Foreign Policy Blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unacceptable new normal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

By Rachel Avraham

As NATO approaches its 75th anniversary, the transatlantic community stands at an inflection point. The Pax Americana is over, democracy is in retreat, and the rules-based order hangs by a thread. Meanwhile, the U.S. is more riven with acrimony and disagreement than at any point since the Civil War. Further American security assistance to Ukraine remains uncertain as Russia continues to make incremental gains across the 600-mile front. On the other hand, Europe has no more aid to give. If one can draw a positive from the past two years, it’s the reinvigoration of NATO. However, many are rightfully wondering whether unity will be enough. Without American aid, Ukraine would have fallen, and Europe is more reliant on Washington for security than ever before. It’s time to reassess the transatlantic security architecture. NATO must remain the cornerstone, but the alliance needs a robust European pillar. America can no longer single-handedly confront every global crisis. Perhaps controversially, the circumstances mandate a pan-European army under the auspices of the EU.

The fact that Britain, France, and Germany cannot support Ukraine without American aid should be a wake-up call in every Western capital. The Russian invasion revealed shocking decay within even Europe’s most capable militaries. Their tanks did not work, ammunition was scarce, and their defense industrial bases proved incapable of keeping up. This readiness level is deplorable, but so is Washington’s response. President Biden is repeating a strategic mistake that has plagued every administration since the Cold War. This error is the failure to realize the advantages of a militarily self-sufficient EU. The U.S. needs a capable ally that shares its values to safeguard mutual interests and check autocratic aggression. Moreover, the EU needs a credible tool to back its words if it desires a prominent role in the evolving multipolar order.

Unfortunately, the EU cannot support a war effort in its own backyard against an adversary whose economy is ten times smaller. No European country can perform autonomous operations across the full spectrum of conflict without American intervention. Moreover, Europe lacks the capabilities expected of modern militaries, notably aerial refueling, command and control, and transport. For example, the French required American aerial transport to conduct its counterterrorist operations in the Sahel. Considering France is one of Europe’s predominant military powers, this instance is particularly illustrative but surely not the only example.

Given these stark realities, Western policymakers should push for a European military anchored in the Atlantic framework. The EU should aim for an army numbering at least 100,000 troops from various member states. Participation would be optional for each state, and Brussels would need to hammer out the minutiae, like command structure and ensuring civilian control. Such a prospect seems fantastical from an American perspective, but Europe has made similar efforts in the past.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has stymied previous European attempts to enhance self-sufficiency. As the continent’s security guarantor, Washington historically wielded a de facto veto over European security policy. Consequently, American skepticism has fostered a view within Europe that establishing an independent military force would strain relations with their main security provider. Indeed, Germany, Poland, and the Baltics have publicly rebuffed France’s push for a European army based on this principle.

Since the USSR’s dissolution, each president has voiced a common concern: No EU military can duplicate NATO’s capabilities. Madeleine Albright expressed this reservation after the Saint-Malo declaration, where historically dubious Britain finally endorsed an autonomous European military force. The second Bush administration even countered an EU proposal for a rapid reaction force with a NATO equivalent. During the Trump years, the administration threatened retribution against any plans that came at the expense of American defense contractors or duplicated NATO. Meanwhile, Biden resorted to the same narrative about preserving the alliance’s integrity and avoiding replication. Instead of discouraging European ambitions, the U.S. should empower its allies across the Atlantic.

The U.S. should enthusiastically endorse the concept of a European army or, at a minimum, a form of strategic autonomy. Doing so would legitimize the idea, especially among countries hesitant for fear of upsetting the U.S. Moreover,  American backing would enable Washington to shape the process and ensure its alignment with NATO. If done correctly, a pan-European army would complement the alliance, not replicate it. NATO-EU collaboration could identify weak points where Brussels could fill the gap. The EU could then make these additional assets available within NATO.

The EU would need to establish a mechanism for joint procurement. Each country currently develops its militaries individually, so there is no coordination to ensure efficient allocation of capabilities. This fragmentation results in too many weapons systems, redundancies, and wasteful spending. By pooling resources, the EU could prioritize capabilities that are impractical for individual nations to pursue, such as aircraft carriers and aerial refueling. The ultimate objective should include a Europe that can independently conduct operations across the full spectrum of conflict. NATO would still serve its core function of collective security but with a strengthened European pillar.

Like any course of action, this endeavor comes with pitfalls. As a supranational organization, many may question, “Who would die for the EU?”. However, decades of integration have fostered a generation loyal to both their nation-state and the EU. Politicians and citizens alike see themselves as embodying and serving the interests of the European project. And with a population of 450 million, a force of 100,000 soldiers willing to defend Europe is not an unreasonable goal. Additionally, this force would complement national militaries, not supplant them. Certain countries like France take immense pride in their armed forces and would understandably never relinquish their military tradition.

Another concern is the suggestion that European countries should simply increase their defense spending. However, this is not a matter of spending, which Europe has substantially increased over the last decade. In aggregate, EU countries allocate more funds to their militaries than China and Russia. Despite this investment, they still lack critical capabilities.

Such an endeavor would span decades, but the key is to set the process in motion. Had Washington recognized the benefits of this plan decades ago, the situation in Ukraine would be much different today. Furthermore, a strategically autonomous Europe would allow the U.S. to divert more resources and, most crucially, its attention to the Asia-Pacific. The U.S., Europe, and a select number of partner countries represent the last bastions against a system where might makes right. Unfortunately, current politicians are governed by the same outmoded post-Cold War thinking. Once American policymakers realize they cannot do everything at once, the free world will be in a much better position.

Every day, Israel is plagued by more terror attacks.  Today, a terrorist opened fire on an Israeli minibus in the Binyamin region.   Last night, an explosive device was thrown on a passenger bus in Gush Etzion.   And a Palestinian who was planning a suicide bombing attack was recently arrested near Jericho.   These are merely a few of the terror incidents that Israelis have dealt with recently.   

According to the Global Terrorism Index, Israel is among the countries most affected by terrorism.  This makes one ponder, which countries are the safest ones in the world?  

According to the World Terrorism Index, Azerbaijan ranked 18th among 141 countries as being among the safest countries in the world.  Singapore, Norway, Iceland and Finland are the world’s safest countries, with Singapore being first place and the other three being tied for second place.   The top ten included Hong Kong, Switzerland, Canada, Indonesia, Denmark, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Austria, China and the Netherlands.

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) is a comprehensive study analyzing the impact of terrorism covering 99.7 per cent of the world’s population. It takes into account the number of terrorist incidents, deaths from terrorism, counter-terrorism, the effectiveness of terrorism investigations and many other indicators.  The GTI report is produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP), using data from Dragonfly’s TerrorismTracker database and other sources.

Azerbaijan is also included in the list of 20 most secure countries in the world for crime rates.  The ranking is by the Numbea resource, which has the world’s largest statistical database of countries and cities.  During the survey, the residents were asked if they could walk alone in the city at night, were satisfied with the work of the police and whether they had been attacked or robbed over the past 12 months.

Indeed, Oghuz, Azerbaijan may be one of the few places in the world where it is safe to leave synagogues unlocked at night, without fearing burglars and anti-Semitic vandals.  There is also an Armenian church in the center of Baku.  Despite Azerbaijan’s conflict with Armenia, it remains in good condition.  As Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev proclaimed, “Today, Azerbaijan is an island of security.”

The countries experiencing the most significant levels of terrorist activities and threats, ranked by their respective threat levels, are as follows: Burkina Faso leads with 8.571 scores, followed by Israel with 8.143, Mali with 7.998, Pakistan with 7.916, Syria with 7.890, and Afghanistan with 7.825.

Subsequent rankings include Iran in 26th place with 4.464 scores, Turkey in 29th with 4.168, the USA in 30th with 4.141, Russia in 35th with 3.016, France in 38th with 2.647, Norway in 53rd with 1.747, Armenia in 76th with 0.423, the United Arab Emirates in 79th with 0.233, and Lithuania in 87th with 0.059 incidents.

 

 

Seldom discussed since the Russian aggression against Ukraine are the vast disparities between the economic wealth of the west versus the much smaller, communist/socialist dictatorship economies of Russia, Iran and North Korea (RINK) Here are two numbers to make my point perfectly clear: GDP of combined NATO countries is $47 trillion. Combined GDP of RINK is $3 trillion.  The USA alone is $28 trillion at year end 2023, compared to Russia’s $2.5 trillion, or more than 10 times larger. If wars are won purely based on economic strength, the Russian aggression should have been repelled and ended with Russia crawling back to their side of the Ukraine border within a few months had the NATO countries acted with resolve and the military might their economies can support.

When considering whether to spend another $60 billion on Ukraine (most of which is recycled through American miliary equipment manufacturers), Americans might be surprised to learn what they are getting for their $150 per person contribution. They would be supporting a fierce fighting force in relatively poor country with a per capita income level of less than $5000, compared to the USA which enjoys per capita income of $70,000.  The Ukrainians are fighting to the death for many historical reasons, one of which is to escape the stunted economic growth the country has experienced while under the control of the Kremlin. Ironically, Ukraine is poor because unlike its former USSR neighbor countries, it failed to achieve escape velocity from the iron grip of the corrupt Russian government between 1990 and 2014, when the Maiden protests finally succeeded in expelling the Kremlin’s puppet dictator Yanukovych.

Thinking about what the Ukrainians have achieved with such a relatively poor country is extraordinary. A nation with 44 million people (or roughly 35 million after the outflow of refugees) is holding off a nation of 150 million people with vast oil and gas reserves to pay for their military. The disparity in GDP between Russia and Ukraine is even more stark, barely $200 billion for Ukraine versus $2.5 trillion for Russia. This is why financial assistance is essential for Ukraine. NATO countries excluding the USA have combined GDP of $18 trillion, with Germany being the largest at $4 trillion. Total NATO GDP is $47 trillion or almost 20x that of Russia. The west and NATO citizens need to seriously adjust their perception of this ”war” and the massive imbalance in economic might.  Russia’s propaganda machine has everyone believing they have some form of economic parity and have successfully done a workaround our sanctions. When the fact is that Russia and their corrupt economy is holding by threads and with a hundred billion or more of military spending by the west, which as we have said is a very small price to pay, Russia would retreat. Putin knows this, fears this and explains his irresponsible nuclear threats.

Since WW2, Russia has been framed in the American mindset as the other superpower in terms of nuclear weapons. But what most Americans probably do not know is that Russia is far from a peer in economic terms. As stated earlier, USA GDP is $28 trillion at year end 2023 and Russia is under $3 trillion, yet Russia is able to fund upheaval, repression and bloodshed in Ukraine, the Middle East with Hamas and Iran, Georgia, Venezuela and Cuba to name just the most obvious trouble spots.  Russia will spend some $80 billion on military this year, or 3.2% percent of GDP, and up to $600 billion between 2022-2025.  But aside from the inner circle of oligarchs, the average Russian lives on well under $15,000 a year and in constant fear of speaking out about the police state in which they reside.

The US will spend about the same percentage of GDP, or about $840 billion in 2023 alone. Thus, in pure economic terms the additional $60 billion for Ukraine amounts to just an additional 7% of defense spending and just 2/10s of one percent of GDP. Given that Russia is disrupting American interests worldwide, most notably in Ukraine, the supplemental spending bill is a very small price to pay to stop Russia. The Ukrainians have done a brilliant job depleting the Russian military. Now Russian soldiers like American soldiers in Vietnam are not committed to what they are fighting for.  Whereas the Ukrainians are fighting for their independence, thus united in their conviction that they are on the right side of history.  With the proper amount of support, Ukraine together with NATOs financial superiority can push Russia back to Russia.

Consider Russia’s two favorite collaborators in global upheaval. Iran has a GDP of under $400 billion and North Korea has unreliable data which suggests GDP of $100 billion. Conditions for the average Iranian and North Korean are dismal, with per capita income levels of $4,400 and $2,000. Their leaders care far more about global aggression than the lives of their citizens. Adding the GDPs of Russia, Iran and North Korea total some $3 trillion, hardly a match for the USA or NATO combined, which account for almost half of global GDP.

Question for the military historians? How many wars were fought where one side was allowed to bomb its neighbor into oblivion and send tens of thousands of troops across their border into their small neighbor, but the nation being attacked is told by its “allies” that it cannot cross the border and attack inside the aggressors’ territory? This is the miscalculation of NATO, while the brave Ukrainian people endure nightly missile attacks.

The widely held view that Putin would not stop at the border of Ukraine if he were victorious was echoed by President Biden in his State of the Union address last week.  But he failed to credit the incredible work of the Ukrainian people to date in repelling the Russian onslaught given their much smaller population, economy and military resources. Given the threat posed by Putin, the money spent to date and the money proposed by the White House amounts to about $250 per capita spend by each American.

For this small expenditure as a percentage of the defense budgets and GDP of the USA and NATO GDP, the Ukrainian accomplishments to date are truly remarkable:

• Stopping the surprise attack on their capital city Kyiv and pushing the Russian military back to the region where fighting has been going on since and 2014.
• Russian military casualties in the tens of thousands, causing Putin to constantly draft more men, many to their graves, resulting in mounting suppressed opposition to the invasion.
• Shooting down the majority of massive nightly missile and drone attacks, showing NATO the limits of Russian warfare technology and requiring Putin to go begging for more ammunition from other pariah states like Iran and North Korea.
• Destroying 16 Russian ships in the Black Sea Fleet, without having a navy of their own.

Ukrainians Aspire to Independence and Higher Quality of Life Than Russia Can Offer

Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, the countries that became independent democracies and members of the EU have seen their nation’s wealth and per capita income rise significantly more than that of Russia or the countries stuck under Russian de facto control (e.g. Belarus to this day and Ukraine until 2014). In 2014 Ukraine was finally able to get rid of their Russian imposed President after the Maiden protests, but Russia almost immediately invaded Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine and has forced democratic Ukraine to get bogged down in a war for independence ever since.

Former USSR states that have joined the west have experienced increases in GDP and per capita income of 8 to 10 times, or compound annual growth rates (CAGR) in the mid-teens since 1990. Ukraine and its neighbor Poland were equivalent at about $65 billion of GDP when the USSR collapsed, but a capitalist democratic Poland which joined the EU and escaped the yoke of Russian oversight has seen its GDP increase from $65 billion in 1990 to $688 billion as of 2022 the most recent year of full data. Poland’s per capita income has grown from $1,731 in 1990 to $18,321 as of 2022.  The same extraordinary growth has been generated by Lithuania, Latvia, Czech, Estonia and other East European countries. For example, Lithuania grew GDP from $7 billion in 1990 to $70 billion in 2022 and per capita income grew from $2,168 to $24,827 in 2022.

Compare these success stories which were accomplished by the hard work and ingenuity of their people in a free capitalist system, to the Russian experience. Russia has experienced GDP growth from $516 billion to $2.5 trillion, mostly the result of their oil wealth, a fourfold increase, or about 7% annually, but much less than the 13% annual growth of the nations that joined the EU. Per capita income has increased from $3,493 to $15,345 in that time frame. Thus, Russia grew at a much slower pace than their former subjugated states and on a per capita basis Russia fell behind their former colonies. Bear in mind, Russia has the benefit of tremendous natural resources wealth which has been siphoned off by oligarchs due to corruption, which significantly inflates the Russian numbers. Unfortunately, the average Russian citizen is far below the average per capita number as a result.

Ukraine has the potential to achieve the same economic growth as Poland and other neighboring states once the war and Russian aggression ends. The Ukrainians were outraged in 2013 when the Russian puppet leader Viktor Yanukovych vetoed the opportunity to sign an association agreement with the EU and this ultimately led to the Maiden Riots in 2014 which forced Yanukovych out of the country. Unfortunately, Ukraine has suffered terribly from Russian interference since 1990. The current GDP before the invasion in 2022 was just under $200 billion, or per capita income of $4,534.

 Once Ukraine’s population is allowed to blossom as a democratic capitalist society more closely aligned with the west rather than living under the thumb of the corrupt Russian regime, the economy should experience growth in the teens as well and eventually make good on debts to the west. A free capitalist Ukraine would experience a return of millions of skilled computer scientists and other highly educated citizens who could contribute to Ukraine and all of Europe via EU membership.

Bruce Harting serves on the Board of a Bank and is a Managing Director at a US investment banking firm

For years, I have argued that America’s legislative branch has failed to live up to its obligations in guiding U.S. foreign policy. Trends dating back before the turn of the millennium reveal that the Legislative branch has spent an increasingly small amount of time discussing and researching important foreign policy questions. Beyond that, when important foreign policy topics are discussed, individual legislators are increasingly likely to grandstand or fundraise instead of work towards policy solutions for major issues. 

For most of my life, this dereliction of duty has resulted in American involvement in unguided and near-unending conflicts across the Middle East and North Africa. Two pieces of legislation (the 2001 and 2002 Authorization(s) for the Use of Military Force) passed the House and Senate in the turbulent months following the September 11th terror attacks. Those two bills combined to serve as justification for roughly two decades of continued fighting across almost 80 nations, resulting in 8,000,000,000,000 dollars in expenses, over 7,000 American casualties alongside 230,000 civilian casualties. Most all, including President Obama when he unsuccessfully petitioned Congress to vote on military action in Syria, agree that many of the conflicts funded through the AUMFs extend well beyond the legeslation’s original intent. 

As a consequence of making the  purposeful choice to remain on the foreign policy sidelines, the members of the House and Senate ignore the combined wisdom of their 535 duly elected members in favor of the President and their small band of advisors. This is an obvious mistake. 

In response to this embarrassing state of affairs, and before the Biden administration’s top-down withdrawal from Afghanistan, I wrote advocating that both chambers of the Legislature adopt the following rule-

Before the end of each congressional cycle, each representative must vote for or against continued funding for each of America’s ongoing military conflicts. In the event that neither branch of the legislature votes in support for continued funding for any individual conflict, funding for that conflict is assigned a sunset date one year from the day of the vote.

While the language of the proposal would likely benefit from some fine-tuning, the driving force behind the proposal -the idea that the legislative branch should be held responsible for completing its constitutionally assigned foreign policy responsibilities- remains as relevant today as it was years ago.

In the current moment, and in defiance of recent historical precedent, both chambers of the Legislature appear primed to express their views on key foreign policy issues ranging from the ongoing invasion of Ukraine to the continued tragedy taking place in Gaza. If media predictions can be believed there is sufficient support in both chambers to pass additional funding for the defense of Ukraine- so long as that funding can receive a clean vote. This support is mirrored in the general American public. Why then has no vote taken place? 

This is the case because leadership in the House of Representatives has decided to make it so. Congressional leaders are using their agenda setting authority to thwart both the will of the institutions in which they serve and the citizens that they represent. This trend is not new, nor is it the sole responsibility of the current speaker- past speakers were unwilling to bring votes to the floor during other modern military romps.  Some have suggested that this is due to electoral considerations, others have pointed to internal politics, others still have highlighted personal considerations. Few have suggested that the lack of a vote is in pursuit of sound foreign policy. 

Regardless of the reason, the fact that Congressional leaders would appropriate House rules as an excuse to ignore their constitutionally assigned responsibilities is shameful. It is, for a moment, unimportant  where we might personally stand regarding continued funding for Ukraine or the IDF, each of us has a right to know where our representatives stand on these critical questions. Current leadership in the House is working to make sure that their band is shielded from the sanitizing light of a public ballot. 

This brings me back once more to the rule I propose requiring representatives to take timely votes for or against continued funding for military missions. The original intent with the institutional rule was to push for a vote and end funding for the wars in the Middle East. Today, the rule would likely result in additional funding for the defense of Ukraine. The goal of the proposal is not inherently “more peace” or “more war” but instead “more thoughtfulness” to replace today’s willful rudderlessness. Who can argue with that?

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that as conflicts spring up in hotspots around the world and the risks begin to feel closer to home, many in the Legislature would like to have their voices heard. Perhaps it should also come as little surprise that decades of ignoring foreign policy questions has brought about conditions in which dealing with foreign policy questions is increasingly urgent. Adopting the proposed rule would both help guide the United States through today’s turbulent moment, and it would also help maintain thoughtful foreign policy moving forwards. 

—

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

Across the world, media outlets and non-governmental organizations are speaking about the plight of Armenian settler colonialists in Karabakh, who left their homes voluntarily.   For example, the International Crisis Group recently published a report, proclaiming: “Armenia is having problems integrating over 100,000 refugees who fled Nagorno-Karabakh when Azerbaijan took control of the enclave in September 2023. Yerevan has tried to be generous, but it lacks funds and a long-term plan, leaving the displaced people exposed and facing an uncertain future.” 

They discussed the difficulties faced by Armenian settler colonists who left their homes voluntarily upon return to Armenia, while remaining deafly silent about the plight of the West Azerbaijanis, who faced similarly difficulties and who unlike these Armenians were the indigenous inhabitants of the land and not settler colonialists, whose presence in Karabakh violated four UN Security Council resolutions.  Similarly, the European Commission just released a statement, proclaiming: “the Commission is allocating an additional €5.5 million in humanitarian aid to support the Armenians displaced from the Nagorno-Karabakh region.”

Underlining EU’s humanitarian support to Karabakh Armenians, Commissioner for Crisis Management, Janez Lenarčič, said: “This is the first winter for thousands of Karabakh Armenians who fled to Armenia last Autumn. In these challenging times, it is our humanitarian duty to provide protection and assistance to the people most in need. With this new €5.5 million funding, we will aim to further strengthen the existing EU humanitarian response to the displaced people in Armenia, by providing them with access to basic services.”

Interestingly, when Israel evacuated 9,000 Jewish settlers from 22 settlements in the Gush Katif community in the Gaza Strip, the European Union did not provide any of the Israelis who were displaced from their home with financial assistance, including in the winter months.  This remained the case, even though decades onward, not everyone who was evacuated from their homes has been able to establish a new home and a new life.  In fact, the Europeans praised Israel’s evacuation from Gaza, even though it led to this grave humanitarian disaster for the residents of Gush Katif and the brutal Hamas terror organization taking over the coastal strip.    So, why the compassion for the Karabakh Armenians and not the Israeli evacuees? Is this not hypocrisy?   Furthermore, why did the Europeans not raise a finger to help the West Azerbaijanis, whom no one ever argued were settler colonialists?   

Chairman of the Management Board of the Western Azerbaijani Community, MP Aziz Alakbarli, recently stated that today the world speaks about the plight of Karabakh Armenians, even though they are settler colonialists, but not the West Azerbaijani community, who are indigenous to the land: “the Western Azerbaijani Community does not accept the injustice committed against the western Azerbaijanis not only in the last 100 years but also in the last two centuries and rejects the consequences of this injustice. Based on the right of return established in the Convention and other important international acts, it declares as its main goal to create conditions for the return of Azerbaijanis expelled from the territory of Armenia to their homeland and to ensure their individual and collective rights after returning there.”         

 

The first recorded loss on an American made M1 Abrams tank in Ukraine was documented around the same time as the 2024 NATO Summit.

In a recent NATO meeting, the territorial losses Ukraine has recently suffered along with documented losses of Western equipment has put NATO and Ukraine’s allies in an anxious position. Claims by some NATO members that NATO troops could be sent to the front in Ukrainian territory would approach a Vietnam like scenario, where young people in Western nations would slowly see their friends and relatives enter live combat, hoping that laws requiring Conscription would not be passed in those countries. With this meeting coming at a time when Russia’s Opposition leader Navalny dying or being murdered in custody, bad policy decisions in the recent past may lead to some significantly terrible consequences for Western allies.

In addressing in the main threats to the West, there should be three different approaches to the three main threats in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. This is based on the actual popularity of the current governments in those regions as well as the relationship those governments have with their population in putting them and keeping them in power. This would affect the outcomes of challenging these actors, as each scenario is different as well as their end goals. The main issue in all three regions is that only half measures have been taken to discourage increased conflict or to abate it. Voting matters more than ever in 2024, as it is affecting everyone personally.

When consumer products mattered more to Western countries than the fate of Hong Kong’s democracy, and an Olympic Games was held close to a region where minority communities were suffering systemic human rights abuses, it was made perfectly clear that relations with China did not include actual human rights issues in its application. Ignoring core values in our democracies when dealing with foreign powers has resulted in eventual tensions with China. This lacking policy has damaged relations to the point where on Feb 27th 2024, the American news program The National Desk did a report on how the Fentanyl crisis in North America is wholly and directly related to China’s Government, even extending to operations in Mexico. With a nation changing foreign interference debate also taking place in Canada at the moment, the policy the West has had towards China is a direct outcome of ignoring our core values and beliefs.

It is difficult to know the popularity of China’s Government by its people, but it is well known that China’s biggest fear is an uprising by its citizens against the current Government. The first generation of the current Government in China is has not been experienced by this generation and has been re-characterized in a positive light in the recent past. A healthy economy is what is keeping China operating, and it is likely best for China to take actions to keep exports high as it is questionable how an open conflict with Taiwan or India would be taken by citizens in China, and what the outcome would be if the Government actually fell to a popular uprising. Since the West will not challenge China and does little to protect itself from China degrading their own youth in the US and Canada, it would be best that the West use China to displace its support for Russia’s war effort, while giving needed equipment and artillery to Ukraine. This of course should be done with an acknowledgment of local crises, and actions being taken to end the crisis, as opposed to policies that extend its destruction.

China and Russia are not natural allies, and have fought wars on their border over still simmering territorial disputes. While Russia can exchange oil for arms, it would be in China’s best interest to not be linked to one side of a conflict far from its borders. China is actively seeking to displace Russia’s arms sales and much of their artillery uses Soviet designed technology that can be used with old Soviet equipment; equipment also used by Ukraine. China also constructs fairly new and updated equipment faster than any other nations, so their retired artillery and anti-air systems from 2008 could be purchased directly or via a third party as China is actively promoting weapons sales abroad. If there is no stomach to challenge China and they are dependant on exports to Western nations, a displacement of arms to Russia as well as an effective policy to protect our own communities is essential to avoiding a larger conflict.

Russia’s long term goals were always plausible due to the high level of support Russia has in their own population as well as a sanctions regime by the West that is more virtue signal than action. While the US and Canada do little to nothing to displace Russian oil and gas export revenues, Russian oil and gas is still being purchased by Western countries via third countries, who themselves have questionable human rights records. NATO and Western allies that are not united in the objectives of ending funds that go to Russia’s war effort have helped produce a scenario where Ukraine is starting to lose territory. These same countries have diminished the support for Ukraine by enabling its support to be used for local political gain in countries that are suffering from high prices and energy costs due to a lack of displacement of energy, along with social crises as described like those above that result in local crime and chaos. Ukraine should consider openly questioning allies who contribute to Russia’s propaganda, energy funding, and military, and request that NATO inquire into these allies that are undermining the war effort directly or indirectly. Policies and stronger sanctions should not come only after we have lost Navalny, and there is little that can be done to change the support Russians have for their Government if we allow people like him to be detained indefinitely. We need to displace the funding to stop the arms factories, and we must end our own contributions as well as external supplies to their war effort.

Iran has famously lost much of its local support from its population, a freedom movement that have been frequently abandoned by the West as is common treatment with most of the pro-Western communities in the Middle East. So lacking is the support for their movement, that several opportunities have been given to abuse and harass those living in Iran, as well as against those in the larger Middle East. It should be noted that the first people to be conquered by the Iranian Regime was the Iranians themselves, and actions that leave them to be brutalised are the same ones that have lead to atrocities in the greater region that will expand abroad.

In the same time period that we found out that ballistic missiles from Iran were purchased by Russia, there was also a story about Western technology aiding in the design of Iranian drones used to murder innocent people in Ukraine, as well as networks in North America seeking to assassinate regime opponents in the United States directly. With so much conflict via proxies, via Yemen and arms exports to Russia, it would be wise to challenge threats to the West and its allies at its source as the passive approach has lead to a NATO that had to debate openly between its own leaders in a display of panic and weakness. When direct threats are oppressing their own citizens, innocents in the near region, and affect the entire global community, ignoring threats or taking half measures only ensured future conflict and the normalisation of brutality. While China can be financially managed and Russia can be fought into debt and attrition, when several incidences of Casus Belli take shape, passive responses will simply encourage a horrific outcome. If the West want to win or simply gain stability, they must take concrete actions to avoid a larger conflict.

 

Former President Trump is no stranger to controversy, but his recent remarks represent perhaps his most alarming challenge to transatlantic unity. During a campaign rally on February 10, the likely Republican presidential nominee declared that he would not defend a NATO ally that fails to meet the 2% GDP defense spending requirement. Beyond undermining deterrence and establishing conditions for an attack on NATO, this statement tramples on the alliance’s foundational ethos of indivisible security and “one for all, all for one.” With prospects of a second Trump presidency on the horizon, the specter of diminished American involvement hovers over NATO once again. This time, however, the alliance confronts a belligerent Russia to the east amidst a rapidly deteriorating global security environment.

On the other hand, the invasion of Ukraine has galvanized the transatlantic community, leading to a surge in defense spending across the board. With the Russo-Ukrainian war approaching its second-year mark on February 24, it is time to revisit the discourse surrounding NATO’s 2% minimum. Trump’s comments also prompt two disconcerting questions: will he withdraw from NATO, and can the world’s most powerful alliance survive without America’s guiding hand?

To be sure, Trump’s callousness departs from the norms of transatlantic diplomacy, but his association with the 2% controversy skews what is fundamentally a longstanding issue. Every administration since Eisenhower has lamented the inequitable distribution of defense costs within NATO, with Ike himself once bemoaning that the Europeans were “making a sucker out of Uncle Sam.” The disparity became even more pronounced after the Cold War, and by 2014, only three member states allocated at least 2% of their GDP to defense. From the perspective of the American security establishment and public, Europeans are free-riding off U.S. taxpayers despite America being more secure and arguably deriving less benefit from NATO. In fact, there is widespread consensus in the public policy community that Trump is correct about inequitable burden-sharing, but his modalities are ill-conceived and have only strained relations. Where Trump is wrong lies in his utter disregard for the sanctity and historical bonds that underpin U.S.-European ties.

Nonetheless, the tides are turning, and tangible changes are evident. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a fundamental reassessment of how European nations conceptualize and define their security interests. In 2024, NATO anticipates that 18 member states will meet the minimum 2% defense spending requirement, the highest number to date. This uptick undoubtedly bolsters NATO’s capabilities, but it more significantly reflects a reinvigorated political determination and commitment to collective security.

While the U.S. should take satisfaction with this improvement, the ongoing debate places excessive emphasis on the numerical benchmark itself and insufficient focus on the fund’s allocation. Simply achieving the 2% GDP expenditure on defense does not inherently translate into a net benefit for the alliance. Take Greece, for example; it has historically met the threshold, but in 2014, 77% of its military budget covered personnel costs in the form of pensions and salaries. While compensating service members is necessary, many strategically vital activities lie beyond the scope of this requirement. Critical investments in logistics, infrastructure, and mobility play pivotal roles in operations but fall outside the umbrella of defense spending, raising questions about whether NATO should consider more flexibility in the existing criteria.

Despite incremental progress, the Russian invasion clearly showed that Europe continues to depend heavily on the U.S. for its security. Therefore, if Trump turned away from NATO or pulled out altogether, could the alliance endure in America’s absence? The answer is yes, but not without caveats. America’s withdrawal would severely degrade the alliance’s capabilities, cutting its tank and artillery fleet in half. NATO would also be devoid of strategic and stealth bombers, as well as assets like aerial control, reconnaissance, and, most critically, aerial refueling. While the remaining 30 members possess the expertise and wherewithal to adapt, such a transition would take years and substantial investment. For instance, Belgium would require $5-7 billion and several years to produce sufficient ammunition for merely two months of combat. Furthermore, providing additional assistance and weaponry to Ukraine while maintaining adequate stockpiles for conventional deterrence would be out of the question.

Nevertheless, the alliance would retain supremacy on the seas and in the skies. Most NATO members operate American-made F-16 and F-35 fighter jets, and the complementary French Rafales and Eurofighter Typhoons represent formidable weapons in their own right. France, the UK, Italy, and Turkey would ensure continued naval proficiency, while the British and French nuclear arsenals provide the alliance with a much-needed nuclear deterrent. Additional optimism accompanies its newest members in Finland and, pending approval, Sweden. While all members contribute strategic value, Sweden and Finland stand out with cutting-edge defense industries and relatively sizable armed forces. Still, no single or combination of members could fill the void left by the U.S., but the alliance, at the very least, could effectively stand its ground against Russia in due time.

Fortunately, given that Russia has its hands full in Ukraine, its military is in no position to initiate a conflict along the 1,500-mile-long Russian-NATO border. Moreover, chances of the U.S. leaving NATO are virtually nonexistent, even if Trump wins reelection. It is crucial to digest Trump’s comments within the context of American populism and the domestic support he garners through anti-NATO rhetoric. Furthermore, for reasons of bureaucratic inertia and logistics, America’s exit from NATO would incur far greater costs in terms of finances, time, and influence compared to the status quo. With approximately 100,00 troops stationed in Europe, the U.S. boasts 16 military bases, four naval stations, and eight air force bases across the continent. Washington also maintains around 150 nuclear weapons throughout Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Even if Trump intended to leave NATO, negotiating the transfer or dismantlement of these assets in a four-year timeframe is as impractical as it is impossible.

That said, if Trump secures reelection, the alliance will inevitably grapple with issues of cohesion, and the future of Ukraine is far less certain. However, one should take comfort that his anti-NATO rhetoric appears grounded in populist posturing and the costs associated with burden-sharing. NATO has endured thus far, and while present concerns are legitimate, there is ample reason to believe that history’s most powerful alliance will remain so in the foreseeable future.

 

In a global landscape rife with instability, conflict, and fragmentation, economic initiatives have hardly captured recent headlines. It comes with little surprise that French calls for a meeting of IMEC member states flew under the radar, much like the project’s announcement did when President Joe Biden unveiled its blueprints at the 2023 G20 Summit in New Delhi. IMEC, short for the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, is an ambitious integration proposal that aims to facilitate the movement of goods and people between India and Europe through the Middle East. While there is collective enthusiasm amongst its member states, the plan is also a clear American counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, Washington is late to the game, and concerns remain regarding IMEC’s practicality and effectiveness in achieving its objectives.

Despite the plan’s uncertain future and relative obscurity to the American public, it could deliver tangible benefits for its eight signatories. The developmental project intends to cut production and transportation costs while increasing shipping speed through enhanced integration and digital connectivity. A 4,800 KM system of rail and shipping networks would allow goods shipped from India to the UAE to reach Israel via railway through Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Goods could then enter Europe from the Israeli port of Haifa. By bypassing the Suez Canal, the improvised route could reduce transportation costs from European ports by as much as 40%. New high-speed internet cables and green hydrogen pipelines would complement the transportation infrastructure and add a sustainable dimension. Thus far, the EU, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have committed alongside the U.S. Israel has not formally signed the memorandum but is expected to play a crucial role in its realization.

The inclusion of Israel reflects the Biden administration’s long-term approach to Middle Eastern stability, advocating for the country’s political integration within the Arab world to alleviate tensions and foster mutual economic gains. In this context, IMEC is an extension of the Abraham Accords that could pave the way for further diplomatic normalization between Israel and the Arab states. Above all, however, Washington envisions this initiative as a countermeasure to recent Chinese inroads in the Middle East, which culminated last year in the Beijing-brokered deal that normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That said, IMEC’s purpose transcends great power rivalries, and the individual interests of the other signatories merit consideration.

As a supranational institution lacking a robust military instrument, the EU wields influence primarily through economic strength. The rise of powers like China and India has left Brussels increasingly concerned about the bloc’s competitiveness in an era of multipolarity. Consequently, the EU views IMEC as an avenue to improve its trade and access to global markets while building influence in the Persian Gulf. The initiative also serves the EU’s “De-risking” objective, specifically mitigating economic dependencies and its accompanying strategic vulnerabilities.

European countries involved at the national level, France, Germany, and Italy, aim to bolster their economies by securing contracts for their major companies. For example, executives of prominent French entities like energy giant Total, engineering company Alstom, and the optical fibers company Nexans have already expressed interest in the project.

In a similar vein, India perceives IMEC as a strategic tool to broaden its influence and cement its ascendency in the global economy. New Delhi is also a staunch supporter of Israel and its regional integration, even amidst the war in Gaza. One might imagine this could complicate relations with other Middle Eastern states, but India maintains constructive relationships throughout the region.

Likewise, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan take a pragmatic approach to foreign policy unrestricted by rigid dogmas. For Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, IMEC is one component in his aspiring Vision 2030 – an endeavor to diversify his economy away from oil and position Saudi Arabia as a global hub of tourism, technology, and business. The UAE equally seeks to carve itself a niche diplomatic role grounded in economic potential, simultaneously pursuing close ties with China, the U.S., India, and Russia.

Nevertheless, as one can imagine, IMEC faces numerous obstacles, not least the ongoing war in Gaza. Successful implementation hinges on stability in the Middle East, a formidable challenge even without the recent events. Moreover, the conflict has jeopardized prospects of a rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states, particularly diplomatic normalization with Saudi Arabia – a longtime U.S. objective.

Another concern regards the timeline. Engaged on several diplomatic fronts, the U.S. cannot be everywhere at once. It is probably safe to say that IMEC does not currently occupy a top spot on the Biden administration’s list of priorities. For a project that would take at least a decade to carry out, it is hardly encouraging that France is the only member state to nominate a special envoy to IMEC. Even if the region stabilizes, IMEC will not come to fruition without political will.

China certainly believes this is the case, viewing IMEC as another empty promise made by Washington that is destined to fail. Unfortunately, Washington’s proposal is unlikely to generate its intended effect of countering Chinese influence in the Persian Gulf. Since the BRI’s inception in 2013, Beijing has heavily invested in and developed deep financial ties in the region. Furthermore, the Gulf countries do not share Washington and Europe’s concerns regarding China’s rise, viewing their relationship in transactional terms and a boon for business.

None of these factors doom IMEC, but like all goals worth fighting for, there is an uphill diplomatic climb. And just because the project will not sideline China’s regional presence should not dissuade the U.S. from pursuing it. In fact, showing the world that Washington’s motivations behind international engagement extend beyond great power competition will reinforce its global leadership. The U.S. should continue pursuing IMEC, but with more rigor, emphasizing mutual gains that will deepen American partnerships with its member states. When political will is present, history shows it is never a good idea to bet against America. One can only hope political will exists within the next administration.

A Japanese F-15J with a cultural livery shows Japan’s close ties to the United States and their common defence posture.

 

Each day it appears that new conflicts are arising globally, and every month there is a change in the discussion on how these events were allowed to occur, and the best approach in resolving them. The best example of how to address many policy failures often comes from acknowledging past errors as well as learning from historical examples of successful transitions from nations at war towards nations who freely have chosen peace as their forward path. While some nations have had long traditions honouring warriors in their culture, the final word on those societies were not to extend conflict, but to seek peace, especially with former adversaries. One of the best examples of a large nation with this warrior tradition is Japan, who actively honours their past in many forms while focusing on peace and stability wherever possible.

Pre-1950s Japan was well known as an Imperial Empire that aggressively captured much of Asia and the Pacific region, subjecting their adversaries to some of the most brutal treatment known to humanity. The loss of the Second World War to the United States and Allied forces was not only a military defeat, but a cultural revolution where old customs and systems of bias were reformed and subject to liberal ideas and modern approaches. While Japanese culture and traditions varied greatly from liberal values, the following years would create a local model of modernisation and progress that is a benefit to the rest of the world and the people of Japan itself. This transition did not occur in a vacuum, but developed with set expectations and measured approaches to turn Japan into one of the most modern societies in the 21st Century.

Post War Japan suffered from the same issues as many other nations after the Second World War, with shortages and newly administered Governments heavily influenced from abroad actively reshaping Japanese culture assertively and systemically. The 1960s emerged with a challenge to Japan, as economic development, education and social welfare systems mirrored that of many developing countries at the time. A focus on economic innovation and the promotion of their economy into the larger world utilised Japan’s increasingly educated and innovative population to challenge many Western dominated industries in the 1970s. By the 1980s, the Japanese economic model was by all measures well established and extremely competitive within the global marketplace. While Japan’s economic fortunes after the 1990s began to diminish, the country tended to have similar economic problems and solutions as their partners in North America and Europe and were seen as equal allies in the global economy and dependable partners in global security.

What some might call a Japanese economic miracle did not simply arise from good economic policy and fortunate foresight of future economic opportunities, but from a change in the general world view held by many in Japan post-1950. Japan actively produced an education system and culture that was disdainful of conflict, even though much of Japan’s history involved honouring a warrior tradition. Cultural properties in Japan that are often known internationally give a window into this development, and have in turn influenced the ideas of honour and tradition in cultures abroad as a result. Films and media went from Tokyo being attacked by offshore monsters towards a re-engagement with Samurai warrior culture via showing their humanity in the application of old ideas of honour and traditions. Eventually, much of these properties focused on the soul during conflict and the exploration of humanity during war, often around a narrative that is constantly vying for a path to peace. So expansive is the idea of pushing past the limitations of conflict and honour to seek peace, that the concept of peace though force became the focus of some media properties, establishing the idea that warriors achieve their greatest honour by directly fighting to end all wars as seen in the media property Gundam 00. Ideas around peace seems to have been a national project, so much so that the language of society turned the ideas of peace and humanity into a concept rooted in honour. A warrior after the 1950s could perhaps be seen not as someone who seeks war, but as someone who fights against it in the 2020s.

Japan has taken many decades to reform itself from a nation that saw brutality and war as a part of its warrior traditions, towards a country that is a model for economic and cultural development in the 21st Century. Japan actively shows that support for peace, financially, culturally, and systemically is the likely path to stem the continuation of future wars globally. Taking the approach of funding added conflict does little for the people in those nations, and works more to weaponise a world view instead of cultivating a culture that seeks peace and stability. What is apparent in many Japanese media properties and general culture is that war has no winners, and that those who seek war are never the honourable ones in the conflict. Perhaps they are correct, there is no honour in war, and those who seek it will never be warriors or heroes without false narratives painted over their empty deeds. Achieving Peace might be the purest form of Honour.

A Soviet Era Rubezh system launching a Cold War era ground based Anti-Ship missile, similar in appearance to those seen being used by Houthis in the Red Sea.

The creation of the Suez Canal was successful in advancing trade from the East to Europe as a mark of industrial advancement in the 19th Century. So important was trade through the canal that it prompted national movements, significant wars, and inspired many other large similar projects worldwide. With the threat of Anti-Ship missiles being launched at commercial vessels in the Red Sea, the canal is being abandoned and ships passing through the area are losing their ability to be insured. Companies are now being forced to choose the traditional longer and more costly route around the entirety of Africa in order to deliver goods to the Mediterranean and North Africa. The loss of funds from the canal has a great economic effect on Egypt, and creates higher prices to those living in Europe who are already strickened with inflationary issues from global events and the war in Ukraine.

While the missiles being shot at ships in the Red Sea vary from basic anti-ship missiles and artillery to what looks to be a copy or version of an older chunky Soviet anti-ship missile, the possible damage to commercial vessels and possible loss of life is something the international community and world trade had not tolerated, ever. From stories of old Pirates to those featuring Tom Hanks, an international response would always be the end result as blocking commercial shipping tends to damage almost all nations who trade via blue water routes. While links between Iran toward the Houthis also suggests ties with Russia and China, both Russian and Chinese commercial shipping have suffered economically from attacks in the Red Sea region, even if not directly hit by missiles. While there has been an international military response to the threat, it is surprising that it has not been more immediate and more severe as it has often been throughout the history of trade overseas.

Notable allies and adversaries have entered into protection mode in the area, as Indian Navy ships help rescue injured vessels while China’s has taken to actively calling for the protection of commercial shipping interests alongside the US, UK, and France. With a motley crew of often adversarial Navies now working in concert, or at least for a common purpose, it is likely the case that policy approaches and actions amongst many of these adversaries have now shown to have created a lose-lose situation for all involved. This has come with the realisation that some allies are best left on their own, as their support is as harmful or worse than being in direct conflict when them. Ties to allies that have often resulted in past suffering in a country’s own population has not been a mystery for many Russians. China, with its own national challenges, is able to keep itself in a good position internationally even if it is not as robust or profitable as it has been five or more years ago. Coming so close to all out conflict when all parties are suffering from poor policy choices might do more to encourage diplomacy and resolutions to political challenges. Doing so while chunky Anti-Ship missiles are whizzing by your country’s flagged ships is probably not the motivation any party sought in resolving their fissures with international rivals, but its what is now the new normal in 2024.

Vintage set icons of ballot box for presidential election in USA . Elections 2024. Vote.

One month into the New Year, and we can already confirm that the rumors are true- 2024 will be a precedent setting year …. One might say that we enter the year between a rock and a hard place.  Major conflicts rage on multiple fronts and along multiple planes. Literal fighting continues to take place in Ukraine and the Middle East. A different sort of battle is taking place which will impact the standing of global democracy and the enduring power of important international bodies. Each one of these tension points has the potential to upset the global apple cart- sudden shocks along multiple fronts would be even more disruptive.

The uptick in global violence, exemplified by the warfare in Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, represent a worrying deviation from a decades long trend of increasingly peaceful relations. Each of these conflicts has taken a tremendous toll on combatants and non-combatants alike- some 10,000 civilians have been killed in Ukraine, alongside the over 25,000 Palestinians and roughly 2,000 Israeli civilians who have fallen in the fighting. Beyond the overwhelming loss of life and human potential that has already taken place, these conflicts both appear durable and come with serious downstream risks. 

The current state of affairs in Ukraine, baring a dramatic shift on the ground following the deployment of F-16s, suggests a momentumless and prolonged conflict. Even if we can limit our considerations exclusively to the facts on the ground, neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians appear satisfied with resolving the conflict in accordance with the military positioning as it is today. Once we allow ourselves to remember that other leaders with revisionist objectives are observing the existing power’s reaction to Russian aggression, the position becomes even more tenuous. 

The prospects that Ukraine maintains the whole of its territorial integrity appear increasingly dim, especially given the trajectory of American politics, yet rewarding aggression with territorial expansion sets a worrisome precedent.  A hypothetical “save face” outcome in which Ukraine gains NATO membership in exchange for ceding the currently occupied territories to Russia, feels unsatisfying for all parties involved.

The conflict in Gaza appears similarly intractable  given the current state of leadership both in Israel and in Palestine. Just as it feels increasingly uncontroversial to say that Benjamin Netenyahu’s time in office appears to be coming to an end, so too has it become increasingly clear that the military component of Hamas ought not serve as the de facto government in Gaza. Even as the establishment of a Palestinian state and the integration of existing political organizations in Gaza appear fundamental in order to secure a lasting peace, the military wing of Hamas is unsuited for that role. If more moderate leadership is able to rise in both camps, the international community appears ready to endorse a reimagined status quo in the Middle East.

Just as these conflicts will test the resolve of individual nations, so too will prominent international institutions be measured by their ability to mediate resolutions. In the very same moment during which entrenched powers would like to depend on well respected international bodies, the United Nations finds itself racked with controversy. Israeli political leaders have alleged that dozens of employees in the UNRWA participated in the October 7th attacks. This leaves American policy makers with the difficult choice of either working to reform the complicated UN bureaucracy or stepping away from an institution that long served as a pillar of Liberal values on the world stage. 

Despite the current moment of tension between American policymakers and the UN, the United States has proven itself capable of working within the United Nations framework to pursue American interests. This was on display in 2022 when the United States led an overwhelming diplomatic effort to denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine. When the United States and the United Nations speak with one voice, their power is mutually reinforcing. American policy makers would be wise to strike the balance between unilateral actions abroad and respect for the international bodies that reinforce an American lead world order. 

Hanging over all of this is the opportunity, and the vulnerability, that comes with the some 4 billion people scheduled to vote in global elections in the coming year. The victory of the independent-leaning Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwanese elections resulted in less disruption- to date- than might have been expected, but there is no guarantee that similar calm would follow other hotly contested elections.The trajectory of American presidential elections will influence how voters in India and Mexico think about their economic and material security- offering an opportunity either for a coming together of international democracies or the further fracturing of the Postwar order.

Given all of this turbulence, and given all that is at stake in the coming months, it is more important now than ever for increased attentiveness to international affairs, and for those of us living in Liberal Democracies, increased concern for the health of our political institutions. 

To paraphrase one of my compatriots in the foreign policy arena, let’s hope that 2024 does not become a year which must not be named. 

—

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