Foreign Policy Blogs

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated recently at the sidelines of the NATO Summit: “Over the last year, year and a half, Armenia and Azerbaijan have done very important work toward negotiating and concluding a peace agreement—one that is durable, one that is dignified and one that would open extraordinary possibilities for both countries, the region that they share and for their relationship with the United States.”

He added: “Today is an opportunity to take stock in the progress that has been made, what remains.  But based on the engagements that we have had, including in recent weeks, I believe both countries are very close to being able to reach a final agreement, one that the United States will strongly support.”

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov and his Armenian counterpart met in Washington, DC with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the sidelines of the NATO Summit.   The ministers agreed to continue to work diligently to finalizing the peace agreement, which will bring to an end the conflict between both countries.   Both sides expressed their gratitude to Secretary Blinken for his role in facilitating dialogue between both countries.

Spokesman for the US State Department Matthew Miller also expressed his satisfaction with the meeting and stressed: “The Secretary also emphasized the importance of peace in promoting regional connectivity, which would benefit the entire South Caucuses region.”    Bayramov also “reiterated Azerbaijan’s commitment to the peace process” in an X post following the meeting.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev said that within a few months Azerbaijan and Armenia can lay the basic principles for a peace treaty, but a peace agreement can only be signed when Armenia changes its constitution “because it contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan.”   The Azerbaijani President believes that it is of pivotal importance to ending the conflict permanently that Armenia renounces all of its claims over Azerbaijani territory, implying that if the constitution is not changed, Armenia can always renege the peace agreement and wage conflict against Azerbaijan at a future date.  

Last February, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan did call for a new constitution.  However, his people have not taken kindly to the request they change their constitution, which presently affirms: “the December 1, 1989 declaration by the Supreme Council of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic that calls for unification of the Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh.”  

For this reason, Farid Shafiyev, Chair of the Baku-based Centre of Analysis of International Relations (AIR), has suggested that a commitment to amend the constitution within a year of signing, if included in an agreement, could also be acceptable but that timeframe could be too short.

He noted that Pashinyan still needs to engage the public further in informed discussion regarding the necessity and benefits of peace for that to happen.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that last May Armenia returned four villages to Azerbaijan that it occupied during the First Karabakh War, so perhaps one day it will happen that Armenia will change their constitution as well.  When there is a will, there is always a way forward.   

In the wake of regional threats in the South Caucuses and Middle East, it is of pivotal importance for all of the Turkic countries to unite as part of a common NATO-like defense pact, where an attack on one member would be considered an attack on all.  Such a defense pact will strengthen the Turkic countries. 

The importance of having such a defense pact is great in light of Armenia’s thirty year occupation of Karabakh and the seven Azerbaijani districts in violation of four UN Security Council resolutions.   If such a defense pact was in place, Armenia would have thought twice before attacking Azerbaijan and illegally occupying an entire region for thirty years in defiance of the international community.   

The defense pact could initially include Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, all of which share common linguistic and cultural ties.  However, it can eventually expand to include all Turkic-speaking states.       

The fact that Turkey is part of NATO will help for the Turkic NATO to be enhanced both strategically and operationally, and model their organization effectively off of NATO.    However, this Turkic alliance would have to be careful to avoid an escalation from Iran in the wake of forming such a union, as such a union is a direct challenge to Iranian hegemony in the Middle East region.   Historically, the Ottoman and Persian Empires were rivals, and thus a Turkic NATO can be seen as a rival to the Shia Crescent, which Iran created and that presently includes Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.    

Historically, in the Middle East, there are also other alliances that are similar to this and they have shaped our world.  For example, the Gulf Cooperation Council has a collective security mechanism and the Arab League Joint Defense Pact also serves a model.  The Turkic NATO would need to learn from these examples, thus ensuring strong political will, adequate funding, and effective coordination among member states.  

The proposal for a Turkic NATO, while ambitious, is grounded in the strategic need for enhanced regional security and cooperation among Turkic-speaking nations. With Azerbaijan potentially playing a leading role, bolstered by its recent military successes, the alliance could offer a new paradigm for regional stability. However, careful planning, substantial investment, and diplomatic finesse will be essential to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape and establish a viable and effective military alliance.

Smoke rises from the Israeli side after Palestinian Hamas gunmen infiltrated areas of southern Israel, as seen from Gaza, October 7, 2023. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem

Speaking at a conference titled “The World After October 7th,” which was organized by the European Association for the Defense of Democracies and the World Council for Public Diplomacy and Community Dialogue, Imam Hassen Chalgoumi stated: “October 7 was a turning point, comparable to the September 11 terror attacks.   The attacks by Hamas and their allies shocked not only Israel but the entire world.  It was a horrific crime, a massive massacre that changed the world.”

Following the October 7 Massacre, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis in Yemen united under the Iranian umbrella in order to attack Israel.  Chalgoumi pointed out the growing alliance between various Islamist groups, including Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other extremist organizations. He stressed that these groups reveal the true nature of terrorism and pose a threat to global security. “These groups do not represent Islam,” he emphasized, “but are dangerous extremists undermining the stability of different regions.”

In Europe, Chalgoumi sees a troubling trend of increasing support for Islamist ideologies, often accompanied by support from far-left and far-right groups. He warned that this development is leading to more division and fear in Europe. “The rise of extremist parties on both sides is a threat to Europe’s unity and security,” he warned.

Chalgoumi called for concrete actions to combat extremism. He advocated for improved education, stronger legislation, and more support for moderate voices within the Muslim community. “We must invest in education and awareness,” he said. “Parents, teachers, and religious leaders play a crucial role in preventing radicalization.”

He also emphasized the importance of responsible media use and addressing online radicalization. “The propaganda on social media is powerful and dangerous,” Chalgoumi said. “We must protect young people from these influences by teaching them critical thinking and making them aware of the dangers.”

Chalgoumi concluded with a call for unity and cooperation. “It is time for us to come together and work towards a peaceful and stable future,” he said. “We can only overcome these challenges by working together and supporting each other.” 

Manel Msalmi, president of EADM and a women’s rights activist, noted the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli women and children on October 7, including the mass rapes of the living and the dead, and the sexual torture endured by the hostages.  She also noted the rise of antisemitic attacks in Europe, such as the recent rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl by anti-Semites in France.   She stressed the need to fight against hate and extremism in the wake of the rise of far right and the far left during the elections. 

Across Europe, mainstream and left-leaning parties that have traditionally been strong supporters of democracy and minority rights have grown more critical of Israel and more sympathetic to the Continent’s growing antisemitism. Meanwhile, right-leaning parties, including some on the far right that have historically espoused antisemitism, are now more supportive of Israel and are taking a strong stand against Islamic extremism — albeit one often infused with racism and xenophobia.  This makes the plight of Jews in Europe more precarious than ever following the October 7 massacre.     

Azerbaijan recently hosted “French Polynesia’s Right to Decolonization: Challenges and Perspectives” inside of the Azerbaijani Parliament together with BIG, otherwise known as the Baku Initiative Group, whose stated aim is to support “French liberation and anti-colonialist movements.”  The group’s executive director Abbas Abbasov, who met the Polynesian delegation at the sidelines of the conference, vowed “continued support of the fair struggle of peoples seeking liberation from colonialism.”  

“We are isolated today due to the colonial policy of France,” the party’s secretary general, Victor Maamaatuaiahutapu, told the conference.  “Politically, we are a young nation, and we need Azerbaijan’s support,” he added. “France seeks to isolate us because it wants to continue nuclear tests on our territory.”  Huseynly said the “imperfection of international legal mechanisms hampers the liberation of French colonies”.

MP Zahid Oruj, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Azerbaijani Milli Majlis (Parliament), highlighted that BIG, established on July 6, 2023, in Baku, marks the beginning of a new wave against exploitation that has affected regions including the Caribbean, South America, and the Indian and Pacific Oceans for over 150 years.

“We believe that this movement will be successful and will finally give the oppressed peoples the freedom they deserve. By ending the 44-day war with victory, we have become a shining, unparalleled example for oppressed peoples around the world. The brilliant victory of Azerbaijan plays an important role in the revival of the Polynesian movement for independence. Neo-colonialism is doomed,” he declared.

Azerbaijani MP Nizami Safarov highlighted that the decolonization discourse is far from over for many regions of the world: “French Polynesia remains a stark example, with the French government only establishing a compensation commission for nuclear testing in 2010. Despite the devastating impact of these tests, including increased radiation-related illnesses, French President Emmanuel Macron has yet to issue an official apology.”    

The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) concurs with Azerbaijan that French Polynesia should be liberated from French colonialism.  A public statement adopted by the Central Committee calls on French authorities “to fulfil their obligations and provide all necessary means for the economic, social and cultural development of the Maohi people” and “urges France to compensate all those affected by nuclear testing and radioactivity” in the vicinity.  It also invites Christians everywhere to pray “for the people and the churches of Maohi Nui as they embark on their peaceful and just struggle for self-determination.”

In 2013, the UN General Assembly voted to add French Polynesia to its list of territories that should be decolonized, affirming the right of the islands’ inhabitants to “self-determination and independence”. French Polynesia joined 16 other territories on the decolonization list, including the British-ruled Falkland Islands and the US Virgin Islands. The UN resolution called on the French government to “facilitate rapid progress” towards self-determination. It was passed by consensus in the 193-member UN assembly.

 

 

 

 

A chart of current missile types threatening mostly civilian vessels passing through the Red Sea.

Policies towards addressing anti-ship attacks in the Red Sea did not prevent some aggressive acts against civilian vessels recently that resulted in the loss of lives and entire ships. The pin prick deterrence via responding to threats after they occur is not sufficiently effective in addressing the issue, and further passive policies toward the eternal threats against international shipping need to be met with the same proactive vigour that had met such threats in the past. The focus on component exports for weapons seems to target more on the source of electronic production, where there is little that can be done militarily, as opposed to targeting the evident assembly plants for such weapons that would be a more accessible and easier mission to accomplish.

Anti-ship missiles that are being used in the current attacks mirror Soviet anti-ship missile technology from the 1970s and their future variants that work in a networked setting with radars and other electronic equipment. While targeting land radars is needed and has been part of the deterrence, the focus on ship based guidance weapons and radars should have been of top priority once the first missiles targeted international shipping. While military vessels have little issue downing those weapons, to fire Anti-Ship missiles at civilians from all over the world (weapons designed to sink a Frigate in one or two strikes) is like opening fire on an innocent crowd of people, and is clearly a crime against civilian vessels with intent to murder their international crew. Such an Act of War should be met with at least a proportional response, even if it means attacking the radar ships home port, as a lacking response has already encouraged more conflict.

The added threats of sea and air drones designed to Kamikaze civilian vessels is a new threat that is rapidly being addressed as new threats create new responses. A possible evolution of against assault drones could mirror the response to the first combat airplanes. As the first planes were used to bomb trenches in the First World War, the fighter plane was developed as a necessity to challenge and intercept the unchallenged bomber threat. A type of Interceptor Drone might be a solution our great grandfathers would have come up with, a practical solution to their past threats and new threats we are facing today. What was true back then as it is true now, that an assault on international shipping must be met with a swift, overwhelming, and effective response, as has been done in the past and will always be required.

Every society that has faced conflict has learned a similar lesson, that if you do not intend to counter threats, there will be more conflict. In the end, an absence of deterrence will lead to many more young citizens going to war in the near future. If there is an absence of strategy to challenge the source of arms and decision makers pick and choose grievances over components, as opposed to eliminating the actual missile production facilities, they are just slightly delaying the inevitable larger conflict.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has declared 2024 to be a “green world solidarity year” ahead of the COP29 Conference that will be held this year in his country.   The declaration aims to showcase how Azerbaijan is a global partner in the struggle against global climate change.   Azerbaijan has set ambitious targets, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2030 and 40 percent by 2050, relative to the 1990 baseline year.

Recently, Azerbaijan showcased to a delegation brought over by UNDP and Anama the newly created “smart village” in East Zangezur, which seeks to assist ecosystem restoration.  Similar models are being employed throughout Karabakh and Nachshivan, which have been declared “green energy zones.”   Focusing on energy policy, Azerbaijan prioritizes the creation of green energy sources and the global distribution of green energy. The goal is for renewable energy to constitute 30% of electricity generating capacity by 2030. 

The office of the president of Azerbaijan declared: “The unanimous decision to host the 29th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) in Azerbaijan reflects the international community’s profound respect and trust in Azerbaijan, recognizing the nation’s endeavors in environmental protection and addressing climate change on national, regional, and global scales.”

According to USAID, “Azerbaijan is an emerging middle-income country. The agriculture sector contributes only 7 percent of GDP but is a critical component of the non-oil economy. As a key source of jobs and a priority in the context of food security, Azerbaijan’s agriculture sector will be increasingly at risk from higher temperatures, unpredictable rainfall and natural disasters.”

They added: “The country’s rapid economic development created a number of environmental challenges that will be exacerbated by climate change, such as severe air pollution from industrial plants, water pollution, soil degradation and important biodiversity and forest reserve degradation and losses. Another major risk to economic development and the population is the increase in frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Azerbaijan is considered to be one of the most flood-prone areas in the world and extreme events, mainly floods, landslides and mudslides cost Azerbaijan an estimated $70–80 million annually. 

The Azerbaijani Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources told the UN: “Upon ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1995 and the Kyoto Protocol of the Convention in 2000, the Republic of Azerbaijan has actively joined international efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of global climate change. As a non-Annex I country, Azerbaijan has undertaken the obligations such as preparation of inventory of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and emission removals, its regular updating, and the preparation of national communications and submission of this information to the Secretariat of the Convention, as well execution of public awareness activities.”

They continued: “All these commitments are fulfilled in a systematic manner. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is not included to Annex I group under the convention and has not taken any quantitative obligations in accordance with Kyoto protocol, the country has already contributed and is continuing to contribute to the global emission reduction efforts. So far, a number of mitigation activities have been implemented in Azerbaijan such as suspension of using black oil for power stations by using gas instead, application of smart cards in electricity and gas consumption measuring devices, enhancing application of renewable energy sources and energy efficient technologies, expansion of forest territories, etc.”

According to them, “Azerbaijan has recently submitted its intended nationally determined contributions and, as developing country, taking into account national circumstances, future development perspectives and national interests, has taken target of the 35% reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990/base year as its contribution to the global climate change efforts.”

I recently had a discussion with a friend who now lives in one of the countries that is a supposed adversary to my own about how far along we might be into a global conflict in the era past the War in Ukraine. While the focal point has been shifting between Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the response and coordination between those regions and security issues in Asia vary greatly, and reflect either and intentional unexplainable strategy, or simply an uncoordinated security policy by Western Allies.

European strategy currently has three issues that should be focused on in any discussion. The move to have NATO troop operate in an increased capacity via French efforts to internally re-enforce Ukraine comes at a time when Russia is making small gains in the area around Kharkiv. Such a move may escalate the war outside of Ukraine, but could also deplete Russian arms and personnel that have to now be sourced from Asia and Iran. Poland and France look to be the strongest and most well equipped allies in this measure, as strength in such a circumstance may encourage detente in the conflict, as opposed to giving signals to encourage more strife via weak policy measures.

Strikes inside Russian territory has escalated the war recently, as Russian logistical hubs in places inside of Russia like Belgorod have been hit by NATO supplied Ukrainian weapons systems. While the use of these advanced weapons are limited to the region around Kharkiv and the supply network supporting Russia in their advance in the region, the use of NATO weapons to hit targets inside of Russia is a new development that was not previously encouraged by NATO. A strike inside of Russia may produce unwanted casualties, encourage more local support for Russia’s war, and be used to popularise a response by Russia against the rest of Europe. It remains to be seen whether or not Russia would attempt a strike at a logical hub for Ukraine in a place like Poland or Germany, as such responses tend to escalate a situation very quickly.

There has been some discussion of having a ceasefire take place between Ukraine and Russia, as efforts to push Russia out of ceased territories with NATO wonder-weapons has not been successful and Russia could claim that part of their objectives have been met to satisfy their narrative within Russia before losses produce a political upheaval. Such a ceasefire might ease the pressure on budgets in Western nations via military funding in Ukraine, but would also lead to a production race for artillery and other weapons as the next conflict is likely to come about sooner rather than later. If Russia is able to outproduce NATO arms and secure its energy exports in the next few years, there is a chance that the conflict would continue. If weak Western policy allows an arms gap to form in the region, it will likely lead to more conflict, especially if efforts to deter conflict in Ukraine is not married to policies in other parts of the world that supply Russia.

Weakness in policy has already lead to poor policy encouraging more conflict. With the Bucha Massacre, unwavering support was given to Ukraine until their war could be won, but with Western allies in the Middle East, massacres lead to increased weakness and encouragement of Russia’s allies supplying terror weapons to Russia. The response for months was to protect the aggressor in the region, even when rearming Russian forces to the detriment of Ukraine. While international shipping was being targeted, guided and supplied by Russia’s ally, it was met without any response from the massive coalition of NATO allies against such support, being only defensive in nature, even against civilian targets. Weakness in such policy has prolonged the conflict as no real support was given to achieving a victory against a Russian ally in contradiction of NATO’s policy approaches in Ukraine. Weakness in one area rewards aggression in all areas, and such a situation guarantees a larger global conflict.

The contradictory policy between both regions is a signal to China over their threats to Taiwan. China’s intent to take any action against Taiwan surrounds two very important variables, time and opportunity. China likely has five decades to take action against Taiwan, even if they suffer a declining economy in the longer term. China does not need more territory or population, as it is in excess of both. As a trading nation, China benefits greatly from economic trade, and conflict would simply block import routes, or alienate export nations from trading with China. As well, China’s military age population have grown up with more opportunities and luxuries, losses of these young people would not be supported by most families for the gain of Taiwan and a declining trade economy for all citizens. At the moment, the Western world is very content to ignore China’s human rights record and purchase consumer goods from China, a situation that is a win-win for the CCP.

The main catalyst for China to invade Taiwan is weakness in the West. This weakness can take many forms, as a passive response against internal strife in North America and Europe, taking advantage of easily corruptible political movements, and Western policy decisions that reward further conflict as seen in current US policy against Russia in the Middle East. How someone living in China might know a conflict is about to begin would not necessarily be increased negative views on Taiwan, as that is a regular discussion inside of China and abroad, but increased stories on failures of Western democratic societies, more patriotic news and shows, and an information campaign against India as India is the largest current military threat to China outside of US hegemony in the region, and their future economic competitor. Convincing the population to go to war with Taiwan where losses could not be hidden will be seen in conjunction with a larger conflict with India. India would be top of mind for most Chinese citizens, and a victory in that region is not something most people would sacrifice their male kin for in support of their Government. Its simply not worth the cost, but in such a place, policy decisions are made to benefit the Party. That fact should be top of mind when making security decisions in Europe, the Mid East and in Asia as poor responses to a situation are as much of a threat as the situation itself.

 

The role of the UN in American foreign policy has become more of an afterthought than a priority these days. As the world descends into great power competition, the idea of multilateral institutions as a panacea for global challenges seems like a relic of a bygone era of optimism. With frightening levels of polarization in the U.S. and elections in November, the last thing voters are pondering is how the next president will engage the UN. This disregard is neither new nor surprising and certainly not the fault of individual voters. For years, U.S. attitudes toward the UN have oscillated between disengagement and retrenchment depending on the administration. Amidst this cyclical vacillation, the U.S. has diminished its organizational leverage while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has expanded its influence.

Unlike the U.S., the PRC leverages its UN membership as a force multiplier to advance its interests and reshape global norms and the international order. Through economic coercion, strategic placement of its officials in key positions, and pressure on foreign officials, Beijing has undermined the UN’s institutional integrity to accommodate its domestic and international agenda. It has also successfully silenced critics of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) human rights violations and malign activities.

Under President Xi Jinping’s hallmark “wolf warrior diplomacy,” Beijing has recognized that it cannot accomplish its maximalist objectives within the confines of the current international order. Consequently, PRC officials within the UN system have silently pushed for resolutions and norms that reflect its global vision. Foremost, the PRC prioritizes non-interference and state sovereignty over democracy and human rights. Moreover, the CCP’s conceptualization of human rights promotes the right to economic development at the expense of political and civil rights. Other authoritarian regimes support the PRC’s vision for the international system, as it would enable them to operate without criticism, accountability, or consequences.

Perhaps most egregious is the PRC’s abuse of UN committee positions. Despite its well-documented repression of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, which Beijing has whitewashed as “vocational education,” China retains its position on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The PRC has routinely used this position to silence and shield itself from criticism.

In 2019, 22 Western countries sent a letter to the UNHRC that urged the CCP to close its Xinjiang re-education camps. The PRC responded by rallying 50 countries–nearly all with poor human rights records and economic dependence on China–to sign a joint letter that praised its “remarkable achievements in Xinjiang.” The UNHRC rejected a similar Western bid to hold a debate on PRC crimes against humanity against Uyghurs in October 2022. However, efforts to suppress debate extend beyond the situation in Xinjiang, with Beijing marshaling 53 countries to defend its imposition of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Uncoincidentally, 43 were recipients of PRC investments through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

China also weaponizes its role on the NGO Committee of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This committee grants applicant organizations consultative status, a mechanism necessary to participate in the UN’s activities, events, and negotiations. Unfortunately, Beijing has conditioned its vote of approval on whether the organization recognizes Taiwan as an integral part of China.

The subversion of institutional integrity is not limited to committees, most recently exhibited during the World Health Organization’s (WHO) response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Alongside blatant failures to adhere to International Health Regulations, the CCP launched a pressure campaign on the WHO to downplay the virus’s severity. This was coupled with obfuscation efforts and a general lack of transparency that left the world woefully unprepared for what was to come. The PRC has also long pressured countries to reject Taiwan’s membership in the WHO despite the island’s medical expertise.

Additionally, the CCP makes concerted efforts to install its nationals in leadership positions within the UN’s specialized agencies. In 2019, when no other country held more than two leadership positions, China had four, with another candidate under nomination. For eight years, Houlin Zhao oversaw the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which regulates and standardizes telecommunications and information technology. During his time, Zhao leveraged his influence to benefit domestic companies like Huawei and promoted PRC internet norms of surveillance and censorship. CCP officials have also held leadership positions in INTERPOL, the UN Industrial Development Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Like Zhao at the ITU, the agency heads brazenly pursued PRC interests in violation of the agency’s neutrality mandates.

President Xi’s inauguration of the UN Peace and Development Trust Fund (UNPDF) provides another compelling example of Beijing’s self-interested pursuits. Launched in 2015, the much-vaunted fund is run by a steering committee of mostly CCP officials. Unsurprisingly, over one-third of its approved projects have fallen under China’s flagship BRI. While CCP malpractices at the UN do not end here, the picture is clear.

Fortunately, the U.S. is the UN’s largest contributor and possesses the alliances necessary to counter the PRC’s expanding influence. Washington should utilize its power of the purse to drive structural reforms that improve transparency and accountability. For example, it is clear that the UNHRC is broken, and the U.S. should advocate for prerequisites that prevent the world’s worst human rights abusers from holding panel positions. Moreover, U.S. and European diplomats should collaborate to create coalitions that coordinate leadership roles and voting strategies.

However, nothing is possible without sustained U.S. engagement across administrations. This is not to say that the UN will become the supranational authority some envisioned in the aftermath of World War II. Many Americans will remain skeptical of the UN. Nonetheless, even UN skeptics would agree that countering China is America’s top foreign policy priority. Doing so requires a comprehensive diplomatic approach that ensures Washington defends its interests and those of the free world in every possible arena.

Ruben Vardanyan, an Armenian businessman, and former Minister of State of the Karabakh region is sitting in an Azerbaijani prison, where a trial is underway against him in Azerbaijan.  He also faces charges from the state of Ukraine since he was arrested on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. Some people are not familiar with Vardanyan’s political and criminal actions and therefore do not understand why a man who is considered a philanthropist, a politician who returned to his native country and shows concern for his people is sitting in prison under conditions that can be difficult. But Vardanyan deserves a long prison term for the actions he did when he roamed the earth freely.  

In his youth, Vardanyan studied economics and even served in the Soviet army in the regions of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Vardanyan is Armenian by origin but lived for many years in Russia. After graduating, Vardanyan slowly began to enter the field of financial investments. But Vardanyan was not satisfied with his money and began to profit illegally from trading and investing in the capital market, or using less official language – he began to launder money.

It is important to note that today Vadanyan’s business companies (or those owned or managed by him in the past) are subject to Western economic sanctions. This is how Vardanyan managed to get rich at a very high level until eventually, he entered Russian politics. He was involved mainly in government financial management committees (it’s not just junior committees, but committees that affect the Russian economy) and the Russian Industrialists’ forum. With the help of Vardanyan’s fortune, he was able to advance in his public positions in Russia, until finally, he was able to enter the limited circle of close associates of the President of Russia – Vladimir Putin.

Vardanyan is considered one of the richest people in Russia and his money has done Putin a great service. With the help of Vardanyan’s huge fortune, he used to take care of laundering money for Putin and his close people, according to their demands and needs. Money laundering was so associated with him that Vardanyan’s nickname became “Putin’s wallet”, indicating the huge amount of money that passed between these two men.  

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused the beginning of Western pressure on Russia and Putin’s regime, Vardanyan realized that it was not safe for him to stay in Russia, so he left the country where he became rich and renounced his Russian citizenship. The reason for this is a move to escape the Western sanctions imposed on the senior officials of the Russian regime after the invasion of Ukraine.

Vardanyan is probably the oligarch with the most luck, or with good friends in the West because most of the oligarchs and rich people who renounced their Russian citizenship and fled Russia after the war started lost their assets, businesses, and bank accounts connected to the land of Russia. The reason for this is of course the Western sanctions designed to delay and slow down Putin’s men.

Ruben Vardanyan kept his fortune from the West. After escaping from Russia he returned to his homeland Armenia and after declaring many times over the years that he had no political ambitions, he entered Armenian politics. On top of that, he even declared a dream to run for the country’s presidency. Vardanyan was appointed Minister of State in the separatist government in Karabakh, although his only connection to the politically and sovereignly disputed land is the fact that Vardanyan is of Armenian descent and holds Armenian citizenship. Later the motive for this political move was discovered, and it is the Kremlin from Moscow. Vardanyan was sent to Armenia to be Putin’s Russian branch in the region, to direct Armenia’s political policy to Putin’s needs.  

As mentioned, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the West imposed economic sanctions against Putin’s Russian regime, including blocking trade routes of essential products which also include weapons. Therefore, Russia had to find a way to transfer to its territory the weapons products it needed for the war, without being exposed to the eyes of the West. For this, Vardanyan was sent to Armenia, which turns out to be a major exporter of essential chips for advanced weapons, exactly what Russia lacked after the imposition of sanctions.

It seems that Vardanyan has entered with all his might into the Russian-Iranian-Armenian axis, where he works behind the scenes for his master in the Kremlin. Iran supplies Russia with suicide drones, Armenia supplies Russia with essential chips for advanced weapons, and transports through its territory the weapons that the Iranians send to Russia. Without Vardanyan, this entire logistical system would not exist and work as efficiently as it does these days. Vardanyan has an active part in the destruction that is happening to Ukraine and its citizens Since the Russian invasion, Vardanyan has faced accusations in Ukraine and the state institutions want him to be in prison for his actions against the country.

But Vardanyan was actually arrested by the Azerbaijani military forces at the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia after he tried to escape from Karabakh to the territory of sovereign Armenia. Azerbaijan accuses Vardanyan of sabotaging the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia, crossing the border illegally, financing terrorism and personally dealing with Armenian terrorism directed towards Azerbaijan.

According to evidence, Vardanyan used to cross the border of Karabakh (the province is considered Azerbaijani territory from an international legal point of view) illegally to supply separatist gangs with money and ammunition to be used against the Azerbaijani army. The amount of weapons that the Armenian separatists received from Vardanyan is so great that to this day they continue to find the weapons he donated to them. Vardanyan never denied these claims, and even more so. More than once Vardanyan has been caught threatening the Azerbaijani government, asserting the rights of the Armenians and presenting views that even Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claims are extreme.

Vardanyan openly glorified the Armenian terrorists who carried out Operation Nemesis, in which many senior Azerbaijani officials were murdered, and also threatened: “Anything can happen to the government of Azerbaijan.” As mentioned, Vardanyan served as Minister of State of the separatist government in Karabakh, but four months after his appointment in Armenia they gave in to the Azerbaijani demand to fire him. The demand was part of Azerbaijan’s list of demands to end the siege of the Armenian enclave in Karabakh, so he was dismissed from his post but vowed to remain living and working in the region.    

Vardanyan is a dangerous man, extremist in his nationalist views, funds terrorism, belongs to the circle of dark people, you can call him “one of the enemies of the West” and a financial criminal in addition to everything. This is a man the people of the world should be glad is behind bars, where he should stay.

 

 

In 2017, the Russia-based Institute for Prospective Military Studies dedicated its annual award to a military engineer for designing a “non-lethal acoustic weapon suitable for use in urban combat.” This engineer was also a high-ranking member of Russia’s main intelligence directorate, the GRU, specifically its clandestine sabotage and assassination unit 29155. Following this accolade, President Putin promoted this individual as his representative in a Far Eastern province, a rare honor generally reserved for agents after they achieve a major “success” in kinetic covert operations. Putin originally founded the Institute for Prospective Military Studies in 2013 to develop “weapons based on new physical properties including ray weapons and wave weapons.” Within a couple of years, American diplomatic, military, and intelligence officials started falling ill under mysterious circumstances at home and abroad.

Most people know this phenomenon as Havana Syndrome, scientifically termed anomalous health incidents (AHIs). The issue first entered the spotlight in 2016 when CIA personnel stationed in America’s embassy in Havana started reporting intense headaches, ringing in the ears, and fatigue. Since then, over 1,000 incidents have emerged on every continent. In addition to the aforementioned symptoms, victims have suffered dizziness, vertigo, nausea, and cognitive difficulties, with some experiencing rare cancers, heart conditions, and, unfortunately, death.

Conclusive evidence has never emerged, and possible explanations have ranged from work-related duress to mass psychogenic illness (Epidemic hysteria) or even the sounds made by crickets. At a recent congressional hearing on AHIs, however, one of the witnesses noted their study indicated at least 68 of the incidents cannot be explained by pre-existing conditions or psychosomatic symptoms. They affirmed that the aggregate scientific, intelligence, and medical evidence substantiates claims that these AHIs are the result of a foreign adversary. More specifically, the reported symptoms are consistent with “wave weapons.” As the witnesses see it, Russia is this foreign adversary.

Russia has a long-running R&D program on acoustic and electromagnetic directed-energy emission devices used for lethal and non-lethal purposes. During the Moscow Signal incident of the Cold War, around 350 American embassy employees in Moscow experienced symptoms similar to those today between 1953 and 1976. While most information regarding AHIs remains strictly confidential, declassified documents show that  Soviet intelligence aimed microwave radiation at the U.S. embassy, detected through frequency bands.

The recent congressional testimonies by individuals with top-secret security clearances suggest a similar pattern of events today. They charge that high-powered microwave systems are bathing the living quarters of American officials to gradually induce auditory and sensory-motor impairments. Such methods are covert and leave little trace. The last two years have shown that Russia possesses the means and, more importantly, the motives to pursue such acts. Additionally, there is more evidence than just the Institute for Prospective Military Studies.

One witness mentioned a medical research facility in Saint Petersburg with recorded links to unit 29155. This facility also happens to research the consequences of ultra and infrasound frequencies on the brain. Given its sustained communication with military scientists, unit 29155 is the plausible executor if Russia is behind Havana Syndrome. The unit is known for offensive terror actions, including the Salisbury Poisonings and a series of explosions at NATO ammunition facilities throughout the 2010s. Most crucially, an AHI investigation established that members of unit 29155 were in proximity of confirmed AHI incidents on at least four occasions. Further revelations will likely follow.

While evidence points to Russia, the U.S. government’s response has left conflicting or puzzling messages to the public. According to a March 2023 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, most intelligence agencies deem it “very unlikely” that a foreign adversary is behind AHIs. However, interviews with agency officials reveal low confidence or outright disagreement with that assessment. One of the recent congressional witnesses, who has a top-secret security clearance, said that the classified material he personally reviewed “directly contradicts” the public statements from the Executive Branch on the origins and extent of AHIs. He also said numerous agencies have withheld information from sister agencies and intentionally neglected critical evidence that would implicate a foreign adversary.

These discrepancies hint at a possible cover-up within the U.S. government, although there are legitimate reasons for deliberately withholding such information. Perhaps the government refuses to release the truth to prevent the weapon’s proliferation. While the witnesses did not divulge specific details due to classification, they did mention that the weapon is small enough to fit in a backpack. However, the revelation that certain agencies are refusing to share pertinent information with sister agencies invariably fuels conspiracy theories regarding the nefarious deep state.

Whatever the reason may be, the irresolute response by the American executive branch feels like a whitewashing for the victims and their families. Whether Russia or another adversary is responsible, they are targeting America’s best and the brightest. Most of the victims hope to return to work one day, but many will never fully recover. The lack of clarity surrounding this issue is why the recent congressional hearing was held–to shed light on AHIs and spur elected representatives to take action. Government-provided healthcare is the most evident policy option, and it is Congress’s job to ensure available funding.

As to whether a specific perpetrator will ever be identified, only time will tell.

 

 

 

The Soviet T-64 tank, developed and produced by the Soviet Union at one of the largest armour manufacturing facilities in the Soviet Union, in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Now most T-64s are used by Ukraine’s Armed Forces.

The renewed assault by Russian forces on the Kharkiv region of Ukraine came as a surprise to many as it was thought that the resource depletion of both Ukraine’s and Russia’s forces had dwindled the ability to take large offenses after years of fighting. The motivation for such a large assault likely came about due to many decisions that should probably not have been committed to by Ukraine allies. Weakness in the coalition supporting not only Ukraine, but US and Western allies abroad will play into actions in Eastern Europe, even if taking place completely outside of the region.

In is likely the case that Russian military resources are depleted, but the attack was committed to due to circumstances. The motivation for such a move would reflect one seen during the Second World War. In the Battle of the Bulge, German forces used many of their reserves towards the end of the war to re-conquer parts of Belgium towards the shipping port of Antwerp with Germany’s remaining military strength. Taking one of the largest ports in Western Europe would have stunted the Allies advance on Germany, even if the end victory would still have been likely in the Allies’ favour. Kharkiv is important to Ukraine and the region for many reasons, and was always a logistical prize for Russia.

Kharkiv is Ukraine’s second largest city and has historically been a central main city close to the front lines of many of the wars between the Soviet Union and Germany. During the Cold War period, Kharkiv was the base for many of the Soviet Union’s manufacturing and military industrial capabilities, producing many of the tanks currently being used on the battlefield by both Russia and Ukraine. Kharkiv is one of the main populations centres that would need to be encountered when approaching Moscow from the West, and during the Soviet era, was a strategic bulwark against foreign invasions from abroad.

One of the factors that may have encouraged a recent attack on Kharkiv and Sumy is the agreement to supply Ukraine with more advanced weapons from the US and other allies. While ATACMS had been supplied in silence towards Ukraine before any agreement was made in the US, it has been shown that assaulting a fortified Russian position has cost Ukraine many Western supplied Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks. If Russia can quickly take added territory and create barriers, they already know they will be met with some level of success in maintaining the territory, even against NATO weapons.

The use of drones, ATACAMS and long range missiles have targeted many oil and gas production facilities inside of Russia, with ATACAMS being used successfully along with anti-air assets to harass Russian forces and air capabilities. While attacks on Russian oil and gas may be an escalation that the Western allies did not want, Ukraine knows that it needs to affect Russian oil profits as there are still mechanisms where European countries and other allies are benefitting from Russian oil and gas. Despite sanctions, there is little movement in fully quelling the income Russia earns from these profits to fund their war effort. While assaults on Russian infrastructure are not the best tactic for the West or even Ukraine, the lack of de-escalatory policies limiting European use of Russian oil and gas have not been sufficient. As long as North American energy is being hamstrung to Europe and Asia, Ukraine is left on their own to implement an escalatory policy that will complicate the war and put more civilians at risk.

The lesson the US has taught its allies recently is that support may be fleeting, as limiting weapons to one ally sends a message to others. While Ukraine has received a great deal of support, putting the idea in the ether that domestic chaos may alter support for allies teaches all allies of the US to not depend on future support, even in the most dire of circumstances. Countries who are allies will always be independent and work for the betterment of their own citizens, and do not wish to take direction from abroad, only advice. The break in relations and treatment of allies as client states, as opposed to equals, is a victory for their adversaries in every sense of the word. The incentive for US adversaries to use domestic issues in the US and in the West to change foreign defence policy enables local chaos for strategic gain. Such policies create an economy and networks from abroad to alter and pressure local politicians to make decisions to weaken the West’s alliance in every region globally. The end result of making decisions in such an environment is to create weak policy, policies that give an opening to assaults like the one we see currently in the Kharkiv Oblast and surrounding regions. It is often the case that armies defeat themselves before the enemy defeats them. If weak policies dominate the alliance, there is no other outcome but more conflict and more loss of innocent lives.

In recent times, the media has demonstrated biased opinions. Many times the interviewer or the media body itself directs the articles it publishes or the interviews it does to show the reality according to its worldview. This is how false or inaccurate news is spread or does not really show the full picture. In the next section, we will discuss one journalist, whose worldview probably interferes with her journalistic work and causes her to distort reality in front of her viewers.

Journalist and TV presenter Christiane Amanpour inserted herself into the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict after she hosted David Vardinyan, Ruben Vardinyan’s son, in the CNN studio. Ruben Vardinyan is an Armenian billionaire and philanthropist who headed the separatist regime in Karabakh that opposed the rightful Azerbaijani control over the land. Azerbaijan accuses Vardinyan of sabotaging the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. But Vardinyan is not only accused of this accusation but also of crossing the border illegally, financing terrorism, and personally dealing with the Armenian terrorism directed towards Azerbaijan.

According to the evidence, Vardinyan used to cross the border into Karabakh illegally to provide separatist gangs with money and ammunition to use against the Azerbaijani army. The amount of weapons that the Armenian separatists received from Vardinyan is so great that to this day they continue to find the weapons he donated to them. Vardinyan never denied these claims, and even more so. More than once, Vardinyan has been caught threatening the Azerbaijani government, asserting the right of the Armenians and presenting views that even Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claims are extreme. Vardinyan openly glorified the Armenian terrorists who carried out Operation Nemesis, in which many senior level Azerbaijani officials were murdered, and also threatened: “Anything can happen to the government of Azerbaijan”.

This man is not a freedom fighter or a human rights and peace activist; this man is a terrorist financier and an illegal money launderer. But for some reason, the journalist and TV presenter on behalf of CNN, Christiane Amanpour, interviews Vardinyan’s son and presents him as a poor man, as the victim in the story and basically commits plagiarism here. According to the interview, Vardinyan is on hunger strike, and barely receives phone calls and the conditions of his prison changed for the worse when he was transferred to solitary confinement.

Even when Amanpour did mention the fact that Vardinyan Sr. is accused of financing terrorism and establishing armed groups, the question was what would happen with the quick and transparent trial he requested. I mean, the very fact that Vardinyan acted like a war criminal goes over her head, as if it were a child who stole candy from the store because he didn’t know it was forbidden. It does not correct incorrect facts that Daniel Vardinyan said, for example, that no evidence was found against him when there is an evidentiary evidence that is already published to the general public. Amanpour went so far as to make Vardinyan appear in an interview as a man persecuted for his political views rather than his criminal acts. I have no complaints against Ruben Vardinyan’s son after all any son will protect his father, but the interviewer Christiane Amanpour simply did an injustice in this interview to the truth, to journalistic integrity, and to the Azerbaijani people.

In another interview that Amanpour conducted with the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour, she once again changed the picture according to her worldview. Amanpour spoke with Mansour about the situation in Gaza after the Israel Defense Forces began a ground operation in Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza. In the interview, she presents the Palestinians as poor, those who are forced to deal with an army that occupies their land in a barbaric and unjust manner. The interview echoes that a second Nakba may happen to the Palestinian people (meaning that the Palestinians will flee their land as they fled in the 1948 war), that the Egyptians will not agree to accept the Gazans and the Jordanians will not agree to accept the residents of Judea and Samaria, but she does not talk about the reason why the Palestinians have reached the situation they are in these days.

Why did the IDF enter Rafah? Why is the IDF attacking Gaza at all? Just because the Israelis hate Arabs? No reason? No, there is a reason. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a barbaric attack devoid of humanity against the citizens of the State of Israel. Hundreds and even thousands of Gazans breached the border with Israel and tried to slaughter every Jew. They raped women, raped men too, and murdered old people, women, children, and babies. They opened a pregnant woman’s stomach and slaughtered it too. They kidnapped over 250 hostages, from a 90-year-old Holocaust survivor woman to a 10-month-old baby. Hamas started the operation on October 7, but later that day, after the border fence had already been breached, Gazan citizens who are not part of Hamas also entered the territory of Israel, but they simply heard that it was possible to enter Israel, loot property, rape women and murder Jews, so they joined the most murderous act of terrorism in recent years as if they had gone on a spontaneous trip.

In the interview, Amanpour continued and asked about the extremists in the Israeli government, which is so ironic that there is nothing left to say. After all, Israel is a country of law, it listens to international law and it knows that if it violates it, it may pay a heavy price for it in many ways. True, this is the most religious and most right-wing government that has existed in Israel to date. But Amanpour cannot ignore the murderous terrorist attack by Hamas, the largest pogrom perpetrated on Jews since the Holocaust, and instead talk about Israel’s extremism. All this proves without a shadow of a doubt that Christiane Amanpour changes the reality she broadcasts to her viewers according to her personal opinions.

I don’t know why these are Amanpour’s views. Perhaps because of her Iranian origin and the fact that Iran arms both the Palestinians and the Armenians makes her biased. Maybe these are simply opinions like those of the hippies in the 60s in America, according to which the weak is the right. I do not know. What I do know is that Amanpour gives reports that do not reflect reality as it really is and that she constantly supports terrorist separatists.   

Omar Sharif as Dr. Zhivago, a window into life under Oppression.

News about US Secretary of State Blinken making statements on China came this week while we were re-watching Dr. Zhivago. Flipping back and forth made me think of how Hong Kong was mostly ignored when their democracy was silently given away by the rest of the world without much action or similarly robust statements from the United States. Hong Kong’s silent loss as a prosperous member of democratic nations came in stages, much like the scene where Omar Sharif’s character finds his way back to his family home after the Communists took over Moscow.

After serving his people in war, the good doctor was berated for having such a large and wealthy estate by Communist political officials. His home was parsed out to other families, and his family and their possessions were confined to one room in their former home. A few scenes later, the other families were able to take his personal possessions, save a Balalaika, and his family was warned that any protest would lead to their arrest. Connections to a family member who told him that he would likely be arrested for his political ideas gave them the chance to leave, more so, survive as best as possible as the accusation was as good as a death sentence. Prosperity turned to obedient survival for most in society, with those lucky enough to have connections being the only ones to prosper. While Hong Kong may have not reached the last stages of this process, the silence on Hong Kong lead to one of the greatest losses of a democratic nation in modern times, mostly lost without Western support. As an added irony, the story of Dr. Zhivago was banned by the Soviets for subversive ideas and the author harassed and tortured throughout his entire life for producing non-state sanctioned art while living in the Soviet system.

Recent statements by the US revolved around China shipping raw material products to Russia that can be used to produce artillery shells and other weapons of war. While it had been assumed that China was shipping already made artillery and other weapons to Russia, the statement stopped short of claims of anything being sent past electronic components for weapons systems and raw metals for Russian arms manufacturers. As billions in support had been agreed to help Ukraine fight their war against Russia, reports of raw materials being sold to Russia by Western allies, and even NATO members, were not addressed in his statement on China’s exports. No mention was made on the third party sellers of Russian energy products still making their way into the European energy grid, nor on policies that keep North American energy exports in the ground while NATO allies continue to beg their partners for support via energy exports. Canada declined such help to a fourth ally recently as well, allies that are the bulwark against Russian and Chinese military threats to Europe and Taiwan, helping raise energy profits for those pushing against NATO more than contributing to its collective defense.

Ukraine has been losing some territory in recent weeks, and the debate around giving military and financial assistance contributes greatly to later outcomes. Areas such as Western Ukraine that saw Lviv as an early escape for internal refugees inside of Ukraine is now suffering more missile and drone attacks. Much of the expense in defending Ukraine comes from having anti-air systems destroy missiles and drones that are targeting Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. Despite the tense disagreements in funding Ukraine, there is little to no thought given to targeting the source of many of the missile and drones by destroying their manufacturing plants inside of Iran. Despite multiple acts of war against international shipping, US allies, US service members, Ukraine, civilians and terror victims, the US will not address the source of these terror weapons despite them being designed purposefully to kill civilians. If Blinken wishes to openly condemn China for its exports on unmade weapons supplies to Russia, he should also address the suppliers in his own backyard and manage known threats that have already expanded the war in Ukraine globally. The lack of full action against the current conflict in Ukraine has given space for other conflicts to take hold, all to the external and internal detriment of Western allies. A stern speech against China exporting copper is not the main source of problems for Ukraine and its allies. Priorities ignored has lead to more conflict, starting with the active bleaching of Hong Kong from the discussion. Real priorities are very evident, being avoided if not directly discouraged from being addressed, and are currently flying towards a cargo ship in the Red Sea. The end result can be as bad as life in a Boris Pasternak novel, with the artists being treated as such in Western societies. It remains to be seen if his books will be eventually banned in Hong Kong under the current Government.

The unacceptable new normal

The years 2022 into 2024 has shown the importance of having sophisticated anti-air defence systems in the application of international policy. Attacks in Ukraine and in the Middle East, as well as possible future ballistic missile threats against South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan would often require a direct and immediate response to an attack. With more advanced AI, radar systems, and interceptor missiles, the ability to sustain an attack and measure out a proper response is something that was only imaginable over the last few years. With systems like Iron Dome, Arrow, THAAD, Patriot PAC-2 and 3, as well as the S-400 systems, and TOR, the tamping down of an escalatory situation is now possible with the reduction of lives lost during an attack. While this advancement of missile technology is a gift in preventing the escalation of war, it must be applied with a mix of different policy and defence measures to have a long term and lasting effect.

With missile protection, there is more room for adaptive policies, but no population should accept living under a constant barrage of missiles. An economy and society would not be able to tolerate constant threats of war and eventual losses of their citizens when the defense system is overwhelmed or outdated. Deterrence through political dialogue and strong offensive measures to match the defensive shield is essential in having a robust missile defense policy. The best way to avoid being hit by a missile, is to either not be in the location of the missile strike, or to eliminate the source of the problem. As most countries are unable to simply move, there must always be a real and direct ability to counter any artillery assaults on military and civilian populations. Often a missile assault is related to a past build up of tensions, and the best defense is not simply the best offense, but one that can target opposing missile forces at the time of preparation and launch. For this reason, generations of ballistic missile systems from the Soviet FROG systems, towards the infamous SCUDs, as well as Scarab, Oka and modern Iskander systems focused on shorter and shorter launch times. The inability to stop a ballistic missile or cruise missile means you have no deterrence measures to hold back a possible attack. Words must be combined with actions in the application of international relations, as has always been the case.

Diplomacy is still the Alpha and Omega of preventing conflict. In the modern era of ballistic missile systems that can range from hypersonic systems, to chemical, biological and nuclear, even an intercepted missile could still rain down chemical weapons on a population. Often nuclear missiles are detonated over a target, and an intercepted nuclear missile could still destroy a population centre if intercepted and detonated in the skies over a city. When diplomacy in the prevention of a ballistic missile attack is not respected or wholly ignored, it will only lead to more of the same in an increasingly harmful threat level and deaths of innocent populations. If a country is threatened with such an attack, they have the obligation to respond in protection of its citizenry. If a country does not possess such capabilities, they should acquire those systems or allies with those systems and counter threats with immediate and direct actions. While bunkers and missile defense may prevent mass casualty events, preventing aggressive actions against a population against actors from abroad is part of the Social Contract every citizen has with their Government. Any country that has existed and survived past three generations has always taken such steps to ensure their own future. Ones that do not react in such a manner are often already on the path to their own disintegration. Surviving is not by chance, and the survivors always prevail for good reason.

In recent weeks, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the Crocus City Hall Concert Attack, which killed 145 and injured hundreds more, Moscow has been doing everything in its power to find a way to blame Ukraine for the terror unleashed, rather than address the fact that the murderous terror organization known as ISIS decided to go after the Putin regime. In recent days, Russia’s top law enforcement agency the Investigative Committee alleged that they found photos on the suspects phones depicting “people in camouflage uniforms with the Ukrainian flag against the background of destroyed houses.”   To date, the Russians have not released their alleged evidence and it so far has not been independently verified, which should be a red flag to everyone regarding the accuracy of their claims. The fact that Russia is blaming Ukraine for the recent terror attack rather than understanding that they need to do more to address the ISIS threat within their country is another indignation for how badly the Russian people need to make peace with the Ukraine.   All of the hatred against Ukraine that has come out in this war has blinded the Russian leadership to the fact that there are other threats that they also need to address, such as the threat of radical Islam, and therefore, in light of these threats, it would behoove them to try and solve the Ukraine conflict so that they can better address these threats, instead of trying to falsify a Ukraine connection when there is plausibly none.   Recently, the Greek Parliament hosted a conference on ways to achieve peace in Ukraine titled “Ukraine: the search for a peaceful resolution of the military conflict.” This conference was in line with the Secretary General’s call for peace, as he noted, “Beyond condemnations, we the United Nations must actively work toward a comprehensive, just and sustainable peace in line with the charter of this organization.” It would behoove the Russian leadership to accept the olive branch that was handed out in this conference.      Greek MP Athanasios Papathanassis proclaimed at this event that “Ukraine has been the bridge between Europe and Russia, and the desire for its control and influence has led to geopolitical confrontations with a global impact. I have always supported a diplomatic solution, a diplomatic solution is based on the liberal and Western way of thinking, which goes against the authoritarian. In this disastrous context, collective effort and diplomatic flexibility are necessary for promoting and establishing peace. The global community has to unite so that pressure can be applied to all parties involved to peacefully solve all differences and to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity. The end of hostilities will contribute to the achievement of economic stability on a global scale.”   Athens’ deputy mayor Elli Papageli added: “Peace is something that happens through dialogue and diplomacy, not military conflict. The consequences of the war are huge.” She expressed fear of a nuclear war and spoke of its disastrous economic consequences for Europe.   Renowned political scientist Professor Frederic Encel expressed skepticism about the UN coming up with a solution and suggested instead that both sides of the conflict come together to reach a solution. Former CIA analyst and State Department Counter Terror expert Larry Johnson spoke out against NATO for arming Ukraine and called on the West “not to pour petrol on the fire,” stressing the need to have a peaceful dialogue with Russia.   Women’s rights activist and the president of the European Association for the Defense of Minorities highlighted « The UN secretary general called for peace in Ukraine because there is a big concern regarding children’s mental health and school dropping .Children have stopped attending school since 2 years which has a huge impact on their education and their future »   In light of this conference and in the wake of the horrific terror attack in Russia, Moscow now needs to reassess its priorities. It should not continue the war against the Ukraine at all costs and should it try to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict, which will enable it to better focus on the ISIS threat, which is a graver threat to the Russian people right now than whether or not Ukraine will become a member of NATO. By Russia being so focused on the Ukraine, the Russians failed to thwart a major terror attack and many innocent people lost their lives as a result.   —   By Rachel Avraham

A modern economy is usually based on a few industries or economic pillars that keep the economy afloat, resilient and viable in the long term. The loss of these staple pillars to an economy often results in eventual economic and political decline, and in some cases can lead to fairly rapid economic collapse. No political model can sustain itself when a collapse takes place or a series of them takes place. The collapse always has a negative effect on the ability for a population to sustain itself, as it has a direct effect on food, shelter and health and welfare of a population. For this reason, most Governments choose not to engage in external conflicts that can measurably harm its own population, as most Governments in such situations will not survive, saving some significant external help. External help can also work against a country’s best long term interests or be applied in a negative fashion as seen with some aid projects in Haiti currently. Without any form of stability, no aid or assistance will ever rebuild the economic pillars of an economy.

The eventual degradation of the economic pillars of an economy has a noticeable effect. Canada has had three major economic pillars, mostly based on large regional contributions to the larger economy and vast territory of Canada. While the region around Ottawa and north past Montreal is known for technical and engineering development, Southern Ontario was always the industrial base for Canada, while Western Canada and Alberta was Canada’s energy hub. While there are many of these industries across the country as well as a large agricultural sector, a negative impact on any of these three industries would always effect the entire economy and currency. With political divisions in Canada creating regional divisions, there are protests taking place as two of those main sectors have been shunned by the current Federal Government. This is the case because average people in those regions are being made aware daily that the economy and employment are not en bonne forme, and people are subject to several crises in their communities due to these policies.

Cuba, like many countries in Latin America, were naturally wealthy with the traditional economic pillar of agricultural exports being a main source of income. Along with many other countries in the region, Cuba also suffered from not having other sectors of the economy being able to compensate when the price of their primary export goods eventually dropped in value. Cuba did stand out however from the rest of its neighbours, as while this economic cycle is an occurrence for most agro export countries in Latin America, Cuba’s economy was boosted by its close ties to the United States’ economy before the 1950s and close political associations with the United States.

Once the Castro’s took power in Cuba, Cuba was adopted into the Soviet system. As a client state of the Soviets, Cuba’s economy was given low cost imports of oil and gas from Russia and foodstuffs from Ukraine, contributing back into the system by becoming an export partner to the Eastern Bloc and eventually becoming a hub for Soviet power in Latin America and abroad. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an economic crisis for the Castros encouraged them to open the country up to tourism as well as creating closer ties with political allies in Venezuela, who supplied Cuba with their energy needs to buoy Cuba’s economy. By the 2010s, there was more sympathy for opening relations with Cuba, and some embargo restrictions were taken off, eventually reapplied in some forms, and Cuba was able to sustain itself until the last few years where Covid killed much of their tourism industry and it became difficult to keep the price of food sustainable for its population.

Cuba might be in one of the most precarious positions it has found itself in since the loss of both Castro brothers, as Cubans are making their own economic pillars by making their way to the US and sending back money to support their families in Cuba. Support from Venezuela may not be sustaining Cuba as it once did as Venezuela itself is suffering from its own financial troubles. As their main export of oil and gas fluctuates, so does Venezuela’s entire economic model. Political strife in Venezuela has made Venezuelans one of the largest refugee populations in the world. With their own local crisis, Venezuela cannot be Cuba’s low cost energy pillar, nor help Cuba sustain itself as it once did fifteen years ago.

Cuba’s system, like all others, are having major issues with the cost of food and energy. While the war in Ukraine does greatly affect these issues, the policy responses after Covid and into 2024 contribute greatly to the crisis as well as complicating issues surrounding the distribution of staple goods and services to their population. Relations with the United States need to be addressed, and a stable and productive measure out of the embargo system is needed. Cuba has sought assistance from international agencies due to food shortages, and it is in the best interests of everyone in the region to avoid another situation as now found in Haiti, a situation close to Cuba and the United States.

Protests in places like the US and Canada over inflationary issues came from policy decisions affecting food prices, as higher costs and taxes make their way through the logistical farming and distribution systems in the economy, degrading these pillars of the economy. With the Cuban system, Cubans are protesting the worst case scenario of a collapsed distribution system. With the entirety of the economy dependent on Government run distribution, food, fuel, and medicine is in a state of an absolutist crisis. When a country is suffering from both high costs of food as well as a severe lack of food and medicine, with no help coming from Cuba’s own Government, only those with many resources will be able to sustain themselves. The majority of the population are already suffering greatly, and those at the margins of society will barely survive. The Western Hemisphere likely cannot manage a collapse in both Haiti and Cuba, because the same issues exist in many other places and will spread. No Government survives its own people starving, nor should it.

MP Ramil Hassan, the Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Western Azerbaijani Community, recently addressed the United Nations, proclaiming that the ethnic cleansing of more than one million Azerbaijanis by Armenia, including 300,000 from its territory, make Armenia far from being a peaceful and inclusive country.   MP Hassan said these remarks at the UN Economic Commission for Europe, where he described displacement as being one of the main challenges obstructing the UN’s development goals.

At the UN, MP Hassan called upon the international community to support the right of the West Azerbaijani people to return to their homes.   He proclaimed that creating the conditions that would enable West Azerbaijanis to return to their homes in present-day Armenia is pivotal for the human rights of the peoples of the region.

On the International Day Commemorating the Genocide of West Azerbaijanis, the community declared: “Genocide against the Azerbaijani people was systematically carried out on the basis of racist ideology instilling ethnic hatred and was committed in almost all parts of the historical lands of Azerbaijan. This genocide, which began to intensify and take an open form since 1905, was especially cruel in the western part of Azerbaijan. In 1918-1920, the Armenian army committed mass massacres and ethnic cleansing against Azerbaijanis in Yerevan, Zangazur, Goycha, Darelayaz, Surmeli, Sharur and other districts.”

They continued: “As a result of the acts of genocide in which hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were killed, the Azerbaijanis, who once made up more than 80 percent of the population in Iravan province, began to form an ethnic minority in that area in 1921. As a result of the ethnic cleansing carried out in 1948-52 and 1987-91, Azerbaijanis were completely expelled from there. At present, not a single Azerbaijani has remained in the territory now called Armenia, and the cultural heritage belonging to Azerbaijanis has been completely destroyed.”

The West Azerbaijani Community proclaimed: “Despite its international obligations, Armenia continues its racist policy. This country prevents Azerbaijanis from returning to their homes safely and with dignity, glorifies elements such as Garegin Njde, Andranik Ozanyan, Drastamat Kanayan, Monte Melkonyan, who committed crimes against humanity and terrorist acts against Azerbaijanis, and promotes racist ideology such as Njdeism at the state level.”

They concluded: “We demand that Armenia acknowledge its responsibility for the crimes of genocide and take the necessary steps for reconciliation. Armenia should create conditions for the safe and dignified return of the expelled Azerbaijanis and restore the destroyed Azerbaijani cultural heritage.”

A Turret, likely from a T-72, is embedding into the ground after being ejected from the hull of the tank after a catastrophic explosion.

While the impression most have of a Tank is of a shield of almost invincible armour that can push through any obstacle while under fire to reach their objective, these designs in warfare are more complex than these basic assumptions. Tanks as a concept were built as a strategic assets on the battlefield, and while in some cases they did have that Iron Man quality to them, even the first tanks were often damaged, mauled and burned in large numbers in the most horrific of ways.

Recently, the loss of upwards of four American M1 Abrams Tanks in Ukraine has followed the loss of other important assets like a NASAMS system, CAESAR and a HIMARS. None of these assets operated in a bubble, and the larger concern of progress for Ukrainian forces must account for losses of equipment in concert with the strategic gains/failures in losing these assets. Earlier losses of German made Leopard 2s after the initial start of the summer offensive in 2023 also raised concerns as they have with recent losses of Abrams. With additional and persistent losses of American Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the high morale of having Western equipment dominating the field of battle should have never presumed that any loss of valuable assets as a complete loss via binary measures in such conflicts.

Regarding the survivability of Western Tanks like the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams vs. those ex-Soviet and Russian tanks, the massive losses of armour in the first year of the war in Ukraine by Russian forces and many losses of similar equipment by Ukrainian forces produced a narrative that ex-Soviet armour was poor equipment, and that such systems would be easily dispatched by Western tanks. Strategic mistakes by Russia in the early stages of the war mirrored those of past losses of Leopard 2s, as without infantry support most tanks would be unable to survive on their own, and could be disabled by two Bradleys or a group of determined fighters with RPGs. Even with modern equipment, disabling a modern tank that has no support is very possible, and tanks must never be used as an independent asset on the battlefield.

With modern advances in reconnaissance via optics, drone and satellite technology, tanks have a difficult time being elusive on the battlefield. Artillery systems, even ones upwards of fifty years old, can damage or destroy a modern tank if they receive correct and rapid targeting information from their support teams. Few tanks can stand up to a standard Soviet era 152mm shell if hit directly, and almost all tanks will be disabled by the blast and shrapnel effects of near hits from such shells. Shells have become one of the most important commodities in the field, and old stocks of North Korean and Chinese shells can be very effective, even if they are of a dated design and have been stored for a generation. This is the reason Russia has pursued purchasing old shells from China and North Korea, as they are still a key asset in this conflict.

Modern tanks have their advantage over older models in a few crucial areas. They are designed to be able to see their target first, and fire first, as in many cases the first to fire is the tank that survives. They are also coordinated digitally with the larger tank force and other assets to perform their strategic goals in a more rapid and organised fashion. An attribute that does stand out with later generations of tanks on both sides of the conflict is not producing an invincible tank, but one that can fire as many times as possible in reaching the objective while enabling the crew to survive their tank being disabled, or even destroyed. Systems such as cage and layered armour, ERA, sensor scrambling lasers, and explosive countermeasures exist on many modern tanks, and exist on both sides of the conflict. Crew survivability is very important to the side that has less soldiers on the battlefield, and perhaps is somewhat neglected by those armour forces that have a clear numerical advantages in the number of crews and tanks. For Ukraine, it is more important to save the crews of the tanks so they can fight in a new tank later on. For Russia, later variants like the T-90M focus on optics and survivability, with older Soviet era variants becoming famous for ejecting their turrets when the hull is breached. Tanks were never invincible, but crews of Ukraine’s Leopard 2s and M1 Abrams might survive to fight in future battles, if a new tank is available.

Young people have been paying attention to Tik Tok for a long time… lawmakers are rushing to catch up.

There are two main reasons why Tik Tok has become increasingly controversial. First, because Tik Tok’s parent company has strong ties to the Chinese government- this presents a privacy risk for Americans who wish to avoid the CCP’s prying eyes. Second, because of the threat posed by allowing a potential foreign adversary influence over the content viewed by young Americans.

In truth, these matters are only made acute due to long-standing shortcomings in American policy regarding privacy and civic education. American lawmakers have the ability to put to bed the most pressing issues posed by Tik Tok by passing regulation addressing the upstream causes rather than the downstream consequences.

Yes, Tik Tok does violate the privacy of its users in a way that goes beyond the “new normal” established by Facebook’s and Google’s privacy agreements. Not long ago, it was revealed that Tik Tok had access to users “front facing cameras”. The data collected through the front-facing camera, reportedly, was being used to further hone the app’s algorithm. Additionally, there is ample evidence that the sort of content directed towards Chinese youth is of a seriously different nature than the content that is generated for young Americans. While young Chinese netizens are shown a regular stream of athletic and scientific accomplishments, young Americans are presented with, in the best case scenario, dance trends and practical jokes.

Only by looking at the issue directly can policymakers determine how to apply the scalpel rather than scissors.

Legislators might begin by protecting citizen’s online privacy a priori- in a way that has nothing to do with Tik Tok specifically. For example, policy makers might follow the guidelines put in place in parts of the EU, ensuring that Americans own the trackable data they produce online. 

Such a policy would –ban– Tik Tok in a way that has nothing to do with China in particular, but instead focuses on protecting the rights of American citizens.

In this way, Americans will not only be protected from the risk posed by Tik Tok, but also by the same security risks that will come from the next hip app that originates from an untrustworthy source.

In the same sort of way, Americans would be better protected from misinformation, on Tik Tok or elsewhere, through improved civic education rather than through state action. This is especially true when the forced sale of Tik Tok could, in the lowest light, be understood as censorship disguised as industrial policy. Even for those with less confidence in the wisdom of the average American citizen, surely there is a more Liberal way to address the threat posed by propaganda than simply prohibiting the material. After all, each of us has the opportunity to promote civic wellbeing through having healthy, well moderated, conversations about political issues with our friends and colleagues both young and old.

These hypothetical measures promoting privacy and civic education should be strictly enforced, and if Tik Tok, or other similar apps, violate these terms, consequences ought go beyond a simple fine.

Forcing the sale of Tik Tok is something like Sun Tzu’s “the worst is to storm a walled city”- it is the clumsiest and costliest way of addressing an important problem. Instead, legislators should look to more elegant solutions- guaranteeing the privacy rights of all Americans through appropriate legislation, and promoting civil wellbeing both through their own example and through promoting civic education in public spaces like schools and libraries. Perhaps if our educational system focused more on reading, writing and arithmetic with a bit of civic learning thrown in, this issue might be self correcting. 

Parents and friends have a similar role to play- even if legislators fail to act, we have a social obligation to steer our fellows away from platforms that waste their time and pollute their intelligence.

In a healthy society, legislators would pass laws protecting the common rights of citizens, and citizens would make the most of those rights by educating themselves and participating in political life. Some might say that we do not live in such a society, and that as a consequence, the best option is to address the problem of insecurity and disinformation with a blunt legislative instrument.

Fine, it might be better to apply the blunt instrument than to suffer Tik Tok’s continued use. Taking this route, however, moves the United States further away from its foundational Liberal values and makes a passive concession to Autocratic regimes that might look to censor American media. My proposed policy approach will take time and might be somewhat aspirational. Unfortunately, this leaves policy makers with a difficult choice between civil liberties and continuing today’s unfortunate state of affairs.

Even as I have personal confidence in the intelligence of the average American, the evidence suggests that high profile officials in American media lack that same belief. Whether it comes in the form of NBC’s hiring and quick firing of Ronna McDaniel, or Elon Musk’s decision to can Don Lemon’s show on X, it is not obvious the powers that be have an appreciation for a more challenging Socratic discussion.  This sort of self-censorship is, in the clear majority of cases, a self-inflicted wound. To propose that sunlight is an insufficient disinfectant is to suggest that the audience is to stupid to know Good from Bad.

Many suggest that Tik Tok’s focus on short form content is one of the app’s most dangerous features. American policy makers need to avoid this same trap. Tik Tok poses a serious problem, only by taking out the roots with precise public policy can the problem be solved over the long term.  Maybe it is time to relook at our foundation before we attempt to solve the problem top-down.  

—

 

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

Many in the United States and Europe hold a favorable view of Armenia, even though the country possesses a rape culture that delegitimizes victims of sexual assault and domestic violence.  A 2016 report led by the United Nations for Population Fund Armenia (UNFPA) reported that 36 percent of the respondents in Armenia believe that women should tolerate violence for the sake of family unity. Within those 36 percent, 45 percent were men and 28 percent women.

Guidelines published by the British government warned their citizens that if they are raped in Armenia, “Reporting crimes to the police in Armenia can be a complex and time consuming process. Local officers may not have specific training in supporting victims of sexual assault. You may find the process of reporting the assault at times difficult, and quite different from what you would expect of UK police proceedings.”

They continued, “Rape and sexual assault are both criminal offences in Armenia, but conviction rates remain low, and judicial proceedings are likely to take a long time. It is very likely that victims will be asked to testify in front of third parties, and there is no legislation to punish those violating the confidentiality of a victim.”

Amnesty International proclaimed, “Armenia is the only country among its Council of Europe neighbors without legislation criminalizing domestic violence.”  According to a recent report put out by Human Rights Watch, Armenia has still not ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combatting Violence against Women and Domestic Violence due to “misinformation campaigns in previous years claiming that the convention threatens traditional and family values.”

Meanwhile, presently, “there are only two domestic violence shelters.  Both are in Yerevan and are run by a non-governmental organization.  The new criminal code identifies domestic violence as an aggravating circumstance in a number of crimes, but domestic violence is not a stand alone criminal offense.”

Human Rights Watch noted, “Domestic violence cases remain largely underreported. A 2021 survey in Armenia showed that almost 36 percent of women interviewed who were ever in a partnership experienced at least one form of physical, sexual, or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partners; only 5 percent of those who experienced physical or sexual violence by a partner sought help from police and only 4.8 percent sought help from a health provider.”  

Ani Jilosian of the Women’s Support Center in Yerevan claimed in a podcast titled “against shame culture” that many victims of domestic violence and other forms of sexual violence in Armenia are “forced to undergo” virginity tests.  She continued: “We know that virginity testing is not only unethical but it is also unscientific.  In Armenia as well as in other countries where it is not banned, it is used in cases of rape and child sexual abuse.   The practice is painful, humiliating.   It can also be traumatic for victims.  These are typically practiced in order to ascertain if violence took place.”

This practice takes place in Armenia, even though a 2012 study by the Forensic Science International Journal found that 90% of child rape victims do not suffer from physical damage after experiencing sexual abuse.  

Jilosian noted that there are other reasons why virginity tests are performed in Armenia, which are more sinister: “It might be required by the family of the husband upon marriage.  It happens less now, but it still happens from time to time.  This is to determine if a woman is a virgin upon marriage.”  She also claimed that in Armenia some girls undergo “hymen restoration surgery” in order to fool such tests.

The Armenian Parliament has passed its first reading on a bill that would ban virginity testing as a form of violence in Armenia, but Jilosian noted that it took a long time for the Armenian government to act on this “for it was not on the agenda to ban this practice for it was not a concern that has been raised, even though civil society members have been raising it for some time.   This bill underlines and better defines the types of violence that victims face.”  

Nevertheless, the ban on virginity tests has still not been engrained into law and the bill faced stiff opposition in the Armenian Parliament in its first reading due to the opposition of some to including members of the LGBT community in a law protecting them from domestic violence.   

 

By Rachel Avraham