Foreign Policy Blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the statement signed between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia on November 10, 2020, the Armenians were supposed to return the city of Lachin to Azerbaijan within three years. The reason why Lachin was returned so late was that the Armenians living in Khankendi used the road through Lachin. Azerbaijan made an alternative route within 1 year and 8 months and demanded from the Republic of Armenia to evacuate the city of Lachin and return it to the Azerbaijani side on August 5.

However, the Armenians requested more time from Azerbaijan and stated that the city will be evacuated on August 25. Thus, on August 26, 2022, the Armenians left the city of Lachin and the Azerbaijani army entered the area. On September 21, Ilham Aliyev visited the city of Lachin and waved the flag of Azerbaijan on the central street in the center of the city of Lachin.

In response to Armenia’s claim that Azerbaijan is waging war on Armenian lands, Aliyev stated that Azerbaijan has not violated the borders of any state, as there has been no demarcation of borders between the two countries: “If Armenia claims this, then let it show its borders.  Let me reiterate that we are ready for discussions and are treating the work of the Azerbaijan-Armenia commissions with great responsibility. We have collected all the maps. I want to say once again that we have all the maps, including those from the 19th century, the 20th century and even earlier, and those maps clearly show who is located on which land. Therefore, no-one can accuse us in the absence of demarcation.”

Speaking in the city of Lachin, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev emphasized that Armenia committed atrocities in Lachin as well as in other areas of Karabakh, placed about 1,400 mines in Lachin, and destroyed historical and religious monuments even after the end of the war. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan offered to sign a peace agreement with Armenia as soon as the war ended, he noted that the other side not only refused to sign the peace agreement, but also made new provocations.

In his speech, Aliyev also touched on the activities of international organizations such as the UN Security Council and the OSCE Minsk Group, which supported the Armenian side during the thirty years of Armenian occupation of the area in violation of four UN Security Council resolutions and did not impose any sanctions against it.

At the end of his speech, Ilham Aliyev, who spoke about the work done and to be done in Lachin, noted that the construction of the Gubadli-Lachin railway will soon begin in Lachin. Construction of 12 tunnels in the distance from Murov Mountain to Lachin city is also on the list of tasks to be done. In order to prevent problems related to electricity, the construction of Gülabird Hydropower Station in Lachin is also planned.

This speech was made at a time when Azerbaijan’s embassy in France was attacked.  Associate Professor Maxime Gauin noted that there were two attacks, “one on the embassy and one on the Azerbaijani cultural center.  The one against the embassy was an unauthorized demonstration organized by the Dashnaks and the Parisian police did nothing.   They were not aware.   They did not know there was a demonstration that was there because the police did not receive any intelligence regarding the project.”

He continued, “Then, there was a conference on the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Yerevan, which was protested by Charjoum.   These people considered the Dashnaks too soft and left them to be their own group.   There, the police knew about the protest and arrived before the Armenians.  They were not allowed to approach the building.    But they were there, nevertheless.”

According to Gauin,    “It reminds me of the situation 50 years ago.  In France in the 1970’s, it was the Dashnak youth who incited the leadership to incite terrorism.   There were also people who left the party who felt it was not revolutionary enough.  These people became the branch of ASALA in France.   In the Facebook page of Charjoum, they make references to ASALA.   People must be careful in monitoring them as the worst may emerge from these persons.”  

The prevalence of violent extremism in the United States poses an increasing threat on national security. Historically, policymakers have focused counterterrorism efforts on external Islamic terror threats. A shift in focus is necessary to address the alarming rise of far-right ideology within the United States following the presidency of Donald Trump. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, racially motivated extremism and anti-government extremism pose two of the biggest domestic threats to U.S. national security. In 2020, white supremacists conducted 67% of all terror plots in the United States.[1] Anti-authority extremists carried out an additional 20%. Popular culture often views Islamic terrorists as the main threat, but Salafi-jihadist groups carried out a meager 7% of attacks in 2020.[2]

White supremacy and anti-government dialogue made its way into mainstream platforms alongside the populist rise of Donald Trump. His 2016 campaign, and subsequent presidency, capitalized on undercurrents of racial resentment. Trump’s focus on “political incorrectness” allowed fringe ideologies to rise to the surface.[3] However, this far-right extremism is not a new phenomenon. Racial hatred has remained a pervasive and damaging issue in America for hundreds of years. With each new decade, this hatred takes on a different shape. Today, far-right extremists fear tactics focused on xenophobia and racism to recruit new members from vulnerable populations.

            In June of 2021, President Biden released the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Extremism. The 32-page report defines domestic extremism as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws in the US” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population [or] influence … a government.”[4] It identifies racially-motivated extremism and anti-authority extremism as the two main domestic terror threats. The report details the extent of the problem, identifies a strategy organized around four main pillars, and then expands on those pillars through a series of strategic goals.

            The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Extremism takes a broad yet multi-faceted approach to counter-extremism policy. It calls for improved research, increased resources dedicated to preventing recruitment, and a more legislative dimension to addressing domestic terrorism. It’s strengths lie with its multi-level approach to information sharing within government institutions, its focus on the vulnerability of veterans to recruitment, and its recognition of the need to address the shifting landscape of domestic threats. However, it faces four major challenges. First, the entire strategy lacks specificity. Throughout an evaluation of the strategy, a lack of specificity plagues nearly every pillar. The first pillar fails to account for the contextual differences between communities. The second pillar needs to better explain how prevention measures will be balanced with respect for civil liberties. The third pillar focuses on legislative reforms that would require a more precise definition of domestic terrorism, which the U.S. government currently lacks. This lack of specificity will not only make the strategy difficult to implement, but it will also make it less consumable for the general public.

The second major challenge for the strategy is that it does not focus heavily enough on addressing the drivers for far-right extremism. Biden’s administration has a firm grasp on the ideology behind the movement, but it fails to tackle the conditions that leave people vulnerable to these ideologies. It addresses the proliferation of social media, which is a major contributor, but lacks programs to tackle systemic issues like poverty, low access to quality education, and xenophobia.

            The third major challenge facing this strategy is its failure to address the gendered dynamics of violent extremism. The approach to countering these ideologies requires a holistic understanding of how far-right extremism impacts men and women differently. Far-right groups appeal to women in unique ways, and understanding all recruitment narratives is crucial for employing CVE policy. Women play a key role in the recruitment of new members, the spread of propaganda, and the organization of far-right groups. They made up 14% of arrests from the capital riots of January 6, 2021.[5] The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Extremism makes no mention of the gendered dynamics of far-right extremism. Biden’s strategy needs an additional pillar solely focused on addressing the recruitment of women.

            The fourth major challenge is the strategy’s failure to address the youth dynamics of violent extremism. Approximately 32% of the U.S. population is below the age of 25. This age group is a sprawling base from which far-right groups attempt to recruit. Young people’s “real or perceived disengagement and marginalization” make them highly vulnerable to recruitment narratives. With expanding access to social media platforms, marginalized youths on the internet are easy targets for far-right. Biden’s plan addresses the prominent role of social media in recruitment, but it needs a tighter focus on the vulnerability of young people.

[1] Jones, Seth. 2020. “The War Comes Home: The Evolution of Domestic Terrorism in the United States.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. October 22, 2020. https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-comes-home-evolution-domestic-terrorism-united-states.

[2] Jones, Seth. 2020. “The War Comes Home.” Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[3]“Watch How Trump’s War on ‘Political Correctness’ Turned into Hate Speech.” Vanity Fair. August 9, 2016. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/donald-trump-political-incorrectness.

[4] “The National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.” WhiteHouse.Gov. June2021: pg. 8. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/National-Strategy-for-Countering-Domestic-Terrorism.pdf.

[5] Rubin, Olivia, and Will Steakin. 2021. “‘We Did Our Part’: The Overlooked Role Women Played in the Capitol Riot.” ABC News. April 8, 2021. https://abcnews.go.com/US/part-overlooked-role-women-played-capitol-riot/story?id=76924779.

The Ukrainian Army has made dramatic strides in the last few weeks. Ukraine’s tactical commanders have outfoxed their Russian counterparts, and by issuing a feint towards the south the UA has been able to earn substantial gains in the north of their country. The impact of these efforts have been compounded by the steady stream of weapons and equipment from the United States and NATO partners- More specific accounting of the tactical maneuvering is being done by The Institute for the Study of War.

These successes, though important, do not suggest that the war is on the verge of coming to an end. Russian forces still occupy some 34,750 square miles of sovereign Ukrainian territory. More than that, despite prior public statements that Russia was conducting its “special military operation” in order to liberate the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, Russian collaborators in those regions have promoted referendums are expected to be held between September 23rd and 27th that aimed at integrating those regions with Russia. These machinations have coincided with a (domestically very unpopular) plan to mobilize some additional 300,000 reservists and conscripts. 

These referendums, if passed, would provide Russia with the manufactured casus belli that Ukraine and NATO forces are carrying out attacks within Russian territory, and might therefore allow for a more obvious mobilization effort. Former Russian President Damitri Medvedev is quoted as saying that the referendums were important for their contributions to the, “systematic defense” of Russian territory, and continued that, “an encroachment on Russian territory is a crime.”

Of course, Mr Medvedev is correct- encroachment on Russian territory is a crime. So too is the invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. Similarly, for all of the reasons that the Ukrainian government should have worked more closely with French and German mediators to follow through on the terms of the Minsk Protocols, the Russian government cannot, without international condemnation, ignore its ethical and legal responsibility to prevent the spread of dishonest information based upon the results of a obviously illegitimate vote. 

While the United States cannot prevent Russian state-media’s attempts at double-speak, American leadership can do much to clarify its own messaging.

In the face of an increasingly multi-polar world (despite Russia’s displayed incompetence and what it might imply about China’s true capacity) the United States and its allies have a delicate line to balance. Little can be done to quell the endless rumors about what was or was not agreed to between Secretary of State James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev about the future of NATO expansion in 1990- this is no excuse for a lack of clarity about NATO’s potential expansion and mission moving forward.

Similarly, there should be no denying that honest calls for nationhood should be facilitated through a legitimate democratic process. There should also be no denying that the long recognized corruption that marred the Ukrainian government was not somehow cleaned out with the onset of Russia’s attempted invasion. Pretending otherwise makes the United States and its allies appear dishonest and weakens our bargaining positions on other key international issues.

Even more than these things, however, there should be no credible doubt that the humanitarian catastrophe brought on by the Kremlin’s aggression is not in any way justified by Ukraine’s governance issues or slowness in adhering to the Minsk Protocols. International bodies and co-signatories provide a far more effective and ethical way of resolving disputes, and the integrity of those bodies and treaties is dependent on the good-faith and trust of their participants. As such, it is important that the United States and its allies participate in good faith- even in the face of an obviously bad actor like Vladmir Putin.

While it is important that we take the time to recognize, and celebrate, the success of Ukraine’s Army and partisan forces in resisting Russian aggression, it would be long sighted to limit American and NATO armed support to those which can be used for substantively defensive purposes. Towards this end, NATO members should continue to provide the Javelin anti-tank systems and Byractar drones that have proven so effective in slowing the advance of Russian armored columns. Mobile artillery units with a range that surpass their Russian equivalents like the M142 HIMARS have played a dramatic role in disrupting Russian cross-river movements, but ensuring that these NATO provided weapons are not used to strike targets within legitimate Russian territory could prove pivotal in preventing further escalation of the conflict. Similarly, it should not be taken for granted that Ukraine be extended NATO membership in the aftermath of the conflict- such an action would give credence to the idea that the United States resisted Russia’s obvious attempts at empire largely for the sake of extending its own more subtle empire.

In addition to these direct efforts, the United States and its partners should look for non-military means of strengthening their hand against bad actors into the future. These efforts might range from promoting election integrity domestically to diversifying energy sourcing. They most certainly include pushing for increased public awareness about key foreign policy issues and the continued re-staffing of the diplomatic corps as a way of peacefully promoting the cause of Democracy and Liberalism beyond our borders.

While the conflict in Ukraine will likely rage on for months to come, there is some real chance that historians will consider the push that took place in mid-September to represent the turning point of the conflict. In the event that this is true, the United States, Ukraine, and all other concerned parties should do just as much to facilitate a successful peace as they will certainly do to bring about an end to the war.

—

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

The recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine was taken by many Central and Eastern European countries as a sign of drastic change in a part of the world that had not experienced such a transformation in a generation. The annexation of Crimea was not met with much of a response beyond limited sanctions in 2014, and the war in the East of Ukraine received little long term attention outside of the region, even after an airliner was shot down by a BUK missile system. Recent rapid advances on Kyiv put countries like Poland on intense alert, and assured that their actions in seeking modern Western weapons systems was a reasonable and essential policy direction for the country. Poland is planning to reform its military, and is likely going to become one of the most advanced militaries in Central Europe.

Policies that have come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine ensured large amounts weapons being sent in support of Ukraine as well as historic levels of assistance given to Ukraine and countries bordering the former Soviet Union. In order to give the Ukrainian forces the ability to respond rapidly to Russian advances, weapons systems similar to those that are used by Ukraine’s Armed Forces were sought over more modern Western weapons systems that would have required additional training, time and support. Older Soviet systems like the T-72 and MiG-29 were dedicated or given to Ukraine with an agreement with the US or Germany to displace the older systems with more modern German and American tanks and weapons systems. Central European powers that were using modernised equipment from the Cold War era are now able to obtain many NATO weapons systems if they sent their Cold War era equipment to Ukraine. Those systems are increasingly being seen in videos of the conflict and are already having an effect with Polish made tanks being seen on the field, advancing in the Kherson region and region around Kharkiv.

The weapons displacement program has met some hurdles, but the intent and policy approach has two major benefits. Besides supporting Ukraine with already active equipment, the displacement of the equipment with advanced systems like Leopard 2 tanks from Germany and M1A2 tanks from the US gives countries bordering Russia and Belarus a distinct advantage. Modernising Central European countries with NATO weapons also brings that region closer to the West, and pulls them further from the influence of Russia and their government. Outside of the direct policy approach, the actions and support of Ukraine’s Armed Forces will blunt the ability of Russia to pose a serious threat using conventional arms to former Warsaw Pact nations that have spent much of their post-Cold War freedom pulling away from Russian influence.

While support and weapons from the West and NATO have had a major impact on Russian equipment and morale, it is important not to take recent victories with a grain of salt by pushing polices too widely or aggressively. Like with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, policies that tie NATO long term to a conflict or a specific region may end up causing more strife and end in a long term loss for the West. If done more rapidly, putting Russia in a corner may illicit and overreaction by Russia if they feel they have fewer options in ensuring their own national security. What already seems to be occurring is that support for one conflict may add fuel to the fire towards other conflicts in other parts of the world, creating long term problems outside of Eastern Europe. A holistic and well thought out policy direction is essential, the absence of one is already a catalyst for the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine threatens the existing system of international relations and creates the preconditions for regional conflicts in Europe. In Ukraine, Putin has tested and created a new tool for blurring borders and separating the territories of neighboring countries by creating so-called “gray zones” or “gray enclaves”, the classic examples of which are the “DNR” and “LNR”(“Donetsk and Luhansk People Republics”).

In 2014, the Russian Federation used the tactics of “biting off small pieces” from Ukraine, de facto occupying a significant part of the Ukrainian Donbas. Russia has applied similar schemes in other countries. For example, immediately after the collapse of the USSR, armed conflicts began in Moldova and Georgia: in 1992 in Transnistria and Abkhazia, and this was largely due to the indirect influence of Russia, which in every possible way supported the separatist movements in the post-Soviet space, spreading its influence through them.

But in Ukraine, Russia is testing and scaling up a technology that is extremely dangerous for Europe to form “gray zones” of instability, which, like cancerous metastases, tend to expand and appear in other countries, even those not adjacent to Russia. This tactic is part of the toolkit of the so-called hybrid aggression – a complex, predominantly non-military confrontation with an asymmetrically stronger or numerically stronger enemy, a direct military clash with which is undesirable.

Putin sees the West as such an adversary, which he considers a civilizational enemy. At the moment, for the first time since 1991, Russia poses a direct threat to Europe by creating “gray zones” in Ukraine, where the issue of the continued existence of Western civilization is being decided.

By invading Ukraine on February 24, Putin opened a geopolitical Pandora’s Box, setting off a chain of irreversible processes within the system of international relations. An attempt to occupy a sovereign state is a denial of the principles of the inviolability of borders that were formed after the Second World War, which means the leveling of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements, which made it possible to effectively eliminate the prerequisites for the emergence of interstate conflicts in post-war Europe. Putin has disrupted the stability of the existing system of international relations and created global geopolitical turbulence.

The analysis of the mechanism of hybrid aggression, tested by Putin in Ukraine, makes it possible to understand what an unprecedented threat Europe is facing. At the initial level, this hybrid strategy is based on separatist sentiments, which are especially strong in the Balkans, if we talk about the European continent. To reinforce such tendencies, the Kremlin uses its agents of influence and funding so that the proxies sponsored by it not only declare themselves as potentially independent players but also weaken and destabilize the country as much as possible, posing a threat to its integrity and sovereignty.

The tactics of such aggression are quite flexible: if in the case of the Ukrainian Donbas, Russia tried to consolidate its political, economic, and military presence as much as possible, then, for example, in the case of Serbia, which is currently destabilizing the Balkans, unquestioning implementation of the Kremlin’s political instructions is sufficient.

Russian influence can be indirect: it is not necessary to use military force, as happened in 2014 in the Donbas. In the case of Europe, it is enough to have agents of influence who will undermine the socio-political situation within a country or region. The Kremlin’s goal is to destabilize and deplete the object of the hybrid attack, demoralize the population, and create unbearable conditions for life with parallel rampant crime, corruption, etc. As a rule, Russia does not need such “gray zones” as territorial acquisitions. They serve as an instrument of influence. It is precisely the game of separatism that can turn into the presence of Russia anywhere on the continent, and at the moment, seeing that the military arsenal of the Russian Federation is incomparable with NATO, Putin begins to actively apply the tactics of creating “gray zones” in Europe, starting with Ukraine.

Hybrid aggression is carried out mainly by non-military methods, but it cannot exist without a strong army. Therefore, Ukraine is a bulwark of defense of the eastern borders of Europe. And the outcome of this confrontation depends on the full support of Kyiv, the Ukrainian army, which defends not only its country but the whole of Europe from Russian aggression. Ukraine needs Western weapons capable of exhausting and weakening the Russian army that threatens Europe.

Mykola Volkivskyi is an international public figure, fellow of the Lane Kirkland Scholarship, Founder of the Foundation for the Development of Ukraine in Poland, and the IGR in Kyiv.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the United Kingdom now has its first King since George VI more than seven decades ago. Saturday September 10, 2022 is recorded in history as the day Prince Charles was proclaimed as King Charles III. Aside from the challenge of having to (ceremonially) lead a country that is undergoing political and economic turmoil with a Prime Minister—Liz Truss—who has less than  a week of experience in her top executive position, the new king comes with a mixed bag of goodwill and controversy. An international media and tabloid feeding frenzy is already underway.

In his previous role as The Prince of Wales and a monarch of wide international fame, the new King is accused of using his influences to advance UK’s weapons industry deals with his personal friends. He has held dozens of meetings with rulers of repressive regimes in the Middle East since the Arab Spring in 2011. He has “played a key role in promoting £14.5-billion worth of UK arms exports to these regimes.” According to UK Declassified, there is no question that he was a royalty-level salesman for UK arms makers during said period.

The ‘Barack Hussein’ Effect

At the heart of the controversy surrounding the new King is his stance on Islam and Muslims. His affinity with Islam and vision to improve the relationship between the Western and the Islamic world extend for decades. In his speech Islam and the West that was delivered at Oxford in 1993, he said:

“I believe wholeheartedly that the links between these two worlds matter more today than ever before, because the degree of misunderstanding between the Islamic and Western worlds remains dangerously high, and because the need for the two to live and work together in our increasingly interdependent world has never been greater.”

In his previous role, the new King has also taken positions that opposed UK foreign policy. The most notables are: His opposition to the Iraq war and the neocon foreign policy adventures; his disagreement with the notion that those cartoonists who flagrantly offended Prophet Muhammad were merely exercising the democratic value of freedom of expression. Also, his disagreement with the burqa and hijab ban in Europe.

Moreover, the new King is sympathetic to the Palestinian people’s right to an independent state. Granted, as a King, his leadership is ceremonial and his political views must be shelved in his royal bedroom closet, but that will not be enough to tame the usual suspects—Islamophobes and Zionists of all shades—who are determined to ferociously come after the new King to make him an unpopular King by accusing him of being a Muslim in disguise.

In his previous role, the new King has offended some when it became public that he learned Arabic, studies the Quran, and believes that “Christianity can learn from Islam.” Unlike most of the Western leaders, he had no problem offering a counter-narrative to Islamophobia. He refused to accept the so-called clash of civilization thesis popularized by the neocons. “I do not accept the argument that they (the Western and Islamic cultures) are on a course to clash in a new era of antagonism. I am utterly convinced that our two worlds have much to offer each other. We have much to do together. I am delighted that the dialogue has begun, both in Britain and elsewhere.”

And in a speech he delivered in Saudi Arabia 2006, he said: “We need to recover the depth, the subtlety, the generosity of imagination, the respect for wisdom that so marked Islam in its great ages …”

These sympathetic public statements at an era of glorified jingoism and ruthless Islamophobia made then Prince Charles a target. In 2003, two months before President George W. Bush appointed him to sit on the board of United states Institute for Peace, the notorious Islamophobe Daniel Pipes has published a long dossier to implicate Prince Charles as a Muslim in disguise.

King Charles III is set to become UK’s Barack Hussein Obama, at least in being projected as an alien leader. Each, on his own, has undergone an up close and personal experience that inspired him to form his own perspective and narrative on Islam and Muslims. And their respective narratives, needless to say, flies in the face of the traditional aristocrats, the political elite, and the ideologically-driven media.

To bulwark against political demonization, the new King may have to dominate the headlines by taking the moral stance that his late mother—Queen Elizabeth II—failed to take: offer an official apology to all of the countries that suffered exploitation and oppression under the British colonial enterprise. His first step should be that which could be his legacy.

Meanwhile, in a country that virtually drifted away from its religious identity: ‘So what if he is a Muslim?’  

A pair of August elections in Africa produced clear winners, while also sending mixed messages about the strength of each country’s democracy. Meanwhile, two contests in Europe provide potential inroads for right-wing parties.

Kenya 

In Kenya’s August 9 election, Deputy President William Ruto defeated opposition leader Raila Odinga by approximately 233,000 votes, 51–49 percent. 65 percent of registered voters turned out, down from 80 percent in 2017 — and a 15-year low.

Ruto fashioned himself as an anti-establishment “hustler” on the campaign trail, in a populist appeal to Kenya’s disaffected young population. While Ruto is, in reality, an immensely wealthy politician, this outsider branding contrasted him against Odinga (a five-time presidential candidate, former prime minister, and son of Kenya’s first vice president) as well as Odinga’s A-list stump speaker, Uhuru Kenyatta (the outgoing president and son of Kenya’s first president).  

Political dynamics between Kenya’s ethnic groups also played a role. Odinga had hoped to leverage Kenyatta’s influence as an ethnic Kikuyu to gain the backing of Kikuyu voters, the largest bloc in the country. But Odinga is an ethnic Luo, a rival group to the Kikuyu. This derailed Odinga’s plan, as the Kikuyu vote split partially for Ruto, an ethnic Kalenjin, further expanding the deputy president’s base of support. 

This shift in sentiment was partially captured in pre-election polling. On top of the tight topline margins, surveys taken a week before the vote even showed Odinga with a slight lead.

The days following the election, though tense, were markedly less turbulent than the aftermath of other recent contests. In the wake of the 2007 campaign, violence escalated into a months-long ethnic conflict that claimed over a thousand lives. Unrest and frustration erupted again in 2017, when the initial election was annulled and a redo was ordered. But this year, when the Kenyan Supreme Court found no credible evidence of election tampering following a challenge from Odinga, the opposition leader accepted the court’s decision. 

Although there are still concerns about Ruto’s checkered past on human rights, the results of Kenya’s election are, in some ways, an encouraging step for the country. Kenyatta has already promised a smooth transition of power. What’s more, the decisiveness of the court’s ruling could also restore some faith in the functionality, transparency, and independence of Kenya’s democratic institutions.

Angola

Two weeks after Kenyans took to the polls, so too did voters in Angola, a country whose democratic norms are comparatively younger and weaker. For that reason, it can be difficult to draw direct comparisons between the two elections.

The August 24 vote saw President João Lourenço secure a second term after his party, the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), defeated the main opposition, Adalberto Costa Júnior and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), 51–44 percent. 

The 7-point margin makes this one of the closest elections in Angola’s history and marks a record-low showing for the MPLA, which has been in power since the country gained independence from Portugal in 1975. Notably, the party’s vote share has steadily declined in all four post-civil war elections: it received 82 percent in 2008, 72 percent in 2012, and 61 percent in 2017. 

Most recently, the MPLA’s popularity has waned due to economic concerns and dissatisfaction with Lourenço’s handling of corruption. Indeed, pre-election polling painted a tight race, as young voters in particular seemed to move toward UNITA. Surveys taken throughout the summer varied widely, suggesting everything from a 29-point MPLA win to a 26-point UNITA win, often with large shares of respondents not selecting either party.

Overall, the MPLA’s majority in the 220-seat National Assembly fell by 26 seats to 124. UNITA picked up 39 seats, bringing its total to 90. Three other parties — the Social Renewal Party (PRS), the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA), and the Humanist Party of Angola (PHA) — each won two seats. Voter turnout was recorded at 45 percent, down from 76 percent in 2017.

The final results were contested by UNITA, who alleged irregularities in the vote count, but their challenge was swiftly struck down by Angola’s constitutional court. Four of the 16 members of the Angolan National Electoral Commission also refused to sign off on the returns.

Challenges to election results — and concerns over vote tampering — are neither unwarranted nor uncommon in Angola. The ruthless rule of former President José Eduardo dos Santos, Lourenço’s predecessor and Angola’s autocratic leader of 38 years, was defined by the suppression of basic freedoms and the violation of human rights. 

Although dos Santos left office in 2017 and died in July, Angola today remains far from free. The MPLA still has a large amount of control over the electoral process and state media. When it comes to political and civil liberties, Freedom House gives the country a rating of 30 out of 100; Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index scores it one point lower at 29. 

Sweden and Italy

Looking ahead, there are two major European elections in September.

Sweden voted on September 11.

The Social Democrats, led by Magdalena Andersson after the resignation of Prime Minister Stefan Löfven last summer, were looking to maintain control in the Riksdag. Entering the home stretch, pre-election polls showed the Social Democrats ahead by an average of 9 points in a close contest with the conservative Moderate Party, led by Ulf Kristersson, as well as the far-right Sweden Democrats, led by Jimmie Åkesson. In the 2018 election, the Social Democrats outperformed polling expectations by 4 points to win with a 28 percent plurality — the party’s worst electoral showing in over a century.

The election is still too close to call, as of September 12.  With approximately 95 percent of votes counted, the Social Democrats led with 31 percent, the Sweden Democrats earned 21 percent, and the Moderates had 19 percent. This means that no bloc currently possesses an obvious governing majority of 175 seats: the parties supporting the Moderates won a total of 175 seats, while the parties supporting the Social Democrats won 174 seats.

Italy votes on September 25.

Following a falling-out with the left-populist Five Star Movement, Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s unity government collapsed last month, prompting September’s snap elections. The current polling leader is Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing Brothers of Italy, which appears to have enough support from other parties to govern if victorious. Enrico Letta’s center-left Democratic Party is polling in second. Letta would likely continue the current government’s policies, but a right-wing coalition would almost surely ditch Draghi’s direction.

A full summary of both contests will appear in October’s election round-up.

Ukraine has started its advance in the Kherson region in order to reclaim as much territory as possible in the south of Ukraine before Russia attempts to permanently annex large sections of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast. Taking sections of the east of Ukraine would give Russia extra control of Ukraine’s significant agricultural exports. Control in the south of Ukraine would give Russia a great deal of control of much of Ukraine’s shipping along the Black Sea coast. With Russia’s oil and gas industry currently toying with shutting energy exports to Germany and Europe, increased control of these parts of Ukraine would place food security and energy security for much of the world in the Kremlin’s control.

Russia has continued to export to India, is planning an oil and gas pipeline to China to satisfy China’s fuel shortages and is trying to lock in much of the energy exports with ties to Iran while sanctions bite on the Russian economy. With fuel prices slowly dropping, a cut in Europe’s gas supply would likely raise inflation along with the increased need for fuel in the colder months. The rise in fuel prices has buoyed the Rouble despite sanctions, and incentivizes Russia’s further restricting of fuel and increased conflict in Ukraine. While Western weapons supports to Ukraine have been significant, North America’s lacking strategic support of Western Europe’s energy needs has not displaced Russian oil and gas, fuelling Russian Forces instead of heating the homes of their allies. Russia’s ties to other regions and large BRICS economies will give them further control over the world’s food and fuel supplies.

India has taken to protect their own interests in the era of the recent conflict in Ukraine. Russia has always been a large supplier of India’s Defense Forces that are made up of equipment from mostly Russian, French and British made systems to defend its borders with Pakistan and China. India has strong ties in the west, but with US weapons being issued to their adversaries, they have chosen to secure much of their food supplies, energy supplies and military supplies with Russia in order to maintain a power balance in the region. India is well aware that they cannot lose strength in their region, lest be at risk of losing in a greater conflict.

China has taken to increase its military activities around Taiwan and hold relations with Russia and the West to its own advantage. China has ensured much of the financing of Russia and is establishing closer energy ties with Russia in order to remedy their own fuel shortages affecting industry and shipping in China. As with Russia, China has become emboldened after the West abandoned Afghanistan and their allies there, and is well aware of the global chip shortage and Taiwan’s significant contribution to the chip market worldwide. China may now see Russia as a weaker world power after they have witnessed the failure of Russian equipment in the field, but their activity around Taiwan and their concerns with a powerful India keeps China focused on maintaining their own power and control in the region.

Brazil is approaching a fork in the road with an election coming this fall between the current Populist President Bolsonaro and former popular President Lula da Silva. The corruption scandals that rocked the last Presidential election and the question of Brazil’s independence from foreign influence may become the deciding factor of an election that promises to change the future direction of Brazil and Latin America. Inflation after the Olympics and World Cup in Brazil along with corruption tying much of the political class to criminal acts might become the ballot question yet again. Current world issues will exacerbate the problems of four years prior as world inflation and drastic changes for BRICS nations come with their support of the West or Russia and China. The great need for agricultural products and oil and gas will give Brazil a lot of leverage in the global markets. The distrust of international leaders and corporations may swing Brazil away from their traditional markets however, expanding their current business relationship with China and further avoiding criticisms of Russia. This is a complicated question for either candidate it seems and will be of great interest during the upcoming election.

South Africa and much of Africa became very aware of the lacking support from the rest of the world during the Covid crisis. While vaccine policies were supplying Europe, North America and parts of Asia, Africa was one of the last regions to receive Covid vaccines, and this may have contributed to one of the first new strains to be logged coming out of South Africa. With China increasing their influence in the region and South Africa being the mid point of commerce between much of the West and new Chinese investment in the region, their view of their place in the old economies of the West and new economies of the East leaves their future in question. Closer ties with the BRICS may change South Africa, but it will likely become a point of leverage for many large economies, influential regions and global institutions a lot sooner than anyone expected.

BRICS nations have determined that their best interests may not lay in the same policy choices that many of their Western allies have chosen as an approach. Actions that lead Western powers to abandon their allies in Afghanistan will come to be seen as one of the greatest policy determinants of our era. BRICS nations already see what many countries in the West fail to acknowledge from their policy failure. A further limiting of North American oil and gas exports to such a degree that it raised the Rouble and will put Western Europe in an energy shortage not seen since the Berlin Airlift is affecting the world greatly in 2022. BRICS nations have decided to take to classical policy approaches, and will act in a manner that protects their interests and keep their citizens fed and warm as much as possible. Any approach that would hinder those basic needs will end the leadership of any of the BRICS nations rapidly, as it should.