Foreign Policy Blogs

Recently, the Third International Conference on Mine Action titled “Mitigating Environmental Impact of Landmines: Resource Mobilization for Safe and Green Future” was held in Azerbaijan.   It was critical to host this conference ahead of the COP29 Conference in Azerbaijan due to the role that landmines play in raising the threat of climate change.

According to the Conflict and Climate Observatory, “Conflict-affected countries are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Climate finance to support fragile and conflict-affected states is grossly inadequate and, in an example of climate injustice, without significant changes in access to climate funds, these communities will become more vulnerable and less able to cope.”

They added: “Climate change can impact areas affected by explosive remnants of war (ERW) contamination in several ways. Extreme weather events such as flooding and heatwaves can increase the risks posed by ERW contamination; remobilizing ERW or triggering landscape fires. ERW clearance and removal operations will need to adapt to meet the challenges of climate change, while local communities may need assistance and support to build climate resilience.”

Even before Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, 60 million people worldwide live in areas affected by the explosive remnants of war.   According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, “Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, over a thousand cluster munition casualties have been recorded in Ukraine.  In Ukraine alone, more than 50 cluster munition attacks were reported in 2023 where the number of casualties that occurred was not noted.”

They added: “New casualties from cluster munitions were recorded in nine countries—Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Mauritania, Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen—in 2023.    In 2023, 101 casualties from cluster munition remnants were recorded in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Mauritania, Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine.”    Regarding the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, the Cluster Munitions Monitor stressed: “a survey by The HALO Trust in the aftermath of the 2020 conflict found that 68% of inhabited settlements had experienced cluster munition use and contamination.”

Since 1991, more than 3,429 of Azerbaijan’s citizens including 358 children and 38 women have been adversely affected by landmines.   In response to this reality, the Azerbaijani National Agency for Mine Action and the United Nations Development Program established the Center for Excellence for mine action training in Azerbaijan.   It is set to become a vital platform for exchanging demining experience and technologies with other countries experiencing similar problems.

At the UNDP/Anama Conference, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized that one of the main reasons for the high number of mine victims is Armenia’s refusal to hand over landmine maps: “The responsibility for that rests with Armenia.”    He also noted that from 2020 to 2023, new mined areas extending up to 500 km were created in Azerbaijan: “Challenges we face on demining also hamper our development and recovery efforts, creating serious obstacles for the return of 800,000 formerly displaced persons.   Mines that remain buried in the ground for a long time leads to harmful chemical reactions.   Land left unused due to mines undergoes natural erosion and degradation.”   

So far, Azerbaijan has demined 140,000 hectares of its territory, neutralizing 119,946 mines and unexploded ordinances.   Azerbaijan las year declared humanitarian demining the 18th National Sustainable Development Goal and signed a document with UNDP, highlighting the global importance of international cooperation in the field of demining.   Azerbaijan hopes to continue to share its experience with demining with the global community. 

S-300V version Air Defence Vehicles shown after being eliminated by a strike.

Recently, Chinese and Philippine naval encounters have resulted in Chinese vessels ramming Philippine vessels in the waters between the two nations. The Philippines has always been one of the United States’ closest allies, and have always had a tight security arrangement with the United States. With wars already ranging in Europe and the Middle East, the last shoe to drop was always whether China would activate their forces regarding Taiwan, or if China would choose to avoid a conflict that had little practical benefit to them and their position in the world.

The events between the two nations is not simply a territorial spat, but involves all of the larger powers in the region and abroad, as it was influenced by actions abroad. Non-lethal assaults on a US ally by China may be a response to the US focusing diplomatically on China’s sale of non-military equipment to Russia that is likely being used in the production of Russian military equipment. While US allies and China could likely eliminate this tension by simply opening up sales of such affordable equipment toward the efforts to help Ukraine, this has not become an option to date. Actions by China likely surround a strategy to test the United States’ will power in helping its allies in foreign conflicts abroad. This ever present reality comes as the US Administration waffles in helping even their own citizens being held hostage while passively punishing the only forces equipped to ensure their freedom. If Americans will not even take direct actions to help their own people in dire straits, the opportunity to permanently damage the United States and their allies encourages the worst responses as a narrative, in political dealings and physically by way of open conflict. When the United States ignores their own citizens being tortured, it in effect dehumanizes them and shows to the world that human rights is no longer a core Western value. If some citizens simply don’t count, than all citizens are a target. While diplomacy always requires an outstretched arm, that arm must be always be connected to a strong hand.

While US allies do possess the strength to alter the political landscape abroad to their benefit and that of the US, the full weight of US power needs to be used in addressing conflicts so they do not escalate further. The deployment of US Naval assets in the Middle East recently likely is tamping down a larger military response in the region, but the lack of application to threats and open harm to the US and their allies has already lead to more losses in the conflict, ones that threaten to push conflicts into a more severe level. Support for Ukrainian forces entering Russia proper has been a bold show of strength, but it must be managed purposefully as a small incident in that operation could become the catalyst for an overwhelming response between nuclear powers. The lack of action against Russia’s external military support when many innocent lives of allies are being put in danger and American lives are being threatened internally is the driving factor behind China’s actions, and should be the most serious issue in the upcoming election as it will affect every since family for generations to come.

Live fire combat against defensive missile systems in Syria, and then in Russia/Ukraine has taught the US and its allies of the true capabilities of S-400 and other Russian air defense systems. Effectiveness of air defense systems against attacking missile systems is a key bit of information used by the US and China in measuring who would sustain the most losses in open conflict on the coast near Taiwan. While China’s Russian made TOR, S-300 and S-400 systems would perform well, it is now known how to defeat them during an assault. China’s large HQ-9 missile defense force along with other types would only be able to sustain a Chinese invasion of Taiwan if they could shield PLA forces from the many advance SM missiles of the US Navy, a task that is likely not possible in a wholly effective manner. The best defense therefore is a good offense, and that offense can only be successful by making their adversary weak from within before any open conflict can have a chance to be conducted. Every single conflict in the modern era begins with that one truth.

A coalition of human rights organizations has released an international statement during the 57th
session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, commending the decision by the President of the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) to grant pardon to Bangladeshi nationals who were accused and convicted
of crimes affecting security and public order, and sentenced for committing crimes and offenses
punishable by law. In their statement issued on Monday, September 9, 2024, the organizations
underscored that this pardon reflects the UAE’s long-standing humanitarian approach and reinforces
its adherence to the values of tolerance. The organizations further emphasized that this act of
clemency is a testament to the sound vision and leadership of the UAE’s government. The coalition,
led by the Union Association for Human Rights, is composed of more than 20 international, regional,
and national human rights organizations, including 9 organizations holding consultative status with
the United Nations.

In their international statement, issued alongside the opening of the Human Rights Council’s session
on Monday, the human rights NGOs commended the presidential pardon, which lifted the penalties
imposed on defendants and convicts in general, thereby facilitating their return to their homeland. The
NGOs lauded the UAE’s justice system and its commitment to the principles of fair and independent
legal proceedings. Furthermore, they praised the humane conditions and environment provided during
the period of detention and the execution of sentences, noting that these practices align with
international standards.

Within the same context, the human rights organizations, in their statement endorsed by twenty-one
organizations, expressed their appreciation for the national mechanisms responsible for implementing
the pardon issued by the President of the UAE. They commended the swift action taken by the UAE’s
Attorney General to execute the pardon, which involved suspending penalties and facilitating the
measures to ensure the return of defendants and convicts to their homeland. The organizations
emphasized the significance of this initiative in fostering peace, tolerance, and human coexistence –
values that the UAE is committed to promote across the globe. This approach, which has been central
to the UAE’s ethos since the era of the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and throughout its
civilizational and humanitarian journey, has been reaffirmed by the President of the UAE through the
issuance of this humanitarian amnesty decision for defendants and convicts, underscoring the nation’s dedication to promote tolerance and its adherence to noble human values and principles, as
consistently reflected in many national, regional and international stances, events and occasions.
In their international statement, the organizations commended the UAE for its commitment to
upholding and respecting the right to freedom of expression in accordance with the country’s laws and
regulations, ensuring its protection from any actions or deviations that could jeopardize national
security or harm the state’s interests and international relations. They called upon everyone to respect
states’ national laws, regulations and legislations, emphasizing the importance of adhering to their
legal frameworks and operational policies that align with international human rights law, which
stresses that freedom of expression must not infringe on the rights or reputations of others, nor
compromise national security, public order, public health, or public morals.

Monument to the Largest Tank Battle in History, The Battle of Kursk, showing Heroic Soviet T-34s plowing into German Tiger I tanks at Prokhorovka.

While receiving surprisingly little attention despite its historical significance, Ukraine’s Armed Forces recently took to assaulting over the border with Russia into the Kursk region of the Russian Federation. While the battles in the Kursk region of Russia are currently in play, it looks as if Ukraine has been fairly successful in entering Russia and securing territory over the border.

The historical weight of Kursk in military terms ties into storied invasions in Russian history, the most notable being Napoleon’s invasion of Russia as well as the German invasion of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. During the Second World War, Kursk was stitched into world history as being the largest tank battle to ever take place between two armies, brutal in nature as it was massive. Both invasions would have determined the future existence of Russia and the Soviet Union in their respective eras, but what is notable is that the loss of both invasions would have had severe consequences on the future of the Russian people themselves.

Military actions by Russia to push back into the neighbouring Kharkiv region has put the citizens in Kharkiv back into danger after being liberated by Ukrainian Forces. With losses in Kharkiv and attrition of forces being a detriment to Ukraine, it looks like the risky decision to enter Russian territory was taken as the stalemates in the Kharkiv region could have eventually reversed the fortunes of Ukraine in the medium term.

Since Ukraine has not made their intent public, there is no definitive consensus on the reasons behind Ukraine’s invasion of the Kursk region of Russia. Theories on Ukraine’s motives surround a possible plan to trade land for land, a simple morale boost, or a tactical move to flank hardened Russian lines in Ukraine and limit support structures for Russian Forces. While all of these variables will contribute to Ukraine’s war effort, a cultural explanation might tie all of these factors in together in ending the larger conflict.

A few months ago, Russia’s Wagner Forces took a similar approach and essentially invaded Russia as the rogue armies of old often did in the region. Material losses to Russian Forces and Wagner Brigades were less of a cost as opposed to the attempt to make Russia look unstable and its Government weak. What can be misunderstood in conflicts by Ukraine’s allies is that often the impression of weakness in a Government can be as powerful as the military itself. As stability, power and strength solidify a Government’s support, weakness is a signal of its imminent downfall. The reason why Napoleon’s Invasion and the Battle of Kursk are monumental is because it ties directly into the culture of a strong nation prevailing under difficult circumstances. The idea of strength and the warrior hero is so powerful that leaders who are unable to meet those expectations are as good as finished, and Ukraine or any Russian adversary taking over Kursk will be more than a notable point in the region’s history.

Russia’s big gamble in Ukraine never really considered Russia being invaded itself, even though Russian support for their Government’s actions is born out of the historical reality of every single Soviet citizen being personally affected by the German invasion only a few short generations ago. Generations of Soviet and Russian military doctrine were built around preventing another Nazi genocide of their people, and entire systems of protection (especially the anti-aircraft system networks) were created to repel such an attack. Since the Russia-Ukraine War began, Russia has been losing much of their modern and old Soviet stock, has taken to using drones from a country that designs weapons to commit acts like the Majdal Shams massacre, has been relegated to using dangerous old North Korean artillery stock, and is now having to purchase missile systems from abroad that are a poorer copy of technology invented by Russian scientists. With all of these actions, Russia was unable to prevent a massive terror attack on their own soil and have slowly become the junior partner with China, a country it has a territorial dispute with and have fought a war over previously. What Russia lacks in conventional military capability in 2024, they make up for in nuclear deterrence, but even the TOPOL missile fleet is under the control of a Government that would only look weaker if unhinged.

It should be noted that support for certain regimes is a curious one, as while severe elements in Western countries seemed to ignore the massacre of Majdal Shams on a football field in the middle of the Olympic games, ignore the targeted massacres in Bangladesh, treat the freedom movement in Venezuela like they are the Iranian Women’s movement they gave up on, and generally encourage more strife, people in places like China and Iran are very unlikely to support their young men dying in a war in support of a few old men running their Government. Russia is different as it had popular support for its actions, seen as a projection of strength tied with its historical lessons of protecting Russians at all costs against enemies from abroad. A possible loss of Kursk can change the narrative, and as with many of these current global wars, weakness and anarchy will never be in the public interest. It is so crucial to understand this concept in foreign relations that is should be considered the determining factor for the future existence of a regime, and possibly election victories in the West.

Bangladeshi dissident Aslam Chowdhury, a prominent human rights and minority rights activist who was in prison for the last eight years, was recently released from prison. Meanwhile, upon hearing the news of his release, hundreds of activists have gathered in front of the Chattogram Central Jail amid the rain to welcome him as he emerged from prison. They welcomed him at the jail gate with flowers. Later, they started for Sitakunda with Aslam Chowdhury by processions with trucks.

The Bangladeshi dissident was imprisoned after 76 political cases were filed against him. He was granted bail in 75 cases, said Aslam Chowdhury’s personal lawyer KM Saiful Islam. Bangladeshi dissident Aslam Chowdhury is a leader of the BNP, who was known for his activities defending the rights of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh.

He was also an outspoken opponent of Sheikh Hasina, a former Bangladeshi Prime Minister who recently stepped down following student-led protests against her. Presently, the deposed prime minister faces 33 charges including attacking a procession in Sylhet city which left several people shot and injured. The charges against her include 27 for murder, four for crimes against humanity and genocide, and one for abduction.

A number of years ago, Chowdhury was arrested after meeting with Mendi Safadi, who formerly served as Israeli Communication Minister Ayoob Kara’s chief of staff. The Bangladeshi government alleged that he was part of an Israeli plot to topple the Bangladeshi government but Safadi related that the real reason he was arrested was due to his role in the country’s opposition. Bangladesh has no diplomatic relations with Israel and Bangladeshi citizens are barred from visiting the Jewish state. Safadi claimed that the Sheikh Hasina government has been “using violence and murder against ethnic minorities and opponents of the regime for years.”

Shipan Kumer Basu, who leads the World Hindu Struggle Committee, was one of the Hindus that was oppressed by the Sheikh Hasina government. He was imprisoned and tortured under the Sheikh Hasina government: “The Awami League government murdered, tortured, raped, forcefully converted and looted Hindus.” This led Basu to lead an international campaign against the Sheikh Hasina government.

In 2015, Basu met with Safadi and began to work with him towards improving the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh. In 2016, Chowdhury came to India, and met with both Safadi and Basu. It was from India that this trio worked together towards improving the plight of minorities in Bangladesh. In 2017, I was recruited to write about this issue in the American and Israeli media, and the four of us worked so that Bangladesh would have a brighter future.

In an exclusive interview, Basu related: “The main reason Chowdhury was put in jail was because of his activism for Hindu rights. He was protesting against the murder and rape of Hindu women. In 2016, we delivered a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and started to reach out to Israel, so that they would help us. The Sheikh Hasina government turned Bangladesh into a graveyard. But now with Sheikh Hasina deposed and Chowdhury out of jail, we want to start making our country safe for all. We want to build a new Bangladesh where everyone will have equal rights. The new Bangladesh will be secular and progressive, where Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists can breathe freely.” Basu called on the international community to assist the interim government in establishing freedom in Bangladesh.

Hugo Chavez Statue meets its fate after a Venezuelan election that keeps the Governing regime in power.

The recent election in Venezuela was met with a result, that while surprising, was somewhat expected. Since the Chavez regime, election results in Venezuela have often favoured the incumbents, and when they did not, the incumbents still won. Venezuela’s outward appearance of democratic virtue demonstrates an electoral exercise mirrored among common regimes in recent history. While not reaching the 99% popularity of a Saddam, the Maduro campaign is thought to have been on the verge of finally losing popular support and leaving Chavismo in the history books. As expected, elections under Chavez’s successor Nicolas Maduro is not always determined by popularity, the number of votes, or the desire of Venezuelans, many who have fled Venezuela due to a generation lost under their authoritarian regime. With a political stranglehold on all checks and balances, a system that allows for attacks on the judiciary, arrests of political rivals, and assaults on human rights will never run a clean election. While the vote is being appealed, it is not expected to change the result of the election, one that was likely predetermined by the Government according to many Venezuelan policy experts.

The slow burn that resulted in democratic values dominating nations was not a creation that appeared out of the blue sky, but was one developed over generations of theoretical debates on the nature of humanity, and the best and most fair manner to govern a community. Cultural traditions and philosophies from ancient religions, to the Greeks, Magna Carta, French Revolutionary ideals and the 20th Century’s battle of Liberalism against extremist Socialism and brutal Fascism sought to create societies where rationality and proportionality in Justice would dominate all aspect of social, political and cultural life. A values system was set up to manage humanity’s innate desire for greed and absolute self benefit so that proportionality between neighbours would become the norm, ever resisting the past pressures that would create an unbalanced system. The entire system is based on a philosophy that prevents putting power into the hands of a few corrupt elites, or simply an unelected king.

As these systems developed over time, so did the extremes of power in creating those systems. While the English traditions of the Magna Carta established a person’s right to their own property, even apart from the Crown, it did not fully eliminate the power of the Crown in their democratic system. The Franco-American Republics took their cultures of Liberty from an overarching power and fought many severe battles in establishing their own Constitutional systems, away from European monarchy, towards a system run by the people. While these democratic systems are not perfect, and humans are not perfect in their intent, it allowed for a living system of laws with errors being acknowledged and challenged in tedious legal processes established over time by their not too distant ancestors. As history has shown in the development of these national traditions, democracy is not simply a vote as discussed by Latin American political analyst Guillermo O’Donnell, but a progressive development of different democratic norms in a messy process that seeks justice in a global order where power and strength was always the only determinant of life and death. Democracy came out of debate, conflict, and even revolution, but its intent was to never give absolute power to one entity, its was formed to relieve the pressures of a lack of justice so that solutions can be formed without resorting to past lived bloodshed of our ancestors. It does not seek to oppress groups in society for their class or their race or nationality, but seeks fairness and justice, even if humanity often chooses their own best interests over their neighbour.

A lacking system of democracy is a community that is unable to relieve the pressure of injustice in their system. A healthy democracy seeks to balance justice, so there is not a normalisation of disproportionately oppressive laws and an oppressive state over its citizens. Simply being the person with power who can wield a population and security structure to their own benefit only works while one is in power, and dooms them to oblivion once their regime falls, which is almost always inevitable. A system that corrupts the justice system often simultaneously tries to normalise absolute power, and once a system is corrupted it often cannot be reformed without great popular support, external pressures or the more common severe revolutionary movement. Such systems always lead to chaos, and often the agents of chaos are not the ones seeking proportional justice, but simply power for their own means. In reality, most governments in 2024 are not democratic, do not possess the ability to release pressure from politically tense situations, and people will often choose justice and freedom over oppression if there is no valve or means for them to survive. Movements that use terms such as justice, freedom, and democracy do not necessarily honour in whole or in part of any of those values when violence and threats become their norm, they just utilize those traditional terms to manipulate the narrative. Extreme violence is often committed so stability is accepted at all costs. Normalising disproportionality against the long process that created modern democracy simply eliminates the pressure valves so that chaos and violence become destiny in the erosion of free societies.

F-16 “Iron Eagle”, similar to the F-16s now making their way to Ukraine.

The 1980s was an era that was characterized by high levels of patriotism in he United States, supported by a generation of action films and accompanying stars. A few months before the release of Top Gun, there was a movie about a kid and his plane called Iron Eagle, a film built around the F-16A/B Viper (as opposed to the F-15 Eagle) being used to dominate a fictional country that played the role of fake Libya at the time. With new developments in Ukraine, the first F-16s are making their way to the war zone, a conflict that has had reduced air power due to the prevalence of so many anti-aircraft systems in the region.

While the renewal of patriotic movements remains to be seen, the promotion of the F-16 in Ukraine is seen as a game changer in the conflict despite the aircraft being a 1980’s classic, with non-stealth vulnerabilities and a limited fuel capacity. The F-14 from Top Gun, F-15 and F-16 were all designed in the late 1970s as a response to the prevalence of the nimble Soviet MiG-21, keeping their place in the front line of US Air Power ever since. While the F-14s have already been retired for sometime, the F-15 and F-16 are still considered some of the best aircraft in operation to date, even if being of an increasingly older design. Upgrades often are to the internal systems, software, radars and modernization of computer systems to keep the F-15 and F-16 potent on the battlefield. Much of these improvements have also been challenged by modern anti-aircraft systems, designed to kill an F-15 and F-16 through many layers of air defence. The narrative on the F-16s being a singularly awesome tool to turn the tide in the conflict comes with a softening of Russian Air Defence and good PR on the 1980s system. Perhaps they would do well with a promotional film after the success of Top Gun: Maverick, as wonder systems like the Leopard 2s and M1 Abrams have not matched the hype in performance, while still operating within successful realistic measures on the battlefield.

Air power in the War in Ukraine was met with some horrific tragedies, with Russian S-300 missile systems tracking Ukrainian aircraft from Belarus and shooting them down. Ukraine’s air arm, while flying in Ukraine, was in danger soon after takeoff in their own territory earlier in the conflict. Recent techniques to destroy Russian Air Defence radars and missiles have taken shape using drones and tactical ballistic missiles like Hi-Mars, focusing on larger and more complex S-400 missile batteries that are designed to challenge advanced ballistic missile systems, but fail against simple drones and is questionable in defending against Hi-Mars. While drone attacks have been able to avoid being shot down by advanced systems on both sides of the conflict, often the S-400 would carry a smaller missile capability and be covered by other shorter range missile systems and radar guided cannons. Why the recent S-400 system in Crimea was unable to be protected is likely due to the lack of the smaller missiles in its own battery. We also do not know if the battery was lacking cover from TOR and Pantsir systems in the area, designed for battery defence. Even with layered defences, swarming a radar with drones and using advanced missiles at the same time are difficult to defend against, especially since the last truly operational radar/gun system was the 1980s era West German Gepard, now dusted off to shoot down terror drones in Ukraine.

It is difficult to know the success rate of drones and Hi-Mars attacks as there is the possibility that many missiles were launched and intercepted until a Hi-Mars was able to complete its mission. These targeted assaults on S-400 systems looks to be preparing for an increased air campaign in Ukraine, likely using donated NATO F-16s. While F-16s have a better chance of surviving anti-air shields, there are so many different systems in Ukraine that the success of the F-16 will be probably come from launching longer range weapons from a distance as opposed to close in attacks. All Russian and Soviet systems were designed to kill F-16s, coming out in the late 1980s, possibly as a response to Maverick and Goose with the ability to detect a volleyball from many miles away. They did not prevent Maverick attacking another fictional country however, and the real risks to the F-16s going to battle in Ukraine comes at high risk as well. The pilots for those missions need to hope for the best, but expect the worst in order to keep themselves safe during missions.

Demonstrations in New Caledonia, which legally belongs to French sovereignty, caused a diplomatic row between France and Azerbaijan. The demonstrations and tensions in New Caledonia began after a public debate in the country about a new voting law, which, according to supporters of independence from France, discriminates against the indigenous population – the Kanaks.

The French claimed that they had noticed another flag flying in the demonstrations alongside the Kanak flag and it was the flag of Azerbaijan. Another claim of the French against Azerbaijan is that suddenly there is a group within Azerbaijan that is connected to the government and publicly supports the people of New Caledonia in their struggle against France. This, although difficult to define as “conclusive evidence”, was enough for the authorities in France to assume that there are people in Azerbaijan who support New Caledonia. The French were not satisfied with suspicions, but they issued statements and publicly blamed Azerbaijan for the instability in New Caledonia.

Another thing that caused France to raise its suspicions towards Azerbaijan as a country that interferes in the internal affairs of France, is the involvement and support of Azerbaijan in the NAM movement, or its full name “The Non-Aligned Movement”. NAM is a movement that began in the 1960s to help developing countries liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism (with an emphasis on the countries of the Soviet Union, because during the founding period, the Cold War took place) to conduct themselves independently, without external intervention of the big powers.

In addition to this, NAM works to help peoples who cry out for independence to get their independence politically, economically, and socially. The principles that guide the NAM movement and the country of Azerbaijan, which is itself a country that has been liberated from colonialism for many years, will make it easy for the movement and the country to cooperate over the years. It was accompanied by a common desire in French colonies.

Although France is no longer a power since the beginning of the last century, it no longer controls half of the world, but it has not given up its influence in the countries and regions it controls.  France actually wants influence economically, politically, and militarily also in the lands it left a long time ago. Allowing this is called “neo-colonialism” these days. Because of France’s foreign policy towards the countries it liberated, it managed to arouse the ire of all kinds of anti-colonial movements around the world, including in New Caledonia. Instead of the people in power having a reckoning with France regarding France’s foreign policy and its attitude towards countries affected by them, they preferred to find a scapegoat to take the blame for the instability in the French colonies.

One would think that because of France’s way of acting with its colonies and the countries that were formerly its colonies, it would ideologically support countries that want to expand their territory, but no. French hypocrisy came out in full force when it came to the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. France supported Armenian separatism in the Karabakh region and Armenia’s military terrorist operations nearby. France tried to circumvent the just demand for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan following territorial claims by Armenia, when both houses of the French Parliament recognized the independence of the “Republic of Artsakh” in 2020, although Armenia itself did not recognize it. The French support for Armenian separatism goes well with the arguments against France, which acts selectively and cynically in everything related to support for international principles and the value of sovereignty. One can understand that what interests France are personal geopolitical interests and nothing more.

The point that the Haitian media keeps accusing Azerbaijan of anti-French potential emphasizes the French’s confidence in the lack of French foreign policy, which is characterized as colonial behavior. For example, an article from the French magazine Le Monde presents Azerbaijan’s anti-colonial actions as anti-French actions and is spreading false information about French foreign policy. It is difficult to know whether the French act this way because the French journalists really do not understand how France’s colonial foreign policy is perceived externally or because of repressed feelings of guilt from the hopes that France makes for the peoples it rules and dominates. To be sure, the sentence about the camel that cannot see its own hump does not fit the country in the same way that in this situation as it fits the description of France.

 In conclusion, it is clear to see that French foreign policy continues in many areas of the country. France’s attempts to mark Azerbaijan as undermining its sovereignty in New Caledonia, apparently stem from a search for a scapegoat in order not to give it the judgment for its actions. If not, probably out of feelings of guilt the French prefer not to see the damage they are doing and have done, to many peoples and many countries.   

The Italian Parliament in Rome recently hosted a conference entitled “The Peace Project in Ukraine” to discuss the various options for resolving the Ukraine conflict and ending the suffering of the civilian population there.    This follows Pope Francis proclaiming, “We must have the courage to negotiate.”   Monsignor Fabrizio Turriziani Colonna, Judicial Vicar of the Catholics of Armenia, Georgia, Russia and Eastern Europe, continued; “Negotiation is never surrender.  It requires courage.  Achieving peace entails making sacrifices.  Relinquishing personal principals or specific rights in favor of broader, universal ones.” 

He called for there to be action to start direct negotiations between Russia and the Ukraine: “The Pope stated that in order to achieve peace, we must construct a bridge.  But to construct a bridge, we must sacrifice something.  In Christian culture, there is ultimately no such thing as a just war.   It may be acknowledged that a war could be inevitable.  However, it can never be termed as just.  A peace project can only succeed through dialogue, creating a bridge where opposing positions can converge, albeit requiring concessions for the greater good.”  

Manel Msalmi, President of the European Association for the Defense of Minorities andan  advocate of women’s rights, discussed the plight of women and children in the Ukraine and the grave losses caused by the war, as well as the need to focus on the education of young people who have not been learning for four years. She mentioned that the Swiss talks have not brought a solution because Ukraine and Russia need to be brought to the negotiating table through mediators. Saudi Arabia and some other countries are already trying to bring Ukraine and Russia together. However, she believes “it would be more effective if Europe were to lead this process, as the conflict is being fought on European soil”. She also mentioned a threat of this spiraling out of control into a nuclear war.

Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Infrastructure Tullio Ferrante stated that “the establishment of a permanent dialogue with all members of the international community is crucial, as a just peace can only be achieved while preserving the territorial integrity of Ukraine. At the same time, it is essential to continue humanitarian support funded by military and reconstruction operations for Ukraine”.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University pointed out the economic impact of the war on Europe and the world and emphasized the need to avoid an escalation and talk about peace. “The EU must not accept Putin’s terms, but must be prepared to negotiate,” he said. Sachs also explained that the expansion of NATO could be a mistake for the West and that it will be wise to have countries with neutral status between NATO and Russia instead of on two sides of one border. In his opinion, the Italian people are characterized by their independent thinking, which is why he expects them to think about negotiating peace with Russia.

Member of the Chamber of Deputies Francesco Maria Rubano, Senator Francesco Silvestro and Magistrate Catello Maresca also pointed out the terrible consequences of the ongoing war and the need to establish peace. Despite the different views on the right way to end the war, the participants declared their intention to bring peace and stability to Europe.

Indian Produced T-90 Mk.III, a licensed and improved version of the Russian T-90 tank.

The War in Ukraine was largely unexpected from both allies of Ukraine as well as many Russian commanders themselves as little to no new weaponry was produced in large quantities prior to the beginning of the conflict. Leadership in Russia likely assumed that the assault on Kyiv would be swift and that trench style warfare would not take place in an era with rapid, modern tanks and armoured vehicles linked to GPS. The end result was trenches and drones and long range artillery with accuracy only dreamed of in the 1980s. While most of the Soviet stockpile was made to fight a Third World War in the late 70s and early 80s, it is now almost depleted in the mid-2020s.

Russia had large stockpiles of Soviet equipment in garages and sitting in fields all over Russia by the mid-2020s. Newer modern systems are often based on the late Cold War platforms with computer assisted communications and targeting equipment, designed to be an export product to nations who were looking for an economical, world class platform. When Russia lost many of these more advanced systems, they started taking equipment from their active reserves, then from working tanks from their stockpile, then upgrading the Soviet tanks to a modern standard, and now taking even 1960s era systems with an odd 115mm calibre to use as fire support for infantry. Russia has gone as far as purchasing weapons and ammunition from North Korea, much of it being of an older Soviet design and with additional problems due to quality controls. The race for modern tanks however may not be solved through these purchases, and both the Western allies and Russia may both have the option to purchase the last remaining large stockpiles of tanks for their forces in Ukraine.

Russia had a modernisation program based on the T14 Armata tank’s hull and chassis to re-equip their armed forces. The Armata platform would be utilized with new tanks and vehicles with the best technology and protection available in the post 2010s era. With the cost of the Armata being quite high however, and the requirements for the current war being one of needing more units as opposed to a few highly advanced units, it looks like the modernisation program will be focused on older models as opposed to a newly produced Armata based production. While the production for the T-80 series appears to no longer have the rationale past upgrades to make new tanks, the factory that produced the original T-72 has been working 24 hours shifts modernizing older tanks from storage to the T-72B3M standard and would likely focus on making the newer T-90M tanks if a new production run would take shape. Even with this large production push, Russia is still losing too many tanks, and both Russia and Ukraine will need to find a source of tanks that are significantly better than old T-62Ms and Leopard 1s.

The largest stockpiles of modern weapons that might be available for purchase lay in China and India. If China would decide to disengage from accelerating a conflict with Taiwan and continue as the world’s manufacturing hub, PLA land forces would be in excess of equipment and armour. China had to design the ZTQ15 light tank as it could operate effectively for use on the border with India, where many of their ZTZ99A and ZTZ96B tanks would struggle in a low oxygen/high terrain environment. After China’s 2008 Parade showing many new weapons systems to the public, many of these systems ended up being retired or put in rear units of the PLA after a few short years, despite being of a modern 2008 design. Tanks such as the ZTZ96B has similar characteristics to the newer T-72 versions and would suit both Russian and Ukrainian forces well in their conflict. Anti-aircraft systems like China’s PGZ-04A/PGZ95 is already largely being replaced by the PGZ09, and is like a modernised ZSU-23-4 Shilka, and would suit the anti-drone defence for Ukraine better than most of the early 80s Gepards currently being used. While it might be considered as a long shot to purchase armament from China for Ukraine, there have been many licensing agreements and commercial connections between Ukraine’s allies, particularly France and Germany, and it cannot be assumed that China would forgo a benefit to themselves for the sake of Russia in every instance. With China’s equipment being standard with many Soviet era artillery rounds, both Ukraine and Russia could integrate those systems with ease on the battlefield.

India’s currently has the license to produce the Russian designed T-90 tank and has production facilities making them in India for India’s armed forces. While it is unclear whether or not Russia has the ability to block exports of the Indian produced T-90 in their licensing agreement, India’s security situation requires an independent source for arms in the event its population is threatened. Due to India’s significance in its region and globally, they have been able to maintain relations with both sides of the conflict without enduring much pressure from either party. Besides equipment from France, India’s military has always sourced much of its equipment from non-NATO nations despite being the world’s largest democracy and having close ties to the West and its values. India has recently backed away from purchasing some modern Russian equipment after seeing the performance of the T-72/T-90 platform in Ukraine. India may be willing to sell part of its T-90 production if it can be compensated with other platforms as countries like Poland had chosen to do in displacing its T-72 based PT-91 Twardy tanks. While relational issues India might have with the West or Russia in selling T-90s to either side would be a topic of debate, any increased immediate threat to India, the region, or the larger world from India’s adversaries will push India to rapidly and unapologetically support its own best interests. India has already taken to supplying some weapons support to Armenia, even when Armenia has been abandoned by both traditional ally Russia, and the United States as the new player in the Caucasus region.

It may be the case that the usefulness of the traditional tank, with a large 125mm cannon and heavy ammunition, may not be the best system to use on the battlefield with so many threats from below the ground to nearly invisible drones above. Many weapons systems like the M2 Bradley use an autocannon to achieve its mission success and rely on speed, rapid fire and crew visibility in assaulting enemy positions and even challenging tanks themselves. The offensive use of Anti-Tank guided missiles can destroy most modern tanks and active and passive protection systems can be effective on systems using thinner armour. The Russian system called BMPT Terminator uses two BMP-2 style autocannons and four anti-tank missiles based on a T-72 hull designed as a response to tanks losses experienced in urban settings in Chechnya. This system uses modern vision and targeting equipment, and was initially one of the most feared systems to be encountered in Ukraine. These lighter systems may take over the role of the main battle tanks in future conflicts. The idea of having unmanned armoured vehicles may already be fielded in Ukraine. The Russian Uran-9 is essentially a drone armoured vehicle with an autocannon and anti-tank missiles akin to something you might see in an 1980s sci-fi movie, minus the growling and creepy voice. While many of these manned and unmanned tanks will be integrated with their own aerial drone support mechanisms, the war in Ukraine has established certain technologies over others, and will continue to do so as long as fighting continues in the region. We are at the cusp of the final stockpiles from the end of the Cold War, with no signs of less conflict in the world in 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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