Foreign Policy Blogs

The fall of the Soviet Union lead to severe economic and security challenges for Russia and its former Soviet States. The recent fall of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan and evacuation of the historical Armenians in the region was a direct result of Russia no longer challenging for the safety of their religious allies. Russia always took to protecting their Armenian allies, who were under the protection of Russia for generations, and maintained a status quo in the region since 1991. This failure to shield them from religious and ethnic conflict near Russia’s borders in 2023 may be a policy that those living in Russia would have a difficult time supporting.

While the lines in Ukraine seems to have solidified for the time being, the end result of the depletion of Russian forces and influence in regions that once bordered the Soviet Union is significant. Russia suffered greatly from extremist elements of their own after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the two wars in Chechnya causing great harm and political chaos for Russians in the not too distant past. The Beslan School Massacre and terror attack in the Moscow Theater Siege were some of the most horrific acts of violence against Russian citizens since the Second World War. Much of the issues on Russia’s southern border regions was the motivation for sending in Russian Armed Forces in a multi year operation against ISIS in Syria, ending in a change in operational culture and ethics by Russian soldiers themselves being witness to the brutality of that war. This exposure to excessive violence may have resulted in a mindset that ended with atrocities being committed under the Russian flag in Ukraine.

Recent events in the Middle East will play greatly into the view Russians will have of their own Government in the near future. While Russia produced some of the most advanced technologies and weapons in human history, the purchase of low technology drones from Iran to be used as terror weapons in Ukraine is a strategy that would not be recognizable by their grandparents who liberated many Concentration Camps and won what they call in Russian, The Great Patriotic War. Much of the public support Russia receives for its military in Ukraine comes from the past honours it achieved against liberating Eastern Europe from the Nazis. This historical tradition is one of the main narratives Russia uses as a motivation for the war in Ukraine. Tying themselves to allies that would cause chaos in their southern regions and that have a major role in the current death and kidnapping of Russian nationals is not what past generations would have accepted as a norm for Russia.

While Russia had assumed an assertive, but privately neutral position with all the major powers in the Middle East, it is difficult to see why they would decide to link themselves to narratives that have caused chaos in the past within their own borders and lead to the death of Russians themselves. Russia is still a significant player in their own region and those adjacent, and any actions that pull them towards civilian deaths caused by interests far from their own is something most Russians will remember for generations. These crucial policy decisions can unravel stability very quickly, usually not to the benefit of innocent people. Such events are not unknown to those who grew up in Russia or the former Soviet Union, and can easily become today’s reality.

Undoubtedly, Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was a miscalculation. Nevertheless, many international observers were shocked when Russian tanks started to roll across the border despite mounting evidence that Putin would go through with it. Ostracizing his country from the Western liberal economies was incomprehensible to most. At the same time, it is all too easy to denounce his exploits as the work of a revisionist madman. Yes, Ukraine was once a part of the Soviet Union, and Putin certainly disdains NATO expansion, but there is an ideology underlying his seemingly erratic behavior. This year, the Russian Federation officially adopted Eurasianism as its foreign policy concept. A peculiar fusion of Russian imperialism and socialism, this socio-political dogma looks set to guide Russia’s role in the world for the remainder of Putin’s tenure. But what exactly is Eurasianism, and what geographical region even constitutes Eurasia?

In 1881, poet Fyodor Dostoevsky remarked of the Russians, “In Europe we were Tatars, whereas in Asia we, too, are Europeans.” After a series of political setbacks in Europe during the late 19th century, the Russian elite started to embrace the geographical and cultural isolation that the Western powers long looked down upon. Turning inwards and to the East for inspiration, many concluded that Russia is neither European nor Asiatic but rather a unique conglomeration of the two. This shift in mentality marked a departure from the Westernization process initiated by Peter the Great and laid the foundation of Eurasianism.

In its earliest form, the ideology emerged as an alternative to Bolshevism, developed in exile by White Russian émigrés who fled the 1917 October Revolution. However, the philosophy gained little traction, and it was not until the fall of the Soviet Union that it resurfaced. That collapse, which Putin called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” left an ideological void in Russia for the first time in its history. “Each stage had its own ideology,” said the recently reelected President Boris Yeltsin in 1996, but now, he continued, “We have none.” Unquestionably, this period of political disorientation played a pivotal role in Putin’s psychological development, who remained determined to restore meaning to the Russian government and the place it once held in the world.

The 2023 foreign policy concept designates Russia as a “Eurasian and Euro-Pacific power.” In the Kremlin’s eyes, Eurasia includes, at a minimum, all the former territories of the Soviet Union. By virtue of geography and historical destiny, Russia sees itself as the region’s predominant power, asserting its rightful sphere of influence. Moreover, the concept characterizes Russia as a “country-civilization” with unique values, morals, and historical mission. Consequently, the country cannot be evaluated or understood through the Western lens of liberal democracy. According to the document, this mission is to maintain the global balance of power and foster a multipolar international system. In practice, this aspiration reflects the long-held Eurasianist goal of positioning Russia as an alternative center of power, distinct from the West and Asia. Reminiscent of the USSR’s lost international prominence, Putin envisions his country as the future military-political nucleus of the non-Western world. As expected, this vision and so-called historical mission are inseparable from his desire to erode America’s global influence.

Thus, it probably comes with little surprise that today’s Eurasianists are vehemently anti-Western, particularly against the U.S. and its associated values. America is portrayed as the archetypal nemesis, imposing its democratic norms and way of life on the world. In contrast, Eurasianists are fiercely traditional and religious, at least in principle, maintaining a quasi-spiritual outlook. They perceive a West suffering from intellectual and societal decay, forsaking its Christian values. Following decades of suppression under the Soviets, the Russian Orthodox Church has regained its influential role in society and consistently supported Putin’s imperialist inclinations. Like the Moscow Patriarchate, autocratic traditions run deep in Russian history, with Putin the latest in a long line of absolutists. Eurasianists contend that democracy is dangerous, individualistic, hedonistic, and antithetical to the country’s political foundations.

In retrospect, Putin’s speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference made it perfectly clear that his patience with the West and its rules-based order was starting to run thin. Unfortunately, European and American leaders dismissed it as a one-off tirade, believing the Russian threat died with the Soviet Union never to rise again. Nearly 17 years later, U.S.-Russian relations are as strained as they were at any point during the Cold War.

While a complete rapprochement between Moscow and the West appears exceptionally elusive, Eurasianism offers a glimpse of how future Russian foreign policy might unfold. To be sure, Putin remains a pragmatic opportunist subservient to no ideology. However, given the rupture between his country and the West, Eurasianism provides a rationale for his diplomatic reorientation to Southeast Asia. This shift is already evident, with China and India purchasing oil at discount rates while supplying goods targeted by Western sanctions to Russia. In the first seven months of 2023, Beijing’s total trade with Moscow increased 36% from a year before. Beyond expanding economic ties, Putin’s activities abroad signal a clear intent to challenge the existing order, supposedly in an attempt to fulfill its historic mission as the facilitator of global multipolarity. Whether it is pushing for the rapid expansion of BRICS or courting dictators in the Middle East, the essence of this guiding doctrine appears centered on diminishing American influence at every available opportunity. Serving as the bridge between Asia and Europe, the successful realization of Eurasianist thought in Russia hinges on its dominance of the near abroad, a harsh lesson that the Ukrainian people are tragically experiencing. The prospects of Putin restoring Russia’s place in the world are doubtful, but one thing is certain: his Eurasianist principles ensure that his country will not go down without a fight.

It is Common Knowledge that Soviet Soldiers Liberated Many Concentration Camps during the Second World War

In past posts on this page, I discussed what decisions are more likely to hurt a plausible victory for Ukraine and their allies by way of their own hands, as opposed to strategic decisions made by Russia during the conflict in Ukraine. Many of these bad decisions subsequently ramped up quite rapidly and in a short period of time, creating a larger cost to support for Ukraine than existed previously. Many of these problems were created by Allies to the war effort that have taken actions that may hurt Ukraine more than the help that was intended. While I will refrain from labelling a specific ally, this is a case study on how to not support your ally, and a notable one at that.

A few short weeks ago, one of Ukraine’s allies took to creating a diplomatic row with India. This was done in a method that is considered an aggressive and unusual diplomatic move between the two countries, seen as allies in their own right. India, as we have discussed in the past, is likely the key to many peace treaties and has value in creating diplomatic solutions between Russia and its allies, and Ukraine and their allies. India, as being a large and significant power in their region, is able to work with and have good relations with all sides in the conflict as neither side is willing to risk good relations with India over India’s own best self interests, even if it gives strength to the other side of the conflict. With Ukraine’s Ally pressuring India, India may alienate Ukrainian Allies in general or be motivated to give added support to Russia, where less critical diplomatic postures address concerns with the one of the world’s most significant democracies.

India’s position in the region has placed it on the opposite side of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, where military support of Armenia and its people has run contrary to NATO allies permitting the Azeri military pushing out the Armenian population out of their historic ethnic region. While NATO and their supporting allies have invested billions a month to defend the civilian populations in Ukraine, there is little mention of the forced expulsion of Armenians from their homes in the region at the other end of the old Soviet sphere of influence. While Russian support for the region waned, American negotiations failed. The end result was another notable shock to a community that has suffered ethnic cleansing too many times over the last century and a half.

Turning back to the row with India, the same ally who is currently losing diplomats in India has been pitting the needs of their own population against support for Ukraine. The effect of underfunding their largest city and economy has turned the city into a place with high crime and limited systemic solutions for crime, poverty, housing and health care. It has come to the point that those who are physically weaker are afraid to use public transport, making them unable to pay for higher food and shelter taxes added on bi-annually by the Government. This Government sent a letter to the city saying they refuse to give them Covid funding that was previously promised, always highlighted by their support for Ukraine. This same Government then boasted that they have given appx.$6-$7 Billion of aid to Ukraine, despite not meeting their NATO minimum obligations and now deciding to cut military funding by nearly $1 Billion to their own soldiers, despite having their own near border with Russia. But this is not the worst of it…

In an act of extreme negligence or horrific intent, it was made evident that this ally of Ukraine has been accepting extremist elements from various groups around the world into their country for generations, nullifying any prosecution of their crimes, in many cases, crimes against humanity. The presenting of a member of the 14th SS Galicia Division in their Parliament was an offense to victims of Genocide worldwide, done during a state visit by Zelinsky himself close to Yom Kippur. This particular Division of the Nazi SS was known to be so severe that German soldiers at the time saw them as brutal and extreme in their own right, eliminating 98% of the Jewish population of the Galicia region. This Ukrainian SS officer was easily known to be part of the German 14th SS Division, and was taken as a hero in his fight against Russia in the Second World War by the Government of this Ally before their mea culpa. While Soviet soldiers of Russian, Ukrainian and other origins were liberating Concentration Camps in Galicia, a man who helped wipe out family after family in the region was praised. To this day, the sitting Government’s Cabinet has taken little personal or direct accountability for inviting such a man, despite their own Deputy Prime Minister being an academic expert on Ukraine herself. While Russians are constantly told that their historic enemies from Nazi Germany are the catalyst for this war in Ukraine, this Ally of Ukraine created the biggest propaganda tool for Putin that could ever have been wished for in 2023. On top of this, Poland is now seeking his extradition for war crimes from the Ally. With the same Ally refusing to sell oil and gas to Europe to displace Russian oil export wealth, it is surprising that such allegiances are deemed as acceptable by Ukraine or any nations seeking to help Ukraine win the war.

No one will voluntarily fight and die for the leader of such an Ally, and ties between Zelinsky and such an Ally will do nothing more but taint the valor of their Armed Forces. If Ukraine wishes to win this war, or at least meet reasonable objectives, they need to cut those who will make economic, political, public relations, and security losses a certainty.

The Paris Gun was used by Germany to shell Paris from a great distance during the First World War. It was the largest cannon in the world at the time.

Pressure has been put on Ukraine during the summer counter-offensive to make notable, media worthy gains in taking back lost territories from Russia. The amount of equipment being supplied by their allies and the motivation for more advanced systems depends upon the level of support the public has for Ukraine’s offensive in those nations supporting Ukraine financially and militarily. Even if the public in allied countries see the good in helping Ukraine, the amount of pressure on locals financially, via inflationary pressures, and their level of safety in their own community, will be juxtaposed against support for the war. For those policy makers wanting to support Ukraine and its people, it should be acknowledged that pressure on locals in their own countries at least need to be vocalized as being of equal priority to supporting Ukraine in the conflict. Ignoring this goal will do more harm to Ukraine in the medium term than denying them Leopard 2A6s and F-16s.

A standstill in the conflict and entrenchment can be harmful for the war effort if it extends the conflict past the support it has outside of Ukraine. A First World War scenario might be forming in some parts of the front where artillery exchanges and barrages make up much of the tactical movement on the field. The logistical weight of the conflict has already depleted the stock of arms on both sides, and with mothballed equipment from the United States coming though to the front, and Russia seeking compatible weapons from a Soviet design heritage, a longer term conflict might be the end result. Actions by Russia that might give them some realistic advantages comes from seeking weapons from North Korea for its forces in Ukraine. Despite some equipment being out of date, a 100mm cannon and armour that can mount ERA protection is better than not having it at all, and such equipment is still harmful to enemy infantry. Gaining access to 152mm artillery shells can create chaos for the attacking side, a role Ukraine has taken on this year with expected difficulty. Even a 1960s artillery shell can cause a great deal of damage to modern equipment, and many modern barrels have already gone past their effective time of use. With modern targeting systems, old Soviet equipment can be as effective as some modern systems.

Acts such as pushing for a new global currency via the BRICS+ nations will be less of a threat to the US Dollar and the political weight it gives to the United States. While Russia is already linking its economy Eastwards to China and India, the reality is that the diverse needs of the initial four BRIC nations was unsuccessful in dominating the world economy as a group. Expanding the BRICS+ only exacerbates the problem by adding other countries to the group, with more diverse interests, varied allegiances and a few in open conflict with each other. There are no conditions between those nations that would allow them to operate and share a common currency at this point.

A standstill might be exactly what Russia is seeking as a long term strategy, as they know that local citizens in countries supporting Ukraine are paying for much of the aid without payment in return, have limited patience for added stresses in their own lives, and have their own political divisions that work in Russia’s favour. Countries outside of Central Europe may not feel an immediate threat from the war, but will respond if their fuel, heat and employment are effected by the lack of energy in their community. Some of Ukraine’s allies who can help resist breaking their own environmental policies to aid Ukraine, and many countries have local crime and drug problems that affect citizens daily while the price of basic goods increase. For this reason, Russia has withdrawn from the Grain Deal and has attacked some of Ukraine’s grain supplies in Odesa, a port that ships essential food to much of the world. If Ukraine is to be helped, local Governments in those nations providing aid can no longer ignore local problems, as citizens have a limited amount of patience, health, and money to support themselves and an extended war policy from home.

The 15th annual BRICS summit kicked off on August 22nd in Johannesburg, South Africa, in its most widely observed meeting to date. As the acronym suggests, leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa convened for a three-day conference with expansion at the top of the agenda. Because Vladimir Putin has an arrest warrant with the International Criminal Court, his attendance came virtually, sparing South Africa the diplomatic headache. Presented as an alternative to the U.S.-led liberal international order and a representative of the Global South, the BRICS group is determined to challenge the “Washington Consensus-driven Bretton Woods Institutions.” This year’s gathering culminated with an invitation to six countries: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Even before this expansion, the rise of BRICS has prompted doomsday calls in Western media outlets regarding the future of the U.S. Dollar and the structure of international finance. However, if the bloc is to become a counterweight to the Bretton Woods system, it will need to harmonize its members competing interests and geopolitical ambitions.

The story started in 2001 when Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neil used the term ‘BRIC’ to describe the fastest-growing economies in the developing world. However, the coalition was only formed in 2009 with its inaugural summit, incorporating South Africa the following year to become BRICS. Fast forward fourteen years: the bloc constitutes 43% of the world’s population, 16% of its trade, and boasts a GDP surpassing the G7. The prevailing sentiment among its members is that current global governance institutions overly centralize power in the U.S. and fellow liberal democracies. At the same time, their dependency on the U.S. dollar creates vulnerabilities and restricts monetary autonomy. Even though the BRICS have made tangible efforts toward what they call a more equitable and multipolar order, such as The New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the impact has been minute thus far. There is even debate about a potential BRICS currency akin to the Euro, but this is as unrealistic as it would be economically catastrophic.

While these developments are not insignificant, behind the curtain, there is a lack of consensus on purpose and trajectory among BRICS leaders. Aside from using the organization as a vehicle to increase global influence, the bloc comprises countries with differing agendas and motivations. For its part, China sees BRICS as a strategic instrument for counterbalancing America’s international power projection, expanding its economic reach, and supplanting the U.S. dollar’s trade role with the renminbi. During the summit, President Xi Jinping appealed to the resource-rich Global South, arguing for the group’s rapid enlargement while laying veiled criticism toward the West.

On the other hand, India advocates a more cautious approach regarding new members, fearing the bloc’s transformation into a Beijing-run forum dedicated to opposing American interests. Moreover, China and India have unsettled territorial disputes, underscored by recent skirmishes along the Line of Actual Control.

Meanwhile, Putin is eager to demonstrate that, despite Western Sanctions, his country is not diplomatically isolated. In tune with Beijing, he argues for the swift enlargement of BRICS throughout the developing world. However, Putin’s refusal to renew the grain accord with Ukraine and the continued weaponization of the global food supply cast a grim shadow over Russia’s relationship with emerging economies.

Regarding Brazil and South Africa, both countries want to increase their global influence without antagonizing the U.S., which is made more difficult with the addition of Iran. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa even said afterward that the “BRICS is not anti-West.” Looking to spearhead the African Agenda, Ramaphosa has pressed for the swift inclusion of African nations, while Brazil wants a slower expansion for fear of diluting its influence.

When looking at the new members, specifically Iran, it appears China and Russia’s position prevailed. Despite Ramaphosa’s comment, Iran’s inclusion immediately gives the impression that economic initiatives are taking a backseat to Putin and Xi’s efforts to form a coalition against the U.S. Officials in Washington downplayed the developments, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan saying that the White House does not perceive BRICS as an emerging “geopolitical rival.”

The competing incentives within the group throw into question the idea of the bloc as anything more than a financial forum. For one, there are significant economic and political disparities among member states. Simultaneously, BRICS contains the world’s largest democracy and autocracy, and now arguably two of the most repressive regimes in Moscow and Tehran. While deviating ideologies can hamper long-term decision-making and cooperation, the fiscal variations exceed those of the political ones. These financial differences do not bode well for any future bloc currency, especially considering how uneven development levels under the Euro exacerbated the fallout from the 2009 eurozone crisis. Sanctions against Russia also complicate matters for the bloc, as the New Development Bank has refrained from investing in the country. Furthermore, if BRICS is not a Chinese-dominated economic tool, then the addition of new members makes agreement ever more elusive.

With that said, the American-led order is far from perfect, with the last successful international response dating back to the Great Financial Crisis. Though it may appear that this order is on its last leg, if not shattered already, hysteric notions of BRICS colluding to outcompete the U.S. and the dollar are premature. While the bloc’s growth is significant, it reflects the shifting tides of multipolarity and strategic competition. For now, BRICs should be regarded for what it is – a grouping of nations with disjointed objectives and separate visions for themselves and the future. Regardless, the U.S. should continue strengthening existing partnerships while forging new ones, while at the same time leveraging its key strengths like soft power and innovation to remain competitive in decades to come. This is not the first time U.S. leadership has been questioned, and as President Biden has mentioned in the past, “it’s never a good bet to bet against America.”

Soviet Oppression during the Prague Spring 1968 influenced much of Milan Kundera’s perspective on Czechoslovak society at the time under Communism.

The recent passing of Czech author Milan Kundera was a great loss to the literary world. Exiled to Paris for his anti-Soviet writings, Kundera’s novels explored the inner psychological effects on individuals living under Communist regimes. While focused on Czechoslovakia and the state of affairs around the time of the Prague Spring, Kundera influenced ideals of free speech and liberty in all places that suffered under political oppression. While his work was famous in Europe, much of his following came from places like Latin America, where many of his readers grew up in the shadow of military dictatorships from the 1960s to the 1980s. The inner mind of someone who is trying to survive is an important perspective to understand, as political oppression affects people on many different levels.

While not to the same degree, my own country has recently passed a law where much of my content, the content of FPA.org, along with all local and even international news has been removed from the majority of social media platforms throughout the nation. The effect is so extensive, that even non-media related policy reports and things as simple as the best way to cook with flower honey, is also blocked on major social media platforms in the country. While there are ways of getting around such limitations (as practiced by those who live in China and other censored national grids), free speech and the ability to share ideas, whether they be critical of society or supportive of policy, needs to be given the maximum level of distribution, lest the Government seeks to passively limit such criticism.

Lessons from those like Milan Kundera, or Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski, seek to not only highlight the plight of those living under left wing Communist dictatorships and Far Right military dictatorships, but serve as a lesson to never repeat the mistakes of the recent past. The lasting effect on free speech, and missions like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty effectively used an outside perspective, critical of oppressive Governments, to bring down those same Governments. So effective was leaking information and the truth inside the Iron Curtain, that many regimes more recently created their own counter-narrative Government run media organisations to sow discontent and division in Western countries.

Care must be taken to establish legislation that guarantees not only free speech, but also protect state institutions from being degraded via creating a systemic bulk ward against free speech. Government supported media and fully funded media is easily degraded, and has the effect of becoming a tool for a small elite of Government officials who wish to limit any criticism or opposition. Such institutions should only exist if it can be regularly demonstrated to not only meet the local standards of free speech and liberty, but also meet an international standard as they are the voice of an entire nation. Distributing scripted lines from a Government can easily be labelled as Journalism, even when it clearly supports a small elite group. Labels against elected opposition can be used as well by the same media to limit criticism of the Government of the day, even when operating in an otherwise robust democracy. If your media attacks the opposition while constantly supporting the Government, they lack an understanding of their own role in a democracy.

While political courses often drill in the idea that “Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely”, the further reach of such power not only corrupts a country systemically, but is almost impossible to remove from the institutions once it infects the system. Absolutist power in reality is almost never removed, as the cure for such anti-corruption measures are often limited to using systemic tools that have already been corrupted. All Governments would prefer to operate in a system where there are no checks and balances, but such a system without checks, will never achieve any balance. Those with more money, influence and power will gain it increasingly, with the rest of us rapidly become like many of the characters in a Kundera novel, silently and secretly trying to live our lives, hoping that the regime does not decide to activate a tank battalion to crush an elected leader and a Prague Spring, or simply use banned military weapons against its own citizens. Even when an otherwise healthy democracy ignores abuses and creates relations with such regimes, the oppression from the regime seeps into the democratic institutions that are founded on principals banning such treatment of its citizens. The decay of democratic principals is one of the greatest real and persistent threats to existing democracies. Lessons of the Cold War ignored have already lead to some of the largest tank battles since 1945, and not just because its 2023.

Late August means back to school. Parents know it, kids know it, you know it and so do I. In a modern and rapidly evolving world we know that there is much to learn.The skills we develop during the first few years of school -reading and basic arithmetic- are important parts of everyday life. In the years that follow, school helps us develop skills like critical thinking and problem solving which allow us to take on higher level challenges. 

If we have learned these lessons well, we also learned one additional thing- our intellectual skills will grow sharper if we use them frequently, or, they will wither away if we leave them untended.

With that context in mind… pop quiz! 

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, how many hearings had the House Armed Services Committee with a direct focus on the conflict?

Once a month maybe? That would make for eighteen hearings on the matter at the time of this publishing. Once every other month perhaps? Or even seasonally? The House Armed Services Committee, one of the legislative bodies responsible for overseeing American foreign policy, held one isolated public hearing dedicated to the war in Ukraine back in February of 2023.

Surely the Senate, famously the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, would take foreign policy more seriously than the “hot tea” tempest of the House. The Senate Armed Services Committee manages to double the House’s output- two public hearings with an explicit focus on the conflict in Ukraine. Admittedly, these two hearings do go alongside an additional five focused on the 2024 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) during which determining funding for Ukraine’s defense was a regular topic- the House held similar hearings on defense appropriations where Ukraine was discussed.

If you are taking the time out of your day to read this article, I’d be very comfortable making a wager that you have had more than three serious conversations about the fighting in Ukraine around the water cooler with your co-workers, dinner table with your family, or coffee with your friends or classmates. I’m sure that you are a super star, but the combined efforts of the House and Senate should exceed the foreign policy thinking that you do in your own life.

You’ve had conversations about the continuing conflict in Ukraine not only because you want to learn from the perspective of your peers but also because the events that are taking place today are critically important to the future. America’s decisions (and the decisions of Ukraine’s other partners) will shape the outcome of the conflict. The outcome of the conflict will shape the peace that follows. The nature of that peace will either hasten the next conflict or allow for peace. These things matter!

Whether you support continued funding for Ukraine or believe that the United States needs to reconsider its priorities is, for the moment, not entirely relevant. What is important is continued discussions and debates about these pressing issues.

As I, and others far wiser than I, have previously written, the House and Senate have been failing in their constitutionally appointed responsibility to conduct serious foreign policy oversight for decades. The legislature conducts foreign policy hearings at a historically low rate, and when these hearings do take place they are more often used as an opportunity to generate sound bites than for conducting the sort of serious oversight that might inform the citizenry or motivate policy change. 

Unfortunately, none of this is new. Even when American lives were directly on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan the legislature failed to conduct serious oversight. The United States conducted 41 separate military operations in 19 countries around the world over the span of 20 years on the back of a single vote in each chamber- the 2001 AUMF. For comparison, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan individually when fighting against the Axis powers in the Second World War.

Individual Americans have a responsibility to stay informed about pressing foreign policy matters. That is one of the obligations we take on by living in a democracy.  The legislators who we elect to represent us in the House and Senate take on that responsibility even more acutely than private citizens. Unfortunately the behavior of our legislators does not live up to the seriousness of their task.

These matters will only become more pressing, and our responsibility will be increased, as the global community works towards resolving the conflict in Ukraine, avoiding a multi–nation war in west Africia, and navigating great power competition. As our elected representatives have been skipping classes, the challenges faced by the United States have continued to evolve.

It is time for the legislature, House and Senate alike, to go back to school on foreign policy.

—

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

There has been quite a lot of media attention given to the BRICS nations over the last few weeks as a displacement tool for Western political and economic power worldwide. While the BRICS only get media attention every few years, this year has elicited a greater response as the expansion of the BRICS was top of mind for the current members.

The BRICS was seen as a group of influential, large, and regionally important nations who possessed much of the economic pull in their regions and worldwide. A coordinated push promoting the interests of this group of nations was seen as a possible countermeasure to Western economic weight and political influence. While the BRICS did indeed have a lot of power in their own right, the BRICS Summits were often more of a meeting between large powers that not only had little connection to each other, but had differing economic strategies and security interests. Trade between BRICS nations was limited, and some members are considered the main security threat to other BRICS members. The addition of South Africa a few short years ago did not benefit them to any great degree, as economic stresses on the South African economy have plague the nation over the last few years.

The expansion of the BRICS group of nations follows in the same tradition of the Non-Aligned movement in the 60s and 70s. This collective of independent nations attempted to speak as one block in the UN, much of it made up of former colonial nations that wished to ally against Western and Soviet interests. While the concept of having a united front was logical, the history, interests and economies of these nations varied greatly. There was little binding them together unfortunately past the position as smaller independent nations who wished to push against hegemonic powers at the time.

On the economic side, trade agreements like MERCOSUR sought to ally the nations of the Southern Cone of South America against the economic and political weight of the United States in Latin America. Much of the future prospects that MERCOSUR created were shredded when Argentina went into an economic and political spiral in the early 2000s. Agro trade that made them dependent on exports to Western countries was displaced by agro exports to Asia. With political and economic challenges from each nation in the trade block, the interests of individual countries placed the trade block in the shadows for a few years, despite it still existing in its original form for a generation.

With little in the way of common interests for many of these nations, the security challenges between them motivate more of their economic and political strategy than a relationship via their BRICS membership. China and India often coordinate their national strategies as security rivals in their own region, and there is little reason to think that new members from the Middle East will become closer to ending their own multi-generational conflicts due to BRICS membership. On an economic front, BRICS membership has little opportunity to re-energize failed trade relationships nor would develop into a more productive form past official trade agreements. The reality is that security is still paramount, with little trade between current BRICS members as well as limited trade between newer members of the group. There are almost no ties between members and no will to create them in any meaningful way.

The international security issue should also be acknowledged in the formation of the BRICS+ agreement. A formal alliance with Russia and its interests is likely not a reality through additional BRICS members, and any ties that side with Ukraine or Russia in this conflict are already well established. A BRICS that creates its own currency or seeks to displace the US dollar will not be beneficial to most of the BRICS members, and those that have ties with Russia under sanctions are currently benefitting from such a relationship. Countries outside of the conflict have no interest in allying themselves to one side or another, as they prefer to hedge their bets against future political and economic chaos coming from the end of the war.

While the BRICS+ narrative is one founded in proper logic and interests, the history of such multilateral agreements only really works if there is a significant outside motivation for the group. The EU feeling the security challenge of the Soviet Union while seeking to balance the economic weight of the United States enabled its creation, but instability has often fractured it in part over the years. Using regional hegemons in different parts of the world to guide a Non-Aligned movement seems logical as well, and was the foundation of the concept of the BRICS, but there is no sustained and immediate interests that can keep such a group continually united. Even with groups like the EU, it is very difficult to maintain the interests of all members without it being detrimental to one interest group or another. With countries like France, Germany and the UK guiding Europe into the EU, large members can leave, interests of one can diminish rights for others, and bad decisions can affect those who had little say in their implementation. The BRICS+ might have some positive results, but the reality is that it will likely just be a story every few years, with members having their own interests and crises take precedence over anything the BRICS+ contributes to their future…especially if members end up in a direct conflict with each other.

Millions of citizens cast their ballots over the weekend in Spain, marking an end to five years of left-wing rule in Europe’s sixth-largest economy. Alberto Núñez Feijóo led the center-right People’s Party (PP) to victory in tightly contested snap elections, defeating Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE). The elections were highly scrutinized on the continent and beyond, with many anticipating a decisive conservative triumph in line with Europe’s recent right-wing tilt. However, the PP failed to achieve an absolute majority, and Sanchez’s political career isn’t over yet, with arduous coalition negotiations on the horizon. As uncertainty and deadlock consume the country, Spain’s political drama is set to continue.

Before analyzing Sunday’s results and what lies ahead, a closer examination of Spain’s fractured political landscape sheds light on the current situation. Since the end of the Franco regime in 1975, two main parties have dominated the Spanish legislature, the center-left social democratic PSOE, and the center-right Christian-democratic PP. However, the political landscape fragmented during the 2015-16 general elections and the rise of the far-left populist party Podemos. With neither party able to secure an absolute majority, this shift bolstered the influence of minor parties, who leverage their positions as potential coalition partners to gain concessions and impact future policy decisions.

One such party that gained prominence is Vox, a far-right populist group predicated on Spanish nationalism and associated with anti-immigration postures. In the 2019 elections, Vox won 52 seats, fostering a concern that any future PP-led government would require a coalition with the party.

Since becoming Prime Minister in June 2018, Mr. Sánchez pushed his party’s (PSOE) progressive agenda in a coalition with several center and far-left parties. His ascent to power reflected a decline in support for the scandal-ridden PP at the time, specifically the Gürtel case and subsequent motion of no confidence that ousted the conservative government. Despite Mr. Sánchez’s relatively effective governance and solid economic record, the PP has gradually improved its image and rebuilt support. Led by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the PP trounced the PSOE in May’s regional and municipal elections, taking control in nine of the twelve jurisdictions that voted. In response to his party’s lackluster performance, Sánchez called for snap elections in a significant gamble, aiming to replicate his success in 2019 and outmaneuver Feijóo before the PP could capitalize on its momentum.

In another example of the polarization engulfing the West, Sunday was the culmination of a nasty campaign season characterized by mudslinging and personal attacks. While Sánchez’s socialists added two additional seats from 2019, 122 in total, the PP increased their seat tally from 89 to 136. In the lower chamber of Spain’s parliament (Congress of Deputies), which has 350 seats, a party needs at least 176 seats to form a government. As neither the PP nor PSOE comes close to this number, Sánchez and Feijóo need support from minor parties to reach the threshold.

Traditionally, the leader of the party with the most seats, the PP, in this case, becomes Prime Minister. However, the populist Vox party, considered the PP’s likely coalition partner, suffered a shocking setback. Vox lost half its seats on Sunday, reduced to 33 from the previous 52 gained in the 2019 elections. As the PP and Vox together lack the votes required to form a government, Sánchez’s political career has a new lease of life

In accordance with the Spanish Constitution, Feijóo and Sánchez will convene with King Felipe VI in the forthcoming weeks to present their cases. Subsequently, the king will propose the candidate for Prime Minister whom he believes has the most parliamentary support. Feijóo will argue that the next Prime Minster should come from the party with the most seats, as is the historical precedent. On the other hand, Sánchez must convince the King that he has sufficient support from minor parties, ideally with commitments from their leaders. However, because several parties in his 2019 coalition lost their legislative seats, Sánchez needs to strategize a new alliance. This entails intense negotiations with the far-left Sumar and pro-independence Catalan and Basque parties, who will demand concessions in return. As stated by the party leader of Together for Catalonia, “ We will not make Pedro Sánchez president in exchange for nothing.”

Once the King decides, the chosen candidate undergoes a parliamentary vote, which requires an absolute majority of 176 votes for approval. Spain will likely hold a fresh election if the candidate falls short of the threshold. After a failed investiture vote, the constitution obliges the king to dissolve the legislature within two months, with a new election mandated 54 days after its dissolution. Consequently, Sánchez would act as caretaker Prime Minister with limited legislative powers during this period.

As the leaders navigate uncertainty, Spain might not have its next Prime Minister until 2024. The dysfunction comes as Spain assumes the EU’s rotating presidency, and the forthcoming outcomes will have implications for the country’s political trajectory and the broader European landscape. However, Vox’s disappointing performance is a setback for right-wing populism in Europe, following recent victories in Italy and Germany. Regardless, Spain cannot afford a period of prolonged political turbulence as the country continues to grapple with the aftermath of the European debt crisis and pandemic-related downturn. With comparatively lower living standards than most Western European nations, timely action and a cohesive approach are crucial if Spain hopes to rebuild its economy and ensure a brighter future for its citizens.

As losses of Advanced Equipment Mounts, the images will be used to shift morale on the battlefield in Ukraine – A Leopard 2A4 image shows a damaged tank, it is unsure if this image shows losses due to Russian Army actions.

Inflation related to food prices are hitting almost every economy in the world, stressing local citizens in countries where the support for defending Ukraine is the highest. The end of the Grain Deal between Ukraine and Russia ended, and without a pause, Russia sent missiles into the Odessa Region targeting grain reserves meant for export out of Ukraine. While Turkey and other countries seeking to extend the Grain Deal push for another agreement, the change in atmosphere and strategy from Russia may not encourage Russia into another agreement. While the lack of grain exports will directly affect countries like Egypt, the indirect effect on food inflation for NATO allies may be the intended effect Russia wishes to have on citizens of those countries.

It is a well known tactic that when combating Western countries, the long game often wears out their population. The pressures the Governments of the day have to endure when convincing a relatively safe and well off population into a war footing almost never extends past a few short years. Losses and change to the daily lives of Americans and other NATO countries not in proximity to the conflict is heavily influenced by the cost to their daily deeds and added frustrations in accomplishing the same tasks as they did outside of a war footing. Fuel prices in many of these colder countries affect the price of everything, and even when fuel prices drop, policies that increase the cost of food do nothing more but stress the incomes of local populations. Policies to diminish more money leaving the economy and reducing local taxes are as important as military aid in supporting your ally.

Some countries have sought to publicize greatly the amount of money and support given to Ukraine, while using the war as a catalyst for explaining difficulties with food and fuel prices to their population. Some of the same Governments will intentionally promote support for the war while increasing local taxes and costs of fuel and food several times over, even ignoring displacing Covid debts incurred by municipalities a few short years ago. Officials in some cases refuse supporting for their own major cities in reducing severe crime and poverty crises while sending their tax dollars outside of the country. Such actions will destroy any support for help abroad as their cities quickly deteriorate due to lack of funding and Government fuelled inflationary taxes.

While energy sales can bring money back into an economy to help with Covid funding losses, the greater strategic nature of using energy to bolster allies like Germany and Japan against Russia and its allies have a major effect on defunding Russia’s arms industry. If Ukraine’s allies intend for it to win as much territory back as possible, they have to make sure that Russia is unable to fund the creation of more weapons to put onto the field. Displacing Russian Oil and Gas is the only strategy that can reduce the income from Russia’s oil reserves. Most countries not aligned in the conflict will support their country by purchasing the most affordable and easy to obtain energy reserves. Countries like Japan, that are strategic allies, and Germany, who are bearing the brunt of much of the costs and supply of weapons, require low cost energy to keep their populations content and warm so they can endure a longer fight with a healthy population. Displacing Russia’s energy income might be the most important tactic the West could use to win in the long run, while keeping support constant among citizens in NATO ally countries. To this day, there has been little movement by NATO’s allies with large energy reserves in displacing Russian oil and gas. The claim is that Russia is now producing several T-90M tanks per month, and have organised and stabilized weapons to the front line, a line that has become very difficult to break.

While little is being done past funding more ammo hungry air defence systems in countering low cost drones, more and more funds are being promoted as being sent to fight in Ukraine. Losing the image of strength in the united fight for Ukraine has a massive effect on the morale and outcome of the war. Support for the war came at the sight of Russian armour being decimated like fireworks outside of Ukraine’s cities, and gave hope to Ukraine’s allies that the war can be won. Russia was always looking for an opportunity to turn the media images against Western support for the war, and they might have had this opportunity presented by Ukraine’s allies themselves.

Russia was able to use low cost drones to diminish the number of advanced anti-air missiles defending Ukraine, to the point that some in NATO have even stated they are running out of ammo. At no point was there a massive cost saving action taken by NATO in destroying the manufacturing facilities of the drones. Such an action would have saved many innocent lives, billions in spending, and kept advanced missiles at the ready for more deadly future threats.

While promoting billions upon billions of military support to Ukraine, some NATO soldiers were sent to Europe with no food being provided to them, putting them in personal debt just to obtain proper meals. Others were not provided even basic safety equipment, meaning they had to buy their own, preventing them from participating in exercises. A NATO member even refused, in the middle of the largest NATO conflict in their history, to contribute even the minimum amount of spending while claiming they gave the most directly to Ukraine without it being the case. Using funding announcements to Ukraine while underfunding the actual soldiers is not how you support an ally, nor assist them in winning their conflict. All it does is sour support for the war even further.

As Russia made an error in 2022 by assuming that Ukraine’s generational defensive posture would have been easy to dismantle in short time, the losses of NATO’s almost invincible equipment during Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive has been used by Russia to help them reclaim back of some their reputation as a powerful military force. It should have always been assumed that the loss of Leopard 2 or other highly regarded NATO equipment should have been expected, and would have been used to make Western powers look weak during their attack. Trying to assault a defended line is very difficult, and will certainly lead to many losses, along with images of burning tanks being used as part of the media war against Ukraine. Russia was likely very content in obtaining images of the best equipment in the world falling to their Soviet era artillery barrages, and have used those images as much as possible over the last few weeks. Less information about the Counter-Offensive is now being shared because of the losses, and populations in NATO countries are feeling the daily pressures without the images of victories on their screens weekly. Inflation, taxes and morale will hurt Ukraine more and more as the war goes on, and Russia will take any opportunity to displace support for Ukraine when it is made available by opposing Governments.

According to an article published in the Russian media titled “Visa with a trick,” this year, the International Olympic Committee is banning Russians from partaking in the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris unless they are ideologically opposed to the war in the Ukraine, act under a neutral flag, and have nothing to do with the Russian security agencies. This comes after countries like the Czech Republic banned Russian athletes from partaking in sporting events in their borders and Russian tennis player Vera Zvonareva was barred recently from Poland.  

By taking such a strong stance against Russian athletes, the international community has demonstrated that they care to punish Russia for the crimes against humanity that they have committed in the Ukraine.   Russia also is a country that systematically represses gays, another action which should prompt from them to be penalized by the International Olympic Committee.   In Russia, it is illegal to promote same-sex relations or suggest that it is normal to be gay, according to legislation put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin last year.

According to Human Rights Watch, “The new laws significantly broaden the scope of a 2013 law which banned the dissemination of LGBTQ-related information to minors. The new iteration extends the ban on promoting such information to adults as well.”   However, Russia is not the only country that represses gays and yet there are many anti-gay countries which are partaking in the International Olympic Games, without anyone batting an eye.

One of these countries is Iran.   Iran is a country where being gay is punishable by death.  Up to 6,000 gays have been executed in Iran since 1979.   Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi also made homophobic remarks on his recent trip to Uganda: “The West today is trying to promote the idea of homosexuality and by promoting homosexuality, they are trying to end the generation of human beings.”  He referred to homosexuality as “one of the dirtiest issues.”

Another country which represses gays that is partaking in the Olympic Games is Yemen.   According to the 1994 Yemenite penal code, married men in the Arab country can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison in the war-torn country. Women face up to seven years in prison for being lesbian.

Pakistan is another country that criminalizes gay conduct, with men potentially receiving life imprisonment for gay intercourse, yet the Asian country is participating in the upcoming Olympic Games.  Ifti Nasim, a Pakistani gay poet, within the past year was forced to flee his homeland and move to the United States, after surviving an assassination attempt.   This past year, Pakistan’s first transgender TV anchor also survived an assassination attempt as well.    However, Pakistan is treated at the Olympic Games like a normal country.

The Palestinian Authority is another anti-gay dictatorship that is partaking in the Olympic Games, even though there was a Palestinian gay man who was awaiting asylum in another country last year who was beheaded in Hebron for the crime of being gay.  “We, as Arab LGBT people, are viewed as trash by the Arab-Palestinian society. We are dead in their eyes,” a Palestinian gay man reported.  As a result, countless Palestinian gay men try to flee to Israel, as their lives are constantly in danger in the Palestinian Authority.  

While it is commendable that Russia, an anti-gay country, is getting penalized for the crime of being gay, countries like Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and entities like the Palestinian Authority should receive similar treatment.  Countries and entities that endanger the lives of gay people should not be permitted to partake in the Olympic Games.       

China used the HQ-7 “Crotale” outside of a stadium as protection during the 2008 Olympics.

While there are some that claim that China has been supplying some arms to Russia during its battle with Ukraine, the official position of China is to appear as a neutral party in the conflict. This is mostly to avoid sanctions or other actions against their economy by Western nations as China is heavily dependent on trade with the West. China, who has tried to expand their military equipment exports past a few of its neighbours, has now reached the point of being able to export advanced weapons systems. While some categories would do well in an export markets, others are tied to licensed or copied technology from Russia, Europe and the United States, which limits the ability to independently export the equipment.

Supplying both sides of the conflict might be advantageous for China. While China is openly seeking opportunities to be seen as a diplomatic force in the world over the last few months, favouring one side’s needs in the conflict in Ukraine may limit a critical narrative against China. With so many supply issues in NATO countries, China might do well if it can be shown to be assisting NATO allies with much needed shortages.

While Chinese munitions and systems may find their way to Russia, China would also be able to sell defensive systems to NATO and Ukraine without causing too much damage in its relationship with Russia. Offensive weapons may sever ties with one side or the other, but as the conflict escalates and becomes more desperate, more supplies would be requested and less restrictions would probably come in the medium term. This can be seen with the recent introduction of Cluster munitions by NATO into the conflict.

Regarding aircraft sales, China may not be able to depend on sales of its fighters and attack aircraft past sales to Russia. While there is little demand at the moment because Russia has not lost many aircraft, the nature of jets is often offensive and may sour relations with NATO. Licensing of sales of China’s aircraft like the JF-17 and J-10 is also hindered by the fact that they use the engines of the MIG-29 and SU-27 respectively. Any sales of these planes would need consent from the engine’s country of origin, which is Russia. While newer J-10s have a Chinese made engine, the export market would likely not involve NATO allies geared towards the battle in Ukraine as they have yet to send Western planes into the conflict.

The number of tanks being destroyed in the war in Ukraine has broken records several times over. With the Offensive taking place, many NATO tanks will also fall victim to the assault. China will likely end up with one of the largest reserves of semi-modern and modern main battle tanks in the world, and may be interested in selling their ZTZ-99 tanks to either side. The ZTZ-99 is as capable as a modernised T-72, the most well used tank in the field in Ukraine, but uses many Western components and is a mixture of NATO and Russian technology. While this offensive weapon would cause problems for China’s relations with the West and Russia, desperate sides may overlook politics in acquiring advanced weapons after a long period of conflict.

China has a similar heavy artillery focused strategy as Russia, and they produced Russian equivalents of many of the Soviet artillery systems. Russia’s 2S3 Akatsiya cannon was married to China’s Type 83, and their more modern PLZ05 shares much of the same cannon components as the Russian 2S19 MSTA. This means that much of the Soviet and Russian munitions work with both Chinese systems, along with older systems like their PLZ89, equivalent of the 2S1 Gvozdika seeing a lot of action being used by both side in Ukraine. Any side that would be able to obtain large quantities of Soviet munition capable artillery systems would gain a huge advantage. This is also why sales of such equipment with create a diplomatic rift with either side of the conflict, and would likely not be sold.

Air defense may be the best option for China to sell to either side in the conflict. Being mostly defensive weapons, systems like the PGZ95, tantamount to a very modern ZSU-23-4 Shilka, or the PGZ09, China’s own Gepard, may be used effectively against drones and lead to many innocent lives saved. Older missile systems like the HQ-7B, similar to a modernised Cold War era French Crotale, could deter attacks by Russian aircraft and may be able to shoot down some drones. A S-300 equivalent, the HQ-9, would be able to act as a long range air defence deterrent but would likely cost either side pilots if used. China’s HQ-17, a version of the Russian TOR-M1, would be a very capable mid range defender of any base or power plant threatened by missiles or planes. Such systems are usually paired with anti-air cannons like the PGZ95 and PGZ09 to defend from multiple threats.

Anti-air systems allow for the aggressors to choose whether or not they want to risk entering a specific zone of conflict and are used in many cases to deter attacks on civilians targets and infrastructure. While extremely dangerous if used improperly, it can be used to limit innocent casualties and de-escalate a conflict where honour and revenge fuels much of the responses from either side.

While the best outcome of the conflict is a hopeful de-escalation by both sides, there does not seem to be signs of this occurring in the near future. With shortages on both sides, there will likely be a mass move to add more weapons to the battlefield until distant achievements are met. China’s self interest may play into this global conflict in 2023, but the best move is clearly to not get involved. China depends on exported oil and gas as well as the international grain supply now being short coming out of Ukraine. If offensive weapons are found to be of Chinese origin, a big diplomatic rift may occur with China and NATO, or even Russia. China’s balancing act may include weapons sales, but it would be under the conditions of scarce supply by either side of the conflict and the sale of more defensive systems, especially if capable of protecting civilian targets.

A model designer’s theoretical possible future Air Defence weapon for Ukraine, using a Ukrainian made BTR-4E married to a variant of the Skyshield modern air defence cannon. – image from the Panzerfux.de catalogue.

Much like the difficulty Russia had in defeating Ukraine’s defensive positions in 2022, Ukraine is now having to deal with similar problems being on offense. Like Ukraine, Russia is a military that spent much of the Soviet era practicing defensive positions after the German invasion during the Second World War. It should have been expected that in 2022 Ukraine would not have been easy to conquer as their entire military infrastructure, planning, and equipment was designed to be the first barrier to invasions from the West during the Cold War. Now that Ukraine has adopted an offensive posture, the difficulty in attacking Russian defensive positions has been met with great challenges. This may mean the war will drag on for some time, and a permanent and effective defense structure to modern threats should be top of mind for Ukraine and those assisting in their conflict.

One error that would make it very difficult for Ukraine’s allies to maintain their support for the defense of Ukraine is public sentiments within allied countries. It is extremely important not to diminish the needs of the local populations or put them in competition with aid policy in helping the war in Ukraine. It has been shown that allied populations are very willing to help Ukraine, even taking Ukrainians into their homes, breaking bread, and sharing their table among their family. What is a big error and is now apparent in my own city are that funds that were promised to compensate the city from their added Covid emergency spending is being intentionally stalled by the Federal Government while weekly announcements of military aid to help Ukraine are freely being promoted well over the amount promised for local safety, healthcare and basic needs. Putting citizen’s tax dollars in direct competition with foreign aid of any type is a horrible policy approach as it destroys good will and future aid projects for very noble causes.

A long term defensive plan must be tied to a cost efficient and effective defense. It has been demonstrated that using high cost and high tech missiles against low cost drones may be a strategy to bleed Ukraine of advanced weapons in the long term. Such missiles take a long time to produce and even longer to develop, and drone attacks are currently manipulating this situation. Anti-air systems like Gepard, that uses a dated radar system and two 35mm Oerlikon rapid fire cannons, has proven to be a Cold War solution to a modern problem. The cost effectiveness of using cannon shells against drones will enable a long term defense against such targets, and more such solutions need to be implemented if NATO seeks a long term victory for Ukraine.

The Shilka solution should become a major step in addressing the lack of a long term defense of Ukrainian civilians and military. The Gepard itself was the response to the Soviet 1960s era ZSU-23-4 Shilka, a radar based anti-air system using four 23mm cannons fixed in a special turret, married to a radar and tracking system. This systems was produced in very high numbers for most of the Cold War and it is likely the case that many are in storage, along with 23mm ammo, all over Eastern Europe and abroad.

The Shilka did have some variants upgraded with newer radar and tracking technology, as well as smaller anti-aircraft missiles. These projects were done by Ukraine and another independently by Poland in order to upgrade their military to more modern standards. This lower cost upgrade of the old system would be a project that could be applied to other Shilka units, along with new computers systems and radar upgrades. Shilkas would be greater in number than the Gepards and could defend many more locations from terror drones. Such projects could also be promoted by technical and engineering schools so that older technology radars could be used as a platform for new technology solutions, even perhaps making the radar and cannon used with AI as is used in many modern missile targeting systems. If no actions are to be taken to attack the drone manufacturing facilities, this might be the best option in the intermediate to long term.

A solution may also be possible with the assistance of diplomats and power politics. China does not want to seem like an overt threat as it would diminish trade with Western countries, and has recently been promoting itself as being a third party peace negotiator abroad. Current relations with China and the US are challenging, and a response by China has been to not openly support either Russia or Ukraine while seeking an image of mediator for conflicts well outside its own traditional realms of interest. China, like India, is in a unique position however as China is not being pressured to the same degree as smaller nations when dealing directly with Russia while under sanctions. China would serve itself well to either show it is not selling any equipment to Russia in its war, or tack in the other direction and offer weapons sales to both sides. Doing the latter should be done with regard to defensive weapons only. This would blunt heavy criticisms from Russia as those weapons would be used to save civilian lives and not cost Russian lives. Western criticism would be less effective as well as weapons sales would be benefitting Ukraine and its allies through low cost air defense implemented in rapid time.

China’s 2008 military parade demonstrated the new military strength of China, and some of that equipment had already been replaced by very modern systems. China’s newest anti-air cannon system, the PGZ09, is very closely related to the Gepard. Although a lot newer with a modern radar, it also carries two Oerlikon 35mm cannons and is active in the PLA. China would likely not sell active units of the PGZ09, but it would certain open an export market for future sales of the system if they decided to do so. An effective demonstration of the PGZ09 would likely displace many of Russia’s export sales of weapons as a bonus to China’s arms export industry. While this industry coped many Soviet systems in the past and exported them with great annoyance to Russia, China can now use their own designs with Western licensed technology to compete successfully in the weapons export market.

An older system that was presented in 2008 is the PGZ95, a modern system with a modern radar that uses four cannons like the Shilka, but also carries four smaller surface to air missiles as well. China replaced many of these fairly modern systems with their PGZ09, and considering the size of the PLA, there are likely many PGZ95 units available. PGZ95 would likely be obtained and put on the field to defend Ukraine a lot faster than even upgraded ZSU-23-4 Shilkas could be modernised to shoot down drones. If China wanted to sell weapons while putting on a neutral face, the sale of military equipment for defense would be an option with many sides taking interest. The PGZ95 would likely be a great drone killer and could be sold with armoured cars, helicopters, radars and other systems that could be used in a purely defensive manner.

Modern systems designed to detect and destroy drones are coming, but systems like Skyshield are still at great cost, limited in number, need time to be produced, and may be subject to export restrictions like the ammo for the Gepard. The economic costs to the public should be considered with every decision as they are the ones actually paying for weapons systems with no payment for their donations being returned back into their communities. Suggestions above would be implemented faster and save more lives, while creating a longer term defense strategy that does not alienate supporters in Western nations and is more cost effective. Everyone wants to save innocent lives and help defend Ukraine, but leaders need to always do this in concert with keeping their own country’s families safe, healthy and employed.

Azerbaijani journalist Elnur Enveroglu recently stated, “France’s colonial policy is the biggest disgrace of the 21st century.   The fact is that the French state, which acts as the leading party for the democratization policy in Europe, is carrying out racism, violation of human rights, discrimination of language, and religion, both in New Caledonia and within the country, along with the colonial policy.  For this reason, there is great strife and turmoil within France today.”  

According to him, “Instead of regulating what is happening inside the country, French President Emmanuel Macron intervenes in the affairs of countries near or far from this country.  For example, let us take a look at the South Caucasus or the unresolved negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  Imagine that on the eve of the riots in France, he is looking for a remedy for the incurable pain of Armenia, which is 5,000 KM away, disrespecting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and even making inappropriate statements.   Within these statements, France is on the verge of an economic recession.”

Enveroglu added: “I should note that serious protests against the French company Total Energy have started in Africa recently.   It spread rapidly to other countries like a wave.   Even France embraced Armenia so much that it seemed to want to say that it is willing to end cooperation with Azerbaijan, one of the leading countries in the South Caucuses in the economic field, for the sake of the Armenians.  This might bring about the end of France.”

According to him, “By doing this, President Macron acts as if he is reporting to the Armenians and he has a kind of commitment to support separatists in Karabakh.  This is probably the compensation of his debt to Armenian lobbyists after the presidential election.”  However, he highlighted how this is not a wise policy: “Recently, Azerbaijan hosted the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Baku and France’s colonial policy was on the agenda of the conference.   A Baku Initiative Group was formed against French colonialism.    This decision was made following the event ‘towards the complete elimination of colonialism’ organized in Baku by the Center for Analysis of International Relations within the framework of the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement.  A document was adopted on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the national leader Heydar Aliyev.”

Professor Nursin Guney noted that this meeting was held because “France in the 21st century continues to colonize certain African countries.   This is against human rights.   France is holding the third and fourth largest gold reserves in the world.  Even though it does not have gold mines, they were all obtained through a colonization strategy.”  

In the past, European countries, including France, were mainly in pursuit of colonies – the Dutch, the Germans, the British, the Spanish and the French also did this. In the past, the main goal of most European countries was to conquer as much territory as possible and turn it into a colony. This is how the Europeans used the natural treasures and labor force of those colonies and from that they got rich and obtained cheap labor. The colonies supplied the European countries with spices, different types of food, gold, metals, diamonds and more. It was quite profitable to own a colony at that time; you could say it was like a status symbol.

But during the world wars, both the first and second, the colonial industry was destroyed. The occupied nations began to demand independence and to separate from the European rule that was imposed on them by force. But the struggles for freedom were not easy or simple. France, for example, was very attached to its colonies and saw the colonial industry as a mission, because thanks to the colonies, the French could teach the “primitive ignorant people” over whom they controlled some culture. France did not give up the nations she controlled easily.

France did not give up Syria after the First World War, even though the founders of the Kingdom of Syria (the Hashem family from the Hejaz region of the Arabian Peninsula) helped the countries of the agreement to conquer Syria and Israel. France saw Syria as her private property and conquered it by force from the Arabs without mercy and without showing mercy to anyone.

And of course, there was Algeria, whose citizens took eight years to successfully remove French rule from their country. Algeria was an old and important French colony, it is actually the last colony that France liberated and gave independence. The French colonies are called overseas territories. For the French, the colonies were their way of spreading the values of the French Revolution and their worldview. According to them, they held the correct view of the world; they are the ones who became disillusioned and they wanted to pass on their new knowledge to other peoples.

These days, France still owns several overseas territories, including Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion, Mayotte and a few others. The aforementioned countries met in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, to discuss France’s attitude towards them. Among the delegations there were also representatives of New Caledonia, whose situation in relation to France is slightly different, it ranges between a province of France overseas and a sovereign state. The representative of New Caledonia claimed at the conference in Baku that France has controlled Caledonia for over 170 years and stated that the country’s history is written in blood.

The president of the parliament of New Caledonia said at the conference that “France calls itself a democratic republic of unity, equality and fraternity, but this is just a façade, this is all a lie.” He went on to say that “by participating in today’s event in Baku, we call not to repeat this bloody colonial history. The policy of colonization must stop.” The French government must allow a referendum to be held in New Caledonia to see if the New Caledonian people support separation from French rule or actually prefer to remain under the French. In the first referendum in 2018, the results decided that New Caledonia would remain under the French government. The supporters of the French government got 56.4% of the votes.

After the referendum, French President Emmanuel Macron visited the island and noted that the results of the referendum showed “confidence in the French Republic”. On the other side, a politician from the side of those who want to break away from the French government optimistically claimed that “we are one step before victory”. The second referendum took place in 2020, but also in it the supporters of independence for New Caledonia lost the elections. The supporters of the French government won 53.26% of the votes. Macron called for dialogue between the parties and hinted that France wants to say goodbye to its colonial past.

Macron added that there is a possibility of a third referendum. The third referendum, the president of the Parliament of New Caledonia claimed at a conference in Baku, happened during the Corona period. Although this referendum was illegal, France accepted its results anyway. The opponents of the French government wanted to decide in a way that was not a referendum, but this was the only option that France allowed them and it sent 2000 soldiers to enforce it. He calls the French conduct neocolonialism and demands from the UN to allow his country to say goodbye to its history and set out on an independent path.

Representatives of French Guiana were also present at the conference in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The country’s representatives claimed that France appropriated the assets of French Guiana for itself and looted its natural treasures. French settlement in French Guiana began in 1604, the French used the area as a prison. Since French Guiana has been under French rule, its citizens have never experienced independence and never known what it’s like to be under a government that truly represents them. According to the representatives at the committee in Baku, French Guiana is in a state of colonization, with a 30% unemployment rate. Like the other countries that came to the conference in Baku, both French Guiana and New Caledonia demanded to say goodbye to France and start the path of an independent country, to say goodbye to their history and leave it in the past.

It may be that the disease of colonialism affects each nation in a different way and it takes each nation a different amount of time to heal from it in its own unique way. France is among the few countries in our time that still has colonies overseas that have almost no connection between them and France and between themselves (geographic connection, ethnic connection, cultural connection) at the base. Those French provinces overseas want to become independent countries, something they have never experienced in the flesh. It seems that they still need to work on this, both to prepare the opponents of separation from France for the day after and to work on a stronger France that will free them from its grip.

Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan had been notoriously high for several years and culminated with an Azerbaijani offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. The war lasted about a month and ended with several thousand deaths. Azerbaijan demonstrated its military superiority by capturing most of the land it lost in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994. The war was ended by a Russian-brokered ceasefire which allowed for the free transfer of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijanis to Nakhchivan. The war was marked by several war crimes on both sides. Following the war, there have been numerous more border skirmishes, with the most potent one being in September of 2022, leaving hundreds total dead.

Currently, Nagorno-Karabakh is desperate; Azerbaijan has blockaded the only land corridor connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, preventing essential supplies such as food and water. The ceasefire in 2020 provided for Russian peacekeepers to monitor this corridor -called the Lachin Corridor- but as we all know, Russia has other military duties their troops must attend to. Azerbaijan has violated the terms of the 2020 ceasefire by preventing the exchange of people and goods to Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Armenia is part of a mutual defense treaty called the C.S.T.O. (Collective Security Treaty Organization), a mutual defense treaty with members Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The C.S.T.O. is the Russian version of NATO, and according to this organization, an attack against one is treated as an attack against all. The alliance entails that Russia must defend Armenia whenever Azerbaijan attacks Armenia. However, Russia has refused this request which highlights the failure of the C.S.T.O. This shows the true importance of this conflict; it highlights the changing dynamics of alliances in the Caucasus.

Armenia has had strong relations with Russia and the eastern bloc, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ability of Azerbaijan to control its exports, there has been a massive switch in alliances. With Azerbaijan’s mass exportation of oil, they have become increasingly tied to the Western world by trade. Therefore, Azerbaijan is a powerful country supplied by other powerful countries such as Turkey. On the other hand, Armenia is a weak country supported by Russia. However, Russia is an ally of Armenia in name only. So Armenia has no nations to turn to under Azerbaijani aggression. Russia won’t help; the U.N. may condemn it, but will the U.N. send troops to keep the Lachin Corridor open? Probably not. The West would never help Armenia because Azerbaijan is a major trade partner. So Armenia has no options when it comes to allies.

The reason why many Western countries won’t side with Armenia becomes even more apparent when looking at a map of Oil Pipelines in the Caucasus.

The solid red line depicts the BTC (Baku-T’bilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline, which transports oil from Baku to Turkey, which it can then export to the rest of the world. However, the route is slow because it has to go through Georgia; it could be more direct by cutting out Georgia and connecting Azerbaijan to Turkey via the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan. If Azerbaijan connected its mainland to Nakhchivan, it would have a direct route to Turkey and be able to increase its oil exports dramatically. This route would also connect Turkey to the rest of the Turkic world, which includes central Asian countries bordering the Caspian Sea.

The future of the Caucasus seems straightforward at this point. Azerbaijan wants control over the Caucasus and a direct pipeline to Turkey. Azerbaijan has been conducting many small military aggressions over a long period rather than at once to avoid international condemnation. Azerbaijan will continue to do this until they achieve what they want, and due to the lack of support for Armenia, Azerbaijan will continue. If recent trends continue, Azerbaijan will get a pipeline to Turkey, the Turkic world will be connected, and Nagorno-Karabakh will be wholly blockaded.

What Armenia can do to stop this seems to be too little too late. Armenia does not have the capacity to return to its territorial extent before the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, control of the Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh is more plausible. Realistically Armenia could expand its conscription beyond two years without extreme public outcry due to the extreme levels of nationalism and desire of the public to ensure Nagorno-Karabakh territorial sovereignty. All Armenia needs to do is guarantee the security of free passage of the Lachin corridor, which could be done by force. In a time when skirmishes between the two countries are constant, an operation by Armenia to guarantee international law is followed would not be that outrageous.

Depending on the length of the Russia-Ukraine war, Armenia may also be able to obtain Russian support in guaranteeing free passage of the Lachin Corridor. Armenia can also offer Russia significant oversight over its economy and politics in exchange for Russian intervention on the side of Armenia. Russia has two military bases in Armenia, which allows for the quick deployment of troops. Armenia has to choose just how much they are willing to sacrifice to achieve control over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Negotiation may also be a possibility between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia could offer Azerbaijan a contract to build a pipeline through Armenian Territory going to Nakchivan in exchange for the Lachin Corridor and de-facto sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan may be inclined to take this offer as a wholescale invasion of Armenian territory to connect mainland Azerbaijan to Nakchivan would cause too much international condemnation. Although most Western countries would support the lower oil prices caused by the shorter pipeline, an invasion of a sovereign nation is likely to invoke sanctions from many countries.

Ultimately only time will tell how the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict will be resolved, but it is undoubtedly in the interests of all that a peaceful diplomatic solution is arrived at.

—

Aiden Wassermann is a foreign policy commentator and intern for the Studies Department. The views expressed here are his, and not necessarily those of the Foreign Policy Association.

In recent days, US Ambassador to Armenia Christina Quinn has said that the United States believes that the Armenian people will be able to live safely in Karabakh: “We believe it is possible and we hope all parties will work together to make it a reality.   The US believes that this is the right approach.  We call on all sides to make joint efforts to ensure the rights and security are established.”  Unfortunately, the American Ambassador to Armenia has faced a backlash within some extremist circles in Armenia for making this statement, yet that does not take away the truth of what she stated.

I have visited Azerbaijan four times and I can attest that Azerbaijan is a bastion for Christians in a region of the world dominated by countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran, who routinely imprison and torture Christians for seeking to practice their faith.    In Baku, I visited an operating Russian Orthodox and Catholic Church.   There are also numerous Christians who are thriving professionally in Azerbaijani society.   This is because Azerbaijan is a secular country, who believes in protecting all religious heritage sites and citizens, regardless if they are Muslim or not.   

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev stated last Easter, “Preservation and promotion of ethno-cultural diversity, rich multicultural values and centuries old traditions of tolerance in our society is one of the main directions of the state policy of the country.  Azerbaijan is one of the few countries with exemplary state-religious relations, where all-round attention and care is paid to the cultural heritage of different peoples.  In the conditions of national-spiritual solidarity, Christians of Azerbaijan live their traditions, religious beliefs, language and culture, and as citizens of the country, they take an active part in all spheres of our socio-political and cultural republic.”

According to the US State Department’s last report on Religious Freedom, “The constitution stipulates the separation of religion and state and the equality of all religions before the law. It also protects the right of individuals to express their religious beliefs and to practice religious rituals, provided these do not violate public order or public morality. The law prohibits the government from interfering in religious activities; it also states the government and citizens have a responsibility to combat “religious extremism” and “radicalism.””

The report continued: “Local experts on religious affairs, religious leaders, and civil society representatives said the general public continued to show tolerance of, and in some cases financially supported, minority religious groups including Jews, Russian Orthodox, and Catholics.”  

The report added: “The constitution stipulates the separation of religion and state and the equality of all religions and all individuals regardless of belief. It protects freedom of religion, including the right of individuals to profess, individually or together with others, any religion, or to profess no religion, and to express and spread religious beliefs. It also provides for the freedom to carry out religious rituals, provided they do not violate public order or public morality. The constitution states no one may be required to profess his or her religious beliefs or be persecuted for them; the law prohibits forced expressions or demonstrations of religious faith.”

According to the US State Department, “There is no religious component in the curriculum of public or private elementary or high schools; however, students may obtain after-school religious instruction at registered institutions. The Administrative Code prohibits clergy and members of religious associations from holding “special” group meetings for children and young people or forcing children to practice religion. The religious freedom law provides that religious education of children “should not have a negative impact on their physical and mental health.”” 

Considering all of these facts, why should Armenians fear living among Azerbaijanis in Karabakh once peace is established between the two peoples?    Just as Jews, Bahais, Russian Orthodox, Georgians, Udi Christians, and Catholics manage to coexist peacefully with the Muslim population in Azerbaijan, why cannot the Armenians if they desire for peace to be upheld between the two peoples?   Thus, America’s Ambassador to Armenia should not have been condemned for stating the obvious.     

Last week, President Biden rolled out the red carpet for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, extending the leader of the world’s largest democracy the full honors of an official state visit. After Mr. Modi addressed a joint session of Congress for the second time in his career, he joined his American counterpart for an opulent state dinner Thursday evening (June 22nd) ­– only the third such dinner of President Biden’s term. This historic visit was anticipated to yield tangible results and invigorate commercial and military ties between the U.S. and India. As the world’s most populous nation and future global powerhouse, India is a vital counterweight to growing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, a robust strategic partnership with India is invaluable for American interests, but it’s difficult to ignore the elephant in the room. For all the talk of shared political values, India is a backsliding democracy that has often opposed American international initiatives. It’s crucial to analyze and appreciate the strengthening U.S.-India partnership for what it is, a transactional relationship built on mutual interests.

Despite their shared democratic heritage, the U.S. and India historically remained at odds in the international arena. In fact, New Delhi enjoyed warmer relations with Moscow than Washington during the Cold War. As a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, India has long resisted Washington’s orbit, balancing between the competing interests of the U.S. and Soviet-led blocs. This non-aligned posture persists today, demonstrated by Mr. Modi’s refusal to denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

However, these historical differences should not prevent Washington and New Delhi from becoming partners or even friends in the emerging multipolar order. Both countries face a common geopolitical adversary in China and have numerous incentives for intensive collaboration. Presently, Indian and American interests are more closely aligned than ever before, and unlike previous decades, Washington needs India just as much as India needs Washington.

New Delhi recognizes Washington as a critical source of investment and advanced technology, while Washington sees New Delhi as a burgeoning economic superpower that has yet to realize its immense potential. In his address to Congress, Mr. Modi aptly described the scope of U.S.-Indian cooperation as “limitless.” Encouragingly, this cooperation is already gaining momentum, evident in the announcement of several new agreements covering diverse policy initiatives.

During their discussion, President Biden and Mr. Modi unveiled a range of defense-related arrangements, including New Delhi’s plans to acquire thirty-one MQ-9Bs drones from the U.S. Notably, General Electric will manufacture F414 fighter jet engines in India, collaborating with the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics. As the world’s largest arms importer, India presents an attractive market for U.S. defense contractors. However, the primary aim is to reduce India’s reliance on Russian military hardware. New Delhi sources nearly half of its supplies from Moscow, and Washington hopes to limit a vital revenue stream for the Kremlin while bolstering military interoperability with India. Moreover, India is open to procuring equipment elsewhere, particularly given Russia’s underwhelming military performance in Ukraine.

Economically, as the U.S., and to a lesser extent the EU, look to decouple from China and locate alternative supply chain destinations, India increasingly appears as the most promising option. Recognizing his country’s untapped industrial capacity, Mr. Modi has positioned his “Made in India” initiative as a cornerstone of his political agenda. Although India’s current manufacturing share of total GDP is 14%, well below his ambitious 25% target, recent developments mark a political triumph for Mr. Modi. On June 22nd, Micron Technology announced it would invest over $800 million in a new semiconductor factory in Gujarat, its first-ever venture in India. Additionally, Applied Materials will allocate $400 million over four years to establish a similar semiconductor center. As confidence in India’s manufacturing capabilities continues to grow, more private-sector deals like these are expected to emerge in the coming months and years.

Additional arrangements cover space exploration, quantum computing, telecommunications, renewable energy, critical minerals, and trade. Notably, Washington will streamline the visa approval process, simplifying the pathway for skilled Indian professionals to remain and work in the U.S. Developments and initiatives of this breadth signify the dawn of a new era in U.S.-India strategic relations.

Throughout Mr. Modi’s visit, U.S. policymakers vaunted U.S.-India relations as a natural friendship rooted in a shared commitment to democracy. Mr. Modi reiterated the term “democracy” seventeen times during his address to Congress. While bilateral relations have reached a new level of depth, idealized depictions of democratic kinship oversimplify and skew the relationship’s fundamental reality.

As a rising global power, India holds its own aspirations and vision for its role in the world. Furthermore, Mr. Modi’s ethnonationalism and illiberal practices are widely acknowledged. It’s also evident that Mr. Modi does not subscribe to President Biden’s democracy vs. autocracy dichotomy. When U.S. politicians portray India as an ally in the international struggle for democracy, it not only misrepresents the situation but also undermines America’s position as the global champion of human rights. And while India conducts free elections, its long-term vision diverges from Washington. For example, from 2014-2019, India’s votes in the UN General Assembly coincided with the U.S. a mere 20% of the time. Moreover, India’s active participation in the BRICS further complicates the relationship’s dynamics.

However, the significance of Mr. Modi’s visit and its implications for U.S.-India relations should not be understated. Historically, unity and cooperation flourish in the face of a common threat, and in this case, that threat is China. While India and the U.S. have distinct reasons for tensions with China, the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true. The series of agreements attest to the recent strategic alignment and convergence of mutual interests as both countries navigate the complexities of the 21st century. By forging closer ties, the U.S.-India partnership has the potential to shape the future of the Indo-Pacific and stabilize an increasingly fragile international order.

There are only so many options for the future of the relationship between China and the United States. I’ve been able to identify three:

1. One of the two countries makes the active choice to initiate a military campaign against the other.
2. The two nations continue playing their ongoing game of chicken, hoping against hope to avoid an accident that leads to escalation.  
3. China and the United States work diplomatically to establish guidelines for a working relationship in the midst of an economic and ideological rivalry.

In truth, these three options can be boiled down to two- either preserve the status quo and allow “the fates” to decide if and when a conflict takes place, or engage diplomatically to disrupt the trend of increasingly frigid relations between the two superpowers.

To the extent that we can imagine a clear endgame for each of the aforementioned paths, choosing between “brinkmanship” and diplomacy is just as much a logic problem as it is a diplomatic matter. The United States and China will work together diplomatically or the risk of conflict between the two nations will continue to rise until either accident or malice makes fighting inevitable.

It is not difficult to glimpse this “small piece of the future that has already come to pass”, and the horror of conflict between superpowers armed with nuclear weapons is unimaginable. As a consequence, this is a call for direct diplomacy, even when that means making difficult choices.

Reports suggest that China is making a massive investment in Cuba in exchange for the ability to use Cuban territory to host a spy base. Certainly this represents an escalation from the American perspective, but just as clearly it mirrors what the United States has done through increased weapons sales to Taiwan. Those of us with a Western bias, myself included, might be uncomfortable with this comparison, but that discomfort does little to hide the similarities. 

If negotiations fail, or fail to occur in earnest in the first place, the United States faces grim prospects regarding a conflict over Taiwan. Wargames regularly project that American forces would struggle to respond to the initial attempt to occupy Taiwan due to China’s proximity, and that the vast ocean between the United States and the conflict would stress the demand for both resources and reinforcements. 

Taiwan is an independent country, and an American effort to resist a potential occupation would, by every measure, be a defensive war. That first fact being established  such a conflict would come with the demands and difficulties of an offensive operation. This factor, more than any other, explains the outcomes projected by the war games mentioned earlier.

Even with this context in mind, the United States remains the most powerful nation in the world, there is little room to argue otherwise. Still, the period of unquestioned global hegemony experienced following the end of the Cold War is coming to an end- this much is equally obvious. Momentarily putting China to the side, nations including India, Brazil, and South Africia are on upward trajectories, and each rising power will want some measure of respect, and decision making autonomy, in accordance with their heightened global role. 

The United States will need to work diplomatically and collaboratively with these nations in order to maintain, and hopefully deepen relationships with these rising powers. Not only are strongarm tactics distasteful, but the would-be targets have grown too large for such tactics to be effective. Now is the moment to initiate a new era of American diplomacy that emphasizes the strength of the American economy and the virtues of democratic government.

This sort of diplomatic approach will likely come with a re-entrenchment of America’s military positioning, but that does not mean ignoring the national interest. Continued support for Ukraine, for example, allows the United States to work with partners around the world against expansionism. Still, a diplomatic mentality means not exacerbating Putin’s insecurities once the invasion has been rebuffed. 

Bringing the conflict in Ukraine to an end is only truly valuable if that resolution secures a lasting peace. This will mean asking difficult questions about continued NATO expansion- avoiding conflict with China will likely mean asking equally difficult questions.

Perhaps the key challenge for the United States in the coming decades, both regarding China and regarding the world’s many other nations, will be understanding when and where to emphasize the various tools in America’s famed Arsenal of Democracy. In order to avoid conflict with China and strengthen ties with other rising powers, the United States should prioritize diplomats over dominance.

–

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association. The views expressed here are his and not necessarily those of the Association.

Leopard 2A6 and Leopard 2A4 suffer their first losses in Ukraine

Recent reports of the Spring Offensive in Ukraine have started off with mixed news for Ukraine. While there have been reports of some gains, the recent destruction of a dam has flooded an area south of Kherson, narrowing the territory where Ukraine can conduct their offensive. While Ukraine does have some amphibious vehicles, Russia’s numerous BMP-3s would likely be the dominant weapon in assaulting or repelling attacks in water logged regions. A ground offensive to take this now flooded territory has likely been halted, blunting the southern push against Russian fixed defences south of Kherson.

Images and video of newly supplied NATO weapons being destroyed have also appeared from the front line in Ukraine. The loss of what looks to be two Leopard 2A6s and one Leopard 2A4 was accompanied by the loss of several American made Bradley fighting vehicles. The loss of so many Bradleys will be surprising, but the loss of what was promoted as the iron fisted Leopard 2 tanks is something Russia will use to regain their reputation as a strong and capable military force.

During the 1991 Gulf War, there were very few losses of American tanks and vehicles to enemy fire. One of the most notable losses was a crew member who was killed when a Soviet made BMP-1 used its low velocity cannon designed in the 1950s to penetrate the turret of a Bradley fighting vehicle. While the Bradley is a remarkable machine, it is not invincible or as well protected as a tank. The advantage of the Bradleys were to move troops quickly to needed areas and support troops with its cannon. The Bradley’s also have two TOW missiles that can eliminate most Russian tanks, but direct fire or artillery fire on a Bradley will almost always take them out of a fight.

The Leopard 2s were always a mixed solution for Ukraine. In the past, versions of Turkey’s Leopard 2A4s were damaged and destroyed fighting militants in Syria. While the Leopard 2A6s are the most modern version of the tank given to Ukraine, they are not invincible, especially against artillery. The front of the 2A6s, while very well protected, does not extend with the same level of protection on the sides and back of the Leopard 2A6. There are only a limited number of high value weapons NATO countries can spare, and there are not an unlimited amount of Leopard 2 tanks available NATO allies can do without.

The confidence NATO has in the Leopard 2s are likely well founded, but with Ukraine now on the offensive against fixed positions, there will be big losses for the attacking side. While publicly unexpected, Ukrainian Forces have known that losses would also include some of the best weapons on the field. Heavy losses were expected, and images of burning NATO tanks should have been known to be used by Russia. The images of advanced Russian tanks exploding and losing their turrets formed much of the narrative of a weak and disorganised Russian military. Images and videos of NATO tanks perishing in much of the same manner will be used to change the narrative. The biggest loss for Ukraine will not be Leopard 2 tanks, but the will of the West to support its offensive against Russia over time.

Losing the support of NATO may come in different forms. A successful attack by Ukraine in pushing Russian forces back to the the 2014 lines may encourage many allies to push for a cease-fire, especially if weapons are depleted and local politics in ally countries turn against further combat support. As mentioned above, a change in narrative with the view of NATO tanks and equipment suffering losses to the once embarrassed Russian Army may turn ally and adversary opinions over once again as it did with Russia’s retreat from the assault on Ukraine’s major cities. Ukraine depends greatly on the morality of their cause, and NATO allies depend greatly on its popular support from their people. Losing Leopard 2 tanks in the field in horrific ways will most likely change the narrative rapidly.

Another form of lost support for Ukraine will come from a slow degradation of support for their cause within ally countries themselves. The anti-war movement in the United States seems to pass to both sides of the aisle. Scenes of a recently fallen Afghanistan are mixed with the aftermath of recent conflicts there and in Iraq as American servicemen and servicewomen are back home dealing with the after-effects of being in combat. Policies that do little to quell conflict in Ukraine also turn the public against the war. Lives could be saved if foreign drones were prevented from freely making it to Russia to be used as terror weapons. Policies should be changed to use North American energy reserves to displace the large war chest being paid for by still persistent exports of Russian Oil and Gas.

Actions by NATO allies to create the image of support hurt Ukraine’s ability to fight Russia if those actions do not lead to positive and practical outcomes. An absurd example comes by way of the treatment of Canadian NATO members who diligently have gone to Poland and Latvia to support NATO forces helping Ukraine. Canadian Forces in Europe have been ignored by their Government to the point of being a health and safety risk. Many Canadian soldiers in Poland were not given food to eat while in Poland, to the point of going into personal debt to compensate while contributing their lives to Canada, NATO and Ukraine. Canadian soldiers in Latvia were sent on training missions without protective gear, notably helmets. Their Government have ignored these issues, all while promising more Canadian Forces member’s help, money and now even a big plane. Canada said they would not meet NATOs minimum contributions as they gave more than any other nation to help Ukraine(not nearly as much as Poland), but the end result put well intentioned Canadian soldiers in danger. When assistance is given, but done to the detriment of your population who want to help, it obviously sours support for your united cause.

Ukraine’s successes or failures in pressing south to the Black Sea and fighting to re-gain territories lost in 2014 must be measured with the amount of support they realistically expect to achieve at each level of the conflict. If Ukraine can manage expectations of their successes with images of losses, they would have just managed one piece of the larger support puzzle. Objectives of success may differ in the minds of NATO allies. Accepting support from allies who’s good faith does not extend back home to their own population or troops will damage future campaigns without question. It is important to be careful in this regard.

According to a recent Gallop Poll, about 82 percent of the Armenian population reject Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijani territory.    Some 86 percent of Armenians cannot imagine Karabakh Armenians having a future within the State of Azerbaijan.   The survey questioned a representative sample of 1,100 Armenians.

This latest survey comes after the International Republican Institute conducted a similar public opinion survey in 2021, where they found that 35 percent of Armenians believe that an acceptable solution to the Karabakh conflict is the recognition of Armenian Karabakh as a state, 34% of Armenians believe that Karabakh should be included as a region within Armenia, 16% of Armenians believe Karabakh should be a region within Armenia and 11% believe the area should be annexed to Russia.  

Only one percent of Armenians then were willing to consider other options that entail a compromise with Azerbaijan.   The same survey found that 90 percent of Armenians believe the relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia is very bad, 77 percent of Armenians claimed that Azerbaijan posed the greatest political threat to their country and only 4 percent of Armenians believed that efforts should be made to improve the relationship with Azerbaijan.

While Azerbaijan laid out five principles for the establishment of peace between their country and Armenia in 2022, where they emphasized that it is pivotal that Armenia recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and only rule within its own internationally recognized borders, Armenians in contrast do not have a united vision regarding a peace treaty with Azerbaijan.    In fact, while Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has shown a willingness to compromise, there is heavy opposition in the Armenian Diaspora, in the Armenian Parliament and among Karabakh separatist leaders to any peace treaty being signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In fact, ANCA in the United States is presently leading efforts to end US military aid to Azerbaijan and to sanction Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.  According to one of their recent press releases, “Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) teamed up to introduce Anti-Blockade legislation today, backed by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), and supported by a wide array of American civil society coalition partners, increasing U.S. pressure on Azerbaijan to end its nearly six-month long blockade of 120,000 Christian Armenians in their indigenous Artsakh homeland.”  

This was accompanied by an ANCA online petition to the Association of Christian Lawmakers, asking them “to cancel a planned speech by Azerbaijani Ambassador Khazar Ibrahim, in solidarity with the Christians of Armenia –the world’s first Christian nation, facing existential threats from Turkey and its oil-rich ally Azerbaijan.”  Even as Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan comes closer to signing a peace treaty with Azerbaijan, which likely would recognize Azerbaijani territorial claims to Karabakh in exchange for Azerbaijan granting Karabakh Armenians equal rights and both Turkey and Azerbaijan ending their economic blockade of the land-locked Caucuses country, ANCA and other Armenian Diaspora organizations have not backed down with their anti-Azerbaijani initiatives in the US Congress and across the globe.

Meanwhile, within Armenia proper, Armenian opposition MP Gegham Manukyan (ARF) believes any peace deal that Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan signs with Baku will not guarantee peace, but will open the door for further Armenian capitulations.  He accused the Pashinyan administration of backpedaling on the rights of the Armenians of Karabakh and merely recognizing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.  And if one considers the latest public opinion surveys by Gallop, Manukyan and other Armenians in the opposition can do much to hinder the successful completion of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. 

For this reason, Armenian public opinion remains the main stumbling block for the successful competition of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  Thus, for the successful completion of a peace treaty, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan must do more than recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity over Karabakh.   He must also educate his own people to support the peace agreement or else the peace will not last.