HEARINGS AT THE SENATE

Lragir.am
3/02/10

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held an open hearing on 2
February 2010, entitled "Current and Projected Threats to the United
States," as the latest in an annual series of hearings examining US
national security issues.

The attached is the testimony of Dennis C. Blair, the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) before the Senate Committee.

The US House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence also held its own hearing, entitled "Annual Threats
Assessment" on 3 February 2010. I will forward the testimony from
the House hearing once it is available.

As FYI, the following are select highlights, with comments on Eurasia,
Armenia-Turkey, Azerbaijan, Karabagh, Russia, Ukraine and Central Asia,
although it is interesting that there was no reference or commentary
on Turkey:

In a subsection named "Potential Flashpoints in Eurasia and Balkans,"
DNI Blair stated that: "The unresolved conflicts of the Caucasus
provide the most likely flashpoints in the Eurasia region. Moscow’s
expanded military presence in and political-economic ties to Georgia’s
separatist regions of South Ossetia and sporadic low-level violence
increase the risk of miscalculation or overreaction leading to renewed
fighting." (Pages 37-38 of Senate testimony)

Regarding Armenia-Turkey, Azerbaijan and Karabagh, Blair added
that "although there has been progress in the past year toward
Turkey-Armenia rapprochement, this has affected the delicate
relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and increases the risk
of a renewed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh." (Page 38 of Senate
testimony)

In another subsection entitled "Outlook for Russia," DNI Blair stated:

"The role Moscow plays regarding issues of interest to the United
States is likely to turn on many factors, including developments on
Russia’s periphery and the degree to which Russia perceives US policies
as threatening to what its leadership sees as vital Russian interests.

There have been encouraging signs in the past year that Russia is
prepared to be more cooperative with the United States, as illustrated
by President Medvedev’s agreement last summer to support air transit
through Russia of lethal military cargo in support of coalition
operations in Afghanistan and Moscow’s willingness to engage
with the United States on constructive ways to reduce the nuclear
threat from Iran. I remain concerned, however, that Russia looks
at relations with its neighbors in the former Soviet space-an area
characterized by President Medvedev as Russia’s "zone of privileged
interests"-largely in zero-sum terms, vis a vis the United States,
potentially undermining the US-Russian bilateral relationship. Moscow,
moreover, has made it clear it expects to be consulted closely on
missile defense plans and other European security issues.

On the domestic front, Moscow faces tough policy choices in the face
of an uptick in violence in the past year in the chronically volatile
North Caucasus, which is fueled in part by a continuing insurgency,
corruption, organized crime, clan competition, endemic poverty,
radical Islamist penetration, and a lagging economy that is just
beginning to recover from the global economic crisis. Some of the
violence elsewhere in Russia, such as a deadly train bombing in late
November 2009, may be related to instability in the North Caucasus."

(Page 29 of Senate testimony)

DNI Blair went on to comment on Russia’s "Military Picture," adding
that "in the conventional forces realm, Moscow remains capable of
militarily dominating the former Soviet space; although Russia’s
experience in the August 2008 Georgia conflict revealed major
shortcomings in the Russian military, it also validated previous
reform efforts that sought to develop rapidly-deployable forces
for use on its periphery. Russia continues to use its military in
an effort to assert its great power status and to project power
abroad, including through the use of heavy bomber aviation patrols,
out-of-area naval deployments, and joint exercises; some of these
activities can have greater demonstrative impact than operational
military significance." (Page 30 of Senate testimony)

Regarding Ukraine, DNI Blair stated: "Economic crisis and political
competition among top Ukrainian leaders pose the greatest risk of
instability in Ukraine, particularly in connection with this year’s
presidential election. Competition between President Yushchenko and his
primary rivals, Prime Minister Tymoshenko and Party of Regions leader
Yanukovych resulted in economic reform being put on the back burner
and complicated relations with Russia over gas payments. Moreover,
noncompliance with the conditions set by international financial
institutions has put the country’s economy in further jeopardy." (Page
38 of Senate testimony)

And regarding Central Asia, he commented that: "The regimes of
Central Asia-Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
Turkmenistan-have been generally stable so far, but predicting how
long this will remain the case is difficult. The region’s autocratic
leadership, highly personalized politics, weak institutions, and
social inequality make predicting succession politics difficult and
increase the possibility that the process could lead to violence or an
increase in anti-US sentiment. There is also concern about the ability
of these states, especially Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan,
to manage the challenges if Islamic extremism spreads to the region
from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The risks are compounded by the economic
crisis, which has resulted in reduced remittances to the region,
and by perennial food and energy shortages in some parts of Central
Asia. Competition over water, cultivable land, and ethnic tensions
could serve as sparks for conflict." (Page 38 of Senate testimony)

DNI Blair offers a conclusion that stated: "A year ago the
deteriorating global economy threatened to trigger widespread political
instability. I am happy to report that, while the recovery remains
tenuous, the past economic clouds darkening the whole strategic
outlook have partially lifted. Despite the myriad uncertainties and
continuing challenges, the economic and political picture we are
facing today could have been far worse if the economic free fall
had not been stopped. As I indicated last year, the international
security environment is complex. No dominant adversary faces the United
States that threatens our existence with military force. Rather, the
complexity of the issues and multiplicity of actors-both state and
non state-increasingly constitutes one of our biggest challenges. We
in the Intelligence Community are seeking to understand and master the
complexity and interlocking ties between issues and actors and in doing
so believe we can help protect vital US interests in close cooperation
with other civilian and military members of the US Government." (Pages
45-46 of Senate testimony)