BEIRUT (AP) — Kurdish fighters expanded their offensive Tuesday after driving Islamic State militants from the Syrian border town of Kobani the previous day, to retake dozens of surrounding villages still held by the militants, activists and officials said.

Pushing IS out of Kobani after a bloody, four-month campaign was a significant boost for both the Kurds and the U.S.-led coalition, though the U.S. Central Central Command tempered Monday's victory by saying it estimated that 90 percent of Kobani was now controlled by Kurdish forces.

From Kobani, Kurdish troops took the fight Tuesday to the village of Shiran, southeast of the town, said Mustafa Bali, a Kobani-based activist. Earlier in the day, they captured the nearby village of Qarah Hlanj. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed the capture of Qarah Hlanj and said the fighting near Shiran has intensified.

The victory in Kobani came at a high cost.

"The city has been fully liberated," said senior Kurdish official Idriss Nassan, speaking by telephone from inside the town. He said Kobani is "nearly destroyed."

In September, Islamic State fighters captured about 300 Kurdish villages and hamlets near Kobani and thrust into the town itself, occupying nearly half of it and sending tens of thousands of residents fleeing into Turkey.

View gallery

Kurds wave the flags of outlawed rebel group of the PKK to celebrate in Istanbul, Turkey, Monday, Ja …

The main Kurdish militia, the People's Protection Units, or YPG, aims to "liberate" all villages near Kobani area from IS fighters, the force's commander, Mohammed Barkhadan, told reporters Tuesday.

The scope of the destruction will make it hard for refugees to return anytime soon.

"The war in the town is over but the difficult task has begun," said Bali, the activist. "There is no water, electricity or sewage system."

Across the border, Turkish security forces fired tear gas Tuesday to prevent about 1,000 Kurds from crossing into Kobani to celebrate, Turkey's private Dogan news agency reported. Earlier, several legislators from Turkey's pro-Kurdish party traveled to Kobani.

Nawaf Khalil, a spokesman for Syria's powerful Kurdish Democratic Union Party, urged the world to help. Kobani, he said, "deserves international support for its reconstruction."

___

Associated Press writer Suzan Fraser contributed to this report from Ankara.

January 27, 2015

One of the most important tasks of the staffs of both the National Security Council and of the White House speechwriting apparatus is to think through the second- and third-order effects of presidential rhetoric, and to process the immediate, gut reactions of the Chief Executive to avoid creating policy problems for the United States. The system does not always work—the fateful "red line" statement on Syria was, according to some sources, an on-the-spot ad lib of President Barack Obama, rather than a thought-through and vetted policy pronouncement—but one always hopes that for important and major addresses such as the State of the Union, the staff is prepared to speak the proverbial truth to power.

It is an unfortunate pattern for this president that his statements and comments on Russian president Vladimir Putin always seem to generate a visceral negative reaction from the Kremlin, particularly when Obama suggests that Putin is weak, isolated or facing defeat. Without fail, Putin tends to initiate a response—whether signing major new trade deals with the Chinese after his isolation has been proclaimed or seizing an Estonian officer on the border in the immediate aftermath of a presidential visit that was meant to demonstrate confidence in Western security guarantees. Given what Obama said about Putin before both houses of Congress—and given that the president, who viewed the address primarily as a domestic political event, wanted to take a shot at his political opposition who in the past year unfavorably compared Obama's decision-making style with Putin's—the national-security establishment should have been prepared for an intensification of the Ukraine crisis. One can only imagine Putin watching the speech or reading a transcript, then bellowing to his aides, "I have not been defeated!"

The flare-up of fighting in southeastern Ukraine, of course, cannot solely be connected to presidential comments at the State of the Union, although there is a connection: the prevailing belief that sanctions coupled with lower energy prices will make Russia's Ukraine play unsustainable. Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich's presentation at Davos suggests that the state budget may be slashed by 15 percent and that Russian energy companies unable to finance new investments and improvements will be forced to cut back on production. But those impacts still lie in the future; Putin still retains considerable freedom of action now. The complete breakdown of what was always a very shaky Minsk truce agreementseems designed to establish a new set of "facts on the ground" that American and European rhetoric (especially if unbacked by concrete action) will not be able to change.

Ever since last summer, the Russian goal has been to force the Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv (and by extension, the European Union) to accept the reality of two "secessionist" entities (the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics) and thus to start a political dialogue with them over the future makeup of Ukraine. However, to the extent that these two entities appeared to be shaky—after all, neither of these self-proclaimed republics even control the entirety of the two provinces they claim to represent—there was always going to be significant resistance to recognizing them as actors with any sort of staying power. Indeed, when Ukrainian government forces appeared to be on the verge, by late summer, of retaking control of southeast Ukraine, Moscow was forced to intervene more openly to stave off complete collapse. The truce lines of separation that resulted from the Minsk agreement left Ukrainian government forces in close proximity to secessionist strongholds. Now, it appears that the separatists want to push those lines back and make it that much harder for the Ukrainian government to be able to launch any sort of lightning strike (assuming that Western promises of training and equipping Ukrainian forces come to pass) and quickly overrunning them.

(Recommended: 5 Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear)

The elimination of government resistance at the Donetsk airport was also designed to send a signal that despite bellicose rhetoric and expansive promises, the government in Kyiv has not, as of yet, figured out how to reform its dysfunctional defense establishment. To the extent that the volunteer militias that served as a significant backbone of government forces now feel they were abandoned, it could also help to fuel ongoing discontent with the course of politics in Ukraine since the Maidan uprising. Beyond that point, it also helps to expose a continuing gap between Western promises of support and what has actually been delivered, making it less likely that the latest round of hand-wringing from Western leaders about how all options (short of actual war) are now on the table for how to stop the separatist advance will be believed.

The struggle for control of the strategic port of Mariupol will be critical. This is the last major city of the Donetsk Oblast' which remains outside the control of the separatists—and as such has been designated by the Ukrainian government as the temporary administrative center for the province. Moreover, it is part of the "missing link" that would connect Russia proper, the separatist-controlled territory in southeastern Ukraine, and Russia-annexed Crimea. Should the Ukrainian government lose control of Mariupol, it becomes much harder to ignore the "facts on the ground" that is the Donetsk People's Republic and momentum towards a de facto "Novorossiya" as a distinct political entity in Ukraine would gather strength.

We have precedents from what happened in Georgia during the last decade. The separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia never fully controlled their territories and the Georgian government was able to maintain its "flag" and thus its claim in those parts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia that remained under Tbilisi's control. After the 2008 war, the Russian military drove the Georgians completely out of both provinces and effectively ended the Georgian presence altogether. What appears to be the strategy now is to deprive the central government of any pretense of control over all of Donetsk, not just the portions controlled by the separatists. In addition, loss of the entire province—which produces some 20 percent of the country's GDP and 25 percent of its exports—would come at a time when Ukraine is in desperate need of a new financial rescue package for its economy.

Consolidating the separatist entities now also makes strategic sense if the goal is to take the short-term criticism from European leaders, but set the stage for a longer-term settlement. Just as the European Union accepted the de facto reality of an Abkhazia and South Ossetia separate from Georgia as part of its reset of relations with Russia following the Georgian war, it seems the effort to establish the realities of the two Ukrainian separatist entities—which cannot be ignored, wished away or speedily folded up—is occurring now so that when the question of Ukraine policy and continuation of Russia sanctions comes up later this spring for consideration by European leaders, the necessity of having to accept a Ukrainian "peace process," which would be comprised of formal negotiations between the separatist entities and the central Ukrainian government, can be argued by those countries that want to end the sanctions regime and resume some degree of normal trading relations between Russia and Europe.

Even if Mariupol does not slip from government control and a new truce is arranged, the damage may already have been done. Putin believes that he still has the room to maneuver and that he may yet achieve his geopolitical objectives before the full weight of sanctions can cause sufficient and irreparable damage. So far, his calculus does not appear to have changed.

Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Vitaly V. Kuzmin/CC by-sa 3.0

Moscow (AFP) - President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday slammed what he called attempts to rewrite history at a Moscow ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Speaking at a Jewish museum in Moscow, he said Nazi Germany's crimes including the Holocaust could be neither forgiven nor forgotten.

"Any attempts to hush up these events, distort, re-write history are unacceptable and immoral," said Putin, who is conspicuously staying away from the main events in Poland in a gesture laying bare divisions with the West over the war in Ukraine.

In the run-up to the ceremony Poland angered Moscow when its foreign minister, Grzegorz Schetyna, said it was Ukrainian soldiers -- rather than the Soviet army -- who liberated the camp.

Moscow blasted Warsaw for twisting history for political ends.

Putin has repeatedly condemned the West for what he calls attempts to belittle the Soviet army's role in the victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 and to glorify Nazi collaborators in eastern Europe and ex-Soviet republics such as Ukraine.

At the ceremony, Putin also drew parallels with the current Ukraine crisis which has sent Moscow's ties with the West to post-Cold War lows and seen imposition of punishing Western sanctions against Russia.

"We all know how dangerous and destructive are double standards, indifference to and disregard for another man's fate as is the case with the current tragedy in eastern Ukraine," the Kremlin strongman said at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

Putin's absence at the main ceremony at Auschwitz-Birkenau, which is now a museum, raised eyebrows at home since the camp was liberated by the Soviet Red Army on January 27, 1945.

In 2005, Putin travelled to Poland to participate in a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Russian officials said earlier that Putin had received no formal invitation to fly to Poland.

President Obama waves to the audience after he delivered a speech at Siri Fort Auditorium in New Delhi January 27, 2015. REUTERS/Ahmad Masood

By Frank Jack Daniel and Roberta Rampton

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama weighed in on one of India's most sensitive topics as he wound up a visit on Tuesday, making a plea for freedom of religion to be upheld in a country with a history of strife between Hindus and minorities.

Hours before boarding a flight to Saudi Arabia, Obama warned India not to stray from its constitutional commitment to allow people to freely "profess, practice and propagate" religion.

"India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith, as long as it is not splintered along any lines, and it is unified as one nation," he said in a townhall address to mostly young Indians.

Obama's speech, after three days in New Delhi aimed at cementing a strategic partnership, was widely interpreted as a message to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), whose rise to power emboldened activists to declare India a nation of Hindus.

He made no direct reference to Modi, who was banned from U.S. travel for nearly a decade until last year after deadly Hindu-Muslim violence in a state he ruled in 2002.

Lately, religious conversion has again become a divisive political issue, after hardliners with links to the BJP claimed Hinduism was under threat and started a campaign to convince Christians and Muslims to change their faith.

About a fifth of India's 1.27 billion people identify themselves as belonging to faiths other than Hinduism.

"The message is that India is a democratic country, it is not a Hindu country or a Christian country, it is all together, India has respect for all religions," said Imam Umer Ahmed Ilyasi, a Muslim priest who heads the All India Imam Organisation, after the speech. He was standing with a Hindu holy man from one of India's pilgrimage towns, Rishikesh.

Modi has warned lawmakers from his own party to stop promoting controversial issues such as religious conversions and to focus on economic reforms, but Obama's message was quickly seized by political opponents of the prime minister.

"I do hope that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was listening to the speech carefully," said Manish Tewari of the opposition Congress party, criticizing Hindu activists for promoting a "majoritarian ethos that goes against the grain of liberal democracy".

"MOBAMA"

Obama and Modi's relaxed manner together during the visit was dubbed a "bromance" in India media, after the two men shared tea in a lotus garden, recorded a radio show together, and spent two hours chatting at a rain-splashed military parade.

In between, they sealed deals to unlock billions of dollars in nuclear trade and deepen defense ties, and Obama pledged $4 billion in financial backing to release the "untapped potential" of a partnership between the world's largest democracies.

Some of that financing is to help Modi meet his own ambitious goals to use more renewable energy, especially solar, as fast-growing India's carbon emissions rise.

However, during the visit, India did not commit to a peak emissions target of the kind China and the United States agreed to in November.

"Here's the truth: even if countries like the United States curb our emissions, if growing countries like India - with soaring energy needs - don't also embrace cleaner fuels, then we don't stand a chance against climate change," Obama said.

On Monday, he became the first U.S. president to attend India's annual Republic Day parade, a show of military might long associated with Cold War anti-Americanism.

Obama's presence at the parade signaled Modi's willingness to end India's traditional reluctance to get too close to any big power. Instead, he is seeking close ties with them all, even as he pushes back against a more assertive China and take sides on other global issues.A joint U.S.-India policy statement that focused on free navigation in the South China Sea highlighted this more muscular diplomacy.

ENDORSING INDIAN REFORM

Obama said the United States would stand first in line for the trade and investment opportunities that will spring from the economic reform drive under Modi.

"America wants to be your partner in igniting the next wave of Indian growth. As India pursues reforms to encourage more trade and investment, we'll be the first in line," he told the townhall, attended by Michelle Obama and Nobel peace laureate Kailash Satyarthi.

Praising the non-violence tenets of Mahatma Gandhi, Obama touched during his speech on the treatment of women, an issue that has troubled India since the horrific gang rape and murder of a student on a bus in New Delhi two years ago.

"Every daughter deserves the same chance as our sons," he said. "And every woman should be able to go about her day — to walk the street, or ride the bus — and be safe and be treated with the respect and dignity. She deserves that."

(Writing by John Chalmers; Editing by Douglas Busvine and Raju Gopalakrishnan)