Foreign Policy Blogs

Report after report after report warns of the pending “rematch from hell” that “few Americans want to see” pitting an 80 year old incumbent against a man currently being charged with multiple felonies– in truth, the octogenarian is hardly innocent, and the criminal defendant is hardly an image of youth. 

The reality that two deeply unpopular politicians are the frontrunners for a democratic election feels like a contradiction in terms. Isn’t democracy’s whole “thing” that representatives are elected to office by the people? How, then, is it possible for such a  “nightmare” scenario to materialize in the real world? 

The answer is more obvious than you might expect- that “nightmare” becomes real only if we become content with, or worse resigned to, that obviously undesirable status quo. 

There is no denying that the United States has lost some of its competitive edge since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This absence of a genuine threat has resulted in political decadence- entertainment shows are masquerading as news media, and incidental issues are elevated into the mainstream.

This surface level interaction with politics has simultaneously facilitated increased partisanship and reduced room for serious conversations. In turn, a so-called social war has emerged through which politicians on both sides of the aisle can increase their stature by taking fringe positions on issues with more media bark than policy bite.

As a result, more Americans than ever before are voting against politicians that they despise instead of for politicians that they genuinely support. Voters on the left are horrified by the prospect of migrant children being separated from their families. Voters on the right, meanwhile, cannot stand the idea that their own children may encounter a drag queen at the public library. Policy matters put to the side, you would expect that everyone is disgusted by the alleged amount of criminal behavior on both sides of the aisle.

Looking beyond American shores- Putin’s lashing out into Ukraine could be interpreted as evidence that would-be rivals are willing to test the durability of the Post-WWII rules based order. Additionally, as people on both sides of the Pacific come to the realization that China appears on the verge of reaching the apex of its capacity relative to the United States, efforts to prevent conflict between the two superpowers needs to be taken more seriously.

Despite this grim state of affairs, there are a number of important policies that are both impactful and popular among Americans Left, Right and Center. These issues go beyond bare bones ideas like infrastructure modernization, moderate immigration reform, and apple pie being delicious. In fact, some of these consensus building policies would bring about systemic change.

Policies like implementing term limits, establishing ethics standards for Supreme Court justices, and removing dark money from elections are both popular and transformative. Other good governance policies, even if they are less commonly discussed, also receive the occasional mention on the House floor (in one version or another).

Despite these obvious ways to improve the health of our political eco-system, it does not follow that one of today’s prominent figures is the right person to lead the charge. Frankly, it seems very unlikely that the best person to lead the United States into a new series of challenges is either Joe Bieden or Donald Trump- is it equally unlikely to be one of either man’s closest disciples.

The situation at hand begs for the United States to seek out a more unifying, and better equipped leader. The Constitution, and America’s standing as a Republic gives us the power to bring about the needed change. 

In order to correct course American voters will need to overcome the temptations of performative hopelessness and partisan bickering. The work towards preventing a nightmare scenario in 2024 begins now and it is ours to do. 

Americans have spent the last 30 years eating political sweets, now it’s time to eat our vegetables. 

–

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

Russian MiG-31 armed with the Kinzhal missile. Kinzhal Hypersonic missiles were once thought to be almost impossible to intercept.

New strategies to attack Ukraine’s military and civilian population has run the gambit of using the most advanced Kalibr cruise missiles, low tech drones imported from outside or Russia, Cold War ballistic missiles, and Hypersonic weapons like the Kinzhal missile. While different older and modern systems are being used to counter the attacks, the theory many had inside and outside of Russia was that the Hypersonic Kinzhal missiles would not be intercepted by any defense system available.

In the earlier stages of the war, it was the case that a Kinzhal missile hit a target in the city of Ivano-Frankivsk while Russia used electronic countermeasures to knock out much of Ukraine’s missile defense tracking capabilities. More recently however, several Kinzhal missiles were intercepted by what was likely a Patriot PAC-3 missile system, a system designed with smaller, more agile missiles specifically meant to intercept ballistic targets.

While many were surprised that the air launched Kinzhal missiles were shot down, it is not an illogical conclusion to assume a Patriot PAC-3 missile system can knock out a Kinzhal. The Kinzhal is heavily based on the ground launched missile system carried by Russia’s Iskander surface-to-surface missile system, also being used in Ukraine by Russia. While the various Iskander types can fire cruise missiles like Kalibr or fast ballistic missiles like a variant of the Kinzhal, NATO designs were created specifically to kill Kinzhal type missiles. The theory that added speed and altitude in launching a Kinzhal from a MiG-31 fighter was certainly sound, and defined the Kinzhal as being Hypersonic. While it can reach Hypersonic speeds using this technique, it does not make the Kinzhal much different than its Iskander based ancestor. In the end, the real life test of Kinzhal lead to several interceptions, with the loss of six of them in one day.

Some peculiar situations have come from the missile war in Ukraine. In a technique not seen since North Korea altered SA-2 missiles to hit ground targets during the early Cold War, Russian S-300 missiles were also adjusted to hit targets on the ground, despite it being designed solely as an air-to-air missile. While this might be a sign that more advanced missiles are running low for Russia, it is the case that NATO supplied advanced missiles are also running low, with a great deal of time needed to replenish their stocks.

Using simple drones may have been a ploy to make Ukraine waste many advanced missiles on $400 drones, and the Kinzhals and other advanced missiles may be being held back for a future attack with a dwindled missile shield. To counter the lack of stock and cost, fairly old Gepard systems were brought in to shoot down simple drones. While effective, there are not enough of them to cover the vastness of Ukraine. If Ukraine can preserve their advanced missile systems to intercept more advanced missile threats only, they can buy more time in keeping their population as safe as possible from attacks from the air.

To cover more regions of Ukraine with Gepard type protection from technically simple threats, three options exist. The first is to try and find more Gepard/Oerlikon based or NATO based systems of a similar type that have cannons linked to a radar and/or tracking system. If this was easy however, it would have likely been done already, which leads to another option. Like many Cold War Soviet equipment being dusted off and used effectively by Ukraine, the ZSU-23-4 was a Cold War system similar to the Gepard, using four 23mm cannons and a tracking system to target low flying threats. If an update of the ZSU-23-4 radar could be implemented, there is likely a tremendous amount of stock and ammo available of the ZSU-23-4 Shilka. Poland had upgraded their systems some time ago, and could act as a blueprint for a quick modernisation. A type of Shilka upgrade or App for the radar could surely save lives by shooting down terror drones purchased by Russia.

The third and last option would be to purchase the PGZ95 system from China. Since 2008, China introduced the PGZ95, but rapidly replaced many of their PGZ95 anti-air vehicles with a similar Oerlikon based system called the PGZ09. While the PGZ09 is very similar to a modern Gepard, the PGZ95s are similar to a modern Shilka, with a modern radar, and have been placed as excess stock by China’s PLA. Sourcing the PGZ95 and placing them at the front would be a simple tactical solution to the drone scourge against innocent Ukrainian civilians. While the politics of such a purchase would be a lot more complicated than the tactical reality, the current image China seeks as a peacemaker abroad, the use of the PGZ95 mainly as a defensive weapon against terror drones, and the perception of impartiality China seeks between Ukraine and Russia may make for a convincing proposal to get modern air defence on the field in Ukraine. If it saves innocent lives, these future approaches are worth a shot.

France’s pursuit of European ‘strategic autonomy’ has ignited debates surrounding the nature of transatlantic relations against the backdrop of shifting global power dynamics. Under President Emmanuel Macron, France has emerged as the vanguard in the effort to redefine Europe’s international role. Macron’s message was unmistakable during his controversial state visit to China in April 2023: Europe must actively reduce its reliance on the U.S. and avoid becoming “America’s followers.” According to Macron, strategic autonomy will secure the EU’s future position as the third superpower in an increasingly multipolar world. However, the concept remains subject to interpretation, and European leaders diverge on the path forward. Furthermore, France’s complex relationship with self-reliance adds a historical dimension to the dialogue, and Macron’s Eurocentric ambitions are the latest manifestation. In light of these factors, examining European strategic autonomy becomes essential in a time when transatlantic unity is more imperative than ever.

In the European context, strategic autonomy comprises the EU’s ability to pursue its national interests, enhance self-reliance, and determine its foreign policy without external pressures. The concept was officially introduced in EU documentation in 2016, initially focusing on defense but gradually expanding to encompass economic, diplomatic, technological, and environmental dimensions. Following World War II, Europe deliberately relied on America’s nuclear umbrella for security, effectively outsourcing defense matters to the U.S. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed European vulnerabilities resulting from decades of underinvestment and neglect in military readiness. Moreover, as the U.S. reorients its strategic focus to the Indo-Pacific, European policymakers fear that Washington might put the continent’s security on the backburner. Hostile rhetoric from the Trump administration eroded trust within NATO and intensified European calls for increased decision-making capacity and the ability to defend their interests autonomously. Critics argue that pursuing autonomy undermines the transatlantic unity required to confront Russian aggression, especially as Ukraine prepares for its anticipated spring counteroffensive. While proponents of the concept cite numerous motivations, conflicting interests among EU member states make establishing a unified vision challenging. The fundamental difficulty is striking the right balance between safeguarding collective European interests and maintaining military ties with the U.S. under the NATO framework.

While Macron emphasizes strategic autonomy to protect the EU’s long-term interests, France’s vision of European sovereignty reflects its deeply rooted historical, political, and cultural heritage. As the sole nuclear power and the second-largest economy in the EU, France has long aspired for a more prominent role in the continent’s affairs. This aspiration stems from France’s cultural identity as a unique nation and historically predominant European power. However, the reality is more complex, and since Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, France has consistently strived to reestablish its influence in Europe. While France never regained the military, political, and economic stature it enjoyed during the Napoleonic era, Paris has continuously sought to shape its own destiny by reducing dependencies on external powers.

Napoleon III’s exploits and the disastrous outcome of Franco Prussian War, culminating in a German military parade through the streets of Paris, solidified the belief that France must possess the capability to defend itself independently. Moreover, The alliance entanglements that triggered World War I and France’s rapid surrender in World War II further reinforced the importance of self-reliance. However, President Charles de Gaulle’s policies during the Cold War best epitomized France’s unwavering pursuit of autonomy and increased global prominence. De Gaulle’s withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military command structure in 1966, driven by dissatisfaction over America’s dominant organizational role, aimed to secure autonomous control over France’s military. Additionally, de Gaulle questioned whether Washington would risk nuclear war with the Soviets for France and developed an independent nuclear deterrent. And today, Paris believes spearheading European strategic autonomy is the most viable avenue to regain its preeminent position on the continent.

While strategic autonomy lacks concrete policy prescriptions, it’s worth exploring potential pathways that policymakers could pursue to achieve an autonomous Europe. A principal concern is the risk posed by Europe’s dual dependency, relying on China for renewable energy resources and the U.S. for military hardware. The military aspect presents the most significant challenge in becoming strategically autonomous, as it necessitates a fully interoperable military force and an independent defense industry, essentially replicating NATO’s primary function. Moreover, Brussels must allocate member states’ contributions towards colossal investments in defense, establishing indigenous supply chains, and developing state-of-the-art capabilities. Addressing the economic implications is equally demanding, such as reducing energy dependence and ensuring self-sufficiency in critical industries of the future. However, the EU currently sources 98% of its rare earth minerals from China and imports 57% of its total energy consumption from foreign suppliers. Additionally, Europe must pursue an industrial policy that promotes advancement in manufacturing and strategic sectors. However, the current industrial output represents only 20% of the EU’s total GDP, underscoring the magnitude of the required transition. A unified diplomatic approach is also crucial if the EU aspires to become the world’s third superpower. However, this assumes the existence of a foreign policy agenda that satisfies all twenty-seven member states­–an endeavor that appears to border on impossibility.

While Macron boldly claims to have already “won the ideological battle on strategic autonomy” in Europe, the continental reactions to his Chinese excursion suggest otherwise. Eastern European countries, which consider American troop deployments critical for their sovereignty, express less optimism about Macron’s efforts. Specifically, Macron’s statement cautioning European nations against becoming involved in “crises that are not ours” concerning Taiwan drew condemnation from both politicians and commentators in former Soviet satellite states. One geopolitical strategist contested this on Twitter, asking, “What would have happened to Europe if the U.S. had said the same about Russia’s war against Ukraine?” While Western European leaders display more sympathy for the core principles of strategic autonomy, they disagree with Macron’s conciliatory approach toward China. Across the Atlantic, Washington supports the idea of European military self-sufficiency. Not only would this reduce the NATO burden for Washington, but the U.S. also desires strong and capable partners in the emerging multipolar order. However, America’s grand strategy primarily focuses on countering China, and Macron’s position on the Taiwanese issue raises concerns in Washington. Meanwhile, China enthusiastically endorses Macron’s rhetoric, as it perceives strategic autonomy as a means to undermine transatlantic unity and fracture the coalition Washington seeks to build to tackle its growing influence.

In conclusion, strategic autonomy aims to position the EU at the forefront of international politics amidst the end of American unipolarity. The concept includes bolstering defense capabilities, mitigating dependencies, strengthening economic resilience, and establishing a cohesive diplomatic approach. France’s advocacy for self-reliance highlights the various historical, political, and cultural motivations influencing each nation’s stance on the issue. But the lack of consensus on a strategically autonomous Europe suggests that comprehensive reforms and policy implementations are decades away. Even if the EU pursues strategic autonomy, it’s unlikely to unfold according to Macron’s vision. Nonetheless, a transatlanticist president like Biden recognizes the benefits of a stronger Europe with reduced vulnerabilities, provided the EU actively collaborates with Washington’s efforts to counter China. Ultimately, bridging ideological gaps and championing a shared vision is critical for realizing a strategically independent Europe that would hopefully strengthen the continent and preserve the integrity of the transatlantic alliance.

After Azerbaijan recently opened up its embassy in Tel Aviv, Saadat Sukurova Israelov, the head of the Kanal 24 news outlet, the vice President of Aziz, Azerbaijan’s main cultural organization in Israel, and the chairwoman of the Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy, is in the process of making a documentary titled “the Great Leader and the Jews,” which speaks about the life of Azerbaijan’s national leader Heydar Aliyev and his relationship with the Jewish people.

“Azerbaijan is the world’s most tolerant country,” she noted.   “We observe this in everyday life.  Jews have been living in Azerbaijan for more than two thousand years.   The Jewish people have established roots in Azerbaijan and anti-Semitism is a foreign concept in the country.   For this reason, Azerbaijani Jews all over the world do everything that they can to promote Azerbaijan in a good way.”

Azerbaijan’s national leader Heydar Aliyev once said, “The Jews have two hearts, regardless which country they live in.   One heart beat for their country and the other one for Israel.”   Aliyev also declared that “Jews can live freely in the land of Azerbaijan.”  

Israelov continued, “In honor of the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Heydar Aliyev, the founder of the independent state of Azerbaijan, and the declaration of 2023 as the Year of Heydar Aliyev, I decided to make a documentary about the life of Heydar Aliyev here in Israel.   As we know, when the modern state of Azerbaijan was established by Heydar Aliyev, a policy of tolerance and multi-culturalism was pursued.   Other religions and beliefs were always respected.”

She stressed that Aliyev went down in the history of the Azerbaijani people as a “savior” of the nation and a “genius.”   She added: “He will always be remembered in the history books as an outstanding politician and statesman.   I believe that the legacy of Heydar Aliyev should always be studied, promoted and applied.”

She concluded: “Because Heydar Aliyev is a great friend of the Jewish people and Israel, I as an Azerbaijani Jew devoted a lot of space to the promotion of relations between Israel and Azerbaijan.  I consider it my duty to carry out the work assigned to me by filming and promoting the documentary ‘The Great Leader and the Jews.’”

In an event hosted by the Azerbaijani Tourism Board in honor of the 100th birthday of Heydar Aliyev, former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Efraim Sneh declared: “I was the first Israeli official to visit independent Azerbaijan in December 1993.  I was invited to meet the late Heydar Aliyev.   At the end of the official visit, I asked to have a few minutes with him alone.  It was more than five minutes.  We discussed the very sensitive aspects of Azerbaijani-Israeli relations.   I can say with all humility that in this conversation, we formed the Azerbaijani-Israeli alliance that exists till today.”

He continued: “In both Israel and Azerbaijan, there are more people who live outside the homeland than in the homeland.   Both nations are trying to revive their old language to the vibrant language of today.  Similarly, we both live in tough neighborhoods.   Not all of our neighbors are good and it is tough.  Therefore, we know to appreciate our true friends.”

Sneh noted that the late Heydar Aliyev told him “we miss our Jewish brothers who immigrated to Israel.   But one day, Azerbaijan will be so prosperous that they will ask to come back and we are waiting for this.”   He proclaimed: “I remember Baku in 1993.   It was a dark gloomy place.  There is nothing to compare it with the Baku of today.  People call it the Paris on the Caspian or Dubai on the Caspian.”   Sneh recalled that the late Heydar Aliyev, may his memory be a blessing, envisioned that Azerbaijan would reclaim the lands that it lost and that has since come into fruition: “It took a long time, but his vision came true.  Azerbaijan took its natural wealth and turned into a strength of treasure.”

Indeed, Azerbaijan is the wonderful country that it is today thanks to the legacy of Heydar Aliyev.  Turkish Ambassador to Israel Sakir Ozkan stated, “Heydar Aliyev was one of the great leaders of the twentieth century.   His ideas still enlighten those who study national relations and politics, not only in Azerbaijan but around the world.   May his soul rest in peace.”  

A Turret from a T-72 tank buries itself in concrete after suffering a catastrophic explosion and separating from its hull.

One of the biggest determinants on how the war in Ukraine will progress is closely tied to the amount of support each side in receiving by way of weapons and ammunition. While Russia is seeking allies to supply it with additional arms while pushing their arms producers to renovate and create more tanks and munitions, Ukraine’s NATO allies are also seeking further production and funding. The limit Ukraine’s allies have is that much of their advanced equipment is running low, even among NATO stockpiles, and require a lot of political support. The creation and distribution of newly formed arms for Ukraine is tied to the national economies of their allies, paid and supported by citizens in those countries. While support for defending Ukraine against Russia has been high, there is always a natural end of these phases of support. The end of these policy honeymoons are often accompanied by dwindling discussions and information on the conflict or issue, no matter how horrific the conflict might be.

The world during 2014 was an example of how some conflicts are given attention, while others are often avoided or outright ignored after a period of time. The conflict in Ukraine in 2014 was not a major event for people outside of Europe after the initial period, even after an airliner was shot down as part of the conflict in the East of Ukraine by an Anti-Aircraft system supplied by Russia. The war in Syria that bled into Iraq did initially receive a lot of attention due to the extreme violence, but even that conflict was eventually ignored, even when refugees in Western countries were being threatened by ISIS fighters in the middle of Western cities. Even natural disasters have been ignored, with Haiti’s natural disaster illiciting a lot of funding without long term solutions, with many still living in temporary shelter many years later. Afghanistan is currently experiencing this lack of policy attention, and the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria was major news abroad for only about a week it seems.

While the end result of conflict in Ukraine in 2014 and mistakes made in Afghanistan more recently created many of the current problems, the level of attention given to these policy issues are often intentionally managed. This is not done by the degree of importance, but by the advantage an issue might give a small interest group in pursuing their larger goals, even if it has negative long term consequences. This management of attention of policy issues can help a cause, but in many cases it develops into a strategy to ignore serious issues for the sake of unserious discussions. This might be the biggest threat to Ukraine at the moment, but it is also a major threat to many innocent people worldwide when English language media go into their honeymoon management mode, picking and choosing who is saved and who is intentionally given up on. Some might say it is just politics, but if your politics is intentionally hurting others, it is simply negligence.

At this year’s Victory Parade commemorating the Soviet defeat of Nazism during the Second World War, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin compared Russia’s struggle against the Ukraine today to the Soviet war against Nazi Germany: “Today, civilization again is at a breaking point. Again, a true war has been unleashed against our motherland.”

He continued: “Western globalist elites still talk about their exceptionalism, pitting people against each other and splitting society, provoking bloody conflicts and coups, sowing hatred, Russophobia, [and] aggressive nationalism. The Ukrainian nation has become hostage to a coup which led to a criminal regime led by its Western masters. It has become a pawn to their cruel and selfish plans.”

While Armenia attended Putin’s Victory Parade in Moscow, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev stood in solidarity with the West and declined Putin’s invitation to attend this anti-Western charade.   Only six countries including Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan attended this anti-Western charade.  Due to his grave crimes against humanity, which include raping and torturing Ukrainian prisoners and abducting Ukrainian children, most of the civilized world is now boycotting Putin’s Russia.

The fact that Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev had the courage to boycott the Victory Parade, even though Russian Peacekeepers are stationed in Karabakh and threatening the stability of his country, a sign that Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev is a true ally of the West and an excellent friend of the United States of America. 

According to a statement issued by the US State Department, “The United States established diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan in 1992, following its independence from the Soviet Union. Together, the two countries work to promote European energy security, expand bilateral trade and investment, and combat terrorism and transnational threats.”    When the United States was fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan was part of their international coalition on the ground there, fighting against the terror.   Azerbaijan also assisted the United States in Iraq and Kosovo as well.   They actively partake in NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program. 

In support of the US-led War on Terror, apart from troop contributions, Azerbaijan provided overflight, refueling, and landing rights for American forces bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.   They shared information to combat terror financing.  They detained and prosecuted suspect terrorists.   They provided the US with over one-third of the non-lethal equipment including fuel, clothing and food used by the US military when they were in Afghanistan.   And today, Azerbaijan is helping Europe to obtain energy security, without the use of Russian or Iranian oil.   

In 1919, the late US President Woodrow Wilson stated the following about Azerbaijan: “Do you know where Azerbaijan is? Well, one day there came in a very dignified and interesting group of gentlemen who were from Azerbaijan. I didn’t have time, until they were gone, to find out where they came from. But I did find this out immediately: that I was talking to men who talked the same language that I did in respect of ideas, in respect of conceptions of liberty, in respect of conceptions of right and justice.”

What the late Woodrow Wilson said about Azerbaijan in 1919 is also true today.   For this reason, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev did not participate in Putin’s public relations stunt in Moscow, thus choosing to heed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s call to isolate the Kremlin.     For this reason, the United States can count on Azerbaijan to always be an ally of the United States.   

It might be the case that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine depends greatly on the fate of Crimea towards the end of the conflict. Russia occupied the Ukrainian region of Crimea in 2014 when the larger conflict began between the two nations. While little was done at the time by Western allies to stop Russia from annexing Crimea in 2014, the historical roots of Crimea has long been established in that part of the world for both sides of the conflict.

In the last few generations, the region of Crimea has gained increased importance as the main base of the Soviet and Russian Black Sea fleet, with the city of Sevastopol remaining as fleet command for the Russian Navy even after Ukraine gained its independence in 1991. This peculiar arrangement of having Russia’s Navy based in another country’s territory is strategically significant in the Black Sea region, linked by historical ties to soldiers from both nations.

During the Second World War, Sevastopol held out against heavy German bombardment for an extended period of time. The heroic stand against the Germans by the Soviets was one of the key battles during the Second World War, and showed the resolve of both the Russian, Ukrainian and other Soviet people’s against the invading Germans. The ability to stand to the last solider at Sevastopol is remembered as a defining moment in Soviet, and now current history, and is likely the reason why the port city still remained the home of the fleet after 1991.

During the Soviet era, the region of Crimea was re-designated as part of the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic for various reasons despite its past as the location of important battles in history. The claims Russia made in 2014 over Crimea however did not come from an agreed upon transition, nor did it meet some coordinated approach considering the importance of Sevastopol to Russian and Ukrainian strategic interests. The importance of Crimea for Ukraine as a catalyst for the conflict comes from the fact that there is more of a balance of backgrounds living in the region, unlike in some parts of Eastern Ukraine, so they are fighting to free Crimea with a good amount of local support. The catalyst for Russia besides the fleet is that it has openly focused on Crimean resources being limited as one of the reasons for occupying other parts of Ukrainian territory, and this narrative drove many Russians to support the war. Crimea therefore is one of the main points of conflict and pride between Russia and Ukraine, and the loss or gain of the territory would be considered a demonstrative victory in the current conflict.

The ability for Ukraine to retake Crimea depends a great deal on the continued support it would get from the West for the rest of the year and past 2024. One of the major hurdles to Ukraine is the level of support their offensive receives from NATO and other allies in achieving long term strategic goals. With the politics of support for the war slowly gaining push back in the West, and equipment slowly becoming harder to acquire or simply out of stock, Ukraine must measure its response to Russia by taking key strategic locations without overburdening its forces and amount of equipment. If Ukraine can push Russia back to the 2014 regions, it could likely put up a defensive posture in the medium term and hope to retake the Eastern regions and Crimea at some point in the future. It would be hard to guess the level of Western support Ukraine would receive if planning to push Russia out of the regions occupied in 2014, but removing Russian forces out of the regions captured in 2022 would be a positive outcome.

The loss of Crimea for Russia would demonstrate that decisions made by their leadership gave up more than they had to lose in invading Ukraine, in territory, lives, and pride. The end result may topple the current Government in Russia, as Russia was and still is seen by many as several times more powerful than Ukraine in resources, technology and manpower. The after-effect of a loss for Russia may have consequences on unity in the country, but more likely it will change how the periphery responds to Russia as a hegemon in the Caucasus region and between Russia’s ties with China and the Middle East. The Caucuses would likely abandon Russian ties fairly quickly, as seen with some nations currently. China would certainly take territorial and energy advantages from Russia in the East, or may simply tie Russia’s export economy further my linking their natural resource wealth to China’s manufacturing needs. Russian allies in the Middle East would have to find other powerful allies, or have to face the consequences of poor decisions in dealing with larger powers like the US, China, Europe and India while targeting their energy supplies or bilateral relations. For this reason, Russia may escalate the conflict with its rocket forces if they may lose Crimea and Sevastopol. The fall of Sevastopol has many dimensions and levels of consequences for Russia, especially for the final narrative of the current war.

Ukraine may need to use older missile defence systems with the dwindling stock of more advanced surface to air missiles.

A modern development of war that many were likely not aware of over the last decade was the ability for missiles to shoot down other offensive munitions like missiles and artillery shells. While it is still very difficult to shoot down targets that are small and fast moving, very high, or very low, if an acquisition radar can see a target, many advanced missiles have a high probability of shooting it down. The stealth solution can provide a level of protection, but at great cost and limited capability depending on the system being used. Even in the case of stealth, newer and more powerful radars are now able to see many stealth aircraft, but are unable to fire on the target for the time being. With modern missiles being such a great threat, it is often better to avoid using many air assets in a war zone, or use non-expensive and disposable equipment like cheaper drones en masse to overwhelm a small anti-air unit. In Ukraine, the conflict might change rapidly as it may be the case that Ukraine and its allies are running out of many of the advanced missile systems keeping the country protected from Russian missile and artillery threats.

In the video in the link here, the analyst discusses the probable lack of proper advanced air defence missiles possessed by Ukraine, and the limited numbers of international stock of other types of advanced missiles needed to keep up the current level of protection over Ukraine. The tactic of using low cost drones to terrorise Ukraine’s population by Russia, pressured Ukraine to use much of their modern missile stock against many low cost drones over the last few months. While the use of lower cost anti-air artillery like Gepards, Oerlikons and Shilkas might have been less effective, the upgrading of those systems should have been considered early on as an essential project to knock down drones as advanced missiles are limited in number, costly, and take time to produce in quantity. Another essential tactic to eliminate the threats of terror weapons on Ukrainians would have been to target the source of such equipment, especially if it is outside of Russia. Considering those weapons were designed to be used specifically against civilians, it would be considered an appropriate target under International Law.

With the recent decision to finally move allied MiG-29s into Ukraine from their neighbours, Ukraine will soon depend more on air-to-air assets for defence. This sudden change in policy is likely due to the low stock of Air Defence missiles possessed by Ukraine and its allies. Ukraine will soon be depending on fighter jets to manage the tracking and guidance of their own missiles on targets. Another reason for the increase in air assets to Ukraine is that with a diminished Air Defence shield, Russian Air Force planes are now less likely to be shot down by advanced anti-air systems from the ground. The mostly absent Russian air arm has been fairly passive in its approach since the beginning of the war, and it could be the case that the months of drone attacks to waste advanced Ukrainian missiles was planned so that the spring offensive could be supported in a more robust manner by Russian Air force artillery. Even with advanced tanks coming from NATO, air assets could cause a lot of problems for Western tanks on the field in Ukraine. Severe losses of NATO equipment may not change the position of the front lines in the war, but it would diminish the perception of power Western countries have over Russian forces in Ukraine. Whatever the outcome, the upcoming spring offensive will alter the narrative of the war when fighting intensifies on the fields of Ukraine.

Recently, it was reported that during the presentation of the teams participating in the European Weightlifting Competition, a man ran onto the stage and set fire to the Azerbaijani flag, as the crowd booed the appearance of the Azerbaijani athletes on stage.  Later on, it was reported that the man who did this was a member of the organizing committee of the championship, Aram Nikolyan.

This occurred after the Armenian government had assured the European Weightlifting Federation that they would ensure the security of all of the athletes at the championship including the Azerbaijani athletes throughout their stay in Armenia and prepare for all kinds of security incidents.   As a result of this incident, the Azerbaijani athletes were forced to forfeit their participation in the European Weightlifting Competition.

“In conditions when such an atmosphere of hatred prevails in Armenia, security is not ensured, the normal participation of Azerbaijani athletes in competitions is impossible due to the psychological pressure,” the Azerbaijani athletes said in a statement. “Politicizing sport is absolutely unacceptable,” it added, urging the European Weightlifting Federation to impose sanctions on Armenia.

Following the incident, the European Weightlifting Federation “strongly condemned the incident, considering it extremely serious and a regrettable gesture and an attack on the integrity of sport values and on the universal principle of fair play.”   The Israeli Canadian Council also condemned the burning of the Azerbaijani flag at the European Weightlifting Competition in Yereven, noting that they also burned a Turkish and Israeli flag.   They expressed their solidarity with the Israeli, Azerbaijani and Turkish people.

They continued: “It is important to remember that sporting events should be a platform for promoting peace and unity, not for fomenting hatred and violence.   The ICC remains committed to working towards a world where diversity is celebrated, and all cultures are respected.   The ICC will continue to promote understanding and dialogue among different communities and stand up against any form of bigotry, discrimination and hate.”

Zeynel Abidin Kiymaz, the head of the Union of Turkish Journalists, concurred: “I strongly condemn the burning of the Azerbaijani flag at the competition in Yerevan.   The burning of the state flag is unacceptable. I resolutely condemn the perpetrators of this incident at the weightlifting competition in Yerevan.”   The Dona Gracia Center for Diplomacy also issued an official statement, proclaiming that they would “like to condemn Armenia for burning the Azerbaijani flag at the European Weightlifting Competition,” emphasizing that a sporting event is no place to make political statements.

A possible new trade route between Russia and India to take shape starting in 2023.

Diligent followers of international policy will likely see 2023 as the starting point for the official acknowledgment of a new power dynamic, one where the War in Ukraine will set the barrier between world powers old and new. Despite constantly changing predictions on the conflict in the East of Ukraine, there are no quick solutions, invincible tanks, massive advantages or much progress on the ground. The much discussed upcoming spring offensive may have already started due to mild weather and an influx of new equipment and conscripts, the result of which will likely determine the outcome of the war. A return to similar front lines as were static since 2014 may be the end result of both sides who have exhausted equipment supplies and have become increasingly entrenched. The dramatic loss of NATO sourced modern equipment, especially tanks, can change the narrative rapidly as the perception of weakness has rapidly shifted policy approaches since the fall of Afghanistan.

Sanctions against Russia have pressured countries dependent on Russian energy to take a policy stance on their future relations with not only Russian oil and gas, but all exports. Associated conflicts have or will erupt based on the response great powers see as beneficial to their future growth over the next generation. Smaller nations in regions south of Russia have been taking new positions, depending on where they see their future successes. The question of Russia’s relations with China, especially considering possible military support for Russia, is a major concern for those fighting in Ukraine. A new trade corridor through to China will be established, but with historical disagreements still on the minds of both sides, a cautious relationship is forming. Another possible trade route will link Russia’s economy closer to India, becoming a major influence over future politics in the region.

One nation that stands out as being in the centre of much of the new policy and trade shift is India. The future prospects of India’s economy is measured by its good relations with different countries abroad, high education, its ever growing population and military prowess. Despite being considered a close Western ally, India has benefitted from access to low cost Russian oil and gas along with good relations with both sides of the conflict in Ukraine. Little pressure has been put on India due to its position as a Western ally that acts as a bulwark against China and extremism in Asia, laying an international focus on keeping India strong and secure. India always stood out as an ally to those countries who seek trade, and their military being a mix of Western, French and Russian military designs is a reflection of their place in the security structure of their region. For this reason, trade with India may unlock a prosperous future, but conflict with India may end up being an economic disaster. One scenario sees ships being prevented from accessing ports in China if India supports an American blockade during a conflict against Taiwan. Regarding India, its always best to trade instead of compete.

The access Russia will seek with India travels through some conflicted territory in the Caspian Sea region and across Iran. India’s ever growing influence in the Caspian Sea region makes conflict between Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia a possible choke point for Russian-Indian trade on this proposed route. Self inflicted flare ups between Iran’s government and minority groups inside Iran and on the border ties protests to Iran’s wider population. While human rights should be paramount for any country’s trade relations, the lack of attention seen in the West will do little to push Russia to avoid the region or motivate India to demand stability and freedom in the region itself. While a free Iran would benefit all powers and likely displace many security issues in the region, both sides need to consider the consequences of abandoning those asking for freedom. India can likely motivate their trade partners for a minimization of conflicts, peaceful government transitions, demand stability and basic human rights, and apply power in the new trade region with a voice that both sides will trust. Without this trade route, chaos west of India is assured, and Russia will be forced to expand its security structure even farther past its current borders. Even in this scenario, India will likely prosper due to its relations with strong allies in the West. It seems as if the choice is between internal conflict or peaceful trade with India. Each nation in the relationship will choose one or the other and it will establish the future for the next few generations.

On April 5th, U.S. Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, welcomed Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Ms. Tsai’s visit with Mr. McCarthy, who is second in line to the presidency, is the highest-ever profile meeting between Taiwanese and U.S. lawmakers on American soil. Accompanied by a bipartisan congressional delegation, Mr. McCarthy reaffirmed American support for Taiwanese sovereignty while demonstrating Congress would not be deterred by Beijing’s threats. In the weeks leading up to the event, Chinese officials repeatedly warned the Speaker, even emailing the attending U.S. lawmakers the morning of April 5th, labeling it a “blatant provocation.” Immediately after the meeting, several spokespersons for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) vocalized their disapproval, calling it a violation of China’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and “the basic norms of international relations.” Ms. Tsai’s recent rendezvous echoes Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan last year, which elicited a ferocious Chinese response in the form of 11-day military exercises, missile launches, and a simulated island blockade. However, China’s reaction exhibited more restraint this time, with military displays lasting only three days and no blockade. Why is this?

Of course, the PRC considers Taiwan part of its territory and vows to reincorporate the island under President Xi Jinping’s National Rejuvenation scheme. The One China Policy, adopted by the U.N. and the U.S., recognizes Beijing as the sole authority over all Chinese territory, including Taiwan. Acknowledging Taiwanese sovereignty and violating the One China Principle is the foremost redline governing any country’s relations with the PRC. In the last week, China operated an aircraft carrier off Taiwan’s east coast, imposed several symbolic sanctions, violated Taiwanese airspace, and deployed several other intimidation tactics. However, experts note how the PRC departed from the overwhelming shows of force utilized after Pelosi’s visit, notably the absence of missile launches.

With Ms. Tsai due to step down in 2024, Xi knows an overreaction could hurt the opposition’s chances in the subsequent elections. Ms. Tsai’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is the bulwark against reunification, championing independence and a Taiwanese identity distinct from mainland China. Xi’s bellicosity after Pelosi’s visit and his brutal crackdown on Hong Kong’s protestors only heightened support for the DPP. Currently, the PRC plans to reunite with Taiwan peacefully, and Xi views the Kuomintang Party (KMT) as his best chance. As the main opposition to the DPP, the KMT favors closer ties with China, and some members support reunification altogether. While the next election will be pivotal to Taiwan’s future, greater geopolitical forces are at play.

At the dawn of a new era of great power competition, Xi wants to portray himself as a responsible international statesman who will mediate disputes and broker peace accords with no underlying motivations. On the one-year anniversary of the Russian invasion, Xi released his 12-point peace plan as a roadmap to a potential ceasefire. For good reasons, the U.S. and its allies dismissed the proposal, which fails to condemn Putin’s invasion and reiterates Russian narratives of NATO provocations and Western aggression. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the ambiguous 12 points shows that the plan is little more than political theater. Nonetheless, the quick dismissal by the West encourages the false narrative that it has no interest in peace while depicting Xi as a neutral arbiter in global conflicts.

China demonstrated its growing presence in early March when Saudi Arabia and Iran announced they would reestablish diplomatic relations after talks facilitated in Beijing. In 2016, Saudi Arabia severed ties with Iran after protestors stormed its Tehran embassy in response to the execution of a prominent Shia cleric. The PRC state media released photos depicting Iranian and Saudi officials shaking hands with China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs in the background. The news reverberated in Washington, which views Saudi Arabia as a strategic partner and counterweight to Iranian regional influence. However, American relations with Saudi Arabia deteriorated recently after President Biden pledged to make the kingdom a pariah over the crown prince’s connection to the gruesome murder of a Washington Post columnist. While the accord could be a win for regional stability, the significance of Chinese mediation with America’s faltering presence is indisputable. Though the U.S. still wields regional influence, China appears keen on filling the diplomatic void and acting where the U.S. cannot.

As Beijing’s diplomatic clout and global profile steadily increase, so have tensions with the U.S. in what looks to be the start of a new Cold War. It’s no secret the Biden administration seeks to build an international coalition countering Chinese influence, choking off access to certain technologies and pushing businesses to relocate supply chains elsewhere. While Biden’s assessments are strategically correct, Xi attempts to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. Last week French President Emmanuel Macron concluded a three-day visit to China where the two leaders lauded a “global strategic partnership.” The message was this: France has no plans to decouple its economy from China, and Macron sees Xi as instrumental to ending the war in Ukraine. The phrase “multipolar world” frequented discussions, alluding to a new international order where America no longer stands alone at the top. Most concerningly, Macron warned Europe against entering disputes that are not their own, referencing Taiwan.

With Sino-American relations at rock bottom, all eyes look to Taiwan as a future flashpoint, but conflict is not unavoidable. What is inevitable is the diplomatic competition already afoot. The PRC appears to be winning, but do not count America out just yet. While Washington’s military prowess is unrivaled, the U.S. must do better diplomatically. For one, Biden should stop alienating half the globe by framing each dispute as a struggle between democracy and autocracy. Standing with Taiwan and Ukraine is a moral imperative not because they are democracies but because sovereignty is the foundation of international stability and a nation’s existence. A country need not be a democracy to support sovereignty, and the democracy-autocracy rhetoric fails to resonate with much of the developing world.

On the contrary, it’s often interpreted as Western liberal arrogance and condescension. A well-functioning Democracy is indisputably the most just and desired form of governance, but the previous decades show the U.S. cannot force the regime on other nations. America lost recent opportunities by shunning nondemocratic partners like Saudi Arabia. As time progresses, the world will see the PRC for what it is: a state intent on reshaping the world order in its image. But for now, America must convince countries everywhere, democracies and dictatorships alike, that the world order it crafted after WWII has no better alternatives.

Recently, Azerbaijani people around the world commemorated the Genocide Day of Azerbaijanis. Although most Israelis and Americans are not aware of it, as the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia around World War I in March 1918, armed gangs of Armenian Dashnaks committed an act of genocide against Azerbaijanis, both Jewish and Muslim, killing thousands of Azerbaijani civilians merely for the crime of being Azerbaijani.

Milikh Yevdayev, the leader of the Mountain Jewish Community in Baku, wrote in the Jewish Journal: “After the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, losing Baku and its vast oil reserves was out of the question for the Bolsheviks.   Their leader Vladimir Lenin even once said that Soviet Russia would not survive without the Baku oil.  To fully control Baku and its oil, Bolsheviks, led by Armenian Stepan Shahumyan, and Armenian Dashnaks created an alliance against Baku’s Azerbaijani Muslim population, who were opposing the Bolshevik Dashnak subjugation of Azerbaijan.”

According to him, “The atrocities against Azerbaijani residents of Baku culminated at the end of March 1918 into a real genocide, resulting in the horrific massacre of over 12,000 Azerbaijani Muslims, many of them women and children, within just a few days.  One in five Azerbaijanis living then in Baku were murdered by Armenian Dashnaks with Bolshevik assistance.  The unarmed civilian population of Baku had no chance against the heavily armed 10,000 strong Dashnak-Bolshevik forces.”

Yevdayev added: “This was an unusually brutal set of events.  Armenian nationalists murdered entire families, burned down homes, created mass graves of women and children, with so many mutilated in the most horrific manner possible.  Many were unidentifiable because they had been decapitated.   A young woman was nailed to a wall, while she was still alive.  Elderly couples were thrown into burning buildings to die most painfully.  Children were shot in a row, standing with their mothers.  Bodies were thrown into wells and into the Caspian Sea.”

As Jahangir Zeynaloglu wrote in A Concise History of Azerbaijan, “In Baku, a beautiful national historic building called Ismailiyye was burned down.   The Armenians shelled and burned the New Pir and other mosques.  The Armenian brigands attacked other cities in north-east Azerbaijan.    They destroyed the city of Shemakha and annihilated its entire population.  The Armenians occupied Lenkoran, Salyan, Quba, Hajigabul and Kurdernir and were closing in on Ganja.  The Armenian Dashnaks made use of the Bolsheviks in this crime as well as Bicherakhov, CentroCaspi and other anti-Turkic groups.”

According to Zeynaloglu, “The Armenian Dashnaks who turned the east of Azerbaijan into a scene of carnage continued their atrocities in the south of the country.   211 Azerbaijani villages were destroyed.”  The Armenian Dashnaks continued to slaughter Azerbaijanis literally until a small brigade of Azerbaijanis supported by the Ottomans stopped them.  In total, 50,000 Azerbaijanis and 3,000 Jews who assisted their Muslim neighbors in Guba were slaughtered in this genocide.  

One may ponder, why is the Azerbaijani Genocide of 1918 important now?   After all, it occurred a very long time ago and not many of its survivors are here with us.   I believe it is important because recently, the city of Haifa, the third largest city in Israel, decided to establish an Armenian Genocide Square, but not an Azerbaijani Genocide Square.   In fact, not a single city around the world has established an Azerbaijani Genocide Square.   It is as if this genocide did not exist in the Western mind.   While countless Americans learn in high school about what happened to the Armenians in 1915, they do not learn what happened to the Azerbaijanis three years later in 1918.

If one truly wants to be objective, then the city of Haifa and the West more generally should not be so one sided.   They should establish an Azerbaijani Genocide Square right beside the Armenian Genocide Square in their city, so that people will learn about not just the tragic events of 1915, but also what happened three years later in 1918 to the Azerbaijani people.  

After all, to raise awareness about what happened in 1915 while ignoring what happened in 1918 is nothing more than one-sided propaganda, which has no place among those who seek to study history and commemorate historical events in an objective manner.   The famous Holocaust scholar Elie Wiesel once said, “For the dead and the living, we must bear witness.”   However, we must bear witness for all of the dead and the living, regardless what their religion and ethnic origin is.  Killing Muslims is just as bad as killing Christians is.  Therefore, the West must stop ignoring the deaths of Muslims as if they were less relevant than those of Christians and an Azerbaijani Genocide Square in Haifa must be established at the soonest possible date.    

The most striking change in development of nation states in the last year has come from the shift Germany has made back towards an energy strategy that pulls itself away from Russia, seeking to balance traditional energy needs with future environmentally friendly projects. While Germany and much of Europe is still heavily dependant on Russian oil and gas, along with energy supplies from Russian allies in the War in Ukraine, the continued conflict along with the expected increase in violence may finally push Western Europe into full displacement mode.

I was greeted this week with an email from a law firm that is discussing moving manufacturing plants from China to Mexico, and all of the company implications in making such a move. There is talk of how China’s future prospects may not be as bright as a few short years ago, and that Mexico may be a more productive and secure location for international companies. Many companies are displacing their production in order to service the United States and the Americas, along with easier shipping routes to European and other markets coming through Mexico to ship abroad. With years of high tech manufacturing and an education system focused on STEM that concentrated on producing engineers that many say may give more production value than even China, Mexico will benefit greatly in the next decade. Considering the security challenges coming from China to the United States and their Pacific allies, North American trade may reduce those concerns and be managed easier within the region.

Mexico had always been challenged by the trend in the early 2000s for large companies to move manufacturing to China. The 1994 NAFTA agreement placed much of America’s manufacturing in Mexico, and while it still remained since then, many new contracts bypassed Mexico for lower cost production in China since the mid 2000s. Mexico’s challenge was to bring back the opportunity it had in the 90s, focusing on education and producing a young and capable population that would be able to capitalise on any future endeavours. With the re-establishment of NAFTA under the USMCA, the United States and Mexico re-designed their relationship for this future.

The displacement of China, Russia and their allies is being met with new security arrangements as well. The association of Australia, the UK and United States in the Pacific was formed (AUKUS), along with closer ties with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in order to counter any of China’s expansion policies in the region. Displacing Russia’s exports has brought Russia and China closer together, at the same time, US pressure on China economically and the draining away of international companies from China’s manufacturing base may shift production towards Mexico and other likely locations for displacement.

It might be the case that in as soon as five years from now, countries will have to choose to displace their economies with Western countries, or narrow themselves to countries associated with Russia and perhaps, China, depending on the future security situation in the Pacific. India may be able to become the beneficiary of this tread as with a growing population, good educational standards and fair relations with both the West and Russia. India’s location in the world can take energy supplies from Russia without much pushback from the West due to India’s own understandable security needs, while displacing some manufacturing from China in the process. India may likely become a main broker of security needs for many in the region, along with Central Asia and even the Middle East.

Brazil may be able to benefit in ways Mexico will if they gear themselves towards local manufacturing and export. While generations of Brazilian leaders have pushed to industrialise the country and pull away from being a solely agro-exporter, Brazil’s youth took to focus on high tech and IT and now produce some of the most advanced products in the world, mind you in small numbers compared to its population. If Brazil can avoid allowing foreign nations to manipulate its growth prospects, while bypassing divisive politics and securing productive allies in the process, Brazil may be able to become the southern hub for exports to growing economies in Latin America as well as Africa and Europe. Policy is crucial to Brazil’s future, but they have recently taken some steps that might discount them in the near term.

Canada has seemed to placed themselves in a position to counter the Great Displacement, to their own detriment. Despite both Germany and Japan coming personally to Canada to ask for their assistance with their energy needs, Canada refused to offer any meaningful help to their direct Allies. Without North American oil and gas, Russia benefits greatly as it maintains Europe’s dependance on their Russian energy, thus prolonging the war in Ukraine. Non-displacement of oil and gas also and gives Iran more capabilities to send weapons to Russia and fund the attacks on their own people along with other innocents in the region. When many Canadians of Persian descent were murdered by Iran when they shot two missiles at an airliner close to Teheran, Canada’s leader met with Iran’s Foreign Minister just over a month later and allowed the regime to use the event as a propaganda win. Since then, almost nothing has been done to seek justice for the victims and their families by the same Government.

The AUKUS arrangement left out Canada, one of the largest Pacific powers, it seems for reasons that might become clear over the next few months. Canada’s Government has targeted Canada’s intelligence service and diligent journalists when it as found out that the current Government may have benefitted from China interfering in Canada’s elections. The release of the information had no effect in countering now known interference in Canadian democracy, but released the hounds on honourable intelligence officers and journalists for protecting their community. As it stands, there is no response to eleven districts being manipulated by China’s Consulate in Canada. One district in Toronto is knowingly seated with two Ministers who won with China’s support. The Prime Minister has done nothing about it, thus no democratic rights are given to the people in the area directly, or answers to the rest of their nation.

As great powers shift away from the norm since the 1990s, the countries that are taking the initiative to align themselves for a new possible era will likely be the most successful, especially if money and employment are shifted away from China towards their people. Countries like India will be able to manage the shift as their power and location makes their future choices an obvious one, benefitting their population even if done through diverse ties to opposing markets. Countries that avoid choosing the benefits of displacement, or put the needs of the opponents of their allies before the needs of their neighbours and their own people, will be discounted from a bright future. If you live in a district that has no trustworthy representation in your country, you might be in the latter category. The choice is often aligned with how democratic your nation has been recently. If you can choose who represents you without significant manipulation, you are likely on the right path.

The announcement of the China-brokered Iran-KSA normalization plan triggered pearl-clutching around the globe. Some headlines even implied that Israel’s PM Netanyahu was surprised by the news, even though the negotiations have been ongoing since early in the Biden administration’s tenure. Indeed, there are signs that the Beijing-backed phase of the talks that began in Iraq had the administration’s approval. Some US officials admitted a “cross-over” in interests between the US (or at least the White House) and China in reconciling Tehran and Riyadh. The reason behind Washington’s tacit approval is Tehran’s rapprochement with its implacable opponent advances a new nuclear deal.

Beijing’s entry into this mix also serves another Biden administration priority: getting the world’s worst polluter, China, to come to some arrangement on climate change. While none of this should have surprised the foreign policy establishment, Abraham Accords proponents ignored early warning signs – and continue to be astonished by the turn Gulf policy took immediately following UAE’s and KSA’s return to diplomatic relations with Iran. The impact of the “Winnie the Pooh” Accords is likely to impact the region on all levels – undermining the political benefits of the Abraham Accords, shifting the balance of trade in Iran’s favor, and freezing the growing social and cultural ties between Israelis and their counterparts in Arab states. As some have feared, the Biden’s administration’s contradictory agenda of desperately wanting to take credit for enhancing and expanding the Abraham Accords through the Negev Forum and KSA-Israel normalization while simultaneously pushing for a normalization with Iran was unsustainable. Ultimately, Biden chose the prospects of advancing his climate change agenda over other priorities, including national security.

The political toll of the UAE’s normalization with Iran were initially relatively subtle, but in the past few months the alarm bells should have been going off. In January 2023, for example, Abu Dhabi disinvited Prime Minister Netanyahu, allegedly over concerns about what he might say on Iran while visiting. Iran’s rapprochement with UAE also accelerated normalization efforts with Qatar, its close proxy. Despite both parties being signatories to the Al Ula Agreement pushed through by the Trump administration in January 2021, the unstated “Cold War” continued behind the scenes. Doha and Abu Dhabi needled at each other through Western soft power institutions and competed in other areas globally. Moreover, Qatar-backed propagandists and activists were linked to several human rights-related campaigns against UAE, whereas UAE made no secret of its disdain for Doha’s hosting of the World Cup championship, which was mired in corruption allegations.

In the days preceding the Iran-KSA normalization announcement, public discussions between UAE and Qatar officials in Doha indicated a rapid warming in relations. In the months leading up to these events, Emiratis reportedly stopped funding initiatives critical of Qatar’s geopolitical agenda. Soon after Saudi Arabia’s normalization agreement with Iran was publicized, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Emirati professor, Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, who was recently reintegrated into the country’s policy circles and warned of deterioration in relations with Israel, announced that UAE would be giving up its hosting bid for IMF and World Bank meetings in favor of “brotherly” Qatar, stating in a tweet: “The UAE withdraws its request to host the meetings of the IMF and the World Bank for the year 2026 in favor of the brothers in Qatar. This is Gulf cooperation and coordination in its most beautiful manifestations. Any success achieved by Qatar is a success for the UAE, and any success achieved by the UAE is a success for Qatar. The Qatari is Emirati and the Emirati is Qatari.”

In another sign of Qatar’s influence in UAE politics—as a result of growing Iranian regional dominance—the now-postponed Abu Dhabi Women’s Forum was slated to host primarily left-leaning personalities and, although only a few women were invited from Saudi Arabia, all of them were linked to Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar-approved interests. One of the featured speakers serves with the Alwaleed Foundation. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, detained in the 2017 corruption probe, was a contributor to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood enterprise, and was a financial backer of Jamal Khashoggi, who, in the last year of his life, was openly backed by the Qatar Foundation International. Such a development would have been unthinkable even a year ago.

The volume of trade between Iran and UAE has expanded substantially; indeed, following the low-key normalization in the summer, UAE has reoriented its investment strategy to extend Iran’s role in the region. Israel recently denied that UAE froze business deals, but difficulties have been ongoing since at least a year ago and Iran normalization may be a contributing factor. UAE trade with Iran is providing Tehran with Western goods. The US has sanctioned a number of entities in UAE over this trade, but has not been successful in curtailing blossoming economic relations. Even if most of the business with Israel continues as usual, the report that military purchases from Israel were frozen amidst political turmoil was reported in Israel based on official comments; Israel’s denial may be nothing more than a face saving measure.

Meanwhile, the fallout from the Saudi normalization with Iran has been just as rapid. Israel’s FM Eli Cohen’s permission to attend a UN tourism event in Saudi Arabia was revoked. The Foreign Ministry recently used the wording “Israel occupation official’ in its critique of an Israeli Minister. These developments are signs of the ongoing struggle between the Old Guard in Saudi Arabia and the more open reformist faction. The visa episode shows that conservative forces are prevailing, and that the Iran deal gives them cover for rolling back Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s measures to enhance Saudi relations with Israel.

The news of Iran-KSA normalization blindsided those who were most invested in the idea that Israel and Saudi Arabia were on the brink of normalization, a mindset fostered by rhetoric from Israel, the Biden administration, and low-level Saudi officials and diplomats – perhaps as a way to divert attention from the real talks. Saudi Arabia’s prior outreach to the US offering normalization with Israel in exchange for regional security guarantees and assistance in civilian nuclear program development was most likely a feint, especially since negotiations about a US role in a civilian Saudi nuclear program have allegedly been going on for a decade. The stumbling block, it appears, has nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with Saudi Arabia choosing to keep the option of weapons-grade nuclear enrichment on the table despite protestations from the US.

While young Saudis and Israelis started conversations around the halcyon days of the Abraham Accords may continue on social media, Saudis are likely to be increasingly cautious. Moreover, major events with Israeli participation are less likely in the near future. Without close collaboration on various social and cultural issues, people-to-people relations are unlikely to blossom. Moreover, the Saudi turn is impacting other regional actors. Bahrain, which just hosted an N7 series event on tech and start-ups, is reviving its ties to Qatar despite Qatar’s continued occupation of Bahrain’s islands, ongoing attacks on Bahraini fishermen, and various campaigns against Manama. Moreover, following KSA, which is seen as protector of Bahrain since the Arab Spring-era Iran-backed coup attempt, Bahrain hosted a low-key discussion with Iran. All of this points to Bahrain being forced to make significant concessions for its own protection. Of all the countries in the GCC, Bahrain is likely to try to stick with America and Israel as much as possible, but it cannot go against Saudi Arabia’s path.

So, what’s next? Morocco is highly likely to be the next target of the Biden administration’s pressure to normalize with Iran even at the risk of downgrading with Israel. King Mohammed VI terminated relations with the Islamic Republic in 2018 citing Iran’s nefarious backing of the Polisario, a local separatist group that engages in terrorism against Morocco. China already has a growing hand inside Morocco while the US has largely failed to capitalize on the opening left by the Trump administration’s recognition of Rabat’s sovereignty over the Moroccan Sahara. The Biden administration has prolonged indefinitely the much-awaited opening of the physical consulate in Dakhla, but appointed an ambassador who was a key point of contact on JCPOA.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood party in Morocco, the PJD, for the first time openly challenged Morocco-Israel relations, calling out the FM Bourita for his closeness with Jerusalem, but de facto attacking the official foreign policy of the country set by the king. This open attack, likewise previously unthinkable, has drawn the sovereign, through the royal cabinet, into the extraordinary position of having to defend Morocco’s national interests and to respond to an effort to rile up public sentiment and make Morocco look weak and isolated while Arab States are switching sides.

Morocco’s defense ties with Israel pre-date the Abraham Accords and are particularly close; it is no wonder that Islamists, Russia, China, and others have focused on undermining Morocco’s cybersecurity ties to Israel. PJD, like Islamists in Saudi Arabia, feel empowered by the Biden administration’s endorsement of an anti-American hegemony in the MENA region. With Iran benefiting from anticipated investments by Saudi Arabia and flush with oil money, despite sanctions, Tehran may be empowered to expand its entry into North Africa via pro-Islamist factions in Morocco, especially if Rabat is pressured to restore relations by Biden with the help of other Arab states. Iran has already announced plans to restore relations with other states in the region.

On September 30, Burkina Faso experienced its second military coup in approximately eight months. Captain Ibrahim Traore, Burkina Faso’s new 34 year-old military leader, seized control from Paul Henri-Damiba. Traore claims Damiba, who only rose to power in January of 2022, failed to contain violence from rebel fighters tormenting the country. Traore capitalized on the deteriorating security situation in Burkina Faso to depose Damiba, who he accused of exacerbating the violence. Since Damiba took power in his own coup in January, violence increased by 23%. Rebel fighters, connected to both the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, killed thousands of Burkinabe and displaced approximately 455,000 people between January and August of this year. Traore has made various promises since taking power in September; he ensures an end to the cyclical violence and promises to return power to the people by 2024.

The situation in Burkina Faso has remained volatile for years. The government only controls 60% of the country, with the remaining 40% under the control of various armed factions. A hunger crisis impacts nearly 650,000 people, and the United Nations estimated nearly 4.9 million Burkinabe are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. Blockades by armed militias prevent vital aid from reaching towns and villages. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) condemned Traore’s recent power grab, only months after suspending Burkina Faso during Damiba’s military takeover. ECOWAS claims the most recent coup upended slow but steady progress made by the state towards a return to constitutional order.

The situation in Burkina Faso has wide reaching implications. Anti-French sentiment, resulting from France’s colonial history in the area, festers within the state. This anti-French sentiment contributed partially to Damiba’s political demise; he received criticism for working with France to combat the violence from armed groups. Allegations that Damiba sought shelter in a French military base following his removal from office only exacerbated growing distaste for French involvement. Traore, on the other hand, has garnered immense support from anti-French groups, including some groups with an overlapping pro-Russian sentiment. The leader of the Wagner Group, a Russian mercenary organization with ties to Vladimir Putin, congratulated Traore and called him a “son of his motherland.” In the streets following Traore’s power grab, some supporters waved Russian flags. This raised fears in the international community of potential Russian involvement in Burkina Faso, and what that would mean for the security situation in the greater Sahel. It represents a possible regional shift towards Russia and away from the West, at a time when Russia has deeply uprooted the norms of the international community. Western leaders fear that Russian influence in the Sahel could lead to more coups resulting in pro-Russian governments.

Political Rally during Brazil’s latest election: REUTERS/Amanda Perobelli

It was shocking to see what had occurred in a local election in a city in my country. A grassroots candidate won because the sitting government representative took to marginalizing certain groups and dividing the community over the last few years. This was done in order to garner majority political support for his chosen candidate. Many of those issues affected everyone’s grandparents and dealt with violence against women, especially diverse women in the community. The candidate did not choose to be supportive of those in the community, but was intentionally divisive to the point of actually accusing a grassroots pro-elder support group of committing illegal acts with no evidence in order to slander them in the community.

While in the above example the community was able to push back against the sitting Government representative and his established allies, the tactic of alienating the other in the quest for a position of power goes against the most basic freedoms established in any healthy democracy. So limiting are some of these restrictions now in a G7 nation, that it would be difficult to even discuss them openly. When you have the feeling that openly presenting your balanced opinion and criticism of your Government would make you identify with characters in a Cold War novel, you are not in possession of your Constitutional rights.

It is essential that this tactic of alienating the other as an election strategy become a thing of the distant past, as the alternative is most likely mutually assured conflict. In recent elections in the Americas the results are almost an even split. In Colombia’s recent election, the left wing candidate was able to pull off a victory despite successive Conservative and anti-cartel governments dominating Colombia’s political landscape and policy discussions for a generation. The end result of the election split came close to 50/50, and this narrow lead assure a Presidential victory. What will be key is to not target the other fifty percent of the population as the “other” in policy discussions, to not label them with terms that minimize their perspective and local issues, nor dehumanize them as a public relations exercise.

The most divisive election result in the Americas took place recently with the final run off vote in Brazil. While Ex-President Lula was able to secure a victory against now Ex-President Bolsonaro, it was by the narrowest of margins and many regions still secured regional seats from Bolsonaro allies. Lula, who came from Brazil’s labour movement, was popular in the past as he tried to secure more labour rights and socially progressive policies while implementing a balanced economic file that differed slightly from his fiscally conservative opposition at the time. With a world recession approaching, Lula will have to try and convince Brazilians that his past successes can be repeated. Lula will have to follow an economic policy that will not place its citizens in a situation of high inflation while burying any image of corruption from his administration. The issue of high inflation is what will likely hurt Biden in his upcoming midterm elections and has placed Canada’s governing party at the lowest levels of popularity in eight years.

Divisive politics often dominates the lingua franca around elections because dividing people might work for votes, but it marginalizes small interests groups in a society and actually seeks to deny them their basic rights. As we saw locally in my town, women who were threatened and assaulted needed to be reminded that despite being told they would not receive help by those in charge, they had the rights to be safe in their community. The phrase “Women get attacked all the time” should never be the common response from leaders in a community. Citizen’s rights are not abolished by being assaulted, nor can they be eliminated by the local politician’s opinion or even the police who gave a lackluster response to safety in the area. Even in the realm of international policy, these local policy tactics affect how a country approaches human rights issues abroad. Freedom cannot exist when a government dehumanizes its opposition for its own political gain.

IRGC’s Unrelenting Attacks On Iraqi Kurdistan – Several Kurdish children taking shelter following an attack by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards

NATO and Western countries have spent much of the year supplying Ukraine with systems that would defend attacks from advanced Russian systems while slowly integrating offensive systems into the mix. The offensive systems given to Ukraine by NATO and Western allies were often tactical, allowing Ukraine to target key Russian military infrastructure so that the process of further attacks on Ukrainian territory would be limited.

The recent strike by Iranian made drones by Russia sought to terrorize the population in Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine, without much tactical value beyond terror. While these systems are a new development in Eastern Europe, similar attacks have been carried out using Iranian systems, and Ukraine has been targeted by them for a second time in recent history. A response by Ukraine and their allies would be appropriate, and should be done inconsideration and in support of Iran’s current freedom movement.

As recently as 2020, Iran used a defensive missile system to shoot down a Ukrainian airliner filled mostly with Canadian passengers, other internationals and a Ukrainian crew. Little has been done on the international stage or by the Canadian Government to appropriately address the crime, nor to give due justice to the victims and their families of the atrocity. This did not phase negotiations Western countries had with Iran’s regime at the time. The response was to distribute more missiles abroad that were also used against civilian populations. The recent drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians comes during a time where there is a passive silencing on the protests in Iran by Western media, and a limited response in aid of protests despite past administrations admitting their grave errors in not supporting past movements.

While there should be a limited amount of engagement by Western countries in the affairs of other nations, when human rights and justice are involved, the values that dominate the lives of those in the West should support like minded movements in countries where help has been justifiably requested. The allowance of terror weapons without a response leads to more oppression against local populations and those abroad. A Government cannot allows its people to be targeted, nor should they turn a blind eye to the suffering of those under the chains of oppression in another country. This simple notion of justice can save millions.

A few months ago, I wrote about the early stages of the conflict in Ukraine through the lens of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. While it appears likely that the war will carry on into the foreseeable future, enough time has passed for us to make an honest assessment of each side’s relative strengths and the state of the conflict today.

You may recall that in the very first chapter of the Art of War Sun Tzu presents the reader with Seven Searching Questions that should be asked in order to make predictions about which side will win out. This article will revisit each of Sun Tzu’s questions in order to evaluate the accuracy of the initial assessments and consider where we might look for key developments in the coming weeks and months.

The first question that Sun Tzu poses is “Which sovereign is imbued with the moral law?” In a more modern phrasing, Sun Tzu is asking us which side has the greater and more durable morale. 

There is no doubt that Ukrainian nationals, even in the aftermath of a brutal bombing campaign that targeted civilian centers, are far more commited to the conflict than their Russian counterparts. In truth, one of the conflict’s “silver linings” may be the emergence of a newfound Ukrainian nationhood which could be channeled toward combating the corruption that ensnared Ukraine in the past. While there have always been pockets of resistance to Putin’s autocratic governance within Russian society, the “mobilization efforts” that were initiated in September have caused that discontent to spread toward the broader Russian populace. Similarly, Russia’s international support has dwindled as was clearly displayed by the overwhelming rejection of Putin’s  “referendums” in eastern Ukraine at the United Nations.

The larger question surrounding Ukrainian morale may, in fact, come from beyond Ukraine’s borders as partners in Europe may find themselves squeezed between supporting Ukrainian sovereignty or choosing lower gas prices following a series of tense elections and in the midst of a cold winter.

What impact does potentially reduced support have on the morale of the Ukrainian troops?

Sun Tzu’s second question is “Which of the generals have the most ability?” The meaning of this question is just about as obvious as its answer. 

Few topics have received as much attention as the incompetence of Russian leadership through the course of this conflict. The early stages of Russia’s advance were slowed by logistical problems which have only become more severe as the conflict has dragged on. More recently, Russian military officials were duped into a dramatic shift of forces to the southern front which enabled the UA to reclaim a significant amount of territory in the north of their country in mid-September. The Ukranians have exploited the failures of Russian leadership by targeting individual Russian commanders- numerous Russian military officers have been taken out in targeted strikes. This crisis in Russian leadership is amplified by reports that Putin himself has taken on an increasingly large role in military planning- a troubling sign for those with a keen historical memory.

The next question is one of the more straightforward- we are told to ask “With whom lie the advantages of the heaven and the earth?” Sun Tzu reminds us to consider the basics of battlefield terrain.

The Ukranians continue to benefit from their densely forested defensive positions and have made a nightmare of river crossings for any would-be advancing Russian forces. The clear advantage goes to the Ukrainian defenders on this matter, and given the nature of this question, it should be little surprise that little has changed here since our first assessment.

Fourth, Sun Tzu tells us to consider “On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?” 

Discipline might be more rigorously *enforced* on the Russian side, but even with that in mind there is little doubt that the men and women serving in Ukraine’s defense have behaved in a far more disciplined and orderly way. While there are regular stories of Russian soldiers refusing to carry out war crimes or sabotaging their local commanders, Ukrainian artillery forces have shown themselves capable of autonomous strikes with a deployment time that puts America’s own efforts to shame. 

It is a sad reality that war brings out the worst of people, and both sides of the conflict have allegedly committed numerous war crimes- however the clear advantage in both military and humanitarian discipline lies with the Ukranians. 

Sun Tzu’s fifth question is quite direct, “Which side has the stronger army?” While Putin’s forces retain the advantage in both manpower and equipment, the Ukranians have made novel use of weapon systems and have reduced the impact of Russia’s larger conventional force.

The main strengths of the Russian military, as has been the case since the Second World War, are a large population and heavy artillery- however Putin has struggled to bring both of these factors to bear. The impact of Russia’s large population is muted by the misinformation effect that the war in Ukraine is simply a “special military operation”, and Russian heavy artillery has been slowed by the aforementioned difficult terrain and ineffective leadership.

Ukraine has countered the Russian artillery that has managed to reach the front with tactical nimbleness and an iron chin. The Ukrainian army has deployed light drones, like the Bayraktar, personale sized anti-tank weaponry, like the Javelin, and more recently HIRAS artillery pieces that have greater range and out maneuver their Russian counterparts. It has become a pattern for the United States and other partner nations to supply Ukraine with more advanced weapons at a defensive pacing- but this has not stopped Ukraine’s defenders from using weapons systems in impressive and creative ways.

The Russians retain the advantage of the conventionally stronger military, but Ukraine has outperformed expectations on this measure, perhaps more than any other.

Next, Sun Tzu asks “On which side are the officers and men more highly trained?”

While the Russian army has its advantage in size, the Ukrainian army appears far better trained on both an individual and collective level. It is difficult to get an accurate assessment of how well trained combatants are without being on the ground, but reports have suggested that “mobilized” Russians have been sent into combat with very little training and minimal equipment. 

From an outsider’s perspective little has changed here from the beginning of the conflict- the perception being that the Ukrainian Army was well trained through its ranks, while the training of Russian soldiers would quickly fall off after an initial surge.

Finally, Sun Tzu asks his seventh question “In which army is their greater consistency in both rewards and punishment?” In many respects, this question calls back to the themes posed by the fourth question regarding discipline.

From the Ukrainian perspective rewards and punishments are perfectly clear- the reward for success is national sovereignty and international admiration, while the cost of failure would be seeing meaningful portions of their nation annexed by a bullying neighbor.These rewards and punishments are perfectly consistent in that they are each non-exclusionary. All Ukranians would benefit from continued sovereignty, just as all Ukranians would suffer Russian colonization. 

From the Russian point of view things are less clear, and for many conscripted Russians the “reward” for participating in the conflict is largely avoiding the “punishment” that would come from ignoring their conscription. There are also some, and perhaps many, enlisted Russian fighters who have consumed enough Kremlin propaganda to believe that they are truly “de-nazifying” Ukraine; this would certainly come with the perceived (if unfounded) reward of fulfilling one’s military duty against an “evil” enemy. 

The individual with the most to lose or to gain through continued fighting is Putin himself. Putin likely understands the impact that this conflict will have in shaping his legacy, and his ability to manage those “rewards” and “punishments” without escalating the conflict will be absolutely pivotal in the coming weeks and months. 

When making projections back in March, I suggested that “ the Ukrainians have three clear advantages- a “sovereign imbued with moral law”, “the advantages of heaven and earth”, and “greater consistency in both rewards and punishments”. (While) Putin’s invading force has one clear advantage- its superior size.“ The remaining three matters – good generalship, discipline, and training were each considered toss-ups.

So far, it appears that the conflict has largely played out in accordance with Sun Tzu’s calculations with Ukraine’s outperformance in the remaining three categories leading to their relative military successes. Much of the conflict is yet to unfold, but the Ukrainian side has comfortably succeeded in avoiding the complete annexation of Ukraine by the Russian military.

The Spanish American philosopher, George Santayana observed that, “Those who cannot remember the past are destined to repeat it.” Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.”  And, Winston Churchill paraphrased Santayana in a 1948 speech to the House of Commons when he said,”Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.”  Perhaps we should consider ourselves fortunate that Vladmir Putin appears to have forgotten to read his copy of Sun Tzu’s classic work while determining his war effort. If Putin had done his essential reading, however, he might have remembered one of Sun Tzu’s most important lessons- simply knowing when it is best not to fight.

—

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

The Documentary Film 752 Is Not A Number (2022) Chronicles Canadian dentist Hamed Esmaeilion’s quest for justice in the aftermath of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, shot down in 2020 by the Iranian military.

It has become very difficult to find reliable information on topics often essentially important in making life decisions. Many years ago there was a push to convert Opinion Editorials into the realm of mainstream news articles. This was done intentionally in order to raise interest in News as a form of media that would grab the attention of the public. The next wave of transformation for journalism came in the form of advertising that would look like an article, but was created to push a specific product or service. Distinguishing what is actual useful information may require a fair bit of knowledge and research, as much of the information found in 2022 has been corrupted by opinion and ads.

As a basis for determining which journalists and news organisation were reliable, it might be useful to read stories on issues where you have personal, in-depth experience. If a media organisation is misrepresenting something you know to be true, they are likely not a reliable source on other pieces of information. This occurred in my own community when the police brutalised someone we know personally, and it was very evident which reporters were seeking the truth, and which were representing other interest groups in folding the narrative away from justice and the rights of the victim under the national Constitution.

A strategy that has developed in the last few years has been the ignore some topics and stories altogether, and only mentioning them when necessary with opinion shading much of the topic. The recent protests in Iran demonstrates how this has been applied, and unfortunately it is often applied against protesters from Iran and against those seeking justice in the region as a whole. In 2009, a young Iranian protester by the name of Neda was assassinated and died on camera after being shot by security forces. The 2009 protests were massive in scale, but the end result after a few short weeks was silence from international media while those promoting human rights in Iran were silently arrested at night and disappeared. Western governments did little to mention what was occurring, only pushing negotiations with the regime.

In 2020, flight 752 was shot down by two TOR-M1 missiles after taking off from Teheran’s international airport. This brutal murder of mostly Canadian and International passengers and crew never received the level of justice owed to the victims from Canada despite Canada being their representative under International Law. Canada told the victim’s families they needed to seek justice from the prosecutors in Ukraine while the world rapidly moved on from this human rights atrocity, leaving the grieving families with no justice and no direction on how to get justice from their own Government. Even after a court in Ontario, Canada set a decision confirming that the missiles were shot at the plane intentionally by the regime, Canada did little to help the victims. When Ukraine was invaded by Russia and seeking justice through Ukraine became exceedingly difficult, Canada did not advise the victim’s families how to proceed.

In the last few days where Iranians have been protesting, little attention beyond simple Tweets have been paid to the families of Flight 752 and the Iranian community by the Canadian Government. Despite promising to label the IRGC a terror group and blocking IRGC families from coming to Canada to their benefit, a recent vote to label the group currently killing young women and men in Iran a terror group was shut down by the same Government. It is likely the case that the silence from 2009 will become the norm again in 2022, and more negotiations will commence promptly.

Information on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is very available, but information from either side is focused on promoting their own narrative of the conflict. This does not mean that most of the information is false or misleading, but it does require a certain level of between-the-lines reading and knowledge of the source of information being presented. In order to interpret success or losses on the battlefield, it is useful to find sources of information that attempt to quantify losses so a conclusion or hypothesis can be made from as much raw data as possible on the conflict itself. Even through sources may seem biased, you can often see images that reveal more information than the text being spoken while viewing the source in media. It must be noted that media sources are part of the conflict as well, as tactics used by organisations like Radio Free Europe were very effectively used against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and are a detailed source of information still in 2022. This information war might be more advanced as it is actively putting out information in order to damage the other side, whereas general media is passively adjusting information of the message to benefit a small group of interested people. Unfortunately, both strategies are now being used in order to deny rights from those who are being persecuted by a system that will extinguish them for wanting basic justice.

It was recently reported that a mass grave was uncovered in Edilli in the Khojavand district, which was controlled by Armenia in violation of four UN Security Council resolutions but became part of Azerbaijan after the Second Karabakh War.   According to various reports, 12 skeletons were found with their hands and feet bound, although 25 bodies were uncovered to date.  

Fuad Muradov, Chairman of the State Committee for Work with the Diaspora, stated on Twitter following this shocking discovery: “The requirements of Article 17 of the Geneva Convention dated August 12,1949 were grossly violated! In1993, 25 captured servicemen of the Azerbaijan Army, were brutally killed and mass buried in the territory of #Edilli village of #Khojavand district.”

Bullet holes found in the skulls indicated that they may have been executed by shooting.  Various media outlets have reported that almost 4,000 Azerbaijani citizens still remain missing, with the Armenians refusing to provide the locations of the mass graves to date.

Hikmat Hajiyev, Assistant of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, stated afterwards on Twitter: “ Edilli was used as concentration camp for Azerbaijani hostages by Armenia.”  Speaking to the Turkish media, Namiq Efendiyev, an official from Azerbaijan’s State Commission for Prisoners of War, Hostages and Missing Persons, said that excavations have been ongoing in the region since February in an effort to find citizens who disappeared during the First Karabakh War which ended in 1994.

In a statement issued by the Azerbaijani Diaspora organizations, it was stated: “We stress that the discovery of such graves openly exposes the Armenian Armed Forces’ war crimes rooted in ethnic hatred, which, in gross violation of international law, international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of War Victims, are accompanied with torture and inhumane acts against Azerbaijani civilians, military personnel, especially the wounded and dead, demonstrates their inhumane behavior and genocide policy. A striking example of this is the numerous videos confirming the multiple facts of brutal killings of Azerbaijani POWs by the Armenian military during the First and Second Karabakh wars with close-range shots to the head and heart area, robbery and dismemberment of soldiers’ bodies, torture and humiliation through acts incompatible with humanity.”  

“We regret to state that along with baseless territorial claims against Azerbaijan, pursuing a policy of extreme hatred on racial, ethnic, religious grounds, instead of taking practical steps to stop the war crimes against our country and bring the perpetrators to justice for the past crimes, Armenia impedes security and the peace process in the region by instigating provocations that lead to confrontations between the two nations,” the statement added.  

According to the statement, “One must also not forget the important fact that the Armenian Armed Forces mined the territory of Azerbaijan, which they kept under occupation for 30 years, and that during the Second Karabakh War, they launched missile attacks on the Azerbaijani cities of Ganja, Barda, Mingachevir, Goranboy and Tartar, located dozens of kilometers from the front line, killing more than 100 civilians. However, in defiance of the trilateral statements signed by the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Russian Federation and the agreements reached in Brussels brokered by President of the European Council Charles Michel, official Yerevan has not yet shared with Azerbaijan the landmine maps and information about the fate of up to 4,000 Azerbaijanis who went missing during the First Karabakh War.”

The statement concluded: “Azerbaijanis of the world strongly assert that the international community must react adequately to these war crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice in order to prevent Armenia from committing similar criminal acts in the future. We demand that Armenia’s war crimes be stopped and call for urgent legal action to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes against peace.”

Ayoob Kara, who served as Israel’s Communication, Satellite and Cyber Minister under Netanyahu, condemned Armenia for slaughtering Azerbaijanis en masse in Edilli and to date refusing to hand over the location of the remaining mass grave locations: “The time has come for Armenia to make peace with Azerbaijan for the sake of regional security.   The first step towards making peace is to take the humanitarian gesture of handing over the location of the mass graves and to hand over all of the landmine maps.   Once that happens, both peoples can look forward to a brighter future.”