An In-Depth Look into Savchenko's Fate

This article was originally published on the 17th of April at the Free Russia Foundation, a think tank in Washington, DC which I am now a contributing writer for. Learn more about them here!

On April 16, representatives of Free Russia Foundation met only a stone’s throw from the White House to discuss the legal situation now facing Nadezhda Savchenko.

At the meeting was Jeff Goldstein, Senior Policy Analyst for Eurasia at the Open Society Foundation, Natalia Arno, President of the Free Russia Foundation, Mark Feygin, a member of Savchenko’s legal defense team, and Richard Jackson, a professor of international law at Georgetown University, often considered the most prestigious of universities in Washington. The event was co-organized by Open Society Foundations, Center for Human Rights of the American Bar Association and the Free Russia Foundation.

Nadezhda, commonly known by her nickname Nadya, was a pilot in Ukraine’s Armed Forces, the first woman to train as a pilot. She was the only woman to participate in Ukraine’s peacekeeping mission in Iraq. She was also an active figure during Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution between 2013 and 2014. When the conflict in Ukraine started, Savchenko went to fight for her country against the separatists in Eastern Ukraine that many believe to be aided by the Kremlin.

While serving in the far eastern Ukrainian city of Luhansk she was captured by pro-Russian forces.

Her lawyer, Mark Feygin, speaking through an interpreter, recounted in great detail Savchenko’s time in captivity, and how she became a war hero for Ukrainians.

According to Mr. Feygin, Savchenko was captured on June 17^th 2014, in a town north of Luhansk, by armed men loyal to the Luhansk People’s Republic. She was taken to a military center in Luhansk where she was beaten and taken captive by armed guards. Simultaneously, two Russian journalists moved from Luhansk’s city center to its outskirts, specifically to a town called Metallist. They were caught in the crossfire of shelling from forces loyal to both Kiev and to Russia, specifically the Aidar and Zarya battalions. One journalist was killed immediately in the shelling, the other died of his wounds on the way to receive medical treatment. Savchenko was taken as a hostage by men loyal to Igor Plotnitsky, who is now the acting president of the Luhansk People’s Republic. She was then transported to Voronezh, a town due north of Luhansk in Russia. In Voronezh, Savchenko was taken to the Hotel Euro and placed in a room under heavily armed guard. An investigative committee in Russia charged her with complicity to murder of the Russian journalists in Eastern Ukraine, which she denied, claiming she had never heard of the journalists previously and would not know how to target the mortar attack that killed them as she was never trained to carry out such an operation. The second Savchenko’s charge is even more laughable – illegal crossing of the Russian border though she was brought to Russia forcefully, blindfolded and handcuffed.

Feygin went on to describe the cornerstone of the evidence that would prove Savchenko’s innocence: phone bills. Savchenko’s cell phone billing indicated she had her phone when she was captured by LPR forces and showed no overlap between her capture and the tragic death of the journalists. Unfortunately, he went on to also claim that Russia’s judicial system is not truly independent from the influence of the Kremlin, and that the Russian authorities had violated both international and domestic law in their detaining and abducting Nadya.

During the brief question and answer session, Mr. Feygin also stressed that the case of Nadya Savchenko likely did not go the way that the authorities intended. He speculated that they’d expected Savchenko to capitulate early on account on her gender in a bout of arrogance and ignorance. This, of course, turned out exactly the opposite, as Nadya retains her innocence.

So why Savchenko? Mr. Feygin speculated during the discussion session that the Kremlin’s insistence on capturing and detaining her comes from a desire to work on wider political goals. Also, Savchenko is the one in the spotlight but she is hardly the only Ukrainian in this situation. There are other Ukrainian officers and soldiers in Russian prisons. And she is just a part of a bigger case against at least 62 Ukrainian individuals including Igor Kolomoisky, former Dnepropetrovsk region governor, Arsen Avakov, Ministor of Interior of Ukraine, and many others. According to Mr. Feygin, and the decision in Savchenko’s trial would set a strong precedent for better or for worse.

Professor Richard Jackson, from Georgetown University’s School of Law, offered a broad and grim perspective on Savchenko’s quagmire by speaking about how international organizations can help Savchenko. While there exist many different institutions in Europe to hold the prosecutors of Savchenko accountable and acquit her of her supposed crimes, the Kremlin’s insistence (reaffirmed today by President Putin) that Russia is not involved in Ukraine’s war makes things infinitely more complicated. With Putin’s insistence on Russia’s lack of involvement and an uneasy ceasefire persisting, the fate of Savchenko may be in serious trouble. While there is a global campaign to free Ms. Savchenko, her status in Russia is that of a bloodthirsty villain. During the discussion, it was stressed that most Russian media has described her as a guilty woman fighting for a fascist junta.

The Savchenko case is a poster child of Russia’s willful violations of international norms, but her case is a tip of an iceberg, a part of a larger story about Russia. The Kremlin routinely violates international agreements at every opportunity; to the sovereignty of its neighbors, to military treaties, to economic agreements, and even violations of basic human rights. The Russian leadership has no reservation about violating its own constitution and the rights afforded its people. It’s necessary to bring Russia back to acting as a peaceful and honorable world citizen. The case for Nadya’s freedom gives an opportunity to force Russia to adhere to international law and indeed, basic human rights. Helping to free Savchenko can be a turning point in Russia’s return to sanity. And this is what is called justice.

After ISIS

Since the summer of 2014, news media around the world has been preoccupied with possibly the most vile and evil Islamic fundamentalist group in the world.

They've forced thousands under their oppressive rule in Syria and Iraq and are salivating over the chaos in Libya. They were responsible for Tunisia's horrific museum massacre. They have sold hundreds of women into sex slavery. They go by many names...ISIS. ISIL. Islamic State. الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎. Dae'sh. 

The group seemingly came out of nowhere and rampaged through most of Iraq and much of Syria before an international coalition responded with limited airstrikes to assist the forces fighting to keep ISIS out of their territory. While ISIS still controls a large amount of territory in Iraq and Syria, it does seem to have lost its momentum that once struck fear into the world.

A map of the current situation from Wikipedia. 
Green represents the Free Syrian Army. 
Pink represents Syrian government forces. 
Yellow represents Kurdish controlled areas. 
Gray represents ISIS. 
Maroon represents areas still under the control of Baghdad. 

Kurdish forces, known as the Peshmerga in Iraq, control large swaths of land in Northern Iraq and have some strongholds in Northern Syria as well. Tikrit, the birthplace of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has recently been recaptured by Iraqi forces. While ISIS still controls large cities like Mosul and their de facto capital Ar-Raqqah in Syria, they seem to be losing this war. 

It's not much of a topic of discussion at the moment, but as the forces against ISIS keep it up, it will enter the forefront: What happens after ISIS is defeated?

Unfortunately, lasting peace might not be the answer to this question.

Syria is still engaged in a civil war that started in 2011. The Free Syrian Army controls enclaves in the northwest and south, but most of the country is under the control of either forces loyal to Assad or Islamic State. Thousands have died in this brutal conflict that the international community has only minimally tried to stop, and Islamic State's demise likely won't mean the end of violence.

It seems more likely that the brutal dictator Bashar Al-Assad may be tolerated in favor of the disjointed Free Syrian Army and Islamic State, but his country has suffered to an extent that it will likely take years, possibly decades, to rebuild. While Assad may not have popularity among the Syrian people, he wields the military might. That alone may assure his staying in power.

The chances Assad is deposed were considerably diminished with the rise of Islamic State. Though Assad would have to mount a major offensive. His army is exhausted and will only further suffer as it attempts to retake territory from Islamic State and the FSA. If he does emerge from this war clinging to power, he will have done so at enormous cost to his people and his country.

Iraq

Iraqi forces, derided for their desertion early in the conflict, seem to have turned the tide with the aid of American airstrikes. Tikrit, the home of the late Saddam Hussein, is once again under the red, white, and black flag of Iraq rather than ISIS's black banner. 


Iraq will likely advance slowly but surely north towards the areas controlled by the Kurds, who have somewhat of a de facto independent state at the moment. This brings us to the most intriguing dyamic at the possible end of this conflict: Is this Kurdistan's now or never moment for independence? 

On the above map, Kurdish forces control the yellow areas of Syria and the large yellow-green area that is currently part of Northern Iraq. Kurds received international acclaim when they fended ISIS off from their border town of Kobane with a stubborn Turkey standing by. After the victory, pictures of victorious Kurdish forces hanging an enormous ribbon-like Syrian Kurdish flag hanging from a TV tower in Kobane surfaced on the file-sharing website Reddit (These are not my pictures, they were uploaded by courtesy of a reddit user called "Dont_Lookatmyname") 
  The Kurdish areas of Syria are small and disjointed, but with a weakened ISIS and an exhausted force from Damascus, Kurdish forces may be able to establish a thin border through Syria to connect with Iraqi Kurdistan. 

This is all well and good, but the main question on the minds of those who await it is...is this, at long last, the beginning of an Independent Republic of Kurdistan? 

It may not, at the end of the day. It's possible the Iraqi Kurds decide to preserve their autonomy and stay with Iraq, as they were alloted a large amount of autonomy under the still-relatively-new Iraqi government. The Syrian Kurds may be more likely itching for independence as they were not afforded the same privileges as their Iraqi counterparts gained after the deposing of Saddam Hussein. 

It's a long road ahead, obviously, and even a Kurdistan in Syria and Iraq would not encapsulate the large areas where ethnic Kurds are a majority or even a plurality as the idea of an independent Kurdistan often extends well into the present-day borders of Turkey and Iran, neither of which are likely to allow Kurdish populations independence. 

One could argue that a small Kurdish Republic would be better than no Kurdish Republic, though, and with an exhausted Syrian Army that still has the Free Syrian Army to fend off, and an Iraqi government that granted the Kurds considerable autonomy, it's possible that a declaration of independence could be on the horizon for the Kurds in Iraq and Syria.

Large powers such as the United States and European Union would likely choose to stay neutral for fear of the reprocussions of the United States attempting detente with Tehran and Turkey's position in NATO. For Kurdish sympathizers this comes as a disappointment but is probably the most realistic option considering the powers that be. Ankara will likely respond negatively to the news but serious military action will likely bring much worse consequences for the Erdogan Administration than a border shared with the Kurds. If Turkey was to act against Kurds outside of Turkey, they run the risk of Kurds in Turkey mounting a serious revolt which, in a worst-case scenario, would lead to Turkish isolation and the possibility of a large loss of territory. 

Iran also has a large Kurdish population, and it will likewise have to tread carefully if it is to keep the status quo. There's also an interesting dynamic to be explored here in regards to the United States. If Iran and the United States are able to strike a nuclear deal later this year, which Washington and Tehran (and the other members of P5+1) have hammered out the framework for, it will have to be careful not to undermine the work of its diplomats. Kurds and Iranians are unique in the Middle East as they are both relatively pro-American peoples. Many pundits have described Iranians as being the most pro-American people in the Middle East save for Israel, and Kurds have long seen America in a positive light as well. 

While open revolt against Tehran or Ankara is, by all accounts, extremely unlikely even if an independent Kurdistan comes about, Kurds in Turkey and Iran may take it upon themselves to act if Tehran and Ankara decide to act maliciously against their ethnic minority communities in response to an  independent state carved out of Iraq and Syria. Both governments will likely prefer to act cautiously towards their Kurdish populations. There's also the appeal of economic stability in Turkey and Iran as both countries are much richer and more stable than Iraq and Syria.

Cuba's Communist Twilight

Since December, the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba have been making headlines because of President Obama's bold statements on re-opening and normalizing relations with the island country. Talks are underway between Washington and Havana to ease tensions between the two countries.

The announcement caught many Americans (and Cubans too, I presume) by surprise and the thaw in relations has intrigued the imagination of many Americans who would like to vacation to the tropical location. Cuba is a country blessed with beautiful beaches, warm weather year round, and a vivid, rich culture that is present and thriving in the various Cuban-American communities that exist across the United States.

Americans and Cubans also share a love for the sport of baseball, and many Cuban stars escape their country to play in the top echelons of Major League Baseball. Yoenis Cespedes, an outfielder who plays for the Detroit Tigers with otherworldly power at the plate and a cannon of an arm, is affectionately called "the Cuban Missile" by many American baseball fans.

Make no mistake, Cuba is still ruled by a government that punishes dissent, heavily censors information, and hinders the country's development. While some argue that those Cuban-Americans who wish the embargo to continue are living in the past, the repression they escaped is still alive and well.

When I heard the news that President Obama wanted to end the embargo and open relations with Cuba, one of my first thoughts was "Maybe since the Castros are getting so old, he believes that the flow of money into the island and their death may facilitate regime change on the island."

Is that what he's thinking? Only he knows. He'd never say so in person as the state run media in Cuba would likely be gravely insulted by such an idea, but does that have merit? Is the communist regime in Cuba headed towards serious change?

Let's look at the current situation ninety miles south of Florida.

As of now, Raul Castro, Fidel's brother, holds the reins of power in Havana. He, like his brother, is an ardent communist, though he has allowed some small reforms to take place. Castro is 83 years old, and his brother, though no longer in power, is 88. Despite the famously excellent medical treatment in Cuba, it is likely that both brothers will die in the near future. Raul Castro has said he will step down in 2018.

This will be a landmark transition for Cuba's government. Fidel Castro held the reins of power from 1959-1976 as Cuba's Prime Minister and from 1976 to 2008 as President when the 1976 constitution came into effect. When Raul steps down, it will be the first time in 59 years that a Castro does not rule Cuba.Whoever takes their place may not have the same political clout as the Castro brothers do, as Fidel and his brother quite literally led the revolution against the military dictatorship headed by  Fulgencio Batista in 1959.

Much is still up in the air. Despite talks that have seemingly gone well between the United States and Cuba, we don't know when or even whether the embargo will be lifted.

But if it is, and the Castros relinquish power when they say they will, Cuba will be going through some substantial change. We do not know who the next leader of Cuba will be, or where he (or she) will take the country.

Considering the makeup of the Cuban government, it will obviously be another communist-but what kind of communist? Will it be a hardliner or someone who realizes the need for reform? Will it be a younger or older person who succeeds the Castros?

Some of us have may already seen this movie. In 1982, the USSR mourned the passing of Leonid Brezhnev, a hardline communist premier who ruled between 1964 and 1982. He was replaced by Yuri Andropov who became ill after only 9 months in power and died in 1984. Andropov was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko, who lasted even less time in power, as he ascended to power as a sickly 72 year old. Replacing him was Mikhail Gorbachev, a spring chicken by comparison who came to power in 1985 at the age of 53.

Make no mistake, Gorbachev was a loyal communist, but he realized that while the Soviet Union was not falling apart in 1985, it needed serious change to continue. A nosediving economy, bloated bureaucracy, an unsuccessful war in Afghanistan, corruption, and shortages were plaguing the country. Gorbachev tried to change the country for the better, but his reforms spun out of control and the Soviet Union was no more a mere six years later.

Many Cubans are frustrated and disillusioned with the communist regime in Havana. A Washington Post article on March 13th detailed the feelings as such:

“C’mon, man, don’t ask me about that,” said one 23-year-old computer engineering graduate, selling phone cards in the street. He said he was too fearful to give his name to a foreign reporter. “I’m just trying to survive.”Read the article here. 

The anti-American sentiment in Cuba seems to be largely diminished as well according to this article, a phenomenon that can be seen in Iran and Vietnam as well. Despite the long and brutal war Vietnamese fought against America in the 1960s and 1970s, Vietnamese do not hold animosity towards Americans and Iranians, who are generally young and do not remember the Islamic Revolution of 1979, are more frustrated with the government in Tehran than the one in Washington.

Cuba's government, though perserverant, is exhausted, and the Cuban people are watching this new detente with anticipation. If Raul Castro is replaced with someone with the same type of sentiment of "We just can't go on like this" as Gorbachev had, the chance to reform and free Cubans from repression and information denial that plague their island may be at hand. Let's hope it results in something a bit more smooth, stable, and peaceful than what happened to Russia or Yugoslavia in the 1990s.