As Islamist, al-Qaida-linked group Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS) overruns Syria amid President Assad’s sudden ouster, evidence suggesting Ukraine has assisted the group’s triumph continues to mount.
The New York Times reported earlier this month, moreover, that Ukraine and HTS were coordinating efforts including “countering Russian misinformation and providing medical assistance.” The reporting also highlighted Ukrainian intelligence head Kyrylo Budanov’s repeated suggestions that Ukraine would target its enemy Russia internationally.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius mused that Ukraine’s intentions for assisting HTS were obvious, writing that the war-torn nation was looking for other ways to “bloody Russia’s nose and undermine its clients.” In turn, a source told the New York Times that the HTS offensive in Syria was likewise timed in part to strike a blow against mutual enemy Russia.
Indeed, Russian officials have repeatedly complained that Ukraine and HTS collaborate within an intelligence or military capacity. As Russia’s special representative for Syria, Alexander Lavrentyev, told Russian News Agency TASS in November: “We do indeed have information that Ukrainian specialists from the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine are on the territory of Idlib.”
“Cooperation between Ukrainian and Syrian terrorists… is underway both when it comes to the recruitment of fighters to the Ukrainian army and to mounting attacks against the Russian and Syrian troops in Syria,” permanent Russian representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzia likewise alleged in early December. “Far from concealing the fact of Ukraine's support, the HTS fighters are openly flaunting this.”
The overall impact of Ukraine support to HTS ultimately seems unclear. On one hand, an anonymous Ukrainian official recently confirmed Kyiv-Idlib cooperation to Middle East Eye, but explained that their engagements ultimately did little to steer outcomes in the militia’s successful December attack. “We might claim less than a fraction of help for [the recent] offensive,” the Ukrainian official said. On the other hand, as Middle East Eye also reported, Turkish observers posit drones gave HTS forces an advantage over Syrian government fighters.
All matters considered, Ukraine’s assistance to HTS may partially be intended to accrue legitimacy with the West amid continued war with Russia.
“Ukraine's alleged assistance to HTS forces is of limited military significance insofar as the SAA was inherently unprepared to resist the rebel offensive,” said Dr. Mark Episkopos, Quincy Institute Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor of History at Marymount University.
“But it is part of Kyiv's broader effort to court Western support for its NATO accession bid by demonstrating to the US and other stakeholders its effectiveness in countering Russian interests around the world.”
Stavroula Pabst is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft.
Top Image Credit: A rebel fighter stands atop a military vehicle as he carries a Hayat Tahrir al-Sham flag in Saraqeb town in northwestern Idlib province, Syria December 1, 2024. REUTERS/Mahmoud Hassano/File Photo
Top Photo: U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Foreign Relations Chair, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), listen as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., July 24, 2024. REUTERS/Craig Hudson
The upcoming House of Representatives Rules Committee Package is sure to include a section requiring the consideration of a bill that would sanction the International Criminal Court (ICC), therefore shielding Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from arrest.
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, as well as former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri in November 2024 for their actions in Gaza, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. ICC judges said that the Gaza blockade "created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children, due to malnutrition and dehydration.”
A House Resolution introduced by over a dozen House Republicans, titled the”‘Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act” is meant “to impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies.”
The bill found that “The United States and Israel are not parties to the Rome Statute or members of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and therefore the ICC has no legitimacy or jurisdiction over the United States or Israel.” Because of the lack of jurisdiction, the co-sponsors assert, “The ICC’s actions against Israel, including the preliminary examination and investigation of Israel and issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli officials, are illegitimate and baseless and create a damaging precedent that threatens the United States, Israel, and all United States partners who have not consented to the ICC’s jurisdiction.”
The bill further states that “if the International Criminal Court is engaging in any attempt to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person,” the President shall then impose sanctions. These sanctions can be placed on any “foreign person” who directly aided or engaged in efforts to assist the ICC in investigating, arresting, detaining, or prosecuting a protected person. This could include financial or material assistance.
Despite calling the arrest warrant for Netanyahu “outrageous,” President Biden had previously opposed sanctioning the ICC for seeking arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu. However, President Trump notably approved sanctions in September 2020 on members of the ICC who were “involved in the ICC’s efforts to investigate US personnel.”
The ICC has no actual enforcement authorities, leaving detention and arrest to the 125 members countries that are party to the Rome convention. But it is fully voluntary. It appears, according to the text, that the bill is authorizing Congress to impose sanctions on any foreign actor (who could be from a partner or allied country) and their families if they helped to detain Netanayhu on behalf of a member state. What this would look like in practice is unclear. Ireland and the Netherlands (a NATO alliance member) have both indicated that the Israeli prime minister would be arrested if he set foot on their soil.
The decision to include H.R. 23 in the Rules package is not without its opponents. Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky) dissented on X: “The United States is a sovereign country, so I don’t assign any credibility to decisions of the International Criminal Court. But how did a bill to protect Netanyahu make it into the House rules package to be voted on immediately after the Speaker vote? Where are our priorities?!” His office declined to comment further when RS inquired.
It is important to note that the package cannot be voted on until House leadership appoints the committee, which may come with additional challenges, as previous speaker Kevin McCarthy was forced to appoint three Freedom Caucus members to the last Rules Committee, and these three members regularly joined Democrats to vote down legislation submitted by Republican leadership.
Reports indicate that the appointments will likely happen by this Friday.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: X screengrab from the account of Kurdish journalist Mustafa Al-Ali, Jan. 2, 2025.
The Pentagon addressed questions regarding reports this week about the U.S. military moving construction materials into Kobani, a city in northeastern Syria close to Turkey's border, ostensibly to help its long time partners, the Kurdish-led Syrian Defense Forces, stave off attacks by the Turks.
"We're continuing to work and focus on our mission, which you know why we're in Syria, to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. But when it comes to US forces in Kobani, there's no plan or intent right now to set up any base. I'm not sure where those reports are coming from," said Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh.
Unfortunately the follow-ups in the briefing room were weak and didn't ask the next logical question more plainly: if not a "base" is there an outpost or smaller fortification being constructed for the mobilization of U.S. troops and personnel? If video and on-the-ground reports are to be believed, something is going on there.
A half dozen years after abandoning Kobani, U.S. forces are reportedly building a base in this northern Syrian city on the Turkish border that has been riven by strife between Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Turkish-backed forces. This all comes as a new Syrian government is trying to establish control over the country after ousting Bashar al-Assad.
Several videos and images have emerged on social media claiming to show U.S. troops and equipment heading toward Kobani, reportedly to build a new international coalition base.
US forces brought in a convoy of 50 trucks carrying cement blocks to SDF-controlled areas in north-eastern Syria.
SOHR activists have reported seeing the convoy on Al-Hasakah-Al-Raqqah highway, while it was heading to Ain Al-Arab area (Kobani) in the eastern countryside of Aleppo. The convoy was accompanied by a military vehicle of SDF.
According to SOHR sources, this comes as a part of US forces’ efforts to boost their bases and establish a new military base in Ain Al-Arab in light of the growing security and military tension in that region.
Yesterday, SOHR sources reported that “International Coalition” forces brought a convoy of logistic reinforcements including premade chambers, surveillance cameras, cement blocks, fuel tanks and digging machineries towards Ain Al-Arab (Kobani).
According to reliable SOHR sources, the digging and drilling will start tomorrow and more military reinforcements such as soldiers, weapons, armoured vehicles, radars and anti-aircraft weapons will be brought.
Altman reports that "the claimed U.S. build-up in Kobani comes as fighting continues between the SDF and Turkish-backed forces in northern Syria" since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's government in early December. "Video emerged on social media claiming the SDF downed a Turkish Bayraktar TB-2 drone over the Qarqozak Bridge, south of Kobani. It is claimed to be the third such shootdown in a month."
"Turkish-backed forces have reportedly escalated attacks on the Tishreen Dam as well as the Qara Quzak Bridge, both key to logistics in the area. Kurdish journalist Rohat Baran emphasized that these sites are not just vital for the local population but also hold broader regional importance in terms of trade, energy, and military operations," Altman wrote.
Meanwhile the U.S. and its coalition partners, which include French forces, have been actively fighting ISIS in central and eastern Syria, he said. There are now 2,000 U.S. military in the country, a number that suddenly increased with no real explanation beyond the 900 that were assumed there just a month ago.
When asked again about whether there are U.S. forces in Kobani, Singh said, according to the transcript, "On your first question on Kobani, I'm not aware of US forces. Again, I've seen those reports and, as Liz had asked me earlier about US forces establishing some type of base or presence in Kobani, I'm not tracking that that is accurate or that we have plans to do so in any way."
So no "presence" in Kobani? Sources who talked with RS mentioned that if the reports of the material rolling into Kobani are accurate, it may mean something other than a "base" is being built by the U.S. military there. The wall segments, for instance, could be erected to house a company or platoon, or bigger. The key is to watch for more videos or reporting about the volume of material being transported to indicate the size and scope of the construction. Singh may be right about there not being "a base" planned, but the U.S. military has a range of installations under different names across the globe housing thousands of troops and military assets. They aren't all called "bases."
RS reached out to the Pentagon press office on Thursday and asked if the military "is sending reinforcements and is building a new facility in Kobani" and if so, were the troop numbers beyond the 2,000 being reported in the country today. We were told they were currently looking into the reports.
Part of the so-called Washington swamp is the opacity of the funding going to powerful think tanks that provide policymaking expertise to Capitol Hill, to White House staff, and to agencies, including the Pentagon and State Department. It is no secret that the think tanks that have an outsized influence on foreign policy and national security affairs receive grants from the government to conduct studies and research to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Meanwhile, these organizations get tons of funding from the military contractors who stand to benefit from those reports and research in support of American war policy.
Foreign governments, too, are plowing millions into think tanks in hopes to influence the direction of policy their way.
Not only do think tanks generate a lot of paper but their experts write op-eds, they testify before Congress, they are called upon by reporters and producers to give their take on policy and world events — like the wars Washington is currently funding with American money and weapons — all over the information landscape. In short, they help shape perception and manufacture consent.
"Folks outside the Beltway aren't aware how many conflicts of interest there are in the foreign policy expert they are hearing from," says program director Ben Freeman, who co-wrote an accompanying report to the tracker's release today. "The American public has the right to know who is funding the experts they are seeing on TV, who they are hearing on the radio."
Check it out: you can search by think tank (among the Top 50), specific defense contractors or foreign government, and cross search and filter as much as you want. Top recipient of foreign money? Atlantic Council ($20.8 million over five years). Top recipient of Pentagon dollars? Atlantic Council ($10 million). Government funding? RAND ($1.4 billion), followed by the Wilson Center ($51 million over the last five years).
Is the tracker complete? Unfortunately not, because not every think tank discloses its donors in annual reports. This is true for the American Enterprise Institute, which has a robust foreign policy and national security portfolio and has pursued a neoconservative, American primacist worldview for decades. In fact, over one third of the top foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. publicly disclose little or no information about their funding. The database also provides rankings for transparency.
Nick Cleveland-Stout, junior researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy program, said this is set up to be a resource for journalists and the public alike. He also notes that "almost all of the top foreign policy think tanks are reliant on funding from defense companies and foreign governments, which can lead to sympathetic policy recommendations and even outright censorship in some cases." It's not illegal, but it is harmful if there is no transparency. Let the people decide.
"It should be common practice for a journalist to mention a relevant conflict of interest when quoting a think tanker, or for a policymaker to know who is funding an expert witness," said Cleveland-Stout. "With the creation of this database, they can go to our website and track down that information. Or, if our website notes that the think tank does not disclose any funding information, that might warrant raising some red flags."
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.