Foreign Policy Blogs

According to the statement signed between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia on November 10, 2020, the Armenians were supposed to return the city of Lachin to Azerbaijan within three years. The reason why Lachin was returned so late was that the Armenians living in Khankendi used the road through Lachin. Azerbaijan made an alternative route within 1 year and 8 months and demanded from the Republic of Armenia to evacuate the city of Lachin and return it to the Azerbaijani side on August 5.

However, the Armenians requested more time from Azerbaijan and stated that the city will be evacuated on August 25. Thus, on August 26, 2022, the Armenians left the city of Lachin and the Azerbaijani army entered the area. On September 21, Ilham Aliyev visited the city of Lachin and waved the flag of Azerbaijan on the central street in the center of the city of Lachin.

In response to Armenia’s claim that Azerbaijan is waging war on Armenian lands, Aliyev stated that Azerbaijan has not violated the borders of any state, as there has been no demarcation of borders between the two countries: “If Armenia claims this, then let it show its borders.  Let me reiterate that we are ready for discussions and are treating the work of the Azerbaijan-Armenia commissions with great responsibility. We have collected all the maps. I want to say once again that we have all the maps, including those from the 19th century, the 20th century and even earlier, and those maps clearly show who is located on which land. Therefore, no-one can accuse us in the absence of demarcation.”

Speaking in the city of Lachin, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized that Armenia committed atrocities in Lachin as well as in other areas of Karabakh, placed about 1,400 mines in Lachin, and destroyed historical and religious monuments even after the end of the war. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan offered to sign a peace agreement with Armenia as soon as the war ended, he noted that the other side not only refused to sign the peace agreement, but also made new provocations.

In his speech, Aliyev also touched on the activities of international organizations such as the UN Security Council and the OSCE Minsk Group, which supported the Armenian side during the thirty years of Armenian occupation of the area in violation of four UN Security Council resolutions and did not impose any sanctions against it.

At the end of his speech, Ilham Aliyev, who spoke about the work done and to be done in Lachin, noted that the construction of the Gubadli-Lachin railway will soon begin in Lachin. Construction of 12 tunnels in the distance from Murov Mountain to Lachin city is also on the list of tasks to be done. In order to prevent problems related to electricity, the construction of Gülabird Hydropower Station in Lachin is also planned.

This speech was made at a time when Azerbaijan’s embassy in France was attacked.  Associate Professor Maxime Gauin noted that there were two attacks, “one on the embassy and one on the Azerbaijani cultural center.  The one against the embassy was an unauthorized demonstration organized by the Dashnaks and the Parisian police did nothing.   They were not aware.   They did not know there was a demonstration that was there because the police did not receive any intelligence regarding the project.”

He continued, “Then, there was a conference on the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Yerevan, which was protested by Charjoum.   These people considered the Dashnaks too soft and left them to be their own group.   There, the police knew about the protest and arrived before the Armenians.  They were not allowed to approach the building.    But they were there, nevertheless.”

According to Gauin,    “It reminds me of the situation 50 years ago.  In France in the 1970’s, it was the Dashnak youth who incited the leadership to incite terrorism.   There were also people who left the party who felt it was not revolutionary enough.  These people became the branch of ASALA in France.   In the Facebook page of Charjoum, they make references to ASALA.   People must be careful in monitoring them as the worst may emerge from these persons.”  

The prevalence of violent extremism in the United States poses an increasing threat on national security. Historically, policymakers have focused counterterrorism efforts on external Islamic terror threats. A shift in focus is necessary to address the alarming rise of far-right ideology within the United States following the presidency of Donald Trump. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, racially motivated extremism and anti-government extremism pose two of the biggest domestic threats to U.S. national security. In 2020, white supremacists conducted 67% of all terror plots in the United States.[1] Anti-authority extremists carried out an additional 20%. Popular culture often views Islamic terrorists as the main threat, but Salafi-jihadist groups carried out a meager 7% of attacks in 2020.[2]

White supremacy and anti-government dialogue made its way into mainstream platforms alongside the populist rise of Donald Trump. His 2016 campaign, and subsequent presidency, capitalized on undercurrents of racial resentment. Trump’s focus on “political incorrectness” allowed fringe ideologies to rise to the surface.[3] However, this far-right extremism is not a new phenomenon. Racial hatred has remained a pervasive and damaging issue in America for hundreds of years. With each new decade, this hatred takes on a different shape. Today, far-right extremists fear tactics focused on xenophobia and racism to recruit new members from vulnerable populations.

            In June of 2021, President Biden released the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Extremism. The 32-page report defines domestic extremism as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws in the US” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] influence … a government.”[4] It identifies racially-motivated extremism and anti-authority extremism as the two main domestic terror threats. The report details the extent of the problem, identifies a strategy organized around four main pillars, and then expands on those pillars through a series of strategic goals.

            The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Extremism takes a broad yet multi-faceted approach to counter-extremism policy. It calls for improved research, increased resources dedicated to preventing recruitment, and a more legislative dimension to addressing domestic terrorism. It’s strengths lie with its multi-level approach to information sharing within government institutions, its focus on the vulnerability of veterans to recruitment, and its recognition of the need to address the shifting landscape of domestic threats. However, it faces four major challenges. First, the entire strategy lacks specificity. Throughout an evaluation of the strategy, a lack of specificity plagues nearly every pillar. The first pillar fails to account for the contextual differences between communities. The second pillar needs to better explain how prevention measures will be balanced with respect for civil liberties. The third pillar focuses on legislative reforms that would require a more precise definition of domestic terrorism, which the U.S. government currently lacks. This lack of specificity will not only make the strategy difficult to implement, but it will also make it less consumable for the general public.

The second major challenge for the strategy is that it does not focus heavily enough on addressing the drivers for far-right extremism. Biden’s administration has a firm grasp on the ideology behind the movement, but it fails to tackle the conditions that leave people vulnerable to these ideologies. It addresses the proliferation of social media, which is a major contributor, but lacks programs to tackle systemic issues like poverty, low access to quality education, and xenophobia.

            The third major challenge facing this strategy is its failure to address the gendered dynamics of violent extremism. The approach to countering these ideologies requires a holistic understanding of how far-right extremism impacts men and women differently. Far-right groups appeal to women in unique ways, and understanding all recruitment narratives is crucial for employing CVE policy. Women play a key role in the recruitment of new members, the spread of propaganda, and the organization of far-right groups. They made up 14% of arrests from the capital riots of January 6, 2021.[5] The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Extremism makes no mention of the gendered dynamics of far-right extremism. Biden’s strategy needs an additional pillar solely focused on addressing the recruitment of women.

            The fourth major challenge is the strategy’s failure to address the youth dynamics of violent extremism. Approximately 32% of the U.S. population is below the age of 25. This age group is a sprawling base from which far-right groups attempt to recruit. Young people’s “real or perceived disengagement and marginalization” make them highly vulnerable to recruitment narratives. With expanding access to social media platforms, marginalized youths on the internet are easy targets for far-right. Biden’s plan addresses the prominent role of social media in recruitment, but it needs a tighter focus on the vulnerability of young people.

[1] Jones, Seth. 2020. “The War Comes Home: The Evolution of Domestic Terrorism in the United States.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. October 22, 2020. https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-comes-home-evolution-domestic-terrorism-united-states.

[2] Jones, Seth. 2020. “The War Comes Home.” Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[3]“Watch How Trump’s War on ‘Political Correctness’ Turned into Hate Speech.” Vanity Fair. August 9, 2016. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/donald-trump-political-incorrectness.

[4] “The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.” WhiteHouse.Gov. June2021: pg. 8. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-Strategy-for-Countering-Domestic-Terrorism.pdf.

[5] Rubin, Olivia, and Will Steakin. 2021. “‘We Did Our Part’: The Overlooked Role Women Played in the Capitol Riot.” ABC News. April 8, 2021. https://abcnews.go.com/US/part-overlooked-role-women-played-capitol-riot/story?id=76924779.

The Ukrainian Army has made dramatic strides in the last few weeks. Ukraine’s tactical commanders have outfoxed their Russian counterparts, and by issuing a feint towards the south the UA has been able to earn substantial gains in the north of their country. The impact of these efforts have been compounded by the steady stream of weapons and equipment from the United States and NATO partners- More specific accounting of the tactical maneuvering is being done by The Institute for the Study of War.

These successes, though important, do not suggest that the war is on the verge of coming to an end. Russian forces still occupy some 34,750 square miles of sovereign Ukrainian territory. More than that, despite prior public statements that Russia was conducting its “special military operation” in order to liberate the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, Russian collaborators in those regions have promoted referendums are expected to be held between September 23rd and 27th that aimed at integrating those regions with Russia. These machinations have coincided with a (domestically very unpopular) plan to mobilize some additional 300,000 reservists and conscripts. 

These referendums, if passed, would provide Russia with the manufactured casus belli that Ukraine and NATO forces are carrying out attacks within Russian territory, and might therefore allow for a more obvious mobilization effort. Former Russian President Damitri Medvedev is quoted as saying that the referendums were important for their contributions to the, “systematic defense” of Russian territory, and continued that, “an encroachment on Russian territory is a crime.”

Of course, Mr Medvedev is correct- encroachment on Russian territory is a crime. So too is the invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. Similarly, for all of the reasons that the Ukrainian government should have worked more closely with French and German mediators to follow through on the terms of the Minsk Protocols, the Russian government cannot, without international condemnation, ignore its ethical and legal responsibility to prevent the spread of dishonest information based upon the results of a obviously illegitimate vote. 

While the United States cannot prevent Russian state-media’s attempts at double-speak, American leadership can do much to clarify its own messaging.

In the face of an increasingly multi-polar world (despite Russia’s displayed incompetence and what it might imply about China’s true capacity) the United States and its allies have a delicate line to balance. Little can be done to quell the endless rumors about what was or was not agreed to between Secretary of State James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev about the future of NATO expansion in 1990- this is no excuse for a lack of clarity about NATO’s potential expansion and mission moving forward.

Similarly, there should be no denying that honest calls for nationhood should be facilitated through a legitimate democratic process. There should also be no denying that the long recognized corruption that marred the Ukrainian government was not somehow cleaned out with the onset of Russia’s attempted invasion. Pretending otherwise makes the United States and its allies appear dishonest and weakens our bargaining positions on other key international issues.

Even more than these things, however, there should be no credible doubt that the humanitarian catastrophe brought on by the Kremlin’s aggression is not in any way justified by Ukraine’s governance issues or slowness in adhering to the Minsk Protocols. International bodies and co-signatories provide a far more effective and ethical way of resolving disputes, and the integrity of those bodies and treaties is dependent on the good-faith and trust of their participants. As such, it is important that the United States and its allies participate in good faith- even in the face of an obviously bad actor like Vladmir Putin.

While it is important that we take the time to recognize, and celebrate, the success of Ukraine’s Army and partisan forces in resisting Russian aggression, it would be long sighted to limit American and NATO armed support to those which can be used for substantively defensive purposes. Towards this end, NATO members should continue to provide the Javelin anti-tank systems and Byractar drones that have proven so effective in slowing the advance of Russian armored columns. Mobile artillery units with a range that surpass their Russian equivalents like the M142 HIMARS have played a dramatic role in disrupting Russian cross-river movements, but ensuring that these NATO provided weapons are not used to strike targets within legitimate Russian territory could prove pivotal in preventing further escalation of the conflict. Similarly, it should not be taken for granted that Ukraine be extended NATO membership in the aftermath of the conflict- such an action would give credence to the idea that the United States resisted Russia’s obvious attempts at empire largely for the sake of extending its own more subtle empire.

In addition to these direct efforts, the United States and its partners should look for non-military means of strengthening their hand against bad actors into the future. These efforts might range from promoting election integrity domestically to diversifying energy sourcing. They most certainly include pushing for increased public awareness about key foreign policy issues and the continued re-staffing of the diplomatic corps as a way of peacefully promoting the cause of Democracy and Liberalism beyond our borders.

While the conflict in Ukraine will likely rage on for months to come, there is some real chance that historians will consider the push that took place in mid-September to represent the turning point of the conflict. In the event that this is true, the United States, Ukraine, and all other concerned parties should do just as much to facilitate a successful peace as they will certainly do to bring about an end to the war.

—

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

The recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine was taken by many Central and Eastern European countries as a sign of drastic change in a part of the world that had not experienced such a transformation in a generation. The annexation of Crimea was not met with much of a response beyond limited sanctions in 2014, and the war in the East of Ukraine received little long term attention outside of the region, even after an airliner was shot down by a BUK missile system. Recent rapid advances on Kyiv put countries like Poland on intense alert, and assured that their actions in seeking modern Western weapons systems was a reasonable and essential policy direction for the country. Poland is planning to reform its military, and is likely going to become one of the most advanced militaries in Central Europe.

Policies that have come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine ensured large amounts weapons being sent in support of Ukraine as well as historic levels of assistance given to Ukraine and countries bordering the former Soviet Union. In order to give the Ukrainian forces the ability to respond rapidly to Russian advances, weapons systems similar to those that are used by Ukraine’s Armed Forces were sought over more modern Western weapons systems that would have required additional training, time and support. Older Soviet systems like the T-72 and MiG-29 were dedicated or given to Ukraine with an agreement with the US or Germany to displace the older systems with more modern German and American tanks and weapons systems. Central European powers that were using modernised equipment from the Cold War era are now able to obtain many NATO weapons systems if they sent their Cold War era equipment to Ukraine. Those systems are increasingly being seen in videos of the conflict and are already having an effect with Polish made tanks being seen on the field, advancing in the Kherson region and region around Kharkiv.

The weapons displacement program has met some hurdles, but the intent and policy approach has two major benefits. Besides supporting Ukraine with already active equipment, the displacement of the equipment with advanced systems like Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and M1A2 tanks from the US gives countries bordering Russia and Belarus a distinct advantage. Modernising Central European countries with NATO weapons also brings that region closer to the West, and pulls them further from the influence of Russia and their government. Outside of the direct policy approach, the actions and support of Ukraine’s Armed Forces will blunt the ability of Russia to pose a serious threat using conventional arms to former Warsaw Pact nations that have spent much of their post-Cold War freedom pulling away from Russian influence.

While support and weapons from the West and NATO have had a major impact on Russian equipment and morale, it is important not to take recent victories with a grain of salt by pushing polices too widely or aggressively. Like with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, policies that tie NATO long term to a conflict or a specific region may end up causing more strife and end in a long term loss for the West. If done more rapidly, putting Russia in a corner may illicit and overreaction by Russia if they feel they have fewer options in ensuring their own national security. What already seems to be occurring is that support for one conflict may add fuel to the fire towards other conflicts in other parts of the world, creating long term problems outside of Eastern Europe. A holistic and well thought out policy direction is essential, the absence of one is already a catalyst for the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine threatens the existing system of international relations and creates the preconditions for regional conflicts in Europe. In Ukraine, Putin has tested and created a new tool for blurring borders and separating the territories of neighboring countries by creating so-called “gray zones” or “gray enclaves”, the classic examples of which are the “DNR” and “LNR”(“Donetsk and Luhansk People Republics”).

In 2014, the Russian Federation used the tactics of “biting off small pieces” from Ukraine, de facto occupying a significant part of the Ukrainian Donbas. Russia has applied similar schemes in other countries. For example, immediately after the collapse of the USSR, armed conflicts began in Moldova and Georgia: in 1992 in Transnistria and Abkhazia, and this was largely due to the indirect influence of Russia, which in every possible way supported the separatist movements in the post-Soviet space, spreading its influence through them.

But in Ukraine, Russia is testing and scaling up a technology that is extremely dangerous for Europe to form “gray zones” of instability, which, like cancerous metastases, tend to expand and appear in other countries, even those not adjacent to Russia. This tactic is part of the toolkit of the so-called hybrid aggression – a complex, predominantly non-military confrontation with an asymmetrically stronger or numerically stronger enemy, a direct military clash with which is undesirable.

Putin sees the West as such an adversary, which he considers a civilizational enemy. At the moment, for the first time since 1991, Russia poses a direct threat to Europe by creating “gray zones” in Ukraine, where the issue of the continued existence of Western civilization is being decided.

By invading Ukraine on February 24, Putin opened a geopolitical Pandora’s Box, setting off a chain of irreversible processes within the system of international relations. An attempt to occupy a sovereign state is a denial of the principles of the inviolability of borders that were formed after the Second World War, which means the leveling of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, which made it possible to effectively eliminate the prerequisites for the emergence of interstate conflicts in post-war Europe. Putin has disrupted the stability of the existing system of international relations and created global geopolitical turbulence.

The analysis of the mechanism of hybrid aggression, tested by Putin in Ukraine, makes it possible to understand what an unprecedented threat Europe is facing. At the initial level, this hybrid strategy is based on separatist sentiments, which are especially strong in the Balkans, if we talk about the European continent. To reinforce such tendencies, the Kremlin uses its agents of influence and funding so that the proxies sponsored by it not only declare themselves as potentially independent players but also weaken and destabilize the country as much as possible, posing a threat to its integrity and sovereignty.

The tactics of such aggression are quite flexible: if in the case of the Ukrainian Donbas, Russia tried to consolidate its political, economic, and military presence as much as possible, then, for example, in the case of Serbia, which is currently destabilizing the Balkans, unquestioning implementation of the Kremlin’s political instructions is sufficient.

Russian influence can be indirect: it is not necessary to use military force, as happened in 2014 in the Donbas. In the case of Europe, it is enough to have agents of influence who will undermine the socio-political situation within a country or region. The Kremlin’s goal is to destabilize and deplete the object of the hybrid attack, demoralize the population, and create unbearable conditions for life with parallel rampant crime, corruption, etc. As a rule, Russia does not need such “gray zones” as territorial acquisitions. They serve as an instrument of influence. It is precisely the game of separatism that can turn into the presence of Russia anywhere on the continent, and at the moment, seeing that the military arsenal of the Russian Federation is incomparable with NATO, Putin begins to actively apply the tactics of creating “gray zones” in Europe, starting with Ukraine.

Hybrid aggression is carried out mainly by non-military methods, but it cannot exist without a strong army. Therefore, Ukraine is a bulwark of defense of the eastern borders of Europe. And the outcome of this confrontation depends on the full support of Kyiv, the Ukrainian army, which defends not only its country but the whole of Europe from Russian aggression. Ukraine needs Western weapons capable of exhausting and weakening the Russian army that threatens Europe.

Mykola Volkivskyi is an international public figure, fellow of the Lane Kirkland Scholarship, Founder of the Foundation for the Development of Ukraine in Poland, and the IGR in Kyiv.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the United Kingdom now has its first King since George VI more than seven decades ago. Saturday September 10, 2022 is recorded in history as the day Prince Charles was proclaimed as King Charles III. Aside from the challenge of having to (ceremonially) lead a country that is undergoing political and economic turmoil with a Prime Minister—Liz Truss—who has less than  a week of experience in her top executive position, the new king comes with a mixed bag of goodwill and controversy. An international media and tabloid feeding frenzy is already underway.

In his previous role as The Prince of Wales and a monarch of wide international fame, the new King is accused of using his influences to advance UK’s weapons industry deals with his personal friends. He has held dozens of meetings with rulers of repressive regimes in the Middle East since the Arab Spring in 2011. He has “played a key role in promoting £14.5-billion worth of UK arms exports to these regimes.” According to UK Declassified, there is no question that he was a royalty-level salesman for UK arms makers during said period.

The ‘Barack Hussein’ Effect

At the heart of the controversy surrounding the new King is his stance on Islam and Muslims. His affinity with Islam and vision to improve the relationship between the Western and the Islamic world extend for decades. In his speech Islam and the West that was delivered at Oxford in 1993, he said:

“I believe wholeheartedly that the links between these two worlds matter more today than ever before, because the degree of misunderstanding between the Islamic and Western worlds remains dangerously high, and because the need for the two to live and work together in our increasingly interdependent world has never been greater.”

In his previous role, the new King has also taken positions that opposed UK foreign policy. The most notables are: His opposition to the Iraq war and the neocon foreign policy adventures; his disagreement with the notion that those cartoonists who flagrantly offended Prophet Muhammad were merely exercising the democratic value of freedom of expression. Also, his disagreement with the burqa and hijab ban in Europe.

Moreover, the new King is sympathetic to the Palestinian people’s right to an independent state. Granted, as a King, his leadership is ceremonial and his political views must be shelved in his royal bedroom closet, but that will not be enough to tame the usual suspects—Islamophobes and Zionists of all shades—who are determined to ferociously come after the new King to make him an unpopular King by accusing him of being a Muslim in disguise.

In his previous role, the new King has offended some when it became public that he learned Arabic, studies the Quran, and believes that “Christianity can learn from Islam.” Unlike most of the Western leaders, he had no problem offering a counter-narrative to Islamophobia. He refused to accept the so-called clash of civilization thesis popularized by the neocons. “I do not accept the argument that they (the Western and Islamic cultures) are on a course to clash in a new era of antagonism. I am utterly convinced that our two worlds have much to offer each other. We have much to do together. I am delighted that the dialogue has begun, both in Britain and elsewhere.”

And in a speech he delivered in Saudi Arabia 2006, he said: “We need to recover the depth, the subtlety, the generosity of imagination, the respect for wisdom that so marked Islam in its great ages …”

These sympathetic public statements at an era of glorified jingoism and ruthless Islamophobia made then Prince Charles a target. In 2003, two months before President George W. Bush appointed him to sit on the board of United states Institute for Peace, the notorious Islamophobe Daniel Pipes has published a long dossier to implicate Prince Charles as a Muslim in disguise.

King Charles III is set to become UK’s Barack Hussein Obama, at least in being projected as an alien leader. Each, on his own, has undergone an up close and personal experience that inspired him to form his own perspective and narrative on Islam and Muslims. And their respective narratives, needless to say, flies in the face of the traditional aristocrats, the political elite, and the ideologically-driven media.

To bulwark against political demonization, the new King may have to dominate the headlines by taking the moral stance that his late mother—Queen Elizabeth II—failed to take: offer an official apology to all of the countries that suffered exploitation and oppression under the British colonial enterprise. His first step should be that which could be his legacy.

Meanwhile, in a country that virtually drifted away from its religious identity: ‘So what if he is a Muslim?’  

A pair of August elections in Africa produced clear winners, while also sending mixed messages about the strength of each country’s democracy. Meanwhile, two contests in Europe provide potential inroads for right-wing parties.

Kenya 

In Kenya’s August 9 election, Deputy President William Ruto defeated opposition leader Raila Odinga by approximately 233,000 votes, 51–49 percent. 65 percent of registered voters turned out, down from 80 percent in 2017 — and a 15-year low.

Ruto fashioned himself as an anti-establishment “hustler” on the campaign trail, in a populist appeal to Kenya’s disaffected young population. While Ruto is, in reality, an immensely wealthy politician, this outsider branding contrasted him against Odinga (a five-time presidential candidate, former prime minister, and son of Kenya’s first vice president) as well as Odinga’s A-list stump speaker, Uhuru Kenyatta (the outgoing president and son of Kenya’s first president).  

Political dynamics between Kenya’s ethnic groups also played a role. Odinga had hoped to leverage Kenyatta’s influence as an ethnic Kikuyu to gain the backing of Kikuyu voters, the largest bloc in the country. But Odinga is an ethnic Luo, a rival group to the Kikuyu. This derailed Odinga’s plan, as the Kikuyu vote split partially for Ruto, an ethnic Kalenjin, further expanding the deputy president’s base of support. 

This shift in sentiment was partially captured in pre-election polling. On top of the tight topline margins, surveys taken a week before the vote even showed Odinga with a slight lead.

The days following the election, though tense, were markedly less turbulent than the aftermath of other recent contests. In the wake of the 2007 campaign, violence escalated into a months-long ethnic conflict that claimed over a thousand lives. Unrest and frustration erupted again in 2017, when the initial election was annulled and a redo was ordered. But this year, when the Kenyan Supreme Court found no credible evidence of election tampering following a challenge from Odinga, the opposition leader accepted the court’s decision. 

Although there are still concerns about Ruto’s checkered past on human rights, the results of Kenya’s election are, in some ways, an encouraging step for the country. Kenyatta has already promised a smooth transition of power. What’s more, the decisiveness of the court’s ruling could also restore some faith in the functionality, transparency, and independence of Kenya’s democratic institutions.

Angola

Two weeks after Kenyans took to the polls, so too did voters in Angola, a country whose democratic norms are comparatively younger and weaker. For that reason, it can be difficult to draw direct comparisons between the two elections.

The August 24 vote saw President João Lourenço secure a second term after his party, the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), defeated the main opposition, Adalberto Costa Júnior and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), 51–44 percent. 

The 7-point margin makes this one of the closest elections in Angola’s history and marks a record-low showing for the MPLA, which has been in power since the country gained independence from Portugal in 1975. Notably, the party’s vote share has steadily declined in all four post-civil war elections: it received 82 percent in 2008, 72 percent in 2012, and 61 percent in 2017. 

Most recently, the MPLA’s popularity has waned due to economic concerns and dissatisfaction with Lourenço’s handling of corruption. Indeed, pre-election polling painted a tight race, as young voters in particular seemed to move toward UNITA. Surveys taken throughout the summer varied widely, suggesting everything from a 29-point MPLA win to a 26-point UNITA win, often with large shares of respondents not selecting either party.

Overall, the MPLA’s majority in the 220-seat National Assembly fell by 26 seats to 124. UNITA picked up 39 seats, bringing its total to 90. Three other parties — the Social Renewal Party (PRS), the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA), and the Humanist Party of Angola (PHA) — each won two seats. Voter turnout was recorded at 45 percent, down from 76 percent in 2017.

The final results were contested by UNITA, who alleged irregularities in the vote count, but their challenge was swiftly struck down by Angola’s constitutional court. Four of the 16 members of the Angolan National Electoral Commission also refused to sign off on the returns.

Challenges to election results — and concerns over vote tampering — are neither unwarranted nor uncommon in Angola. The ruthless rule of former President José Eduardo dos Santos, Lourenço’s predecessor and Angola’s autocratic leader of 38 years, was defined by the suppression of basic freedoms and the violation of human rights. 

Although dos Santos left office in 2017 and died in July, Angola today remains far from free. The MPLA still has a large amount of control over the electoral process and state media. When it comes to political and civil liberties, Freedom House gives the country a rating of 30 out of 100; Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index scores it one point lower at 29. 

Sweden and Italy

Looking ahead, there are two major European elections in September.

Sweden voted on September 11.

The Social Democrats, led by Magdalena Andersson after the resignation of Prime Minister Stefan Löfven last summer, were looking to maintain control in the Riksdag. Entering the home stretch, pre-election polls showed the Social Democrats ahead by an average of 9 points in a close contest with the conservative Moderate Party, led by Ulf Kristersson, as well as the far-right Sweden Democrats, led by Jimmie Åkesson. In the 2018 election, the Social Democrats outperformed polling expectations by 4 points to win with a 28 percent plurality — the party’s worst electoral showing in over a century.

The election is still too close to call, as of September 12.  With approximately 95 percent of votes counted, the Social Democrats led with 31 percent, the Sweden Democrats earned 21 percent, and the Moderates had 19 percent. This means that no bloc currently possesses an obvious governing majority of 175 seats: the parties supporting the Moderates won a total of 175 seats, while the parties supporting the Social Democrats won 174 seats.

Italy votes on September 25.

Following a falling-out with the left-populist Five Star Movement, Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s unity government collapsed last month, prompting September’s snap elections. The current polling leader is Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing Brothers of Italy, which appears to have enough support from other parties to govern if victorious. Enrico Letta’s center-left Democratic Party is polling in second. Letta would likely continue the current government’s policies, but a right-wing coalition would almost surely ditch Draghi’s direction.

A full summary of both contests will appear in October’s election round-up.

Ukraine has started its advance in the Kherson region in order to reclaim as much territory as possible in the south of Ukraine before Russia attempts to permanently annex large sections of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast. Taking sections of the east of Ukraine would give Russia extra control of Ukraine’s significant agricultural exports. Control in the south of Ukraine would give Russia a great deal of control of much of Ukraine’s shipping along the Black Sea coast. With Russia’s oil and gas industry currently toying with shutting energy exports to Germany and Europe, increased control of these parts of Ukraine would place food security and energy security for much of the world in the Kremlin’s control.

Russia has continued to export to India, is planning an oil and gas pipeline to China to satisfy China’s fuel shortages and is trying to lock in much of the energy exports with ties to Iran while sanctions bite on the Russian economy. With fuel prices slowly dropping, a cut in Europe’s gas supply would likely raise inflation along with the increased need for fuel in the colder months. The rise in fuel prices has buoyed the Rouble despite sanctions, and incentivizes Russia’s further restricting of fuel and increased conflict in Ukraine. While Western weapons supports to Ukraine have been significant, North America’s lacking strategic support of Western Europe’s energy needs has not displaced Russian oil and gas, fuelling Russian Forces instead of heating the homes of their allies. Russia’s ties to other regions and large BRICS economies will give them further control over the world’s food and fuel supplies.

India has taken to protect their own interests in the era of the recent conflict in Ukraine. Russia has always been a large supplier of India’s Defense Forces that are made up of equipment from mostly Russian, French and British made systems to defend its borders with Pakistan and China. India has strong ties in the west, but with US weapons being issued to their adversaries, they have chosen to secure much of their food supplies, energy supplies and military supplies with Russia in order to maintain a power balance in the region. India is well aware that they cannot lose strength in their region, lest be at risk of losing in a greater conflict.

China has taken to increase its military activities around Taiwan and hold relations with Russia and the West to its own advantage. China has ensured much of the financing of Russia and is establishing closer energy ties with Russia in order to remedy their own fuel shortages affecting industry and shipping in China. As with Russia, China has become emboldened after the West abandoned Afghanistan and their allies there, and is well aware of the global chip shortage and Taiwan’s significant contribution to the chip market worldwide. China may now see Russia as a weaker world power after they have witnessed the failure of Russian equipment in the field, but their activity around Taiwan and their concerns with a powerful India keeps China focused on maintaining their own power and control in the region.

Brazil is approaching a fork in the road with an election coming this fall between the current Populist President Bolsonaro and former popular President Lula da Silva. The corruption scandals that rocked the last Presidential election and the question of Brazil’s independence from foreign influence may become the deciding factor of an election that promises to change the future direction of Brazil and Latin America. Inflation after the Olympics and World Cup in Brazil along with corruption tying much of the political class to criminal acts might become the ballot question yet again. Current world issues will exacerbate the problems of four years prior as world inflation and drastic changes for BRICS nations come with their support of the West or Russia and China. The great need for agricultural products and oil and gas will give Brazil a lot of leverage in the global markets. The distrust of international leaders and corporations may swing Brazil away from their traditional markets however, expanding their current business relationship with China and further avoiding criticisms of Russia. This is a complicated question for either candidate it seems and will be of great interest during the upcoming election.

South Africa and much of Africa became very aware of the lacking support from the rest of the world during the Covid crisis. While vaccine policies were supplying Europe, North America and parts of Asia, Africa was one of the last regions to receive Covid vaccines, and this may have contributed to one of the first new strains to be logged coming out of South Africa. With China increasing their influence in the region and South Africa being the mid point of commerce between much of the West and new Chinese investment in the region, their view of their place in the old economies of the West and new economies of the East leaves their future in question. Closer ties with the BRICS may change South Africa, but it will likely become a point of leverage for many large economies, influential regions and global institutions a lot sooner than anyone expected.

BRICS nations have determined that their best interests may not lay in the same policy choices that many of their Western allies have chosen as an approach. Actions that lead Western powers to abandon their allies in Afghanistan will come to be seen as one of the greatest policy determinants of our era. BRICS nations already see what many countries in the West fail to acknowledge from their policy failure. A further limiting of North American oil and gas exports to such a degree that it raised the Rouble and will put Western Europe in an energy shortage not seen since the Berlin Airlift is affecting the world greatly in 2022. BRICS nations have decided to take to classical policy approaches, and will act in a manner that protects their interests and keep their citizens fed and warm as much as possible. Any approach that would hinder those basic needs will end the leadership of any of the BRICS nations rapidly, as it should.

The Integration Center for Georgian Azerbaijanis (GAIM) was opened on April 3, 2019 in the Marneuli region of Georgia.

The opening ceremony was attended by Fuad Muradov, the chairman of Azerbaijan’s State Committee for Work with Diaspora, Shota Rekhviashvili, the governor of Kvemo Kartli region of Georgia, Ketevan Tsikhelashvili, the state minister for reconciliation and civil equality, and other officials.

The opening of the Integration Center of Georgian Azerbaijanis in Marneuli is an important event. The proposal regarding the integration center opened in Marneuli was put forward by local youth living in Georgia in 2018. The opening of the center is a very important project, and it is the solution for a number of issues that concern the local Azerbaijanis in Georgia.  

The main purpose of the establishment of the center is to deepen the existing relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia in the fields of science, education, culture and sports and to support the integration of local Azerbaijanis into civil society. Azerbaijani, Georgian and English languages, as well as the history of Azerbaijan and Georgia, will be taught in the center, and sports clubs will operate.

The center operates in various directions and supports Azerbaijanis living in Georgia. The biggest support was during the Coronavirus pandemic. With the support of the State Committee for Work with Diaspora, they helped foreign compatriots by providing support to low-income and vulnerable population groups, such as Azerbaijani houses and separate diaspora organizations established abroad, by carrying out humanitarian actions. The Integration Center of Georgian Azerbaijanis repeatedly helped low-income and elderly families and elderly people living in social isolation in various cities of Georgia during the quarantine period and distributed food parcels to Azerbaijani families due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The center also organizes events on significant days for both countries. This year, a commemorative event was held at the Georgian Azerbaijani Integration Center in connection with the 30th anniversary of the Khojaly genocide. They laid a wreath in front of the monument in February 2022. Azerbaijani Minister of Education Emin Amrullayev, who was on a visit to Georgia, also visited the Integration Center of Georgian Azerbaijanis in Marneuli.

 

The “proxy paradox”, namely, the fact that the “Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics”, which for 8 years have been completely subsidized by the Russian Federation, enjoy broad military support and have “authority” totally dependent on the Kremlin, but so officially and not annexed to Russia, suggests that there is a complex and multi-level model of Moscow’s interaction with the “satellites”.

A kind of “food chain” has been formed, in which a “satellite” country or territory can be “sacrificed” for the sake of Russia receiving geopolitical benefits and advantages.

At the lowest level of this “chain” are several well-known countries in Africa, in which both governments and national wealth are controlled by Russian private companies, primarily the infamous Wagner private military company. The socio-economic development of Russia, in essence, is of little interest, despite the traditional declaration of “friendly ties with the countries of Africa.” Much more profitable and interesting is the export of minerals, the “range” of which is very wide, including gold. The presence of PMCs, which do not require large resources, makes it possible to keep local clans “on a short leash”, as well as successfully compete and even squeeze Western countries out of the region, i.e. former metropolises.

“Trojan horses” are Russia’s “gold asset” among the “satellites”, primarily due to the personal loyalty of the leaders, in the spirit of the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, or traditional “historical” allied relations, as in the case of Serbia. The main task of the “Trojan horses” is to create a deep split in the West, in particular, the European Union, designated by Russia as a hostile entity. The situation with sanctions has clearly shown that a “Trojan horse” can be used to destroy political unity on conceptual international issues.

The current “energy crisis” in Europe also did not do without the Hungarian “Trojan horse”. Against the background of serious problems in the industry and the growing dissatisfaction of the population caused by a shortage of gas in European countries, Hungary is confidently increasing its pumping, demonstrating to the entire EU the “advantages of friendship with Russia.”

Serbia, whose economic potential is very small, is being used by Russia in its traditional role as an “eternal fuse” in the Balkans. The recent idea to create a military base in Serbia was met with a bang by the local patriotic community, but with great apprehension in neighboring countries. The fears are quite understandable since Russian forces are almost in the center of Europe close to the NATO countries.

Serbia is a “satellite” very vulnerable to pressure. On the one hand, the Serbian economy, and its export potential, are focused on the EU, but on the other hand, the status of a “historical ally” obliges the Serbian authorities and Serbian society to demonstrate loyalty to Russia at all levels.

The “satellite” countries from among the former republics of the USSR traditionally play the role of a “security belt” for Russia. “Setting fire to conflicts” along the perimeter of its borders, Russia is trying to “stop” tension, preventing destructive processes from spreading to its territory. True, with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the “satellites” from the CSTO began to demonstrate intractability and therefore are now considered a cheap source of resources for the war with Ukraine. Mercenaries are being recruited in Central Asia, and Soviet-made weapons are being exported.

Also, “post-Soviet satellites” are considered by Russia as platforms for circumventing sanctions or a profitable exchange with influential players in the Transcaucasus, and Central Asia. The role of PMCs at this level of the “food chain” is performed by the Russian “peacekeeping contingent”, the effectiveness of which is doubted, for example, by all parties to the Karabakh conflict.

Belarus occupies a special place among the “post-Soviet satellites”. In fact, this is a military springboard for Russia’s advance to the West and at the same time a “theater of military operations” that allows you to “export chaos” and take the war out of Russia.

Finally, one more, extremely interesting element of the “food chain” of Russian satellites, is now being actively developed. These are “rogue states”, i.e. Iran, and North Korea. In exchange for economic preferences, they must also ensure the “export of chaos” and blackmail of the West, including nuclear. The special operation in Ukraine made its adjustments to this standard set. Now these “satellites” are also a source of weapons (Russia tried to buy drones from Iran) to continue the war with Ukraine.

Several countries in Latin America, where Russian propaganda is traditionally strong, can also replenish the “food chain”. They are destined for the role of “counterweight” to American influence in the region.

Finally, the BRICS countries. In the literal sense, they are not “satellites” of the Kremlin, but they have a “strange respect” for Russia (like India). This group of countries is a platform for Russia’s attempts to realize the idea of ​​a “multipolar world” and declare a “pivot to the East”, which in many respects has a pure propaganda value.

The entire food chain satellites” is called upon to play an active role in Russia’s struggle with the West. We now have a rather unique situation – what for centuries formed the basis of the existence of the Russian state, namely, opposition to the West, is being implemented at all levels. We hear about the “turn to the East”, about the “predatory aggressive West”, about the “pernicious Western values”. But this was during the time of the dispute between the “Slavophiles” and the “Westerners” back in the 19th century.

Using “satellites”, Russia is testing new technologies for the destruction of Western civilization.

Russian “satellites” are active or potential “grey” zones of instability. The formation of such “zones” is Russia’s calling card. So it was in Georgia, so it was in Syria. Now, this technology is being scaled up in Ukraine, where Russia is trying to turn the occupied Ukrainian regions into mini-satellites. The same scheme is being implemented – control over resources, mobilization of the population, the transformation of the territory into a “theater of military operations”, a barrier that does not let the war directly into the territory of Russia.

The carriers of the “ideology of destabilization” in the occupied Ukrainian territories are both local collaborators and officials who “landed” from Russia. But, most importantly, these are figures from the ruling United Russia party, a kind of “collective Putin”, organizing “referendums” and establishing quasi-state structures in these territories.

There is no guarantee that Russia will not organize such “gray zones” somewhere in Europe. The scheme is quite simple. A country, region, or even a separate city declares itself to be a “satellite” of Russia, due to traditions, historical memory, or the presence of a Russian population, which is allegedly “infringed on their rights.” Further, the current government is declared illegitimate, and an enclave controlled by Russia is rapidly forming with all the attributes of chaos – from the degradation of administrative and economic structures to the emergence of a base of militants, arms, and human trafficking.

The events in Ukraine testify that the “export of chaos” can be organized by Russia anywhere in the world.

Mykola Volkivskyi is a political scientist, fellow of the Lane Kirkland Scholarship, Founder of the Foundation for the Development of Ukraine in Poland, and the Institute for Government Relations in Kyiv. Former Advisor to the Chairman of the Committee of the Ukrainian Parliament.

Artem Oliinyk is a political scientist, President of the IAPSS in Ukraine and research assistant at the Academy of Political Sciences of Ukraine, Director of the Institute for Government Relations (Kyiv).

The recent news that Venezuela will be providing Iran with 1 million hectares of arable land for farming draws further concern from the security circles concerned about the Islamic Republic’s growing influence in the Western Hemisphere.  That follows a rapidly growing energy collaboration between Caracas and Tehran following the Biden administration’s decision to lift oil sanctions on the Maduro regime. This collaboration includes the boosting of Iran’s crude supply to Venezuela for refining, which gives room for an increased export of Iranian oil for sale – and further undermines the impact of sanctions on Iran’s operations.  

There is reason to believe that the recent US government’s foreign policy in Latin America has encouraged a more assertive political and defense cooperation between leftist governments, rogue regimes such as Iran, and its terrorist proxy Hezbullah, as well as assorted criminal enterprises and gangs. 

With the election of the FARC-affiliated leftist president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, the United States is losing one of its few remaining allies in Latin America. US-Colombia cooperation on drug trafficking and counterterrorism strengthened Colombia against cartels, curtailed the Marxist-Leninist FARC rebels (despite the ill-advised peace deal), limited the spread of Hezbullah and its Venezuelan supporters, and bolstered Israel and Colombia’s security relationship. 

Colombia helped prevent the assassination of an Israeli businessman by Hezbullah, allegedly planned in retaliation for the liquidation of Qassem Soleimani. But stability in Colombia has always been contingent on US political and security support. The refugee crisis in Venezuela, which brought 3.5 million Venezuelans to Colombia, has resulted in economic concerns and risks of destabilization.  Instead of addressing this crisis, the Biden administration has announced the removing of FARC from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list. Colombia and the European Union withdrew the “terrorist” label from FARC when the peace agreement was first concluded in an effort to encourage integration, but FARC has factionalized into militias that engage in occasional bouts of violence.  The US administration’s signal that it no longer considers FARC a security threat could embolden the group’s worst elements. With the newly elected President Petro pursuing the policy of decriminalization of cocaine, many fear that the policy will give cover to drug cartels, and Hezbullah to enter the markets under more official covers and embed themselves further. 

The election’s context was one that experts had warned about: despite the formal end of the civil war guerrilla warfare continued. FARC’s political success brought more leftist elements into the government.  Far from renouncing violence, many fear that FARC affiliates will instead use it to further spread and entrench the ideology that caused the civil war and that has already resulted in political and economic crises in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba. All of those countries have several things in common – strong opposition to capitalism, populist distaste for the United States, close relations with narcotraffickers, and alliances with Iran, China, and Russia.  The brazen assassination on a Colombian beach of a Paraguayan prosecutor, Marcelo Pecci, known for his tough positions on corruption, gangs, and Hezbullah, may be a harbinger of the chaos that can be expected should leftist policies so destructive to Venezuela take root in Colombia.  

That episode, however, did little to change the US government’s haphazard approach to Latin America. Over the various administrations, US role in Latin American has vacillated, with Republicans traditionally emphasizing the security-oriented approach and focusing on countering terrorism and gangs, while the Democratic administrations focusing more on human rights and humanitarian assistance. The Trump administration, for instance, has pushed for Hezbullah’s terrorist designation among both left and right-wing governments in Latin America, and has worked with El Salvador to address the border crisis and to clamp down on the MS-13 entry into the US. 

However, none of the US administrations in the past twenty years had developed a broad strategic approach in the Western Hemisphere. Specifically, there has been neither an effort to work with individual target countries to address ingrained economic conditions, political upheavals, and regional problems – such as the impact of Venezuela’s refugee crisis on its neighbors – nor a broader security framework to root out the pro-Iran elements which have grown across the continent thanks to the Cuban/Venezuelan intelligence network, and Iran’s strategic cooperation on economy and defense with Latin American countries. Both Republican and Democrat administrations overall adopted a reactionary approach to specific pet peeves, failing to develop a vision for engagement which would help advance security, prosperity, and peace in the neighboring countries past any specific governments in the US or among their counterparts. 

The relative silence after Pecci’s murder is an illustration of the US government’s overall failure to understand that the security concerns in Latin American require a long-term consistent bipartisan approach. As Joseph Humire, Center for Secure Free Society’s specialist on Transnational Threat Networks in the Western Hemisphere, told the author, Iran has been patiently pursuing a systematic ground game through As Joseph Humire, Center for Secure Free Society’s specialist on Transnational Threat Networks in the Western Hemisphere, told the author, Iran has been patiently pursuing a systematic ground game throughout the continent, slowly but surely expanding its reach, through consistent social, cultural, and economic initiatives and the expansion of alliances with the help of its regional proxies and networks, including assorted criminal elements. 

Some have compared Pecci’s murder with the analogous killing of Alberto Nisman, an Argentine prosecutor who was investigating the leftist Kirschner government’s cover-up of the Iranian orchestrated AMIA bombing by Hizballah. Since the return of leftists to power in Argentina the investigation into these events has gone cold again – and the Iranian presence has grown stronger. Under the current president, Alberto Fernandez, Argentina claims to crack down on Iranian smuggling, but recently allowed a Venezuelan-flagged flight operated by a US-sanctioned Iranian aviator with at least one senior Tehran official on board to land on its soil.  

The US reaction to these incidents has been muted. Low-key policies on leftist politicians in Latin America lie in sharp contrast to the Biden administration’s aggressively interventionist approach with the few remaining right-wing governments, which are also some of the last remaining US allies and opponents of Iran.  The White House, which initially embraced the Guatemalan president Alejandro Giammattei, later parted ways and even tried to impede his efforts to replace an official from the prior administration.  The attack on Nayib Bukele’s government in El Salvador has been far more extensive, public, and potentially destructive to US security interests in the Western Hemisphere.  

After Bukele replaced officials loyal to his leftist predecessors and linked to corruption, the newly inaugurated Biden administration reacted by diverting humanitarian aid to leftist self-styled human rights NGOs connected to opposition parties.  A number of these groups were reportedly receiving funding from past lawmakers, who themselves had served in sanctioned governments. The Biden administration also criticized the Bukele government for allegedly engaging in secret negotiations with notorious gangs, such as MS-13, in a scheme that would have reduced violence in exchange for votes for Bukele’s party, “The New Ideas”. The sole source for this accusation were journalists at the left-leaning Salvadoran opposition-alligned publication El Faro. 

Subsequent events raised questions. Between November 9th and 11th, El Salvador saw a strange increase in gang-related murders (46 in a 72-hours-period) before going back to zero homicides on November 12th. These numbers were provided by local authorities on Twitter on November 13th. “After 24 hours of having launched #DespliegueNacional, we can announce that we have contained the increase in violence during the past couple of days,” Bukele wrote. Later he used the phrase “old enemies and new allies with external financing” when referring to the situation.  

Giovanni Giacalone, senior analyst for the Europe Desk at ITCT, Itstime, and ITSS’ Latin America team, says that “[a]ccording to former ES anti-gang units, Bukele is referring to the right-wing and the left-wing political parties that always provided funds to the Maras [gangs].  Those would be the old enemies.” The cryptic reference to the ‘new allies with external financing’ may reference the flow of weapons into the country that ends up in the hands of these gangsters. Whether that external financing includes Venezuela, whose reach is growing across the region, the US, which has been openly meddling in El Salvador’s domestic affairs while ignoring the flow of weapons into the country, or other parties remains to be investigated. 

The Maras appeared to indiscriminately kill people – including vendors, bus passengers, and market-goers. La Prensa Grafica reported that gang members may have been instructed to leave bodies in plain sight. According to Giacalone, these brief spikes of violence usually occur when the Mara leaders want to send a message to the government. 

In January 2022, a Canada-based digital rights organization called Citizen Lab produced a report attacking the Bukele government for its alleged violations of journalists’ privacy via use of NSOGroup’s Pegasus software. In its reports, Citizen Lab relies on the Biden administration’s El Faro-based claims of Bukele’s collusion with the gangs, but produces no new evidence. It also does not reveal the technical methodology by which it arrives at its conclusion. The Bukele government rejected these claims stating it had no access to Pegasus and that several of its own officials had also been hacked. Pegasus is only sold to specific state-based actors and is reportedly untraceable. Could Citizen Lab also be one of the “new allies with external funding”? 

Curiously, despite this alleged collusion with the gangs and the subsequent cover up, the gangs soon declared open season in El Salvador, challenging the rule of law with unprecedented violence. “The ES government always denied such allegations and its strong actions against the Maras, in prison and on the streets, make it hard to believe that Bukele attempted some secret negotiations,” states Giacalone, adding: “Is it possible that those new allies that Bukele referred to are trying to discredit the government by making the public opinion believe that a deal was made and those sudden peaks are supposed to prove it? If the Mara leaders currently detained had the possibility to order a long-term war against the government, they clearly would. However, we have only seen 72-hours-long peaks of violence, mainly against civilians.” 

Bukele reacted by ordering a special operation and rounding up over 47,300 gang members since the state of emergency was approved by El Salvador’s Congress in April, and was extended for the fourth time the week of July 29th, with minimal losses on either side. The Biden administration reacted by issuing multiple statements of concern and sanctioning several officials for “undermining democratic norms” by passing a law preventing the media from sharing gang communications. Ironically, several Salvadorans added to the list are from the previous left-wing administrations, and are being added in connection to their past corruption and embezzlement. While putting political pressure on President Bukele and openly siding with his opponents, the Biden team reportedly shuttered America’s MS-13 task force and embraced open border policies, increasing the flow of fleeing MS-13 members into the country. 

The likely impact of such policies by the US is easily predictable. First, coupled with domestic reluctance to hold accused violent criminals without bail, the US government’s tolerance of MS-13 and other gangsters encourages the flow of violent crime into the United States. Second, the political pressure on the Bukele government encourages criminal elements and the groups that cover for them, and strengthens whatever links may exist between the leftist opposition and these elements. It is the opposition, and not Bukele, who stand to benefit the most from gang violence. Externally, foreign entities, such as Iran and Venezuela would also gain from the Bukele administration either falling by popular will, which is unlikely as it has a widely popular mandate and has coordinated all of its activities with its Congress, or was destabilized and made ineffectual thanks to US pressure.  

The Northern Triangle is a geographically and geopolitically advantageous area for Iran, Hezbullah, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and the new socialist Honduran administration’s Red-Green Axis. Given its strange passivity in reaction to growing Iranian and Venezuelan interventions across Latin America, and its aggressive position towards Nayib Bukele, one wonders whether a pro-Iran radically leftist Western Hemisphere is in fact the geopolitical goal of the US, or at least, a reality it is willing to tolerate while in pursuit of the Iran deal. One also wonders, why, over the course of the past decades, both Republicans and Democrats have failed to develop an effective outreach and coordination strategy to ensure that the popular will of the voters in Latin American countries and support for improved relations with the US will outlive any particular government of the day. Iran, on the other hand, has been stealthily pursuing that vision of becoming one of the central influencing powers in the Western Hemisphere. 

Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer, a geopolitical analyst, President of Scarab Rising, Inc., and the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider. 

Each of us in the twenty-first century recognizes the negative effects of climate change on the future of the earth and strives to mitigate them as much as possible. The global community is attempting to warn international organizations and states about the magnitude of the disasters that await us in the future by organizing various events.

However, some states, knowing the disaster that awaits the earth as a result of climate change, not only participate in the fight against it but also encourage the acceleration of this process through their actions. The Republic of Armenia’s atrocities in Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent territories are a clear example of this.

Armenia, which has illegally and militarily occupied Azerbaijani lands for nearly 30 years, ignoring all international documents, including four UN Security Council resolutions, was forced to surrender and withdraw from the occupied territories only after the 44-day war that began on September 27, 2020.

Notwithstanding the humiliation and pain that Azerbaijanis have endured over the last 30 years, with 30,000 lives lost and 4000 people missing, the Azerbaijani government and its armed forces treated the Armenians illegitimately settled in Azerbaijani territories humanely, giving them enough time to pack and leave their temporary “homes,” and even extending the time they were given to leave when necessary. But before they left, they packed everything they owned and set fire to their homes. And they will continue to do so. They never considered the places they lived to be their homes. In recent days, Armenians fleeing Azerbaijan’s Lachin district have also begun to burn forests.

The main point to be emphasized here is that the vast majority of the perpetrators are Armenians from Syria and Lebanon, who were illegally resettled in the lands occupied by the Republic of Armenia. By doing this, Armenia also violates paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War of 12 August 1949.

According to a joint declaration signed by Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, Azerbaijan is set to retake control of Lachin, which lies on the route between the city of Khankendi in Karabakh and Armenia, by the end of this month.

Russian troops and the Armenian population will leave the areas along the “Lachin corridor,” which includes Lachin, Zabuh, and Sus, and it was temporarily placed under Russian control by a tripartite declaration signed on November 10, 2020, after 44 days of the conflict.

As part of the agreement, Azerbaijan constructed a 32-kilometer (20-mile) road around Lachin for the Armenian population in Karabakh to use on their way to and from Armenia.

According to APA, environmental non-governmental organizations in Azerbaijan held an event related to environmental terrorism committed by Armenians illegally settled in Azerbaijan’s territories in Lachin and the surrounding areas.

Many environmental organizations condemned the environmental terrorism committed by Armenians in Lachin and the surrounding areas, stating that all of this is deliberate damage to the environment by burning the forest areas around Lachin. The participants noted that this process is a clear manifestation of the Armenian government’s pathological hatred for Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani people, as well as their hatred for nature, Azerbaijan’s natural resources, and the ecological environment.

According to the appeal, the Republic of Azerbaijan is always working to protect the ecological balance and ensure that its citizens live in a healthy environment, and non-governmental organizations play an important role in this process across the globe.

Russia and Ukraine recently made an agreement so that grain exports would be able to leave ports in Southern Ukraine and make their way to destinations dependent on Ukrainian and Russian Agro exports. This brief agreement likely have more to do with other nations in Africa and Asia entering a grain crisis as opposed to any measures to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, especially in their southern region. While countries like Canada cap oil production and increase the cost of farming and fuel in the middle of these crises, Russia benefits from a lack of displacement of Russian oil and gas. Canada had to change their own laws on sanctions so that Canadian based Turbines supplied to Russia’s oil pipeline could be sent, despite Russia claiming it will limit energy export to Germany anyways. At the same time, Russia and China plan to develop a pipeline to the East while China becomes increasingly aggressive towards US support for Taiwan. Time has become a crucial issue as winter approaches in a few months and a solidification of the battle lines in Ukraine turn into a permanent land grab by Russia.

Ukraine has moved to retake cities and town in the south of the country so that Russia cannot continue to have control of the Black Sea region nor expand their control over to Odessa and the border with Moldova. Ukraine’s push to liberate Kherson has been met with successes, but Ukraine might find itself in a losing position if it puts its tanks and troops in a position where they can be ambushed by Russian anti-Armour weapons while pushing further into the region. Russia looks to have a similar plan as they had done in Crimea in 2014 by holding referendums on whether those regions taken in Ukraine wish the become a part of Russia or become an independent region under Russian influence.

Battle lines in the East of the country seem to mirror the original objectives of Russia, to take the Donbas and Eastern regions that have been under conflict since 2014. With winter coming and the lack of clarity on the ability to supply civilians with heat and fuel in the cold, there has been actions to move innocents westward. It is likely the case that a push by Ukraine to liberate eastern regions would be difficult as long as the south of Ukraine and its ports are essential to Ukraine, Russia and world food exports.

Ukraine’s 2nd city, Kharkiv, had been defended diligently but will likely become a barometer on where the conflict is heading. If Ukraine can secure objectives in the south and Russia is militarily unable to push back in an effective manner, there will not likely be another attempt on the city using ground forces. If Ukraine depletes its forces and is unsuccessful in retaking territory in the south, or loses ground, the push by Russia in the east to take the rest of the Donbas may also include an assault on Kharkiv. With Western powers supplying Ukraine with weapons, a test on NATO equipment may take shape and look similar as when Russian T-72s and T-80s were ambushed assaulting Ukrainian positions. The key to much of the conflict is endurance, and with Western powers still refusing to displace Russian oil, gas and grain, Russia’s army will have the funds to resupply and purchase arms while creating closer financial and export ties to China and other allies.

Russia is likely pushing to solidify its gains with a referendum and cultural dominance strategy. For this reason, a push to regain territory in the south is essential for Ukraine. Immediate benefits in oil price increases and food insecurity benefits Russia in the immediate conflict and via their midterm strategy. Policies by Western countries to allow Russia to provide wealth and equipment to its oil funded war massively affects the conflict.

It was recently reported that Yadigar Shukarov, Boyshan Alizade and Gylman Huseynov were injured by anti-personnel mines while carrying out demining work in Garakhanbeyli village in Azerbaijan.   This came after Azerbaijani serviceman Vugar Isbandiyarov was injured in a landmine blast in the Kalbajar district.   This comes around the same period of time that 204 anti-personnel mines, 32 anti-tank mines, and 29 UXOs were discovered in Tartar, Aghdam, Khojavandi, Fuzuli, Shusha, Gubadli, Jabravil and Zangilan during a six day period in the beginning of August, the Azerbaijani media reported. 

Following these developments, the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy issued the following statement after the conclusion of a round table discussion at the Begin Center titled ‘Landmines in the Liberated Territories of Azerbaijan: the biggest obstacle to obtaining peace in the South Caucuses” and reads: “More than 220 Azerbaijanis have been killed or maimed by landmines since the Second Karabakh War ended.  To date, Armenia refuses to hand over all the landmine maps and out of the ones they did hand over, only 25% are usable.”

The statement continued: “The failure of the international community to take action on this issue is killing people and is a major impediment to world peace.  For this reason, the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy calls upon the international community to take action to remove all landmines worldwide.” 

As many people here might know, about one year ago, I went to the war-torn Karabakh region for the first time, where I was able to witness firsthand the destructive impact that landmines had on the Karabakh region. Back then, we traveled mile after mile on broken dirt roads surrounded by landmines, which prevented us from swaying to the right and to the left.  In fact, due to the terrible road conditions at that time, our bus broke down in a landmine infested area and we had to wait about a half of day to get rescued by the Azerbaijani government.   During that trip, we saw uprooted trees, polluted rivers, burnt agricultural fields, of which some of them were still burning when we were there and also the ruins of Fizouly, Shusha, Sultanya and numerous other Azerbaijani cities and towns, which were also surrounded by landmines that inhibited reconstruction.   This transformed what was known as the Black Garden into a barren wasteland.    

After that trip, I interviewed Kara and he proclaimed: “Karabakh reminds me of the Lebanon War of 1982 when I was an officer fighting against the terrorists in Lebanon.  The terrorists destroyed Lebanon and here in Karabakh, I saw that everything was also destroyed.  I felt very sad.  It is a very bad situation.”  Kara noted that both Karabakh and Lebanon have the potential to be beautiful places, yet in both instances, terrorists destroyed everything.    In fact, Kara declared that the destruction he witnessed in Karabakh was even worse than Lebanon, as the terrorists in Lebanon did not kill off all of the nature there like the Armenians did to the nature in Karabakh, ensuring that even the fish in the river and the cows in the field could not survive.   

Last May, I returned to Karabakh to cover the Shusha Food Festival together with a delegation of Israeli bloggers and journalists.  On that trip, I was pleased to see that Fizouly is on the map again and even has an airport.  I was happy that a lot of the greenery has returned to the region and there are now proper roads in Karabakh.     I was also delighted that instead of having to eat lunch on an Azerbaijani military base, I was able to dine in a nice Azerbaijani tea house, which did not exist about one year ago.    Additionally, I was impressed by the progress I saw in the restoration of Shusha, which has now built a five-star Karabakh Hotel and restored many nice historical sites in the area.    Although much of the region still has too many landmines and a lot of rebuilding is still required, I saw how hard the Azerbaijanis are working to make Karabakh great again.        

Last month, I had the privilege of once again traveling to Karabakh together with a couple of dozen other foreign experts from around the world, who spoke on a panel at the prestigious Ada University in Azerbaijan.   This time, we went to Aghdam, Karabakh’s ghost city which is otherwise known as the Hiroshima of the Caucuses.  Unfortunately, the progress is rebuilding Aghdam is much slower than it was in Shusha, largely because of the landmine issue.   There were more landmines in Aghdam to remove than there were in Shusha, which has slowed things down significantly.  This is because Armenians actually lived in Shusha, while Aghdam was a booby-trapped ghost town.  

In Aghdam, I witnessed first-hand how a city of 100,000 people, which included theaters, cafes, restaurants, vibrant Azerbaijani tea houses, homes, places of worship and even museums and historic monuments, were reduced to being nothing but rubble. I went to the Ivarant Cemetery, which contained the graves of prominent members of the Karabakh Khanate, dating back to the 18th and 19th centuries.   The graves were gone and the beautiful Turkic architecture of the royal tombs lay in ruins, completely run down from the Armenians utilizing these historic tombs as pig pens.  They treated this site like this even though it was labeled as a world heritage site.  According to a local guide, “The Armenians were taking stuff away from here and selling them to the Iranians.”

In fact, for two hundred dollars, everything inside the homes of Agdam, whether refrigerators, washing machines, family heirlooms or raw construction materials torn from the homes were sold to the Iranians, who were able to profit from the destruction of an entire city and the ethnic cleansing of the Karabakh region in the 1990’s.  After they took everything, they burnt everything down, thus leaving many of the homes without roofs, as the roofs were made of wood.  

The Imarat Cemetery was not the only historic place that they desecrated.  In Agdam, the Armenians used a historic mosque dating from 1860 as a watch tower and pig pen.  According to our local guide, “That was the only reason why this mosque was not completely desecrated.   More than 60 mosques were completely ruined in the region.”  For me, this had an uncanny resemblance to my graduate school trip to Spain, where I witnessed how the Spanish Inquisition transformed historic synagogues into pig pens and stables.  I could not help but ask myself, am I living in the twenty-first century?  How is it possible in our era to witness Christians desecrate holy places in such a manner, to conduct itself as if the Spanish Inquisition was still ongoing and never left us?

After that, I went to a local cemetery in Agdam, where I witnessed how all of the tombstones and gold teeth in the graves were gathered together and sold to the Iranians for profit, while the bones of the people who were buried there were thrown away in the trash.  Since Azerbaijan reclaimed Agdam, relatives of these unfortunate souls have tried to rebuild the destroyed memorials to their loved ones by putting up fresh plaques with pictures, but the bones are gone.  They are no longer proper graves.   What I saw there reminded me of what the Jordanians did to the Mount of Olives following the division of Jerusalem, after Israel’s War of Independence.  In that case, beautiful historic tombstones from the Mount of Olives were used by the Jordanians as construction material to build latrines and other unsavory things.   

Then, we went to the historic Bread Museum.   It used to house bread from the Second World War, an historic item documenting life during the Second World War in the Soviet Union.  However, that historic piece of bread was destroyed alongside all of the other exhibitions.  The roof was also gone and the beautiful artistic mural was heavily desecrated.  I could not ponder but ask, where was the international community when all of this happened?  Why was UNESCO silent?  What ever happened to the phrase NEVER AGAIN? 

I never stop writing and never stop speaking out for the justice of the Azerbaijani people, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”    For this reason, my organization is taking a strong stance against landmines.   Fuad Muradov, the Chairman of the State Committee on the Work with the Diaspora, noted: “Our main goal is to build peace in the region.  However, for that to happen, all landmines must be removed and removing them is an uphill struggle when the maps you have are not reliable.”

To date, Armenia has refused to hand over all of the landmine maps and this blocks peacebuilding.  And of the landmine maps that they turned over, only 25% are usable.   This means that Aghdam largely remains how it was 30 years ago, even though I did see construction trucks working there.  This is a true travesty.  The time has come for this grave trauma to end.  The time has come to remove all the landmines and to make Karabakh great again.  While I am grateful to Israel, Turkey, France and other countries who are trying to help make Azerbaijan landmine free, the international community still has much more work to do to see the black garden turn into a green colorful paradise once again.  

Al-Shabab’s Enigmatic Invasion of Ethiopia

In countries such as the U.S., there is an unwritten theory in police investigation that assumes whenever a neighborhood robbery occurs it was done by someone who not only had the motive to commit that crime, but the basic intelligence to help time it well and to get away with it. In other words it was committed by someone who lives or operates within 5-miles radius around the crime scene. If your gut feeling is ‘such mentality, regardless of how logical it may sound, will keep the law-enforcement stereotypically myopic and perpetually racist’ you are not alone. But that is a topic for another day.

Meanwhile, an elaborately sophisticated attack carried out by more than 500 al-Shabab and dozens of technical- armed trucks- against Ethiopia left many casualties and many unanswered questions.  Granted this was not a robbery.

According to the VOA’s Investigative Dossier “Officials from both sides of the (Somalia, Ethiopia) border confirmed that the attacks preoccupied Liyu police forces and distracted them as other heavily armed al-Shabab units crossed the border unopposed.” Moreover, the same program quotes an anonymous former al-Shabab militant who said the group was determined to erect its flag inside Ethiopia and then officially declare that “jihad spread to a new front.”

The offensive, according to Matt Bryden of the controversial Sahan research group “appears to be the start of a major, strategic initiative to establish an active combatant presence in Ethiopia, probably in the southeastern Bale Mountains.” How about that for a narrative express?

Surely with the failure of the Somali Federal Government’s military and intelligence campaign as well as the America’s deadly drone doctrine to decapitate and defeat al-Shabab, the terrorist group remains more dangerous than ever. That danger is made worse when governments sometimes engage in their own concocted threats to pave the way for one manipulative objective or another.

Here are some possible scenarios driving al-Shabaab’s incursion into the Somali region of Ethiopia:

Scenario One:

It is the first step of a foreign-driven plan to spook China out of Ethiopia’s oil and gas rich region. A few years ago the Ethiopian government signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Chinese company to develop petroleum and natural gas in the Somali region. Moreover, the company is to design storage, transportation, and marketing logistics as well as to build pipelines for domestic and international supply.

On April 28, 2020, the Ethiopian government signed $3.6 billion deal with a Virginia-based energy firm named GreenComm Technologies to construct an oil refinery in Ethiopia’s oil-rich Somali region. Reminiscent of the Somali facilitated British predatory capitalist Soma Oil and Gas, there is only one problem: the company has neither the expertise nor the credibility to be trusted with such contract. And though the Ethiopian government indicated the willingness to cancel, there is no official report confirming that.  

Scenario Two:

A false flag scheme to re-shuffle the cards in the Horn with derailment of the Horn Economic Integration engineered by the European Union, championed by Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia, and funded by the U.A.E. Under such scheme a pretext for prolonged strategic military campaigns and political torpedoes launched from a selected federal state is established. So Ethiopia and Somalia, or President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali, will spend the next four years riding a dangerous roller-coaster, as did President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo) and President Uhuru Kenyatta. Meanwhile Somalia is secured membership in the East African Community (EAC) and a peace-keeping force that excludes Ethiopia.

Scenario Three:

To further hammer Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed who has already lost a loyal partner in the loss of Farmajo. Under this scenario multiple deadly fronts are opened. This scenario is based on the assumption that the United Arab Emirates or President Mohammed bin Zayed has turned his back to the European project that this author criticized before and dropped Abiy Ahmed from his previous pivotal role. Of course the natural replacement is none other than President Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea who secured UAE a military base while it was actively partaking the war in Yemen and just completed training 5000 Somali soldiers to provide military protection as UAE colonizes Socotra in partnership with Israel.  

“The saga of these Somali soldiers has been full of twists and turns,” wrote Michelle Gavin, security experts for the Council on Foreign Relations. This lucrative clandestine mercenary project was equivocated and denied by the Farmajo government until literally the last minutes before ceremonially handing over the presidential authority to the newly elected President HSM.

Scenario Four:

To reengineer a new balance of power that would end the ethnic-cleansing of the Tigrayans and boost their military capacity to ultimately takeover what is considered as a viable economic insurance- Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). This requires stretching the Ethiopian military power so thin by opening on it many military fronts. The coalition of the willing under this scenario may include Egypt that considers the dam’s drastic impact on the flow of the Nile as an existential threat, Sudan, the U.S. And due to the rapidly changing geopolitics of the region, and Ethiopia’s steadily growing ethnic nationalism, it is likely to include U.A.E and Israel whose strategic and economical interest in the Nile water is no secret.

Scenario Five:

A combination of the listed scenarios; and this could prove the most complex one to decode and deal with.       

Relevant Context 

For more than a decade, Ethiopia has been dominating the Bay and Bakool regions of the South West federal-state of Somalia. It has been its most reliable laboratory where Ethiopia trained and mobilized some of its most notorious clandestine allies, the violent neo-Islamists such as Mukhtar Robow (still held as a political prisoner) and his militia, and tribal secularists such as Abdirashid Janan and his militias for of subversion and security dependency (AMISOM).

Intriguingly, the Shabaab militia that attacked Ethiopia is reported to have been trained in the Jubbaland federal-state (Jilib and Ras Kamboni). And their objective according to the Governor of Bakool was to raise their flag inside Ethiopia.

To accept that Shabaab would carry out such daring operation with such reported large number of its militia out of Jubbaland while ignoring the temptation to take the jewel of that federal state – Kismayo – or to takeover U.S.’ only military base in Somalia and to chase the American troops out of that region requires an extremely wild imagination that some of us do not possess.

It was recently revealed that billions of top of the line American weapons were abandoned in Afghanistan when Western forces hastily pulled out of the country in 2021. Adding to the shame of leaving many of their own citizens as well as Afghan allies and TERPS to be brutalised in Afghanistan, the billions in weapons have now been found in conflict zones bordering India and will likely infest the region with added violence for generations to come.

The former weapons boom was greatly contributed to by people like Viktor Bout, a well known arms dealer who supplied many of the world’s conflicts in the region and worldwide after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The stockpiles of weapons that were accessed from Eastern Bloc nations that were storing them for an upcoming Third World War found their way to villages in Iraq , throughout conflict zones in Africa and in every part of the globe. Viktor Bout has made it back into the news as a possible US prisoner to be exchanged to Russia. The last time he was mentioned in the media was following his arrest and regarding a Hollywood movie that was loosely based on him called Lord of War.

The after effect of leaving Afghanistan may be a contributing factor to many of the recent conflicts in the world just a few shorts months after 2021. No one would have expected Russia to move past the Eastern regions of Ukraine into Kyiv and Odesa in 2021. Despite the heavy push back in Ukraine, it seems like militants in Afghanistan are now better equipped than most NATO supplied Ukrainian soldiers. These signs of uncoordinated disinterest on the part of the US creates the perception that they would not commit to pushing back against traditional adversaries. Already within a short period of time, Taiwan has been threatened, Iran has increased their rhetoric and actions in upgrading their nuclear program, and intellectuals and innocents have been assaulted deep inside free, Western democracies.

The activity NATO allies have had in supporting weapons transfers to Ukraine has not been met on the greater strategic front. While some of the best German artillery systems have now entered the conflict zone in Ukraine, there is a looming energy crisis approaching Germany and Europe in 2022. To the point where Russia can simply turn off the gas to Europe in winter, North American oil and gas have not committed in any meaningful way to support their friends and cousins in Europe. It has come to the point where Canada was supplying repaired pipeline turbines to Russia, enraging the International Ukrainian community to the point where they issued a lawsuit in Canada on the act. The end result was that Russia claimed the turbines would not be sufficient to supply Germany with fuel in any case, and a new pipeline project was announced between Russia and China. With actions like these coming from NATO allies, the message to many regimes around the world is to take advantage of the chaos.

 

 

 

 

For the last couple of years, I have been writing a book about Ayoob Kara, who served as Israel’s Communication, Cyber and Satellite Minister under Netanyahu.  Today, I finished writing the book and I am in the process of editing and publishing it.   The book is titled, “Ayoob Kara: The Man Behind the Abraham Accords.” One of the main issues that the book tackles is the Iranian threat and how the West should deal with a nuclear Iran.   

At a time when the Biden administration is desperately trying to reach any deal with Iran, Kara has called upon the free world to stop trading with Iran: “The sanctions are very important for stopping Iran.   We have to stop all free countries from buying anything from Iran.  If the world lifts sanctions on Iran, then they will wage war and occupy other states, like they did already in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, etc.   They destroy all of the states they can.   They use all of their money to support this terror.”  For this reason, no one should trade with the Islamic Republic of Iran and view it as a solution to Europe’s energy crisis that was caused by the war in Ukraine.

 Aside from keeping all sanctions in place, the Honorable Kara believes that the best way to fight against the Iranian regime is to have a coalition of states unite together to address the Iranian threat: “All of the Middle Eastern countries should have a system like NATO in Europe.”  He believes that Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Israel, Morocco and perhaps other countries in the Middle East region could form such a union, as all of these countries are threatened by Iran’s hegemony in the Middle East.

According to Kara, “The Shiites in Iran seek to occupy the Sunni areas.   The fighting between the Shias and Sunnis has been ongoing since the days of the Prophet Muhammed.  The Shias believe in Ali and the Sunnis do not.  Afterwards, there was a big fight between them.  The Sunnis threw them out of Saudi Arabia and sent the Shias north to Iran, which became the capital of the Shias.   This situation makes the Shias feel like outsiders in the Islamic world.   The Sunnis hate them so much not only because they fought with them about who succeeds Muhammed.   They hate them for the empire they created.  For many years, the Shias say among themselves that even though the Sunnis sent them far away from the holy areas of Islam, one day we must re-occupy them.” 

For this reason, Kara believes that the Iranians seek to occupy the Arab areas of the Middle East before Israel and thus that the Sunni countries in the Middle East are Israel’s natural allies.    Kara supports the creation of a Turkic Union, where all of the Turkic states like Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, etc. unite together to fight against the Iranians: “This is very important.   This stops Iran from expanding.”  Historically, it was the Turkic nations who fought against the Persians in the past, so Kara believes they have a role to play in stopping the expansion of the Shia Crescent.   Kara noted that he visited Azerbaijan’s border with Iran, as a means to counter Soleimani’s visit to the Lebanese-Israeli border: “It is important to show them that we don’t care and we have the power to help states like Azerbaijan that hate the extremism.”

Kara believes that the free world has a duty to stop the Shia Crescent and to help the Iranian people obtain freedom: “I think that all of the minorities inside Iran must shake hands and cooperate together against the mullahs to destroy the regime, and the world must support these minorities.   We should do everything to stop the Iranian regime including supporting the independence movements of many of the minorities in Iran for the number one danger now is Iran.”  Thus, there should be a free Ahwaz nation, a free Baluchistan, a free South Azerbaijan, etc.   

–

By Rachel Avraham

Canada sends Nord Stream turbine to Germany, despite Ukraine resistance

Active Support for Ukraine has made history for the amount of funds and military equipment that has been given to Ukraine by NATO and other supportive nations. Sanctions against Russia has also made history for the level of restrictions and depth of sanctions against Russia’s Government and those tied to Putin himself. The donated advanced military equipment has taken a large toll on Russian forces in Ukraine, as systems like Hi-Mars and Javelin have given Ukraine the ability to stop Russian tanks and armour in the field and challenge Russian positions.

A recent break in relations between Ukraine and some of its NATO allies took place when Canada decided to suspend parts of its sanctions and send upwards of six gas turbines to Germany’s Russian oil pipeline in order for Russia to send oil to Germany via a main pipeline in Europe. Despite sanctions, Canada readily sent equipment to Russia that would help financially support their war effort. While the intent of the turbine and pipeline is to get fuel to Germany, and much of Europe is still unable to displace Russian oil and gas from their economies, it angered President Zelinsky to such a degree that Ukrainian organisations decided to sue over the actions. This act is also compounded with the fact that North American oil and gas has done little to increase production in order to displace Russian oil in Europe. The strategy so far has been to beg countries with atrocious human rights records to increase production. In one instance, Iran was tapped by Russia directly for military equipment in the form of drones, a country that has been asked by the United States to increase production to help ease fuel prices in support of the effort to protect Ukraine.

Open support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people have been openly bold, but when looking into the finer details, some of the support has been more useful for publicity at home than in aid of soldiers on the ground in Ukraine. In this interview linked here, a Canadian fighting on the ground in Ukraine stated that half of the night vision equipment sent to them from Canada simply did not work. With transport so difficult to the front line in Ukraine right now, occupying shipping space with broken equipment is a multilevel detriment to the war effort in Ukraine. Even when assisting Ukrainian refugees into their country, Canada has created a special status for Ukrainian claimants into Canada that removes some of the supports under their normal Refugee Protection system. This left many in difficult situations when in Canada. Even on the announcement of a hotel for refugees in the middle of their largest city, Ukrainians were not allowed to have access to this newly funded refugee shelter, despite them consisting mostly of women and children in an area close to their larger immigrant community. In a time when Canadian citizens who’s families are the victim of Iran’s Government murdering them on Flight 752, Canada has told the families that they will only be represented by Ukraine in the international claim, this while Ukraine is at war and trying to preserve the continued existence of their own country.

While the world has decided to help Ukraine and punish Russia in support of Ukraine and its people, help must be given in a meaningful way. This means not tying policies to help Ukrainians with those also supporting Russian forces in the conflict on the other end of the policy approach. This means not treating Ukrainian refugees better or worse than others making those claims, and giving them equal treatment in the processes that are well established to help those running from war and human rights abuses. Actions taken by the International Ukrainian Community should extend past the turbine issue, to how refugees from Ukraine are being treated in the few instances where systemic discrimination is being applied upon their arrival to safe countries. The image of help is worth little to those who really need it.

 

 

In his famous 19th century work Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “… a democracy is unable to regulate the details of an important undertaking, to persevere in a design, and to work out its execution in the persistence of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measures with secrecy, and it will not await their consequences with patience.”(261) Unfortunately, it was these traits, de Tocqueville argued, that lead nations towards successful foreign policies over the long term. For decades American foreign policy has fallen to each of these traps.

Inconsistent messaging and even more inconsistent policies have become a complication for the United States both at home and abroad. 

The American economy appears to be heading towards a downturn- months of rising prices, increasing interest rates, and supply shortages all make this point crystal clear for consumers. These challenges are not only apparent to everyday Americans- policy makers ranging from President Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell have each recognized this issue through their public statements. However, despite the broad recognition that the economy appears on the brink of a downturn, leading policymakers offer different justifications for the tough times that appear ahead.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen infamously referred to inflation as “transitory” before being forced to walk back those comments. President Biden has suggested that economic challenges are, in large part, a consequence of Russian aggression in Ukraine. While Chairman Powell has pointed to a post-pandemic economy as a leading cause of economic turbulence. 

This communications debacle is evidence of the inconsistencies intrinsic to democratic government that de Tocqueville describes- more importantly, it leaves Americans pessimistic about our economic prospects, divided about who is to blame, and unsure of how to move forward.

In a similar way, officials from the State Department have regularly been called upon to clarify statements given directly by the President. This weak messaging both domestically and abroad creates an opportunity for America’s rivals to fill the void, and it is worth considering how they have chosen to do so.

Reviewing the content of Russia Today* (a state-controlled media company with headquarters in Moscow) offers insights about how leadership in the Kremlin wants its readers to understand the state of the American economy. A visitor to the site might expect to find articles arguing that Russia was defeating the United States in Ukraine, and that America’s economic uncertainty is a consequence of challenging Russian might. Instead, a visitor will find articles arguing that American economic uncertainty is a self-inflicted wound. Additionally, instead of articles highlighting the military prowess of the Russian army, they would find stories highlighting the resilience of the Russian economy despite American efforts to limit Russian exports.

Despite what might appear to be an obvious opportunity for nationalistic chest-thumping, an apparent plurality of Russia Today’s articles highlight examples of disfunuction in the U.S. lead NATO bloc. RT features disputes between American policy makers, stories of American media censorship, and polls suggesting that Americans have a grim outlook about their economic prospects. The United States is not the only nation targeted by these efforts- others in the EU and NATO have their institutions scrutinized as well.

This highlights something important about the way that the Kremlin leverages its role in Russian media. Rather than display examples of military victories, Russian media praises the resilience of the Russian people and the stability offered by leadership in Moscow. Instead of arguing that American economic uncertainty is a consequence of challenging Putin, RT presents the economic downturn as a self-inflicted wound. In truth, the publication goes out of its way to highlight how few Americans blame the autocrat for their economic woes. 

Russian state media does not work to persuade Russians that their lives are somehow better than the lives of people who live in democratic nations. Instead, these outlets make the nihilistic argument that all governments make promises they can’t keep, that all institutions are corrupt, and that the average American is just as far away from real political influence as the average Russian. The message is not competition, but a sense of shared hopelessness… and at least Putin offers stability in the chaos.

This one insight, however, reveals a second insight. The reality that the Kremlin has been hesitant to “take credit” for America’s stumbles highlights the potential that, one day, Putin might begin to accept that credit and Russian state-media might take on a more competitive tone. To date, the Kremlin has suggested that “Western” institutions have either failed or have been corrupted, and that this fundamental weakness has resulted in a floundering economy and a toxic political environment. Should Kremlin supported media outlets begin to frame American “vulnerability” as a consequence of the United States losing a direct contest with Russia, it might suggest that Putin is preparing for an even more egregious action that would require popular support (much less knowledge).

Poorly managed communications, finger pointing, and a sporadic U.S foreign policy vision has created a vacuum in messaging. Russia, along with other American rivals, have exploited this opportunity.

None of this speaks to the importance of clear and positive messaging in the Southern Hemisphere, where the United States is already bidding for influence against an expanding list of rivals. 

Addressing this problem means considering foreign policy choices more seriously, and more consistently both locally and in Washington D.C.. It means going out of our way to learn about the world’s most pressing problems, and it means using that knowledge to ensure that the leaders we elect guide the nation’s foreign policy with the long view in mind. 

The success of American foreign policy, far more than in autocratic regimes, is dependent on a citizenry that is informed and engaged. A more informed and engaged body of citizens would demand a higher quality of messaging from elected leaders both for internal consumption and international ears.

Ultimately, our ability to shore up these liabilities comes down to our ability to overcome the hazards that de Tocqueville predicts. It is our responsibility to be educated about key global issues, and to press representatives in Washington to prioritize long sighted foreign policy decision making. 

Only by learning to plan, persevere, and await the consequences patiently will American foreign policy be able to move forward in a wise and consistent direction. 

—

*Russia Today is a state-media company that is registered as a direct agent of the Russian government. Neither the Foreign Policy Association nor the author espouse the views that are expressed on that platform. 

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

51T6 SH-11 Gorgon exoatmospheric ABM Transporter/Loader, an older type designed as part of a defensive missile ring around Moscow.

A peculiar occurrence happened recently where what looks to be a Russian BUK missile turned around after launch and impacted the area around its own launch vehicle. Speculation on how and why this occurred was painted by many narratives on the conflict. While it may be assumed that the missile or system may have been hacked or manipulated, it is likely the result of poor manufacturing errors or the use of older advanced equipment with degraded safety abilities. While systems like the SA-11 BUK-M1 was high tech for its time and is still extremely effective, it is a complicated system that is filled with several checks before a launch can occur. With so many things that can go wrong, crew training may have not been able to stop that type of accident. The video of that launch can be seen here.

Despite Russia has suffering many losses, the assumption that there is no longer a major threat by Russia towards Western Ukraine and Europe seems to be taken in light humour by some G7 leaders, while those countries bordering Russia and Ukraine are on constant and urgent high alert. NATO soldiers have been training those fighting in Ukraine outside of the territory since the beginning of the war with some reports showing that expanded NATO training inside Ukraine may have already been established. Speeches at the G7 seek to pressure Russia further, but the resulting pressure has increased the value of Russia’s energy so greatly that there economic effects on Russia’s oil exports have done little damage to the value of the Rouble.

Backing Russia into an economic corner without expanding the displacement of its energy exports with North American energy will never be successful as Europe is still largely dependent on Russian energy exports. Other BRICS nations continue their purchases of Russian oil and food into their own economies and seem to have closer relationships with other OPEC members the US is begging for energy assistance. It is clear that Russian export revenues through its energy products is enabling it to continue the conflict, even if it is being depleted of its weaponry. Adding more direct NATO involvement may create a more dangerous situation as opposed to taking a serious commitment in displacing Russian energy exports. While inflation is having a direct and notable impact in Western nations, Russia can still escalate the conflict outside of Ukraine greatly with their long range missile capabilities.

Poland was able to secure later types of the Patriot missile systems after years of delays in obtaining a proper missile defense option for itself. The later models of the Patriot system, called PAC-3, is able to shoot down other missiles, a feature which is now needed as Russia’s proximity and the ability to fire medium range ballistic missiles puts Polish forces at great risk. While the effectiveness of the PAC-3 against fast moving targets has not been properly tested in combat, the lack of response to North Korean missile tests and the fact that some Russian missiles like the Kinzhal can travel as high as Mach 10, makes it difficult to counter some of Russia’s missile systems.

Soviet missile defense technology was always a game changer during the Cold War. Russia’s own defense is tied to that of a early 90s Soviet defense doctrine. While invading Ukraine was always going to be difficult as it was also designed to repel a NATO advance with defense technology from 1990s era equipment, so does later generations of missiles like the S-400 air defense systems make the airspace over Kyiv dangerous for Ukrainian interceptor jets. An advancement of NATO deeper into Ukraine will pull the conflict outside of the range of a Javelin missile type conflict, towards one where Russia has a large ballistic missile advantage. One thing that is certain, is that Russian missile technology is above and beyond other equipment in their arsenal and is often equal or better than their Western counterparts. This has been worked on for a few generations as even a strike on Moscow could be repelled in theory, as Russia has had a significant ABM(Anti-Ballistic Missile) system since the 1950s that is continually upgraded with special missiles designed to repel a nuclear attack and the latest S-500 system. Mobile missiles like TOPOL and SARMAT have been put in position towards Europe, and even have been moved to Northern Russia to target the Arctic Region and North America. In light of the reality, we should expect our leaders to keep their focus on reducing a wider conflict before testing their comedy routines during G7 meetings.