veterans Today, Global Research, or other independent media outlets, you knew how unlikely it was that Assad would unleash chemical weapons in a militarily useless attack just a few miles from where chemical weapons inspectors were touching down in Damascus.

The mainstream story was ridiculous on its face…almost as ridiculous as the official story of 9/11, which blames nineteen debauched “radical Muslims” with box-cutters led by a terminal kidney patient in a cave in Afghanistan for the three most logistically-complex, technologically-advanced skyscraper demolitions in history.

The mainstream media would rather report ridiculous, self-evidently false assertions than even raise the possibility of a false-flag. That is because the corporate media are, as Noam Chomsky puts it, “manufacturers of consent.”

Their job is not to report the truth, but to help powerful forces shape public opinion. And false-flags are the most powerful tool available to those who wish to shape public opinion.

The media will never even mention that false-flags exist unless they are forced to do so by someone like Seymour Hersh.

Hersh’s article cites all kinds of documentary evidence proving that US intelligence sources knew that the Syrian rebels, not Assad’s government, were behind the al-Ghouta gas attack.

For example: “One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a “ruse.” The attack “was not the result of the current regime,” he wrote.

Another high-level US intelligence source compared the al-Ghouta attack to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is now officially admitted to have been a false-flag designed to trigger massive US escalation of the war against Vietnam.

This is not the first time that Hersh has forced false-flag talk upon a reluctant media. During the Bush Administration’s attempt to win public support for its increasingly unpopular occupation of Iraq, Hersh reported that the one-legged al-Qaeda superman Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a “composite figure” whose exploits were being wildly exaggerated, if not invented out of whole cloth, by US government propagandists.

More recently, Hersh reported that the official story of the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden by US Navy Seals is “one big lie, not one word of it is true.” He added, “The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.”

Hersh’s revelations about al-Zarqawi, Bin Laden, and the al-Ghouta false-flag raise a larger question: Is “al-Qaeda” itself one big Western false-flag operation designed to demonize Islam and destabilize the Islamic world?

Press TV

An American man who disappeared in Iran more than six years ago had been working for the CIA in what U.S. intelligence officials describe as a rogue operation that led to a major shake-up in the spy agency.

Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent, traveled to the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 to investigate corruption at a time when he was discussing the renewal of a CIA contract he had held for several years. He also inquired about getting re­imbursed for the Iran trip by the agency before he departed, according to former and current U.S. intelligence officials.

After he vanished, CIA officials told Congress in closed hearings as well as the FBI that Levinson did not have a current relationship with the agency and played down its ties with him. Agency officials said Levinson did not go to Iran for the CIA.

But months after Levinson’s abduction, e-mails and other documents surfaced that suggested he had gone to Iran at the direction of certain CIA analysts who had no authority to run operations overseas. That revelation prompted a major internal investigation that had wide-ranging repercussions, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The CIA leadership disciplined 10 employees, including three veteran analysts who were forced out of their jobs, the officials said.

The agency changed the rules outlining how analysts conduct business with contractors, including academics and other subject-matter experts who don’t work at the CIA, making it harder for agency employees to have such relationships.

The CIA ultimately concluded that it was responsible for Levinson while he was in Iran and paid $2.5 million to his wife, Christine, former U.S. intelligence officials said. The agency also paid the family an additional $120,000, the cost of renewing Levinson’s contract.

Levinson’s whereabouts remian unknown. Investigators can’t even say for certain whether he’s still alive. The last proof of life came about three years ago when the Levinson family received a video of him and later pictures of him shackled and dressed in an orange jumpsuit similar to those worn by detainees at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“I have been held here for 3¹ / ₂ years,” he says in the video. “I am not in good health.”

U.S. intelligence officials concede that if he is alive, Levinson, who would be 65, probably would have told his captors about his work for the CIA, as he was likely subjected to harsh interrogation.

The National Security Council declined to comment on any ties Levinson has to the U.S. government. “The investigation into Mr. Levinson’s disappearance continues, and we all remain committed to finding him and bringing him home safely to his family,” said spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden.

In a statement released Thursday, Levinson’s family said the U.S. government has failed to make saving his life a priority. “It is time for the U.S. government to step up and take care of one of its own. After nearly 7 years, our family should not be struggling to get through each day without this wonderful, caring, man that we love so much,” the statement said.

Levinson joined the FBI’s New York Field Office in 1978 after spending six years with the Drug Enforcement Administration. He was an expert on the New York mob’s five families. Eventually, he moved to the Miami office, where he tracked Russian organized-crime figures and developed a reputation for developing sources.

While in the FBI, Levinson attended a conference where he met a well-respected CIA analyst named Anne Jablonski, one of the agency’s experts on Russia. The two formed a friendship.

When Levinson retired from the FBI in 1998, he went to work as a private investigator.

Jablonski continued at the agency and, among her other duties after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, was to brief FBI Director Robert S. Mueller and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. By 2005, she was in the Office of Transnational Issues (OTI), the CIA unit that tracks money transfers, weapons smuggling and organized crime.

Jablonski brought Levinson to the CIA for discussions on money laundering with her colleagues. In 2006, Tim Sampson, then the head of the Illicit Finance Group, which was part of OTI, hired Levinson. The unclassified contract was then worth $85,000.

Academic reports

Levinson was supposed to provide academic reports but was operating more like a spy, gathering intelligence for the CIA and producing numerous well-
received reports, officials said. While working for the CIA, he passed on details about the Colombian rebels, then-President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Iran’s nuclear program.

Levinson hopscotched the globe. He went to Turkey and Canada, among other countries, to interview potential sources, sometimes using a fake name. But CIA station chiefs in those countries were never notified of Levinson’s activities overseas even though the agency reimbursed him for his travel, a violation of the rules.

On March 8, 2007, Levinson flew from Dubai to the Iranian island of Kish and checked into a hotel. He met with Dawud Salahuddin, a fugitive wanted for the murder of an Iranian dissident and diplomat who was shot at his house in Bethesda, Md. Levinson thought Salahuddin could supply details about the Iranian regime, perhaps ones that could interest the CIA, according to officials who have reconstructed some of his movements.

Levinson spent hours talking to Salahuddin. The next morning, he checked out of his hotel and vanished, officials said. The United States suspected the Iranian security services were behind his abduction, according to a diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks.

The U.S. government insisted that Levinson was a private citizen making a private trip. The State Department, in a cable to U.S. embassies in May 2007, said much the same thing. “Levinson was not working for the United States government,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote.

The CIA told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Levinson had done some minor work for the agency but that his contract had run out and the spy agency had nothing to do with him going to Iran. Agency analysts also spoke with the FBI and said they hadn’t sent him to Iran. The CIA’s involvement seemed to end there. The FBI, which investigates crimes against Americans, did not push the CIA to open its files and take a deeper look at Levinson’s relationship with the agency.

But Levinson’s family and friends refused to accept that he was a lost tourist. A former federal prosecutor in Florida named David McGee, a friend of Levinson’s, and McGee’s paralegal, Sonya Dobbs, thought the government wasn’t being truthful about who employed Levinson.

Dobbs managed to access Levinson’s e-mail accounts. There she found e-mails between Jablonski and Levinson and other material suggesting that he had worked with the CIA in what appeared to be a continuing relationship.

One of the e-mails instructed Levinson not to worry about getting paid for going to Iran shortly before he made the trip. Jablonski said she would take care of it. She advised him not to contact the agency’s contract office. “Keep talk about the additional money among us girls,” she said by e-mail.

The e-mails also suggested that Levinson was operating at Ja­blonski’s behest, according to officials who have reviewed the communications between the two. Jablonski adamantly denied in an interview that she oversaw what Levinson was doing.

With the newly discovered information, McGee got the attention of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who serves on the intelligence panel and is from Levinson’s home state. At the CIA, agency investigators began to scrutinize Levinson’s relationship with Jablonski and her boss, Sampson, and discovered more problems in the handling of his work.

Instead of mailing reports to the CIA, where they would be properly screened and processed, Jablonski had Levinson send them to her house, according to officials. She said she could review them faster that way.

They used private e-mail accounts to communicate — one reason the CIA was slow to learn of the relationship. The arrangement led CIA investigators to think Jablonski was trying to obscure their ties, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Jablonski never disclosed those details and others to investigators when Levinson disappeared. While the FBI and CIA knew about Levinson’s previous contract, answers she provided “didn’t square with the e-mails,” said a former senior agency official with knowledge of the events.

To CIA officials, it appeared that she was running a source and collecting intelligence, a job for trained operatives in the clandestine service and not analysts. In fact, the CIA’s clandestine arm never knew that Levinson was on the payroll or his activities when he traveled abroad, officials said.

By 2008, the CIA’s deputy director at the time, Stephen Kappes, conceded to Nelson and other senators that there was more to the Levinson story than the agency had acknowledged the previous year. Some on the committee said they had been misled by the CIA.

Jablonski said in an interview that she wasn’t hiding anything from CIA officials and that they knew about the arrangement with Levinson. Jablonksi said she would never put Levinson, a friend, in harm’s way.

Nevertheless, Jablonski and Sampson could face criminal charges, law enforcement officials say. Both veteran analysts resigned from the CIA in 2008 along with a third senior manager. Jablonski now works in the private sector. Sampson took a job with the Department of Homeland Security. He declined to comment for this report.

He told the Associated Press: “I didn’t even know he was working on Iran. As far as I knew he was a Latin America, money-laundering and Russian-organized-crime guy. I would never have directed him to do that.”

A break in 2010

For years, Levinson’s family had no word on the fate of the former FBI agent. A break came in November 2010 when an unknown source sent the family a 54-second video of Levinson, who appeared haggard but otherwise unharmed. They are unsure who sent the video, or why. The FBI is also unsure when the video was made.

“Please help me get home,” he says in the video. “Thirty-three years of service to the United States deserves something. Please help me.”

Levinson spent only 28 years with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, suggesting that he was including his time on a CIA contract as part of his government service.

A few months later, the family received a series of pictures: Levinson, his hands chained and his hair long and unruly, dressed in an orange jumpsuit. The family received them in April 2011. The FBI determined that they were sent from Afghanistan but was unsure when they were taken.

The photographs and videos turned into a dead end. And a recent FBI media blitz and $1 million reward haven’t revealed his whereabouts. Secret FBI meetings with the Iranians in Europe also have proved fruitless, officials said.

After the video and pictures of Levinson emerged, American officials concocted a story that he was being held in Pakistan or Afghanistan in an effort to provide the Iranians some cover to release him, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put out a statement in March 2011 that Levinson might be in southwest Asia. Officials hoped Levinson would turn up in one of those two countries and give the Iranians plausible deniability, officials said.

The ruse failed.

U.S. intelligence officials say that if there was a moment for his return, it was when they received the video. They can’t explain why Iran has freed other captives, such as a trio of U.S. hikers, but not Levinson. And other U.S. citizens being held by Iran — pastor Saeed Abedini and former Marine Amir Hekmati — are known to be alive, unlike Levinson.

The Iranians have steadfastly denied holding Levinson. Even as the relationship between the United States and Iran has thawed with the recent election of President Hassan Rouhani and a temporary deal that freezes parts of the country’s nuclear program, there has been no progress on securing Levinson or information about his fate.

“We don’t know where he is, who he is,” Rouhani told CNN in September during the United Nations General Assembly. “He is an American who has disappeared. We have no news of him.”

U.S. intelligence officials remain skeptical. They suspect Iran did snatch Levinson, but they can’t prove it. Officials surmise that only a professional intelligence service such as Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and National Security could have taken Levinson and thwarted American efforts to find him for so many years.

U.S. intelligence officials acknowledge it’s very possible Levinson, who was in poor health, died under questioning at some point. They say there is no upside for the Iranians to admit he died in their custody.

Former officials familiar with the case said releasing the information about his CIA ties won’t make his situation any worse.

Levinson’s family refuses to believe he is dead and remains hopeful he will return home.

In November, Levinson became the longest-held hostage in U.S. history, surpassing the 2,454 days that Terry Anderson spent in captivity in Lebanon in the 1970s.

“No one would have predicted this terrible moment more than 6¹ / ₂ years ago when Bob disappeared,” Christine Levinson said in a statement last month. “Our family will soon gather for our seventh Thanksgiving without Bob, and the pain will be almost impossible to bear. Yet, as we endure this terrible nightmare from which we cannot wake, we know that we must bear it for Bob, the most extraordinary man we have ever known.”

The Washington Post