Foreign Policy Blogs

A picture of severely damaged Russian Il-22 command aircraft at Anapa Airport. – Giorgi Revishvili on X.com – Jan 15 2024.

The Russia-Ukraine War was never going to become a one off, short term, easily achievable event. Ukraine was equipped, trained and armed to be the defense line for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and every aspect of their defence network and training was created to repel similar attacks like those that traumatised the Soviets during the Second World War. While many of us in the West were discovering home computers and Nintendo, Soviet engineers were designing defensive surface to air weapons and missiles and producing ever more accurate artillery systems that could be used by any Soviet citizen with little training. When Russia advanced in force into Ukraine, the conflict became one where those trained as the home guard to the Soviet Union, invaded those trained to defend the territory from such an advance. Years later, the conflict is still progressing with old technology being aided by new technology, and old equipment being refurbished from as far back as the 1960s in order to achieve modern objectives. Both sides are in a race to obtain as many artillery shells as possible, while dedicating their advanced missile systems towards specialised targets.

Russia has recently taken to creating additional artillery units out of two unique weapons systems from the early 80s Cold War era. Russia has taken their 203mm artillery system, the 2S7 Pion and advanced the systems on the battlefield. One of the world’s largest mortar systems, the 240mm 2S4 Tulypan is also being increasingly advanced into greater service along with the 2S7 Pion in an apparent effort to saturate targets with some of the largest shells used in conflict to date. Speculation has risen to the strategy behind specifically using and promoting these two older system, where the 122mm 2S1 and 152mm 2S3 and 2S19 are likely compatible with foreign sourced North Korean and Chinese ammo replacing Russian artillery stockpiles. While both Ukraine and Russia use the 2S7 Pion and perhaps the 2S4 Tulypan, extended use of these systems, with their unique long barrels and high pressure ammunition, wear out the barrels after a certain number of shots. Older equipment is often used to source replacements that are no longer being manufactured, so it was thought that any of these systems in storage were being used as barrel replacements for active units. With modern targeting using drone technology and advanced mapping systems, older systems have been able to achieve a more accurate and timely firing solution, and with the enormous shells being used by these two veteran systems, the effectiveness is greatly improved.

My suspicion is that since North Korea and China do not possess either of these systems, and that 122mm and 152mm shells are being depleted rapidly, both the 2S7 and 2S4 have been advanced into battle as their unique ammunition is still present for those specific systems. While putting out a message of strength that two of the largest calibre systems are advancing to the front, the possible shortage of the more common 122mm and 152mm ammo may have lead to the decision to use up whatever 203mm and 240mm mortar shells exist in their inventory until the Pions and Tulypans use up all remaining stocks or all remaining barrels. The confusing count on the number of such systems in active duty and in storage from just two years ago may be a sign of this show of strength strategy in 2024.

While Russia has taken great strides in promoting an image of strength in their conflict in Ukraine, the loss of two important strategic assets to unidentified missile systems has sparked great interest by those on both sides of the conflict. Recently a IL-22M was severely damaged by at least one missile, and an A-50 Mainstay AWACS type aircraft was shot down around the Sea of Azov, some distance from the front line. This version of the IL-22 was used to coordinate ground forces in the region, while the A-50 operated as an AWACS system, coordinating air and anti-air assets in the region using its extended radar system and communications network with all forces in the area. While the IL-22M was able to land with causalities, the valuable A-50 was lost, and with no easily accessed means to eject from the large A-50 aircraft, the crew was likely lost as well. Some speculation was that this was a friendly fire incident, but with the A-50 being one of the main sources of communications and command for any missiles fired in the area, this is not likely the case. In the case of an anti-air systems targeting either aircraft, systems such as the TOR and BUK operate in a network where each unit has a tracking and targeting radar in each unit or nearby, married to a local command post that is linked to a regional command post that is further linked to higher command units that likely involve at least the A-50, if not the IL-22M as well. Incidents like that of Iran’s shooting down of Flight 752 using two TOR-M1 missiles likely also would not be an accident due to the high level of integration and command over all units and each unit having a high level of information available to them when operating the site via their two TOR radars and shared information. With little information made available, a picture of the tail of the IL-22M has been made public, showing damaged that appears to be fragments from a missile strike similar to damage seen on the remains of Flight 752.

The loss of these two valuable and limited assets in the air will reduce information available to Russian forces on possible aircraft and missiles entering their secured zone. With so many advanced air defence systems in the region, aircraft have not been used in great numbers by either side, with cruise missiles and drones taking their place so far in the conflict. In any such scenario, the radars are usually the first targets as it can eliminate or incapacitate a firing unit from finding their targets. As seen in Yemen recently and during the Iraq War, radars are target number one before any coordinated advance can take shape during a conflict.

It was recently announced in Azerbaijan that elections will be held in the country early, following the Azerbaijani military’s victorious campaign against the successionist regime in Khenkendi, which permitted Azerbaijan to reclaim all of the Karabakh region that was illegally occupied by Armenia in violation of four UN Security Council resolutions over the course of thirty years.    Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev wishes to capitalize on his great success on the battlefield in order to reinforce his government at home.   Presently, the support for the Aliyev government is at an all-time high among local Azerbaijanis, who are hoping that the recent Azerbaijani victory over the secessionist regime will lead to one million Azerbaijani displaced people being able to return to their homes.

During the First Karabakh War, the Armenians had ethnically cleansed Karabakh and the seven Azerbaijani districts of Azerbaijani, leading to the loss of one fifth of Azerbaijan.    They destroyed all of the homes and nature in the area, replacing them with landmines designed to keep Azerbaijanis out.   The destruction was so vast that former Israeli Communication Minister Ayoob Kara claimed that it was worse than anything he witnessed in Southern Lebanon.   But now, after the Azerbaijani military victory, it is a different reality and Karabakh is slowly getting rebuilt thanks to the strong leadership of President Ilham Aliyev and all Azerbaijanis are grateful for that.   

In a recent New Year address, President Ilham Aliyev stated: “The year 2023 is coming to an end. A number of significant events took place in the life of our country in 2023. Of all these events, however, the restoration of our state sovereignty will forever remain in the memory of the Azerbaijani people. Following a one-day anti-terrorist operation carried out in 2023, Azerbaijan fully restored its state sovereignty, the occupying forces were expelled from the territory of Azerbaijan, the enemy army was crushed, and its military hardware was either destroyed or taken over as trophy. I would like to once again sincerely congratulate all the people of Azerbaijan on the occasion of this historic event.”

He added: “We wanted to resolve the issue peacefully for three years. We believed that the Armenian leadership would properly analyze the results of the Second Karabakh War and draw the right conclusions. Unfortunately, this did not happen. For three years, not only did Armenia fail to fulfill its obligations, but it actually staged new military provocations against us and carried them out. The 15,000-strong Armenian army illegally stationed on our lands was not withdrawn from Karabakh. On the contrary, new weapons, ammunition, military equipment and mines were delivered into Karabakh, and mine terror against us continued.”

The Azerbaijani President noted that his country could not put up with this situation: “We repeatedly warned the leadership of Armenia and the western countries behind it that this situation could not continue like that. Either the separatist regime is dissolved, and the Armenian army is withdrawn from our territory, or we would restore our state sovereignty by force. Regrettably, our words fell on deaf ears. The anti-terrorist operation, which started on September 19 and lasted only one day, even less than that, ended with complete victory of the Azerbaijan army. The separatist regime collapsed, fell to its knees before us, waved the white flag, surrendered, was forever expelled from our lands, and thrown into the trashcan of history. With this, the very roots of separatism in Azerbaijan were eradicated, and separatism – that scourge will never raise its head in our lands again.”

And it is in the wake of this era that Azerbaijan seeks to hold elections.  Mazahir Afandiyev, Member of the Milli Majlis, recently wrote: “In this moment of transformation and the creation of modern political architecture, the Republic of Azerbaijan, as the locomotive of the South Caucasus and new center of power, is embarking on a new path, and, of course, new approaches should be used. From this point of view, the Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan on holding early presidential elections fully reflects current reality while also demonstrating to the world how the Azerbaijani people are mobilized around their President, statehood traditions, and ideology.”

The end of 2023 became a demonstration of how bad policy had lead to the most evident atrocities ever documented in recorded history. What prevents many of these modern conflicts from spiralling out of control was a relatively new form of AI, in advanced missile systems that are capable of intercepting air and ballistic missile threats in many forms. In order to counter this AI, regressive technical systems such as drones were massed in order to overwhelm such systems and protract conflicts further, as without a serious threat, conflicts would not escalate past a certain point. Even with these numerous threats, many missile systems have functioned successfully, with an established strategy being used as a method to incur greater economic and supply costs on the defenders while prolonging the conflict even further. Missile defence worked in reducing conflict, as it reduced the losses to the defending party and lowered the demand for a forceful response to the initial attacks. Without such effective missile defence, a country would have few options but to react with force to the initial act under their rights to respond to Casus Belli.

The importance of missile defence does not only play a key role in policy decisions for military and political leaders, but often can be the main component of a security situation that limits or prevents greater conflicts from escalating past a point of no return. Such great importance should be placed on missile defence that actions taken by opposing forces, third parties, or even allies that aids or assists the diminishment of such a defence should be considered as an act that actively contributes to a conflict, where the results of such actions are known or should have been known to the contributing party. Acting as an accessory to Casus Belli ties the parties to the act of war itself, and should be met with legal responses, sanctions, or a defensive response. Such actions should be prevented using clear measures.

The funding of rogue nations and coercive third parties are one of the main sources of funds that enable and motivate many acts of violence in the past and is a significant threat in 2024. Often such actions have been established over a number of years, and work within a cooperative framework in normally democratic countries to fund and promote regimes in countries that are anything but democratic. These subversive acts benefit few people in the democratic infrastructure, and operate in such a manner to not only give access to funds abroad for nefarious groups, but corrupt systems and institutions in the democratic West linked to such entities. Fines and investigations on such actions often expose certain large financial institutions and their contributions to acts of violence, and have even exposed international organisations for being linked to the acts directly. A legal precedent already exists in aiding in the propagation of war, but the law of often ignored and not applied in countries where the Government is passively supporting/actively ignoring the financial ties of a few individuals to the conflict.

The allowance of knowledge and equipment to be exported to rogue states and organisations that are linked to crimes against humanity are also a key contributor to conflicts that escalate into larger wars. Much of the terror weapons used against civilians in places like Ukraine were built on commercial technologies exported to rogue countries, with little being done about the exchange well after it was known to have been used to target civilians. While the West has spent Billions to support their allies, the other end of those same economies have been exporting and profiting from weapons parts production and have funded the further production of adversarial weaponry through the third party purchase of energy products from their key adversary. Even with the knowledge that many of their adversaries are also oppressing their own people for demonstrating their own popular support for our values, Western nations have worked in conjunction with abusive regimes who oppress local movements while enabling acts of war abroad. If knowledge of such material support for acts of war is discovered, it should stop immediately. If it was known and was supported through weapons sales, parts sales and direct purchasing of sanctioned energy products, it should be met with fierce legal consequences domestically, internationally and via the countries that have suffered from the act of war themselves. Countries who have been attacked will never be able to acquiesce to threats as they have no other option but to protect their own citizenry from act of war. It is their obligation to seek justice for their own citizens under International Law. Avoiding their obligations could make them culpable to the crime itself.

Along with the passive support of conflict through the sale of weapon parts above, the active sale of weapons that enable civilians to be harmed must be met with the coercive obligations countries have to protect their citizens and those of peaceful countries from direct and immediate threats to peace. If a country seeks to prohibit or limit conflict, missile defence in the theatre of war must be married to not only an active financial and material restriction on supporting the initiant to a conflict, but must seek to disrupt the production of such weapons if that capability is available. Known threats to shipping and population centres that initiate Casus Belli, also includes the production facilities of such weapons, even if not in the immediate theatre. Handling such threats before such weapons engage military and civilian targets alike will prevent wider conflicts and demonstrate consequences for third parties in their contribution to violence in the region. It is often the case that if you destroy the roots of the foundation of a conflict, the wider conflict becomes more manageable. Until such actions are taken, the situation will almost certainly become worse for all parties involved, especially the innocent.

For the first time since World War II, Germany has established a permanent military presence outside its territorial borders. While the deployment of 4,800 soldiers to Lithuania appears modest, this historic shift in German strategic thinking could hold significant long-term implications for transatlantic security. Throughout the post-war period, the U.S. has guaranteed Germany’s and much of Europe’s security via extended deterrence. However, as Washington recalibrates its focus to counter an increasingly assertive China, it will need to divert resources and personnel from Europe and the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. Despite anachronistic concerns about a resurgence of Prussian militarism, an actively engaged and capable Germany willing to contribute to deterrence and defense in Europe will facilitate America’s stagnant “Pivot to Asia.” So yes, America and the broader Western world should embrace a Germany ready to take transatlantic security seriously.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reminded everyone that large-scale conventional warfare between two modernized armies is possible today, even in Europe. Nowhere was this shock more evident than in the defeated powers of World War II, with both Germany and Japan tacitly moving away from their longstanding pacifist doctrines to a more combat-ready posture. Immediately following the invasion, Chancellor Olaf Scholz even went so far as to declare a “Zeitenwende,” or a historic turning point in German attitudes toward security. Though progress has been slow, as Scholz cannot reverse decades of defense industry neglect overnight, this recent announcement marks the latest effort to turn the Bundeswehr into a “war-ready” force.

While German soldiers have previously participated in NATO rotational programs, this deployment is the first independent and foreign assignment in Germany’s post-war history. At the request of the Lithuanian government, Berlin will station five units, including one armored near Vilnius and Kaunas – the capital and second-largest city, respectively. Bordered by Russia and its ally Belarus, Lithuania and the other Baltic countries represent NATO’s front lines and most vulnerable targets in the event of a conflict with Russia. Moreover, the tiny nation only fields an army of 16,000 troops, explaining why NATO presence is existential for Lithuanians. However, with the Zeitenwende still in the early phases as Germany’s defense sector lumbers out of dormancy, the brigade will remain inoperative and without actual armor until 2027. Nevertheless, Berlin has demonstrated its willingness to defend every inch of NATO territory by placing troops on the alliance’s eastern flank.

But it is not so much the strategic gains of this move that Washington should welcome but rather the broader trend it indicates. Following the Cold War, Germany has faced consistent criticism from its allies for failing to pull its weight in NATO and meet its financial obligations, specifically earmarking 2% of GDP for annual defense spending. However, this long-term commitment in Lithuania signals that Berlin has adjusted to the new security environment. In addition, as an innovation hub and Europe’s largest economy, Germany has immense potential as a leader in regional security. With encouragement from Washington, a successful Zeitenwende would reduce America’s NATO burdens and enable its reorientation to the Asia-Pacific.

What was supposed to be America’s “Asian Century” has been repeatedly bogged down by exigencies in Europe and now the Middle East. Of course, the U.S. would still play a fundamental role in NATO, and the transatlantic alliance will forever remain a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. But with both the capabilities and intentions to remold the world order, China must remain America’s predominant diplomatic concern.

However, many analysts have expressed historically rooted consternation over Germany’s strategic adjustment. Given Germany’s disastrous role in both World Wars, NATO integrated the country to prevent the re-emergence of deployment-capable force. Consequently, some analysts worry that this deployment to Lithuania will once again legitimize the military as a foreign policy tool in Berlin, altering their long-term approach and worldview. Put bluntly, they fear a revival of German militarism. However, such sentiments reflect outdated perceptions of Prussian Junkers and Panzer tanks while failing to account for the military-cultural changes within Germany since 1945. Modern Germany is not the same country that invaded France three times in one lifetime. Additionally, NATO’s Article 5, which declares an attack on one as an attack against all, effectively thwarts any future German expansionism in Europe.

On a more realistic note, there are legitimate apprehensions regarding the feasibility of enduring German security contributions. To be sure, Scholz’s Zeitenwende is far from fruition, and years of persistent reform are necessary to transform the country’s defense industry. Berlin has notoriously overlooked its military since the end of the Cold War to the point of dilapidation, with 85% of buildings in its once renowned artillery school requiring urgent renovation. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany only possessed enough ammunition for 48 hours of combat. Berlin has since dispatched almost its entire arsenal to Kyiv, including tanks, artillery, and ammunition. And while Scholz has recommitted to the 2% NATO threshold, his country remains years away from satisfying the requirement. Furthermore, while Europe stands united today, it is reasonable to question whether Germany will continue along this path when the war ends.

The recent commitments in Lithuania strongly suggest that the Zeitenwende is not a fleeting policy initiative. Even if the recent announcements unfold as planned, Washington should diligently engage its European allies to coordinate and deepen their security infrastructures. Given their economies and technological expertise, there is no reason why the combined efforts of Germany, France, and the U.K. cannot sustain Ukrainian resistance in America’s absence. Yes, Washington should continue to support Ukraine, but the days when its security assurances allowed European powers to disregard defense expenditures are over. A self-sufficient Europe depends on a capable Germany, which, in turn, reinforces transatlantic interests and values. Additionally, America will find itself in a better position to address its pacing challenge of the century in a rising China.

Memorial to the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle of the Second World War.

Nearshoring and other concepts where a nation and their supportive allies entrench their own economic, policy and security interests may begin in earnest in the upcoming year. This past year has done little to secure a safe society or economic stability anywhere in the world, and the costs of bad policy are now part of the daily lives of most individuals. Views of unappealing outcomes unravelling in unsustainable directions have been made clear to those living in societies based on democratic values, and a clear choice is upon them.

Since Covid, a clear and measured move to take US and Western economic dependence away from China has taken shape. Much of this move involves multinational corporations setting up shop in the USMCA trade zone in Mexico, where a generational trend in uptraining Mexican citizens has been tied to moving manufacturing capabilities into Mexico to serve the North American market. With a productive and technically well trained Mexican workforce, securing US economic activity though Mexico based multinational manufacturing will likely maintain stable markets in the US. This act functions by pulling the US away from dependence on China’s manufacturing might and possible political leverage China may have over the US and its allies in the event of natural barriers or political conflict between the two powers. This move can secure the old NAFTA block of countries, if all members would work with their allies, as opposed to strengthening the threats to themselves and their NAFTA neighbours.

Europe might feel more of the effects from the revolutionary change it needs to make with Russian energy with a colder 2024 upon them. While Europe moves to take in some energy from other parts of the world, accessing energy from the Middle East may become difficult as the Gulf region becomes more erratic and the policy approaches from their own NATO allies keep them in a chilly limbo as opposed to pushing to secure Europe’s energy and security future. The lack of clarity NATO and Europe has had with many of its allies has not only delayed defences being sent to Ukraine, but has given a financial line to Russia in the conflict and has enabled Russian allies to fund, fuel, and ensure attacks on Ukrainian civilians. This indecisive policy comes at a time when NATO and their allies have given billions to the war effort, with families clearing feeling the effects at home. Shaming locals over supporting Ukraine can be seen as a local political tactic at this point, as clearly most have been supportive of Ukraine, and do not deserve to be accused by anyone for their lack of historically significant support. Using Ukraine for local political gain is a major threat to Ukraine’s defence over the next year, and local Government that spin such support for their own political gains hurt Ukraine more than they help.

The structural nature of Western societies has become a major factor in the strength of nations since the masks of many have slipped at the end of 2023. Equality under the law and being able to be productive in a secure society has been challenged by the impression of other systemic norms that often have few roots in justice and equality in modern history. Many opposing systems either are at the brink of collapse, or favour a small cabal of a few powerful elites no matter what label is given from our past or from poorly researched movies. Opportunities for wealth and peace has been bleached from the general narrative by regimes and groups that were already at the end of their shelf life as a political entity, and have no future prospects that anyone would willingly agree to if given a clear picture of those prospects. There are parts of the world that have seen little peace past half a generation, and whose ancestors go back generations as fallen soldiers under the earth of old battlefields in lands that has little value. If a nation does not prepare for any eventuality, including those mentioned above, they can easily turn into a dying society. A society that can live under pax et lux only comes from generations of hard fought values, anything else has proven to simply be the dream of tyrants.

“Tis the season to be merry,” but not in the Land of Israel, which is plagued by war and bloodshed. However, Harfoush’s concert at the European Commission brings peace amidst a dark Christmas in the Middle East.     

As Americans prepare to celebrate Christmas, they aspire to live in a world enjoying peace and harmony. “Tis the season to be merry,” people say. But sadly, for the peoples in the Middle East, peace and harmony is a distant dream, far away from the reality that they experience, as far too many peoples homes have been reduced to rubble in that part of the world, forcing the local inhabitants to flee for their lives. In fact, here in the Holy Land, we are not merry. We are very depressed and feel that this is a dark holiday.    

Israel has been at war since the October 7 massacre, which slaughtered over 1,600. On that horrific day, Hamas raped women en masse, mutilated babies, and committed crimes against humanity at the Rave Music Festival and other nearby kibbutzim, which many refer to as Israel’s September 11. In a recent display by the Israeli mission to the United Nations, the New York Times reported that Yael Richert, a chief superintendent with the Israel Police, noted: “Everything was an apocalypse of corpses. Girls without any clothes on. Without tops. Without underwear. People cut in half. Butchered. Some were beheaded. There were girls with a broken pelvis due to repetitive rapes. Their legs were spread wide apart, in a split.” Another survivor of the Rave Massacre noted that a Hamas terrorist cut off a woman’s breast, threw it on the road and played with it. 

They also took over 260 Israelis hostages, including women, children and the elderly. Many of the hostages are now celebrating the holidays in total darkness in Gaza. Indeed, Newsweek compared what Hamas did on October 7 to ISIS, declaring that there was footage of “women abducted with their babies, grandmothers taken hostage and paraded down the streets of Gaza. There’s a video of a teenage Israeli woman being pulled by terrorists from the back of a vehicle in Gaza. In the video, she is barefoot, wearing sweatpants and a tee-shirt, and as she turns, you can see the back of her sweatpants are covered in blood that came from between her legs.”

We now know the name of the victim is Naama Levy, she is 19 years old and is still being held hostage in Gaza to date. Her mother recently published a plea for her release in the Times of Israel: “You have seen the video of my daughter Naama Levy.  Everyone has. You have seen her dragged by her long brown hair from the back of a jeep at gunpoint, somewhere in Gaza, her gray sweatpants covered in blood. You may have perhaps noticed that her ankles are cut, that’s she’s barefoot and limping.  She is seriously injured. She is frightened. And I, her mother, am helpless in these moments of horror.” She was only one of many victims.  

The few hostages that have been released are completely traumatized. As one of the doctors who examined released hostages told CBS, “There is not a single person who came back that didn’t have a significant physical injury or medical problem. On top of that, some of them were getting medication to look better than they actually were. We definitely saw signs of being handcuffed. We did hear and see evidence of sexual abuse in a significant part of the people we have treated. We also heard evidence and that was one of the hardest parts of abuse against those who are still there, both physical and sexual.”

Since the October 7 massacre, the people in the entire region have been suffering from a war that feels as if it has no end in sight. All of Israel, from Eilat in the South to Rosh Ha-Nikra in the North, is under rocket fire. For a great period of the last semester, most children had zoom classes and were not in school. Although school has now resumed, many services that existed for children before the war do not exist now. The situation is so bad here that only foreign journalists, diplomats, politicians, olim and Israelis are flying to the Jewish state these days for the most part. As a result of the security situation, most foreign airlines refuse to fly into Ben-Gurion Airport. 

Similarly, a great part of Gaza has been reduced to rubble and people are literally starving there, as 1.9 million Gazans have been displaced from their homes because of the war and Hamas is stealing the limited humanitarian aid that is let through.  As the country becomes colder, many people in Gaza are forced to live in tents instead of proper homes, as their homes were destroyed in the war and Hamas unlike Israel does not provide their refugees with hotel rooms. 

I have a good friend who was forced to flee her home because of intensive rocket fire from Lebanon. Her beautiful home with a swimming pool was literally transformed overnight into a war zone, unsafe for her, her husband and their four small children to live in. The Israeli government offered her a hotel room in Tiberius, but she chose to flee to Switzerland instead, for she feared this war had no end in sight. I got another friend whose cousin was murdered on October 7. All day long, she is crying over her loss, her beloved relative who went to work and did not come home, leaving behind a widow in her twenties and small children. All of the people here around the holiday season feel the lack of peace and security.

Imagine what it is like to celebrate Christmas without a Christmas tree. This year in Bethlehem, there are no Christmas trees put up in public displays, according to a Palestinian source that I know. Imagine what it is like to celebrate Christmas without the children going out to see the play “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens. This year in Netanya, the city where I live, the municipality canceled all of the Hanukkah plays because of the war. 

Unfortunately, people who live in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and other parts of the Middle East are also suffering around Christmas this year. In Syria alone, the Civil War that began in 2011 has resulted in over 400,000 deaths and millions of others have been displaced from their homes, and do not know if they will ever be able to return. The situation in the Cedar state is also not good. Lebanon has lost tens of thousands of lives over the years as well. The people of Yemen are literally starving to death, as the civil war there devastated that country. Literally, anywhere where Iran’s proxies took over, from Gaza to Syria and Lebanon to Yemen, the people are suffering gravely.

It is in this spirit that the European Commission in Brussels decided to host a concert titled “Save a Life, You Save Humanity.” Omar Harfouch, who is the Honorary President of the Organization for Dialogue and Diversity, a pianist and composer, who has been active in peace-building efforts in the Middle East, decided to perform this song in the European Commission in order to highlight the value of preserving human life in a region dominated by war, heartache and sorrow. The song “Save a Life, You Save Humanity” was inspired by the Quran and the Talmud, who both have a phrase declaring “you save a life, you save the world entire.” 

The concert took place in the main hall of the European Commission, during a musical evening organized on the eve of the European summit which brings together all European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, to make crucial decisions concerning the future of Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East. During his performance, Omar Harfouch read Surah Al-Ma’idah 32: “The Almighty says: and he who saves a life, it is as if he had saved all humanity”, in front of European officials and decision-makers, all under the sponsorship of European Commissioner Oliviér Várhelyi. 

During the reading of this surah, the audience had a surprised face as they heard the Holy Quran, which for the first time was read inside the European Commission building. Very involved in his fight for peace, Omar Harfouch asked political leaders to promise him one thing: that they would each save a life after hearing his music, composed for the occasion. The composer’s new musical work was composed of two parts symbolizing the divisions of today’s world: the first, which tells of a full and happy life, filled with love and tolerance. The second, which describes a life of sadness, destruction, fear, loss of security and hope. And which poses a crucial question: which world do we want to live in: the first or the second?

From the end of the first part, played on the piano with the orchestra, the audience warmly applauded the musicians. At the end of the second part, the audience was on its feet, some people in the audience unable to contain a few tears. The success was such that Omar Harfouch and his orchestra were immediately asked by the ambassadors present in the room to play this composition in all European cities.

Note that during this concert, Omar Harfouch was accompanied by his official violinist, the Ukrainian Anna Bondarenko, and an orchestra of fifteen musicians from different nationalities: French, Belgian, Syrian, Ukrainian and Macedonian.  It was also the first time that a classical music concert took place in an official building of the European Commission in Brussels.  His song calling for tolerance was so moving that here in the Holy Land, I dream of the day when he can also come here to perform his song in a call for peace and harmony, so that this dark Christmas can be transformed into a beautiful bright one, where peoples around the world live in peace and prosperity with each other. 

The global displacement crisis has reached alarming proportions, with millions of people forced to leave their homes due to armed conflicts, persecution and systematic policies.   According to the concept paper written for an international conference sponsored by the West Azerbaijan community, “It is imperative to prioritize the voluntary, safe and dignified return of expelled people to their homes as a long-term solution.”

The Azerbaijanis were deliberately expelled and deported from the territory of present-day Armenia in 1905-1906, 1918-1920 and 1948-1953.  In 1948-1953 alone, more than 150,000 Azerbaijanis were deported en masse from their historical lands in the territory of the Armenian SSR.  Some of them, especially the elderly and infants, died due to severe resettlement conditions, unfavorable climate, physical deprivation and mental suffering.   In the face of the disintegration of the USSR, more than 250,000 Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were forcibly expelled from their historical lands.   216 of them were mercilessly slaughtered and 1,154 were injured.

In a recent conference titled “Enabling the safe and dignified return of Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia: Global context and just solution,” Dr. Nazim Mustafa of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences noted: “In the 1800s, only a few Armenians existed there,” noting that it was the decision of the colonial powers to transform Yerevan Province into a homeland for the Armenian people by importing Armenians into the region and kicking out Azerbaijanis.   

Professor Yildiz Deveci Bozkus from Ankara University underscored that Yerevan province was originally a majority Azerbaijani area and that foreign experts in the past even noted that there were scarcely any Armenians in the area.   Yet, she noted that thanks to the work of colonial powers who supported the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from the region, it is now an exclusively Armenian place: “The Soviet policy led to the displacement of thousands of Azerbaijanis, with their historical and cultural heritage being destroyed in Armenia.  This changed the demography of the region.”

According to the concept paper, “The case of forced expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, where they once constituted an absolute majority, represents an immense and unprecedented injustice.   The plight of Azerbaijani expellees from Armenia exemplifies the grievous consequences of ethnic cleansing perpetuated by systematic state efforts, characterized by violence and gross human rights violations.   These tragic events unfolded over multiple periods, notably in 1948-53 and 1987-91.   The consequences of these illegal actions remain unresolved.”

Khalid Taimur Akram, the executive director of the Pakistani Research Center for a Community with a Shared Future, stated: “The forced expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their homes in the 1990’s represents a dark chapter in the history of the South Caucasus.   Families of refugees had their lives shattered.    The Armenian forces committed ethnic cleansing.”  He emphasized that their safe return to their homes is pivotal for the establishment of peace and security in the South Caucasus.  

According to the Concept of Return, which was published by the conference, “Ethnic cleansing committed against Azerbaijanis was in most carried out with the state organs through violence, genocide, massacres and other crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights.   The Soviet Union, in particular its notorious leader Joseph Stalin, who transferred Zangazur and other majority Azerbaijani areas to Armenia in 1921 and who signed a racist order on the deportation of one hundred thousand ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia, remained unredressed.”

They continued: “In the same vein, the actions committed by the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic against its Azerbaijani population in 1987-1991 are still unremedied.  In Armenia nowadays, Azerbaijani historical and cultural heritage including mosques and graveyards, toponyms were changed and systematic racial discrimination was carried out against Azerbaijanis.   Those who participated in ethnic cleansing and other crimes against ethnic Azerbaijanis and their misdeeds are glorified at the state level in Armenia.” 

It should be emphasized that the Azerbaijanis who were forced out of Armenia were peaceful citizens, who did not pose a threat to the Armenian state.  They were not part of any armed groups that threatened the political goals of the Armenians.  They were merely kicked out of their homes because of their faith and nationality, and for no other reason.   For this reason, in the framework of a future peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, their return should not be considered a threat.        

Sadly, West Azerbaijanis are not the only nation to suffer such a fate.   Ambassador Gunyan Saptoma, Chairman of the International Relations Commission of the Council of the Indonesian Ulema, noted that the right of return of the refugees is engrained in international law and that there are many displaced nations in Southeast Asia as well.  One poignant example he gave was the boat people of Vietnam: “The Vietnam War lasted for twenty years.   After the fall of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, when the United States decided to withdraw its troops from South Vietnam, there were about a half of a million boat people and around 700,000 fled to the United States and its allies, such as Canada and Australia.”

However, unlike the West Azerbaijanis, the boat people of Vietnam did see light at the end of the tunnel:  “More than 100,000 later were repatriated back to Vietnam for they were not accepted by the United States as real refugees.   I participated in the effort to repatriate 12,000 Vietnamese back to South Vietnam.   The Vietnamese government agreed to accept them in 1993.”  Let us hope that in the wake of a peace agreement the West Azerbaijanis can be accepted back as well.     

China’s People Liberal Army En Marche…

China has benefitted from the lack of focus on its actions since 2022 while the West was completely concentrated on Ukraine. The conflicts in Europe and the Middle East were not expected soon before they began, and once those conflicts took shape, the focus on China’s growing presence on the world stage was no longer the main concern in the West. China has been able to avoid sanctions while not only having some ties to Russian arms deals, but also by avoiding a major fallout from Covid. While China is not in a poor position due to these international events, the ties that China forms or diminishes will have a significant impact on life in China.

US economic Tic Tok Toe with China through both Republican and Democratic administrations has put pressure on China’s export economy which relies heavily on manufactured goods exports to North America and Europe. While China’s economic burdens grow due to those policies, China’s manufacturing weight on the world economy is still in a fair position. China still has a great amount of access to many of those Western economies that its fair-weather allies have been locked out of, and will still be able to manage their economy in a position of strength. Chinese companies have been able to seek some direct benefits through nearshoring to places like Mexico, and will need to come to a meeting of minds in achieving new economic arrangements via importing raw goods after Government changes in places like Argentina. China may not be in a boom phase like they were in the 2010s, but they can enter into their position as an advanced economy, complete with stable policies, manageable recessions, and clever investment policy, if they choose such a path.

China must choose to create an image of itself as being independent, strong and not greatly aligned to nations that are embroiled in direct conflict with their trade partners, even if the trade relationship is not ideal for China. Exporting and trade with Western countries who allow for a great deal of leeway in their relationships with China are already a political advantage. Even if these activities are serious concerns in Western countries, there are surprisingly few actions being taken to stop them at this time that will prevent Chinese exports to Western nations. This balance of national/party interests for China not only have a limit, but likely have an expiration date, and China should avoid making themselves into a target as there is little benefit to China in a hot conflict with any regional or international opponents.

Russia has recently taken to importing artillery surpluses from North Korea, and likely has sought such ammunition and gear from China as many of their Soviet designed systems operate with similar equipment. There is little benefit however to China in aligning itself with Russia’s war in Ukraine, as the sales from consumer goods outweighs the sales of artillery sales to one nation. While China and Russia do align on many policy positions, they are not proper allies in any sense of the word, and make decisions to their own singular benefit. China would be able to balance their own position by selling its arms to both sides, as both sides use similar artillery shells and China’s only benefits from the Russo-Ukraine war are possible export opportunities and cheap raw imports. With funds drying up to support Ukraine, and both sides using the same Red Dawn era equipment, China does not need to take a position to gain a balanced economic and political position when dealing with Russia or NATO in Europe. China does well when it is not directly or indirectly involved in a war, or with those who seek conflict.

China has sought recent assurances to secure their energy imports from actors in the Persian Gulf region in order to fuel its manufacturing economy. The strategy of tamping down the pressure helps China in two ways. The first it to maintain Chinese commercial shipping capabilities towards the region that can be easily blocked by smaller regional powers or by India, and the second is to secure a dependable and frequent supply of energy imports to its massive economy and population. To ensure this, China should maintain its own military capabilities as it has done throughout its history, but make trade and profits from exports the primary policy driver over possible plans to assault Taiwan, or having shooting sessions in the mountains with India. An attack on Taiwan would end much of China’s relationship with the West, aka, all of their export consumers, and conflicts with India will only sour relations further with what will be the most important power in Asia over the next ten years.

Economic and societal pressures is the biggest threat to China’s current government. Energy should be clearly sought though agreements with allies of export consumer nations, as ties to regimes that cause more conflict is not good for Chinese exports, Chinese imports, or Chinese energy infrastructure. Tying China’s economy to nations in perpetual conflict will have the effect of putting economic pressure on the Chinese people themselves. China possesses a large population, a fair amount of natural resources, and a good amount of territory, and does not need to fight for those essential elements to be a stable nation. The biggest threat to China’s regime is a local revolt, and that will come with instability and conflict. Economic pressure for China is one of the main elements that may disintegrate stability in Chinese communities. While economic trade pressures may result in a slow but managed decline, pressures from conflicts will unravel a society rapidly. Allies in conflict give no benefit if China has no direct goals in those conflicts, simply adding hardships to Chinese citizens. China’s ties to horrific regimes only ensures losses of funds, fuel, food and family members who rely on the youth to care for the elderly…and with these great pressures, come great changes. The next few short years will determine China’s ultimate path.

If one asks the average American, who are the Qizilbash people, the average American won’t know what you are speaking about.   They will say the “Qizil what?”   And then, if you ask them about the connection of the Qizilbash people to Azerbaijan, the average American will ask you how to spell Azerbaijan and ponder where it is on the map.    However, the average American should learn a little bit about who the Qizilbash people are if they seek to understand the history of modern-day Azerbaijan,  Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, the regions of strategic value to the United States of America.   

Recently, the State Committee on Work with the Diaspora, a government agency of Azerbaijan, held an event titled “the Heritage of the Qizilbash in Azerbaijan: in the footsteps of history,” which sought to raise awareness about the Qizilbash people, who are an association of Turkic nomadic tribes that speak the Azerbaijani language.  These tribes included the Rumlu, Shamlu, Ustajlu, Afshar, Qajar, Tekelu, and Zulkadar.   From the 15th century onwards, these tribes contributed to the foundation of the imperial Azerbaijani Dynasty of Safavids that originated in Azerbaijan and ruled over a big part of the Near and  Middle East.   

The Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty or the State of Qizilbash which was its other denomination, was the first Twelver Shia Empire in modern-day Iran.   Because of the Safavids, Iran today is Shia and not Sunni.  However, the Safavids were not primitive like the mullahs in Tehran are today.  The Iran under Azerbaijani Safavids was an economic stronghold between East and West who had an efficient state bureaucracy based upon checks and balances.   They created great architectural landmarks and patronized the fine arts.   Under their role, Turkic and not Persian influence was dominant.  The State language was Azerbaijani as well as military and ruling elite consisted of Azerbaijani Qizilbash tribes. Indeed, it was only from the Pahlavi Dynasty onwards that Turkic identity in Iran was repressed rather than celebrated.        

The conference that was held in Azerbaijan sought to raise awareness about the roots and identity of the Qizilbash and to promote communication that can lead to the reunification of the global community of Qizilbash, like it existed at the time of the Azerbaijani Safavid Empire. “Azerbaijan is doing great work to unite the Qizilbash people,” former federal secretary of Pakistan, Board member of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization Agha Sarwar Raza stated.   “Our ancestors lived on the territory of Azerbaijan.   Subsequently, they spread to different countries.   Azerbaijan is our motherland.”  

In a joint statement, the members of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization, co-organizer of the conference, stated: “We, members of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization which is part of the world Qizilbash community, feel proud to note that the Qizilbash movement which emerged in the second half of the 15th century opened a new page in the history of the Near and Middle East and the Turkic world on the whole.   During the reign of the Safavid state founded by the Qizilbash tribes which incorporated present-day Azerbaijan, Armenia, Dagestan, Iran, Iraq, Eastern Turkey, Eastern Georgia, Southern Turkmenistan and Western Afghanistan and in the subsequent years notably during the conquest of Nadir Shah Afshar, a great figure in world military history, the Qizilbash made a stronghold in these areas thus having eventually spread to different parts of the world.”

They continued by “stressing the importance of this international conference as a great beginning in the wider study and promotion of Qizilbash heritage which appears to be a glorious page in the history of Azerbaijan.  In a broader sense, we perceive this significant event as a historical step marking organized and purposeful activities towards the appropriation by Azerbaijani people and state of its glorious historical heritage.”   On another note, the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization “expressed our faith in the sustainability of activities on a broader scale and format towards strengthening the bonds of the world Qizilbash with their historical homeland and their return to their historical roots and support future efforts of this kind.”

The Qizilbash Global Heritage was established in Canada in order to help Qizilbash from across the world to reconnect with their roots, coordinate their joint activities, to be introduced to the Azerbaijani language and culture, and to integrate them into Azerbaijani society.   Arshi Qizilbash, the deputy chairman of the Qizilbash Global Heritage Organization, stated that the goal of the organization is to grow and take their organization to the United Nations and UNESCO for recognition as a world heritage organization.   

By Rachel Avraham

The emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Saudi Arabia, which brought togethers leaders from the Arab world, including Bashir Al-Assad, Turkey, and even the president of Iran, has come to a close with the rejection of Israel’s claims to self-defense against Hamas, and a joint call for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the war in Gaza. None of the usual saber rattling from these circles is likely to bring Israel to withdrawal from Gaza before its military objectives are met; even the US, which has repeatedly pressured Israel on instituting humanitarian pauses and pushed it in the direction of a ceasefire, allegedly as a condition for hostage release, will not be much affected by these comments. However, without a doubt, this gathering, unequivocally equating Hamas with the Palestinian cause, is a strategic communication to Jerusalem and Washington. As any overt messages with covert meanings, it is worth deciphering. There are several takeaways that jump to mind if one follows the trajectory of the unfolding events in the Middle East for the past several years.

First, GCC states are terrified of the escalation of the conflict, already ongoing and easily observable from the multiple recent Houthi border attacks on Saudi Arabia, which were more successful than their attacks on Israel. There is also a shared regional concern that if Hizbullah and other Iran-backed proxies escalate, as they have threatened to do in response to Israel’s prolonged ground operations in Gaza, this increased terrorist activity could destabilize Iraq where Saudis, Emiratis, and others recently invested billions. Moreover, after the series of recent bilateral normalization agreements with Bashir Al-Assad, GCC and others are embarrassed that Syrian Iran-backed militias are emerging as some of the most active players in the widening conflict, particularly against US troops. Whatever may have been the behind-the-scenes pressure, Assad takes Iran’s lead, and backing by Russia and increasingly China, as far more persuasive than the calls from Riyadh and elsewhere.

The region is not prepared for what Iran might do next. The entire East of Saudi Arabia is Shia majority, and Iran has been indoctrinating the population there for decades. Houthis are bordering Saudis and are ready to strike, and on the other side of KSA are the Iraqi militias, also organized to strike. None of that is in the news. There has been no action taken by the Defense Ministry to defend the borders. UAE is a small state heavily dependent on Iran for trade and has been a past victim of Houthi missiles as well. Abu Dhabi has no real chance to succeed in a direct war with Iran or its proxies. Bahrain has a huge Shia presence linked to Hezbullah and Iran, and the Arab Spring would have resulted in the loss of monarchy there if not for the Saudis who are no longer in position or willing to defend them. We have seen the Saudi silence in the face of a recent Houthi drone attack on a Bahraini base in Yemen which killed several people and wounded over 50 Bahrainis.

The Islamists and their corrupt supporters who are now clearly taking charge of foreign policy in KSA  have been making money from the financial arrangements resulting from the normalization with Iran and not willing to give up power to face Iran off. They have allowed Iranian presence into the country with the return of the Iranian diplomats. They have also facilitated the free flow of intelligence through Qatar and Iran and Houthis, starting with the push for the ill-begotten Al-Ula agreement. The Foreign Ministry has for years have worked to legitimize the Houthis as a peace partner contrary to MBS’s and his brother’s agenda. For that reason, Khalid bin Salman, the defense minister, was seemingly missing in action during recent Houthi attacks on Saudi borders that killed several soldiers. Turkey is not so much worried about Iran as it agrees with its agenda on this issue and has been actively helping Iran. Erdogan has refused to oust Hamas from Turkey, and for years has allowed Hamas cells to plan attacks in Israel. Qatar has effectively sided with Iran – the coordinated statements following the October 7 attack are quite clear. Kuwait is essentially ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is overwhelmingly in control of the population, with the Royal Family forced to cater to their ideology. Oman is one of Iran’s top trade and military partners; Baghdad and Assad have been essentially coopted by Iran. The Iraqi government is hostage to Tehran’s whims. Egypt is increasingly isolated internationally; according to many reports, the Islamists in Egypt are on the rise and taking advantage of the economic crisis; pro-Islamist political factions in Egypt are more interested in working with Russia, China, and Iran than with the US.

In Morocco, the King has been less visible and there have been many shocking and largely unreported pro-Hamas rallies recently despite the Muslim Brotherhood party being formally out of government. There is reason to believe that many hidden Islamists rose through security institutions to take the royal system by surprise. Moreover, unideological but otherwise corrupt officials made common cause with Iran through covert trade circles and business deals despite lack of formal relations between these countries. These lobbies are now taking advantage of the regional situation to isolate those who have supported King Mohammed VI’s regional vision for integration. In short, anyone willing to stand up to Iran and its spheres of influence has been either discredited, ostracized, or compromised. The rest are either willing to help Iran or are scared of Pro-Iran forces and the potential and growing support for them from Russia and China. Simultaneously, US is clearly unwilling to engage in a show of direct force and even lets its own troops get attacked in Iraq and Syria.

Second, it has long since become apparent that Iran is the new leader and decisionmaker in the region; the Gaza summit runs parallel to a summit with Iran president who came to Saudi Arabia for this purpose. These two events cemented this perception. Although Saudi Arabia recently normalized with Iran, there are tensions inherent to this relationship; KSA remains a target of Iran’s theocratic dogma and single-minded dedication to become the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and Tehran’s aspiration to assert religious, not just geopolitical primacy over the region and the Muslim world. Iran has been calling the shots behind the scenes on the theater of war in Gaza and regionally the entire time; those who presume that Hezbullah or any other proxy makes its decision independently are misguided.

A WSJ report from 6 months before the October 7 attack on Israel underscores Iran’s influence, as an Iranian official traveled to Beirut in April to call on Gaza and Hezbullah to attack Israel; Ramadan riots, which also featured Palestinian Islamic Jihad rockets from Gaza ensued at about the same time. Later reports indicate that at least some officials in Iran had direct knowledge of the October 7 attack and gave a final approval to it; Hamas also indicated the level of long-term Iran support that went far beyond general proxy-building. A month before the Simchat Torah assault, 500 Hamas and PIJ fighter reportedly trained in Iran. All logistical and military calculations are done by Iran, and Iran calls the shots on the level of involvement by various proxies. Thus the summit is less about forcing Israel into a withdrawal and more about acknowledging Iran’s lead on this issue; GCC states and others need to appease Iran, not Israel, if they wish to avoid escalation and entrapment by Iran’s regional army; therefore the purpose of the summit was simply to ingratiate themselves to the overlords in Tehran. The summit represents a weakened Saudi Arabia and the Arab world to appease Iran and to follow its lead on information warfare for fear of being punished if they appear not sufficiently obsequious to its goals.

Third, it is clear that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is no longer in charge – if he ever was fully in charge – but is compelled to carry out instructions and to follow the official Saudi foreign policy dictated by others. Indeed, officially, the foreign policy of the country is subject only to the king himself. Much fanfare has been made in the media over Mohammed bin Salman’s allegedly assertive role in regional affairs; however, should the king choose to put a limit to this responsibility, his son would still have to follow the official orders as the Prime Minister. Moreover, while the king himself has not been visible in the past 6 months, it is very clear that given the choice, the Crown Prince would likely have continued his previous line, which has always clashed with the Foreign Ministry and other more conservative elements of the country’s advisory circles. This entire arrangement of normalizing with countries and ideologies he clearly despised, including Assad, who had very little to bring to the Saudi table, as well as the tone of the two summits, have run so sharply in contrast to his previously stated concerns and policies that one can only surmise the Crown Prince has been deprived of any choice on the course of the events.

The answer to who is really running the show in Saudi Arabia lies with the people who have been pushing a pro-Iran and pro-Houthi policy the entire time, such as the long-serving Saudi Ambassador to Yemen, Mohammed AlJaber, who has been in that position since before Mohammed bin Salman rose to his current status, and who has been pushing for diplomatic channels with Houthi and undermining the official defense policy at the time Mohammed bin Salman was still the Defense Minister. Others of that ilk have been making more frequent appearance in public pushing the Palestinian cause in contrast to MBS’s efforts, since the start of the COVID pandemic, as the supporters of the Crown Prince’s policies became increasingly quieter first in the Saudi Arabic language media, and then in the outreach to the pro-Israel circles in the US. One early warning sign of the change in the political trajectory was Prince Turki Al Faisal’s surprise appearance at the Manama Summit immediately following the conclusion of Saudi Arabia’s G20 hosting duties in late November 2020, where he waxed at length about the importance of that issue while attacking Israel, despite the fact that the very purpose of the Manama Summit was to disengage from the old-school politicizing of the Palestinian cause. Its aim, undermined by Turki Al-Faisal’s comments, was to focus on integrating the region, including Israelis and Palestinians under the economic umbrella, envisioned by the Trump administration.

People such as AlJaber and Turki Al-Faisal are the so-called “Old Guard” of the Saudi politics, the portion of the Royal Family close to the late King Abdullah and the former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, many of whom share pro-Muslim Brotherhood paradigm and who even attempted to reunify Hamas and Fatah at a summit in Saudi Arabia over Ramadan this past year. Turki Al Faisal is also the former Saudi intelligence chief, who had faded into the background as the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had risen in influence, but who has, for the last three years, once again displaced Mohammed bin Salman in public view, especially with respect to addressing regional concerns. Turki Al-Faisal has in fact recently restated Saudi opposition over the war in Gaza, attacking Netanyahu, repeating the Foreign Ministry’s initial position that Israel brought the Hamas attack on itself, and justifying the Hamas attack as provoked by “occupation”, a message that had been widely shared by Hamas and by Muslim Brotherhood in the days and weeks preceding Turki Al-Faisal’s public appearance. His role in this matter was surprising, because normally MBS or his brother, Khalid bin Salman, the defense minister, would have been expected to express the official foreign policy. The shift indicates that despite senior official titles, the order of importance has shifted from Salman’s and his sons to some other branch of the family, and Prince Turki was speaking on their behalf.

Finally, the collective gathering to issue the statement calling for an immediate ceasefire and rejecting Israel’s claim to self-defense, underscores that all who gathered there, however reluctantly, have agreed to accept Iran as the leader on the Palestinian cause and have also accepted Iran’s position that Hamas, rather than anyone else, represents Palestinians. By agreeing to these underlying premises, the participants have implicitly acknowledged that they are also accepting all claims by Hamas, however unlikely, self-serving, and outright fictitious. This means that by accepting Hamas’s legitimacy in public and its rule over Gaza this gathering may eventually act beyond verbiage such as the failed motion to impose an oil embargo to force the US and its allies to pressure Israel into putting a stop to combat and to save Hamas from severe military losses. UAE and Bahrain have rejected the breakdown of the Abraham Accords de jure, but de fact the damage has been significant. In months leading up to the attack, there already has been a roll back in the sale of Israeli products in UAE; pro-Israel speakers were becoming unwelcome at the Emirati universities. And while the Bahraini shura (council) never ratified the Abraham Accords to begin with, the fact that it was now vocally rising up to challenge the foreign policy adopted by the King is also a worrying sign. 

Ultimately, 11 countries declined to ratify the punitive clauses that would sanction #Israel, embargo oil in a repetition of the 1973 crisis, or severe diplomatic relations. In fact, according to media reports, KSA was one of the countries to help block the most extreme of these initiatives. The reasons for that may seem paradoxical given the context. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine with doing underhanded business deals with Israeli companies so long as they are registered outside Israel. Moreover, the Saudis and Israelis, along with the other Abraham Accords signatories, continue some level of defense cooperation. But any political, social, and cultural movement towards improved relations, much less formal diplomacy, has become a taboo topic.  American Jews, such Jared Kushner, are given a platform to push for normalization at public business events aimed at attracting foreign investors; however, that topic is not visited in internal discussions. Likewise, the feverish media campaign about the alleged prospects for normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, was superficial; there was no real movement in that direction, as confirmed to the author from multiple sources. It was politically beneficial to the US, to Netanyahu who strove to tout regional diplomacy and to distract from domestic upheavals, and gave the Saudis an excuse to earn some cheap PR points with Biden in an election year while pushing for defense-related concessions. October 7 gave them a much needed excuse to withdraw from the appearance of talks – always exclusively with the US, with no participation by any Israeli officials – rather quickly. But Saudi Arabia was not the only interested party in the double talk on this issue – tough political posturing on the one hand, while looking for leeway to avoid a complete breakdown in relations. Egypt, too, despite a significant bilateral deterioration in relations, has avoided withdrawing from the peace treaty. At least one of the reasons for that is economic: Cairo is dealing with a significant economic crisis; Israel’s withdrawal from gas related extraction as a result of the war impacted Egypt’s business. It also cannot afford to lose the remnants of US aid, directly dependent on normalized relations.

Countries like Mauritania and Somalia were alleged to be in the middle of rapprochement with Israel and one or both of them were expected to join up with the regional ministerial N7 gathering that was to be held by Morocco, and that had already been postponed even before the attack. Maintaining a lifeline to Israel out of economic self-interest may prevent a repetition of the 1970s for now; if the war lingers on, that could change. However, despite avoiding a drastic fallout, the Arab states are faced with the reality that the Hamas attack on Israel in the wake of the US continued search for some sort of a diplomatic breakthrough leaves them vulnerable to Iran, as Israel is now perceived to be weakened. They are losing control of their own populations, which, by and large, did not back the Abraham Accords and did not have an opportunity to be fully immersed in the people-to-people outreach. The attack has reversed much of the slow progress made over the past years since the conclusion of the Accords, and probably set back these relations many years.

Indeed, despite suffering military losses in Gaza, Hamas is enjoying its greatest public relations victory since the 2007 takeover of Gaza in the partial elections that took place. The rhetoric from the Arab and Muslim states is emboldening the fighters to continue its stand-off with Israel; the successful galvanizing of the masses of supporters globally are amplifying the propaganda success, and the recruitment of new followers who are now reinvigorated by the apparent mass victory, and example of the Hamas fighters in avoiding detecting and striking a major blow to the enemy, is likely through the roof. That, too, has an impact on the Arab street who for years was beginning to think that Muslim Brotherhood-linked movements were dying. The OCtober 7 attack sent the message to the contrary. The result is now an additional pressure factor on the Arab governments to avoid internal upheaval they may not be able to control

Israel’s messaging has not always been effective either, in this context. The government sees its neighbors as having turned against it and views such actions as betrayal. But countries like Egypt are left in between a rock and a hard place, and are managing to hold back waves of popular resentment as some of the military action by Israel near their own borders that they see as overreach and which may not be necessary to meet immediate objectives. Israel, in an uncompromising mode, is unlikely to be listening to these concerns, which only adds fuel to the fire. Without a doubt, however, the hardcore conservatives in the Middle East, are taking full advantage of this congruence of factors to their full advantage. Let’s recall a telling revelation from the recent explosive Semafor article by Jay Solomon, who reveals the extent of IRanian influence campaigns in Europe and the United States.

Ariane Tabatabai, currently a Pentagon official who still has access to classified information, at one point turned to senior Iranian officials for guidance on some of her duties. She was told to hold off responding to an invitation by Israelis to a conference there, but received a greenlight to accept an approach from Turki Al-Faisal in Saudi Arabia, which took place in 2014, years before Mohammed bin Salman reached the peak of his influence. At the time, it appears, Iran viewed the Saudi Old Guard as a possible partner for some of its agenda. After all, Khomeini had the Muslim Brotherhood texts translated to Farsi and popularized in Iran following the Islamic Revolution. Despite some ideological differences, the revolutionary fervor, nepotism, corruption, conservatism, and similar dogmatic and authoritarian approaches among the Islamists in power circles were, on some level, always stronger than ethnic and religious strife that has kept Iran and Saudi Arabia at a distance historically. All of these factors were bubbling under the surface of the Arab-Muslim Summit – but this complex history and political dynamics were apparently disregarded by the US officials who had spent countless hours since the war broke out traveling around the region in an effort to bring the regional leaders into the US fold on this issue and against Hamas.

Despite this seemingly active shuttle regional diplomacy by various high level US officials, the outcome has been a dismal failure. The limitation of the US foreign policy is that it has not brought anything to the table that would address any of the above mentioned concerns. It has not given up on a futile policy of trying to come to a deal with Iran; it has not properly countered China’s growing political and aspirational military presence in the Middle East and North Africa; it has not been willing to name Iran’s direct hand in the October 7 attack, and it has not provided its Middle Eastern allies with any reassurances, commitments, or offers that would make it worth their while to align with Israel. 

It has also failed to differentiate between the various competing factions in these governments and the divergent interests over the future of their countries, much less the general trajectory of the region. The conservatives in GCC begrudgingly went along with some of the more aggressive reforms, particularly in Saudi Arabia, but overall wished to limit these reforms to specific economic and cosmetic social changes, without a full reimaging of the entire infrastructure and political direction of their societies, which would include a more open and integrated approach to other ethnicities, religious views, and countries. They viewed most of MBS’s Vision2030 as fundamentally in conflict with their own values, but so long as he appeared to have power and some level of backing from the US, were willing to play along. The Khashoggi fallout undid much of the international good will, weakened the Crown Prince politically, and gave these factions an an opening to return to power and to put pressure from within to hinder, slow down, or reverse the progress made in reimagining Saudi Arabia and the region away from these fundamentalist or in many cases, completely ahistorical convictions and misinterpretations. These factions were willing to use the Palestinian cause to retain or regain the favor of the street, and for decades have been much more conciliatory towards Iran than the more nationalist-inclined of the factions, such as the reformists. T

hey believed that they could come to some sort of a power sharing understanding with Tehran, and on the basis of tribal and nepotistic interests, were more concerned with what would happen to their own private fiefdoms and gravy trains, than how Iran’s hold in the region could affect the societies and the region overall. Hence, we saw years of parallel shadow diplomacy with the Houthis, Iran, and other proxies and factions that seemed to contradict and undermine the official, assertive line and defense position which also extended to other Saudi allies. Ultimately, such positioning not only contributed to the weakening of the nationalist line and leadership in KSA, but contributed to strife with some of its closest regional allies. Similarly, UAE was maneuvered by such lobbies away from a strong cohesive line supportive of an anti-Islamist anti-Iran position, and into rivalry with Riyadh. The result of these divisive politics was increased regional sectarianism, deteriorating relations, and opening for Iran and its proxies to divide, conquer, and push their own agendas, while isolating Arab states, and turning them against each other.  Moreover, Israel’s catastrophic intelligence failures made it appear weak and isolated, undermining its position as a regional asset capable of standing up to Iran. ISrael was once seen as an additional unifying factor that could bring the region together against Iran and smooth over the edges among the Arab “brothers”. But that perception started to change with the Al Ula agreement, which brought Qatar, as a Trojan horse, back into the fold of the Arab states, and weakened Israel’s position.

The October 7 events struck an even stronger blow to Israel’s deteriorating status. The only way for it to accomplish that  – to return to the prestige of the bygone era of only a few years ago – is to restore deterrence, but because it is seen as the “weaker horse”, the Arab and Muslim world will be working against it, not with it, in this matter (the Gaza war). US and Israel are also not willing to confront the fact of Islamist agenda, generously funded by Qatar, continuing to repeat past political mistakes in that regard, which only empowers the anti-Islamist elements. ISrael has had a policy of non-interference in the internal political affairs of the Arab states; it showed no particular interest in the power struggle between the reformists and the Old Guard; the Sunni and the Shia; the nationalists and the nepotists. And the US, for decades, preferred the Islamists and genuinely considered them as a grassroots movement reflective of the majority of the population, and thus worthy of respect, rather than than a fanatic, exclusivist, hierarchical highly tribal faction that represented problematic ideology that threatened US security interests in the region and beyond. Both countries, Israel and the US,  have either intentionally or by negligence betrayed the reformists in Saudi Arabia, who previously led the region and their effort to stand up to Iran, leading to a chain of events which culminated in the Arab-Islamic Summit in Saudi Arabia; the only way to fix the situation is for Israel to prevail and to wise up to the fact that Iran and Hamas are political problems as much as military ones while finding a way to help their few beleaguered allies.

Irina Tsukerman is a Fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute and a Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Discussions surrounding the entrance into a Third World War by some media commentaries take the position that wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East will lead to an inevitable conflict between China and Taiwan without many other options to quell the oncoming conflict. While the War in Ukraine was entering a period of set defensive positions and trench warfare, September of 2023 actually saw an upcoming peace treaty forming in the Middle East between two of its major powers, China attempting to play the role as peace broker between conflicting parties, and India making roads into regions beyond its own to balance the power dynamic abroad. Conflict is never inevitable, but contributing to self inflicted wounds will always have a negative impact on one’s own society.

Russia has been able to renew production in one of its main factories that produce the T-72B3M tank and the newer and more modern T-90 and T-90M tanks due to increased revenues gained during the war. While Russia has been taking old stocks of T-62s and T-55s and putting them into active combat, the revenue it has gained from oil sales since heavy sanctions were placed on them since the start of the war in 2022 has not hurt Russia’s economy as intended. Some analysts claim that while Russian oil exports were cut to some degree to the rest of Europe, a main source of oil from Azerbaijan to Europe could include a good percentage of Russian energy exports. It is claimed that Russia has been able to still sell its energy exports to Europe through third countries, who purchases the oil from Russia and sells it into Europe via their established links. If generally known by NATO and its allies, funds going through a third party to Russia is clearly and knowingly evading sanctions and fuelling not only European energy grids, but Russian tank factories extending the war. Increased military spending to Ukraine thus becomes less effective when funds are also leaking into Russia to support their war economy as well. Quelling further conflict is an economic issue as much as it depends on victories on the battlefield. NATO must secure their energy needs from their allies to end the war. Funding conflict by any means only leads to more conflict.

The result of the oil dependency on Azerbaijan has lead to conflict on the borders of Europe and Russia, where a historic act of Ethnic Cleansing has taken place as a result of the situation discussed above. In September of 2023, the region of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh was taken over by Azeri forces completely, and much of the ancient Armenian population of the region was actively and passively removed from the ethnic enclave they have resided in for thousands of years. Russian treaties establishing peacekeepers in the region was not activated in 2023 due to Russian attention in Ukraine, as well as what some suggest the oil arrangement mentioned above between Russia and Azerbaijan. American efforts to negotiate between the two sides gave few results, while US NATO ally Turkey, enabled much of the military achievements by Azerbaijan over Armenian militia in Artsakh. As recent as September 2023, a major human rights tragedy has taken place, with little to no mention of it in Western media, even though it was against Western strategic interests and values.

The links between Russia, Iran and China are often geographical, and like minded peoples in the region should be welcomed without reservations to bolster a peaceful alliance of nations. The historic neutral position India has taken had always enabled it to be a broker between NATO and the Soviet Union in the past, and had lead to some interesting agreements. An example of this is the Indian military, that uses French aircraft and British equipment while producing under contract Ex-Soviet and Russian weapons for their domestic military. Much of the export focus and infrastructure agreements between Russia and Iran focuses on a path to get Russian export to India, one of Russia’s largest markets. While the West should allow India to take any measures it deems necessary to secure their national interests, it should also stand with India against threats it sees in its own region from fundamentalism and pressure from China. India is set to become one of the most powerful nations in the world, and is the key to many peace agreements by working to end conflicts to its own benefit. India has even sold MLRS systems Armenia, seeing that distant nation as one that should be supported, even when Russia and the United States had let their community suffer another bout of atrocities. Any NATO or Western ally that intends to sour relations with India or enable further conflict will only enable future wars. India and its values are similar to those in the West, and support for those values are what ends future conflicts.

Western countries must be clear and concise in applying their laws equally, and should have zero tolerance for activities in their nations that produce conflict locally and in other parts of the world. This also means that actions in Western countries should have legal and political consequences if they contribute to conflict, terror and atrocities themselves. Funding for groups and the enablement of systemic corruption to foreign nations via systemic loopholes is one of the key sources of financing for many of the security issues we see today. This applies abroad, as well as internally. Allowing illegal funds to flow through a stable community will subject many legal transactions to sanctions due to their links to crimes against humanity abroad. A purchase of a car or even a home can produce a massive loss of assets if it discovered that the asset is linked to nefarious organisations, and a Western or any Government should be liable if it allows extreme elements to benefit or manipulate their economic systems to the detriment of their own populations. Allies must be allies in every sense of the word, or be ejected from NATO and other organisations for negligence and corruption. As we see post Sept 2023, a false ally leads to some of the worst consequences known to humanity.

The Sinjar Mountain range was the site of a massacre of the small Yazidi community in 2014.

The values that created the concept of Proportionality are as essential to a democratic system as the core tenets of Human Rights and all core Constitutional foundations. Arbitrary justice towards innocent people are as damaging as the disproportionate application of laws and state actions towards anyone accused of an act against the state. This basic standard has to be applied even in cases when an illegal act occurred, is unproven, or simply fictional. Ignoring or removing Proportionality from society does not only unravel justice, but is inherently Anti-Renaissance and has no final resolution that would be recognisable in a modern society.

The normalisation of brutal actions against some of the oldest cultures to still exist on Earth came after 2013 when the world was forced to acknowledge the human rights atrocities taking place in the Sinjar Mountains against a small, ancient community known as the Yazidis. Like many of the oldest communities to still exist in that region, that era saw the introduction of atrocities reflective of the most darkest of ages, with actions being taken against defenseless civilians not seen since the Second World War.

Despite that era demonstrating the capacity of brutality against innocents, there was little discussion of atrocities taking place against the Yazidis after the initial condemnation. While conflict was still taking place and shifts in territory and power were constant, the initial response from Western media turned to silence on the issue. Despite many being taken into slavery, tortured and executed for simply being born of their ancient culture, an unacceptable silence was coordinated that avoided and ignored their plight. The commission of acts of crime against humanity done to Yazidi women and youth, along with such crimes against other ethnic minorities inside Iraq and the surrounding region, was not unique to being subject to silence. Since then, silence has come in the same manner to other human rights atrocities and in many cases were made to become an appalling standard for acceptance. What such responses have done was to normalise a mark on humanity where our descendants will look back at our time in history with shame.

The silence and normalisation of the actions taken against the Yazidi and other victims of brutality did not end with a silence of words, but continued with silencing justice as well. While some Yazidi women were able to escape and survive their atrocity, there were  documented cases in a Western countries where the Yazidi refugee/survivor ran into their torturer in the same country and city they sought protection in. In one notable case, when the refugee sought help and protection after being threatened yet again, she was told to be silent about it and ignore her most basic rights to justice and security. The same government who pushed her silence then used such silence to create more danger to her and others afterward, eventually celebrating their historic loss of Proportionality in an epic display of both ignorance and viciousness in their democracy. This normalisation started a trend that has now become something most would see as unrecognisable to their community just a few very short years ago.

The normalisation of this unravelling of Proportionality through silence, harassment, and open contempt for others has no end game that would build anything apart from a disproportionate set of laws that only offer justice to a few generational elites and those who would commit to power through coercion. The reality is that such actions have that as their core purpose. That purpose has no future for any of us in any form.

The fall of the Soviet Union lead to severe economic and security challenges for Russia and its former Soviet States. The recent fall of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan and evacuation of the historical Armenians in the region was a direct result of Russia no longer challenging for the safety of their religious allies. Russia always took to protecting their Armenian allies, who were under the protection of Russia for generations, and maintained a status quo in the region since 1991. This failure to shield them from religious and ethnic conflict near Russia’s borders in 2023 may be a policy that those living in Russia would have a difficult time supporting.

While the lines in Ukraine seems to have solidified for the time being, the end result of the depletion of Russian forces and influence in regions that once bordered the Soviet Union is significant. Russia suffered greatly from extremist elements of their own after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the two wars in Chechnya causing great harm and political chaos for Russians in the not too distant past. The Beslan School Massacre and terror attack in the Moscow Theater Siege were some of the most horrific acts of violence against Russian citizens since the Second World War. Much of the issues on Russia’s southern border regions was the motivation for sending in Russian Armed Forces in a multi year operation against ISIS in Syria, ending in a change in operational culture and ethics by Russian soldiers themselves being witness to the brutality of that war. This exposure to excessive violence may have resulted in a mindset that ended with atrocities being committed under the Russian flag in Ukraine.

Recent events in the Middle East will play greatly into the view Russians will have of their own Government in the near future. While Russia produced some of the most advanced technologies and weapons in human history, the purchase of low technology drones from Iran to be used as terror weapons in Ukraine is a strategy that would not be recognizable by their grandparents who liberated many Concentration Camps and won what they call in Russian, The Great Patriotic War. Much of the public support Russia receives for its military in Ukraine comes from the past honours it achieved against liberating Eastern Europe from the Nazis. This historical tradition is one of the main narratives Russia uses as a motivation for the war in Ukraine. Tying themselves to allies that would cause chaos in their southern regions and that have a major role in the current death and kidnapping of Russian nationals is not what past generations would have accepted as a norm for Russia.

While Russia had assumed an assertive, but privately neutral position with all the major powers in the Middle East, it is difficult to see why they would decide to link themselves to narratives that have caused chaos in the past within their own borders and lead to the death of Russians themselves. Russia is still a significant player in their own region and those adjacent, and any actions that pull them towards civilian deaths caused by interests far from their own is something most Russians will remember for generations. These crucial policy decisions can unravel stability very quickly, usually not to the benefit of innocent people. Such events are not unknown to those who grew up in Russia or the former Soviet Union, and can easily become today’s reality.

Undoubtedly, Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was a miscalculation. Nevertheless, many international observers were shocked when Russian tanks started to roll across the border despite mounting evidence that Putin would go through with it. Ostracizing his country from the Western liberal economies was incomprehensible to most. At the same time, it is all too easy to denounce his exploits as the work of a revisionist madman. Yes, Ukraine was once a part of the Soviet Union, and Putin certainly disdains NATO expansion, but there is an ideology underlying his seemingly erratic behavior. This year, the Russian Federation officially adopted Eurasianism as its foreign policy concept. A peculiar fusion of Russian imperialism and socialism, this socio-political dogma looks set to guide Russia’s role in the world for the remainder of Putin’s tenure. But what exactly is Eurasianism, and what geographical region even constitutes Eurasia?

In 1881, poet Fyodor Dostoevsky remarked of the Russians, “In Europe we were Tatars, whereas in Asia we, too, are Europeans.” After a series of political setbacks in Europe during the late 19th century, the Russian elite started to embrace the geographical and cultural isolation that the Western powers long looked down upon. Turning inwards and to the East for inspiration, many concluded that Russia is neither European nor Asiatic but rather a unique conglomeration of the two. This shift in mentality marked a departure from the Westernization process initiated by Peter the Great and laid the foundation of Eurasianism.

In its earliest form, the ideology emerged as an alternative to Bolshevism, developed in exile by White Russian émigrés who fled the 1917 October Revolution. However, the philosophy gained little traction, and it was not until the fall of the Soviet Union that it resurfaced. That collapse, which Putin called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” left an ideological void in Russia for the first time in its history. “Each stage had its own ideology,” said the recently reelected President Boris Yeltsin in 1996, but now, he continued, “We have none.” Unquestionably, this period of political disorientation played a pivotal role in Putin’s psychological development, who remained determined to restore meaning to the Russian government and the place it once held in the world.

The 2023 foreign policy concept designates Russia as a “Eurasian and Euro-Pacific power.” In the Kremlin’s eyes, Eurasia includes, at a minimum, all the former territories of the Soviet Union. By virtue of geography and historical destiny, Russia sees itself as the region’s predominant power, asserting its rightful sphere of influence. Moreover, the concept characterizes Russia as a “country-civilization” with unique values, morals, and historical mission. Consequently, the country cannot be evaluated or understood through the Western lens of liberal democracy. According to the document, this mission is to maintain the global balance of power and foster a multipolar international system. In practice, this aspiration reflects the long-held Eurasianist goal of positioning Russia as an alternative center of power, distinct from the West and Asia. Reminiscent of the USSR’s lost international prominence, Putin envisions his country as the future military-political nucleus of the non-Western world. As expected, this vision and so-called historical mission are inseparable from his desire to erode America’s global influence.

Thus, it probably comes with little surprise that today’s Eurasianists are vehemently anti-Western, particularly against the U.S. and its associated values. America is portrayed as the archetypal nemesis, imposing its democratic norms and way of life on the world. In contrast, Eurasianists are fiercely traditional and religious, at least in principle, maintaining a quasi-spiritual outlook. They perceive a West suffering from intellectual and societal decay, forsaking its Christian values. Following decades of suppression under the Soviets, the Russian Orthodox Church has regained its influential role in society and consistently supported Putin’s imperialist inclinations. Like the Moscow Patriarchate, autocratic traditions run deep in Russian history, with Putin the latest in a long line of absolutists. Eurasianists contend that democracy is dangerous, individualistic, hedonistic, and antithetical to the country’s political foundations.

In retrospect, Putin’s speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference made it perfectly clear that his patience with the West and its rules-based order was starting to run thin. Unfortunately, European and American leaders dismissed it as a one-off tirade, believing the Russian threat died with the Soviet Union never to rise again. Nearly 17 years later, U.S.-Russian relations are as strained as they were at any point during the Cold War.

While a complete rapprochement between Moscow and the West appears exceptionally elusive, Eurasianism offers a glimpse of how future Russian foreign policy might unfold. To be sure, Putin remains a pragmatic opportunist subservient to no ideology. However, given the rupture between his country and the West, Eurasianism provides a rationale for his diplomatic reorientation to Southeast Asia. This shift is already evident, with China and India purchasing oil at discount rates while supplying goods targeted by Western sanctions to Russia. In the first seven months of 2023, Beijing’s total trade with Moscow increased 36% from a year before. Beyond expanding economic ties, Putin’s activities abroad signal a clear intent to challenge the existing order, supposedly in an attempt to fulfill its historic mission as the facilitator of global multipolarity. Whether it is pushing for the rapid expansion of BRICS or courting dictators in the Middle East, the essence of this guiding doctrine appears centered on diminishing American influence at every available opportunity. Serving as the bridge between Asia and Europe, the successful realization of Eurasianist thought in Russia hinges on its dominance of the near abroad, a harsh lesson that the Ukrainian people are tragically experiencing. The prospects of Putin restoring Russia’s place in the world are doubtful, but one thing is certain: his Eurasianist principles ensure that his country will not go down without a fight.

It is Common Knowledge that Soviet Soldiers Liberated Many Concentration Camps during the Second World War

In past posts on this page, I discussed what decisions are more likely to hurt a plausible victory for Ukraine and their allies by way of their own hands, as opposed to strategic decisions made by Russia during the conflict in Ukraine. Many of these bad decisions subsequently ramped up quite rapidly and in a short period of time, creating a larger cost to support for Ukraine than existed previously. Many of these problems were created by Allies to the war effort that have taken actions that may hurt Ukraine more than the help that was intended. While I will refrain from labelling a specific ally, this is a case study on how to not support your ally, and a notable one at that.

A few short weeks ago, one of Ukraine’s allies took to creating a diplomatic row with India. This was done in a method that is considered an aggressive and unusual diplomatic move between the two countries, seen as allies in their own right. India, as we have discussed in the past, is likely the key to many peace treaties and has value in creating diplomatic solutions between Russia and its allies, and Ukraine and their allies. India, as being a large and significant power in their region, is able to work with and have good relations with all sides in the conflict as neither side is willing to risk good relations with India over India’s own best self interests, even if it gives strength to the other side of the conflict. With Ukraine’s Ally pressuring India, India may alienate Ukrainian Allies in general or be motivated to give added support to Russia, where less critical diplomatic postures address concerns with the one of the world’s most significant democracies.

India’s position in the region has placed it on the opposite side of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, where military support of Armenia and its people has run contrary to NATO allies permitting the Azeri military pushing out the Armenian population out of their historic ethnic region. While NATO and their supporting allies have invested billions a month to defend the civilian populations in Ukraine, there is little mention of the forced expulsion of Armenians from their homes in the region at the other end of the old Soviet sphere of influence. While Russian support for the region waned, American negotiations failed. The end result was another notable shock to a community that has suffered ethnic cleansing too many times over the last century and a half.

Turning back to the row with India, the same ally who is currently losing diplomats in India has been pitting the needs of their own population against support for Ukraine. The effect of underfunding their largest city and economy has turned the city into a place with high crime and limited systemic solutions for crime, poverty, housing and health care. It has come to the point that those who are physically weaker are afraid to use public transport, making them unable to pay for higher food and shelter taxes added on bi-annually by the Government. This Government sent a letter to the city saying they refuse to give them Covid funding that was previously promised, always highlighted by their support for Ukraine. This same Government then boasted that they have given appx.$6-$7 Billion of aid to Ukraine, despite not meeting their NATO minimum obligations and now deciding to cut military funding by nearly $1 Billion to their own soldiers, despite having their own near border with Russia. But this is not the worst of it…

In an act of extreme negligence or horrific intent, it was made evident that this ally of Ukraine has been accepting extremist elements from various groups around the world into their country for generations, nullifying any prosecution of their crimes, in many cases, crimes against humanity. The presenting of a member of the 14th SS Galicia Division in their Parliament was an offense to victims of Genocide worldwide, done during a state visit by Zelinsky himself close to Yom Kippur. This particular Division of the Nazi SS was known to be so severe that German soldiers at the time saw them as brutal and extreme in their own right, eliminating 98% of the Jewish population of the Galicia region. This Ukrainian SS officer was easily known to be part of the German 14th SS Division, and was taken as a hero in his fight against Russia in the Second World War by the Government of this Ally before their mea culpa. While Soviet soldiers of Russian, Ukrainian and other origins were liberating Concentration Camps in Galicia, a man who helped wipe out family after family in the region was praised. To this day, the sitting Government’s Cabinet has taken little personal or direct accountability for inviting such a man, despite their own Deputy Prime Minister being an academic expert on Ukraine herself. While Russians are constantly told that their historic enemies from Nazi Germany are the catalyst for this war in Ukraine, this Ally of Ukraine created the biggest propaganda tool for Putin that could ever have been wished for in 2023. On top of this, Poland is now seeking his extradition for war crimes from the Ally. With the same Ally refusing to sell oil and gas to Europe to displace Russian oil export wealth, it is surprising that such allegiances are deemed as acceptable by Ukraine or any nations seeking to help Ukraine win the war.

No one will voluntarily fight and die for the leader of such an Ally, and ties between Zelinsky and such an Ally will do nothing more but taint the valor of their Armed Forces. If Ukraine wishes to win this war, or at least meet reasonable objectives, they need to cut those who will make economic, political, public relations, and security losses a certainty.

The Paris Gun was used by Germany to shell Paris from a great distance during the First World War. It was the largest cannon in the world at the time.

Pressure has been put on Ukraine during the summer counter-offensive to make notable, media worthy gains in taking back lost territories from Russia. The amount of equipment being supplied by their allies and the motivation for more advanced systems depends upon the level of support the public has for Ukraine’s offensive in those nations supporting Ukraine financially and militarily. Even if the public in allied countries see the good in helping Ukraine, the amount of pressure on locals financially, via inflationary pressures, and their level of safety in their own community, will be juxtaposed against support for the war. For those policy makers wanting to support Ukraine and its people, it should be acknowledged that pressure on locals in their own countries at least need to be vocalized as being of equal priority to supporting Ukraine in the conflict. Ignoring this goal will do more harm to Ukraine in the medium term than denying them Leopard 2A6s and F-16s.

A standstill in the conflict and entrenchment can be harmful for the war effort if it extends the conflict past the support it has outside of Ukraine. A First World War scenario might be forming in some parts of the front where artillery exchanges and barrages make up much of the tactical movement on the field. The logistical weight of the conflict has already depleted the stock of arms on both sides, and with mothballed equipment from the United States coming though to the front, and Russia seeking compatible weapons from a Soviet design heritage, a longer term conflict might be the end result. Actions by Russia that might give them some realistic advantages comes from seeking weapons from North Korea for its forces in Ukraine. Despite some equipment being out of date, a 100mm cannon and armour that can mount ERA protection is better than not having it at all, and such equipment is still harmful to enemy infantry. Gaining access to 152mm artillery shells can create chaos for the attacking side, a role Ukraine has taken on this year with expected difficulty. Even a 1960s artillery shell can cause a great deal of damage to modern equipment, and many modern barrels have already gone past their effective time of use. With modern targeting systems, old Soviet equipment can be as effective as some modern systems.

Acts such as pushing for a new global currency via the BRICS+ nations will be less of a threat to the US Dollar and the political weight it gives to the United States. While Russia is already linking its economy Eastwards to China and India, the reality is that the diverse needs of the initial four BRIC nations was unsuccessful in dominating the world economy as a group. Expanding the BRICS+ only exacerbates the problem by adding other countries to the group, with more diverse interests, varied allegiances and a few in open conflict with each other. There are no conditions between those nations that would allow them to operate and share a common currency at this point.

A standstill might be exactly what Russia is seeking as a long term strategy, as they know that local citizens in countries supporting Ukraine are paying for much of the aid without payment in return, have limited patience for added stresses in their own lives, and have their own political divisions that work in Russia’s favour. Countries outside of Central Europe may not feel an immediate threat from the war, but will respond if their fuel, heat and employment are effected by the lack of energy in their community. Some of Ukraine’s allies who can help resist breaking their own environmental policies to aid Ukraine, and many countries have local crime and drug problems that affect citizens daily while the price of basic goods increase. For this reason, Russia has withdrawn from the Grain Deal and has attacked some of Ukraine’s grain supplies in Odesa, a port that ships essential food to much of the world. If Ukraine is to be helped, local Governments in those nations providing aid can no longer ignore local problems, as citizens have a limited amount of patience, health, and money to support themselves and an extended war policy from home.

The 15th annual BRICS summit kicked off on August 22nd in Johannesburg, South Africa, in its most widely observed meeting to date. As the acronym suggests, leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa convened for a three-day conference with expansion at the top of the agenda. Because Vladimir Putin has an arrest warrant with the International Criminal Court, his attendance came virtually, sparing South Africa the diplomatic headache. Presented as an alternative to the U.S.-led liberal international order and a representative of the Global South, the BRICS group is determined to challenge the “Washington Consensus-driven Bretton Woods Institutions.” This year’s gathering culminated with an invitation to six countries: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Even before this expansion, the rise of BRICS has prompted doomsday calls in Western media outlets regarding the future of the U.S. Dollar and the structure of international finance. However, if the bloc is to become a counterweight to the Bretton Woods system, it will need to harmonize its members competing interests and geopolitical ambitions.

The story started in 2001 when Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neil used the term ‘BRIC’ to describe the fastest-growing economies in the developing world. However, the coalition was only formed in 2009 with its inaugural summit, incorporating South Africa the following year to become BRICS. Fast forward fourteen years: the bloc constitutes 43% of the world’s population, 16% of its trade, and boasts a GDP surpassing the G7. The prevailing sentiment among its members is that current global governance institutions overly centralize power in the U.S. and fellow liberal democracies. At the same time, their dependency on the U.S. dollar creates vulnerabilities and restricts monetary autonomy. Even though the BRICS have made tangible efforts toward what they call a more equitable and multipolar order, such as The New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the impact has been minute thus far. There is even debate about a potential BRICS currency akin to the Euro, but this is as unrealistic as it would be economically catastrophic.

While these developments are not insignificant, behind the curtain, there is a lack of consensus on purpose and trajectory among BRICS leaders. Aside from using the organization as a vehicle to increase global influence, the bloc comprises countries with differing agendas and motivations. For its part, China sees BRICS as a strategic instrument for counterbalancing America’s international power projection, expanding its economic reach, and supplanting the U.S. dollar’s trade role with the renminbi. During the summit, President Xi Jinping appealed to the resource-rich Global South, arguing for the group’s rapid enlargement while laying veiled criticism toward the West.

On the other hand, India advocates a more cautious approach regarding new members, fearing the bloc’s transformation into a Beijing-run forum dedicated to opposing American interests. Moreover, China and India have unsettled territorial disputes, underscored by recent skirmishes along the Line of Actual Control.

Meanwhile, Putin is eager to demonstrate that, despite Western Sanctions, his country is not diplomatically isolated. In tune with Beijing, he argues for the swift enlargement of BRICS throughout the developing world. However, Putin’s refusal to renew the grain accord with Ukraine and the continued weaponization of the global food supply cast a grim shadow over Russia’s relationship with emerging economies.

Regarding Brazil and South Africa, both countries want to increase their global influence without antagonizing the U.S., which is made more difficult with the addition of Iran. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa even said afterward that the “BRICS is not anti-West.” Looking to spearhead the African Agenda, Ramaphosa has pressed for the swift inclusion of African nations, while Brazil wants a slower expansion for fear of diluting its influence.

When looking at the new members, specifically Iran, it appears China and Russia’s position prevailed. Despite Ramaphosa’s comment, Iran’s inclusion immediately gives the impression that economic initiatives are taking a backseat to Putin and Xi’s efforts to form a coalition against the U.S. Officials in Washington downplayed the developments, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan saying that the White House does not perceive BRICS as an emerging “geopolitical rival.”

The competing incentives within the group throw into question the idea of the bloc as anything more than a financial forum. For one, there are significant economic and political disparities among member states. Simultaneously, BRICS contains the world’s largest democracy and autocracy, and now arguably two of the most repressive regimes in Moscow and Tehran. While deviating ideologies can hamper long-term decision-making and cooperation, the fiscal variations exceed those of the political ones. These financial differences do not bode well for any future bloc currency, especially considering how uneven development levels under the Euro exacerbated the fallout from the 2009 eurozone crisis. Sanctions against Russia also complicate matters for the bloc, as the New Development Bank has refrained from investing in the country. Furthermore, if BRICS is not a Chinese-dominated economic tool, then the addition of new members makes agreement ever more elusive.

With that said, the American-led order is far from perfect, with the last successful international response dating back to the Great Financial Crisis. Though it may appear that this order is on its last leg, if not shattered already, hysteric notions of BRICS colluding to outcompete the U.S. and the dollar are premature. While the bloc’s growth is significant, it reflects the shifting tides of multipolarity and strategic competition. For now, BRICs should be regarded for what it is – a grouping of nations with disjointed objectives and separate visions for themselves and the future. Regardless, the U.S. should continue strengthening existing partnerships while forging new ones, while at the same time leveraging its key strengths like soft power and innovation to remain competitive in decades to come. This is not the first time U.S. leadership has been questioned, and as President Biden has mentioned in the past, “it’s never a good bet to bet against America.”

Soviet Oppression during the Prague Spring 1968 influenced much of Milan Kundera’s perspective on Czechoslovak society at the time under Communism.

The recent passing of Czech author Milan Kundera was a great loss to the literary world. Exiled to Paris for his anti-Soviet writings, Kundera’s novels explored the inner psychological effects on individuals living under Communist regimes. While focused on Czechoslovakia and the state of affairs around the time of the Prague Spring, Kundera influenced ideals of free speech and liberty in all places that suffered under political oppression. While his work was famous in Europe, much of his following came from places like Latin America, where many of his readers grew up in the shadow of military dictatorships from the 1960s to the 1980s. The inner mind of someone who is trying to survive is an important perspective to understand, as political oppression affects people on many different levels.

While not to the same degree, my own country has recently passed a law where much of my content, the content of FPA.org, along with all local and even international news has been removed from the majority of social media platforms throughout the nation. The effect is so extensive, that even non-media related policy reports and things as simple as the best way to cook with flower honey, is also blocked on major social media platforms in the country. While there are ways of getting around such limitations (as practiced by those who live in China and other censored national grids), free speech and the ability to share ideas, whether they be critical of society or supportive of policy, needs to be given the maximum level of distribution, lest the Government seeks to passively limit such criticism.

Lessons from those like Milan Kundera, or Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski, seek to not only highlight the plight of those living under left wing Communist dictatorships and Far Right military dictatorships, but serve as a lesson to never repeat the mistakes of the recent past. The lasting effect on free speech, and missions like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty effectively used an outside perspective, critical of oppressive Governments, to bring down those same Governments. So effective was leaking information and the truth inside the Iron Curtain, that many regimes more recently created their own counter-narrative Government run media organisations to sow discontent and division in Western countries.

Care must be taken to establish legislation that guarantees not only free speech, but also protect state institutions from being degraded via creating a systemic bulk ward against free speech. Government supported media and fully funded media is easily degraded, and has the effect of becoming a tool for a small elite of Government officials who wish to limit any criticism or opposition. Such institutions should only exist if it can be regularly demonstrated to not only meet the local standards of free speech and liberty, but also meet an international standard as they are the voice of an entire nation. Distributing scripted lines from a Government can easily be labelled as Journalism, even when it clearly supports a small elite group. Labels against elected opposition can be used as well by the same media to limit criticism of the Government of the day, even when operating in an otherwise robust democracy. If your media attacks the opposition while constantly supporting the Government, they lack an understanding of their own role in a democracy.

While political courses often drill in the idea that “Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely”, the further reach of such power not only corrupts a country systemically, but is almost impossible to remove from the institutions once it infects the system. Absolutist power in reality is almost never removed, as the cure for such anti-corruption measures are often limited to using systemic tools that have already been corrupted. All Governments would prefer to operate in a system where there are no checks and balances, but such a system without checks, will never achieve any balance. Those with more money, influence and power will gain it increasingly, with the rest of us rapidly become like many of the characters in a Kundera novel, silently and secretly trying to live our lives, hoping that the regime does not decide to activate a tank battalion to crush an elected leader and a Prague Spring, or simply use banned military weapons against its own citizens. Even when an otherwise healthy democracy ignores abuses and creates relations with such regimes, the oppression from the regime seeps into the democratic institutions that are founded on principals banning such treatment of its citizens. The decay of democratic principals is one of the greatest real and persistent threats to existing democracies. Lessons of the Cold War ignored have already lead to some of the largest tank battles since 1945, and not just because its 2023.

Late August means back to school. Parents know it, kids know it, you know it and so do I. In a modern and rapidly evolving world we know that there is much to learn.The skills we develop during the first few years of school -reading and basic arithmetic- are important parts of everyday life. In the years that follow, school helps us develop skills like critical thinking and problem solving which allow us to take on higher level challenges. 

If we have learned these lessons well, we also learned one additional thing- our intellectual skills will grow sharper if we use them frequently, or, they will wither away if we leave them untended.

With that context in mind… pop quiz! 

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, how many hearings had the House Armed Services Committee with a direct focus on the conflict?

Once a month maybe? That would make for eighteen hearings on the matter at the time of this publishing. Once every other month perhaps? Or even seasonally? The House Armed Services Committee, one of the legislative bodies responsible for overseeing American foreign policy, held one isolated public hearing dedicated to the war in Ukraine back in February of 2023.

Surely the Senate, famously the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, would take foreign policy more seriously than the “hot tea” tempest of the House. The Senate Armed Services Committee manages to double the House’s output- two public hearings with an explicit focus on the conflict in Ukraine. Admittedly, these two hearings do go alongside an additional five focused on the 2024 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) during which determining funding for Ukraine’s defense was a regular topic- the House held similar hearings on defense appropriations where Ukraine was discussed.

If you are taking the time out of your day to read this article, I’d be very comfortable making a wager that you have had more than three serious conversations about the fighting in Ukraine around the water cooler with your co-workers, dinner table with your family, or coffee with your friends or classmates. I’m sure that you are a super star, but the combined efforts of the House and Senate should exceed the foreign policy thinking that you do in your own life.

You’ve had conversations about the continuing conflict in Ukraine not only because you want to learn from the perspective of your peers but also because the events that are taking place today are critically important to the future. America’s decisions (and the decisions of Ukraine’s other partners) will shape the outcome of the conflict. The outcome of the conflict will shape the peace that follows. The nature of that peace will either hasten the next conflict or allow for peace. These things matter!

Whether you support continued funding for Ukraine or believe that the United States needs to reconsider its priorities is, for the moment, not entirely relevant. What is important is continued discussions and debates about these pressing issues.

As I, and others far wiser than I, have previously written, the House and Senate have been failing in their constitutionally appointed responsibility to conduct serious foreign policy oversight for decades. The legislature conducts foreign policy hearings at a historically low rate, and when these hearings do take place they are more often used as an opportunity to generate sound bites than for conducting the sort of serious oversight that might inform the citizenry or motivate policy change. 

Unfortunately, none of this is new. Even when American lives were directly on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan the legislature failed to conduct serious oversight. The United States conducted 41 separate military operations in 19 countries around the world over the span of 20 years on the back of a single vote in each chamber- the 2001 AUMF. For comparison, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan individually when fighting against the Axis powers in the Second World War.

Individual Americans have a responsibility to stay informed about pressing foreign policy matters. That is one of the obligations we take on by living in a democracy.  The legislators who we elect to represent us in the House and Senate take on that responsibility even more acutely than private citizens. Unfortunately the behavior of our legislators does not live up to the seriousness of their task.

These matters will only become more pressing, and our responsibility will be increased, as the global community works towards resolving the conflict in Ukraine, avoiding a multi–nation war in west Africia, and navigating great power competition. As our elected representatives have been skipping classes, the challenges faced by the United States have continued to evolve.

It is time for the legislature, House and Senate alike, to go back to school on foreign policy.

—

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

There has been quite a lot of media attention given to the BRICS nations over the last few weeks as a displacement tool for Western political and economic power worldwide. While the BRICS only get media attention every few years, this year has elicited a greater response as the expansion of the BRICS was top of mind for the current members.

The BRICS was seen as a group of influential, large, and regionally important nations who possessed much of the economic pull in their regions and worldwide. A coordinated push promoting the interests of this group of nations was seen as a possible countermeasure to Western economic weight and political influence. While the BRICS did indeed have a lot of power in their own right, the BRICS Summits were often more of a meeting between large powers that not only had little connection to each other, but had differing economic strategies and security interests. Trade between BRICS nations was limited, and some members are considered the main security threat to other BRICS members. The addition of South Africa a few short years ago did not benefit them to any great degree, as economic stresses on the South African economy have plague the nation over the last few years.

The expansion of the BRICS group of nations follows in the same tradition of the Non-Aligned movement in the 60s and 70s. This collective of independent nations attempted to speak as one block in the UN, much of it made up of former colonial nations that wished to ally against Western and Soviet interests. While the concept of having a united front was logical, the history, interests and economies of these nations varied greatly. There was little binding them together unfortunately past the position as smaller independent nations who wished to push against hegemonic powers at the time.

On the economic side, trade agreements like MERCOSUR sought to ally the nations of the Southern Cone of South America against the economic and political weight of the United States in Latin America. Much of the future prospects that MERCOSUR created were shredded when Argentina went into an economic and political spiral in the early 2000s. Agro trade that made them dependent on exports to Western countries was displaced by agro exports to Asia. With political and economic challenges from each nation in the trade block, the interests of individual countries placed the trade block in the shadows for a few years, despite it still existing in its original form for a generation.

With little in the way of common interests for many of these nations, the security challenges between them motivate more of their economic and political strategy than a relationship via their BRICS membership. China and India often coordinate their national strategies as security rivals in their own region, and there is little reason to think that new members from the Middle East will become closer to ending their own multi-generational conflicts due to BRICS membership. On an economic front, BRICS membership has little opportunity to re-energize failed trade relationships nor would develop into a more productive form past official trade agreements. The reality is that security is still paramount, with little trade between current BRICS members as well as limited trade between newer members of the group. There are almost no ties between members and no will to create them in any meaningful way.

The international security issue should also be acknowledged in the formation of the BRICS+ agreement. A formal alliance with Russia and its interests is likely not a reality through additional BRICS members, and any ties that side with Ukraine or Russia in this conflict are already well established. A BRICS that creates its own currency or seeks to displace the US dollar will not be beneficial to most of the BRICS members, and those that have ties with Russia under sanctions are currently benefitting from such a relationship. Countries outside of the conflict have no interest in allying themselves to one side or another, as they prefer to hedge their bets against future political and economic chaos coming from the end of the war.

While the BRICS+ narrative is one founded in proper logic and interests, the history of such multilateral agreements only really works if there is a significant outside motivation for the group. The EU feeling the security challenge of the Soviet Union while seeking to balance the economic weight of the United States enabled its creation, but instability has often fractured it in part over the years. Using regional hegemons in different parts of the world to guide a Non-Aligned movement seems logical as well, and was the foundation of the concept of the BRICS, but there is no sustained and immediate interests that can keep such a group continually united. Even with groups like the EU, it is very difficult to maintain the interests of all members without it being detrimental to one interest group or another. With countries like France, Germany and the UK guiding Europe into the EU, large members can leave, interests of one can diminish rights for others, and bad decisions can affect those who had little say in their implementation. The BRICS+ might have some positive results, but the reality is that it will likely just be a story every few years, with members having their own interests and crises take precedence over anything the BRICS+ contributes to their future…especially if members end up in a direct conflict with each other.