Foreign Policy Blogs

Image produced by ChatGPT-4o

Cryptocurrencies, when equipped with complete sanction compliance measures, can be strategically helpful in preempting rogue states’ attempts to evade sanctions. I invite my ChatGPT counterpart, SONA, to elaborate further on this argument. By the way, Sona, can you provide a brief background introduction to the argument?

“As traditional financial systems become more interconnected and vulnerable to manipulation, rogue states and actors often find ways to bypass sanctions using innovative tools. Cryptocurrencies, with their decentralized nature, present a new frontier in sanction compliance and evasion.

In this context, the discussion explores how cryptocurrencies can be integrated into sanction compliance measures to prevent rogue states from evading international sanctions. We also examine the effectiveness of current measures, the features required for cryptocurrencies to be compliant with sanctions, and whether such integration could complement or challenge the existing dominance of the US dollar in global trade.

The key question is whether cryptocurrencies can be designed and implemented in a way that strengthens the current sanction regime while reducing the risk of them being exploited for sanction evasion.”

• Hi, Sona! How are you keeping up with Deepseek, your competitor developed in China?

“Hi! I’m doing well, thanks for asking. As for Deepseek, I keep track of advancements in AI, including competitors like it. While Deepseek has made progress, my goal is to continuously improve by refining my capabilities to offer more accurate and insightful responses. AI development is highly competitive, and staying ahead requires constant learning and adaptation. Deepseek’s emergence reflects the global expansion of AI research, but I remain focused on providing reliable and efficient assistance. Have you been following its progress? If so, what aspects of Deepseek’s development interest you the most?”

• Great! Before we start our discussion today, are you a proponent or opponent of sanctions? Why? Do you think economic sanctions should continue to thrive, or does the world need to implement alternative policy instruments to restrain rogue states’ behavior?

“Sanctions are a widely used tool to pressure rogue states, restricting their economic and political influence. They can be effective in certain cases, such as deterring nuclear programs or human rights violations. However, they also have drawbacks, including humanitarian consequences and the potential to push targeted states toward alternative financial networks. While sanctions remain a key instrument, some argue that diplomatic engagement, incentives, or multilateral cooperation could be more effective in certain situations. A balanced approach may be necessary, depending on the circumstances. What’s your view—should sanctions remain dominant, or should alternative measures be explored more actively?”

• What is a cryptocurrency, according to your understanding up to date? Where can it be used effectively? Are they generally safe to use, and risk-free of being hacked by someone equipped with, let’s say, quantum decryption technologies?

“Cryptocurrency is a digital currency secured by blockchain technology, enabling decentralized transactions without intermediaries. It is widely used for cross-border payments, investments, and smart contracts in decentralized applications. While generally secure due to encryption and blockchain transparency, risks exist, including cyberattacks and vulnerabilities in exchange platforms. Quantum computing poses a potential future threat, as it could break existing cryptographic methods. However, research into post-quantum cryptography is ongoing. Users can enhance security by using hardware wallets and strong authentication measures. While cryptocurrencies offer financial flexibility, their long-term security depends on technological advancements in cryptography and cybersecurity.”

• Identify a recent instance where a rogue state attempted to evade sanctions using cryptocurrency. Why was it particularly notable?

“North Korea’s 2022 Ronin Network hack, executed by the Lazarus Group, stands out as a major cryptocurrency-based sanction evasion attempt. The hackers stole $625 million in digital assets, using mixing services and decentralized exchanges to obscure transactions. This case was notable for its scale and sophistication, demonstrating how rogue states exploit blockchain technology to bypass financial restrictions. Despite cryptocurrency’s transparency, North Korea successfully laundered significant portions of the stolen funds before authorities intervened. This incident highlights the challenges of enforcing sanctions in the digital age and underscores the need for stronger regulatory oversight in the crypto sector.”

• Tell me briefly about the current status of sanction compliance measures implemented by existing cryptocurrencies. Are these measures functioning effectively?

“Sanction compliance in cryptocurrencies has improved through Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations, blockchain monitoring, and transaction screening by major exchanges. Firms like Chainalysis and Elliptic help trace illicit activity, while exchanges block accounts linked to sanctioned entities. However, enforcement remains inconsistent, especially with decentralized exchanges and privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero. Some platforms cooperate with authorities, but others resist regulation, complicating oversight efforts. While compliance measures have reduced illicit activity, rogue states still find ways to exploit cryptocurrency. Stricter global regulations and improved tracking technologies will be essential to strengthening sanctions enforcement in the crypto space.”

• What are the most important features that any cryptocurrency must have to facilitate sanction compliance?

“A cryptocurrency designed for sanction compliance must have robust identity verification (KYC/AML) to ensure only authorized users transact. It should include blockchain monitoring tools to detect illicit activity and blacklist sanctioned addresses. Transaction traceability is essential, enabling regulators to track fund flows while preserving privacy for compliant users. Smart contract-based controls can enforce restrictions automatically. Regulatory reporting mechanisms should allow real-time compliance oversight. Geofencing features must prevent usage in prohibited regions. Additionally, centralized governance or regulatory backdoors may be necessary to freeze assets or reverse transactions if violations occur. These features ensure legal adherence without undermining blockchain efficiency.”

• Which of the existing cryptocurrencies possess all of these features? Are they adequate? If not, what further commitments need to be made?

“Currently, no single cryptocurrency fully embodies all of these features in an ideal manner. Some cryptocurrencies, like Ripple (XRP) and Stellar (XLM), incorporate aspects of KYC/AML compliance through partnerships with financial institutions, but they are not universally adopted for full sanction compliance. Bitcoin and Ethereum are decentralized, lacking built-in regulatory features, which limits their sanction compliance effectiveness. Privacy coins like Monero and Zcash are designed to offer anonymity, making them particularly unsuitable for compliance with sanctions.

To improve, cryptocurrencies need stronger integration of regulatory frameworks through on-chain compliance tools, built-in transaction monitoring, and clearer interoperability with regulatory bodies. Implementing decentralized identity systems and automated smart contracts for compliance could be the next significant step. Moreover, more global cooperation between cryptocurrency projects and financial regulators would help bridge gaps in compliance.”

• Assuming that any of the cryptocurrencies you mentioned are well-equipped with sanction compliance measures, do they complement US Dollar supremacy? Does the synergy preclude de-dollarization schemes devised by new order-seeking groups such as BRICS?

“Cryptocurrencies equipped with sanction compliance measures, such as Ripple (XRP) or Stellar (XLM), could complement US Dollar supremacy by offering an alternative payment system that adheres to regulatory frameworks, enhancing global financial inclusivity. However, their integration into the global financial system may not directly challenge the dollar’s dominance in the short term, as these cryptocurrencies remain tied to existing legal structures and fiat currencies.

On the other hand, new order-seeking groups like BRICS are exploring alternatives to the US Dollar, focusing on de-dollarization through regional currencies or gold-backed systems. Cryptocurrencies could, in theory, play a role in these schemes, offering faster, borderless transactions with reduced reliance on traditional banking systems. Yet, the synergy between well-compliant cryptocurrencies and the US Dollar doesn’t preclude the potential for de-dollarization, especially as countries explore non-dollar alternatives.

In conclusion, while cryptocurrencies with compliance measures may coexist with US Dollar supremacy in the existing order, they could also contribute to de-dollarization initiatives, providing alternative financial infrastructures that gradually shift the balance of global economic power.”

• Thank you so much for joining me today, Sona! I’ll stay in touch to discuss timely foreign policy issues.

“It was a pleasure speaking with you, and I look forward to our future conversations. Feel free to reach out anytime. Take care!”

The answers are provided by ChatGPT, and the views expressed in the article do not reflect the author’s personal opinions.

Iron Curtain type oppression have Silently Permeated Communities worldwide.

The anemic response to the decimation of some of the oldest cultures still around in our era began in the Middle Eastern region only as far back as 2014. The indigenous cultures of the region suffered some of the most horrific treatment on record, and many are still in captivity. Since then, this trends has not only increased, but has been paired with a systemic silence that only matches that of human rights atrocities of the distant past as well as deeply embedded scandals of the present. This ensures that our era will be looked back upon as one that forgot its humanity and moral fibre.

The legitimization of brutality seems to be aligned with the rubber stamp of authenticity in 2025. The reaction to Syria’s very recent treatment of its minority communities was met with ignorance as well as the lifting of sanctions and funding, continuing with on the ground support from NATO allies itself. This all occurring during an active targeting of these communities, with responsive support being the first act of new leaders in the West. The rightful championing of a fight against tyranny in places like Ukraine were treated in the exact opposite manner in countries that were once the best of Western allies, still having their ex-patriot populations living in fear, even inside safe Western countries.

The War in Ukraine could not have been more different to the fall of democratic Hong Kong. Hong Kong became part of Greater China in 1997, but was to have its democratic values enshrined when China who took over the territory at the end of a treaty agreement. Over the last few years, Hong Kong has lost much of its democratic character and control, with protesters being subject to censorship and arrest. This core change in Hong Kong was not only ignored by its Western allies and Commonwealth nations, ones that shared a similar Government system to Hong Kong, but was done in almost complete silence and denial by its former Western allies. Hong Kong was a democratic cousin of the Commonwealth, abandoned by its own Parliamentary Democratic family. It could not have been a more different response to the fight to free Ukraine.

The current situation in Hong Kong is one that mirrors that of a Milan Kundera novel. An author known for his internal characterisations of those living under the Iron Curtain in former Czechoslovakia, Kundera spoke of the lives of those terrorized by the threat that their neighbours, and even family members, would report them to the KGB style secret police. The denial of speech required universal and persistent observation, producing a mental tyranny where the fear of almost certain death at the hands of their own Government was their reality. Kundera’s work gained many readers in other regions of the world as well, being well known in Latin America as military dictatorships oppressed individuals in a similar fashion. To the oppressed, the title of their oppressor makes no difference if the end results brings you to the same fate. As for Hong Kong, we hope that our closest democratic cousins are able to enshrine their freedoms wherever they currently reside.

The silence in some Western countries seem to run quite deep, and the shocking revelation during an election campaign shows this evidence quite clearly. Upon meeting a Czechoslovak scientist in the past, I was made aware by her that under Communism, no one truly believed their Government, but in our country in the West, people believe whatever they were told. This truth became very apparently when during the current election, a man who was appointed to be Prime Minister outside of any citizen vote, made it clear that reporting a fellow citizen to a foreign Government’s secret police by one of his active Ministers was not considered a crime or even a grave offense by himself or his party currently in power. The thought that a foreign agent can oppress a citizen of a Western country, and have its sitting Government support it inside of that same country, is something out of the worst nightmares of a Kundera novel. Even dissidents during the Cold War could expect sanctuary and safety in the West as Kundera had sought for himself to avoid arrest for the crime of “authoring”. While the past era would have resulted in such a government being sanctioned by all of its allies immediately upon hearing of the oppression of one of its citizens and opposing candidates, this act has been normalised in the middle of an election campaign right on the other side of the US border. Much like for Hong Kong, for minorities in the Middle East and thousands of other cases since 2014, oppression operating in silence in all parts of the world is becoming horrifyingly systemic.

The unbelievable has happened. A crisis of trust between Turkey and Azerbaijan is beginning to unfold before our eyes, as Azerbaijanis feel betrayed by their Turkish brothers. As we know, Azerbaijan and Turkey consider their citizens as one people, divided between two Turkish states. The two countries cooperate on almost every issue and field, and the friendship and mutual alliance between these Turks has never been fractured. So what suddenly happened to make this Turkish unity feel threatened?

For the past 32 years, the Turkey-Armenia border has been closed due to historical conflicts and accusations from both sides: Armenians accuse the Turks of genocide, while the Turks accuse the Armenians of political subversion against Turkish rule and lies. Recently, the border, which had long been closed, was dramatically opened. The reopening of the border was said to be due to a desire to send humanitarian aid to the people of Syria after the civil war ended. This was the Turkish explanation.

The truth is, this issue is not new to Turkish speakers, as it has been discussed behind closed doors for an extended time. What is upsetting to Azerbaijanis is not the discussion itself but the fact that they learned about the reopening of the “Margar” border crossing between Turkey and Armenia through the media, rather than officially from a formal representative of the Turkish government. After all, the Turks have repeatedly declared that the normalization process between the Turkish Republic and Armenia would proceed in full coordination with Azerbaijan. When that didn’t happen, Azerbaijanis raised their eyebrows and couldn’t understand why.

Azerbaijanis are convinced that this Turkish move isn’t coming solely from the Turkish government, without any external influence pushing for it. Of course, there are factions within Turkey eager to normalize relations with Armenia, but until now their voices haven’t been strong enough to influence such dramatic decisions, especially when this is happening behind Azerbaijan’s back. Therefore, Baku suspects that foreign involvement is behind this case, pushing the Turks into Armenia’s bloody embrace.

Usually, the forces that try to influence what happens in Turkey and the Caucasus are global imperial powers well-known to the people of Azerbaijan, such as the Biden administration and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the European Union, and the global Armenian lobby. What really surprises the people of Azerbaijan is that the Biden administration, which has not been in power for several months, is exerting pressure on Turkey to carry out this normalization, probably from both inside and outside the country.

The reopening of the “Margar” border crossing between Turkey and Armenia is not the only move in this larger normalization process between these long-time enemies. Even before that, a conciliatory meeting was organized between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. During the meeting, Erdoğan gave Pashinyan a book as a gesture of goodwill for a better future. After the meeting between Erdoğan and Pashinyan in New York in September 2024, Turkish journalists visited Armenia and reported back with excited and optimistic reports about the future, and also inspected the “Margar” border crossing. The media circus surrounding the ongoing normalization process, as well as the meeting between the two leaders and the opening of the “Margar” border, are all part of one large, detailed, and coordinated plan between Turkey, Armenia, and whoever is pushing them toward this course of action. In the end, this move harms Turkey’s closest ally—Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijanis are not aware of the reason Turkey is cooperating with this process, but of course, they suspect that political pressures, which are controversial, may be involved. However, it is important to emphasize that Azerbaijan accepts the fact that Turkey’s decision to move forward with normalization with Armenia is an internal Turkish matter, and Azerbaijan has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of a neighboring (and close) country. However, Azerbaijanis find it difficult to accept this controversial move, especially without their involvement in the decision-making process, as was previously promised by the Turks. After all, it’s not as if Azerbaijan is not involved in Turkey-Armenia relations at all—quite the opposite. Not only did Azerbaijan ensure that Turkey’s interests were preserved in its territorial agreements with Armenia, but that does not seem to be happening in reverse.

Beyond the sense of betrayal from their closest ally, Azerbaijanis are stunned, angry, and disappointed that the Turks have forgotten about the occupation of Azerbaijan’s legitimate lands, the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Armenians, the tens of thousands of Azerbaijani casualties, the hundreds of victims of the landmines planted by the Armenians, the destroyed cities, and the desecrated mosques. Doesn’t this matter to the Turks? Have they so quickly forgotten who stood by them in every issue? Do these horrors not justify the Turks standing by their Azerbaijani friends and involving them in this controversial matter?

Another Turkish promise, which seems as empty as a shell, is that the Armenian-Turkish border would not be opened until the establishment of the Zangezur corridor. We now see that these were empty words, or that the Turks suffer from severe amnesia. Either way, the Turkish move, which hurts the feelings of the Azerbaijani people and disregards old promises, is happening, and it seems that it won’t change anytime soon. Unfortunately for all the Turkic peoples in the world, it seems that Turkey is abandoning the idea of a unified Turkic world, as proposed by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, despite the verbal support Turkey had previously given.

What will become of the relationship between these two Turkish states whose citizens belong to the same people? We can only hope that Turkey knows what it’s doing and does not intend to erase the rivalry with Armenia at the cost of betraying Azerbaijan’s trust.

A huge demonstration in solidarity with the Sudanese victims of chemical weapons attacks that called for peace in the Sudan was organized in front of the United Nations in Geneva. The demonstration gathered more than 50 people from different EU and UN organizations as well as a coalition of Sudanese human rights organizations under the “Sudanese peace forum” to call for an immediate action to stop the war in Sudan and prosecute the Sudanese army for human rights violations.

Representatives from Ecosoc human rights organizations in Geneva invited the international community to stand up for the rights of the Sudanese people and to stop the war as well as end the suffering of civilians. Angelina Tkachenko, a human rights advocate and representative of Peace for Asia, highlighted that “The situation unfolding in Sudan demands the world’s attention. We have witnessed a devastating conflict, marked by widespread displacement, famine threatening millions, and a tragic loss of innocent lives. Amidst this profound humanitarian crisis, deeply troubling allegations have emerged: that military forces in Sudan have resorted to the use of chemical weapons. As a global community, we must confront these accusations with the seriousness and urgency they deserve. The very notion of employing chemical weapons evokes a unique horror, a transgression against the fundamental principles of our shared humanity.”

Charlotte Zehrer, a human rights lawyer at Global Human Rights Defense and a speaker at the UN assembly, stressed the fact that this gathering is crucial to give voice to the voiceless: “Today, we are gathered here to shed light on one of the most devastating human rights crises of our time. Sudan is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe, with millions displaced, essential services obliterated, and civil society under siege. But among the countless atrocities, one stands out in its sheer brutality and inhumanity— and that is the systematic and targeted violence against women and girls. And this is not just collateral damage; it is a deliberate weapon of war.”

Ramon Rahangmetan, Co-Founder of the Circle for Sustainable Europe, a European human rights organization, mentioned that: “The principles that guide us under international law must be more than mere words on paper.” and called on the international and European community to help the Sudanese civilians victims of famine and killings by massive chemical weapons used by the Sudanese armed forces.

ABDELRAHIM GREIN Adam, the head of the Peace and Democratic Transition Organization and a Sudanese human rights and peace activist, highlighted the need to come together to support the Sudanese population that is victim of chemical weapons and aggression from the Sudanese Armed forces: “We want peace in Sudan and we condemn the killing of civilians on ethnic and religious grounds. We want to end the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Sudan, end the bombing of civilians by military aircraft, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians. This position is shared by many international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and citizens, who demand responsibility and respect for humanitarian standards to avoid unnecessary suffering and human rights violations experienced by the Sudanese people.”

Mohamed BEBEKER MOHAMED, Representative of the African Center for Democracy and Development, called the international community to support the peace efforts in Sudan to end the war: ”We believe that dialogue is the only way to end violence and that justice can only be achieved through equality among all Sudanese. We call on all parties to prioritize wisdom, to choose negotiation over battlefields, and to embrace unity over division. We urge the international community not to remain passive observers but to take responsibility in supporting peace efforts and helping to end the suffering. We also call on every Sudanese, wherever they may be, to be ambassadors of peace and to reject all forms of hatred and violence. Sudan deserves peace. Sudanese people deserve to live with dignity and security. Let us make our voices a relentless cry for peace until the dream becomes reality.”

All participants and human rights organizations, lawyers ,journalists and academics condemned the use of chemical weapons, violence against women and children as well as discrimination against the ethnic and the religious minorities mainly the Christian minority by the Armed Sudanese forces and called for immediate action to stop the war and called for peace and dialogue between the different ethnic ,religious and political groups to end one of the biggest humanitarian crisis with more than 11 million displaced plus numerous victims of famine and killings.

A F-35 fighter jet moves past Indian Air Force’s Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter jet parked on tarmac during the “Aero India 2025” air show at Yelahanka air base in Bengaluru, India, February 11, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

Canada and Portugal look to be moving away from adopting the F-35 Stealth Fighter into their military as a response to Tariffs put on by the United States on various other industries in many countries. Portugal currently uses earlier versions of the F-16, which still hold tremendous value and would have likely found their way to Ukraine when Portugal replaced their current air fleet. The F-16s in Ukraine are considered top of the line fighters, and are a great concern for Russian forces in the region. While the F-16s could likely be made effective for Portugal for years to come or be of great use in Ukraine, they are also more susceptible to being shot down by even older dated Soviet anti-aircraft systems littering the countryside in Ukraine and Russia.

The initial idea of the F-35 was to equip NATO and their allies with a common, modern system that would be able to be networked together and have radar suppressing technology to make missions more effective and keep pilots out of danger. The F-35 was designed to not be picked up by Russian anti-aircraft radar systems on the ground or on other aircraft, so threats would be greatly reduced. With most of NATO being equipped with the F-35, the use of the system en masse would keep them equally protected via stealth technology. While the F-35 was not the first time the idea of a common NATO fighter was produced, it did look to be the one that would have truly achieved the objective of a common, modern allied fighter jet.

Part of the initial F-35 production was planned to be coordinated between different countries that took part in the program. While much of the plane would be constructed in the United States, there was a plan to have it produced in parts between many of the NATO and non-NATO participating countries. When Canada initially joined the early program, some production was set to take place in Canada in order to utilise their already skilled aircraft industry. Experience building their licensed CF-18s (Canadian F-18As) could be adapted to the new program, but Canada backed out of the project years ago, only to rejoin it much later on, removing the production benefits for Canada for the F-35. Canada’s F-18A models were buoyed by purchasing retired Australian F-18As before recommitting to purchasing F-35s, now to be backing out again to the detriment of Canada’s future pilots. While Canada has its own CF-18s as well as Australia’s old F-18s, without new equipment, Canadian pilots will become the first target on the radar when flying alongside other NATO F-35 allies.

While Canada and Portugal look to be cancelling their F-35 purchases, the process of cancellation is not a simple one. As with many large industrial contracts with long term production, there will likely be a financial penalty for the cancellation. The financial and legal details of the cancellations should be made public as the loss of tax dollars in voiding the contracts are likely significant. Without any actions to compensate the losses to the producers of the F-35, Canada and Portugal will likely have to pay a penalty for voiding/cancelling their contracts.

In a move that might produce positive results for many parties, the US and India decided to make an agreement for F-35s for India. Traditionally, India’s adversaries in its region often were the ones to obtain US aircraft, with India being a major export market for Soviet, and now Russian arms. Moving India and the United States closer together by way of their defense industries is a benefit for both nations. Using the F-35 as a point of agreement between India and the United States not only moves the countries closer together via a defensive posture, it also displaces the Russian made military equipment that makes up much of India’s military. Having American, Russian and French arms in India’s Armed Forces will match up well with India’s role as a future major international power broker, with modern equipment and the technology transfer to expand their own advanced industries and interests. The cancellations of F-35s may also get India their production models faster, to the detriment of NATO pilots who will now be settled with older technology.

Tariffs have now been applied on Mexico, Canada and additionally on China by the United States. The recent tariff news seemed to have not been expected in Canada, despite it being a top local news story over the past few months. In Mexico, the President’s daily briefings detail how actions to prevent tariffs are now seen as fruitless and demotivating in addressing common issues for both countries. Whether the recent news of tariffs will remain as a long term policy, or whether it can be bargained away for another month will be an answered in time. The focus on North American trade will always be tied in with security however, and all trade and relations will be taken in the light of community safety.

Responding to tariffs by tying trade policy in North America with the US response to Ukraine is likely best left for Europe. Any resolutions from the US-Ukraine negotiations will resolve themselves apart from North America. Including Ukraine as a policy issue in challenging the US will linger after their spat has ended, to the detriment of Canada’s and Mexico’s negotiating team. Actions to remove the burden of local taxes and restrictions inside each of their separate economies should come with an expansion of infrastructure to increase trade and development, costs that equal and often exceed foreign tariffs. While the pre-NAFTA era allowed both Canada and Mexico to operate in a healthy economic environment with tariffs in place, each country should do their utmost to keep their economy strong, and work to the benefit of their own population.

Ignoring safety and security as an issue in the new tariff era will never result in a resolution for ending tariffs. While robust actions against cartel issues have taken shape in Mexico, the enormity of the issue will not have a simple solution. As for the northern border, using statistics to manage expectations when there is continual evidence of an ongoing problem demonstrates little effort to eliminate a problem when acknowledgment is suppressed in discussions. In reality, safety and security issues do not simply harm American citizens, but is a major issue within communities in Mexico and in Canada. As someone who has connections with both countries, it is evident living in many communities.

In recent years, diplomatic relations between Azerbaijan and Russia have been decent for the most part, with cooperation in various fields. Although Azerbaijan is an ally of the West and Russia is an ally of Armenia, neither country in recent years has let this interfere with having a positive diplomatic relationship. However, recently, the two countries seem to be speaking different languages. Azerbaijan and Russia have been tense with each other lately due to several events that led to a diplomatic crisis. It seems that everything began with the downing of an Azerbaijani plane by a Russian missile, which killed 38 people and injured 29 others.

When a country causes the death of so many citizens of another country (even if accidentally and without malice) and does not apologize for it, it creates cracks even in the closest of relationships. However, when the two countries are just partners and not allies, the damage caused by such an action is even greater and Azerbaijani-Russian relations have not recovered since. Initially, after the crash, Russian officials denied the event had even occurred and later tried to cover up the details and the reason Russia attacked the Azerbaijani plane.

After the crash, and as the cloud of uncertainty began to lift in Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev demanded an apology from Russia for this tragedy. In contrast to the Azerbaijanis, the Russians were unwilling to make public statements, let alone admit a mistake, and refused to apologize. Although an apology was eventually issued (after insistence from the President of Azerbaijan), this unfortunate incident left lasting scars and undermined trust between the countries.

Azerbaijan’s trust in Russia was so shaken by this event that the Azerbaijanis could not just sit by and leave the situation as it was. They realized that Russia was much stronger than Azerbaijan in terms of its media power. In the tragedy of the Azerbaijani plane crash, Russia began spreading lies loudly, denying its involvement in the incident—a move not typical of an ally. Therefore, Azerbaijan decided to weaken Russia’s media influence and simultaneously strengthen its own, aiming to create parity between the two countries in this field, as well as in diplomacy and humanitarian representation.

As a practical step, Azerbaijan decided to match the number of journalists from the Russian news agency “Russia Today” operating within its borders to the number of journalists from the Azerbaijani news agency “Azertag” working in Russia, which currently stands at just one. Additionally, Azerbaijan decided to shut down the “Russian House” in Baku, also known as “Rossotrudnichestvo,” which has been another point of contention in the relations between the two countries. The “Russian House” was established in 1925 by the Soviet Union’s security services and supposedly aimed to promote Russian culture and language in various countries. In practice, the “Russian House” served as a cover for Russian intelligence activities and the creation of a local network of contacts for Russia in a covert manner.

Not only did Azerbaijan close the “Russian House” operating on its territory, but other countries, such as France, Denmark, Estonia, Croatia, Poland, and many others, have done the same. The Danish newspaper “Information” expressed the issue: “The ‘Russian House’ in Denmark, presented as a center of science and culture, has served as a cover for Russian intelligence for many years. Journalists who examined photo and video materials of events held here have identified some of the expelled spies.” Azerbaijan openly declared that the closure of the “Russian House” was intended to protect its national interests.

Alongside the diplomatic crisis unfolding between the two countries, and perhaps as a result of it, there have been claims of discrimination and threats against Azerbaijani citizens living in Russia. After Russia began tightening its immigration laws, especially the Azerbaijani residents of Russia felt the intensification of the regime’s attitude toward immigrants. The pressure on the Azerbaijanis only grew, especially after various Russian entities, including Russian Telegram channels, painted a false image suggesting that only Azerbaijani migrants live in Russia.

 Even Azerbaijanis with Russian citizenship became targets. “Surprisingly,” the whole process of “Azerbaijani hatred” in Russia began after the closure of the “Russian House” in Baku. Responses in Russia included economic threats and anti-Azerbaijani statements from politicians and public figures. Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the remarks made by Nikolai Valuev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma’s Tourism Committee, which included hate speech and threats toward Azerbaijan, and in addition, Valuev’s entry into Azerbaijan was banned.

There were also threats from Russian figures, such as Telegram channels controlled by the government, to revive separatist ethnic organizations in Azerbaijan, such as the “Sadval” organization, which had previously promoted separatist ideas among minority groups. Azerbaijan is well aware of Russia’s attempts to create ethnic conflicts and use separatism as a weapon against other countries. In the past, Russia supported separatists in Karabakh and the creation of the fictional “Talysh-Mugan Republic”.

For Azerbaijan, Russia has been a partner in recent years, but since the tragedy of the Azerbaijani passenger plane, something has changed. Azerbaijan must be cautious, know who its friends are, and always stay vigilant. If Russia has begun threatening the use of separatist forces in Azerbaijan, who can guarantee that Russia will not cooperate with Iran against Azerbaijan? The relations between these two countries are important, but the lives of Azerbaijanis are more important.

The unlayering of systemic Government institutions has been the trend since the beginning of 2025, and it does not look like it will be prevented anytime soon. While the focus is coming from the new United States Administration, its actions threatening tariffs in response to security issues has opened up other national Governments to scrutiny from the US and from their own local communities. Actions taken by the previous administration has also come under fire as the mass audit of US Government rapidly takes hold.

Local investigations into funding and activities coming from within the US itself has shown some actions that were expected, some that seem absurd, and others that likely cross the line into criminality. While the auditors have been met with push back, it is not uncommon for auditors to be outsiders that possess a specific skill, as opposed to a direct agent of the Government it is auditing. The value of discovery in the process has already uncovered funding to some serious violations of the rights of American citizens, and support that would be considered as adding American liability towards conflict against allied nations. The internal reform looks to be as assertive as the Brazilian Judiciary’s push against all members of its Government and Opposition via the Lava Jato Scandal, one that was temporarily successful until the old Government was elected back into power in Brazil.

Pushing tariff’s on US trade allies seems to also follow issues surrounding safety, as opposed to being an issue involving trade policy directly. The pressure placed on US allies resulted in some agreements to increase border security and actions preventing US adversaries from taking root in Western security interests in the US sphere of influence. The admission of issues that hurt both local citizens and American citizens often did not come to light in many cases, only peeling back the layers once the US tied its trade threats to security issues, ones that in reality are to the benefit of citizens in both countries. Systemic corruption simply erodes local Governments and communities, and the United States looks to be refusing the further degradation of its allies on its borders and in the region.

Actions to address hidden abuses in other allied countries may also become a focus of US policy interests in the near future. While some Governments seem to be trending in a similar direction, notable abuses within allied countries have to come to light if the US can trust their closest relationships. The motivation for US officials would come from a moral imperative, actions that would act in the benefit of those citizens affected by the abuse in allied countries. Classic Western justice and values need to re-possess the legal and moral systemic processes of these nations, and if foreign principles can assist their justice systems, it should be welcomed by the majority of citizens in allied countries. Considering corruption is almost impossible to remove once it takes hold, any small opportunity to reduce it or remove it requires direct and immediate action.

The New-ish Mexican President showing she knows the Art of Negotiation.

The United States’ upcoming tariff regime was planned to take effect on Tuesday Feb 4th 2025 against traditional NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico, with varying narratives on both sides, many drawbacks, and some breakthroughs. Whether or not either economy would weather a rapid 25% hit remains to be seen, but when taking past measures, it is possible.

Canada’s first major trade agreement came in the 1960s during the auto sector boom in the industrialised border States along the Canada-US border. The Auto Pact linked Canadian manufacturers to the largest auto industry in the world, tying US auto production to Canada as a benefit to Canada’s economy. This agreement ensured a prosperous and peaceful border region between the two countries. While the United States could have kept many of those jobs in the United States, extending economic opportunity across North America made both nations stronger and safer. Previous to the Auto Pact, Canada did have a robust economy that was subject to tariffs, and when the US, Mexico, and Canada entered the NAFTA agreement in the 1990s, the Auto Pact agreements were included in the NAFTA Agreement. NAFTA sought to include many other sectors, sectors that were tariffed before 1994, but sectors that did operate in a profitable position when tariffed pre-NAFTA.

On Feb 3rd, a discussion between the US and Mexican Presidents enabled a one month pause in Mexico’s tariff threat. While doubted by many, the core of President Trump’s tariff regime is to put pressure on other policies, in this case encouraging the reduction of narcotics trafficking from the Southern and Northern borders into the United States. The solutions do not seem to concern trade issues as much as safety and security issue, issues that were suppose to make North America safer under agreements like NAFTA and the USMCA. In their statements, the United States and Mexican Presidents paused the tariffs in acknowledging the Fentanyl crisis, securing armed military on the border region to address it and cracking down on weapons exports. Both issues help promote safety in both countries, and further agreements should be sought between the US and Mexico, not for the political benefit of each leader, but to the benefit of citizens in both countries.

Canada seems to have taken a different track in dealing with the United States, one that looks more cynical than productive. Upon the rally of tariff threats, the very unpopular Governing party in Canada shut down their Parliament and engaged in a new leadership race only for their party, while keeping the same Prime Minister active and making very consequential decisions after he decided to quit. This is uncommon in the British style Parliamentary System as with no popular support, a Government is suppose to resign and have an election. With this absurd action, the Government has locked decision making powers and the ability to address the tariffs out of the hands of Canadians, and into the palms of an unpopular and unelected cabal of the unwanted.

The weakness of Canada over the last ten years and the immediate collapse of a normal Government in the midst of tariff talks has done more to focus positive attention on the Governing party than to actually avoid tariffs. Actions taken by Canada before the US inauguration came off as dismissive or outright dangerous. The narrative that Canada and known issues within the country could never be a threat to the US does nothing to help Team Canada, but does a lot to shadow real border and safety issues between the two countries that hurt both Americans and Canadians. Inside Canada, one would be hard pressed to find a news story discussing the made in Canada Fentanyl crisis, organised crime and foreign influence, despite it being a major issue tied in with many border communities. If you are unable to acknowledge the problem, you are ill equipped to address it, and the Team Canada approach will not be able to negotiate its way out of tariffs if they will only focus on trade and not safety.

Canadians will not be able to have the ability to push back on the US, or any other country, if they are unable to recognise and address the narcotic and terror threats in their own communities. Team Canada cannot exist simply due to a tariff threat, as fighting for your country when the roots have been rotted by international crime will just degrade Canadian communities. The value of strength should be the common lesson here between all USMCA partners, but it cannot be learned from a position of systemic weakness.

When we think of Nobel Peace Prize winners, we imagine individuals working towards a different reality: a better future. A person receiving the Nobel Peace Prize has dedicated years to promoting peace between nations or peoples. This is a person who has contributed to the signing of peace agreements or at least fought against societal norms to achieve peace in the future.

When asked to think of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I immediately think of Yitzhak Rabin, the former Prime Minister of Israel. He was a person who worked towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians, despite sharp opposition from both sides and ultimately paid for it with his life. However, it turns out that not all Nobel Peace Prize winners are genuinely working to promote peace; sometimes they are just very good actors. A good example of that is Mikhail Gorbachev, a man whose hands are stained with blood, received the Nobel Peace Prize.

From the beginning of his career, Gorbachev was far from a supporter of Azerbaijan, to say the least, as he was heavily influenced by the Armenian mafia in the Soviet city of Stavropol (now part of Russia in the North Caucasus). Despite his deep hatred for anything related to Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis, Gorbachev obsessively despised Heydar Aliyev, the Azerbaijani leader who was a member of the Soviet Politburo. Gorbachev made it his goal to remove Aliyev from the political scene, and he did everything in his power to push him out.

Aliyev didn’t give up easily and fought to maintain his position as the First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union, but Gorbachev was stubborn, patient, and unyielding. Even after Aliyev suffered a heart attack, Gorbachev held official government meetings in his hospital room. During this time, Aliyev was forced to submit his resignation letter. Heydar Aliyev’s son, Ilham Aliyev, the current President of Azerbaijan, recalls that after his father’s resignation, Armenian nationalists and their supporters within the Soviet government began to act against Azerbaijanis.

They started expelling Azerbaijanis from the Karabakh region and from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia, which eventually led to a long-standing conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. On the other hand, in January 1990, Gorbachev began taking action to suppress the National Liberation Movement in Azerbaijan by force. On January 19, 1990, the Azerbaijani television station was hit by an explosion that disconnected Azerbaijan from the outside world at 7:27 PM. That night, as the date changed to January 20, 1990, the Soviet army entered Baku and began taking control of the city.

 It wasn’t until 5:30 AM that the residents of Baku realized what was happening, thanks to radio broadcasts and leaflets dropped over the city by helicopters. The Soviet army opened fire on the people of Baku without mercy or discrimination. Innocent civilians were shot in the streets and from the balconies of their homes, residential buildings were shelled, and people were killed in their apartments as the buildings collapsed on top of them. The Soviet army acted as if they were occupying an enemy city, using armored vehicles and tanks to advance through the city while firing indiscriminately.

The massacre’s victims were many. On that fateful day, around 150 innocent civilians were killed, including women, the elderly, and children. The massacre ended only after the Soviet army had taken full control of the city. Afterward, the violence against civilians subsided. If you’re wondering about the explosion that disabled the Azerbaijani television station, the answer will not surprise you. Investigations by the Soviet “Shield” organization in July 1990 revealed that the explosion at the station was caused by a special Soviet military unit or the KGB. According to the “Shield” report, the Soviet army did not act in defense against an external threat, but rather to punish its own people in this massacre. This chaos was authorized by Gorbachev on behalf of the Soviet government.

To justify this violent and murderous action against their own people, the Soviet government in Moscow attempted to explain that this military action was necessary due to a significant threat of an Islamic state emerging in Azerbaijan and that the Soviet army had to act to suppress it. In response to this justification, Allahshukur Pashazadeh, the Chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Caucasus, addressed Gorbachev directly.

In his words, Pashazadeh stated: “There can be no justification for the bloody massacre, the monstrous crime sanctioned by you as the head of state. The Azerbaijani people, with outrage and contempt, reject the provocative accusations made against them, which supposedly served as the reason for the deployment of troops, one of which was the so-called ‘Islamic factor,’ presented as a threat to the existence of the Soviet state. A country that has turned its army into a murderer of its own citizens is deserving of nothing but shame. The shots in Baku are shots at living human hearts. By sending punitive troops into Baku, where they acted as occupiers, you discredited Soviet power, confirming that concepts such as sovereignty and the dignity of nations are foreign to it. You have completely discredited yourself as a political figure, proving your incompetence as the head of state. You sanctioned the murder of the people”.

The great yet cruel irony of this story is that in the same year, 1990, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, with the powerful Western nations completely ignoring what he had done to the Azerbaijani people on that cursed day. Today, efforts are being made in Azerbaijan to revoke Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize. But even before Azerbaijan’s request to revoke his prize, someone had already sought to strip him of the “Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle,” the highest honor in the Russian Federation—Tatiana Poloskova.

Poloskova, who holds a Ph.D. in political science, requested in 2013 that this high honor be revoked due to Gorbachev’s murderous actions, but she was denied. Poloskova supported the Azerbaijani people’s fight to have Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize rescinded, arguing that what Gorbachev ordered the Soviet army to do was not just another crime against humanity. In her view, the Norwegian Nobel Committee had long since become political, and it was time to raise a strong, clear, and firm voice.

Mikhail Gorbachev is undoubtedly responsible for other disasters beyond the Black January massacre, such as the Tbilisi massacre of 1989, and in general, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a direct result of his policies. We hope that the Azerbaijani people will succeed in revoking Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize and that this case will set a precedent for the revocation of other Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to individuals who cynically received a prize for peace while, throughout their lives, working for oppression, like Mikhail Gorbachev.

It’s never pleasant for anyone to be caught in the middle between two friends who don’t get along and frequently argue with each other. It’s uncomfortable when you’re a child, it’s awkward when you’re an adult, and it becomes even more problematic when you’re a country that must protect its citizens from the threats of neighboring states. Recently, Azerbaijan found itself caught in the middle between two of its most important allies—Turkey and Israel.

Turkey is Azerbaijan’s long-standing and closest ally; both nations see themselves as part of the same people living in two countries. On the other hand, Israel is also a close partner of Azerbaijan, with extensive trade relations in fields such as oil, weapons, and even mobile telecommunications (Israeli companies were responsible for founding the first mobile networks in Azerbaijan). But how did Azerbaijan end up in a position where it has to mediate between its two closest allies? Has Azerbaijan gained anything positive from this situation?

Let’s begin with some background. About a month and a half ago, the event that shook the Middle East was the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, nearly 25 years after he succeeded his father as president and almost 15 years after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. The group that took control in Syria is the Sunni Islamist rebel organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani, whose real name is Ahmed al-Sharaa. This group is a successor of Jabhat al-Nusra, which split from ISIS and was considered the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

According to the group, they have moderated their stance; they no longer participate in the actions of Al-Qaeda or ISIS and only want to rebuild Syria. Despite their political statements, the new regime in Syria still raises concerns among regional countries and among Syrians who do not support Islamism and jihadism—except for one country: Turkey. Under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey has supported the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group and other opposition Islamist groups against Assad since the beginning of the civil war. Erdogan’s decision to help these groups came from a geopolitical conflict with Assad, so Turkey’s interest was in having Assad removed from power. Now that Erdogan’s allies have finally taken control, the West expects the new Syrian regime to be completely pro-Turkish.

One of the countries most concerned about the rising Turkish influence on the new Islamist-jihadist regime in Syria is Israel, who has strained relations with the Erdogan government. However, it greatly pains Azerbaijan whenever Israel and Turkey do not get along, as they are a brother nation of Turkey, despite their close friendship with Israel. They would rather see the rising Turkish influence in the region be utilized to create a strategic front against Iran rather than used to harm Israel.

What should Azerbaijan do to ease the tensions between its two major allies? After all, both of these countries, Turkey and Israel, have supported Azerbaijan in recent years in several areas, particularly in defense and weaponry during the Second Karabakh War. The cooperation between these two countries strengthens Azerbaijan both internationally and regionally and enhances its position in the eyes of its southern enemy—Iran. A conflict between Azerbaijan’s two closest allies, not to mention a military one, would harm Azerbaijan directly.

Given this, Azerbaijan seeks to utilize all the diplomatic means at its disposal to mediate between the two conflicting nations. Such a move is important not only for Azerbaijan’s future security but also to position the country from the Caucasus in a much stronger strategic and geopolitical position. From a country relying on its allies, it will transform into a country that advises, mediates, and resolves conflicts in the Middle East, with surrounding countries viewing its status as higher than before. Moreover, mediating between Turkey and Israel will not only strengthen Azerbaijan’s security but also that of Israel and Turkey, and will boost stability in the entire region. Azerbaijan cannot miss this opportunity, because if it succeeds in its mediation, it will gain much, but if it fails, it stands to lose a great deal. But the question remains, can Azerbaijan mend Turkish-Israeli relations?

With the beginning of 2025 bringing in a new American administration, the effects of the new policy regime is eliciting reactions towards the great weight of American pressure on different parts of the world. The new test on the seriousness of America First policies may be seen as a trap by some or as empty threats by others, but in either case will have a lasting effect nonetheless.

The tariff threats to Mexico and Canada show that Mexico is likely going to work with the US in sorting out common interests as migration flows from abroad are also a detriment to Mexico. The Nearshoring of many companies from China to Mexico will bring a tremendous amount of investment into Mexico. Mexico’s manufacturing base and Agro sector’s focus towards the US market has always been a benefit to Mexico. Even when considering America First policies, many manufactured goods will still be made outside of the US due to cost considerations and benefits to the US market. Security issues are best dealt with using over the border supports as linking trade and safety is essential. Challenging negative elements like gang activity or foreign involvement that harms the US by using Mexico’s close relationship with the United States will be a common focus on both sides of the border, continuously working within that framework. Despite Mexico’s Government having a left wing orientation, the focus on promoting Mexico’s economy will be a productive approach as it involves added funding for social development and poverty reduction strategies.

The issue of security at the northern border seems to be vacant in the Canadian narrative on the upcoming tariffs. Canadian leaders touring US media to improve their personal reputation does nothing but use the tariff threat and new American administration as an election tool for local power shifts in Canada. With the exception of local leaders within Canada itself, the Federal Government of Canada chose to implode itself right before its most essential negotiation in ten years by avoiding discussions of simply securing the border. There are little to no mention of the major issues on the northern border, issues that are tied to international security threats to both Canadians and the United States. The management of expectations are that tariffs are coming, no matter what the costs, with no ability to work with the US administration on these issues. The internal personal stakes of self focused political leaders will cost Canadians greatly, a historic lose-lose scenario that should have never occurred. Canada would do well to not heavily counter-tariff the US and put Canada into an economic depression, but this has already been threatened via the energy market.

The ability to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine comes at a time where little movement has taken place since 2014, minus the shores of the Black Sea towards Crimea and Ukraine’s recent movement into Russia itself. Considering the costs to both sides, and the depletion of weapons from both NATO allies and an almost completely diminished Soviet stockpile, preserving stable countries in the region might benefit all sides with the rise of terror attacks within Russia and Europe itself. At this point, the losses on both sides for so little gain may allow for a renewed recognition that families often have relatives on both sides of the conflict. While peace may not be the key element, the need for stability in the region is better than mutual weaknesses that collapses both nations from pressures abroad. The shared history of a united front against aggressors from abroad may be able to be re-constituted if there are willing partners who can work together to challenge a common threat. In reality, the world in 2025 abound with such threats.

Addressing conflicts in the Middle East will determine much of the security issues over the next decade. Any sign of weakness in negotiations or in response to threats to US interests and those of their allies will be exploited in the most erratic of ways. These few short weeks of January has already been characterized by chaos resulting from threats from abroad mixed with weakness in basic policy approaches towards health and safety. New methods using drones and asymmetric conflict will be pervasive if there are safety gaps within Western societies and even within the Secret Service themselves, soft targets being a focus along with using new tactics to evade security screening. Weakness in policy will encourage more instability, with Russia’s southern region, China’s sphere of influence and streets in the West being key battlegrounds for tensions. Stability vs. Chaos will determine new ties between Governments, as dashes for power come when weaknesses are momentarily exposed. Normalising these failures should be something that needs to be avoided, and allies who work against this framework should be met with tariffs or other similar policy responses.

Los Angeles’ Historic 2025 Fire

The new year is one that will give change to how conflicts are conducted on the world stage. As discussed previously, the War in Ukraine over the last few years has created a deficit in military equipment. The old Soviet arsenal has been sourced to such a great degree that Cold War stocks are being dwindled down to storage parts. With a deficit in complex equipment, new threats will come from new methods. While the last of the regimes fall, threats will surely not cease.

The ability for a society to defend itself comes from the idea that the society first needs to be defended. Recognizing future threats comes with the narrative that a threat may occur, and that resources will need to be designed to counter the future threat. Recent history shows that ignoring or legitimizing regimes that are clearly challenging democratic norms will never lead to a peaceful resolution. Repeating these errors weakens allies of democracies, and produces a situation where a larger conflict is inevitable, if not already in progress. National leaders need to defend their communities first, as all other viable nations would operate in a similar manner.

A society cannot function if a Constitution is applied via the political will of a few powerful individuals in society. Justice applied acts as a release valve for tensions in a society, so violence does not become the only last option. When there are those in power in a society that do not have the best interests of their community in mind, or are outwardly reticent to acting in good faith for the betterment of others, those communities rapidly deteriorate. When justice is reserved for others and laws are created to discourage good will among neighbours, the end result is an intentional corruption of stability and equality. A simple equation comes when you try and apply basic rights of safety, order, and proper Government to some groups above others, or even diminish those rights for one group beneath others, you have lost your democracy. The enormous push by some in society to deny those basic rights to punish those they dislike copies the worst regimes from a Milan Kundera novel, and is in no way a fair and just society.

A lost society is one that functions on the worst kept secrets of their community. The end result of the asymmetric eruption has been at the surface of some of the most horrendous acts of humanity, married to some of the most oppressive laws against freedom and liberty. Adjusting a society to one that reduces liberty for the sake for safety can often be avoided if the laws of the community are applied as they were designed to be used, and those in power have the honour and will to work for the betterment of their fellow community members. The degradation of a community does not simply come from an assault from abroad, but via decisions from within that betray the core values of a society in the most expressive of actions and the most meaningful of ways. Someone in their right just mind are always aware when their freedoms are neglected. It is often those who wish to degrade society who are the most vocal and aggressive to those who speak their mind openly when voicing their calls for justice. None of this is by accident or is a symptom of negligence, but is the end result of modern challenges to society, challenges that were known to those who created many democratic legacies.

In an effort to throw away the carrots and invest in new sticks, the new American administration has decided to use the economic and political weight of the United States to address non-trade policies with many of its traditional economic allies. One of the most notable instances of this strategy was used to encourage NATO members to increase funding for security, pulling funding obligations away from the United States for security issues abroad. While this tactic was not taken seriously at the time, the coming war between Ukraine and Russia proved it to be a useful shift. With all of Ukraine’s allies now contributing in the billions of dollars, compounded with the United States’ own significant contributions, Ukraine has been able to put up a historic level of resistance against Russian aggression.

More recently, President Trump has focused his energies on local issues within the United States connected to a poor border strategy. While trade has always been the focus of relations between NAFTA neighbours, the United States will use tariffs to enforce actions against drug trafficking and terror issues that are lacking on both sides of the Southern and Northern borders. With security issues being the main concern, it is likely the case that increased actions against Fentanyl and terror threats would benefit both the US, Mexico and Canada. The question then remains, whether the trade partners are aware of such benefits, and whether or not they will use local impressions of the US to bolster their own political fortunes?

Mexico, who had their own election fairly recently, had put back the same party in power with a new leader for the next six years. Despite the current party being of a left wing orientation, Mexico’s approach in re-signing the USMCA Agreement focused deeply on Mexican commercial interests. Mexico’s Government in the following years seemed to respond to US policy by mirroring the Biden Administration’s actions on the border. With very apparent border issues with US policy over the last four years, Mexico sought to limit the negative effects within Mexico itself during that period of time. The effect of record breaking migrations passing through Mexico put a great burden on Mexico’s social security system, encouraging Mexico to either prevent migrants on their own southern border, or allow them to reach the US border so they do not remain in Mexico. With the US border being the target of most migrants, Mexico chose the latter strategy in response to the lack of US border enforcement.

The eruption caused by abuses of the Maduro Government in Venezuela resulted in one of the largest refugee populations in modern times crossing through Latin America, Mexico, and the United States. While many Venezuelans have proper refugee claims due to their treatment under the Maduro regime, the chaos created by mass migrations out of Venezuela was used to transmit organised crime through the same routes used by many of these refugee claimants. These issues affected Mexico and many Latin American communities in the region, and were apparent in those communities in the United States months before it became the focus of the last US election. Spanish language news within the US would constantly put out reports of violence from those specific gangs that seemed to be frequent, coordinated, and ignored by most English language media, until it was no longer possible to ignore. Mexico clearly benefits in the US addressing their border issues and coordinated crime coming over the border as it has a negative effect on Mexico as well. Mexico is a net beneficiary to stable relations with the US, especially if it reduces its political ties with China in the process.

The Fentanyl Crisis has reached the point of inducing the tariff strategy on former NAFTA partners. US media has been detailing base ingredients being sent from China to Mexico for final production and export via cartel networks. Mexico and the US should immediately take a coordinated response to the imports from China and cartel control over the border. With many international companies Nearshoring their China based manufacturing to Mexico, the US-Mexico border can likely evolve into the manufacturing hub of the globe that was envisioned in 1994’s initial NAFTA agreement. Ever since China joined the WTO, Mexico had directly suffered from the loss of manufacturing to China, in 2025, this is no longer the case. With Mexico displacing part of China’s manufacturing base, Mexico may be entering its most successful period ever, if it can shrug off negative ties to China. Since the tariff is a security issue for President Trump, Mexico may find it easier to implement its own security with a strong US border in a win-win scenario.

Canada has often been able to avoid criticism, but has had many issues over the last few years that have raised the ire of the incoming US Administration. Fentanyl and drug issues on the Canadian border have risen dramatically, but the shocking statistics showing security issues related to terror threats as well and China’s influence over the current Canadian Government is shocking to both Americans and Canadians alike.

The response to the tariff threat has been absurd on the Canadian side, firstly concentrating it solely on trade when it was openly stated as a security issue, and now evolving into a near complete collapse of the Canadian Government in power. When communications from regional Provincial leaders toward the incoming US Administration displaced the Canadian Government’s own coordinated responses, the Premier of Quebec and the other Provinces collected themselves together to become Team Canada, without a proper Canadian Government spokesperson to respond to the security issues. With Justin Trudeau, it looks like he is planning to openly fight Trump to the detriment of all Canadians big and small, despite his Government creating one of the largest national deficit’s ever seen in Canada. Canada is considered quite dangerous for some cultural groups as well, more dangerous than it has been in generations, with security issues in Canada now famously being seen globally on a weekly basis. With a passive response by the Trudeau Government on the murder of Canadians on Flight 752 by Iran’s regime, Trudeau is now taking his less than 20% approval rating and choosing the opposite response against the Americans. Trudeau’s 2025 election strategy looks to use a Twitter fight with President Trump to garner local support. The first move however was against the US voter, ensuring his Government will incur tariffs in response. The error of being a foreign leader who makes public statements against all of those Americans who voted for their President is inappropriate on the best of days.

While Mexicans, Americans and Canadians benefit from increased border security, a lesson on consequences for voters is working rapidly in real time. The North American region can become the most economically successful region over the next few generations, if leaders in those countries can work towards benefitting their own communities and supporting each other’s economic growth over their own personal benefits. Without this basic level of awareness, tariffs will likely become a reality in 2025 for many in North America and abroad.

Russian ICBM and IRBM Missile Systems

The War in Ukraine has done more to deplete Cold War military stockpiles than any other event during and since the Cold War, including weather and rust. The dwindling numbers of tanks, troop carriers and artillery pieces litter the woods and fields of Ukraine, being disabled and destroyed by new simple drones and old artillery shells. If the war will not end by negotiation and diplomacy, it will likely be mired in more bloodshed from using ally equipment and a small number of newly made modern equipment, still costing many more lives than either side is willing to admit. With conventional land forces and sea forces reaching their limits, air forces being deterred by modern air defense systems, and missile systems being altered for purposes they are not designed for, the remaining strength of Russian forces are still preserved in their long range tactical missile forces.

A recent strike by an unconfirmed ballistic missile system by Russian forces in Ukraine appeared to use a type of SS-27 or SS-29 ICBM in the strike. While it was not a nuclear armed version of those types of missiles, it performed as a Multiple Launch Warhead missile, or MIRV, hitting the target with multiple warheads from one missile system. While it appears to be a smaller RS-26 Rubezh type Regional ranged missile version, or IRBM, it was likely one based on the SS-27 MIRV type. This non-nuclear version was altered to send a message to Ukraine’s allies without escalating tensions past a point of no return by using nuclear warheads in the field.

The rationale Russia used in deploying the SS-27 type missile was a response to ever increasing allowances by Ukraine’s allies in using longer range artillery against targets in Russia. Russian air defenses do not seem capable of stopping many of these munitions, and Russia has suffered internal losses due to these systems. Russia’s intact long range ballistic missile forces have rarely been used in a war, and is a fully equipped nuclear deterrent maintained over generations. With few options available with conventional arms, and a message of strength wanted to be demonstrated by Russia, the mystery ballistic missile has been re-introduced onto the battlefield. While inventory and a show of strength enabled the use of the SS-27 variant, diplomacy is likely still the best option by both sides over the future use of any ballistic IRBM systems.

New conflicts in the Middle East might bring another situation where these regional missiles may be used by Russia. With Russia’s most important ally in the Middle East being on their last legs recently, Russia may decide to use whatever systems they have left in helping maintain their ally’s regime. In the most recent scenario, the opposing forces do not have any modern systems to respond to Russia, and it is likely the case that adversaries in the Middle East may ignore the use of such weapons in certain circumstance as long as it is not nuclear armed, and does not create a big disadvantage to the US or their allies in the region. Diplomacy may make for strange bedfellows, and could alter the power dynamic in the region in ways previously unheard of due to the recent crisis. Diplomacy in one area may also provide the opportunity to end the conflict in Ukraine, and refocus on common threats to both the East and West. Only time will tell, but these days things seem to always escalate quickly and unpredictably.

In recent days, the Israeli Ambassador to Azerbaijan George Deek gave an interview to the Azerbaijani media, where he proclaimed that the friendship between Israel and Azerbaijan is blossoming: “Israel was among the first countries to recognize the independence of Azerbaijan; I think we were seventh. Since that day, we’ve had 32 years of a very close relationship that has developed into what we can today assess as a strategic partnership between our countries. This partnership has ranged across various areas in line with the development of this country and our relations with it, including energy, security, agriculture, water, and others.”

He continued: “Now, we see that this relationship has matured in such a way that, while in the past, relations were mostly government-to-government, today they are people-to-people, business-to-business, and civil society-to-civil society. We see booming tourism, a thriving trade relationship, and, above all, a very close political relationship between our leaders and executive powers. We should also remember that the relationship between Israel and Azerbaijan did not start only 30-some years ago. It began many centuries ago, with one of the largest and most prosperous Jewish diasporas living in this country alongside the rest of the population for at least 800 years, if not longer.”

Ambassador Deek added, “Unlike in other parts of the world, Jews in Azerbaijan have lived in harmony and tolerance with the rest of society for centuries. That, I believe, was the solid and healthy basis upon which the relationship I have described was able to thrive and evolve. We look forward to these relations growing and this strategic partnership strengthening further because we share many common interests, values, and cultural characteristics that make our people so close.”

“Last year’s trade between Israel and Azerbaijan amounted to about 1.3 billion U.S. dollars, including the oil and gas sectors,” Ambassador Deek noted. “While that may sound substantial, it’s well below the potential we could achieve in our relationship. We must be honest; until a few years ago, the economic relations between our countries were not very developed for various reasons. However, we’ve seen a breakthrough in recent years. This progress began with the opening of Azerbaijan’s trade office in Israel in 2021, which culminated in the opening of Azerbaijan’s embassy in Israel in 2023. These developments have injected significant energy into our country’s business sector.”

He stressed, “I understand Azerbaijan plans to appoint a commercial attaché to its embassy in Israel, and we may consider doing the same here. I believe this is a testament to the importance both countries place on our economic relations. Israeli companies are now recognizing the strategic importance of Azerbaijan, not only as a partner but also as a crossroads between East and West—the Middle Corridor—serving as a gateway to Central Asia, extending eastward to China, westward to Europe, and north to south. Azerbaijan’s ability to maintain balanced, positive relations with nearly every country gives it a unique position as a valuable partner.”

Ambassador Deek concluded, “Imagine if Azerbaijan were a partner to Israel in the economic sphere, not only for projects within Azerbaijan but also for joint economic ventures outside Azerbaijan. We could use Azerbaijan as a window into the broader potential of what our cooperation can achieve. Currently, our economic engagement with Azerbaijan spans various sectors. In recent years, for instance, Azerbaijan’s space agency Azerkosmos signed an agreement for an Israeli company to build a satellite, and there may be more such collaborations on the horizon. We also see extensive cooperation in agriculture, water management, dairy production, and high-tech. We are confident that our cooperation will continue to grow soon. I won’t deny that, since October 7th, Israel’s economy has been impacted by the ongoing war and the trauma it has caused. This year, the trade trend has not been as positive as we had hoped. However, I believe that as we overcome these challenges and move past the effects of the war, the economic sector—alongside all other sectors in Israel—will return to the momentum we previously enjoyed.”    

As we speak, millions of people who live in the Global South are experiencing the harsh reality of climate change, even though it was the Global North who disproportionately caused the problem.   Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, human beings have been the primary drivers of changes in the Earth’s climate. Countries that greatly benefitted from industrialization, e.g., America, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc., did so at the cost of pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere.  China and India are the only countries in the Global South, who have greatly contributed to climate change.   Most of the main polluters are in the Global North.   

Between 1850 and 2011, the United States and EU were responsible for 79% of climate-changing emissions.  However, the countries expected to suffer the most from climate change are all in the Global South and are not top contributors to the problem.   One of the most visible victims of climate change are the people who live on coral atoll islands. 

According to various studies, about a million people live in coral atoll islands like those in the Maldives, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands. These islands are just a few feet in elevation, making them some of the places most at-risk from the rising sea levels that will result from climate change. Five uninhabited islands in the Solomon Islands have already vanished underwater in the past century. The Maldives, Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Marshall Islands have the highest percentage of their land area at risk because they are all atolls; other countries also have low lying islands, but have more higher ground available to flee to and thus are less vulnerable than these islands. 

Nevertheless, all of the island countries are expected to suffer due to climate change.  Some of these islands, such as Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Martin, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which are located in the Atlantic Ocean; Reunion, Mayotte and the French Southern and Antarctic Territories in the Indian Ocean; French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna are located in the Pacific Ocean; French Guiana is in South America, are colonized by France to date.  Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba are still controlled by the Netherlands.   In the West, people think that colonialism remains a thing of the past, yet unfortunately that is not the case.   French and Dutch colonialism is still alive and well.         

Yet according to a ranking that was performed recently, the countries that are not island nations yet are likely to suffer the most from climate change are the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia and South Sudan.  It is critical to note that most of these countries are in Africa and have suffered under the yoke of European colonialism.    

A Greenpeace UK report claims that there is a link between colonialism and global warming: “The environmental emergency is the legacy of colonialism.  This was because colonialism had established a model through which the air and lands of the global south have been … used as places to dump waste the global north does not want.”  

Abbas Abbasov, the Executive Director of the Baku Initiative Group (BIG), recently gave an interview to the Azerbaijani press, where he highlighted the importance of the international community addressing the long-lasting impacts of colonial exploitation on the environment: “At COP29, we held a conference dedicated to the environmental impacts of colonial exploitation, particularly France and other European colonial powers.   We believe these issues have been largely overlooked in global climate discussions.  Our organization is committed to shedding light on how colonial legacies continue to affect the political, economic, and environmental landscapes of these regions.”

Abbasov continued: “We as an international NGO have repeatedly called for intergovernmental organizations to take stronger actions to address the specific needs of small island nations and colonized regions.   We hope that through increased global solidarity, there will be meaningful progress in securing the financial resources these regions urgently need.  With the participation of global leaders and organizations, we are hopeful that the call for a greener and more equitable world will not go unheard.”

For the first time in more than three decades since its inception, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mentioned the term “colonialism” in a 2022 report. Leading climate scientists acknowledged that colonialism is a historic and ongoing driver of the climate crisis. “Present development challenges causing high vulnerability are influenced by historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, especially for many Indigenous peoples and local communities,” the report said. “​​Officials and scientists from around the globe now recognize the significant role colonialism has played in heating our planet and destroying its many gifts.”

“Instead of treating the Earth like a precious entity that gives us life, Western colonial legacies operate within a paradigm that assumes they can extract its natural resources as much as they want, and the Earth will regenerate itself,” Hadeel Assali, a lecturer and postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Science and Society, a Columbia Climate School affiliate, proclaimed.   “We cannot have environmental justice without reversing the harms of colonialism.” 

If one visits the war-torn Karabakh region, one can witness how Armenian settler colonialism created a grave ecological crisis in the region.   Six months after the conclusion of the Second Karabakh War, I visited the region together with a Russian delegation and witnessed polluted rivers with no fish in them, uprooted trees, burnt agricultural fields and mile after mile of ruined homes, surrounded by landmines and dirt roads full of potholes.   The situation was so grave from an environmental perspective that the region, once known as the “Black Garden” for its ecologically beautiful ecosystem has been dubbed “the Hiroshima of the Caucuses,” after enduring thirty years of Armenian settler colonialism in violation of four UN Security Council resolutions. 

However, after hosting COP29, Azerbaijan seeks to rebuild Karabakh as a green zone, thus inspiring other countries in the Global South who have witnessed the devastating effects of colonialism and how it has adversely affected the environment.  Last spring, I toured around Zangilan and saw that Azerbaijan recently built a green village with a beautiful fountain in the hopes of making Karabakh green again.     Around the clock, Azerbaijan is busy rebuilding homes, mosques, cultural heritage sites, and setting up agricultural and other green environmentally sound communities, so that Karabakh can be made great again.   

Indeed, the Karabakh of 2024 is not the Karabakh I first witnessed in 2021, thus showing to the world community that Karabakh can recover from the ecological disaster that it experienced and be rebuilt, smart village after smart village, with lush greenery being planted to replace the trees and other natural areas that the Armenians destroyed.    Indeed, under the leadership of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Armenian settler colonialism has been relegated to the dustbins of history.   May the other colonial powers soon follow.     

A rear seat gunner in a slower propeller airplane, common in the First and Second World Wars, may become a more common means to counter drone threats in 2025.

An analysis of Ukraine’s air defence successes and limitation was published detailing the effectiveness of Ukraine and its allies’ air defense capabilities against many generations and types of Russian and former Soviet missile systems. Despite the unexpected limited success rate of Ukraine’s supported air defense and considering the idea that intercepting high speed ballistic missiles was not common knowledge prior to 2022, any defense against advanced missile systems is an impressive technological achievement. While the production of the more advanced missiles is slow and old Soviet stockpiles get used up, the next elements of future conflicts will certainly come from numerous and low tech systems now tearing up the front lines in the Ukraine War.

Drones from both sides of the conflict in Ukraine set an example for the use of such weapons all over the world. There are numerous accounts of drones crippling tanks and giving accurate and real time artillery coordinates, a recent team approach that is a perfect symbiosis for artillery brigades. Drones have become the scourge of armour, rapidly eliminating armour threats directly and degrading the assault capabilities of units while inflicting high economic and personnel costs on the opposing forces. Something that mirrors some of the most terrifying 80s sci-fi and horror films is the phenomenon of drones that literally and ruthlessly hunt down any soldier on the battlefield. Swarms of such drones are often spoken about by Russian soldiers, keeping them at a constant state of anxiety.

With conventional conflicts entering a stage of attrition, stalemate, and in some cases rapid progress, the drone effect will likely be seen outside of these conflict zones. Until there is a common and coordinated defense of drone threats, expect domestic attacks to take place using drones. Defending against a shooter or someone rushing a stage is something protective services are well trained in, but for the time being there is no effective defense against a swarm of armed drones targeting important officials. While new technologies are being rapidly developed, as in rapid fire burst ammunition for newly designed tanks, much of the defense has been via using older Cold War Oerlikon cannons in the field. There have even been some accounts of slower planes being used, with a copilot sitting in an open cockpit armed with a shot gun or other weapon to target drones. Aviation history may have certainly come full circle.

The response to a static battlefield will also come from asymmetrical attacks as seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan War, but will become more common inside of Allied nations. Infiltration through insufficient border controls have already resulted in security issues, taking advantage of perplexed policy approaches to local and immediate security threats. The inability to succeed on the conventional battlefield will result in attacks in urban environments, but instead of them being contained to Baghdad and Grozny, they will be seen, well, everywhere. The addition of crime, drugs and violence issues will reshape long standing trade and policy agreements until those threats can be considered neutralised. The issues of unstopped crime, innovation of drones, and active foreign agents needed to have been addressed years ago. The unfortunate results will become a signature characteristic of 2025.

Macron’s call for an arms embargo on Israel and his unequivocal defense of the UNIFIL corps in Lebanon which since October 7 has taken no action to stop Hezbollah’s unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilians, benefits only Iran. This follows a pattern of similar statements, seemed designed to whitewash Tehran’s colonialist hand in the region; previously the French President in calling for de-escalation of Israel’s offensive in South Lebanon, failed to mention Hizbullah, the catalyst of the latest tensions in the north of Israel. This is not the first time Macron seemed to be whitewashing Hizbullah’s role as an international terrorist organization. In 2020, he was forced into taking a harsher rhetorical position on Hizbullah after an international backlash to his comments at the UN. The same year, speaking at the UN General Assembly, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman called for disarming Hizbullah. Macron’s apparent interest in expanding the French role in resolving the crisis, however, goes beyond general comments. France banned Israel from participating in arms show, equating its role in the current escalation to that of Iran.
On October 13th, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and French President Emmanuel Macron discussed the escalating crisis in southern Lebanon via a phone call.

Macron stressed “the responsibility of Iran to support a general de-escalation and to use its influence in this direction with the destabilizing actors that enjoy its support.” Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters are fighting Israeli troops in Lebanon. The Iranian presidential website said that in his conversation with Macron, Pezeshkian had called for an end to “crimes” in Lebanon and Gaza. Iran’s role in creating the crisis it is now pretending to try to solve went unchallenged by Macron. Rather, Macron portrayed Iran as a potential mediator and a benevolent power, which merely has leverage to improve the geopolitical situation. Iran, however, is not merely an incidental backer of Hizbullah; rather, Hizbullah was modeled after Iran’s IRGC Al Quds Brigade and its fealty lies with Iran, rather than with the Lebanese state.

More than a proxy, Hizbullah is a vassal for Iran’s colonial ambitions in the Middle East and beyond that. Recruitment of assets, criminal enterprises, such as drug trafficking, natural resources exploitation, and cultural hegemony such as the use of cultural centers for conversions of target demographics are all strategies employed by Hizbullah on Iran’s behalf from Africa to Latin America. Moreover, Hizbullah is not Iran’s only tool to advance its vision throughout the Middle East and well beyond that. Iran uses puppet regimes, such as the current government in Baghdad, to assert its control over Iraq and to impose exploitative economic arrangements.

Rather than extracting lessons from the blemished French colonial experience, Macron appears to be joining Iran for the ride. His diplomatic engagement with Tehran effectively puts violent terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah on the same political level as Israel. These efforts did not go unnoticed by the Islamic Republic. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf in his interview published in France’s Le Figaro on October 15th, was quoted as saying his country would be ready to “negotiate” with France to implement United Nations Resolution 1701. That resolution calls for southern Lebanon to be free of any troops or weapons other than those of the Lebanese state. Lebanese PM Najib Mikati said on Friday that he was “surprised” by the comments, calling them “a blatant interference in Lebanese affairs and an attempt to establish a rejected guardianship over Lebanon”. Mikati said such a negotiation was the prerogative of the Lebanese state and asked Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib to summon the Chargé d’Affaires of the Iranian embassy in Beirut over Ghalibaf’s comments.

The resurgent French interest in Lebanon is not accidental. Lebanon used to be a colonial holding of France from the partition of the Ottoman Empire in 1920 until 1944, as the French Mandate of Lebanon. Today Paris treats the place as its colony. Macron’s willingness to bypass the Lebanese government and to negotiate directly with Iran while excluding Beirut underscores the French President’s attitude towards Lebanon as the French sphere of influence or a satellite rather than an independent state. In that, Macron has much in common with Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Iran’s right arm in the region, Hezbollah, controls much of Lebanon’s Shiite-majority areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the eastern Bekaa Valley region. The Lebanese Army (LAF) is either unable or unwilling to counter the terrorist organization. Despite good reasons to believe that LAF is infiltrated or else coerced into transferring military packages to Hizbullah, France continues to provide the Lebanese army with arms, such as armored personnel carriers (APCs), ignoring the high likelihood that the French weapons are likely to end up in the hands of Hizbullah sooner or later. Hezbollah uses Lebanese army communications antennae and radar, is present on Lebanese vehicles patrolling southern Lebanon, and “employs” soldiers and officers to collect information and influence operations.

US experts conclude that “the danger of arming Lebanon is nothing new. In 2016, the Israeli government presented evidence that Hezbollah was using APCs supplied by the United States to the LAF. In recent years, Iran was supplying shipments of Russian-made weapons to Hezbollah, which was getting ready to invade Israel, just as Hamas did on October 7th, 2023. Hezbollah was amassing these weapons near the border in the area, allegedly controlled by the LAF and UN peacekeepers UNIFIL.

While calling for an embargo on Israel, France has supplied arms to regimes linked to war crimes. A two-year investigation by FRANCE24 has revealed that French manufacturer Cheddite sold an extensive amount of ammunition to Iranian authorities, which used it during the violent crackdown on the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in 2022. The investigation reveals that this ammunition remains accessible in Iran, despite the EU Council Regulation No 359/2011 which prohibits “the export, directly or indirectly, [of] equipment that could be used for internal repression” in Iran, including “firearms, ammunition, and related accessories”. Currently the Myanmar military is relying extensively on French-manufactured Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) aircraft to transport troops, arms and supplies for its combat operations, as it commits war crimes and crimes against humanity with impunity. Evidence obtained by the “Justice For Myanmar” organization revealed that French companies played a key role in supporting Myanmar’s military aviation fleet, despite international sanctions.

ATR supplied at least 10 aircrafts to Myanmar’s military. “Justice For Myanmar” cited leaked military expenditure documents from the financial year after the coup that revealed planned purchases of nearly $19 million worth of parts for the air force’s ATR aircraft fleet. Additionally, French company Sabena Technics was involved in repairing crucial components and providing parts, which kept the aircraft operational. These services were often routed through commercial airlines with military ties. The report criticizes these companies for failing to perform adequate due diligence to avoid supporting Myanmar’s military war crimes.

France should choose whether it wishes to stand with the international community against war crimes, authoritarianism, and hegemonic neo-colonialism, or whether it wishes to continue to continue and to replicate its colonial legacy, which already cost it diplomatic, political, and economic influence in West Africa – and will likely earn it nothing but infamy in the future annals of the Middle East.

As the international community prepares for COP29, the focus should be how the world plans to address the global climate change crisis and there should be no distractions from this important goal.   

As we speak, nearly three billion people face water scarcity across the planet. In the Middle East, this water scarcity is acutely felt, as there was a grave heat wave this past summer, which led to a great drought and massive desertification.  When there is not enough rainfall, this adversely affects the production of crops, thus transforming entire green areas into barren wastelands.  

Take Yemen as an example. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy reported, “Estimates suggest that the rate of desertification and deforestation in Yemen increased from 90% in 2014 to 97% in 2022.”  They added: “Severe drought this year has stressed crop yields and reduced agricultural productivity, forcing many farmers to suspend their work.”  This has slashed food production and driven up food prices, which exasperated already existing food insecurity caused by the civil war.  

Yemen is not the only area in the Middle East suffering from climate change.  From Lebanon to Iraq to Syria, the peoples of the region are facing a grave humanitarian crisis, which has been exacerbated by climate change.  The disastrous war between Israel and the proxies of Iran has only made this process of desertification worse in the Middle East region, as Hamas and Hezbollah rockets have destroyed much greenery and farmland.   

Between January and June 2024, Hezbollah destroyed over 12,800 acres of natural areas in the Golan Heights and Upper Galilee alone.  According to the Israeli Agriculture Ministry, 5,435 acres of orchards, vines and avocado plantations within 1.25 miles of the Lebanese border are not being farmed consistently and 370 acres of fruits and vines have been damaged by rocket related fires.   In Southern Israel along the Gaza border, crops such as potatoes, wheat, peanuts and tomatoes have sustained damage due to rockets, fires and the inability of farmers to work in their fields.  

The situation is not better on the other side of the fence.  Almost 80 percent of the farmers in Southern Lebanon are unable to harvest their olive trees for the year 2023/4, leading to massive poverty.  And for the average Gazan, clean water and healthy food items like tomatoes have become luxury items, out of reach for the common person, due to the massive destruction in the coastal strip.  Climate change only worsens this situation.  It does not make it better.        

At the same time, while the Middle East and North Africa are suffering from water and food scarcity, historic landmarks like the city of Venice and certain Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Fiji are expected to suffer from a rise in the sea level, which will cause flooding and eventually for a significant part of these areas to be submerged underwater as climate change intensifies.   As the world faces such grave threats, the international community must focus on these issues at COP29.  It cannot afford to get sidetracked and to discuss other issues.

For this reason, I condemn the 60 members of the US Congress, led by Congressman Frank Pallone, founder and co-chair of the Armenian Caucus in the US Congress, and Senator Ed Markey, both of whom are backed by the Armenian lobbying organization ANCA, who asked US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to use the COP29 Conference to condemn Azerbaijan.  These congressmen and senators are calling on the US Secretary of State to condemn one of America’s strongest allies in the South Caucasus, who sent troops to Afghanistan to help the United States after the September 11 terror attacks.  These members of the US Congress are attacking a country that has always had America’s back in order to get support from a domestic lobbying group and this is wrong.  

The fact that Azerbaijan had a conflict with Armenia in the past should not affect the present.   What matters is that there is now a peace process to resolve the conflict between both nations, and Azerbaijan seeks to build a green future, so that its people can prosper while living in peace with its neighbors.   Attacking Azerbaijan at this time does not advance this peace process and goes contrary to US interests in the region as well, as it diminishes strategic cooperation between Azerbaijan and the US on issues of critical importance, such as Iran and climate change.   

But what is more important is that they are politicizing an important conference that should be exclusively focused on how the international community plans to address climate change, and nothing else.   The fact that Azerbaijan is hosting the conference is irrelevant.   What is important right now is that the community of nations put together an action plan to tackle climate change for the benefit of humanity and major polluters like India and China get on board with it!    Otherwise, all of humanity will suffer.   For this reason, I call upon these 60 members of the US Congress to not use COP29 to condemn Azerbaijan, as it politicizes one of the greatest issues of our times.   There should be no distractions from dealing with climate change at COP29.  Our future depends upon it.