Foreign Policy Blogs

Azerbaijani journalist Elnur Enveroglu recently stated, “France’s colonial policy is the biggest disgrace of the 21st century.   The fact is that the French state, which acts as the leading party for the democratization policy in Europe, is carrying out racism, violation of human rights, discrimination of language, and religion, both in New Caledonia and within the country, along with the colonial policy.  For this reason, there is great strife and turmoil within France today.”  

According to him, “Instead of regulating what is happening inside the country, French President Emmanuel Macron intervenes in the affairs of countries near or far from this country.  For example, let us take a look at the South Caucasus or the unresolved negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  Imagine that on the eve of the riots in France, he is looking for a remedy for the incurable pain of Armenia, which is 5,000 KM away, disrespecting the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and even making inappropriate statements.   Within these statements, France is on the verge of an economic recession.”

Enveroglu added: “I should note that serious protests against the French company Total Energy have started in Africa recently.   It spread rapidly to other countries like a wave.   Even France embraced Armenia so much that it seemed to want to say that it is willing to end cooperation with Azerbaijan, one of the leading countries in the South Caucuses in the economic field, for the sake of the Armenians.  This might bring about the end of France.”

According to him, “By doing this, President Macron acts as if he is reporting to the Armenians and he has a kind of commitment to support separatists in Karabakh.  This is probably the compensation of his debt to Armenian lobbyists after the presidential election.”  However, he highlighted how this is not a wise policy: “Recently, Azerbaijan hosted the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Baku and France’s colonial policy was on the agenda of the conference.   A Baku Initiative Group was formed against French colonialism.    This decision was made following the event ‘towards the complete elimination of colonialism’ organized in Baku by the Center for Analysis of International Relations within the framework of the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement.  A document was adopted on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the national leader Heydar Aliyev.”

Professor Nursin Guney noted that this meeting was held because “France in the 21st century continues to colonize certain African countries.   This is against human rights.   France is holding the third and fourth largest gold reserves in the world.  Even though it does not have gold mines, they were all obtained through a colonization strategy.”  

In the past, European countries, including France, were mainly in pursuit of colonies – the Dutch, the Germans, the British, the Spanish and the French also did this. In the past, the main goal of most European countries was to conquer as much territory as possible and turn it into a colony. This is how the Europeans used the natural treasures and labor force of those colonies and from that they got rich and obtained cheap labor. The colonies supplied the European countries with spices, different types of food, gold, metals, diamonds and more. It was quite profitable to own a colony at that time; you could say it was like a status symbol.

But during the world wars, both the first and second, the colonial industry was destroyed. The occupied nations began to demand independence and to separate from the European rule that was imposed on them by force. But the struggles for freedom were not easy or simple. France, for example, was very attached to its colonies and saw the colonial industry as a mission, because thanks to the colonies, the French could teach the “primitive ignorant people” over whom they controlled some culture. France did not give up the nations she controlled easily.

France did not give up Syria after the First World War, even though the founders of the Kingdom of Syria (the Hashem family from the Hejaz region of the Arabian Peninsula) helped the countries of the agreement to conquer Syria and Israel. France saw Syria as her private property and conquered it by force from the Arabs without mercy and without showing mercy to anyone.

And of course, there was Algeria, whose citizens took eight years to successfully remove French rule from their country. Algeria was an old and important French colony, it is actually the last colony that France liberated and gave independence. The French colonies are called overseas territories. For the French, the colonies were their way of spreading the values of the French Revolution and their worldview. According to them, they held the correct view of the world; they are the ones who became disillusioned and they wanted to pass on their new knowledge to other peoples.

These days, France still owns several overseas territories, including Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Reunion, Mayotte and a few others. The aforementioned countries met in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, to discuss France’s attitude towards them. Among the delegations there were also representatives of New Caledonia, whose situation in relation to France is slightly different, it ranges between a province of France overseas and a sovereign state. The representative of New Caledonia claimed at the conference in Baku that France has controlled Caledonia for over 170 years and stated that the country’s history is written in blood.

The president of the parliament of New Caledonia said at the conference that “France calls itself a democratic republic of unity, equality and fraternity, but this is just a façade, this is all a lie.” He went on to say that “by participating in today’s event in Baku, we call not to repeat this bloody colonial history. The policy of colonization must stop.” The French government must allow a referendum to be held in New Caledonia to see if the New Caledonian people support separation from French rule or actually prefer to remain under the French. In the first referendum in 2018, the results decided that New Caledonia would remain under the French government. The supporters of the French government got 56.4% of the votes.

After the referendum, French President Emmanuel Macron visited the island and noted that the results of the referendum showed “confidence in the French Republic”. On the other side, a politician from the side of those who want to break away from the French government optimistically claimed that “we are one step before victory”. The second referendum took place in 2020, but also in it the supporters of independence for New Caledonia lost the elections. The supporters of the French government won 53.26% of the votes. Macron called for dialogue between the parties and hinted that France wants to say goodbye to its colonial past.

Macron added that there is a possibility of a third referendum. The third referendum, the president of the Parliament of New Caledonia claimed at a conference in Baku, happened during the Corona period. Although this referendum was illegal, France accepted its results anyway. The opponents of the French government wanted to decide in a way that was not a referendum, but this was the only option that France allowed them and it sent 2000 soldiers to enforce it. He calls the French conduct neocolonialism and demands from the UN to allow his country to say goodbye to its history and set out on an independent path.

Representatives of French Guiana were also present at the conference in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The country’s representatives claimed that France appropriated the assets of French Guiana for itself and looted its natural treasures. French settlement in French Guiana began in 1604, the French used the area as a prison. Since French Guiana has been under French rule, its citizens have never experienced independence and never known what it’s like to be under a government that truly represents them. According to the representatives at the committee in Baku, French Guiana is in a state of colonization, with a 30% unemployment rate. Like the other countries that came to the conference in Baku, both French Guiana and New Caledonia demanded to say goodbye to France and start the path of an independent country, to say goodbye to their history and leave it in the past.

It may be that the disease of colonialism affects each nation in a different way and it takes each nation a different amount of time to heal from it in its own unique way. France is among the few countries in our time that still has colonies overseas that have almost no connection between them and France and between themselves (geographic connection, ethnic connection, cultural connection) at the base. Those French provinces overseas want to become independent countries, something they have never experienced in the flesh. It seems that they still need to work on this, both to prepare the opponents of separation from France for the day after and to work on a stronger France that will free them from its grip.

Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan had been notoriously high for several years and culminated with an Azerbaijani offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. The war lasted about a month and ended with several thousand deaths. Azerbaijan demonstrated its military superiority by capturing most of the land it lost in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1994. The war was ended by a Russian-brokered ceasefire which allowed for the free transfer of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijanis to Nakhchivan. The war was marked by several war crimes on both sides. Following the war, there have been numerous more border skirmishes, with the most potent one being in September of 2022, leaving hundreds total dead.

Currently, Nagorno-Karabakh is desperate; Azerbaijan has blockaded the only land corridor connecting Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, preventing essential supplies such as food and water. The ceasefire in 2020 provided for Russian peacekeepers to monitor this corridor -called the Lachin Corridor- but as we all know, Russia has other military duties their troops must attend to. Azerbaijan has violated the terms of the 2020 ceasefire by preventing the exchange of people and goods to Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Armenia is part of a mutual defense treaty called the C.S.T.O. (Collective Security Treaty Organization), a mutual defense treaty with members Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The C.S.T.O. is the Russian version of NATO, and according to this organization, an attack against one is treated as an attack against all. The alliance entails that Russia must defend Armenia whenever Azerbaijan attacks Armenia. However, Russia has refused this request which highlights the failure of the C.S.T.O. This shows the true importance of this conflict; it highlights the changing dynamics of alliances in the Caucasus.

Armenia has had strong relations with Russia and the eastern bloc, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the ability of Azerbaijan to control its exports, there has been a massive switch in alliances. With Azerbaijan’s mass exportation of oil, they have become increasingly tied to the Western world by trade. Therefore, Azerbaijan is a powerful country supplied by other powerful countries such as Turkey. On the other hand, Armenia is a weak country supported by Russia. However, Russia is an ally of Armenia in name only. So Armenia has no nations to turn to under Azerbaijani aggression. Russia won’t help; the U.N. may condemn it, but will the U.N. send troops to keep the Lachin Corridor open? Probably not. The West would never help Armenia because Azerbaijan is a major trade partner. So Armenia has no options when it comes to allies.

The reason why many Western countries won’t side with Armenia becomes even more apparent when looking at a map of Oil Pipelines in the Caucasus.

The solid red line depicts the BTC (Baku-T’bilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline, which transports oil from Baku to Turkey, which it can then export to the rest of the world. However, the route is slow because it has to go through Georgia; it could be more direct by cutting out Georgia and connecting Azerbaijan to Turkey via the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan. If Azerbaijan connected its mainland to Nakhchivan, it would have a direct route to Turkey and be able to increase its oil exports dramatically. This route would also connect Turkey to the rest of the Turkic world, which includes central Asian countries bordering the Caspian Sea.

The future of the Caucasus seems straightforward at this point. Azerbaijan wants control over the Caucasus and a direct pipeline to Turkey. Azerbaijan has been conducting many small military aggressions over a long period rather than at once to avoid international condemnation. Azerbaijan will continue to do this until they achieve what they want, and due to the lack of support for Armenia, Azerbaijan will continue. If recent trends continue, Azerbaijan will get a pipeline to Turkey, the Turkic world will be connected, and Nagorno-Karabakh will be wholly blockaded.

What Armenia can do to stop this seems to be too little too late. Armenia does not have the capacity to return to its territorial extent before the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. However, control of the Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh is more plausible. Realistically Armenia could expand its conscription beyond two years without extreme public outcry due to the extreme levels of nationalism and desire of the public to ensure Nagorno-Karabakh territorial sovereignty. All Armenia needs to do is guarantee the security of free passage of the Lachin corridor, which could be done by force. In a time when skirmishes between the two countries are constant, an operation by Armenia to guarantee international law is followed would not be that outrageous.

Depending on the length of the Russia-Ukraine war, Armenia may also be able to obtain Russian support in guaranteeing free passage of the Lachin Corridor. Armenia can also offer Russia significant oversight over its economy and politics in exchange for Russian intervention on the side of Armenia. Russia has two military bases in Armenia, which allows for the quick deployment of troops. Armenia has to choose just how much they are willing to sacrifice to achieve control over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Negotiation may also be a possibility between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia could offer Azerbaijan a contract to build a pipeline through Armenian Territory going to Nakchivan in exchange for the Lachin Corridor and de-facto sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan may be inclined to take this offer as a wholescale invasion of Armenian territory to connect mainland Azerbaijan to Nakchivan would cause too much international condemnation. Although most Western countries would support the lower oil prices caused by the shorter pipeline, an invasion of a sovereign nation is likely to invoke sanctions from many countries.

Ultimately only time will tell how the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict will be resolved, but it is undoubtedly in the interests of all that a peaceful diplomatic solution is arrived at.

—

Aiden Wassermann is a foreign policy commentator and intern for the Studies Department. The views expressed here are his, and not necessarily those of the Foreign Policy Association.

In recent days, US Ambassador to Armenia Christina Quinn has said that the United States believes that the Armenian people will be able to live safely in Karabakh: “We believe it is possible and we hope all parties will work together to make it a reality.   The US believes that this is the right approach.  We call on all sides to make joint efforts to ensure the rights and security are established.”  Unfortunately, the American Ambassador to Armenia has faced a backlash within some extremist circles in Armenia for making this statement, yet that does not take away the truth of what she stated.

I have visited Azerbaijan four times and I can attest that Azerbaijan is a bastion for Christians in a region of the world dominated by countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran, who routinely imprison and torture Christians for seeking to practice their faith.    In Baku, I visited an operating Russian Orthodox and Catholic Church.   There are also numerous Christians who are thriving professionally in Azerbaijani society.   This is because Azerbaijan is a secular country, who believes in protecting all religious heritage sites and citizens, regardless if they are Muslim or not.   

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev stated last Easter, “Preservation and promotion of ethno-cultural diversity, rich multicultural values and centuries old traditions of tolerance in our society is one of the main directions of the state policy of the country.  Azerbaijan is one of the few countries with exemplary state-religious relations, where all-round attention and care is paid to the cultural heritage of different peoples.  In the conditions of national-spiritual solidarity, Christians of Azerbaijan live their traditions, religious beliefs, language and culture, and as citizens of the country, they take an active part in all spheres of our socio-political and cultural republic.”

According to the US State Department’s last report on Religious Freedom, “The constitution stipulates the separation of religion and state and the equality of all religions before the law. It also protects the right of individuals to express their religious beliefs and to practice religious rituals, provided these do not violate public order or public morality. The law prohibits the government from interfering in religious activities; it also states the government and citizens have a responsibility to combat “religious extremism” and “radicalism.””

The report continued: “Local experts on religious affairs, religious leaders, and civil society representatives said the general public continued to show tolerance of, and in some cases financially supported, minority religious groups including Jews, Russian Orthodox, and Catholics.”  

The report added: “The constitution stipulates the separation of religion and state and the equality of all religions and all individuals regardless of belief. It protects freedom of religion, including the right of individuals to profess, individually or together with others, any religion, or to profess no religion, and to express and spread religious beliefs. It also provides for the freedom to carry out religious rituals, provided they do not violate public order or public morality. The constitution states no one may be required to profess his or her religious beliefs or be persecuted for them; the law prohibits forced expressions or demonstrations of religious faith.”

According to the US State Department, “There is no religious component in the curriculum of public or private elementary or high schools; however, students may obtain after-school religious instruction at registered institutions. The Administrative Code prohibits clergy and members of religious associations from holding “special” group meetings for children and young people or forcing children to practice religion. The religious freedom law provides that religious education of children “should not have a negative impact on their physical and mental health.”” 

Considering all of these facts, why should Armenians fear living among Azerbaijanis in Karabakh once peace is established between the two peoples?    Just as Jews, Bahais, Russian Orthodox, Georgians, Udi Christians, and Catholics manage to coexist peacefully with the Muslim population in Azerbaijan, why cannot the Armenians if they desire for peace to be upheld between the two peoples?   Thus, America’s Ambassador to Armenia should not have been condemned for stating the obvious.     

Last week, President Biden rolled out the red carpet for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, extending the leader of the world’s largest democracy the full honors of an official state visit. After Mr. Modi addressed a joint session of Congress for the second time in his career, he joined his American counterpart for an opulent state dinner Thursday evening (June 22nd) ­– only the third such dinner of President Biden’s term. This historic visit was anticipated to yield tangible results and invigorate commercial and military ties between the U.S. and India. As the world’s most populous nation and future global powerhouse, India is a vital counterweight to growing Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, a robust strategic partnership with India is invaluable for American interests, but it’s difficult to ignore the elephant in the room. For all the talk of shared political values, India is a backsliding democracy that has often opposed American international initiatives. It’s crucial to analyze and appreciate the strengthening U.S.-India partnership for what it is, a transactional relationship built on mutual interests.

Despite their shared democratic heritage, the U.S. and India historically remained at odds in the international arena. In fact, New Delhi enjoyed warmer relations with Moscow than Washington during the Cold War. As a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, India has long resisted Washington’s orbit, balancing between the competing interests of the U.S. and Soviet-led blocs. This non-aligned posture persists today, demonstrated by Mr. Modi’s refusal to denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

However, these historical differences should not prevent Washington and New Delhi from becoming partners or even friends in the emerging multipolar order. Both countries face a common geopolitical adversary in China and have numerous incentives for intensive collaboration. Presently, Indian and American interests are more closely aligned than ever before, and unlike previous decades, Washington needs India just as much as India needs Washington.

New Delhi recognizes Washington as a critical source of investment and advanced technology, while Washington sees New Delhi as a burgeoning economic superpower that has yet to realize its immense potential. In his address to Congress, Mr. Modi aptly described the scope of U.S.-Indian cooperation as “limitless.” Encouragingly, this cooperation is already gaining momentum, evident in the announcement of several new agreements covering diverse policy initiatives.

During their discussion, President Biden and Mr. Modi unveiled a range of defense-related arrangements, including New Delhi’s plans to acquire thirty-one MQ-9Bs drones from the U.S. Notably, General Electric will manufacture F414 fighter jet engines in India, collaborating with the state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics. As the world’s largest arms importer, India presents an attractive market for U.S. defense contractors. However, the primary aim is to reduce India’s reliance on Russian military hardware. New Delhi sources nearly half of its supplies from Moscow, and Washington hopes to limit a vital revenue stream for the Kremlin while bolstering military interoperability with India. Moreover, India is open to procuring equipment elsewhere, particularly given Russia’s underwhelming military performance in Ukraine.

Economically, as the U.S., and to a lesser extent the EU, look to decouple from China and locate alternative supply chain destinations, India increasingly appears as the most promising option. Recognizing his country’s untapped industrial capacity, Mr. Modi has positioned his “Made in India” initiative as a cornerstone of his political agenda. Although India’s current manufacturing share of total GDP is 14%, well below his ambitious 25% target, recent developments mark a political triumph for Mr. Modi. On June 22nd, Micron Technology announced it would invest over $800 million in a new semiconductor factory in Gujarat, its first-ever venture in India. Additionally, Applied Materials will allocate $400 million over four years to establish a similar semiconductor center. As confidence in India’s manufacturing capabilities continues to grow, more private-sector deals like these are expected to emerge in the coming months and years.

Additional arrangements cover space exploration, quantum computing, telecommunications, renewable energy, critical minerals, and trade. Notably, Washington will streamline the visa approval process, simplifying the pathway for skilled Indian professionals to remain and work in the U.S. Developments and initiatives of this breadth signify the dawn of a new era in U.S.-India strategic relations.

Throughout Mr. Modi’s visit, U.S. policymakers vaunted U.S.-India relations as a natural friendship rooted in a shared commitment to democracy. Mr. Modi reiterated the term “democracy” seventeen times during his address to Congress. While bilateral relations have reached a new level of depth, idealized depictions of democratic kinship oversimplify and skew the relationship’s fundamental reality.

As a rising global power, India holds its own aspirations and vision for its role in the world. Furthermore, Mr. Modi’s ethnonationalism and illiberal practices are widely acknowledged. It’s also evident that Mr. Modi does not subscribe to President Biden’s democracy vs. autocracy dichotomy. When U.S. politicians portray India as an ally in the international struggle for democracy, it not only misrepresents the situation but also undermines America’s position as the global champion of human rights. And while India conducts free elections, its long-term vision diverges from Washington. For example, from 2014-2019, India’s votes in the UN General Assembly coincided with the U.S. a mere 20% of the time. Moreover, India’s active participation in the BRICS further complicates the relationship’s dynamics.

However, the significance of Mr. Modi’s visit and its implications for U.S.-India relations should not be understated. Historically, unity and cooperation flourish in the face of a common threat, and in this case, that threat is China. While India and the U.S. have distinct reasons for tensions with China, the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true. The series of agreements attest to the recent strategic alignment and convergence of mutual interests as both countries navigate the complexities of the 21st century. By forging closer ties, the U.S.-India partnership has the potential to shape the future of the Indo-Pacific and stabilize an increasingly fragile international order.

There are only so many options for the future of the relationship between China and the United States. I’ve been able to identify three:

1. One of the two countries makes the active choice to initiate a military campaign against the other.
2. The two nations continue playing their ongoing game of chicken, hoping against hope to avoid an accident that leads to escalation.  
3. China and the United States work diplomatically to establish guidelines for a working relationship in the midst of an economic and ideological rivalry.

In truth, these three options can be boiled down to two- either preserve the status quo and allow “the fates” to decide if and when a conflict takes place, or engage diplomatically to disrupt the trend of increasingly frigid relations between the two superpowers.

To the extent that we can imagine a clear endgame for each of the aforementioned paths, choosing between “brinkmanship” and diplomacy is just as much a logic problem as it is a diplomatic matter. The United States and China will work together diplomatically or the risk of conflict between the two nations will continue to rise until either accident or malice makes fighting inevitable.

It is not difficult to glimpse this “small piece of the future that has already come to pass”, and the horror of conflict between superpowers armed with nuclear weapons is unimaginable. As a consequence, this is a call for direct diplomacy, even when that means making difficult choices.

Reports suggest that China is making a massive investment in Cuba in exchange for the ability to use Cuban territory to host a spy base. Certainly this represents an escalation from the American perspective, but just as clearly it mirrors what the United States has done through increased weapons sales to Taiwan. Those of us with a Western bias, myself included, might be uncomfortable with this comparison, but that discomfort does little to hide the similarities. 

If negotiations fail, or fail to occur in earnest in the first place, the United States faces grim prospects regarding a conflict over Taiwan. Wargames regularly project that American forces would struggle to respond to the initial attempt to occupy Taiwan due to China’s proximity, and that the vast ocean between the United States and the conflict would stress the demand for both resources and reinforcements. 

Taiwan is an independent country, and an American effort to resist a potential occupation would, by every measure, be a defensive war. That first fact being established  such a conflict would come with the demands and difficulties of an offensive operation. This factor, more than any other, explains the outcomes projected by the war games mentioned earlier.

Even with this context in mind, the United States remains the most powerful nation in the world, there is little room to argue otherwise. Still, the period of unquestioned global hegemony experienced following the end of the Cold War is coming to an end- this much is equally obvious. Momentarily putting China to the side, nations including India, Brazil, and South Africia are on upward trajectories, and each rising power will want some measure of respect, and decision making autonomy, in accordance with their heightened global role. 

The United States will need to work diplomatically and collaboratively with these nations in order to maintain, and hopefully deepen relationships with these rising powers. Not only are strongarm tactics distasteful, but the would-be targets have grown too large for such tactics to be effective. Now is the moment to initiate a new era of American diplomacy that emphasizes the strength of the American economy and the virtues of democratic government.

This sort of diplomatic approach will likely come with a re-entrenchment of America’s military positioning, but that does not mean ignoring the national interest. Continued support for Ukraine, for example, allows the United States to work with partners around the world against expansionism. Still, a diplomatic mentality means not exacerbating Putin’s insecurities once the invasion has been rebuffed. 

Bringing the conflict in Ukraine to an end is only truly valuable if that resolution secures a lasting peace. This will mean asking difficult questions about continued NATO expansion- avoiding conflict with China will likely mean asking equally difficult questions.

Perhaps the key challenge for the United States in the coming decades, both regarding China and regarding the world’s many other nations, will be understanding when and where to emphasize the various tools in America’s famed Arsenal of Democracy. In order to avoid conflict with China and strengthen ties with other rising powers, the United States should prioritize diplomats over dominance.

–

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

Leopard 2A6 and Leopard 2A4 suffer their first losses in Ukraine

Recent reports of the Spring Offensive in Ukraine have started off with mixed news for Ukraine. While there have been reports of some gains, the recent destruction of a dam has flooded an area south of Kherson, narrowing the territory where Ukraine can conduct their offensive. While Ukraine does have some amphibious vehicles, Russia’s numerous BMP-3s would likely be the dominant weapon in assaulting or repelling attacks in water logged regions. A ground offensive to take this now flooded territory has likely been halted, blunting the southern push against Russian fixed defences south of Kherson.

Images and video of newly supplied NATO weapons being destroyed have also appeared from the front line in Ukraine. The loss of what looks to be two Leopard 2A6s and one Leopard 2A4 was accompanied by the loss of several American made Bradley fighting vehicles. The loss of so many Bradleys will be surprising, but the loss of what was promoted as the iron fisted Leopard 2 tanks is something Russia will use to regain their reputation as a strong and capable military force.

During the 1991 Gulf War, there were very few losses of American tanks and vehicles to enemy fire. One of the most notable losses was a crew member who was killed when a Soviet made BMP-1 used its low velocity cannon designed in the 1950s to penetrate the turret of a Bradley fighting vehicle. While the Bradley is a remarkable machine, it is not invincible or as well protected as a tank. The advantage of the Bradleys were to move troops quickly to needed areas and support troops with its cannon. The Bradley’s also have two TOW missiles that can eliminate most Russian tanks, but direct fire or artillery fire on a Bradley will almost always take them out of a fight.

The Leopard 2s were always a mixed solution for Ukraine. In the past, versions of Turkey’s Leopard 2A4s were damaged and destroyed fighting militants in Syria. While the Leopard 2A6s are the most modern version of the tank given to Ukraine, they are not invincible, especially against artillery. The front of the 2A6s, while very well protected, does not extend with the same level of protection on the sides and back of the Leopard 2A6. There are only a limited number of high value weapons NATO countries can spare, and there are not an unlimited amount of Leopard 2 tanks available NATO allies can do without.

The confidence NATO has in the Leopard 2s are likely well founded, but with Ukraine now on the offensive against fixed positions, there will be big losses for the attacking side. While publicly unexpected, Ukrainian Forces have known that losses would also include some of the best weapons on the field. Heavy losses were expected, and images of burning NATO tanks should have been known to be used by Russia. The images of advanced Russian tanks exploding and losing their turrets formed much of the narrative of a weak and disorganised Russian military. Images and videos of NATO tanks perishing in much of the same manner will be used to change the narrative. The biggest loss for Ukraine will not be Leopard 2 tanks, but the will of the West to support its offensive against Russia over time.

Losing the support of NATO may come in different forms. A successful attack by Ukraine in pushing Russian forces back to the the 2014 lines may encourage many allies to push for a cease-fire, especially if weapons are depleted and local politics in ally countries turn against further combat support. As mentioned above, a change in narrative with the view of NATO tanks and equipment suffering losses to the once embarrassed Russian Army may turn ally and adversary opinions over once again as it did with Russia’s retreat from the assault on Ukraine’s major cities. Ukraine depends greatly on the morality of their cause, and NATO allies depend greatly on its popular support from their people. Losing Leopard 2 tanks in the field in horrific ways will most likely change the narrative rapidly.

Another form of lost support for Ukraine will come from a slow degradation of support for their cause within ally countries themselves. The anti-war movement in the United States seems to pass to both sides of the aisle. Scenes of a recently fallen Afghanistan are mixed with the aftermath of recent conflicts there and in Iraq as American servicemen and servicewomen are back home dealing with the after-effects of being in combat. Policies that do little to quell conflict in Ukraine also turn the public against the war. Lives could be saved if foreign drones were prevented from freely making it to Russia to be used as terror weapons. Policies should be changed to use North American energy reserves to displace the large war chest being paid for by still persistent exports of Russian Oil and Gas.

Actions by NATO allies to create the image of support hurt Ukraine’s ability to fight Russia if those actions do not lead to positive and practical outcomes. An absurd example comes by way of the treatment of Canadian NATO members who diligently have gone to Poland and Latvia to support NATO forces helping Ukraine. Canadian Forces in Europe have been ignored by their Government to the point of being a health and safety risk. Many Canadian soldiers in Poland were not given food to eat while in Poland, to the point of going into personal debt to compensate while contributing their lives to Canada, NATO and Ukraine. Canadian soldiers in Latvia were sent on training missions without protective gear, notably helmets. Their Government have ignored these issues, all while promising more Canadian Forces member’s help, money and now even a big plane. Canada said they would not meet NATOs minimum contributions as they gave more than any other nation to help Ukraine(not nearly as much as Poland), but the end result put well intentioned Canadian soldiers in danger. When assistance is given, but done to the detriment of your population who want to help, it obviously sours support for your united cause.

Ukraine’s successes or failures in pressing south to the Black Sea and fighting to re-gain territories lost in 2014 must be measured with the amount of support they realistically expect to achieve at each level of the conflict. If Ukraine can manage expectations of their successes with images of losses, they would have just managed one piece of the larger support puzzle. Objectives of success may differ in the minds of NATO allies. Accepting support from allies who’s good faith does not extend back home to their own population or troops will damage future campaigns without question. It is important to be careful in this regard.

According to a recent Gallop Poll, about 82 percent of the Armenian population reject Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijani territory.    Some 86 percent of Armenians cannot imagine Karabakh Armenians having a future within the State of Azerbaijan.   The survey questioned a representative sample of 1,100 Armenians.

This latest survey comes after the International Republican Institute conducted a similar public opinion survey in 2021, where they found that 35 percent of Armenians believe that an acceptable solution to the Karabakh conflict is the recognition of Armenian Karabakh as a state, 34% of Armenians believe that Karabakh should be included as a region within Armenia, 16% of Armenians believe Karabakh should be a region within Armenia and 11% believe the area should be annexed to Russia.  

Only one percent of Armenians then were willing to consider other options that entail a compromise with Azerbaijan.   The same survey found that 90 percent of Armenians believe the relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia is very bad, 77 percent of Armenians claimed that Azerbaijan posed the greatest political threat to their country and only 4 percent of Armenians believed that efforts should be made to improve the relationship with Azerbaijan.

While Azerbaijan laid out five principles for the establishment of peace between their country and Armenia in 2022, where they emphasized that it is pivotal that Armenia recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and only rule within its own internationally recognized borders, Armenians in contrast do not have a united vision regarding a peace treaty with Azerbaijan.    In fact, while Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has shown a willingness to compromise, there is heavy opposition in the Armenian Diaspora, in the Armenian Parliament and among Karabakh separatist leaders to any peace treaty being signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In fact, ANCA in the United States is presently leading efforts to end US military aid to Azerbaijan and to sanction Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.  According to one of their recent press releases, “Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) teamed up to introduce Anti-Blockade legislation today, backed by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), and supported by a wide array of American civil society coalition partners, increasing U.S. pressure on Azerbaijan to end its nearly six-month long blockade of 120,000 Christian Armenians in their indigenous Artsakh homeland.”  

This was accompanied by an ANCA online petition to the Association of Christian Lawmakers, asking them “to cancel a planned speech by Azerbaijani Ambassador Khazar Ibrahim, in solidarity with the Christians of Armenia –the world’s first Christian nation, facing existential threats from Turkey and its oil-rich ally Azerbaijan.”  Even as Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan comes closer to signing a peace treaty with Azerbaijan, which likely would recognize Azerbaijani territorial claims to Karabakh in exchange for Azerbaijan granting Karabakh Armenians equal rights and both Turkey and Azerbaijan ending their economic blockade of the land-locked Caucuses country, ANCA and other Armenian Diaspora organizations have not backed down with their anti-Azerbaijani initiatives in the US Congress and across the globe.

Meanwhile, within Armenia proper, Armenian opposition MP Gegham Manukyan (ARF) believes any peace deal that Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan signs with Baku will not guarantee peace, but will open the door for further Armenian capitulations.  He accused the Pashinyan administration of backpedaling on the rights of the Armenians of Karabakh and merely recognizing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.  And if one considers the latest public opinion surveys by Gallop, Manukyan and other Armenians in the opposition can do much to hinder the successful completion of a peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. 

For this reason, Armenian public opinion remains the main stumbling block for the successful competition of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  Thus, for the successful completion of a peace treaty, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan must do more than recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity over Karabakh.   He must also educate his own people to support the peace agreement or else the peace will not last.    

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.