Putin's Sleeping Echelon in BiH

By: Nedžad Ahatović, Professor of Defense and Security

A session of the Security Committee of the National Assembly of the BiH entity Republika Srpska was held in Banja Luka on December 12, 2016, with the participation of competent representatives from the institutions of BiH and Serbia.

The meeting primarily discussed the so-called takfiri and Wahhabi movements in BiH and the implications of such ideology on individual terrorist incidents or organized terrorist activities. At the session, the Minister of Security of BiH, Dragan Mektić, stated that according to OSA data, 226 citizens of BiH had been to the Syrian battlefield so far, meaning over a period of five full years.

Bearing this in mind, Dragan Lukač, Minister of the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs, concluded from the meeting that the greatest danger to BiH comes from returnees from the Syrian battlefield who have the so-called sleeper role. Although the conclusions from the session in Banja Luka are reasonable and open to discussion, the goal of the Security Committee session of the National Assembly of the BiH entity Republika Srpska is light-years away from suppressing and preventing terrorist threats in and from BiH towards the region.

The question then arises as to why, from this BiH entity, precisely now, at the time of the EU's questionnaire reception for BiH, the terrorist threat is being highlighted as a challenge to BiH's national security?

In fact, the current geopolitical situation in the world threatens to escalate into a new crisis hotspot in 2017, which the official Kremlin seems to be actively seeking in the Balkans. Namely, Russia, in its effort to establish a balance of power with the West, will no longer be able to tolerate EU sanctions, and in 2017, the overburdened Russian economy will face economic exhaustion. In this context, Putin's approach to global hotspots like Syria, through which he sought to gain both benefits in negotiations with the West, in terms of lifting EU sanctions and accepting the annexation of Crimea, has failed.

The Obama administration did not fall for the offer where Russia played a constructive role in negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program, the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in exchange for initiating talks among major powers.

A meeting between Obama and Putin did occur, but informally in September 2015, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and Security Council sessions in New York. At that brief meeting, which I would rather call an encounter, following the signing of the agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program, Obama flatly rejected Putin's offer to leverage Russia's demonstrated influence in the agreement with Iran to persuade the Assad regime to enter peace talks in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea and the lifting of EU sanctions. The reason for this was Russia's deployment of military assets in Syria, which was underway at the very moment the two world leaders were discussing calming the situation in Syria and finding a "diplomatic" solution.

Therefore, as things stand, Russia no longer has relevant instruments to further destabilize the EU, and especially NATO, through hybrid warfare. There is no longer direct benefit from the Greek crisis and the undermining of the euro's currency stability, which was caused by Russian tycoons. There is no longer benefit from the intentionally caused wave of refugees from Syria with the help of the Assad regime, which opened the way for unfortunate people to the EU, which indeed strengthened the right in Europe and led to the UK's exit from the EU, but it did not destabilize NATO, which was the primary goal of the Kremlin.

Furthermore, the Syrian crisis no longer even generates discussion about direct unilateral Western military intervention outside the norms of international law, which, since Russia's veto of Western military intervention in the UN Security Council in 2012, has also been the primary goal of the Kremlin.

All of this means that Putin's political room for maneuver has narrowed, and time and sanctions are directly working in favor of the West.

Putin can now only rely on the proverbial political short-sightedness and aggressiveness of the newly elected US President Donald Trump, in whom, according to CIA claims, he invested his own political credibility to bring him to that position. He did this with the aim of holding a summit between the US and Russia at the highest level in mid-2017, as in the good old days, where what could not be agreed upon with Obama would be agreed upon – lifting sanctions against Russia and recognizing the annexation of Crimea and the autonomy of Eastern Ukraine, similar to the existing solution with the BiH entity Republika Srpska.

If that summit ends with a negative outcome, Russia will certainly open a new hotspot, this time in Europe, either in Ukraine or the Balkans, with two direct objectives. The first is to shake the EU to its breaking point through its inaction and secure the lifting of sanctions and recognition of the annexation of Crimea and the autonomy of Eastern Ukraine. The second objective is to point out the futility of NATO's existence as a military alliance that cannot prevent the escalation of a crisis.

This scenario is unfortunately very likely and possible, as Russia is stumbling under the heavy economic burden of sanctions, and Putin urgently needs a bargaining chip, because existing crises like the one in Syria have lost their value and are now only claiming hundreds of human lives.

Putin is aware that the Syrian crisis can no longer be resolved militarily, as the Assad regime is too weak, and the rebel forces are still strongly supported by the West. The reasoning of official Moscow is that without keeping ISIL alive as an eminent threat to the entire world, no other benefit can be derived from the Syrian conflict to strengthen Russia's international standing. That is why we are now witnessing the reincarnation of ISIL's military strength, which is once again occupying Palmyra with the deliberate withdrawal of Assad's forces from that city.

Precisely because of this, we also have messages from BiH from the session in Banja Luka about Bosnia and Herzegovina as a potential base for Islamic radicalism that needs to be cleaned up.

In this context, the intentional provocation of terrorist acts in the Balkans, for which the Muslim community in BiH would be directly blamed, is not excluded.

If we consider all of this and correlate these international developments with our region, where a violent coup attempt has already occurred in Montenegro, a candidate country for NATO, then the statements of the President of the Republic of Croatia, Kolinda Grabar Kitarović, regarding Islamic fundamentalism in BiH are truly disappointing, as in the hyper-war being waged in Europe, they unfortunately directly serve Russia and its interests in the Balkans.

This statement, although taken out of context, has caused enormous damage in a strategic sense amidst the already turbulent political upheavals and strained relations between Bosniaks and Croats in BiH, as well as overall relations between BiH and Croatia, which, due to all that has been said, must now be at a much higher level.

A third entity as a backup option and the reincarnation of HZHB in Herzegovina, as a result of the wounded pride of a political leader, could be an entry ticket for Russia to much greater destabilization of BiH, which will directly and severely affect Croatia's economy, especially its tourism, as one of its main sources of funding.

By destabilizing BiH, the region is destabilized, and Croatia is particularly destabilized; by destabilizing Croatia, the EU and NATO are destabilized.

The entire development of this situation will, by inertia, lead to the growth of Islamic radicalism in the Muslim or Bosniak community in BiH, so it will not be difficult, with a deliberately staged car bomb in Belgrade, to blame BiH sleepers from Syria, which will produce a regional crisis and a threat to the peace and stability of the Balkans.

As we can see, such a scenario is already being warned about at various conferences in Banja Luka. This will certainly be a sufficient reason for Putin to internationalize the issue of BiH's survival and exert political pressure, with the threat of military intervention, and if necessary, even a short Russian or Serbian military intervention in BiH, following the Syrian model. All of this would be to regain momentum in negotiations with the West for the lifting of sanctions, which is crucial for Russia, as well as recognition of the annexation of Crimea by Russia, RS by Serbia, with the return of Kosovo and the granting of special autonomous status to Eastern Ukraine.

What will happen of all this remains to be seen.

In any case, the citizens of BiH on the battlefield in Syria, numbering 226 people, of whom 46 have returned to BiH, are under constant surveillance measures by various state security agencies. They are certainly a far lesser threat than the media's estimate that there are 30,000 registered members of the fascist paramilitary organization Chetnik Ravna Gora Movement for RS in BiH alone, the largest paramilitary organization of its type in Europe.

On the other hand, official data also speaks of 130,000 registered hunters in the RS entity, with 1.2 million inhabitants, who, by law, are entitled to four long guns, including so-called "trophy" JNA weapons, which include semi-automatic rifles and sniper rifles.

Ultimately, this means that 10 percent of the RS population is legally armed, with standard infantry weapons, not to mention the 350,000 illegal firearms in the RS.

General Franco once had a so-called fifth column in Spain, and Putin in BiH has an entire echelon of sleepers who nurture a long tradition of collaborating with occupiers and who are eagerly awaiting a Russian landing to embark on new banditry and genocide.

At the same time, officials of the BiH entity Republika Srpska rightly warn about Islamic radicalism and individual terrorist threats, but with the ultimate goal of diverting public attention from essential matters, such as hybrid warfare, Russian influence in the Balkans, and the eminent threat to BiH's national security in the form of the Chetnik Ravna Gora Movement for RS as the largest paramilitary organization in Europe.

Meanwhile, the EU and NATO are setting conditions and delaying BiH's admission to full membership in these Euro-Atlantic associations, so the question rightly arises: for whom will 2017 be too late, for BiH or for the EU and NATO, or for all of us together?