Energy Conference Energy Conference Agenda May 7 2009 2: Fill & Download for Free

Syria is a difficult environment with many conflicting agendas that need to be understood to untangle the mess the people of that nation are in.A brief history of Syria:Syria is unique in the region, and owes its current governmental regime to a tradition identical to that advocated by Saddam Hussein prior to his fall in 2003. That tradition is a form of Arab Nationalism called Baathism. Baathism owes much of its inspiration from many of the fascist, socialist, and ethnic nationalist theories of Europe prior to the Second World War. What many Arabs wanted around the end of the second world war was an Arab Socialist super-state to rival other world nations. With the intent of unifying the Middle East under a single Arab super-state, it didn’t take the lesson of the fall of the Nazi empire. Secular in nature, Baathist political theory also borrowed heavily in how it’s governments should be arranged and organized, including elements that wouldn’t be too unfamiliar to anyone studying anything from the Kremlin to the Gestapo. In the end, the movement failed in much of the Middle East, relegating itself to just two states in which Arabs are the majority: Iraq and Syria.In Iraq, the secular Baathist merged with a variant of Sunni fundamentalism embedded in the Al Anbar region, where a Baathist structure and a Baathist military absorbed in Sunni crony partners. This intermarriage of state and religion sewed the seeds for something very important that would come later - the Islamic State.Syria was different. They didn’t embrace Sunni fundamentalism, in fact their leader, Bashar al-Assad, is from a religious minority of the country, the Alawites - another Islamic religious tradition. Like Hussein’s Iraq, we saw the same type of cronyism with the Alawites. This directly influenced the events that would come later in Syria.Looking elsewhere in the region, we have two extremely important events that pulled Syria, along with the rest of the region, down into a spiral few could predict. The first of these came in the form of one disgruntled Army private. Disgruntled with the choices he made and unable to adapt to Army culture, an Army soldier by the name of PFC Manning illegally copied a massive cache of classified information from secure servers during a 2009 Iraq deployment. He then delivered the cache to sources at the Australian based Wikileaks, which then disseminated them across the world.Perhaps the most important items leaked was a collection of tens of thousands of government cables between foreign governments intercepted by the United States intelligence services. These were diplomatic cables between government officials, such as ambassadors to nations such as Libya and Jordan. The cables held huge amounts of evidence of government repression and mistreatment of their citizens across the region. This new information led to a string of protests in 2010, first in Tunisia, but then spread across the Middle East. This became known as the Arab Spring, a diplomatic revolution pushed on by Social Media, and forcing many nations throughout the region to make certain concessions to the overwhelming flow of civil descent. In some countries, we saw relatively peaceful transitions of power, where others erupted into violence. Syria was one of those latter nations. There, Assad’s Baathist regime attempted to violently control the protesters, which then gave way to a full scale rebellion and civil war.Independent these events, in Iraq a different drama was taking place. The United States followed the original timeline to withdraw American forces by the end of 2011. The problem with this plan, as predicted by many, was that following the schedule was not advisable since so few of the strategic requirements and milestones for a secure Iraq had not been met. Regardless, the administration in charge of the United States continued on with the original plan for the removal of forces in Iraq. This was, in part, to preserve campaign promises to pull troops out of Iraq, but failed in that the administration did so knowingly that it made the nation fertile ground for a fundamentalist uprising. Without a fair attempt to negotiate a diplomatic solution to extend their stay, and having not deliver the required forces to adequately to secure the country, a contingent the schedule was based upon, the United States left Iraq in December of 2011.At that point, the government of Iraq made many failed internal policy decisions. Many of these mistakes I detailed in Why is the Iraqi military unable to handle fighting ISIS without US intervention? Among the worst decisions was a Shia first democratic policy, ostracizing, and limiting the influence of Sunnis, even those unaffiliated with the Baathist regime, whom they felt embittered to after decades of Hussein Regime patronage. This furthered the sectarian rifts within the country. Along with this, the best force in the region for combating insurgency, a type of special forces created with the help of the Americans specifically to police high profile terrorists, was instead used by the Iraqi Administration as body guards for the President and his inner circle, thus neutering the Iraqi military of it’s best fighters. In this way, the Iraqi were only able the Islamic terrorists situated in the Western province of the region, only so far as pushing them over the border into Syria. From there, they created a new power base, with which to conduct raids into Iraq, but also, to take advantage of the growing disorder in Syria.Those terrorists later became known as the Islamic State, or ISIS. By centralizing their power in Eastern Syria, they were able to take advantage of the growing chaos if the Syrian civil war, and take over the region without acquiring the greater attention of the rest of the world. During this time, they built up a massive social media presence. This was in part due to playing off Western support of “protesters” decrying “democratic values” throughout the region, ignorant of the fact that many of these “protesters” were actually the same insurgent forces the United States had been fighting since 2004. This meant that Western social media companies were reluctant to silent their rhetoric and recruiting efforts because of their own conflicting values of Classical Liberalism, along with not wishing to appear “Islamophobic”.Due to this confluence of good fortune, the terrorist groups were able to not only pull in veteran Islamic fundamentalist jihadi fighters from across the Islamic world, but also new recruits, including many young jihadis from European countries. In this way, their numbers surged as they consolidating in Ar Raqqah. It wasn’t until their dramatic and sudden conquest of much of Iraq in the Summer of 2014, where thousands of fighters overtook much of Iraq’s Al Anbar and Nineveh provinces, that the world began to look closer at what was happening in the deserts of Syria and Iraq.After the conquest of Iraq, the ISIS gained a great deal of power in the region through the taking of Iraqi bases, equipment, and loot. Now armed with abandoned guns, artillery, tanks, With that, they were able to redeploy their forces and solidify their fight against the Assad Regime in Syria.At this point, Syria was in the middle of three way Civil War.The Syrian Government, controlled by Bashar al-Assad.Syrian Rebel groups, which are not a unified coalition as much as many different factions sometimes allied against other factions in the hopes of eventually taking control of the region.ISIS, the Islamic State. Though ISIS controls a great deal of land in Iraq and Syria.This should be enough to help us understand how the United States and Russia became involved.How is America involved?The United States was pulled into Syria due to the surge of Islamic State fighters. The capital of the Islamic State was centered in Syria, but its roots were obviously the same as the notorious Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which the Americans fought throughout the Iraq War insurgency. When the new evolution of AQI spilled over into Iraq, it proved many correct in their cries from 2011 that the country was not prepared to defend itself yet, and that the pull out was premature. Given that this was also the same organization, or at least a descendant of it, that the United States had gone to war with in 2001, and given that they were currently, and blatantly going into a mad dash across the desert to subjugate and murder anyone they could reach, the existence of ISIS brought out a cry for American intervention. What the world got, though, was something less than we hoped for. Whatever the strategy to fight ISIS, it was going to require a crossborder campaign, muddying the waters of two very different nations with two very different interests and agendas.This brought the US into Syria, but what we did next wasn’t clear to most. Instead of fighting with the Syrian government against ISIS, we fought the Syrian government, and ISIS, for a third party. At best, the American response could be described as a half-assed attempt to support various rebel groups against Assad’s government. The reason the US is against the standing government is part because of philosophical differences in governance, and part, because of actual war crimes the regime is widely known to implement in their war against the rebels. The war crimes include the use of “barrel bombs”, crude weapons made by filling 55 gallon drums with poison gas, such as chlorine, and dropping them from the back of low flying helicopters. The bombs burst, spreading the gas over a wide area and killing indiscriminately. Barrel bombs are used in many other ways, but the use of chemical weapons on civilian targets, represented explicit acts of state terrorism. Philosophically, due to its Baathist background (being an ethnic based national socialist regime (literally, Arab Nazism)) as well as fascist leanings in how it handles rebels, the United States wished to, again, support a democratic nation in the region by usurping the Assad regime.To do this, they made numerous inroads with multiple groups that professed to being, in some way against Assad. Many of these groups were in line with a future of Syria in which the average American would be happy to support - Free, Democratic, Intellectual, Secular. Many others, however, were actually groups who hated Assad, but were more closely linked with the type of radical Islamic terrorists we have been fighting for the better part of two decades. These rebel groups weren’t vetted as they should have been by the Department of State, at the time headed by current Presidential Nominee for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton. What eventually happened was that the Americans armed not only “good” rebels, but others, which eventually found their way into the arms of Islamic State terrorists.[1]Following this, the United States has been involved in Syria in so far as they have attempted to bomb Islamic State targets in such a way as to support the rebels and not support Assad. You can see this in how the coalition did not bomb North or East of the city of Palmyra, in central Syria. Palmyra is a key city, which the rebels need to control and which marks the start of their territory. What they haven’t been doing is a full scale bombing campaign with the intent to dramatically upset the Islamic State and fragment them, as I’m relatively sure, everyone actually wants. We can see evidence of this by examining the operational tempo, or the average number of regular bombings against Islamic State forces. Toward the end of 2015, the number of bombings against Islamic State targets numbered between 100 and 200 a week. [2]For comparison, the opening weeks of the Iraq war in 2003 saw airstrikes number in the 10,000’s. A more accurate measurement is that in the first month of the Iraq war in 2003, the United States dropped over 27,000 pieces of munition in the first 26 days of the conflict. That’s about 1,030 bombs a day on Iraqi military targets. Compared to measurements taken in July of last year, the United States had dropped only 15,245 bombs in the first 361 days of this current conflict. In spite of the heavy press toward what seems like every bombing, the 1,030 bombs a day delivered in the onset of the 2003 offensive compares to only 42 attacks against ISIS today.[3]To observers, it was obvious that the American aim wasn’t to destroy ISIS, but rather, they were essentially trying to “herd” the Islamic State in such a way as to be a greater threat to Assad. It was a fear that Assad would rush in and take over Islamic State territory if ISIS collapsed too soon. In herding them against the despot, it was hoped that ISIS could be used to force his collapse, making way for a more democratic ally which the West could interact with in Syria. Such a maneuver would form a new strategic resource for the United States in the heart of the Middle East.This was, however, an inept play, since the rebels lacked the cohesiveness and means, let alone the local support of the Sunni regions, to secure the territory from ISIS or Assad’s regime. In essence, there has been a two year stalemate in Syria, with each party trading marginal territory as part of a war with no clear end in sight. The end result was that ISIS became hardened to the tactics, able to absorb US bombings and adapt to them. It also did little to nothing to aid the rebels, and failed utterly in preventing the growth of the Islamic State, not only in Syria, but also overseas. There the jihadis of Syria would every day return back to their homes to tell of the weak and inept Americans and sew more seeds of future Islamist revolts.Now, to Russia.At first, it isn’t clear why Russia would care about the Syrian problem. They don’t have massive Islamic population centers, save for satellite states of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. While there have been instances of Islamic terror, these are somewhat manageable when compared to the growing turmoil of the Middle East, and even compared with many of the recent instances in Europe, where recent floods of Islamic refugees from the Syrian conflict are straining security measures. It could be argued that attempting to bring peace to Syria would be an effort to stave off future disruption in the Islamic states under Russian influence, but if that were true, they would have been invested also in fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan and in supporting the Americans in Iraq. From that we can see that the Russians neither are protecting from future Islamist incursions nor acting out of altruism.Understanding Putin’s aims requires and understanding of the geography of Russia, the element that drives most of its international policy. Russia is strategically very weak in many regards. Russia, while monolithic, is a nation with almost no natural barriers to invasion, either from Europe, China, or the South in the Middle East. There are few major rivers, and the terrain is almost completely flat. What this means for invaders is that they have the ability to swiftly move across the country side with few impediments from mountains to slow them down, as well as little natural resources capable of providing strong defensive works by Russian forces.For that reason, Russia, during every period of its history, has sought to surround itself with a shell of satellite states to act as a buffer between their capital in Moscow, and any enemy incursions. Having a very large territory with few natural barriers to protect them means that they have to try to artificially move their borders and their bases of power farther away. We see this with the growth of the Russian Empire, again with the collection of Soviet States of the Warsaw Pact, and now again with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2004 and their effective conquest of much of Ukraine in 2014. History has proven the need for this, seeing the Russians face staggering losses again and again. For that reason, Russia, in whatever form it exists, seeks to surround itself with allies, or at least protectorate states, along its physical borders to provide that needed buffer to muster its own troops for a defense it hopes will never come.Next, Russia controls one of the largest energy companies in the world, one which is integrated into their national policy and diplomatic efforts in a way that would blow the minds of most American Oil imperialism conspiracy theorists' minds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom.)Imagine if every American oil company were combined into one energy monopoly. Next, imagine if that company, while remaining private, was owned in large part by the American government. Next imagine that the United States used that very same company to pressure other nations in their diplomatic efforts. America doesn’t have such an asset, but Russia does. In Russia, that company is Gazprom. Set up as the official ministry of energy by the old Soviet Union, it now functions as a private company, but still majorly invested in the Russian state and has repeatedly been used to influence European politics. One of many such events was when Russia cut off the heat in the middle of winter to European nations in their attempts to prevent intervention during the Ukrainian War.As an energy company, Gazprom directly competes with Saudi Arabian oil. Since the energy industries are so important to both of these nations, that competition places a very important element in the geopolitical strategies of both on a deep level that people in the West don't really see. Growing economies in East Asia vie for the best deal on energy to fuel their expansion. They have the choices of either looking to the west of Arabian oil, or to the North for Russian gas, and often, Russia loses.To give an example of Russia dependence on the energy market, in 2015, to disrupt American oil exploration efforts in shale manufacturing, Saudi Arabian oil companies slashed prices on their exports, dramatically decreasing the price of energy across the globe. Though the attack was mostly aimed at American oil companies on the rise, the dip in oil dramatically affected Russian energy profits, as well. This alongside Western sanctions brought an economic recession for the country. As integrated Russia is with its energy exports, it needs to gain leverage against its greatest competitors, if not through open market channels, than via more direct methods. By placing assets in Syria, Gazprom, and Russia by proxy, are able to limit the economic power of the wealthy kingdoms of the Arabian Peninsula helping to secure Russian influence and economic security in the future.Russian economics, and the instability it has faced since the fall of the Soviet Union creates yet another incentive to be involved on friendly terms with foreign powers, particularly those suffering major setbacks. When you can’t push leverage with one industry, you should always attempt to gain it with another. For Russia, that other industry is an has always been the sale of military arms.When Russia struggles to make money through its global sales of natural gas, weapon sales to Syria serve as a key export to the Russian economy. Quoting Kremlin insiders and military analysts, the Syrian conflict and it’s “marketing effects” to the Russian arms industry, will boost Russia's arms sales by up to $7bn. This is on top of the $14.5bn in sales in 2015, with as much as $56bn more in future orders, according to statements by Russian president Vladimir Putin[4]. For that reason, it always benefits Russia to be the friend in need for nations on the edge of collapse.So… Syria.Syria doesn’t share a land border with Russia, but it does represent something else. It is right in the middle of the Middle East. Currently, Syria is rather perfect because it's interests align with Russia - the government of Syria wants to survive and Russia wants a foot in the region. Syria could prove the perfect foothold for greater influence into the Middle East, as it is basically the crossroads of the entire region. From within Syria, Russian planes and troops also have an effective reach across the region. Syria is also apt to comply, as they are currently a nation at war with itself on two fronts, along with sharing no friends among the West. It is in desperate need of allies willing to provide fighters, and mostly military arms. Russia, is capable of all of this.Furthermore, Russia still exists as a de facto enemy of NATO. Intervention in Syria allows Russia to serve as a nuisance to NATO and the United States by demonstrating to the world how ineffective the treaty has become in solving global crisis, in projecting its power, and in protecting its chosen allies. By prolonging the war and empowering Assad’s forces, it makes future efforts to support the United States in future military operations less likely, and pushes current allies of the US and NATO away. A clear example of this can be seen when the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte recently announced in a Beijing Press Conference that the United States was “too weak” and that it would be “separating” from the United State to take a stronger strategic interest with China. It’s also planning to speak with Vladimir Putin. In a quote, “It’s now China, Russia, and the Philippines against the world.”"America has lost now," Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people at a forum in the Great Hall of the People, attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli."With that, in this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte said to applause. "I have separated from them. So I will be dependent on you for all time. But do not worry. We will also help as you help us."[5]In helping (significantly) to secure the nation, Russia will also play an important role in negotiating any peace treaty that comes about. Russia’s aims will be to ensure that Syria’s Pro-Russian government stays in power and that the two are able to continue their economic ties and revenue from their arms agreements. This will also allow Russia to mitigate any bargaining power of the NATO allies and also give them more bargaining play in regards to other conflicts which Russia is currently involved in, or soon will be. That means that we could sanctions imposed on the state because of the Ukrainian War disappearing for no other reason than political maneuvering.Furthermore, is Turkey. Though not often talked about, Turkey is actually primed to be a major power in the next 50 years, though few see that today. It is also an important NATO ally, and given that Turkey does share a land border with Russia, or at least it’s satellite of Georgia, as well as controlling routes connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world, Turkey represents more of a potential threat to Russia than anything going on in Syria. The strategic choke point of the Hellespont is a vital hedge against Russian economic and military security, allowing the country certain power over the Russians. Moscow, always aware of their tenuous grasp of peace and the disastrous cost of their failures, is never one to ignore chances to remove, or at least mitigate, the strategic assets of their neighbors. Taking Syria diplomatically would allow Russian troops access to military bases in Syria. This serves as a casual reminder of Turkey’s vulnerabilities. The relationship allows Russia to surround Turkey on two sides if ever there was a need to go war with the growing power and serves as yet another check against NATO power and influence, and serves to mitigate the threat that Turkey will have a chance to turn on Russia in the future.So, in creating a strong relationship with Syria, Russia achieves many things.Leverage over a potentially strong ally, being the Syrians.International leverage for defeating ISIS, and ending a civil war.Military access to the Middle East.Expanding their effective borders and increasing their defensive capabilities.Hedging the political strength of Turkey.Hedging against the NATO powers and diminishing the United States’ influence.Hedging the economic power of Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern oil states, as well as securing Eurasian energy.That said, nothing up to this point explains why the United States and Russia’s aims need to be considered contradictory. I recently engaged in a conversation with a friend on this, when he asked why it was wrong to take the advice of many American Libertarians, who believe the solution to solving the ISIS crisis is to work with Russia to defeat the funding from Saudi Arabia. While this makes sense at face value, there is a great deal of political nuance to understanding why Russia pushes for this, and why America not understanding the Russian agenda may defeat the Islamic State, but spell disaster on a global scale later on.First question, why not work with Russia to stop the flow of funds into ISIS from the Saudis. The reason we don't is because of who has the money. Looking into the politics of Saudi Arabia, we see that it is ruled by two extremely large, and extremely influential families that began taking charge of the peninsula around the time the United States became a nation. One ruled the people secularly, (the Saud) and the other became influential leaders of the faith (al Wahabi.) Over centuries, the two have grown to envelope every facet of rule for country, the Saud family ruling the land, while the Wahabi family have used the pilgrimage and centrality of Islam to export their brand of Islam. (I swear this matters and I am getting to a point.) It is important to understand that the two did not remain two separate families, but intermarry often, tying the state of Saudi Arabia with the modern religion of Islam. The system is truly fuedal.Skipping to today, as oil money made the region wealthy, the individuals made wealthy by the state supported the faith, and that is when we had a problem. Most of the money that supports ISIS, or at least the type we are talking about here, is coming from Saudi Arabia. Not the state itself, but individual families. What we can do, (and what we have done) is to freeze bank accounts, and force the Saudi government to impose harsh penalties on their own people, and the wealthiest and most powerful of these people, as well. Considering the place of Saudi Arabia, the United States and the West don't amount to enough of a factor for Saudi Arabia to screw over it's most powerful families. Saudi Arabia is our ally, perhaps not our best, but an important relationship nonetheless. It is individuals within the Saudi population... oddly related to the royal and other high ranking families... who are screwing us over. In reality, the distinction is meaningless, but legally, it carries great weight.That is why the clear solution would be to cut off the money, but also why the United States can't do it very easily. Granted, we have frozen assets of these families in the past, but when this happens it is viewed as yet another betrayal by the West, solidify extremists, and rob of us of a crucial ally in the region. This puts pressure on the Saudi government to pull away from the American tyrants, which, given the ample alternatives they have from Europe, India, and China… eventually won’t be a very terrible proposition. In truth, we’ve already seen this in the region. Last year, the Saudis began a regional coalition military of their own with other Arab States. The move spelled many unfortunate truths about the Middle East’s perceptions of their relationship with the West, namely that they no longer trust the United States to be able to defend them in the future, and that they are seeking a more independent footing from Western infidels. This is backed up when one comes to understand that, while the United States spends the most real dollars in defense spending, it is the Saudis who spend a greater percentage of their GDP than any other nation on Earth.The unintended consequences, therefore, of pushing agendas on the Saudi government that, in effect, betray their own people (as bad as they are) will only serve to push the Arabian Peninsula states further towards a stance independent of relationships with the West, Russia’s greatest political threat.Also, cutting funding to the Islamic State through their foreign benefactors won’t have the impact many of us wish it would anyway. In truth, the foreign funds we are talking about don't amount to more than, at best, about 20% of their total funds. Much more important are other income sources. They produce their own oil, which we have done well of interrupting (with bombs, not to be coy), sell their own crops, water, and electricity, but they also looted all the banks when they took cities like Mosul . That haul, I remember, gave them enough loot to stay operational for years. They have also made countless fortunes from the sale of priceless artworks and ancient artifacts in illegal underground markets, some of which made their way to Europe. Next they impose taxes on their "citizens", and even taxing non-Muslims with a punitive tax called the jizya . Those who fail to accept their version of Islam and refuse the tax are killed. Finally, they make ungodly amounts of money by kidnapping and ransoming for profit anyone they can get their hands on. While the grisly beheading are something that captured international headlines, they mainly serve to increase the premiums on those thousands that are ransomed back into safety. It's a seriously ugly business, but we need to understand the multiple revenue streams to realize that just going after the Saudis won't solve much. So even if we were to knowingly damage our relationships with the Arabian states, it honestly wouldn’t be the deathnell to the Islamic State that we would like to believe.Perhaps, though, a temporary set-back to diplomatic relations would be worth ending the ISIS threat? Well, maybe not. It is important to understand that the Islamic State, isn't a political entity like any other nation or even something like the Nazis years ago. They are a philosophy and social ideology that is reforming much of the Islamic world, and mostly outside Syria. Most of their most dangerous fighters are not Syrian or Iraqi, but from Libya, Uzbekistan, Somalia, not to mention Europe. Winning a ground war with ISIS will only scatter their leadership back to their homelands to work to convert those areas into a worse form of what we see today until the next opportunity for the next ISIS to form.Russia knows all of this. They know that for the United States to support Russia in their suggestion to defeat ISIS by shutting wealthy Saudi benefactors won’t do much to defeat ISIS, but do much to destroy the fragile relationship that the United States has with its largest oil producing allies of the Arabian Peninsula. Not doing so will also lend credibility to the idea that the United States is an immoral world leader, as well as a weak one. Furthermore, they know that working to isolate the Saudis, as such a plan would do, can only damage economic relationships between established Middle Eastern and Western nations, making the way easier for Russian energy to step in to take the place, ensuring more power and economic security for Russia, as the rest of the world suffers economically and the fragile state of the Middle East continues to unhinge. The worst part of this is that, in such an environment, the factors that led to ISIS’s creation, Sunni Islamic radicalization, isolation and hatred of Western states, Arab nationalism, all come together in an even greater atmosphere for future upheaval in the future. If Russian proposals for a future in the Middle East were to succeed in the direction they are already heading, then decades from now, maybe sooner, we may see a resurrected Islamic State, far more powerful and more dangerous than that which currently plagues the Levant.To work with Russia to shut down the people donating the money would do many things that are great for Russia, but bad for everyone else. In fact, all of the strategies that Russia has proposed for Syria, are first and foremost, deliberate efforts to benefit Russia, in a diplomatic strategy of pure opportunism. Because of this, any work with Russia today will be to provide a temporary gain with much greater long term setback. ISIS, a state already in military decline, for the time being, may lose ground, but at the cost of the creation of a strengthened Russian aligned major power in the heart of the Middle East; a diminished NATO in the eyes of the world; and defeating the last of our hard fought strategic gains in Iraq. All the while, the core of what makes ISIS dangerous will still exist, waiting and preparing a new generation.So to answer the question, it is in Russia's best interest to unhinge their biggest rivals in the region and in the world from each other. In this case, the United States and Saudi Arabia. Working with Russia in this way will only achieve Russian strategic interests.Alienate the Saudi government, forcing them to cut ties with the United States. This will damage their greatest energy competitor’s revenue and the diplomatic power of their oil, as well as providing a damaging blow to the American economy.Isolate Saudi Arabia, forcing a much greater inward focus, and therefore create a MUCH BETTER environment for fanatical Islamism.Push the United States further out of the Middle East strategically and diplomatically.Damage the belief in NATO as a strong ally or capable force of protection.Give the region a deeply pro-Russian foothold both militaristically and economically, pulling not only Syria, but the rest of the region into Russian political orbit.Lose for the West vital trade relationships while creating vast trade relationships that feed directly to the Russian State.In summary, virtually any act of benevolence of Russia in the Middle East is aimed at achieving many, many strategic goals. Many of these goals are engineered to improve their own strategic stake in the future. That much should be expected, but just as many of the actions taken by the Russians are acts meant specifically to undermine the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, various states of the Arabian Peninsula, and the gains all of them have made over the last several decades. Other agendas involve the dismantling of the alliances across the world, such as that between the West and Saudi Arabia and the disruption of world economies. All this while isolating the Saudis in an effort to increase their own energy profits to give themselves not only a strengthened economy, but a greater source of diplomatic leverage over Europe.Russia is aware of what it is doing. Every act is part of a very clear and well tabulated plan. The problem is that Americans aren’t aware of this. America and the West have the power, easily they have the power to stop the Russian plans, while using them to do good without doing more harm to global order than already has happened. To do that, however, Americans and the European community need to become more aware of the relationships that exist in the Middle East, and what the various factions’ varying agendas. Currently, we aren’t. Arguing between the need for security and the desire to not appear racist, have left many ignorant of the bigger picture taking place across the world. While Russia continues to push its aggressive, self-interested policies to do what they want, here in the United States, all we seem to notice is a debate between two clowns while thousands more roam the streets.Thanks for reading!For more answers like this check out the collection Global Outlook and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Help Jon Davis in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.Footnotes[1] Remember Those 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too[2] Evaluation of US Operations in Syria and Iraq[3] Are We Dropping Enough Bombs On ISIS?[4] Syria's war: A showroom for Russian arms sales[5] China, Russia, and Philippines against the World… Wait What?

3 June 1947:Mountbatten proposed the partition plan to divide British India into independent dominions of India and Pakistan.19 June 1947:Lord Mountbatten visited Kashmir for 5 days to persuade the Maharaja to accede to India or Pakistan.😔 The Maharaja showed reluctance.11 July 1947:Md Ali Jinnah declared that if Kashmir opted for independence, Pakistan would have friendly relations with it.Liaquat Ali Khan endorsed this position.19 July 1947:Jinnah's personal secretary K. H. Khurshid assured the Maharaja that Pakistan would not "take away an iota of his power".23 July 1947:State's PM Ram Chandra Kak visited Delhi for 5 days, meeting Mountbatten and the political leaders of Congress and the Muslim League.He explained that the State had decided not to accede to either Dominion.😥(Ram Chandra kak)14 August 1947 – 15 August 1947:Independence and Partition of British India into 🇮🇳 and 🇵🇰.Kashmir signed the Standstill Agreement with Pakistan.India requested further discussions for a standstill agreement.20 August 1947:Pakistan Army formulated Operation Gulmarg to organize a tribal invasion of Kashmir.The main invasion of raiders into J and K that was planned and launched by the Army HQs of Pakistan was called 'Operation Gulmarg'.👇1–2 September 1947:(Mian Iftikharuddin)Pakistan Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan charged Mian Iftikharuddin with organizing a revolt in Kashmir.✅Iftikharuddin introduced the Muslim Conference leader Sardar Ibrahim to Colonel Akbar Khan.✅Sardar Ibrahim requested and received arms for the rebels.Invasion of Tribe started. 👇4 September 1947:Henry Lawrence Scott informed the Maharaja that 400 armed Muslims infiltrated 😡from Kahuta into the state to terrorize the Hindu and Sikh minorities.Kashmir reported the information to Pakistan and urged it to control the infiltration.12 September 1947:Liaquat Ali Khan approved ✅ the plan for "Armed Revolt inside Kashmir" prepared by Colonel Akbar Khan and another plan prepared by Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan.Khurshid Anwar of the Muslim League National Guard was dispatched to the Frontier to mobilize the “Pashtun tribes”👇 for an armed attack.19 September 1947:The Muslim Conference acting president Choudhri Hamidullah and general secretary Ishaque Qureshi were summoned by Pakistani prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan and briefed about Pakistan's invasion plans.19 September 1947:Mahajan met Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel in Delhi and apprised them of the situation in the state.He indicated the Maharaja's willingness to accede to India but asked for political reforms to be delayed.🤓🤓Nehru demanded the release of Sheikh Abdullah.20 September 1947:According to Sardar Ibrahim, a people's militia of 50,000 ex-servicemen 😡had been raised to form an 'Azad Army'.22 September 1947:Muslim Conference convention at Srinagar took a decision favoring accession to Pakistan.27 September 1947:Nehru wrote to Vallabhbhai Patel predicting a Pakistani incursion into Kashmir.😔29 September 1947:✅ Sheikh Abdullah was released from prison.30 September 1947:🤨 Nehru proposed using plebiscite as a means of settling disputes regarding princely states.It was discussed in the Indian Cabinet and then communicated to Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan in Delhi.Khan's eyes were said to have "sparkled" at the proposal, though he made no response.😏Tribal started Occupying J&K.5 October 1947:Nehru is informed by Dwarakanath Kachru that the Maharaja had lost control of the western districts of the state.😥6 October 1947:An armed rebellion began in Poonch🇮🇳(185101).Sardar Ibrahim organized the Poonch rebellion, with the help of Pakistan Army and the Muslim League, the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir.The Maharaja replaced Chief of State Forces Banbury and Police Chief Powell with Hindu officers.8 October 1947 – 9 October 1947:The Owen Pattan (POK) post on Jhelum river was captured by rebels.😡(Also known as “Azad Pattan”)Sehnsa, a large town in POK, and Throchi were abandoned by State Forces after the attack.😡Pakistani raids on the borders of Jammu and Kathua districts began.😡12 October 1947:Khurshid Hasan 👇K. H. Khurshid, Jinnah's private secretary, was sent to Kashmir to mobilize support for Pakistan,😑 He advocated Pakistan to use force, and "supply arms and foodstuff to the tribes within and without the state."14 October 1947:The activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh 🚩 and the Akalis 🙏mounted on villages of the Jammu district to help Hindu and Sikh victims of Tribal attack.but 1947 Jammu violence began.15 October 1947:Mehr Chand Mahajan took charge as Prime Minister of the state. The concentration of tribesmen reported at Abbottabad-Mansehra.(“Abbottabad” in 🇵🇰)17 October 1947:Brigadier N.S. Rawat given the charge of the Jammu Brigade of the State Forces.and Brigadier Khuda Baksh made Chief of Staff, second in command.17-18 October 1947:A battalion of Patiala State Forces arrives in Jammu and a mountain battery (artillery regiment) is stationed in Srinagar.20 October 1947:Lorries carrying 900 “Mahsud” tribesmen😡 departed the Frontier tribal region heading to Kashmir.😌 Governor George Cunningham sent a letter to Indian Army Chief Gen. Rob Lockhart & warned him about the invasion;the letter was received on 23 or 24 October.21 October 1947:Dak Bungalow at Bhimber was attacked by rebels.There were accusations that this was an effort to kill or abduct the Maharaja, who had been scheduled to visit that day.Now, first Indo🇮🇳-Pakistani🇵🇰 War Started.21 October 1947 – 22 October 1947:Pakistan launched a tribal Lashkar (levy) from Waziristan to overthrow the Maharaja's government.😠Thousands of Pashtuns from Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province recruited covertly by the Pakistani Army, invaded Kashmir along with the Poonch rebels,😑In Poonch and Jammu, The tribesmen engaged in looting and killing 😔along the way.👉 Pro-Pakistan members of the Maharaja's army rebelled at Domel (Muzaffarabad) and took control of the Jhelum river bridge.😔22 October 1947:👏All the Muslim members of the State Police in Jammu City (after their rebellion) were disarmed and ordered to go to Pakistan.24 October 1947:😍 R.L. Batra, the Deputy Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, carried a message from the Maharaja to Nehru which requested military assistance and proposed accession to India.24 October 1947: Bhimber fell to rebels after an attack by armoured vehicles of the Pakistan Army.😥(“Bhimber” in POK)25 October 1947:A Defence Committee meeting in Delhi, headed by Lord Mountbatten, considered the Maharaja's request.Ministers were unanimous in sending military assistance.but disagreed on whether to accept Kashmir's accession.✅ The secretary of the States Department, V. P. Menon, was sent to Kashmir to assess the situation.26 October 1947:V. P. Menon brought news that:the situation in Kashmir was critical.the Maharaja was ready to agree to "any terms".😀✅26 October 1947 – 27 October 1947:The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession (IOA), acceding the state to the Indian Union.😍India accepted the accession, regarding it provisional until such time as the will of the people could be ascertained.🙏 IOA confirms that J&K belongs to India🇮🇳.27 October 1947:The Indian army entered the state to repel the invaders.27 October 1947:Mohammad Ali Jinnah ordered General Douglas Gracey to send Pakistani troops into Kashmir.Gracey declined, pointing out the fact of Kashmir's accession to India.Gracey had a 'stand-down order' from Supreme Commander Claude Auchinleck to the effect that, in the event of an inter-Dominion war, all the British officers in both the armies must stand down.27 October 1947:The Kashmir Liberation Committee was formed to manage Pakistan's conduct of the war.It was headed byPrime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan,with Colonel Akbar Khan as the military member,Ghulam Muhammad, the finance minister, andSardar Ibrahim, the president of the POK government.28 October 1947:Field Marshal Auchinleck flew to Lahore to explain the stand-down order to Jinnah.Upon his suggestion, Jinnah invited the Indian leaders for a conference in Lahore.but the Indian Cabinet declined the invitation.29 October 1947:Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan entered the war officially by deciding to maintain a force of at least 5,000 tribesmen in Kashmir.😒Tribesmen again poured into Kashmir.31 October 1947:Sheikh Abdullah was appointed as the head of the Emergency Administration in Kashmir.31 October 1947:A provisional government was declared by the rebels.1 November 1947:Lord Mountbatten and Mohammad Ali Jinnah met in Lahore, as the Governor-General of India and Pakistan.Mountbatten offered India's proposal that:the accession of Junagadh, Hyderabad, and Kashmir should be decided by an impartial reference to the will of the people in the form of a plebiscite.Jinnah rejected the offer.Early November:Sheikh Abdullah recommended thatIndia should give an ultimatum and declare war against Pakistan upon the expiry of the ultimatum.Nehru did not favour a broader war.3 November 1947:Tribesmen broke through to within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the Srinagar airport and were beaten back.Indians suffered heavy casualties.Indian Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel argued for the army to be reinforced;two more battalions were air-lifted, and a squadron of armoured cars and field artillery were dispatched from Pathankot.3 November 1947:Mendhar, in the eastern part of the Poonch district fell to rebels; Bagh and Rawalakot followed in quick succession.Hindu and Sikh refugees from these areas took shelter in Nowshera, Mirpur, Kotli and Poonch, which were all surrounded by rebels.(Mendhar is in India-administrative Kashmir)5 November 1947:Most of the tribesmen withdrew to Uri in the face of the Indian assault. Many returned home, sensing that the fight was lost.5 November 1947 – 6 November 1947:Convoys of Muslim refugees from Jammu going to West Punjab were attacked by armed bands supported by State troops; very few survived.6 November became a remembrance day in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir.7 November 1947:Reinforced Indian troops in the Kashmir Valley engaged the tribesmen at Shalateng and inflicted heavy casualties.The defeated tribal forces were pursued and Baramulla and Uri were recaptured.(Baramulla-193101)(Uri-193123)Rajouri was captured by Azad rebels.30,000 Hindus and Sikhs gathered there were killed before it was relieved, with the exception of 1,500 who escaped to the hills.9 November 1947:An attack on a convoy of Muslim refugees from Jammu was repelled by Indian troops, killing 150 of the attackers.No further attacks on convoys were reported after this incident.13 November 1947:Major General Kalwant Singh issued an order to the 50 Para Brigade to relieve Nowshera, Jhangar, Mirpur, Kotli and Poonch in seven days.The ambitious plan was criticised by General Roy Bucher.16 November 1947:Pakistan's Political Agent, Khan Mohammad Alam Khan, arrived in Gilgit and took over the administration.The provisional government was dismissed.18 November 1947:50 Para Brigade relieved Nowshera.(Pin-19001Nowshera.(Pin-19001125 November 1947:Mirpur fell to rebels. 20,000 Hindus and Sikhs taking shelter at the town were killed during the rebel occupation.The day is remembered as the "Mirpur day" in Indian-administered Jammu.26 November 1947:50 Para Brigade relieved Kotli, but evacuated it the next day due to the difficulty of defending it against the surrounding rebels.(Kotli, POK)26 November 1947 – 27 November 1947:During Liaquat Ali Khan's visit to Delhi for a Joint Defence Council meeting,the two countries reached an agreement on the sharing of sterling balances.A tentative agreement on Kashmir was reached;Pakistan agreed to use its influence on the raiders to withdraw, India to scale back its troops, andthe UN to be approached for holding a plebiscite.However, the agreement was vetoed by Jinnah:"No commitments should be made without my approval of terms of settlement. Mr. Liaquat has agreed and promised to abide by this understanding," read his note to the ministers.The next day, India's Defence Committee was informed that Pakistan was reinforcing the tribesmen.30 November 1947:Large concentrations of insurgents were reported at Sialkot, Gujrat and Jhelum.December 1947:Liaquat Ali Khan visited the Azad staging areas in the Sialkot District and was enraged by the reports of atrocities narrated by the Azad rebels.He issued a renewed call to arms.4 December 1947:The British Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army sanctioned military involvement in the Kashmir War.One million rounds of ammunition and twelve volunteer officers were provided.8 December 1947:A meeting between Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan, along with ministers and Lord Mountbatten, was deadlocked.Mountbatten proposed that the UN be invited to break the deadlock.15 December 1947 – 20 December 1947:Indian forces lost ground and Nehru contemplated escalating the war across the international border to strike against the raider's bases, but decides against it.20 December 1947:Mountbatten recommended India take the matter to the UN, where he says it would have a "cast-iron case".He believed the UN would promptly direct Pakistan to withdraw.The proposal was discussed in the Indian Cabinet.22 December 1947:Nehru handed Liaquat Ali Khan a formal letter demanding that Pakistan deny assistance to the raiders.24 December 1947:Indian forces were evicted from Jhangar by rebels.(Jhangar represented by the red icon in above two maps)However, the Indian army repelled the attack on Nowshera by 27 December. India reinforced Kashmir by an additional brigade.27 December 1947:British Commonwealth Minister Philip Noel-Baker considered it a "political miscalculation" by India that the UN Security Council would condemn Pakistan as an aggressor.28 December 1947 – 30 December 1947:Mountbatten: stop the fighting and to stop it as soon as possible.Prime Minister Attlee: opening a broader war would jeopardise India's case in the UN.Britain alerted the US. and US demanded clarifications from the Indian government.31 December 1947:India referred the Kashmir problem to the UN Security Council.(UN assembly)31 December 1947:The British Commonwealth Relations Office (CRO) asked its permanent representative at the UN, Alexander Cadogan, about the validity of Indian claims.Cadogan responded that India was entitled to charge Pakistan as an aggressor under Article 35 and to take measures for self-defence under Article 51, including "pursuing invaders into Pakistan".1948:(UN assembly)UN Security Council considered the Kashmir problem.January 1948:'Balawaristan' insurrection in Gilgit by the local people but put down by forces.2 January 1948:The British Cabinet decided to send minister Philip Noel-Baker to Kashmir.on 10th Jan, Noel-Baker put forward the British proposals to the US State Department but failed to win US support for these proposals.15 January 1948:India and Pakistan made presentations to the UNSC.India reiterated its demands in the original referral.17 January 1948:UN Security Council passed Resolution 38 :20 January 1948:UN Security Council passed Resolution 39 :January 1948:Noel-Baker won the support of the Western powers i.e the US, Canada and France.for the Pakistani position that the raiders cannot be withdrawn without a change of government in Kashmir.Draft resolutions were formulated along the lines of the 10 January proposals.February–April 19483 February 1948:India🇮🇳 requested an adjournment of the Security Council discussions.The Indian Cabinet was said to be in favour of what Swami Ji said.Subramanian Swamy: India should withdraw illegal petition ...9 February 1948 – 11 February 1948:Gilgit rebels attacked Skardu. The State forces at Skardu defended it for almost six months afterwards.No reinforcements were possible due to closure of the Zoji La pass by winter snows.The Ladakhis appealed to Nehru for help.12 February 1948:Security Council discussions were adjourned.😃7 March 1948:A small group of Indian troops crossed through the treacherous Zoji La pass, reaching Leh with guns and ammunition to raise a local volunteer force.10 March 1948: :Security Council deliberations resumed.18 March 1948:The Republic of China tabled a resolution in three parts:Pakistan to withdraw the raiders.India appoint a plebiscite administration with UN-nominated directors,India broadens the interim government with representatives from all major political groups.21 March 1948:UN Security Council passed Resolution 47:The UN Commission was named United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP).Pakistan rejected the resolution but promised to work with the Commission.May 194810 May 1948:Operation Sledge — Four columns of insurgents struck Indian lines of communication at Gund, Pandras, Dras and Kargil.except Gund rest 3 were captured.🇮🇳22 May 1948:India established an air link to Leh.1 November 1948:Zoji La 🇮🇳pass was taken back by India.😍15 November 1948:Dras 🇮🇳 was recaptured.😍23 November 1948:Kargil 🇮🇳was recaptured.😍14 December 1948: A major attack was made by the regular Pakistan army on the Indian line of communications at Beripattan-Nowshera.19491 January 1949:A ceasefire between India and Pakistan.India: Kashmir Valley, most of the Jammu province and Ladakh,while Pakistan gained control of POK, the Gilgit Agency and Baltistan.1949:Jammu Praja Parishad launched an agitation. 294 members of the party were arrested.20 June 1949:Maharaja Hari Singh announced his decision to abdicate and appointed his son Karan Singh as the Prince Regent.17 October 1949:The Indian Constituent Assembly adopted Article 370:At the end of the year, Jihadist rhetoric inflamed Pakistan and continued into 1951.1951June 1951:India moved troops to the India–Pakistan border in response to the rhetoric from Pakistan.September 1951 – October 1951:75 seats allocated to the Indian-administered part of Kashmir and 25 seats reserved for the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir.October 1951:Jammu Praja Parishad became an affiliate of the newly founded Bharatiya Jana Sangh, the precursor of the Bharatiya Janata Party.Shri Shyama Prasad Mukharjee 🙏 started Bharatiya Jana Sangh on 21 October 1951 in Delhi, with the collaboration of the RSS.November 1951:The Constituent Assembly passed legislation stripping the Maharaja of all powers and making the government answerable to the Assembly.January 1952 – June 1952:Jammu Praja Parishad(JPP) renewed agitation and called for the full integration of the state with India.The army was called to impose order and several hundred activists were imprisoned.Jana Sangh and other Hindu nationalist parties staged a demonstration outside the Indian Parliament in support of the Praja Parishad.1952January 1952 – June 1952:July 1952:🇮🇳Sheikh Abdullah signed the Delhi Agreement with the Indian government which provided for the autonomy of the State within India and the autonomy for regions within the State.🇮🇳November 1952:The Constituent Assembly adopted a resolution abolished the monarchyJPP relaunched its agitation campaign for a third time.The Jana Sangh and other Hindu nationalist parties launched a parallel agitation in Delhi, which supported the Praja Parishad.1953May 1953:Jana Sangh leader Syama Prasad Mukherjee made a bid to enter Jammu and Kashmir, citing his rights as an Indian citizen. He was promptly arrested at the Jammu border. In a widespread agitation in Jammu, Punjab and Delhi, 10,000 activists were imprisoned.Abdullah headed a subcommittee of the National Conference which recommended 4 options for the state's future, all involving a plebiscite or independence.23 June 1953:Syama Prasad Mukherjee died in prison. Large protests were held in Delhi and other parts of the country.Death Of Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Is Still A Mystery.August 1953:Nehru pushed for a plebiscite in talks with Pakistan, and the two countries agreed to appoint a Plebiscite Administrator within six months.A plebiscite would be held in all regions and the state partitioned on the basis of the results.1954February 1954:🇮🇳The Constituent Assembly, under the leadership of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, passed a resolution ratifying the accession of Kashmir to India.🇮🇳May 1954:Pakistan and the US signed a mutual defence assistance agreement.Nehru withdrew the plebiscite offer to Pakistan.1955–1957August 1955:Sheikh Abdullah's lieutenant Mirza Afzal Beg formed the Plebiscite Front to fight for the plebiscite demand.17 November 1956:🇮🇳The state Constituent Assembly adopted a constitution for the state which declared it an integral part of the Indian Union.🇮🇳🙏Many Resolutions prove J&K is an integral part of India. 🇮🇳🇮🇳24 January 1957:The UN Security Council passed Resolution 122 :8 August 1958:Sheikh Abdullah was arrested in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case.Kashmir Conspiracy Case was the legal case filed by Government of Kashmir and Investigation by the Government of India:Abdullah along with Mirza Afzal Beg and 22 others, who were accused of conspiracy against the state for allegedly espousing the cause of an independent Kashmir.1959–19621959:The 1959 Tibetan uprising or the 1959 Tibetan rebellion began on 10 March 1959, when a revolt erupted in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, which had been under the effective control of the People's Republic of China since the Seventeen Point Agreement was reached in 1951.Armed conflict between Tibetan guerillas and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had started in 1956 in the Kham and Amdo regions, which had been subjected to socialist reform.The guerrilla warfare later spread to other areas of Tibet and lasted through 1962.China annexed Tibet.Tensions rose between China and India on the issue of the boundary between Tibet and India, especially in Aksai Chin.1962: Indo-China War (Sino-Indian War)India claims that China has occupied approximately 38,000 sq. kms. area of Jammu Kashmir by constructing a road connecting Tibet and Xinjiang around 1957.On the “Aksai chin issue” China and India fought a brief war in 1962 but in 1993 and 1996, both countries signed agreements to respect the Line of Actual Control(LAC).1963–1969March 1963:The Chinese government signed an agreement with Pakistan on the boundary between the Northern Areas and the Xinjiang province, ceding the Trans-Karakoram Tract.8 April 1964:The Nehru government dropped all charges in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case.Sheikh Abdullah was released after 11 years.21 November 1964 – 24 November 1964:Articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution were extended to the State, by virtue of which the Central Government can assume the government of the State and exercise its legislative powers.The State Assembly then amended the State Constitution, changing the posts of:Sadr-i-Riyasat to Governor and "prime minister" to"chief minister", consistent with the Indian Constitution.Scholar Sumantra Bose regarded it the "end of the road" for Article 370 and the constitutional autonomy guaranteed by it.Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 started.The war began after Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar.In this operation, Pakistan wanted to bring forces into Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir to conquer the area of Kashmir ruled by India.Result:United Nations-mandated ceasefire.India Won.Indian forces gain 360-500 sq. km. of Pakistani territory on the outskirts of Lahore1966:On 10 January, the Tashkent Declaration was signed by both countries, agreeing to revert to their pre-1965 positions under Russian mediation.Pakistan-supported guerrilla groups in Kashmir increased their activities after the ceasefire.Kashmiri nationalists Amanullah Khan and Maqbool Bhat formed another Plebiscite Front with an armed the Jammu and Kashmir National Liberation Front (JKNLF).(Amanullah Khan (JKLF), Maqbool Bhat and JKLF)1971:26 March 1971:The Bangladesh Liberation War started.15 May:Indian army starts aiding Mukti Bahini.16 December:End of the Bangladesh Liberation War.East Pakistan Army surrenders to Mitro Bahini represented by Jagjit Singh Aurora of the Indian Army faction of the military coalition.93,000 Pak troops surrendered to India leading to the creation of Bangladesh.1972:Simla Pact:2 July 1972:Indira released over 90,000 prisoners of war (PoW) instead of resolving the Kashmir dispute "in lieu of the PoW.India missed 'golden opportunity' to resolve the Kashmir dispute in 1971 war.paved the way for diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan.The agreement converted the cease-fire line of 17 December 1971 into the Line of Control (LOC) between India and Pakistan.1976:Maqbool Bhat was arrested on his return to Kashmir.1979:The USSR invaded Afghanistan.The US and Pakistan became involved in training, recruiting, arming, and unleashing the Mujahideen on Afghanistan.The Mujahideen so recruited would, in the late 1980s, take on their own agenda of establishing Islamic rule in Kashmir.8 September 1982:Sheikh Abdullah died. His son, Farooq Abdullah, later assumed office as Chief Minister of J&K.1984:Ravindra Mhatre👇, an Indian diplomat in Birmingham, was kidnapped and killed 😔by JKLF's UK arm the Kashmir Liberation Army (KLA).India executed Maqbool Bhat.Amanullah Khan and Hashim Qureshi were expelled from the UK and returned to Pakistan.Pakistan's (ISI) sought their help in preparing the groundwork for the liberation of Jammu and Kashmir from India.Amanullah Khan established JKLF in POK.13 April 1984:Operation Meghdoot: The Indian Army took the Siachen Glacier region of Kashmir.1987:Farooq Abdullah won the Assembly elections.The Muslim United Front (MUF) alleged that the elections had been rigged.MUF’s election aides called the HAJY group - Abdul Hamid Shaikh, Ashfaq Majid Wani, Javed Ahmed Mir and Mohammed Yasin Malik - joined the JKLF.Young disaffected Kashmiris in the Valley such as the HAJY group were recruited by JKLF.1988:Protests and anti-India demonstrations began in the Valley, followed by police firing and curfew.1989:Mass Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus started in Kashmir Valley.The Hindus of the Kashmir Valley were forced to flee the Kashmir valley as a result of being targeted by JKLF and Islamist insurgents during late 1989 and early 1990.The end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan released a great deal of militant energy and weapons to Kashmir.Pakistan provided arms and training to both indigenous and foreign militants in Kashmir.1990Kashmiri Pandits began to leave in much greater numbers in the 1990s during the eruption of militancy, following persecution and threats by radical Islamists and militants.19 January 1990:Mosques issued declarations that the Kashmiri Pandits were Kafirs and that the males had to leave Kashmir, convert to Islam or be killed.approximately 100,000 of the total Kashmiri Pandit population of 140,000 left the valley during the 1990s.Other authors have suggested a higher figure for the exodus, ranging from the entire population of over 150,000, to 190,000 of a total Pandit population of 200,000, to a number as high as 800,000.Kashmiri Pandits Became Refugees in Their Own Home.(Refugee camps for Kashmiri Pandits)13 February 1990:Lassa Kaul, director of Srinagar Doordarshan, was Killed by the militants for implementing pro-Indian media policy.February 1990 – March 1990:Though the JKLF tried to explain that the killings of Pandits were not communal, the murders caused a scare among the minority Hindu community.The rise of new militant groups and unexplained killings of members of the community contributed to an atmosphere of insecurity for the Kashmiri Pandits.1 March 1990:An estimated one million took to the streets to protest against India.1990 – present:An officially estimated 10,000 Kashmiri youths crossed into Pakistan for training and procurement of arms.Indigenous and foreign militant groups besides pro-India renegade militants proliferated through the 1990s with an estimated half a million Indian security forces deployed in the Kashmir Valley.1998 – present:Operation Sadbhavana (Goodwill) launched officially by the Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir.3 May 1999 – 26 July 1999:Kargil War:the infiltration of Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into positions on the Indian side of the LOC was the reason for war.An armed conflict took place between May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir and elsewhere along the LOC.Israel aided India with mortar and ammunition and became one of the few countries that helped India directly.India won.2001–200914 July 2001 – 16 July 2001:General Pervez Musharraf and Atal Bihari Vajpayee met for peaceful talks.October 2001:Kashmiri assembly in Srinagar was attacked, 38 fatalities.December 2001:The Indian Parliament in New Delhi was attacked.April 2003 – May 2003:Operation Sarp Vinash launched by the Indian army.The largest network of terrorist hideouts covering 100 square kilometers in Pir Panjal found and more than 60 terrorists killed.2 May 2003:India and Pakistan restored diplomatic ties.Feb 13, 2006:Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday invited Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief Yasin Malik for talks on Kashmir on February 17.22 August 2008:Following 2008 Kashmir unrest, hundreds of thousands of Muslims marched in Srinagar for independence, the largest protest against Indian rule in over a decade.2010–201812 Feb 2013, Congress-led UPA Govt. funded Yasin malik to talk with Pakistan.Manmohan wanted to contact militants of Pak: Yasin.25 November 2014 – 20 December 2014:Despite boycott calls by separatist Hurriyat leaders, the 2014 state election saw the highest voter turnout in the 25 years since insurgency erupted in the region.Kashmiri people voted in favour of democracy of India.Bharatiya Janata Party won 25 seats with vote share of 23%.8 July 2016:Following the killing of Burhan Muzaffar Wani on 8 July, violent protests broke out in Kashmir Valley.An imposed curfew continued for more than 50 days.Two lakh across Valley attend Burhan Wani's funeral.July 2017 – present -Operation All-Out started by Indian Army to flush out militants and terrorists in Kashmir until there is complete peace in the state.2019–20 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown:23 Feb 2019:Yasin Malik arrested under Anti-Terror law.Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir via scrapping of the Article 370 of the Constitution of India, Article 35A of the Constitution of India and the introduction of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.According to a September 6 report, More than 200 separatist politicians, with more than 100 leaders and activists from All Parties Hurriyat Conference were detained in the disputed region.Thanks, Modi Ji🇮🇳🙏 for making our dream “Revocation of Article 370 and 35A” come true.“Knowledge shared matters”.Share Answer.Upvote inspires.Jai Hind.🇮🇳

I have never been a Modi supporter but here is an attempt to review 5 years of Narendra Modi rule as neutrally as possible for me.Before starting to review the government’s performance, the obvious question is how to effectively review the performance of a central government. There can be following approaches1) Compare it against its manifesto and promises.2) Compare it against previous governments.3) Combination of both #1 and #2.What fields should governments performance should be looked at?1) Economic policy.2) Education policy.3) Foreign policy.4) Infrastructure (Highways, airports, sea ports etc)5) Corruption: Financial and other.6) Social justice and empowerment7) Urban development8) Rural Development9) Power/Energy10)Law and Justice11) Miscellaneous reformsEconomic PolicyGoods:1) Modi came with a clear agenda and intent to fast track economic growth in 2014. He was the first one to make economic growth the main election issue.2) Major reforms:a. GST: Partial credit should go to previous governments since it was initiated several years back. The implementation drew a lot of criticism for the pain it caused but is definitely a good reform for long term.b. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Is touted to be a reform which will help recover bad loans and punish economic offenders.c. Direct Benefit Transfers: It is a work in progress. This may help reduce leakage of money in social welfare schemes which has been a major issue right from 1947.3) Targeted Subsidies : The govt. narrowed the subsidies (specially in Cooking gas scheme) to the people who really need it rather the whole country. Reduced fiscal burden.Bads:1) The intent did not really translate into results. The GDP growth rate data clearly shows the previous UPA governments were far superior to Modi government. This is despite the fact that there was a major global recession in 2008-2009 and during Modi regime world economy did fairly well. The Modi govt came out with a new method to calculate GDP which only resulted in loss of credibility of govt numbers.2) DEMONETIZATION: If there is one thing that will define the economic performance of this government (or should I say Modi, because he implemented it single handedly), it would be demonetization (DeMo).a. Modi announced the scheme saying it will curb black money, fake currency and terror funding. Data shows it failed on all these fronts.b. The goal post was then changed. Modi and ministers said that it will help make India a cashless and later a less-cash economy. It will boost electronic money.c. Cost of printing new currency was 20,000 crores. Needless to say, the expenditure was a complete waste.d. Absence of cash in economy caused a massive loss of jobs, specially in rural areas and unorganized sector. The estimated loss was ~1% dip in GDP growth rate. In rupee terms the loss was on the higher side of 1 lakh crores.e. Total loss to country was more than 1.2Lakh crores.f. Government never gave a data on what was achieved from the whole exercise, how much black money was seized or how many people have been identified due to it.g. The govt gave flawed arguments that DeMo has pushed digital payments higher. The flaw is that you don’t need DeMo to push digital payments. For such a small good the whole economy can’t be damaged.h. Another flawed argument given is that “a lot of people were scared and lost their money after DeMo”. True, but what did the country gain by scaring a few thousand people. The loss of 1.2L crores is not worth the fear of a few thousand people.i. ALL major economists including Raghuram Rajan, Gita Gopinath and many non-Indian economists have openly criticized DeMo and have rejected all the arguments given by govt in its support.3) 2018-19 has been worst phase of unemployment in last 45 years. The NSSO data of unemployment was suppressed by the govt for obvious reasons. The unemployment is partially due to the shock given to economy by DeMo.4) The government lost direction after DeMo. They had started with a clear policy of fiscal prudence and cutting down on extravagant subsidies and social schemes. The resentment of rural India and poor people due to DeMo forced the government to revert to safe policy of squandering money on social schemes.EDUCATIONGoods:1) Some reforms in Madrassas.2) Scheme of Atal tinkering labs.3) Skill India program was introduced.4) Several new IIT/IIM/AIIMS/IIIT campuses were announced.Bads1) It is amply evident that education was not on the priority list of this government. Smriti Irani, with a dubious educational record, was made the HRD minister.2) Funding of all central educational institutes (IITs, IIMs, AIIMS etc) have gone down over the last 5 years consistently.3) The new campuses of IITs/IIMs/AIIMS etc which were announced during UPA also are not fully functional let alone the few announced during Modi regime.4) The infrastructure in pre-existing institutes remains in the need of upgradation.5) The eminent institutes became playgrounds and laboratory of RSS. News like research on Yoga and Ayurveda in IITs was common.6) Autonomy of educational institutes was under scanner. Institutes like FTII and JNU had several political interferences apart from IITs. The campus politics also became cut-throat due to govt backing to ABVP.7) The skill India program lost its sheen (if there was any to begin with) towards the end of 5 years.Foreign PolicyGoods:1) Modi personally took up the job of inviting FDIs from all over the world.2) Better relations with middle eastern countries. Steps like hindu temple in Saudi-Arab.3) Better connect with NRI community.Bads:1) Modi’s policy of developing personal equation with Nawaz Sharif and Xi Jing Ping did not really bear fruits. Just ended up being media gimmicks.2) China was successful in luring India’s long-term allies: Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldives.3) No progress was made towards talks with Pakistan.Infrastructure:Goods:1) This surely is governments best area of performance. The department was mainly headed by Nitin Gadkari who is known to be an expert in the domain.2) Highway construction rates were equal to or better (+10 to 20%) than UPA governments.3) Sea port upgradation. (Sagarmala scheme)4) Inland waterways. Transportation of heavy cargo over Ganga demonstrated. Should become fully operational in near future.Bads:1) Where are the smart cities?2) Urban infra like metro trains or city roads are still developing at slow pace in major urban centers. Major hurdle remains to be land acquisition.3) No solution/policy was implemented for poor and unauthorized colonies in all major cities.4) No major upgradation to railway infrastructure. Some major rail accidents happened during this govt. Suresh Prabhu had to ultimately resign as railway minister.CorruptionGoods:1) UPA-2 saw a flood of corruption cases/accusations in all the departments of the government which occurred during UPA-1 and 2 both. Modi government has, at least in perception of people, been able to ensure that every other department is not doing petty corruption.Bads:1) Rafale Scam accusations: The accusations have found credibility since PMO was directly involved in a matter of ministry of defense. A business man who is declaring his other major businesses bankrupt has been given plum contract after bypassing several procedures. The price being paid for Rafale jets has been confirmed to be substantially higher by independent agencies though the government has tried to evade revealing the official data on prices. The argument the supreme court has cleared the government of corruption is flawed since SC has based its decision on a non-existent CAG report.2) NPA scams: Several big businessmen absconded the country after committing financial irregularities. There are allegations on government of connivance with these people. Major cases:a. Nirav Modi and Mehul Choksi: Known personally to PM. Vijay Mallya was another big name.c. DHFL scam: The details are still emerging. Cobrapost investigation shows money has been siphoned off using shell companies. Finance ministry overlooked RBIs request to look into irregularities. Evidence of BJP having received donations from some of the shell companies.d. IL&FS: Allegations similar to DHFL case in IL&FS case too. Government decided to bail out ILFS after defaulting debt payments.3) PM crop insurance scheme scam: Investigative media reports have revealed a big scam in crop insurance scheme where premiums being paid to insurance companies are disproportionately higher than the reimbursement amounts being received by farmers.4) Corruption by Jay Shah (Amit Shah’s son) and Ajit Doval’s son. This is Robert Vadra equivalent of BJP.5) Non-Financial Corruption: All independent government agencies, at least in perception, have been compromised by the ruling party.a. Amit Shah and several BJP men were absolved in serious cases soon after BJP govt was formed.b. Justice Loya’s death/murder has been an unresolved case. Justice Loya was about to give a judgement on Amit Shah’s fake encounter case just when he died.c. No CVC, CIC or Lokpal have been appointed. RTI has been brazenly weakened.d. Institutions like CAG have been weakened by not allowing them autonomy.e. Attempts have been made to alter judge selection procedure.f. Recent rulings of SC, specially on Rafale case, raise a suspicion of SC having been compromised too.g. BJP has brazenly misused money and muscle power to topple various state govts by horse trading. Even BJP appointed governors in various states have brazenly flouted moral conduct.h. Misuse of bodies like CBI, ED, IB etc. The previous govts too were accused of the same but Modi govt has taken this practice to a new high. Specifically glaring is the example of Delhi where an elected govt was choked by central govt by brazenly misusing constitutional loop holes. CBI was reduced to a gang of henchmen of BJP in order to threaten state governments to submit to Modi’s whims.i. SC ruled in favor of Delhi govt in the fight over jurisdiction on several delhi govt areas showing how Modi was trying to choke it. The unnecessary tussle led to wastage of several years of governance.j. Fudging and suppression of govt data. Credibility of bodies like NSSO has been irreparably tarnished after suppression of unemployment data. Other govt data like GDP numbers have also been found spurious by global experts.k. Autonomy of RBI was openly violated during DeMo and later when RBI was forced to give its dividends to govt. Urjit Patel had to resign as a mark of protest. This will have long term consequences on India’s financial credibility in global economy.l. The manner in which CBI chief Alok Verma was removed shows Central govt’s major disregard for constitutional procedures and that govt did not want CBI chief to look into Rafale case.m. Media independence has taken a massive hit. Journalists have been threatened and forced to quit when they spoke against the government.Social Justice and EmpowermentGood:1) Triple talaq bill.2) Some socialist schemes like Ayushman Bharat. The performance needs to be seen over a long term.3) Better implementation of some socialist schemes from previous govt: Swacch bharat, PMAY, Cooking gas etc.Bad:1) Open use of Islamophobia in politics.2) Politics of Hindutva saw revival when development card failed.3) Beef politics, love-jihad, ghar wapasi marred govt’s record on social justice.4) Govt gave active and passive support to non-democratic and non-constitutional groups like various hindu senas and karni senas. Mob lynching and vandalism saw a rise under this government. The ruling party cunningly used these groups for its own political benefits by not acting against their crimes but not even associating with them directly.5) The country is back to politics of Ram Mandir at the end of 5 years of Modi rule.6) Modi’s cabinet has/had people charged with heinous crimes like rape and murder. No minister/MLA/MP accused/charged of serious crimes was asked to resign even on moral grounds. Few examples: Kathua and Unnao rape/murder cases. MJ Akbar was not asked to resign.Urban Development1) No major initiatives taken by this govt on urban infrastructure like Metros or unauthorized construction or urban modernization.2) No progress on Smart Cities initiative.Rural DevelopmentGoods:1) Govt claims better implementation of PMAY than UPA.2) Better execution of Swacch Bharat.3) 100% rural electrification claimed by govt. But much of progress was already made under UPA. Modi govt did the final stretch.Bads:1) No progress on agricultural infra like food storage etc.Power and EnergyGoods:1) Modi govt has done very well in this field and even more so when compared with UPA govts.2) Major progress in renewable energy generation.3) Self-reliance in energy generation achieved by this govt.4) Good work done by Piyush Goyal.Law and JusticeGood:1) Triple Talaq Bill.2) RERA bill for real estate dealings.3) Approx. 1400 archaic laws removed.Bad:1) No legislation from govt on decriminalization homosexuality.2) No law on protecting freedom of expression.3) No progressive laws.4) No police or judicial reforms.5) No electoral reforms.6) No strong laws to check corruption in govt departments. Buying and selling of property still requires dealing with corrupt bureaucracy.7) Multiple occasions of misuse of draconian sedition law by government.8) Decriminalization of defamation law did not happen. It is yet another archaic/obscure law often misused by powerful people against their critics.MiscellaneousModi did not hold a single press conference in 5 years. Gave very few interviews which had practically 0 cross questioning. Modi got away by giving factually incorrect answers too.Very little progress on Clean Ganga Mission. Nitin Gadkari took up the job pretty late and has made very little progress by the end of 5 years.CONCLUSION:1) The no. 1 plank on which govt came to power was faster economic progress. Modi has failed miserably on his top agenda. The famous Gujarat Model or ‘development’ is obsolete agenda in politics. The country’s economic growth has slowed down rather that speed up.2) The economic policy was largely confused. It started with fiscal prudence but after disaster of DeMo populism made a comeback.3) Modi’s 5 year rule bears the signature of his lust for power. A large part of his tenure was spent in election rallies to ensure he conquers majority of the states. Every action of this government is election optics rather than governance. Use of surgical strike for political benefit, Flashy (but disastrous) schemes like DeMo, fudging of govt data, suppression of media’s independence, misuse of govt agencies to suppress opponents: all for ensuring that Modi rules the country till his last day on earth.4) The only high points of this govt are slightly faster rate of infrastructure creation (mainly highways) and energy independence by investing in renewable energy.5) At the end of 5 years, the government has failed to tell people what true development is or if there is even some sort of plan or path towards development.6) The social climate of the country is at its worst phase ever after brazen politicization of communal problems of the country. Minorities have been denied the basic right to live with dignity.