New Eastern Outlook: Recent Episodes
None
On Friday, August 18th President Biden of the USA, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida met at Camp David, Maryland in the USA, to talk about concrete steps “toward maintaining regional peace and stability” in the Indo-Pacific Region, according to a statement by Anthony Blinken, the American Secretary of […]
Сообщение The Camp David Summit: Biden With His Puppets появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Since taking office as Iraq’s president in October 2022, Mohammed Shia’ Sabbar Al-Sudani has made, or at least formally announced, a battle against corruption the centerpiece of his domestic agenda. Its progress has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming despite this long-overdue attempt to address the most difficult and crippling issue that is literally eating away […]
Сообщение Iraq: what will the fight against corruption result in? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
At the NATO summit in Vilnius in July, it was as if a breakthrough had been made in hastening Sweden’s entrance to the North Atlantic Alliance. As previously disclosed, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated on the eve and during the summit that Ankara would be willing to expedite the consideration of Sweden’s NATO membership […]
Сообщение “Chickens are counted in the autumn”… Erdoğan and Menendez take time out появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Current State of Affairs in Pakistan Pakistan’s economy has experienced a severe downturn in the past year due to a combination of factors. Bad governance, IMF loans, the political instability, the trade imbalance, the devastating floods of 2022 in Pakistan, and the Russia-Ukraine crisis are some of the pivotal factors that have worsened inflation […]
Сообщение What Pakistan can learn from India’s past economic crisis появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 29, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted the 13th Annual International South China Sea Conference in Washington, DC. The seminar was attended by politicians, representatives of the US Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defense, as well as experts and scientists from India, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, who were […]
Сообщение Territorial disputes over the South China Sea resound with renewed vigor появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For Washington, what it needs for its China policy to work is a unified stance, both domestically and internationally. For the past few years, Washington has been trying to achieve this very objective, but it continues to prove more and more difficult than it might have initially believed. In Europe, there is a clear sense […]
Сообщение “Decuple”, “De-risk”, or “Strengthen”? Big Cracks in the West’s China Policy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Mongolian Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun- Erdene visited the United States on the invitation of US Vice President Kamala Harris from August 2–6, 2023. The Mongolian Prime Minister met with numerous members of the American political establishment during his tour, in addition to the leaders of numerous significant businesses and technology giants. In particular, aside from […]
Сообщение A triumph of materialistic interest: the Mongolian prime minister visits the United States появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In fact, the use of the word “mosaic” in the comprehensive description of Sino-European interactions precludes an illustrative and simplistic (“explained via hand gestures”) interpretation. The phrase “remains complex” indicates that there is no current effort toward “simplification” of this statement. All of the aforementioned factors, which frequently contradict one another, remain in Europeans’ dealings […]
Сообщение The Mosaic nature of Sino-European relations remains complex появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Regarding Biden’s apparent slide into dementia, I have a real concern that it is quite deliberate, and I am alone in what have suspected for a long time. As, if it was for real, his acute signs of mental decline, would result in that his party would be most concerned, even to a greater degree […]
Сообщение Is Sleepy Joe Biden REALLY as clueless as he appears/pretends to be? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Western nations are currently concentrating their efforts on preserving their dwindling supremacy by primarily retaliating against the actions of their biggest rivals, Russia and China. At the same time, they are eager to push for a new model of world order in which they could be in control. The idea of population control and […]
Сообщение The West is fighting to hold onto its waning hegemony появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Due to the West’s disregard for Russian interests, Moscow withdrew from the Istanbul agreements; however, the issue of the grain deal is still up for discussion with Turkey and its NATO allies. Prior to President Erdoğan’s travels to the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, he voiced hope for Russia’s return to the Black Sea […]
Сообщение From “hub” to “hub” or galloping through Turkey…? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Introduction Throughout history, there have been a few indelible transitions of militant groups to politics –this phenomenon can be labeled “politicization.” It is surprising to discern that most militant or insurgent groups do not end because of policing or military action. According to an examination of 648 terrorist organizations that existed between 1968-2006, the primary […]
Сообщение The Politicization of Militant Groups: From Hamas to Sinn Féin появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the run-up to the 15th BRICS summit in South Africa, the Chief of the South African Navy, Vice Admiral Monde Lobese, told a gathering of BRICS naval brass of his country’s excitement over the current reshaping of the geopolitical landscape. Visiting Russia’s annual Navy Day parade in St. Petersburg, Admiral Lobese joined heads of […]
Сообщение Will the Seas Soon Be Ruled by a BRICS Naval Contingent? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Nearly 50 African nations participated in the Second Summit Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum in St. Petersburg, which shook the foundations of the antiquated society the West had built for itself. Only five African countries did not attend the summit in Russia on July 27–28 for various reasons, while about 20 heads of state and […]
Сообщение The Russia-Africa summit is a confident step towards a multipolar world появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol paid an unexpected visit to Ukraine on July 15, 2023, following a three-day official visit to Poland that we previously discussed. Yoon has consistently indicated throughout his diplomatic tours in recent months that this is a strong indication of his support for Ukraine and his condemnation of Russia. Additionally, it […]
Сообщение Yoon Suk-yeol’s East European tour. Part Three. Visit to Kiev появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
We continue our series on the South Korean president’s trip to Eastern Europe. After concluding his visit to Vilnius for the NATO summit on July 12, Yoon proceeded to Warsaw for a three-day official visit, the first in 14 years since former president Lee Myung-bak. The President was also accompanied by a business delegation of […]
Сообщение Yoon Suk-yeol’s Eastern European Tour. Part Two. The Warsaw Summit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The China-brokered deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Russia-brokered deal between Saudi Arabia and Syria gave a glimpse into how the shifting dynamics of global geopolitics are changing regional alignments. China and Russia need the Middle East on their side to be able to effectively challenge – and even reverse – the US-dominated […]
Сообщение Middle East’s Reinforcing Embrace of the Multipolar World появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On July 17, 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol returned home after completing an eight-day overseas trip that took him to Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. President Moon Jae-in of South Korea attended the NATO summit in Vilnius, where he “stressed Seoul’s commitment to deepening cooperation with the military alliance through a new special partnership program […]
Сообщение Yoon Suk-yeol’s Eastern European Tour. Part One. President of the Republic of Korea at the NATO summit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On May 9th, 2023, in an unprecedented display of unrest, Pakistan witnessed a succession of distressing images that dominated the airwaves, unveiling a furious backlash against the military establishment. The upheaval was set into motion when supporters of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party attacked the General Headquarters, unleashing chaos upon the Lahore Corps Commander’s […]
Сообщение The May 9th Riots in Pakistan and Imran Khan’s Arrest появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On July 29, Australia’s third-most populous city, Brisbane, located on the eastern Pacific, “The Pacific,” is worth noting. More on this below-coast of the country-continent, which hosted a notable event in the political space of the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, we will talk about the next meeting of the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations Committee, AUSMIN. […]
Сообщение Australia and the USA held a 2+2 meeting появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
What do you think about the direction the world is heading? It should come as no surprise that people are growing weary of much of what is going on, and alien technology and close encounters with visitors from another world (aliens) are more in vogue, and with ample justification. It’s all about control and keeping […]
Сообщение Rules of War Must B-Rewritten 4-US and NATO-French Entanglements! появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey’s EU admission process exemplified a 60-year-old moving process with an unknown result. The Turkish authorities, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, have publicly denounced Brussels’ identical attitude toward such discriminatory treatment of Turkish society and state, humiliatingly putting Turkey in the status of a hopeless candidate for more than half a century. Turkey has […]
Сообщение Turkey’s European integration: the reality of pragmatism or the dream of romanticism? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
America’s influence in the Middle East has weakened in recent years, and Washington’s political agenda has been widely challenged among Arab countries. The Arabs have direct experience of the fact that the Americans’ approach to the region is motivated only by self-interest, with the goal of imposing their will and asserting their own geo-domination rather […]
Сообщение The United States is eager to halt the decline of its influence in the Middle East появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In June of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law according to which the victory over militaristic Japan will be commemorated in Russia on September 3. The State Duma passed the law, the Federation Council approved it. The newspapers of the Land of the Rising Sun wrote lengthy stories in which the alleged […]
Сообщение Whether Russia needs a “peace treaty” with Japan появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
July 27, 2023, was the 70th anniversary of the official end of the Korean War. In the DPRK this date is widely celebrated, and this year one of the main events in the ceremonies was the arrival of a Russian delegation, led by Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu. On July 25, the DPRK’s official press agency, […]
Сообщение Some comments on the Russian Defense Minister’s visit to North Korea появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The sixth meeting of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council) on strategic dialog has just been held in Moscow. The meeting revealed a great determination of both sides to make progress on all topics and to establish strong, deep-rooted ties at all levels. The meeting also indicated that both […]
Сообщение Russia-Persian Gulf: Building the Foundations of a New World появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On September 2018 French President Macron admitted that France had committed war crimes in the Algerian War for Independence that lasted from 1954 to 1962. He acknowledged, as just a single example, the torture of FLN member, Maurice Audin, a communist, who, after being tortured was executed by French military forces, at the age of […]
Сообщение Algeria and France: The Anticolonial Struggle Continues появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recently, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said that the European Union should double its assistance to Ukraine. She went on to say the EU should create a support fund of 50 billion euros by the end of the year and that everything should be done to ensure victory on the […]
Сообщение The Ukraine Mess is Animal Farm in Reverse: Starring Blackrock and Other Pigs появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Given the continued conflict between Israel and Iran in the absence of a direct physical link, the struggle for influence in border territories has captured the interest and attention of both Tel Aviv and Tehran. In fact, the Israeli policy of occupying the Golan Heights in western Syria (Quneitra Governorate) in 1967 had the objective […]
Сообщение In confronting Israel in West Asia. Iran expands its list of partners появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In 2019, well before the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, the Russia-Africa summit held in Sochi attracted 43 countries in total. The purpose of the summit was the “development and consolidation of mutually beneficial ties” between Russia and the African continent. Four years later, the 2023 summit held in St. Petersburg attracted 49 […]
Сообщение The Russia-Africa Summit Defeats West’s ‘Russia-Isolation’ Project появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Strategic depth is a military doctrine that refers to the distances between the front lines and the belligerents’ capital cities, industrial zones, centers of population etcetera. In simple terms, the greater the distance between an enemy threat and what needs to be protected, the greater the strategic depth. Israel’s Need for Strategic Depth Israel is […]
Сообщение Israel and Its Doctrine of Strategic Depth появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
I know I am telling you my approximate age to remember the 1973 Soviet-American Wheat Deal, whereby the United States sold substantial amounts of wheat and other feed and food grains to the former USSR. It was a win-win for Russian consumers and US farmers, as they [US farmers] considered themselves as being the breadbasket […]
Сообщение Black Sea “Grain Deal” –Wheeling & Dealing 4-Ill Gain and Geopolitical Subterfuge! появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
From July 16 – 18 this year, the Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida traveled to three of the Arab Gulf states – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait. It was his first trip to the region – which is of growing strategic importance to all the major participants in the current stage […]
Сообщение The Japanese Prime Minister tours the Persian Gulf states to discuss decarbonization появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Definitions: “impunity, noun, the exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action.” In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked information from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) about massive surveillance being carried out on individuals, companies, and governments on a global scale. Snowden released to the media millions of documents and kept essential files to […]
Сообщение The American Surveillance State – When Will Big Brother Fall? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Middle East continues to be one of the most important strategic areas in the globe, drawing the attention of the major powers in the world due to its geographic significance and a number of internal inconsistencies. Although, of course, not all of the nations in the region have an adequate supply of these kinds […]
Сообщение Russia and Iran are shaping a new reality in the Middle East появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Although the rule of President Yoon Suk-yeol began with declarations of national unity, by late June or early July 2023, there have been a number of actions that hint to a rightward tilt. These actions go beyond the appointment of a new unification minister, which the author has already discussed. Recall that when Kim Yung-ho […]
Сообщение Yoon Suk-yeol swings to the right появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Any human rights activist or soldier can tell you why cluster bombs should be banned, as only too often they fail to hit their intended target, end up hitting civilians, or even their own soldiers, as was the case with Israeli-made cluster bombs used in the 2008 Georgian-Russian military conflict. Many of the Georgians, including […]
Сообщение Bumper Harvest of Cluster Bombs: and/or ONE BIG Cluster Fuck 4-Ukraine? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The highly explosive situation in Sudan, caused by hostilities between Sudan’s army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, has raised many questions about the position taken by the international community, especially by the major global powers. The conflict between opposing Sudanese factions who are competing for influence and control over the country has plunged not only […]
Сообщение The Sudan Crisis and how it could be resolved появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The United States has announced a new weapons package for Taiwan worth up to 345 million USD. Reuters, in an article covering the package, would suggest it was aimed at providing Taiwan with “security assistance.” In reality, the transfer of weapons from the US to Taiwan is a violation of Chinese sovereignty under international law, which recognizes […]
Сообщение US Arms Package to Taiwan Heralds “Ukraine Part 2” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
According to Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, relations between Russia and Turkey are multi-faceted nowadays. This definition’s meaning is obviously self-evident. Over the last two decades, many in Moscow started to think, for some reason, that Russia had acquired a new almost strategic partner in the form of NATO’S Turkey that was more than […]
Сообщение With Friends Like These… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Today’s global geopolitics is more about great power competition than any other thing. It is evident from the ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe, and it is evident from the ways in which the US has been trying to build a global coalition against China for the past many years now. So far, Washington has […]
Сообщение How Pacific Nations Are Playing US-China Rivalry to Their Advantage появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The West is seeking to radicalize and break up the Taliban. It is now two years since the USA withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. In August 2021 the world looked on as the 20-year US campaign ground to an end. What has changed since the US exit from the country? As for the Americans themselves, […]
Сообщение Afghanistan two years on появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the official statements by senior representatives of the United States Mongolia is generally presented as a friendly nation and US partner. Ever since 1991, when US Secretary of State James A. Baker described the US as “Mongolia’s third neighbor”, official statements about Mongolia have been impressively consistent and unambiguous. For example, during his 2011 […]
Сообщение US interests in Mongolia: the official myth and the secret reality появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The two recent overseas trips by Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, which took place two weeks apart between the second half of June and mid-July, is a glaring example of the rising foreign policy activity of the nation’s head of state, who is increasingly asserting himself as one of the key players in the […]
Сообщение On some aspects of recent overseas trips of Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The author of the previous issue of this digest writes that the usual pattern of escalation surrounding the USA and South Korean military exercises has given way to news events since the beginning of June. On June 15, 2023, in response to a large-scale South Korean and USA live-fire exercise just 25 kilometers south of […]
Сообщение Conflict Between North and South Korea from Mid-June to Mid-July 2023 from one Rocket to the Next появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
South Korean society has now become so consumed by hysteria concerning the threat from North Korea that that even at the highest levels the authorities are too frightened to be able to evaluate the situation soberly. In 2022 polls conducted by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies showed that about 70 percent of citizens support […]
Сообщение South Korea’s nuclear dreams появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The reopening of ambassadorial relations between Cairo and Ankara is simply one of Egypt’s new diplomatic orientation, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s new course of constructing a multipolar world, which Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed and has actively promoted. Cairo has selected Amr Al-Hamami as its ambassador to Ankara ahead of the annual declaration on diplomatic […]
Сообщение Egypt-Turkey on the Verge of Resuming Relations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Who can forget Princess Diana’s visit to Angola and Bosnia in 1997 to walk through areas of mines and to engage with the victims of the explosives? Just days after her untimely death, the United Nations Mine Ban Treaty was signed by 164 countries. Today, Lady Diana’s visit is still talked about in Angola. But […]
Сообщение Would Joe Biden Blow Your Child’s Foot Off? Only If He’s Ordered To появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Arresting priests, especially based on the orders of someone claiming to be Jewish, is not a wise decision. Ukrainian leaders, including Zelensky, have accused the long-established Ukrainian Orthodox Church of undermining “Ukrainian unity,” although it’s unclear what exactly that means. Religion is being weaponized in Ukraine, a phenomenon that has occurred throughout history in both […]
Сообщение Arresting Priests & Concocted Rift in Orthodox Church –Greatest Victim of the Ukraine Conflict! появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Unfortunately, one of the negative consequences of active hostilities is observed in the foreign trade relations of the countries participating in the conflict. A temporary danger zone does not guarantee safety along trade communication routes. Disrupting the prior steady trading system is costly to the trade balance and frequently leads to major humanitarian crises, such […]
Сообщение The Grain Deal has become a diplomatic success story, or is there a new phase coming? … появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
It may well be that some of the readers (perhaps even most of them) will be surprised by the title of this article. Since the data from this space’s content adds to the idea that “Japan is not actually searching for anything in the international arena, having given its foreign policy to the capable hands […]
Сообщение Japan is looking for the best course for its foreign policy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The second Russia-Africa Summit and Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum which will take place on July 27–28, 2023, are widely regarded as the most important and ambitious events in the history of Russian-African relations. These forums are aimed at reaching a brand new level of mutually beneficial cooperation and meeting the challenges of the twenty-first […]
Сообщение The world is frozen in anticipation of the Russia-Africa Summit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Termed Saudi’s “new oil” industry, tourism ranks very high on Riyadh’s Vision 2030 strategic plan for the country’s economic transformation away from reliance on oil as the major source of revenue. According to the plan, the Saudis aim to raise about US$46 billion annually from tourism by the end of this decade, i.e., by 2030. […]
Сообщение Saudi’s “New Oil” Change Pushing for Multipolarity With China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The current neocolonial policies developed by the West in Africa have allowed the EU to strip African nations of their mineral resources, exploit their agricultural land, dominate their economies and exercise control over their healthcare systems. Europe treats the African nations solely as sources of raw materials, and considers them as obliged to grant unchecked […]
Сообщение Africa defrauded появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The decision by the United States and other countries to equip Kiev with cluster munitions has stirred debate in the Middle Eastern media. Several journalists have commented on these facts through the lens of the Ukrainian military forces shortcomings in the counteroffensive, which broke its teeth against the massive Russian fortifications, demonstrating their efficiency on the […]
Сообщение The Middle East: against cluster bombs and cluster thinking появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The “Good Guys” come from those same countries that are screaming the loudest over the audacity of Russia for having used them themselves, and to add insult to injury, those are the same countries that developed this business model in the first place – even the Vatican with its long tradition of Swiss Guards, were […]
Сообщение Guns 4-Hire: American and Western Business Model 4-Wars of Choice and Dirty Tricks появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Build bridges, not walls The next Russia-Africa summit provides a unique opportunity for countries outside the US-centered world to establish their subjectivity and recall that global development goals are not restricted to ensuring the interests of the “golden billion” as they are framed in Western capitals. To declare the existence of a “global South,” with […]
Сообщение The Renaissance of Russian-African relations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Even a visit to the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant by a delegation of government experts did not dampen the excitement surrounding Japan’s planned radioactive water discharge, and the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) with its leader Lee Jae-myung played a crucial part in fueling it. On May 24, 2023, the Democratic Party […]
Сообщение What’s the problem regarding radioactive water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant? Part Three. Political battles. появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Ukraine has become a symbol for all those who understand the war; there is money for blood. And there has been no negotiation to end hostilities because the money is and will continue to flow by the tanker load. Let’s briefly examine who stands to gain from the death of hundreds of thousands. BlackRock and […]
Сообщение Blood Commodities: BlackRock’s Role in the Ukraine Carnage появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is one of the few modern politicians who supports a political solution to the Russia-Ukraine problem and offers his mediation services to Moscow and Kiev. Turkey’s presidential stance has not altered as a result of the election. One of Turkey’s significant achievements in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was the “grain deal,” from which […]
Сообщение Turkey’s role in mediating the Russian-Ukrainian situation is wearing thin появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
All over the world, when dealing with developing nations, the economic giants of the West continue to adhere to their normal neocolonial policies. The tendency to treat sovereign states as colonies and sources of raw materials, ripe for asset stripping by Western capitalists, is particularly marked in the case of Mongolia, which has a relatively […]
Сообщение Mongolia, a victim of neo-colonial looting – how Western capital obtained control over Oyu Tolgoi появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The visit of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to the People’s Republic of China from July 6 to 9 this year marked a significant development in relations between the two major international powers. The significance of Janet Yellen’s trip to Beijing turns out to be more relevant, considering that it was given a low possibility a […]
Сообщение Following a visit to the PRC by the US Treasury Secretary появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the second half of June 2023, a wave of claims hit the world media that North Korea was allegedly experiencing a famine comparable to the Arduous March of the 1990s. A BBC article supposedly based on covert interviews with anonymous sources straight from North Korea (DPRK) and a documentary film based on the same […]
Сообщение A wave of fake news about famine in today’s North Korea появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On July 5 of this year, the New York Times published an article titled “America Lives on Borrowed Money.” It states that borrowing is expensive. A rising portion of federal earnings, money that could be utilized to help the American people, is returned to investors who buy government bonds in the form of interest payments. […]
Сообщение The decline of America is becoming an accepted fact появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Two countries, Egypt and India, have become models of mutual cooperation and understanding, thus providing a remarkable instance of regional autonomy in an age when the international community is becoming increasingly polarized. These two nations joined forces in many areas, in a bid to create a unique model of regional independence and play a significant role […]
Сообщение Egypt and India: a clear example of the multipolar character of today’s world появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The latest NATO summit has been ‘successful’ insofar as it brought Sweden’s membership very close to becoming a reality. At the same time, the summit also made clear that the alliance, even though it fell short of offering membership to Ukraine, is gearing up for a long war with Russia. The most prominent proponent of […]
Сообщение NATO Promises a Tricky Long War on Russia появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On July 5, the ASEAN Working Group on Chemicals and Waste held a meeting in Hanoi, the capital of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In addition to the ASEAN member states, other countries in the Asia-Pacific region also participated in the meeting. The agenda included the issue of the proper treatment and disposal of hazardous […]
Сообщение Victims of US military action meet in Hanoi to discuss the disposal of hazardous chemicals появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The American’s aren’t coming, they won’t be ‘on the ground’ nor in the air nor on the seas. There is no combat environment for the US against a grade one power. Let me tell you why. America is all about bluff. Stealth planes, nukes when that threat doesn’t work, or they will unleash ISIS (is […]
Сообщение The Short but Nasty Truth About Biden’s Bluff in Ukraine появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Fumio Kishida’s cabinet continues to create plans to strengthen Japan’s self-defense capabilities while fully ignoring contributing factors. Tokyo is presenting itself with impressive rearmament opportunities. The country aims to invest $320 billion in its defense capabilities over five years, according to the National Security Strategy announced in December 2022. After 2027, military spending must be […]
Сообщение What it will cost to militarize Japan появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia remain far from being stable. Meanwhile, Riyadh and Tel Aviv, despite the Arab-Jewish confrontation, had in fact maintained informal relations until 1967. This conflict was marked by the presence of a common antagonist in Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who backed the Republicans in Yemen’s civil war against the […]
Сообщение Israel and Saudi Arabia – Will it be against or for the agreement? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As I was recently departing Batumi, Georgia, on the Black Sea, the announcement was made, “Please Passengers, the train is about ready to leave the station, so please leave the train”, in English. Of course, something was lost in translation. However, the same could be said about the status of Ukraine in the wake of […]
Сообщение Vilnius Summit: “A Stronger and Expanded NATO Makes for a More Dangerous World!” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 29, 2023, South Korean President Yoon Seok-yeol replaced the Minister of Unification and other key members of his cabinet. The new minister, responsible for relations between the two Koreas is Kim Yung-ho, a professor of political science and diplomacy at Sungshin Women’s University. The new heads of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission […]
Сообщение Comments on the replacement of South Korea’s Unification Minister появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On July 4, the 22nd summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) since its founding in 2001 took place in New Delhi via video conference. Following is a list of the participating countries in the order that their heads of state signed the final “Declaration,” which was adopted at the start of the event: India, […]
Сообщение On some aspects of the latest SCO summit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Despite the good intentions and financial promises of the Brussels conference, a comprehensive solution to the Syrian crisis remains unachievable, as reported not only by Arab newspapers but also by much of the international media. It is pointed out that under the current conditions of the difficult Syrian situation, which is a detrimental consequence of […]
Сообщение The Syrian conflict is dragging on because of the West появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The United States leadership is squirming to resolidify ties with parts of the world that either bombed, invaded, or marginalized in recent decades. The prime example of marginalization is India. However, without the current gigantic trade surpluses boosting Indian confidence in America, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will have to do much less tightrope-walking between Washington […]
Сообщение India’s Modi Meets Biden – U.S. Screw Turners Squirm Some More появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The protracted military-political crisis between Russia and Ukraine has been a hot topic on the world’s agenda for more than a year now. The author will not go back to the reasons that laid the foundation for this most extensive conflict in Europe since World War II. In short, the Collective West, led by the […]
Сообщение No matter how hard the West tries, there is no order without Russia… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
One of the main current trends in U.S. foreign policy is to force its partners, including India, by hook or by crook, to join the U.S. initiative to form a unified coalition to contain China’s growing power. But does New Delhi need to sign on to such alliances? Not long ago, Indian Prime Minister Narendra […]
Сообщение Does India Need an Anti-Chinese Alliance with the U.S. появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 28, on the last day of the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, a demonstrator burned a copy of the Koran outside the Central Mosque in Stockholm. During this demonstration, which the Swedish police allowed to go ahead, a man tore pages out of the Koran, wiped his shoes on them, placed a piece […]
Сообщение The West sees itself as superior to other civilizations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s meeting with ASEAN in mid-July, focused on convincing the bloc to confront Beijing, follows a long-running US strategy to transform Southeast Asia into a united front against China. By doing so, nations in the region are encouraged or coerced to antagonize China, despite the growing superpower being their largest […]
Сообщение Blinken Meets ASEAN: Turning Southeast Asia Against China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Seoul Central District Attorney’s Office continues to investigate the high-profile corruption scandal in the ranks of the Toburo Democratic Party, known as the “cash envelopes” case, in which its former chairman Song Young-gil is the main culprit, as we have already described. Briefly, Song Young-gil was elected leader of the Democratic Party on May […]
Сообщение Continuation of the Song Young-gil “money envelope” case появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey and Iran continue to be important Middle Eastern nations. Due to their geographical proximity, imperial past, violent rivalry, theological tensions (between Sunnism and Shiism), and, of course, the continuous divergence of geopolitical interests, both nations have a rich history of relations. There were multiple Turkish-Persian clashes and wars, with various interruptions and varying degrees […]
Сообщение What is behind the current tension in Turkish-Iranian relations? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Saudi Arabia has recently gained popularity with many countries wanting to improve their political and financial status, ranging from Tehran and Washington to London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. And they are all inspired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud’s incredibly effective policy, which is gaining fame and recognition by the day. His policy […]
Сообщение Saudi Arabia: Policies Appropriate for the 21st Century появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In recent years, many journalists have tended to be skeptical about the role played by the World Economic Forum in driving contemporary global political processes. The WEF is better known by the name of the town that hosts its plenary meetings, Davos, in Switzerland. A few years ago, when “world government” conspiracy theories were popular, […]
Сообщение China hosts “Summer Sessions” of the World Economic Forum появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Reading the latest news by UN, NED (is banned in Russia) funded Georgian media sites, and the international news, or MSM, about the current medical status of Saakashvili, not to mention his political predicament, is comparable to a Red Cross report describing the harsh and brutal conditions in Nazi Concentration Camps. However, those in Georgia, […]
Сообщение Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “Servant of the People” STANDS up 4-Enemy of the People—Mikheil Saakashvili появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In recent months, the USA has stepped up efforts to discredit the New Development Bank (NDB), which, in addition to the five BRICS countries, includes Egypt, Bangladesh, and the UAE, while about 20 other countries are candidates to join. The reason for this activity on the part of Washington is simple and clear. The Americans […]
Сообщение Regarding the United States’ desire to start a campaign to undermine the BRICS NDB появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Israeli experts, including former Israeli Ambassador to Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova Zvi Magen, point out once more that Tel Aviv and Moscow share a mutual understanding regarding the inadmissible Israeli arms transfers to the Kiev regime to use against the Russian Armed Forces in the future. It is well known that the Ukrainian authorities, through […]
Сообщение Israel, After All, Fears Iran… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Iran is attempting to create a gas alliance involving Qatar. While Turkey is attempting to rescue the grain deal, Iran is actively promoting the concept of establishing a gas hub of its own. The gas swap between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan via Iran served as a test phase. Later in November 2022, Russia and Iran started […]
Сообщение Iran can form a new gas market появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recent years have given rise to a great deal of evidence that the current governments of some Western nations have stopped taking into account the fundamental rules of international law and are breaking previously made agreements. Their practices include outright lies and deceit; they do not shy away from passing off black as white and […]
Сообщение The degradation of the Western elite is a serious danger to the international world появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Despite gaining independence in 1946, the Philippines is still under US political and security control, remaining a US bridgehead in the southern part of the Asia-Pacific region. The sustained military presence of Washington was a requirement for the island country’s freedom. Under the Treaty on Military Bases, the Philippine government relinquished control of 23 military […]
Сообщение The Philippines still cannot get off the colonial needle появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey before and during the time of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has tried to conduct active diplomacy in virtually all aspects of its geography, where the Balkans retain a high relevance. This direction of Turkish foreign policy is determined by several factors: geographical proximity; the history of Ottoman rule; the course of European integration; NATO membership; […]
Сообщение Aleksandar Vučić was “offended” by Erdoğan? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Most western political analysts believed that Erdoğan’s opposition to Sweden’s NATO membership was only a ploy to garner political and electoral support at home to ensure his victory in the May 2023 presidential elections. However, even after winning the elections, the Erdoğan administration’s position on Sweden’s membership has not changed. The latest incident of the […]
Сообщение Turkey vs NATO: It isn’t just Tit for Tat появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The disputable situation surrounding the safety of discharging water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which the author discussed in Part 1, prompted a team of 21 South Korean experts to visit Japan from May 21 to 26 to inspect the plant and the treatment of radioactively contaminated water that Japan plans to […]
Сообщение What’s the problem regarding radioactive water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant? A delegation of South Korean scientists visits the NPP. Part 2 появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On the eve of military exercises simulating war with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brazenly and bluntly said: “I have a clear message for Iran and the international community: Israel will do everything it has to do to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb.” Apparently, Tel Aviv thinks that it has completely replaced […]
Сообщение The Middle East is once again in turmoil появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The current financial crisis in Turkey demonstrates the rapid devaluation of the Turkish lira. After the second round of presidential elections, the Turkish lira has been falling in value almost daily, breaking new historic lows. Thus, on June 22 it overcame the psychological mark of 24 lira per dollar. All of this was the result […]
Сообщение Turkish economy has to adjust to new challenges появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
History is the most interesting subject for many reasons. Not the least of which is the fact it tends to repeat itself. And the fact that some are doomed by ignorance of this is an important lesson for today. Take German tanks, for instance. First, let’s rehash a little history about the steppes of Russia […]
Сообщение Is Sleepy Joe Biden Trying to Outdo Hitler and History? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Review of the book The Koreas: The Birth of Two Nations Divided by Theodore Jun Yoo In 2023, the book The Koreas: The Birth of Two Nations Divided by South Korean Professor Theodore Jun Yoo was published in Russian. It was praised in the West as “a rare multidisciplinary study of the two Koreas from […]
Сообщение A Kaleidoscope of Stories about Korean Society появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
From June 19-23, Li Qiang, leader of the State Council (i.e., prime minister of China), who only took office in March of this year, made his first trip abroad. The focus of his first foreign tour was the European continent. Specifically, the two leading countries of the European Union, Germany and France, as well as […]
Сообщение Chinese Prime Minister’s Trip to Europe появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
A recent row between US-based social media giant Meta (also known as Facebook) and Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen, saw the Southeast Asian leader migrate from Facebook* to Telegram, a social media application popular in former Soviet republics and in a growing number of other nations around the globe. Global Voices, a Western foundation-funded media […]
Сообщение Facebook* vs. Cambodia: A Lesson in Securing Information Space появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In November 2022, on the margins of the G20 Summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with his British counterpart Rishi Sunak. There was unprecedented interest in the meeting on the part of the media and the expert community. They singled out the Indian origin of the British prime minister, with whom the Indians associated […]
Сообщение Indian origins do not guarantee love for India появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In a speech to the RoK Parliament on June 19, 2023, the leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, Lee Jae-myung, stated that he intended to renounce his parliamentary immunity in order to dispute the prosecutor’s allegations against him. Let us take a moment to reflect on what came before this really significant action. The […]
Сообщение Is Lee Jae-myung ready for trial? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 22, the visit of the Speaker of the Parliament (State Great Khural) of Mongolia to the Russian Federation ended. It is important to note that this is the first top-level Mongolian visit to Russia since the start of the Special Military Operation; the country’s president last visited Russia on an official visit in […]
Сообщение Speaker of the Mongolian khural in Moscow – an unusual but revealing visit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Political statements made before and after elections frequently diverge drastically. To a casual observer, it may appear that we are not discussing the same country. This is not even a matter of internal politics, where candidates lavishly spread slogans like “power to the people,” “only the people are masters of the state’s fate,” “corruption is […]
Сообщение What does Sweden have to do with whether or not Turkey will be accepted to the EU? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The dominance of the US dollar in the global economy continues to wane quietly but relentlessly as many countries actively seek other currencies. First and foremost, they are the BRICS nations of Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Although it appeared to be only a few countries, the total population is over 3.23 billion, […]
Сообщение The Magic Skin of US dollar hegemony появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
“Only if” is the key phrase in what Ukraine is asking for next, in terms of planes, tanks, you name it – in spite of the cruel reality that they are far behind on the “technological treadmill” and technology transfer. The latest hand me down, often obsolete military hardware will not make an “iota of […]
Сообщение CNN and US Government Pushing the Envelope – Obsolete F16s or F/A-18 Hornets won’t make an “Iota of Difference” in Ukraine! появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For fear of a negative US reaction, Hanoi stayed out from SPIEF 2023, one of the world’s largest business forums. The 26th annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum concluded on June 17 in Russia, with the goal of building commercial partnerships and expanding contacts with trading partners. Participants in SPIEF 2023 have begun to develop […]
Сообщение Vietnam shouldn’t overlook opportunities to strengthen economic relations in the Asia-Pacific region. появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In May this year at a meeting in Japan, the G7 development finance institution (DFI) decided to create the Ukraine Investment Platform. At the heart of the idea is a good cause – to help rebuild Ukraine. If you look at it from the outside, there is no problem, the development banks, including the European […]
Сообщение Western development finance institutions: The misuse of aid to Ukraine risks serious consequences появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Once again, a number of notable events allow us to address the situation in and around Pakistan. Both what happened recently and what is expected to happen in the near future. Among these, of course, the most important is the factor of the forthcoming general elections to the country’s parliament. The term of its current […]
Сообщение Pakistan in the face of upcoming general elections появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Following active US diplomacy over the past few years, Europe seems to have now decided to say no to the US geopolitics of “decoupling” from China. This is nothing short of a major diplomatic blow for the US, although this blow has not received as much attention in the mainstream Western media due to its […]
Сообщение Europe Says No to China Decoupling появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As previously noted, the outrage over Japan’s discharging of over 1 million tons of radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean (“discharge” for short) continues to persist. For instance, thousands of Koreans rallied in downtown Seoul on May 20, 2023, to protest the discharge. The leader of the main […]
Сообщение What’s the problem regarding radioactive water discharge from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant? Part One. The technical side of the issue появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Mongolia is currently putting the finishing touches to its preparations for a visit by the Speaker of the House of the People, the lower house of India’s Parliament, which will take place from July 6-9 this year. The visit was announced in a meeting between India’s ambassador to Mongolia and the speaker of the State […]
Сообщение Mongolia and India – an unusual but ambitious partnership появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As you are aware, current US-Iranian relations have been separated into two phases: collaboration from 1947 to February 1979, before Iran’s Islamic Revolution, and conflict from February 1979 to the present. Following the Islamic Revolution, the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi’s rule and capturing the US Embassy officers in Tehran in 1980, the United States […]
Сообщение Iran and the USA are in Private Negotiations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the old West, there was a term for every person or entity. We’ve lost touch with some of the most effective ones in modern times. Take the word “dry-gulcher,” for instance. In the cowboy days, this kind of individual (or group of dry gulchers) was highly derogatory, the basic meaning being someone who betrays […]
Сообщение Gun Hand Putin Versus Them No-Good Bushwhackers All Around появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Despite US efforts, reciprocity between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will not decrease. On June 16, the traditional 15th Strait Forum opened in the Chinese city of Xiamen, opposite Taiwan. The event has no particular focus and is geared more toward encouraging contact and demonstrating that Chinese people are not so different on […]
Сообщение The Inevitable Convergence of Taiwan with the Mainland появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There are increasing reports in the world media that the US-led NATO military alliance is planning to expand into the Asia-Pacific region. The idea was originally introduced by US President Joe Biden at the East Asia Summit on October 27, 2021, where he said: “We envision an Indo-Pacific region that is open, interconnected, prosperous, resilient […]
Сообщение Asian NATO: another failed plan by Washington появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
After an intense escalation between the US and China over the former’s persistence in “containing” the rise of the latter, and particularly over US interference with the island province of Taiwan, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken traveled to Beijing supposedly to repair tattered US-Chinese relations. As part of the process, Secretary Blinken even publicly […]
Сообщение Washington’s Real Policy Toward China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The 8th Enlarged Plenary Meeting of the 8th Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) was held in Pyongyang from June 16-18, 2023. The KCNA reports that the interim outcomes for the first half of 2023 were summarized, and the issues of the party’s development and strengthening, state-building, diplomatic, and defense strategies in […]
Сообщение About the June Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Worker’s Party of Korea (WPK) появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Tunisia is a nice little Arab Mediterranean country located in the very north of Africa (I know this well, for I was the Russian ambassador to Tunisia in the late twentieth century). Except for considerable phosphate reserves, there are hardly any minerals. Since gaining its independence in 1956, Tunisia has placed a strong emphasis on […]
Сообщение Tunisia’s President Stands Up for His Independence, Defying Western Pressure появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the areas of fuel and energy, Saudi Arabia follows a path independent from the United States. Recent anti-Russian sanctions and their secondary and tertiary consequences on the “daredevils” who continue to trade with Russia have caused the world economy to experience extreme instability. In the current environment, few players have been able to adapt […]
Сообщение Riyadh is steadily drifting away from Washington появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
I think Nazi symbols will be America’s official and unofficial excuse to walk away from Ukraine. It will be even deadlier, more political blowback; it will be like in Afghanistan but worse. The first stage, with the West growing sick and tired of the never-ending demands, and with little real results, is to cut back […]
Сообщение Ukraine, Nazi Symbols—Media Disinformation, ALL Wrapped with “Dismal Failure” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Syria is one of the most pressing concerns on the global diplomacy agenda, with Russia combining a successful peacekeeping role with focused diplomacy. Since the fall of 2015, it has been evident that the United States, its NATO allies, and the armed opposition organizations they were backing have failed to fulfill their primary goal of […]
Сообщение The Astana platform on Syria ended… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In 2022, Russian business faced a number of challenges in many corners of the globe. Many foreign companies have refused to cooperate with Russian entrepreneurs for political reasons, or for fear of falling under the sanctions of Western countries. However, certain nations throughout the world have welcomed Russian investments even more recently than they did […]
Сообщение Chinese, Russian – come and visit us: Meeting of representatives of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Russia, Mongolia and China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For a “new” model for the peace process, Israel will have to turn to China. In 2020, it seemed that Israel, with US support, was able to take a step towards the Arabs after the signing of the Abraham Accords with the UAE and Bahrain. Despite this, the changing geopolitical landscape and the emergence of […]
Сообщение US policy in the Middle East has not met Israel’s expectations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Meanwhile, Taipei’s allies, led by the United States, develop plans to evacuate their citizens from the island Despite Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense’s “appeasement” statement on June 14 this year that the country’s leadership has no intention of integrating into the battlefield intelligence sharing mechanism used by the US and Japan to obtain a unified […]
Сообщение Taiwan’s Armed Forces Prepare to Break the PLA Blockade появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recently, while outlining the deterioration in relations between Beijing and Seoul, the present author commented on a new scandal that further inflamed tensions. It has to do with highly critical comments made by Xing Haiming, China’s ambassador to Seoul, concerning South Korea’s foreign policy. The problems began on June 8, 2023, when South Korean opposition […]
Сообщение New complications in relations between South Korea and China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
My introduction to Artificial intelligence, or AI, came from my adult son who set up a conversation to between Joe Biden and Trump as who actually won elections and any allegation otherwise was just sour grapes. It was a blast, and then I signed up for an account myself, with ChatGPT. However, I did not […]
Сообщение ChatGPT & Demons: Why all the Hype over AI? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Russian-Turkish relations have been on an upswing, some would say unparalleled, since the early 2000s. The latter occurred or may be associated with the change of power in Russia and Turkey, as well as the arrival of two charismatic leaders, Putin and Erdoğan, respectively, and, more importantly, with certain transformations in geo-economic and geopolitical processes […]
Сообщение A stronger Turkey would not be in Russia’s best interests, right? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The prospect of an early dissolution of the lower house of parliament, with an immediate deadline set for the election of a new parliament, is gradually coming to the forefront of Japan’s domestic political turmoil. Under the current constitution, the prime minister has this power and usually uses it for certain purposes. More often than […]
Сообщение Japan: early elections on the agenda появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There is no doubt that today’s world is very different from what it was less than a decade ago, with the military conflict in Ukraine turning out to be a shock that has not only triggered changes in global geopolitics but also in geoeconomics most evident in the form of the way the global oil […]
Сообщение Saudi: Playing Big Powers for Maximum Gains появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
During the Shangri-La Dialogue security conference taking place in Singapore from June 2-4, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated that the United States is not trying to form a new Western defense-oriented NATO-like bloc in the Asia-Pacific region. The Pentagon chief ascertained those present that the interests of European powers in the region are […]
Сообщение Are the comforting statements of QUAD and AUKUS founding States to be beli? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
“Moscow-Algeria: closer than ever before,” “Algerian-Russian Axis: New Prospects for Cooperation,” “Summit of Friends.” These and similar headlines in Algerian media reflect the reaction to President Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s recent state visit to Russia. During the visit, the Russian Federation and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria signed an in-depth strategic partnership declaration, as well as […]
Сообщение Moscow-Algeria: on the way to deepening a partnership появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
We must think of the nice German expression “Vorauseilender Gehorsam,” – anticipatory obedience to understand much of what is going on nowadays. Meanwhile, the Titan submersible has taken over the media, a GREAT distraction, and most timely, considering the ongoing perils of Biden and his son, plea deals, the “proxy war” in the Ukraine, lame […]
Сообщение Global Arrogance of Power by the USA and its “Obeying Minions” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Western pressure on the Republic of Turkey increased as a result of Erdoğan’s election victory Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won this challenging victory despite the fact that the whole Western world had projected his defeat in the presidential elections of May 2023. After his inauguration on June 3, the Turkish politician began a new term. In […]
Сообщение Turkey is placed in an “economic vice” by the West появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 3, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was sworn in as president of Turkey for another five-year term. The inauguration and the subsequent ceremony, attended by approximately 80 international and regional leaders, suggested that a significant change in Turkey’s foreign policy priorities may be under way. Observers have predicted that the Turkish president is likely to continue with […]
Сообщение Turkey’s foreign policy during Erdoğan’s third presidential term появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has begun his first trip abroad after his latest inauguration – a visit to the internationally unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). After that trip he will visit Azerbaijan. It could hardly be said that Ankara has opened a completely new, and hitherto unsuspected page in the agenda of […]
Сообщение Turkey and Iran part ways… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Who has the inside track on why the head of Wagner PMC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, went turncoat the other day? Prigozhin, whose mouth has gotten more significant with each small victory of his skilled fighters, betrayed his fellow citizens, his president, and hundreds of thousands of Russian military personnel, laying it on the line in Ukraine. […]
Сообщение Prigozhin: Washington’s “Manchurian Candidate” Inside the Halls of Russian Power появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The rapprochement between China and Russia in the last few decades has been a very significant development for the entire system of international relations. The partnership between these two major countries is developing at a rapid pace and without let up, in many different areas and taking many different forms, and it is also managing […]
Сообщение How does Mongolia see Russia’s relationship with China – as a threat, or as an opportunity? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Cooperation of Philippines with the USA and its closest Asia-Pacific region allies is rapidly growing. And just as the international community barely got used to the March news about the number of bases in the Philippines which the USA has access to increasing to nine, as well as about the possibility of Japan and Australia […]
Сообщение Apparently, ASEAN is about to lose one of its most important elements, the Philippines появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The phrase “New Asian Alliance” in the headline is not the invention of the present author, but comes from an article by an Indian expert who, to judge by his academic career, has studied the changed strategic relations between China, India and Japan in great detail. And any changes in the strategic relations within this […]
Сообщение India and Japan – a New Asian Alliance? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The American attempts to “contain” China, include its increased aggressive actions regarding Taiwan, China’s relations with Russia, its various attempts to disrupt the Chinese economy and trade with the world generally, its slanders about “human rights,” and the never-ending slanders about China’s response to the Covid-19 crisis which is constantly condemned in the West while […]
Сообщение Covid and Propaganda: China vs the USA появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In this latest in his series of digests on the increasingly tense situation on the Korean peninsula the author presents an overview of the situation up to mid-June 2023. On April 15, in response to Pyongyang’s test of its new solid-fuel ICBM, the Hwaseong-18, the US and South Korea conducted joint air force exercises involving […]
Сообщение A chronicle of the escalation between North and South Korea in late April and May 2023 появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The chief of the Libyan National Army (LNA) promotes his sons’ political ambitions in Libya who are ready to strengthen ties with the United States. The General Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA) Field Marshal Khalifa is prepared to transfer full control to his sons and has no intention of participating in the 2023–2024 […]
Сообщение The possibility of a shift in Libya’s eastern zone toward the US появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Several years ago, the UN adopted its Sustainable Development Goals, one of which is the eradication of hunger globally by 2030. Humanity is making giant steps towards the creation of artificial intelligence, which, in theory, should make life easier for people all over the world. But at the same time, we still have a situation […]
Сообщение The West is responsible for the fact that one out of ten people in the world suffer from hunger появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Following the undermining of Russian gas pipelines Nord Stream 1 and 2 in the Baltic Sea by Western special services at the end of September 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at the Russian Energy Week forum in Moscow on October 12, 2022, proposed to depoliticize the issue of gas trade and create a “major […]
Сообщение Iran announced new gas project while Turkey is still thinking… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In connection with the inclusion of New Eastern Outlook in the EU’s 11th sanctions package, we sincerely appreciate the free and effective promotion of our journal. For many years, New Eastern Outlook has been an open forum for experts from different countries to express their views on a wide range of political, economic and social […]
Сообщение EDITORIAL PRESS RELEASE “NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In early June 2023, the 20th edition of the “Shangri-La Dialogue,” an international forum for security in Asia, took place in Singapore, and witnessed a lot of developments of particular interest for this author. A New Step towards Confrontation between the United States and China It is believed that the dialogue between the two countries […]
Сообщение On the results of the meetings the South Korean Minister of Defense held in Singapore появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
If you work near the Joseph Biden administration in Washington, it’s reached the point of “no news is good news.” The country is broke. The Russians are winning in Ukraine, despite all efforts by the West. The EU is on the verge of levying more taxes. The BRICS will grow, and create its own unique […]
Сообщение At the White House – No News is Good News These Days появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
This was stated by the President of the Republic of Korea Yoon Suk-yeol on the Memorial Day of the fallen in the war with North Korea. Such rhetoric is unlikely to help reduce tensions and strengthen peace on the Korean peninsula. Every year on June 6, one of the main national holidays is celebrated in […]
Сообщение The military alliance between South Korea and the United States has upgraded its status to “nuclear” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The China-Central Summit held last month attracted a lot of international attention. In the West, the summit was seen as a major step towards Chinese consolidation in the otherwise resource-rich region historically dominated by Russia. More specifically, the Western mainstream media, or Western political pundits, saw the summit as Beijing’s bid to fill the so-called […]
Сообщение How Best to Understand the China-Central Summit Without Propaganda появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Beijing rejected Washington’s offer to conduct negotiations between Ministers of Defense on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue Summit against the background of mutual misunderstanding. The Singapore Security Summit for many years has served as a neutral forum for discussing controversies in the Asia-Pacific region, where even outspoken opponents can meet and clarify their mutual […]
Сообщение Why China ignores USA появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The “third neighbor” for Mongolia is a set of the large states that do not have a direct geographical boundary with Mongolia and are distinguished by a high level of socio-economic development and a democratic political system. The very concept of the “third neighbor” dates back to the events of the early 1990s, when US […]
Сообщение 2023 and perception of the “third neighbor” in Mongolia: people’s attitudes are changing появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Despite Washington’s warnings, Algerian President A. Tebbun made a successful state visit to Russia The state visit of the President of Algeria A. Tebbun to Russia, which took place from June 13 to 16, was distinguished by a more than full program, became a serious irritant for the United States, which would not want to […]
Сообщение Algeria: independence and friendship with Russia появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As a reader wrote to me from Turkey, what is going on in the wake of the runoff election is very complicated, and I have little time for it, but it is newsworthy. I suggest you try to read up on what is happening, especially between the lines: Bianet in English, Duvar, Ahwaz, etc. You […]
Сообщение Turkish Election: Horns of a Dilemma 4- Joe Biden and US-Western-EU Birds of Feather появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Relations between People’s Republic of China and Europe resemble a complex mosaic, mainly due to significant presence of the sum of factors defined by the elastic term “politics.” The first of such important factors is the continuing prevailing influence of the United States on everything happening on the continent. All that despite the obvious shift […]
Сообщение Mosaic Nature of Chinese-European Relations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Myanmar has always been a crossroads of migration routes and trade routes. Indochina as a whole is one of the most favorable places for the development of homo sapiens, therefore, since ancient times, many often not very close ethnic groups have lived on the territory of the country. It is not surprising that by present […]
Сообщение The US is preventing the civil conflict in Myanmar from being resolved появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As US-Chinese tensions grow and as it becomes increasingly clear the US is unable to compete with China head-to-head in terms of development, trade, and investment, especially in regions along China’s periphery, the US is resorting increasingly to asymmetrical measures including political coercion, subversion, and even violence. US military aggression and political subversion, particularly in […]
Сообщение Why the West is Whitewashing Terrorism in Vietnam and Myanmar появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For two decades after the 2003 brazen and unprovoked invasion by the US, Iraq has been experiencing chaos, instability and significant problems, primarily due to the destruction of their state by the Americans. Although the number of internal armed conflicts has decreased in recent years, the country still faces many complex problems that need addressing for […]
Сообщение Iraq: internal problems and ways to solve them появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Within the days after the inauguration Turkish President is demonstrating a good and active political shape. Considering the complicated domestic and international agenda Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is forced to undertake intense activities and launch new initiatives which, if implemented, may bring about positive changes in Turkey and beyond. On the domestic front, naturally the main […]
Сообщение Erdoğan is pursuing an active policy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The development of the satellite was one of the key weapons projects announced by Kim Jong-un during the congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea in January 2021, along with a solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (already launched) and a nuclear submarine (not yet seen). Earlier, the DPRK announced the launch of a satellite five times […]
Сообщение DPRK satellite launch: a rocky start, but failures happen появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
How straightforward is simple math? If the public relied more on adding things up, the manufactured consent perpetrated by the elites in the West would be impossible. Take the recent Russian gold movements as a perfect example. Various propaganda channels reported last year that the European Union and G7 wanted to ban Russia’s gold shipments […]
Сообщение The Flawed Math of the Elites and Joe Biden – Shiny Metal Futures появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In March-April 2023, an annual “Politbarometer” was conducted in Mongolia – a comprehensive survey of public opinion on a variety of issues related to politics, the economy, and the public welfare of the country. In May 2023 the processed results of the survey were posted on the web site of its organizer, Sant Maral. Many […]
Сообщение Politbarometer 2023 – Shifts in the mood of Mongolian society появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
At the end of April in Lithuania, one of the “major” NATO countries, the local Foreign Ministry initiated a conference on “NATO and the Indo-Pacific Region,” where Vilnius tried to contribute to the unfolding confrontation with China in accordance with the trends set by the United States. It is noteworthy that the Baltic state stood […]
Сообщение Unequal confrontation between Vilnius and Beijing появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The global world order is on the verge of a radical transformation. The Western powers 30 years ago saw in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which resulted from its internal weaknesses and mistakes, an unprecedented opportunity to dominate the world by way of deterring possible competitors by any means. Perhaps one of the most […]
Сообщение The end of the unipolar world появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In March 2023, when China’s President Xi visited Moscow, he told his Russian counterpart that the scope of the changes taking place in today’s world is such that has not been “seen for 100 years.” The pace and the scope of these changes – which we can understand in terms of a visible shift towards […]
Сообщение On the Real Importance of New Sino-Russian Economic Pacts появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
A three-day informal Arab-Iranian Dialogue has just taken place in Doha (Qatar). The conference, mostly held behind closed doors, acquired special significance because it took place shortly after events showing that the world may be ready to turn a new page in its history. First, the top leadership of both countries – Crown Prince of […]
Сообщение The Arab-Iranian Dialogue as a prerequisite of these countries’ entry into the BRICS появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 2-4, Singapore hosted another (already the 20th in a row) Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD), which is held annually by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. Judging by the composition of participants and the range of issues discussed, this is one of the most reputable international expert platforms, which examines various aspects of security […]
Сообщение Singapore hosted another Shangri-La Dialogue появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Elections always suggest new hopes, new changes and new faces of those who will then generate innovations. During the election campaign, Recep Erdogan promised, in case of his victory, to significantly change the composition of the government, and to send the current ministers as members to parliament. Erdogan, as it is known, always means what […]
Сообщение Personnel changes – Erdogan’s new team появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In a previous article, discussing the way the South Korean government marked the anniversary of the Jeju uprising, this author noted that the authorities’ approach to commemorating the anniversary of another significant event, the Gwangju Uprising, will form an important marker in political history. That anniversary fell in May 2023. On May 18, 1980 the […]
Сообщение The Gwangju Uprising – and how South Korea’s dealt with this issue during the Moon Jae-in and Yoon Suk-yeol administrations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The United States of America is at war with Russia. There is not much point in using terms such as “proxy war” to describe the situation. If a belligerent in a war is acting as a proxy for another power and that power is not engaged directly in the war, the term can be useful. […]
Сообщение America At War-Provoking The Consequences появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On June 1 Turkey’s Supreme Election Council announced Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s victory in the second round of the presidential elections, with 52.18% of the vote, while his rival Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu received 47.82% of the vote. Despite the strong feelings and high tensions that prevailed during the run-up to the vote, no serious political misconduct or […]
Сообщение Hakan Fidan’s possible nomination as vice president – political patronage or part of a secret agreement? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The US and the EU have now developed the closest for the past three decades positions on the PRC, according to the US Department of State. On Tuesday, May 30, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was visiting Sweden, made a very ambiguous statement regarding China. At a joint press conference with Swedish Prime […]
Сообщение The Collective West is more united than ever against China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recently it became known that the Pope will pay an official visit to Mongolia this year. The statement following the meeting of the Secretary of the Holy See for Foreign Affairs with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia even mentioned the exact date of the visit – from August 31 to September 4, which […]
Сообщение A formal visit: What is the Pope seeking in Mongolia? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recently, I watched Roger Waters’ “This is Not a Drill” – a live worldwide broadcast from Prague. He had a lot to say in this particular concert, beginning with a statement that he won the pending court case against him where people in Frankfurt, Germany, were accusing him of being an anti-Semite. The court ruled […]
Сообщение “Mr. Roger Waters’ Neighborhood” vs. “Bellwethers of Political Correctness” Run Amuck появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Washington, true to its fanatical mania for acting as the world’s policeman, has announced that it is sending more troops to the Persian Gulf in response to Iran’s lawful seizure of tankers that were passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. As the White House Press secretary John Kirby put it in a peremptory briefing: “The […]
Сообщение The Persian Gulf: A failure of US policy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
During the presidential election campaign, Erdoğan’s main rival, the leader of the opposition People’s Alliance block Kılıçdaroğlu, stated in his anti-Russian rhetoric that in case of his victory he would remind the Russians about Turkey’s membership in NATO. However, nobody in Moscow has forgotten that Turkey, either with Erdoğan or without him still (since February […]
Сообщение Turkish Stand towards Prospects of Sweden Joining NATO появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The general elections in Taiwan that are due in half a year (on January 13, 2024) are gradually becoming the most important of the factors accompanying the development of the Taiwanese agenda. Especially since various maneuvers around this agenda are continued by the USA and the PRC. That is, again, the importance of the factor […]
Сообщение Taiwan in Anticipation of General Elections появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba began a tour of African countries in a desperate attempt to enlist the support of the countries of the continent to put pressure on Russia, as well as in search of new economic opportunities for Kyiv, which is financially still in a state of clinical death and is only alive […]
Сообщение Ukraine reaches out to Africa появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The launch of a North Korean satellite at the end of April 2023 brought the entire world to a standstill, but the South is also competing in the space race, and the author is paying close attention to the progress of the “Nuri” and “Tanuri” programs. A 200-ton South Korea’s KSLV-2 space launch vehicle, also […]
Сообщение South Korean space rocket, third launch появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As many experts had predicted, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan beat his rival in the Turkish presidential elections in a second round of voting, and is set to be sworn in for his third term as president. His triumph after a close-run first round has been celebrated both in Turkey and abroad, but the 69-year old populist […]
Сообщение Turkey: the second round of voting is finished but the old problems remain появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On May 31st, Vladimir Putin met with the President of the State of Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki, at the Kremlin. The meetup was ostensibly to fortify trade and economic cooperation between the East African nation and Russia. However, broader implications concerning the emerging multipolar world system are also at play. President Putin welcomed Eritrea’s president, noting […]
Сообщение Eritrea and the Roles of Future BRICS Nations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The US Army will have unfettered access to PNG’s territorial waters and airspace following a security cooperation agreement scheduled to be signed on about May 20, Radio New Zealand reported. According to the radio station, which has a draft document in its possession, under the agreement, which is expected to be signed soon by a […]
Сообщение New US Military Bases in Papua New Guinea and ASEAN появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For more than a decade, Washington’s “regime change” agenda in Syria involved not only defeating the Assad regime, but also forcing a territorial disintegration of the Syrian state. In the past few years, the US military presence in Syria has only served to prevent Syrian reunification. For decades, Syria and its allies – mainly Iran […]
Сообщение Syria’s Inclusion in the Arab League Marks Another Defeat for the US появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Turkish lira plunged to a new historic low after Erdoğan had won the second round of the presidential election, according to the Spanish daily newspaper La Vanguardia (today the dollar is worth 20 lira, but Western analysts predict that there will be another 40% drop, with the dollar equaling 28 lira). With inflation skyrocketing, […]
Сообщение Meanwhile, the Turkish Lira Has Gone Downhill… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The upcoming session of the Council of the SCO Leaders in July will include discussions on boosting the usage of national currencies in trade between member nations. This topic was previously addressed, and a plan was established during the organization’s summit in Samarkand in September 2022. The SCO is currently one of the most extensive […]
Сообщение SCO national currencies instead of the dollar – a vital need появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Incredibly high civilian casualty rates from American-led military adventurism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia have been revealed in a new research by Brown University’s The Cost of War Project in the State of Rhode Island. The report provides direct data on the victims of the war in which nearly a million […]
Сообщение The Middle East and US Terrorist Activities появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There was once a time when Hungary was the country in Eastern Europe with an ax to grind with the then USSR; however, that was then, 1956; times have changed, and so have modern-day realities. At least one EU leader is thinking: Ukraine is a lost cause, and why then to prolong the death and […]
Сообщение Ukraine is a Lost Cause: Why Prolong the Death and Suffering on Life Support? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Together with China and Japan, India is one of the three leading Asian powers, whose mutual relations will increasingly determine the situation in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. In turn, this latter is today in the focus of the current stage of the Great World Game. And if we can speak more or less […]
Сообщение India in recent international events появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Yoon’s invitation to the summit, according to First Deputy National Security Adviser Kim Tae-hyo, “will be an opportunity to reaffirm our status as a global partner in defending the rules-based international order and responding to global challenges.” Therefore, during his speech at the enlarged G7 session on May 20, the president of the Republic of […]
Сообщение About Yoon Suk-Yeol’s trip to Hiroshima and other meetings with European leaders. Part Three. Meetings with world leaders появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Following recent general elections in Thailand, influenced heavily by years of US interference, a pro-US proxy regime is poised to take power. Even before officially taking office, the leadership of the victorious Move Forward Party has vowed to help pursue US foreign policy objectives both in regards to “rebalancing” Thailand away from China and back […]
Сообщение New Thai Government’s Vows Obedience to US Foreign Policy: Myanmar is First Victim появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Military cooperation with the United States is ruinously expensive without any guarantees.
The United States has recently increased its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. For instance, in March of this year, plans were made for the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Canberra via the AUKUS bloc established in 2021. In February, the US and Philippine authorities agreed that the US military would have access to four more bases in the country (increasing their number to nine). Also, on April 12, representatives from Washington and Manila agreed to strengthen defense cooperation. On May 22, the US and Papua New Guinea signed a defense cooperation treaty giving the Pentagon unlimited access to a number of ports and airfields of the Pacific nation.
Experts say Australia will have to pay about $350 billion over the next 20 years to bring its ambitious militaristic plans into action. It is not yet known exactly how these funds will be allocated by item of expenditure (purchase of submarines, construction of production and service infrastructure, training of personnel, etc.). However, it is already clear that this project will not be an easy ride for Canberra’s public financial system and, consequently, for the Australian population, which is highly dependent on mineral exports. Canberra has not yet begun transactions in execution of contracts with its AUKUS partners (laws to make this possible have just been submitted to the US Congress for approval) yet it has already encountered economic difficulties. And the crisis, it appears, is so severe that the Australian government has to resort to “anti-capitalist” methods of direct regulation of the most important export industry – production and trade of natural gas, namely, to administratively set a ceiling on domestic gas prices and limit exports, coming into conflict with the largest foreign hydrocarbon-producing corporations.
Things are no better for another of the US’s oldest military and political allies in the region, the Philippines. A significant increase in defense cooperation with Washington is not bringing the apparently expected tangible positive changes in the country’s economic situation (the way it still does in the case of South Korea and Japan). It is not for nothing that the President of the Philippines said on May 22 that his administration is considering introducing ration cards in the country in order to provide for the minimum food needs of its 3 million citizens.
The most recent news from Thailand is likewise discouraging. Under the pretext of “unpreparedness of ground facilities and maintenance system in the kingdom,” Washington denied Bangkok, another of its “major allies,” the delivery of ten F-35 fighter jets already ordered and advanced, outlining the prospects of deliveries in a decade.
Following that is economically weak Papua New Guinea, which appears to demand more economic returns in exchange for its obedience than the three countries listed above. However, there are doubts as military collaboration with Washington has recently resulted only in expenses.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Hegemon is past its prime появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Something very disturbing is happening in Poland. At any period of that country’s history this could have been said. But this is another seemingly local issue which could have far-reaching implications.
The current Polish government has attracted a lot of international controversy. Though Poland is a member of the EU, committed to integration, liberalisation and globalisation, its ruling Law and Justice Party has adopted attitudes typical of a right-wing dinosaur party: protectionism, chauvinism, authoritarianism, and dividing everyone into “good” and “bad” camps.
This is Poland’s version of the populism which is sweeping the world as people lose faith in politicians. It happens to be of a right-wing slant in Poland, though not always elsewhere, due to the country’s more recent history: few want to restore the old aristocracy, but neither do they want anything tainted with Communism, or which has any sort of foreign, for which read Russian, flavour.
It is therefore understandable why Poland should have gone in this direction, particularly when it has a proud history of its own, which it can view as selectively as it wants. But like every other country, Poland has been thrust, like it or not, into the new era no one saw coming, which we might call the Post-Pandemic Age.
All the stuff which once seemed defective and old hat, like much of what the EU stands for, has subtly gained a new relevance when governments have imposed lockdowns on their voters, and we have all been put in the same boat. No longer can populists of any variety trade on simply attacking the other side, and blaming the straw men the public doesn’t like for everyone’s problems, when they put us all on the same side, and we didn’t like it.
As the populists are seeing their traditional catchphrases fall on increasingly deaf ears, they have to adapt their message to a more inclusive, co-operative mentality. The obvious way to do this is to appeal to their supposed moral authority – which can no longer be based on what the disillusioned public wanted before the pandemic, but on having better ways of helping everyone rather than justifying some people by destroying others.
This is where the disturbance comes in. Right-wing populist parties generally have several selling points: they can be assumed to be better at managing the economy, and they appeal to traditional values people expect to be upheld by those above them.
But Poland’s populists have, through no fault of their own, locked themselves into a position they cannot defend, but have to promote anyway. The problem is: what happens when people start giving this a mandate, and what will they then expect to be delivered?
Guided By A Star
Poland’s voters are aware that the next parliamentary election must take place no later than November this year. This seems quite a long way off, but there is also the possibility of a snap election, which may well be called if the ruling party sees a short-term advantage which might have dissipated by the time the scheduled poll is held.
So, the Law and Justice Party is operating with one eye on the practical issues it needs to resolve now, and one eye on campaign rhetoric which is often far divorced from reality, anywhere. Party programmes are often very practical and detailed, supported by sophisticated analysis. But when was the last time you heard an election candidate say, “just read our manifesto”?
In order to campaign, Polish politicians have to square a very difficult circle. Poland is both a democracy, of sorts, and a republic. The problem this presents is that most voters agree with the principle of a republic, but no one actually wants one in practice.
Even the most ardent republican would not want the state and its leaders to be mere cyphers, at the mercy of popular opinion which can change radically in a short period, and doesn’t actually exist unless every dissenter is exterminated on sight. Poland was the country which adopted the Liberum Veto, i.e. one single contrary vote kills the motion, in the glorious past the right likes to hark back to. Its government may attack those with contrary opinions, but needs them to be part of “popular opinion” so those with “good” opinions can be identified.
In any country, voters support charismatic figures, associated with success, who present a vision they can buy into and seem to be set apart from others, born to lead rather than follow. Exactly what a king is supposed to be, and obliged to be by the demands of the job, whatever sort of monarchy you have.
Poles always used to have such a figure to turn to – Karol Wojtyla, otherwise known successively as the Archbishop of Krakow, Pope John Paul II and now St. John Paul II. The late pope was a global superstar, in an office in which everything he said was automatically right, who presented a very different teaching to the prevailing Communism of his time and inspired generations of Poles to believe that Christianity was morally superior, and the country could be rebuilt on that basis.
The success of John Paul II in his role was a source of considerable pride to Poles everywhere. They no longer had to say they came from the country of Communism, but the country of JP2. People started writing novels about Polish history, producing blockbuster movies about the supposed regeneration represented by the election of a Polish Pope, and the ultimate overthrow of Communism made Poland the champion of the free world which had derided it for so long, even before the Communists came to finish the job.
Obviously, there are a lot of votes in being the party which supports John Paul II. In a majority Roman Catholic country, seeking to rebuild itself around traditions people see as their own, everyone wants to portray themselves as the true standard bearers of his legacy.
Communism is left, the Church is right, in broad terms. So, the Law and Justice Party, whose very name combines what are supposed to be Christian and not secular concepts, has no choice but to portray itself that way to the people.
The Star is Falling
However, the perceived nastiness and undoubted divisiveness of the Law and Justice Party government is harming the Church, with whom it is closely associated, more than the government itself. This in turn is harming the party, which can’t shelter under the Church’s moral teachings when people have less respect for those.
As in the US and UK, the blame game energises the yob element, who have nothing to offer but violence and hostility, but gradually alienates the core Christian voters. So why is the Church supporting a government which increasingly equates what people think of as morals with the “woke liberal” culture it claims to oppose?
The dilution of respect for the Polish Roman Catholic Church as an institution has occurred during the Law and Justice period of office. They are both on a visible downward trajectory. This has now gathered pace as a result of a Polish TV documentary, Franciszkańska 3, which claims that John Paul II covered for known paedophile priests in his diocese rather than defrocking them and sending them to the authorities.
The allegations relate to Wojtyla’s time as Archbishop of Krakow, and indicate that he did what almost all Roman Catholic hierarchs did at that time: treat child abusing clergy as sinners who should be received with love, rather than criminals who should be kept away from their victims, who were likewise members of the Church. These actions have since been interpreted as the Church protecting the privileged and powerful at the expense of the general population, exactly what the Polish Communist Party was perceived to be doing.
If you attack any national hero, you are going to get a backlash. Having based its own authority around JP2’s, the Law and Justice Party has led condemnations of the documentary in very familiar defensive terms.
The government has claimed that the documentary is an “attack upon Poland’s national identity” – in other words, everyone agrees with us, or they aren’t Polish. It has also claimed that TVN, the station which broadcast it, is a foreign-funded sabotage organisation, which may well be true but has nothing to do with what JP2 did with the three paedophile priests, who were not exposed or defrocked whilst in his charge.
It is also claimed that TVN’s information comes from old Communist era files, which cannot be taken as reliable because the Communists were constantly trying to undermine the church. Again this is true, but it was a post-Communist Poland which eventually sentenced two of these priests to short prison terms, the other having being removed from its jurisdiction on JP2’s recommendation.
There is an obvious disconnect here between image and reality, and therefore Poles are being asked to make a choice: are they prepared to overlook what John Paul II allegedly did, for the sake of the teaching and glamour he represents? If so, are they prepared to see every attack on him as false, ill-motivated and an attack on the country as a whole?
There was a time when Law and Justice could rely on enough people doing this. Covid has made people care more about their actual problems and less about who they can blame. Using JP2 and his legacy in this way may serve to harm Law and Justice rather than help it.
Nevertheless, Law and Justice still holds all the cards, as its attacks on independent institutions are stifling dissent, and it still has a plurality of support. So, the spectre Poland is presenting is that its next parliamentary election may be decided on people’s attitudes to child abuse.
If such behaviour is rightly condemned, we are in for a witch hunt of everyone associated with the current ruling party, from ministers to ordinary voters, and also of the Church as an institution. If it is implicitly tolerated by the re-election of Law and Justice, we will see the dangerous precedent of image and rhetoric being more important than anything – and of other parties in other countries seeing this, and wanting to follow suit.
Some Things Must Exist
Supporters of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are fond of telling us that we live in a post-truth age, and it shouldn’t matter if our politicians are con artists who habitually lie, cheat and steal. Even though both are now out of office, they have left a legacy of building aggressive popular movements around making a lot of noise, and stoking hatred for anyone who doesn’t agree with the false propaganda, or counters it with facts and journalism.
If Law and Justice succeed by saying that it doesn’t matter than John Paul II protected child abusers at the expense of their victims, it won’t be saying that the good he did, and the values he represents, outweigh this error. It will be saying that child abuse itself in unimportant provided you are on the right side, one of the “in” crowd who say the right things.
Those things will not have to have any moral content—or any intrinsic value at all. They will be simply the mantra of those who want to set themselves apart and destroy everyone else, whose only qualification is that they want to do this, not that it does any good.
We have all observed this process. In the democratic West, new educational models were adopted after World War Two for the new classless societies. If someone didn’t agree with one small thing these new schools did, even if they accepted the general policy, they were branded a reactionary fuddy-duddy who was too stupid to be allowed a voice, just as those who objected to the Soviet Union’s practices were sent to psychiatric institutions because no same person could disagree with one tiny part of Communism.
Law and Justice will not have any moral superiority at all if it claims that child abuse is OK if the great Pole John Paul II let his clergy get away with it. Most Poles would not support a party which made this its election platform. But if they do support such a party because only its self-image matters, where are we all headed?
No one will care about their own practical problems, let alone those of their neighbours. Like Brexiteers, they won’t give a damn what the consequences of their actions are, or what former supporters think about them, as long as they are accepted as members of the club, and can attack everyone else for the sake of doing it.
In a dictatorship this is always the risk, because the only structure of accountability is force. But what if a party wins a democratic election on this basis, setting this example to others, and is at the same time a member of the EU, generally well regarded and on the “good” side of the current political divides?
People who object to child abuse by priests should not be declared enemies of the people by their own governments. That is precisely the world Poland will create if Law and Justice takes the position it has, and uses it to defend its general behaviour.
There are more important things for Polish voters to worry about. But if they elect those who think maintaining a self-serving fantasy is more important than the harm done to real people, they will wish they could only worry about those things.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Poland: John Paul II Used to Lead Everyone to Hell появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As can be observed, the “Korean-Ukrainian theme” plays an important role in the author’s work since the United States and the rest of the Western world continue to put pressure on the South Korean leadership to change its position and begin delivering ammunition and military equipment to Ukraine. As was previously reported, Ukraine’s first lady, […]
Сообщение About Yoon Suk Yeol’s trip to Hiroshima and other meetings with European leaders. Part Two. The Ukrainian issue and the growing pressure on Seoul with the help of the fakes in the US media появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Four international summits have just been held in Asia, each with messages about the changing world order and the desire of Arab countries to advance toward the multipolar world proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Seldom has the world witnessed four more crucial conferences than the ones held during the period of May 19–21 for three consecutive days. The first was the regular Arab Summit organized by Saudi Arabia on May 19 in the port city of Jeddah, which saw the reintegration of Syria into the League of Arab States (LAS) after 12 years of absence. Several media outlets throughout the world emphasized how startling it was to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad back among Arab heads of state after a 12-year severance of diplomatic relations between Syria and many Arab countries, including the host country, Saudi Arabia. It should be recalled that the Saudi government was cool to the efforts of some Arab countries to readmit Syria to the LAS at the last Arab summit in Algiers on November 1-2, 2022. However, it subsequently changed its mind and decided to accept the strong Arab consensus in this regard, i.e., to bring Damascus back into the LAS. The change followed the restoration of Saudi-Iranian relations mediated by China in March of this year.
The presence of Syria’s president was not the only event of the Jeddah Summit. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the presence of Ukrainian President Zelensky was also a surprise at the first meeting of the Summit. He was there at the invitation of the Saudi Arabian government and wanted to enlist Arab support for Ukraine, knowing that the Arab world does not want to take sides in the conflict, but rather wants to work with the international community to bring peace to the country. With the ardent support of the West, led by the United States, the Ukrainian neo-fascist wanted to continue the fratricidal war and then move it to Russia. He is not confused by the fact that the US and NATO not only cynically declared that they would wage this war to the last Ukrainian, but also pumped their Ukrainian hires with huge supplies of modern weapons.
And Zelensky echoes them and does everything he can to bring new and terrible woes upon the Ukrainian people and upon Ukraine. Will Ukraine be able to exist as an independent state in the future, since its neighbors, particularly Poland, are already laying claim to Ukrainian territory and sending their soldiers to participate in this war? The Arab world has taken a wise stance on the war unleashed by the United States and NATO against Russia, stating that it is not their war and they will not even discuss the issue. The Arabs reaffirmed that they are, as before, in favor of peace in Europe and seek to establish a multipolar world in which the Arab countries will take their rightful place.
The Jeddah summit coincided with the G7 summit, which Japan hosted from May 9 to 12 in the city of Hiroshima. On the sidelines of the Hiroshima summit, the leaders of the Quad, a quadrilateral security dialogue that includes the United States, India, Japan and Australia, met for their third face-to-face meeting since 2021. At the same time, US President Joe Biden met with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol in the context of the trilateral alliance between the United States, Japan and South Korea. The three leaders discussed how to take their trilateral cooperation to new heights, including through new coordination in the face of what all three consider “illegal” nuclear and missile threats from North Korea and issues related to “economic security” – meaning China – and their respective strategies in the Indo-Pacific region.
Remarkably, no one, neither the hosts nor the guests, recalled the terrible atomic disaster during World War II, when American atomic weapons were dropped on the two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without any military necessity. In this case, the civilians of these two unfortunate cities acted as guinea pigs for the “defenders of democracy,” the United States. The Hiroshima summit also clearly showed Japan’s total subordination to the interests of the transatlantic master, to the detriment of the Japanese people.
The fourth summit, the first of its kind, was organized by China in the Chinese city of Xi’an. Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomed the presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, all five former Soviet republics of Central Asia. The parties at the Xi’an summit agreed to strengthen cooperation to prevent foreign interference and “color revolutions” in their countries, and the Chinese president held a series of one-on-one meetings with his Central Asian counterparts. The summit took place in the context of Beijing’s vigorous diplomatic efforts to counter Western strategies to “contain” China. If anyone doubts the existence of such strategies, reading the results of the G7 summit in Hiroshima would probably change their mind. China, of course, was not mentioned by name, but there is no doubt about the fact that G7 leaders had Beijing in mind in the Hiroshima communiqué issued by G7 leaders on May 20, when they emphasized that they would coordinate their approach to economic sustainability and economic security through policies of diversification and deepening partnerships and risk reduction, rather than disengagement of Western countries.
This language may in part recall a speech by the European Commission’s notorious president Ursula von der Leyen two months ago on Europe’s future policy toward China, where she also said that it would be based on risk reduction rather than disengagement of European countries. The use of the term “economic coercion” has been interpreted as a reference to certain Chinese market practices. Meanwhile, G7 leaders pledged to achieve their goal of raising $600 billion in funding for quality infrastructure through the Global Infrastructure Investment Partnership as a counterstrategy to China’s ambitious “One Belt, One Road” initiative. Not surprisingly, the Chinese government then reacted strongly and negatively to the indirect attack on China and announced its countermeasures.
Perhaps the wording of the joint statement made by the Quad leaders in Hiroshima on May 20 was more neutral from China’s perspective. The leaders said they wanted to see a region, meaning the Indo-Pacific region, in which no country dominated or was dominated and where the leadership of regional institutions, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), and the Indian Ocean Region Association (IORA), was respected. It goes without saying that most of the member countries of these groups are very interested in maintaining good relations with China and do not want to get involved in the fierce competition between the US and China on the side of the West.
The four summits taken together reflect the changes taking place in the world order today and show that the West, led by the Joe Biden administration, is trying to align the rest of the world with its goals and interests as well as its worldview, even though many countries and many regions have different ideas about how the world should be run. The phrase “rule-based international order” often used in Western communiqués is not widely accepted in many parts of the world for the simple reason that said “order” is nothing more than rules to suit the interests of the West alone. And this colonial policy of the US, the UK, France and other European countries is still remembered with horror by the peoples of Asia, Africa and both Americas.
It is enough to compare the “high principles” that the West claims to defend in Ukraine with their irrelevance, from the perspective of the same West, of course, to the Palestinian question and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab territories after the June 1967 war, to understand why this is so. The US was the driving force behind the West’s support for the war in Ukraine against Russia ostensibly so the Ukrainians could defend their territorial integrity, but at the same time under the Trump administration, the Americans recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights. The regrettable choice that contravenes the UN Charter, an instrument that it professes to uphold in its backing of Ukraine, has remained unaltered by the Biden administration. Washington’s cynicism, empty rhetoric, and double thinking in its foreign policy, especially lately, is off the charts.
The G7 leaders’ communiqué reiterated that the G7 member countries are taking steps to support Ukraine and pump it full of modern weapons “for as long as it takes.” They also discussed US support for “joint efforts” with allies and partners to train Ukrainian pilots to use fourth-generation fighter jets such as the US-made F-16s. President Biden expressed support for Zelensky’s “commitment” to a just peace based on “the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations” during his meeting with the Ukrainian president in Hiroshima. What to say here, simply, if it were up to the will of the aged and feeble-minded President Biden, he would award Zelensky, who has ruined many people and brought Ukraine’s fate to the brink of collapse, with the Nobel Peace Prize. Truly, as the saying goes, if God wants to punish Joe Biden, he takes away his mind. This statement couldn’t be more accurate!
The key contrast between the G7 summit and the other gatherings of Arab and global leaders mentioned earlier is that the former have conveyed conflicting signals regarding their inclination to embrace the concept of a multipolar world put forth by Russian President Vladimir Putin. At the same time, the latter were determined to pursue the old stale policy of a unipolar world only in their own interests. However, the West, led by the US, simply does not take into account the realities of the 21st century and that now it cannot pursue its neocolonial policy. Wrong times, wrong people with their wrong aspirations, wrong countries! Relations in the international system are rapidly changing, leaving the mossy West with its ideology in a swamp of oblivion.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Middle East advancing towards a multipolar world появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
From May 19 to 21, President Yoon Suk-yeol attended the G7 Summit in Hiroshima. Yoon Suk-yeol is the fourth South Korean leader to attend the G7 leaders’ meeting; this time, he was invited to the summit along with the leaders of Australia, Brazil, the Comoros, the Cook Islands, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
Upon his return home, Yoon Suk-yeol met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on May 21 and with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel on May 22. On the sidelines of the G7 summit, the president of South Korea held summit meetings with 11 foreign counterparts, including the EU leadership.
Yoon had to exert a lot of diplomatic effort on the following fronts during this busy week:
- Strengthen relations with Japan without looking like unilateral concessions
- Show up to a summit of international leaders and engage in conversation with all or nearly all of the attendees on issues that are crucial to the Republic of Korea, such as the North Korean threat or economic cooperation.
- Once more, to evade Ukraine’s demands for lethal weapons from the Republic of Korea, particularly in light of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s unexpected arrival at the meeting with well-defined objectives.
This is how he did it, and we shall look into it. And since there is a lot of material, the analysis will follow in three parts.
The Japanese direction
On May 19, Yoon became the first president of South Korea to meet with the Korean victims of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima (about 20 victims and their descendants), and said, albeit standard, important words. “When our compatriots fell victim to the bombing, we were a colony, and after liberation, our country was weak and subject to a communist invasion, and in a very difficult state… And so when our compatriots were under such hardship and pain in a foreign land, the Republic of Korea government, the state, were not by your side.
I came here as the president representing the government and the state, and deeply apologize over the fact that your native land could not be with you at the scene of your sorrow and pain, and once again offer my deepest comfort.”
On May 21, the two leaders visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park to pay their respects to the Korean victims of the 1945 atomic bombing with flowers and a minute (10 seconds, to be exact) of silence. Ten South Korean survivors of the atomic bombing also paid tribute to the monument behind the leaders, who then bowed to the survivors.
The cenotaph’s inscription states that “the number of Korean victims, representing 10 percent of Hiroshima’s 200,000 citizen victims (who were killed), is a figure that must not be ignored,” but the Korean Atomic Bomb Victims Association estimates that 50,000 Koreans, including 30,000 deaths, were affected by the atomic bombing.
The cenotaph was installed in 1970 with funds from Koreans living in Japan and was originally located outside the park. In 1999, it was moved to its current location at the request of Korean residents and Japanese civilian groups. Since then, several politicians have visited the monument, including former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in 2010.
Yoon became the first president of the Republic of Korea to pay tribute to fallen Koreans, and Kishida became the second Japanese prime minister to make such a symbolic gesture, after Keizo Obuchi. Besides, it was the first joint visit.
During the closed-door summit that followed, Yoon Suk-yeol said that their joint visit to the memorial was not only a tribute to the Korean victims of the atomic bombing, but also a courageous act by the Japanese prime minister, an expression of his desire to prepare for a peaceful future. This is also important in the context of the fact that Kishida calls Hiroshima his hometown. Kishida was born in Tokyo into a political family, although his ancestors were from Hiroshima, and he began his political career in 1993 as a member of the Japanese House of Representatives, representing Hiroshima’s first district.
Yoon proposed restarting direct flights between South Korea and Japan, including Hiroshima, launching the South Korea-Japan Future Partnership Fund established ahead of their March summit, and strengthening collaboration in supply chains and advanced technology.
Both leaders stressed the importance of a free and open international policy, and agreed to further strengthen trilateral cooperation with the United States “in countering the increased threat of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program.” Yoon and Kishida noted that relations between Seoul and Tokyo are at a turning point in all areas, including foreign policy, security, economics and science, and agreed to also meet at every opportunity and thus continue shuttle diplomacy.
There was no time for more, as the negotiations lasted about 35 minutes: But the summit was the third meeting between Yoon and Kishida in the last three months.
Now about how this part of the visit was evaluated inside and outside the Republic of Korea. As the conservative Chosun Ilbo reported, “The two leaders visited Hiroshima Peace Park to console the souls of the grieving victims. Their visit to the memorial demonstrates a unanimous desire to heal the scars of the past once and for all.”
The Korea Herald also noted that the joint tribute is a step forward toward healing the colonial past, but there is a sad history between the two countries, one as attacker and the other as victim. Until it is fully healed, Seoul and Tokyo have a long way to go, and paying respects at the cenotaph should not be the last step.
The more leftist media also wrote that Yoon and Kishida had taken a meaningful step to resolve historical issues, but eradicating enmity requires a sincere (official, not personal) apology from the Japanese prime minister, and more “active repentance (i.e. compensation).”
The Blitz Three-Party Summit
Another summit of the leaders of the United States, Japan, and South Korea was supposed to be part of the Japanese leg of the president’s visit, although it was questionable. As the US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated on May 17, “if we can find time in the busy schedule of the White House, we will try to hold a three-party meeting,” but no joint documents were expected to be adopted.
In the end, the summit of Biden, Yoon and Kishida took place and was in the nature of a ten-minute demonstrative meeting, the main purpose of which was to demonstrate unity of position and “to bring trilateral cooperation to a new level,” in which:
- Biden praises Yoon and Kishida for efforts to normalize relations between Seoul and Tokyo
- As part of countering the nuclear missile threat from North Korea, the topic of real-time information exchange on North Korean missiles was discussed
- The parties reviewed strategies to ensure economic security in the Indo-Pacific area (supply chain without PRC participation)
- Joe Biden invited his allies to visit Washington for the next trilateral meeting, the date of which will be set in the very near future, possibly as early as July.
Hence, the three leaders simply “posed for the camera” by holding a classic “ticking-off event” – shuttle diplomacy made another stitch. For its part, the Japanese pro-North Korean newspaper Choson Sinbo condemned the summit of the leaders of South Korea, the United States and Japan as an attempt to form a trilateral military alliance, saying that the plan to form a trilateral military alliance devised by the three leaders maximizes the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula
North Korean direction
Here it was simple. The G7 summit declared that North Korea will never become a nuclear power under the NPT, and as Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalev noted, this is “an example of statements that seem to make sense, but are actually meaningless.” The NPT defines a nuclear power as the country that conducted the first full-scale nuclear test before January 1, 1967, making Israel, India, Pakistan, and the DPRK nuclear-weapon possessors, but not nuclear Powers. And not members of the NPT (some did not join, and North Korea legally withdrew under Article X, according to which this is possible in case of a threat of nuclear attack).
In the ROK-EU joint statement, the rhetoric was similar: “We strongly condemn the DPRK’s repeated illegal ballistic missile launches as well as its ongoing nuclear development and references to the possible use of nuclear weapons. The DPRK’s reckless actions pose a serious threat to international and regional peace and security. The DPRK must immediately comply with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions by abandoning all its nuclear weapons, any other weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missile programs and existing nuclear programs, in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and cease all related activities.
We reaffirm our commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We call on all UN Members, especially Members of the UN Security Council, to respond in a united and firm manner to the DPRK’s illegal weapons programs by fully implementing all relevant UN Security Council resolutions and urging the DPRK to resume meaningful dialogue. Emphasizing that the path to dialogue remains open, we call on the DPRK to immediately cease all actions that raise military tensions and return to denuclearization talks. To this end, President Michel and President von der Leyen expressed support for the objectives of the ROK’s Audacious Initiative for a denuclearized, peaceful and prosperous Korean Peninsula. The EU supports the peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsula that is free and at peace…
We express grave concern over violations and abuses of human rights in the DPRK. The DPRK’s use of resources to support its illegal weapons programs exacerbates the humanitarian situation of its population. We reaffirm that human rights are an essential element in building sustainable peace and security on the Korean Peninsula. We agree to strengthen bilateral policy consultations as well as cooperation in UN human rights bodies aimed at raising awareness of the situation and convincing the DPRK to respect and fulfill human rights.”
As can be seen, the authors of the statement assembled a “bingo” of clichés about the terrible tyrannical regime and empty statements about complete denuclearization and the possibility of peaceful unification (i.e. the absorption of the North by the South in a color revolution). The text was so empty that the KCNA did not even devote any special material to criticizing it.
But on May 25, 2023, Kang Jin Song, an international affairs analyst, released the following article under the title “The establishment of the US-Japan-South Korea tripartite information-sharing system will lead to tripartite sharing of crisis.” The author noted that nine years ago the United States forced Japan and South Korea to conclude the so-called “Tripartite Information Sharing Agreement” (TISA) which formally systematized trilateral military cooperation. But with the TISA, which allows information to be shared only through the US, and Japan-south Korea General Security of Military Intelligence Agreement (GSOMIA) which allows mutual sharing of information only when requested, it is impossible to continuously monitor and control the behavior of strategic adversaries. Therefore, the US is trying to create a system that allows to co-operate military information in real time – so that there is a real military alliance with a “single nerve center. And it’s clear who this alliance is aimed at, which is why “our country and a just international community will by no means tolerate attempts by the United States and its satellites to form groups against the world, by using powerful force step by step to bring the hostile forces into despair for their erroneous choice.”…
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение About Yoon Suk-Yeol’s trip to Hiroshima and other meetings with European leaders. Part One. Key accomplishments появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey gained its 13th president today, May 29, the day of the 570th anniversary of the Ottoman Empire. In the second round of the presidential election, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan scored a hard-fought victory over his opponent Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, with just over 52 percent. A similar scenario of Erdoğan’s success was noted in expert assessments.
Thus, the leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) extended his rule for another five years, which is a historical record for republican Turkey in terms of uninterrupted rule for a quarter of a century. Erdoğan will apparently equal Sultan Osman Ghazi in terms of his period of rule and will be surpassed only by nine sultans (Orhan I, Murad I, Mehmed Fatih, Bayazid II, Süleyman I Qanuni, Mehmed IV, Ahmed III, Mahmud II and Abdul-Hamid II).
Many experts and politicians have called the 2023 presidential election historic for several reasons. Firstly, Turkey has not yet had such a case of presidential election in two rounds in its political practice. Secondly, Turkey has never seen such intensity of political (I would say foreign policy) confrontation between the main candidates from the government and the opposition. Thirdly, Anatolia has also not seen an almost proportional split in society between pro-Western secularists and pro-Islamist nationalists. Fourthly, Ankara has no memory of relevant attention to, and, in a sense, interference in, the Turkish elections by key outside forces. Fifthly, the parliamentary and presidential elections of 2023 showed the high achievements of the Turkish democracy where the government and opposition did not overstep the limits of what was allowed according to the legislation and the Islamic morals. Sixthly, the elections took place on the eve of the important historical dates in the fate of Turkey – the 570th anniversary of the Ottoman Empire and the 100th anniversary of the Republic of Turkey. Seventh, Turkey’s subsequent geopolitical fate also depends on the outcome of the 2023 elections. All of this allows us to consider the past elections as historic.
At the same time, Turkey has made significant achievements in economic development (especially in the military-industrial complex) and foreign policy under the rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Although Erdoğan’s economic success in the last two years was called into question due to the growing financial crisis and devaluation of the Turkish lira and the tragic consequences of the February earthquake further aggravated the social and economic situation in Turkey, the Turkish society can’t but see the striking changes in Ankara’s foreign policy. This includes Erdoğan’s foreign economic success in implementing a series of energy transport systems from Azerbaijan and Russia to Turkey and further to Europe, the construction of Turkey’s first ever Akkuyu nuclear power plant and a major international gas hub project thanks to Russia’s goodwill. There are also Erdoğan’s military and political successes in Libya, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, there is a progress in Turkic integration with Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries.
Many of President Erdoğan’s supporters inside and outside Turkey (especially in Russia, Iran and China) consider his main historical achievement to be strengthening Turkey’s independence and autonomy (above all, in regard to the dictate of the United States). And vice versa, opponents of President Erdoğan inside and outside of Turkey (especially in the United States and other NATO countries) accuse the Turkish leader of excessively engaging in rhetoric and independence policy, weakening the former allied relations with the United States, NATO and the EU as well as strengthening mutually beneficial relations with Russia and China.
Meanwhile, paradoxically, the USA, Russia, China and Iran, in spite of their interstate contradictions, can be united with respect to Turkey as a whole in excluding the implementation of Neo-Ottomanism and Neo-Panturanism strategy in the form of creation (or revival) of a new Turkish empire called Turan with the geographical integration of Turkey and post-Soviet Turkic world. However, each of these four countries believes that it will be able to use this Turkish threat against the others, or overcome it on its own.
In particular, the Anglo-Saxons hope to turn the Turkish revanchism against the interests of Russia, Iran and China, to create through Turan a so-called dividing (or middle) corridor between Russia, on the one hand, and Iran and China, on the other (and to use Turkic nationalism called “pan-Turkism” to undermine Russia, the IRI and the PRC in the future). Russia, in turn, hopes to use the strategy of Neo-Ottomanism and Neo-Panturanism of Turkey as a partner to establish a multipolar world structure, where Turkey controls the Turkic world and pole (and in the future lead to Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO). Iran assumes that Turkey’s fascination with Neo-Panturanism will lead to a weakening of US and NATO influence on Turkish politics, giving Tehran an advantage in equal competition with Ankara. China, apparently without publicly opposing such a strategy of Turkey, still establishes its economic dominance over the Turkic countries of Central Asia and plans to make Turkey dependent on Chinese investments, which will neutralize the Turkish ambitions regarding East Turkestan (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region).
The author of the Neo-Ottomanism strategy is known to be former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, whose political paths with Erdoğan diverged after the downing of the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 bomber in the skies over Syria in 2015.
Davutoğlu suggests building on the entire historical strength of the Turkish nation since the 15th century. In other words, the author of “Strategic Depth – The Present Situation of Turkey” has come up with the ambitious idea of abandoning the republican strategy of Kemalism and returning to Turkish neo-imperialism. According to Ahmet Davutoğlu, any state is guided in its foreign policy aspirations by: first, the geostrategic position of the country; second, the historical heritage (this is the “strategic depth”); third, the charismatic leader who can maneuver between different centers of power and push through his interests and goals.
The return of Turkey to the “Ottoman world” with a projection to 70 countries has been the line of the new Turkish diplomacy since 2009 (that is, since the date of Ahmet Davutoğlu’s appointment as Turkish Foreign Minister). However, the principle of “zero problems with neighbors,” which used to be part of the former Ottoman Empire, for some reason turned into “zero neighbors without problems.”
Former US President Bill Clinton expressed his interest in the causes of these Turkey’s aspirations at a meeting with Davutoğlu (then foreign minister of Turkey). Davutoglu’s response is symptomatic: “Draw on the map a circle with a diameter of 1000 km around Turkey – 20 countries will fall into it, in case of a circle with a 3000-km diameter, 70 countries will fall into it. And how many countries will be within such a circle around the US? Turkey will be interested in its surroundings.”
However, after the “November 2015 crisis” in Turkish-Russian relations, his resignation as prime minister in May 2016 and his departure from the ruling AKP in September 2019, Ahmet Davutoğlu eventually went into opposition to President Recep Erdoğan. In December 2019, he created the Party of the Future and allied himself with the Kemalists in the last elections.
In other words, the author of the Neo-Ottomanism strategy moderated Turkey’s imperial revanchism and advocated a strategic alliance with the United States, NATO and the EU. Hence, neo-Ottomanism and Neo-Panturanism are under the control of the West. It is no coincidence that Davutoğlu joined the People’s Alliance and supported Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP), in the elections.
But today, Kılıçdaroğlu lost the election, and Erdoğan’s opposition bet on the United States and European integration has failed. The AKP and its partners in the People’s Alliance bloc may have to draw conclusions, reflect on the mistakes made, and change their leader (it has already been noted that Kılıçdaroğlu could be replaced as head of the party by Imamoğlu). However, this is a matter for the future, and time is not standing still.
Erdoğan’s victory means a new historic choice for Turkey in favor of strengthening its independence from the dictates of the United States and the West as a whole, developing beneficial cooperation with Russia and China, and moving away from Kemalism in the direction of Neo-Panturanism.
Andrei Baklanov, Deputy Chairman of the Association of Russian Diplomats and Professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, believes that President Recep Erdoğan should highly appreciate the position of Russia (its President Vladimir Putin) regarding the recent presidential election in Turkey and draw serious conclusions in light of its results. What does Baklanov mean? Obviously, the fact that the Kremlin did not flirt with the Turkish opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, but contributed greatly to the success of Recep Erdoğan in economy and diplomacy: The Akkuyu NPP, Turkish Stream gas pipeline, the gas hub project, military-industrial complex cooperation, Turkish interests in Syria and Karabakh, movement to Central Asia, the grain deal, the extension of gas debt.
But Erdogan won the last election in a difficult struggle with part of the consolidated opposition by a small margin. There is a split in Turkish society and growing dissatisfaction with the policies of the aging Erdoğan. Accordingly, Baklanov believes it would be fair for Erdoğan to rely on those who really lent him support (above all, Russia). In the opinion of the professor, Russia remains dissatisfied with a number of Erdoğan’s policies in Central Asia, NATO and in relation to Ukraine.
Baklanov is obviously right that Erdoğan is more likely to be eager for the post-Soviet Turkic world (Central Asia and Azerbaijan), rather than agreeing his regional policy in the South Caucasus and historical Turkestan with Moscow. Until the fall of 2020, Professor Alexander Baklanov believed it would be appropriate to toughly respond to the Turks’ regional aspirations in the Transcaucasia implying a subsequent reduction of Russian influence. But the results of the second Karabakh war and the time that followed showed the diplomacy of concessions from Moscow.
In Ukraine, Erdoğan promises new mediation initiatives for the extension and preservation of the “grain deal”, whose prolongation he received on May 17 this year, as a kind of advance payment for two months (or a bonus for the election), while Russian interests are not taken into account in this trade deal. In addition, Russia is unlikely to be satisfied with Ankara’s consistent statements about preserving the territorial integrity of Ukraine (including Crimea), as well as the continuing Turkish military supplies to the Kyiv regime.
As for Turkey’s NATO membership, Erdoğan is unlikely to give up participation in this military-political alliance for fear of losing the guarantee of strategic security against external threats (including a certain distrust of Russia itself). The fact is that the Turks define their relations with a foreign country not so much by the established personal relationships between the leaders as by objective national interests and an analysis of the entire history of relations in respect of a particular stage.
The failure of Kılıçdaroğlu effectively buried the Turkish dream of European integration. It is no coincidence that the leader of the European People’s Party Manfred Weber, speaking before the European Parliament on May 29 this year, said: “Recent years have shown that a close partnership between the EU and Turkey is important, but no one wants Ankara’s full membership in the EU anymore – neither Turkey nor the EU. We must stop the process of Turkey’s accession to the EU.” We do not yet have similar political statements regarding Turkey’s membership in NATO.
Nevertheless, Recep Erdoğan’s victory preserves favorable chances for strengthening the Russian-Turkish partnership and finding new topics of dialogue.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkey: Historic Elections Behind and Historic Choices Ahead появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Against the backdrop of failed attempts to draw Asian countries into its orbit, Washington decided to enlist the support of old European friends.
The French Navy frigate Prairial paid a courtesy visit to Japan from April 20 to April 27. The ship took part in a joint drill to repress unlawful activity at sea before taking the place of honor in the self-defense fleet, headquartered at Yokosuka. The entry was a kind of announcement of a number of other more substantial joint military maneuvers.
Rear Admiral Geoffroy d’Andigné, who oversees the campaign, enthusiastically said at the event’s press conference that the current year of 2023 should be unparalleled in terms of strengthening collaboration between the two countries in the military field. The newest frigate Lorraine, commissioned last year, will visit Japan in May to engage in anti-submarine exercises, after which a group of Rafale fighter jets will be dispatched to the islands, and the countries will arrange ground forces maneuvers in French New Caledonia at the end of the year. All these actions are said to be aimed at ensuring freedom of navigation and maintaining peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.
What is the source of Paris’ renewed interest in the distant region? Following its defeat in Indochina, France has permanently abandoned its colonial ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region, and the remaining Polynesian islands under its control are so remote from the sources of tension that the appearance of any threats to them is in the realm of science fiction. Consider for a moment that the military expansion is motivated by concern for the overseas territories, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand would make more sense as allies than Japan, which is constrained by limitations on action outside of its islands. Not to mention the challenging economic climate in France, which is made worse by the necessity of making monthly financial and armament donations to sustain the Ukrainian government. With these considerations in mind, planning military drills on the other side of the globe seems wasteful and cannot be supported by the protection of national interests.
The pressure exerted on the French by Washington is the only rational explanation for their actions. The United States plainly recognized that it would have to contend with the PRC’s expanding ambitions when it decided to regain control in the Indo-Pacific region under Obama. As a result, efforts were made to win the favor of regionals from the outset, putting a favorable spin, by making various promises of financial gain, a resolution to maritime security challenges, and military-technical cooperation. However, Asian nations are still hesitant to fully embrace Washington and accept American claims that Beijing is a bloodthirsty regime. So the United States has to pull loyal vassals from Europe into the region and force them to increase their cooperation with their Eastern allies in an accelerated mode. The ultimate goal of the Americans is to restructure NATO into a worldwide monster that, as a result of the overlapping of roles and responsibilities, is only interested in advancing American interests.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The US is pulling loyal allies into Asia появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For a system to function, its component parts must exchange signals with specific information encoded in them. This is also true for mankind, which at this moment in its evolution can be approximated as a sophisticated system made up of around 200 elements or states.
If they interact in any manner, expressing everything from intense hostility to unconditional love, it demonstrates that the human social structure is still alive. Any continuous loss of communication signals is unmistakable proof that the human race is splintering into distinct social groups.
There’s a danger that this or that faction may start to consider, metaphorically speaking, diverse types of missiles and other state-of-the-art weaponry as the ultima ratio in the de facto terminated debate about the best way to solve this or that problem. In case this means is used, the need to solve not just some, but all human problems in general, is likely to become irrelevant. Forever. Unfortunately, this is the point at which humanity’s gradual progress, which began five or six centuries ago, has arrived.
This is why, among other things, the loss of signal exchange between the world’s major nations, in which the entire strength (intellectual, economic, and military) gathered by mankind at the time is basically concentrated, offers a specific danger.
It is critical to address a few issues here. First, there is already a trend toward another division of humanity into two active blocs, the clash of which is being followed with interest (“who would win”) by a very large but relatively inactive third bloc. But, secondly, this trend, which is in its infancy, is almost decisively conditioned by provisionally subjective factors, that is, it may well be reversed. Finally, the third point, which is the evidence of the previous statement, is the continued exchange of information signals between the first two groupings.
Let us stipulate that this last point is already manifesting itself in a “truncated” version. In other words, the leader of the opposing bloc (the United States) indicates a desire to maintain communication with the leader of the PRC-Russia tandem, but with the unavoidable need that all business interactions with the now-important Chinese partner be discontinued. The US obvious objective consists in halting the trend of deepening Sino-Russian cooperation in nearly all areas of interstate ties.
It is essentially this semantic content that is contained in virtually all the signals Washington has been sending to Beijing of late. It was substantially finalized in a joint communication that was agreed at the conclusion of the G7 foreign ministers’ regular conference, which took place from April 16 to 18 in the Japanese resort town of Karuizawa. This message to China was in fact approved at the G7 Hiroshima summit, which took place a month later.
At the end of the event, U.S. President Joe Biden appeared before reporters. His speech was mainly devoted to the sharply aggravated problem of compiling the next U.S. budget. In this regard, he announced the cancellation of the entire upcoming overseas tour and, as a result, his absence from a number of other planned (and no less significant) events. Among other truly relevant global issues, a special place was given to commenting on the “common G7 position” on the People’s Republic of China.
And the first thing that was stated was to deny the intention of the USA, with its allies, to pursue a course of so-called “economic decoupling” from the PRC. Although this term that appeared in the U.S. expert community at least in 2020, is increasingly appropriate in determining the real course of the U.S. Chinese direction. And in any case, it fully corresponds to the situation in the field of high-tech industries. In fact, the latter was confirmed in the same speech by Joe Biden, when he spoke of his country’s desire to have “supply chain diversification in critical production processes” such that supply chains are not dependent on any one country.
Various aspects of relations with China were also touched upon several times during the answers to journalists’ questions. Each time these answers were of the same “dual” nature. In particular, the current U.S. administration’s continued respect for the One China principle was noted when it came to the Taiwan issue. At the same time, there was talk of continuing to support Taiwan’s “defense self-sufficiency” and the unacceptability to the United States of Beijing’s “unilateral” actions on this issue.
In general, concerning the tandem of the PRC-Russia, that is, the current geopolitical opponents of the United States, there are attempts once again to implement the strategy of 50 years ago, which then ended with complete success. It boiled down to a fundamentally different approach in relations with each of the two main competitors, which were then the USSR and the PRC.
Today, the Russian Federation is portrayed as almost “incapable of achieving agreements” while signals of the dual nature are sent to China. That is, along with the recognition of the challenges posed by Beijing, “which require an appropriate response,” the intention to develop a “constructive relationship with it in order to solve global problems” is also expressed. Again, this is conditional on China actually joining the attempt to blockade Russia comprehensively in the international arena.
Since then, however, the situation at the global gaming table has changed dramatically. If 40-50 years ago Beijing played second fiddle in the confrontation with Washington, today the former is the main and long-term opponent of the latter. Under these conditions, the “back-to-back” format of relations with Russia is becoming increasingly important for China, which cannot be sacrificed “in exchange” for some ambiguous signals from Washington in the economic sphere.
Although they, too, of course, are of high importance to the PRC economy, which continues to be closely intertwined with the U.S. economy. The task of probing the prospects for the evolution of this key area of bilateral relations was (outwardly “on occasion”) handled by Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, who, while in the United States on May 25-26 this year, held talks with his counterparts Gina Raimondo and Catherine Tigh. It is worth noting that from the interlocutors representing the current female power (without any quotation marks) management triad of the United States, Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen was absent, who had previously said a lot of bad things about the PRC.
The general tone of the Commerce Department’s summary of the meeting with the Chinese guest drew attention to the fact that last November, the leaders of both countries held talks in Indonesia (a fact that President Joe Biden also referred to during the above-mentioned press conference), as well as the hostess’s expression of disagreement with the “recent actions taken by the PRC against some U.S. companies.” This, of course, alludes to the limits imposed on one of the world’s top semiconductor manufacturers, Micron Technology (an international corporation), in regard to the sale of its products in China in May of this year.
These measures had been taken in response to Washington’s attempts to conduct the above mentioned “decoupling” from China in the area of the most relevant technologies today. The fact that these attempts appear to be long-term in nature is evidenced by the content of the negotiations between Gina Raimondo and her Japanese counterpart Yashitoshi Nishimuro. The two sides had a meeting in Detroit, USA, on May 27 on the margins of the ministerial forum in preparation for the next APEC summit. By the way, Wang Wentao’s official reason for visiting the United States was to attend this forum.
It is clear that so far the negatives prevail over the positives in the flow of signals that continue to be exchanged between the two leading world powers (despite the declarative statements made by Joe Biden about the latter’s presence). It is evidenced, in particular, by the fakes that appeared about China providing fentanyl precursor chemicals, used in the fentanyl manufacturing process, to Mexican cartels.
This is not the first attempt to accuse the PRC of something “really bad.” Previously, a similar move was undertaken in connection with the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic. So let’s evaluate to determine if this stream of signals contains any information in the manner of “Skripal’s poisoning with Novichock.” If that happens, it would be a definite sign that the U.S.-Chinese relationship is “screwed.” Consider the current Russian-British relationship.
For the time being, the fact that there are (at least some) signals in the (continuous) lines of communication provides evidence that the situation between today’s two major international players is not hopeless.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение On the latest signals in the lines of communication between the USA and the PRC появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
After the publication of the piece on “Three Steps closer to the Red Line,” the author was asked to elaborate on the situation pertaining to the anti-leaflet law and the activities of Park Sang-hak and his “Fighters for a Free North Korea.
We depicted the biography of Park Sang-hak in our previous article dealing with him, including attempts at terrorist attacks from the territory of the PRC with the help of drones, which he recognized himself, and the fact that, according to defector Hong Gang Chol, in their circle the plan to deliver objects infected with coronavirus to the North was quite discussed: “People in the defector community did talk about it. Sending contaminated items will only hurt other Koreans. Basic human decency tells you that even an enemy should not be treated that way.”
In 2020, Park’s activities caused problems in inter-Korean relations. More precisely, the “Olympic thaw” prohibited hostile actions against each other, but for a while the South did not prevent the leaflet-launchers, in parallel explaining to the North that it was a democracy and they could not just go ahead and ban it. Against this background, from April to June 2020, the Fighters launched a total of 500,000 leaflets to the North.
As a result, Kim Yo-jong virtually slammed her fist on the table, after which the North blew up the inter-Korean communications office in Kaesong. She also promised a similar retaliation if the leaflet launches continued. After this, Moon Jae-in regained his senses and did what he should have done in the early days of the Olympic thaw. In July 2020, the Ministry of Unification revoked the licenses of two North Korean defector groups, including the Fighters for Free North Korea, saying that their leafleting campaigns were “seriously impeding” unification efforts and threatening the safety of South Koreans in the border areas.
Park Sang-hak was, roughly speaking, stripped of his accreditation (which deprived the Fighters of the right to various benefits available to registered organizations and made fundraising from sponsors difficult) and dragged through the courts, and an additional clause was added to the law on inter-Korean exchanges that banned the launch of leaflets across the border as an act potentially dangerous to residents of the border areas from which the launches took place. Under the new ban, violators face up to three years in prison or a maximum fine of 30 million won ($23,700).
The explanation is simple – the northerners have repeatedly promised to respond to such launches with fire. And there is a high probability that the balloon launchers will depart and the North Korean bullets and missiles will be “intercepted” by the locals. The punishment was quite substantial, but Park Sang-Hak did not relent and, depending on the political situation, sometimes the police detained the “activists,” but more often they managed to launch balloons.
Of course, the law has been widely criticized by Western “human rights” organizations, which have been feeding Park Sang-hak, and by conservative officials, including Yoon Suk-yeol’s administration. His unification minister, Kwon Young-se, criticized the law as malignant and a violation of the right to freedom of expression even before he took office.
Not surprisingly, after the conservatives came to power, Park felt secure in announcing that he was temporarily suspending the dropping of leaflets and propaganda materials in the DPRK. Instead, they will send medications that can help North Koreans in the fight against COVID-19. In fact, instead of medication they chose vitamin C and a cheap painkiller/antipyretic Tylenol, and the anti-Pyongyang propaganda was present anyway.
In all, during 2022, Park said to have sent balloons with leaflets to the North nine times.
The Ministry of Unification responded each time the flyers were launched with demands to refrain from the practice, but each time these were exhortations rather than harsh measures. In June 2022, A spokesman for the ministry, for example, said that such actions violated the law on inter-Korean relations, but in response to a question about whether punishment would follow, he said that relevant bodies would take care of it.
And although on July 7, the police (once again) launched an investigation into the actions of members of the organization that violate the law on the development of inter-Korean relations adopted under the previous administration of the Republic of Korea, there was no talk of Park being taken into custody.
On September 23, 2022 ministry spokeswoman Lee Hye-jong said that the government was concerned that some organizations continued to send leaflets despite repeated calls from the authorities to refrain from such actions. The ministry urged activists to refrain from sending leaflets amid lingering fears that such a campaign could lead to escalation of tension on the peninsula, and promised to take action if Pyongyang staged a “provocation” in response to the launch of leaflets.
Even when Park was apprehended and interrogated in October 2022, he was not detained, and a ministry spokesperson told reporters on condition of anonymity: “We fully understand the group’s efforts to assist the North Koreans, but as the government seeks inter-Korean cooperation in the field of health, we have repeatedly publicly urged them to refrain (from launching), given that this will be real help to the North Koreans.”
Two trials were initiated at the same time. The “fighters” filed a judicial protest against the decision to revoke their accreditation. However, in September 2022, the Seoul Administrative Court upheld the decision of the lower-instance court, stating that the launching of the leaflets was against the public interest of ensuring security in the border areas. On December 8, 2022, the Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of the ministry’s 2020 decision to revoke accreditation.
However, on May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower courts, additionally stating that “sending leaflets to North Korea plays a positive role in showing North Koreans the reality of their nation’s regime, calling attention to their human rights situation.” In addition, “is difficult to justify or prove that leafleting puts people’s lives in any danger.”
Thus, Park Sang-hak celebrates victory and promises “together with other like-minded human rights activists to continue spreading truth and freedom in the North.”
At the same time, on November 10, 2022, 23 right-wing NGOs submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court that demanded that the law on inter-Korean exchanges be revised and the 2020 amendments be removed from it. An important point in their petition was the opinion of Unification Minister Kwon Young-se, which argues that sending out such materials is “political activity” and its prohibition may constitute a violation of freedom of political activity or expression. In addition, the terms used in the law, including those that prohibit any activities in border areas that could cause “injury to life and limb and serious danger,” are worded so vaguely that the law could be applied arbitrarily.
On March 9, 2023 Kwon Yong-se again criticized the law, as absolutely malignant, and noted that if the ruling People’s Power party wins the 2024 parliamentary elections, the relevant bans will probably be removed from it.
Thus, the law on banning leaflets is currently awaiting the decision of the Constitutional Court; in parallel, the Conservatives are waiting for the parliamentary elections, where, if they manage to get a majority, they will try to change the law through the parliamentary procedure. In any case, the author believes that the law will be repealed and this will untie the hands of the hawks. The speed of the process may indeed vary, but it is not a question of “if,” but “when.”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Read more about the “lanti-leaflet law” and the activities of Park Sang-hak and Co появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Another wave of Western provocations cannot harm the Iranian regime.
Instead of rapprochement with the West in order to ease the burden of anti-Iranian sanctions and to push its conditions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran chose to increase its engagement with Russia and China after the start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. This situation has brought the JCPOA negotiations in Vienna to a standstill. Consultations on the nuclear deal are in intensive therapy mode at best.
Despite unprecedented pressure on Tehran and its economy from Western governments, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his clerics and military will not retreat from their hard line to please local or international critics. This is due to the fact that since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has developed a multi-level political system based on theocracy combined with democratic elements. Over time, this structure has become stagnant and slower to adapt to changing demands.
Under these conditions, externally provoked protests and unrest, coupled with the degradation of the country’s economic situation, have become widespread and are attracting increasing attention from international observers. However, as practice shows, Iranian demonstrators receive only rhetorical support from the West and cannot count on the US and EU to provide practical assistance to overthrow the regime. Moreover, open support for the protest movement by Western countries could undermine public confidence in the opposition itself and provoke retaliation from the Iranian government, which has experience in suppressing unrest.
It should be noted here that the Ayatollah regime was originally very closely linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This paramilitary structure was adapted and equipped to deal with such unrest. The tandem between the government and the IRGC was cemented by the pragmatic nationalism of the Iranian elite, tired of the Pahlavi Shah’s rule.
Thus, the West is left to prey on the financial disadvantage of the Iranian population, which has lately, due to the frantic inflation rate (about 50%), been resulting in labor unrest and ethnic tensions. Thus, the most intense unrest was recorded in the Kurdish northwest of the country, in the Sistan and Baluchestan Province inhabited by non-Persian-speaking Sunnis, and the Azerbaijani-populated provinces of Ardabil, as well as East and West Azerbaijan. This has provoked Tehran’s strikes against Iraqi Kurdistan, as well as a diplomatic crisis with Baku. Tensions in the oil sector, as well as in other industries such as farming sector, metallurgy and food processing, have also taken on a pro-Western tone. The confrontation between the regime and the opposition culminated in the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in September 2022. The incident sparked a new wave of demonstrations and pressure from Europe, criticizing the local authorities for human rights violations. The consequence was Germany’s cancellation of export credits stimulating trade with Iran, as well as the European Parliament’s recognition of the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
However, the West does not offer anything in return. And as you know, Western human rights activists, apart from naive promises that constitutional reforms will happen easily, cannot provide any guarantees. Only the son of the late Shah Reza Pahlavi believes in serious political transformation, but even with his arrival it is unlikely that any profound changes will take place.
To summarize, no matter how long Tehran declares the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, its message will never be heard in Western capitals. Despite the strongest push and constant incitement and provocations from the West, the clerical regime continues to hold its ground. Perhaps Supreme Leader Khamenei lacks popularity with the population, perhaps street protests have been too harshly suppressed, perhaps Israeli attacks can disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities. All this, however, will only further unite Iranians and make the country more secure. For opponents of the regime, predicting its demise remains a matter of hope, not expectation.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Iran still rolling with the punches появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Many people in my country are beginning to understand the lies and control mechanisms put in place by our elites. Liars are easily found over time. A Cold War mentality of our elite dinosaurs grafted onto the new breed of soulless elites is now crystal clear. The proxy war in Ukraine, the aggression toward China, […]
Сообщение Every Time Putin Utters a Truth – The World’s Liars Go Crazy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Following the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States felt that it would always be the lone superpower and that its hegemony would not be challenged. The failure of American policy in Iraq, followed by a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, did not undercut Washington’s claim to global dominance. When Russia demanded an end to […]
Сообщение The West increasingly isolates itself появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In late April and early May 2023, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration took several steps towards aggravating inter-Korean relations. However, although the Washington Declaration was the most notable of them, the author draws attention to three less noticeable events that can make a much more serious contribution to the aggravation of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.
The first step – This is the decision of the court, which restored the accreditation of the so-called “Fighters for a Free North Korea (FFNK)”. It is this NGO that launches millions of leaflets across the border, and also long before the events in Ukraine tried to blow up statues of North Korean leaders with the help of drones in order to pass off these terrorist attacks as the actions of “Christian resistance” inside the DPRK, whose existence could become a pretext for “humanitarian intervention” along the Yugoslav model.
It is worth recalling that at one time the “fighters” seriously discussed sending objects infected with coronavirus to the North in order to cause an epidemic, and then an uprising and regime change as a result of protests. At the same time, the outbreak of “fever” in the North began at the very end of April – the beginning of May 2022 and on April 25-26, FFNK sent 20 balloons and 1 million propaganda leaflets to North Korea. It was believed that in a balloon, suspicious objects would not have been able to penetrate into the area from where, according to the DPRK, the epidemic began (far away). However, in January 2023, Park Sang-hak stated that since 2020 they had been using not only balloons to deliver leaflets, but also drones, one of which flew to Pyongyang. This gives the version of the South Korean origin of the virus additional credibility.
In 2020, Park and Co. were actually subjected to special law prohibiting such actions, and FFNK, roughly speaking, was deprived of accreditation, which, in particular, stripped them of the opportunity to officially attract sponsorship. “Fighters for a Free North Korea” filed an administrative lawsuit to overturn the decision of the Ministry of Unification, but in September 2022, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower-instance court,
And on May 3, 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower courts, additionally stating that “sending leaflets to North Korea plays a positive role in showing North Koreans the reality of their nation’s regime, calling attention to their human rights situation.”
It is clear that after Yoon Suk-yeol came to power, anti-Pyongyang NGOs realized that their hands were untied, and, feeling their impunity, could take steps that could provoke the North Korean leadership to respond in a way that the international community would consider inadequate. Recall that even under Moon Jae-in, the North Koreans promised not only to shoot down leaflets, but also to respond with fire at the launch sites. It was for this reason that the locals were strongly opposed to Park, since they did not want the political games of these groups to become a danger to their lives.
Second step – this is the decision of the Seoul Central District Court, the defendant in which is the leader of North Korea. On May 8, 2023, three former South Korean prisoners of war (more precisely, two living former prisoners and relatives of one deceased), including 91-year-old Kim Song-tae, again won a lawsuit for damages for forced labor during stay there in captivity. The Seoul Central District Court ordered North Korea and Kim Jong-un personally to pay 50 million won ($37,900) to each of them. The trio, they said, had been taken prisoner during the 1950-53 Korean War, after which they were forced to work in a coal mine and on construction sites for about 33 months, without being allowed to return. It is unclear in what capacity they stayed in the DPRK after that, but in 2000-2001 they managed to escape, and in September 2020 they began a lawsuit demanding compensation from Pyongyang.
This is not the first such verdict: in July 2000, the same court issued a similar decision, but then there were two plaintiffs, and compensation was equal to 21 million won. Now the plaintiffs intend to seek payments from the Fund for Inter-Korean Economic and Cultural Cooperation.
Why is the author more afraid of such actions than of exercises? North Korea is an ideocratic state in which “insulting the highest dignity” is an act so unforgivable that it cannot fail to provoke retaliatory actions, even if they cause more than just reputational damage to the country. Therefore, mockery of the leader of the country or sentencing him in the course of a lawsuit, which seem to a person out of context “mere trifles”, are perceived as an encroachment on the basics of the state. By playing these strings, you can easily provoke the North.
Third step – This is a return to big politics and to a high post of an extremely odious person.
On May 11, 2023, during the inaugural meeting of the Presidential Committee on Defense Innovation Yoon Sook-yeol said that he was considering the possibility of creating a Strategic Command “to strengthen the jointness of the three branches of the armed forces and combine and effectively operate the fighting capabilities spread across the services.” A lot of routine words were said that “we must reinforce our military’s active deterrence response capabilities” and “possess the overwhelming military power to deter North Korea’s provocation mentality in advance,” but for the author, it is more important who will innovate, and in the future – be responsible for defense strategies.
The committee consists of 11 members, chaired by the President, and eight civilians, including former Defense Minister Kim Kwang-jin, whom Yoon Suk-yeol addressed as “vice-chairman“. That is, Kim will be the de facto head of the committee tasked with reforming the South Korean armed forces.
According to Korea Times, the former defense minister was known as “the most feared soldier in North Korea” because of his stance of “zero tolerance for the regime’s provocations during his tenure.” His approach included statements of readiness to launch an airstrike on the DPRK in the event of new provocations, and orders in the style of “shoot first, report later.” In response, the DPRK used his photo as targets for artillery exercises. Moreover, Kim was one of the most visible and bright hawks that Park Geun-hye, who replaced Lee Myung-bak, was forced to “push up” to the Security Council in order to tear him away from the real command of the troops.
However, in March 2018, he was charged with political interference and abuse of power, but in October 2022, the Supreme Court returned the case back to the Seoul High Court.
Still, speaking to reporters, the presidential administration official said Kim, who also served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and national security adviser, is one of the most qualified, ideal people to fulfill this crucial role.
Kim’s return to the armed forces theoretically means that he can bring in those officers, one of whom once claimed to the author that “if politicians do not interfere with us, then we can destroy North Korea in 96 hours.” This means that the likelihood of provocations also increases. And when they happen, it doesn’t matter whether these actions were carried out at the instruction of the president or were the initiative of Kim or his even more zealous subordinates. These are very serious steps towards a dangerous line.
All this increases the likelihood that the inter-Korean conflict will happen not on direct orders from above, but due to the fact that modern analysts underestimate the military potential of the DPRK and may be in captivity of the assumptions widespread under Lee Myung-bak that North Korea is on the verge of collapse and only a strong push is needed. I would like to hope that such plans will not come true.
Unfortunately, the author states that one of his pessimistic forecasts has materialized. Partly because of the need to strengthen party unity, partly because he was not professionally engaged in foreign policy, Yoon “hands over” the inter-Korean direction and foreign policy to those who were in charge of them not even under Park Geun-hye, but under Lee Myung-bak. Some respondents of the author argue that after Yoon’s national security adviser Kim Sung-han had left his post (very likely due to American leaks), his first deputy, Kim Tae-hyo, who was not only one of the biggest and most famous hawks since the days of Lee Myung-bak, but also took part in the development of the “denuclearization-openness-3000” program, gained great influence. A remake of the “denuclearization-openness-3000” was the “bold initiative” of Yoon Suk-yeol: let North Korea first completely disarm, and then receive a lot of economic assistance. This approach was outdated back in the days of Lee Myung-bak, which indicates either Yoon’s low competence in foreign policy, or a simple two-way move, which Lee Myung-bak used at one time and it may be used by Yoon Suk-yeol: a proposal is put forward that is acceptable in the eyes of the West, but absolutely impassable in practice. The North, of course, refuses it, after which the South, with the words “now we have no other choice,” safely moves on to “Plan B”, stating that Pyongyang, which rejected such a wonderful idea, bears full responsibility for further developments.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Three Steps closer to the Red Line появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry protested to Tokyo over the G7 summit’s vilification of Beijing and interference in Chinese internal affairs.
The G7 summit, which took place in Hiroshima, Japan, from May 19 to 21, was not without controversy. The leaders of the so-called most industrialized countries have once again demonstrated their exclusivity and pretention to judge everyone and everything. The communiqué produced at the summit drew “much” attention to China; in particular, the G7 countries expressed worry over Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, and the “non-market practices” of the PRC.
This cavalier attitude on the part of the leaders of the collective West could not have gone unanswered by China. Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Sun Weidong protested to the Japanese ambassador in Beijing over the inflated issues related to China at the G7 summit in Hiroshima. According to a Chinese foreign ministry statement, Japan, which holds the G7 presidency this year, attacked and vilified China along with other countries during the G7 events in Hiroshima as well as in the joint G7 statement. “Such gross interference in China’s internal affairs violates basic principles of international law and harms China’s sovereignty, security and development interests. In this regard, Beijing expresses its acute discontent and strong protest,” the statement stressed.
The Chinese diplomat also noted that the G7 has a confrontational and Cold War camp mentality and its actions violate historical trends, objective facts and international morality. Sun Weidong pointed out that the issues related to Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet are exclusively internal Chinese affairs, and no outside forces will be allowed to interfere in any way. Accusations of “economic coercion” of other countries and creating a “debt trap” cannot be addressed to Beijing, while the initiator and the biggest source of risk to the international order and the functioning of the world economy at the moment is the United States, the deputy minister pointed out.
“Gone are the days when individual Western countries could unreasonably interfere in the internal affairs of other states and manipulate global affairs. We call on members of the G7 to comply with the general trend of the era of openness and tolerance, to stop participating in closed and exclusive small formats, suppressing other countries, and creating and provoking division and confrontation,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry stressed.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The G7 countries demonstrated a Cold War mentality in their attacks on China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The new world order, based on equality of all its participants and initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, is increasingly making its way in international relations. The results of the Arab summit, which just ended in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, are a vivid example of this.
This year’s Summit came amid signs that the oil-rich kingdom is increasingly using its vast wealth, rapidly growing “soft power” and its assertive new diplomacy to play a leading role not only in its own region, but in the entire Arab world. Over the past few years, Saudi Arabia has demonstrated its economic and diplomatic power to its full extent in an attempt to make the kingdom the centerpiece of global and regional geopolitics. The Arab summit was unanimously seen as strengthening Saudi Arabia’s regional influence and signaling a new order in the Middle East.
The summit followed a Saudi-Iranian rapprochement brokered by China after years of tension, and Riyadh hopes it will give further impetus to its regional peak trajectory. But it also came against the troubling backdrop of several regional crises skillfully engineered by the West, led by the US, determined to push its old neo-colonial policies again. In this situation, the ability of the Arab world and the Kingdom to overcome the conflicts that underlie the existing regional system, its norms and institutions, is an acute question. The days before the Summit were marked by an outbreak in the Gaza Strip, as Israel and the Palestinians continued one of their worst violent clashes in years. The escalation of Israeli airstrikes and rocket fire from Gaza was another grim reminder that the stakes remain high as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drags on. However, it is unclear how Arab leaders will respond to the stalemate and whether this could affect the establishment of a future peace with Israel.
Arab leaders are also meeting to try to resolve the complex conflict in Sudan. Fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is now in its fourth week, fueling fears of a wider conflict. Beyond a symbolic agreement on the treatment of civilians, Saudi-brokered negotiations have failed to convince the two warring parties to end the conflict or even to reach a long-term cease-fire. Riyadh has conducted a rescue operation to remove foreigners trapped by the fighting from Sudan and considers itself, to some extent, a mediator in the conflict. The Kingdom is a member of the Quad group, which includes the UAE, Britain, and the United States, and it supports the transition to a civilian-led government in every possible way.
Although calm has been restored since the clashes in Gaza, repeated flare-ups between Palestinians and Israel, along with the expansionist policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which the US and Joe Biden actively support, remain a key problem. And it is the one that so far stands in the way of a normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which could further encourage the Kingdom’s quest for leadership and calm the region’s volatile situation.
The Jeddah summit also marked Syria’s return to the Arab League after 12 years of exclusion of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the culmination of years of efforts to reengage with him. The LAS lifted Syria’s suspended membership, imposed after the crackdown on street protests that led to Syria’s civil war in 2011. Riyadh had been a key supporter of Syrian armed opposition groups trying to topple the Assad regime, but in recent weeks it has reopened its embassy in Damascus and resumed normal relations. The 32nd Summit stressed that Syria’s return to “the Arab fold marks the practical activation of the Arab role in finding a solution to the Syrian crisis in accordance with international recommendations, including Security Council resolution 2254.” The Arab countries expressed their willingness “to support with all sincerity and honesty all real efforts to promote joint Arab action toward Syria.” The Summit Declaration also called for intensified Arab efforts to assist Syria in overcoming the crisis and creating favorable conditions for the return of Syrian refugees while preserving the unity and territorial integrity of the Arab country. Bashar al-Assad himself, speaking at the summit, said that Syria’s return to the LAS was the right decision, emphasizing the focus of Arab policies on compromise and peace.
Arab summits are meant to be places where leaders exchange ideas about current affairs, and they are usually overshadowed by disagreements and rivalries. Their statements are often full of exaggeration and lack rigor and substance. Nevertheless, they have a long history of their host countries having always used them to create favorable headlines and enhance the regional prestige of their regimes and domestic situations.
The focus of this year’s meeting, however, was whether it would be a milestone in Saudi Arabia’s efforts to reshape its regional policies to match its growing economic and political power. Saudi Arabia has been a regional power throughout the Middle East’s long modern history, but in order for it to lead the region, it must be a major player in terms of policy and practice. Much depends on the Kingdom’s future ability to draw on both its substantial instruments of national power and wealth and its willingness to use these instruments to influence political outcomes throughout the region. Saudi Arabia has yet to prove that its de-escalation with Iran is part of a larger foreign policy course on resolving the indirect conflicts that have been behind the rivalry between the two countries, such as Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.
The truce in Yemen, which was reinforced by the Saudi-Iranian détente, may have reversed the escalation, but negotiations to find a solution to the conflict should continue until an agreement is reached with the Hussites in Yemen on future relations. In Sudan, the Saudi-brokered humanitarian pledge has yet to translate into a resolution of the conflict. It will take a lot of investment and Riyadh’s involvement to force the warring parties to reach an agreement before Sudan plunges into a protracted war. But the summit expressed hope that both the Saudis and other Arabs would be able to douse the flames of the conflict and prevent it from spreading to other Arab countries.
The Syrian crisis is no less complex than the other challenges of Saudi diplomacy, even though the Kingdom has led an attempt to bring the Assad regime back into the Arab fold. The main reason for this is that Saudi Arabia hopes that closer ties with Assad will persuade him to cut his relations with Iran. Meanwhile, he wants Syria’s reinstatement in the Arab League to clear the way to end his isolation and to return to the world stage. Assad also wants rich Arab countries to foot the bill for rebuilding his shattered country.
But as the US and Europe under its control are determined to keep Assad “in check” and insist on maintaining sanctions on his regime, the Summit noted that forging closer relations with Damascus would help break this siege and help Syrians “endure Western unjust sanctions.” At the same time, it was noted that normalization of relations with the Arab world is unlikely to break Assad off from Iran, on whose military and economic support he depends. Tehran and Damascus promised to strengthen their ties during Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s just-concluded visit to Syria.
Still, the Arab summit, as the Saudi Arab News wrote, could be a big “performative event” for Saudi Arabia, where it could “spread glamorous lavender-colored carpets for its guests and demonstrate its growing influence,” but its ambitious leadership trajectory remains the subject of debate among observers in the Middle East. To lead the region, Riyadh will have both to demonstrate its ability to overcome current challenges and resolve disputes, and to invest heavily in building a shared and prosperous future for its people.
Consequently, the view that Saudi Arabia’s ascendancy signals a new order in the Middle East is undoubtedly correct and timely. However, while the region remains plagued by problems and conflicts, the question arises whether the Kingdom is capable of meeting such challenges in a spirit of cooperation and constructive engagement. In January, Saudi Arabia announced a new aid policy that will end direct, unconditional “grants and deposits,” which has raised alarm in cash-strapped countries in the region. It is unclear how the new policy will affect Saudi Arabia’s regional strategy and its political alliances with other Arab countries. But there is no doubt that the shoots of a new multipolar world are actively working their way through, with the help of the Saudis, who have embraced Putin’s idea.
The Jeddah summit will allow Saudi Arabia to assume the presidency of the Arab League for a year, and all eyes will be on Riyadh. The Arab world and its friends are optimistic that the Saudis, with their current leader Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, will translate this position into concrete plans to use their newly acquired political and economic position to play an egalitarian and effective role in the region.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Positive outcomes of the Arab Summit in Jeddah появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As a result of the latest summit of the G7 countries in Hiroshima, the US, Canada, the UK and the EU adopted yet another, 11th to be precise, package of anti-Russian sanctions. The package includes more than 90 companies from all over the world, which, according to Brussels, allegedly violated the restrictive measures and continue supplying Russia with sanctioned goods (including companies in Armenia, Iran, UAE, Syria and others). At the same time, eight out of these 90 companies operate in China.
In this regard, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in an interview with the German TV channel ZDF, referring to China (whose companies were sanctioned for the first time since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian military and political crisis), emphasized the need to find an alternative to the Chinese megaproject One Belt, One Road.
As you know, given the leap in the Chinese economy at the beginning of the 21st century, Chinese President Xi Jinping first proposed in 2013 a global international project One Belt, One Road as a kind of revival of the historical Silk Road. The essence of Beijing’s initiative is to intensify multilateral trade and investment projects with the participation of more countries and the use of Chinese and foreign capital. For the past 10 years, 152 countries and more than 30 international organizations have joined this project.
Naturally, such initiatives are not born out of nothing and pursue the far-reaching strategic interests of the initiating country. Accordingly, the dynamics of economic development (first of all, modern high-tech industrial production) and high demography of China have created objective conditions for the export of Chinese goods to world markets, GDP growth, strengthening of the national currency yuan and systematic access to new markets and regions (countries).
Taking into account geographical distances and objective need in modernization of logistics (especially land trade communications – roads and railroads), and also taking into account high financial opportunities of the European market China works on new projects on development of multilateral (first of all, trade and investment) relations with different countries to form diverse and alternative trade communications within the One Belt, One Road initiative.
Among such alternative international routes to the west, China has already developed three options:
1) the “Russian corridor,” that is, through the territory of Russia and on to Europe (but now, for obvious reasons of the West’s anti-Russian sanctions regime, this route toward the EU countries may be temporarily suspended);
2) “the middle corridor” (conditionally also called “the Turanian corridor,” because its main beneficiaries are mainly the Turkic world or the members of the Organization of Turkic States), involving a line through Pakistan, the post-Soviet Central Asian countries, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia (possibly the Armenian Zangezur Corridor), Turkey and the EU;
3) “Iranian-Turkish corridor,” including post-Soviet Central Asian countries, Iran, Turkey and the EU.
There is simply no other geography of land connection from China to Europe. Beijing is trying to use its financial, economic and military-political power to absorb all of these alternative routes to enter the European market. The latter promises a new growth of trade turnover, GDP growth, its dominance in the regions intermediate on the way to Europe (in relation to the group of small and weak countries) and the strengthening of partnerships with the larger players (in particular, with Russia, Iran and Turkey).
At the end of 2022, China’s trade turnover with the US and EU countries amounted to $1.6 trillion, which was a record high. In particular, Sino-US trade grew to $760 billion, and China’s trade with the EU was $847 billion. And this despite the fact that US President Joe Biden, apparently due to the controversial issues on the fate of Taiwan, as well as due to the acute economic (especially in the field of technology) competition with the PRC, pursues a policy of pressure on Beijing. For example, in June 2021 Washington banned investment in Chinese technology companies, and in November of the same year President Biden signed a law banning the use in the United States of equipment from Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE.
Nevertheless, last year showed a steady growth in China’s trade with the US and the EU. At the same time, the balance of exports and imports favors China. In particular, China sells more goods to the West (the US imported $567.3 billion worth of goods and the EU imported $562 billion worth of goods) than it buys from it (the US imports $408 billion and the EU imports $285.4 billion). At the same time, the US and the EU sell more services to China than they import from China.
And despite this progressive dynamics of trade turnover, the Collective West (obviously, at the behest of Washington) in May 2023 after the G7 summit in Hiroshima is taking actual sanctions to curb China. That is why Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the 31st Assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, assessing this approach of the G7 countries towards China, described it as a “policy of double containment of Russia and China.”
Thus, the leading countries of the West are not guided by objective economic interests, which in this case involves support for the Chinese megaproject One Belt, One Road, but are guided by the geopolitical trends of imaginary American hegemony and the supremacy of the West over the rest of the world.
What does the Collective West understand as an alternative to the Chinese project One Belt, One Road? Some experts tend to think that what Ursula von der Leyen sees as an obvious geographical and economic alternative to China is Africa, which used to be mostly a European colony (for example, France, Portugal, Spain, England, Italy and Germany), and now is a neocolony of the EU. Brussels believes that Africa’s time as a raw materials appendage of the outside world is coming to an end, to be replaced by a more progressive future based on the production of high-tech and competitive goods.
In other words, European investment and technology can move from distant China to Africa, which is relatively close in geography, minimizing the financial costs of logistics and new communications. At the same time, the US will obviously seek to select India, neighboring and competitive with China, as the new center of its Asian support for technology and investment exports.
“Indian alternative” to the Chinese Silk Road is determined not only by the peculiarities of geography, Indo-European civilization, the demographic balance between New Delhi and Beijing, but also by the desire to contain Chinese overland communications to the outside world (primarily Europe) by alternative routes. The dynamics of investment and technology growth of the US, Canada, the UK and the EU in the economies of India and Africa will be indicators of new transformations in regional and global politics.
The US is unlikely to give the “green light” to Chinese communications in the EU if Beijing retains its independence and does not make concessions to Washington on the issue of Taiwan and Russia. However, China is the heir to an ancient civilization, remembers the key and positive role of the Soviet Russia in its fate and cannot undermine its authority to satisfy the ambitions of American leader Joe Biden.
However, are the US and its subordinate EU countries capable of changing the natural course of history and the world economy, where China steadily ranks second? What can the Collective West oppose to the new economic and political alliance of China with Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey and others?
This does not mean that the US and the EU will not be able to create alternative centers in the global economy (in particular, to “grow” competitors in the face of India and African countries to challenge China). The latter fact, of course, will contribute to the regrouping of some weaker states, dependent on the new centers, communications, and, most importantly, the dictates of the US. But this will require considerable resources and time. However, these subversive plans may prove to be too much for the West. The US is frightened by the growing economy of China and its catching up with the United States.
It is useful for Washington to take into account that the military-industrial complex, where Russia’s contribution is quite significant, plays an important role in strengthening China and India. It is no secret that many modern high-tech weapons developments and the global arms market belong to the United States and Russia. Accordingly, the achievements of the national military-industrial complex of China and India are to a large extent associated with Russian (Soviet) developments and military-technical cooperation partnership with our country.
The economy should develop, first of all, on the basis of economic laws (in particular, the principle of profit), and not under the influence of political conditions. In turn, modern Russia, being one of the world military-industrial leaders, today, due to the provoked special military operation in Ukraine and the Western sanctions regime, has found itself in a situation of extreme demand for diversification and modernization of the national economy not in words, but in deeds. Indeed, this crisis may still turn out to be a true blessing in disguise. Russia will strengthen the consolidation of its national intellectual, scientific, technological and production potential for a breakthrough in development given the entire complex of world natural resources and lack thereof with its competitors.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение G7 countries in search of an alternative to China’s One Belt, One Road megaproject появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
May 19, Tbilisi, Georgia – It is only starting now that the wheels are down and the first plane from Russia full of passengers landed with the possibility of better and ever-improving relations between Georgia and the Russian Federation. The first step after many years started with visa-free travel and direct flights.
However, as an eyewitness to the arrival of the fight plane from Russia last week, and the ensuring token “show of force” by the Georgian opposition, I can understand the risks involved, especially in the realm of public relations and potential EU status.
As always, anything that hints at improved Russian-Georgian relations is quickly discounted, Salome Zurabishvili, the Georgian president has labeled the decision to open direct flights “a provocation,” tweeting that the flight that landed in Tbilisi “despite the opposition of the Georgian people” was “not welcome.”
Already the “spin doctors” are out in full force, round up the usual suspects, starting from the airport with waving of Ukrainian flags, and loudspeakers on the back of likely USAID paid-4 new truck blaring away “Russians Go to the Penis,” and You are NOT welcomed in Georgia, amongst other less menacing slogans.
Useful idiots for the US and EU
There were more police and journalists than protesters. I quickly recognized many of the protesters from the Georgian NGO community and various foreign missions. They are the same ones who usually show up at almost every anti-government or anti-Russian protest, aside from the 60 or 70 actual protesters, by my best estimation.
This is likely a high head court, several with their Azov t-shirts and tattoos of extremely poor taste and quality. There were not more than 100 protesters, [at the very most] including some onlookers, a hand full of Indian medical students, who had been studying in Ukraine before the Russian special operation started. It is worth noting that the vast majority of those in attendance were not even Georgians. At least CNN got something right by describing the overall turnout as having been “dozens of protesters.”
Their message is not the collective sentiment of most Georgians who see the change in relations and being able to visit friends and family as a step in the right direction, after so many years of uneasy terms of constant rhetoric and saber-rattling, AND they fully understand that “more often than not such meetings are orchestrated and paid for by the Western supporters of Georgia.”
A follow-up protest in front of the Georgian Parliament, on the 20th brought about the same results, and the “same participants”, according to one eyewitness: “I saw the anti-flight protest outside parliament last night. It was pathetically small and full of the usual freaks. Well, several teenage girls and androgynous boys with the usual facial piercings and multicolored hair. This subsequent protest was so small, the turnout, that the police only had to cordon off side streets for about half an hour.”
Media Blindness
It is always an attitude adjustment to see how the media reports something that you are an eyewitness to; there is little wonder why most people are so clueless about what is going on in the world. MSM channels are simply controlled propaganda outlets, and stray far from the truth.
Take for instance, the reporting by Radio Free Europe takes the prize, Georgians Dismayed at Renewed Direct Flights from Russia – but does not back up such a statement with anything other than its spin.
Three scores and ten, less than one hundred becomes hundreds, or dozens according to CNN, “Hundreds gathered at the main airport in Tbilisi, Georgia, on May 19 to protest the return of direct flights from Russia. Georgian opposition activists protested against any warming of relations with the Kremlin because of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the 2008 war against Georgia.”
The Reality
Most Georgians seem to be happy with the improvement in relations with Russia. Compare the pathetic protest at the airport and other venues with the size of the March in Defense of Family Values held each year. The problem is that it is a self-contained bubble amongst those who are always against anything that seeks to reestablish normal relations with the RF. They all feed each other’s zealotry within their bubble and disregard and disparage anyone who the opposition to the government wants to perceive as being outside of their tribe; it is pointless to engage with them.
The protestors complain that they want Russia to give back (South Ossetia and Apkhazia), two Georgian breakaway regions, as if it was Russia’s to hand over. The ONLY way that is ever going to happen is through good relations with Russia and look for ways for internal conflict resolution. And here they are sabotaging that option. The birds of feather don’t know what they want.
The Georgian PM sums it up well, and to the point, and the EU may not like what he has to say:
“From a humanitarian point of view, anything and any decision that facilitates the life, movement and business of our citizens is, of course, positive and welcome,”- Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili said on May 11, assessing Moscow’s decision to lift the visa regime with Georgia and restore direct flights.
I can’t believe sometimes what it is that I hear from them, the NGOs and the protesters, as it is so counterproductive to own their demands and goes against the greater good for Georgia as a fledgling democracy and developing country. The BIGGER picture image that is being painted by NGOs over the resumption of flights is far from the reality of most Georgians, and rather bleak—[but the NGOs] rationale is understandable –it is all about the continuity of their funding sources.
It is [again] like, a choice between Russia and the EU?
For instance, as part of one joint NGO statement, paid for by foreign funds, TI, Transparency International, and many others, describes how “The permission given by the Georgian authorities for flights between Tbilisi and Moscow is a direct sabotage of the country’s status as a candidate for EU membership,” say more than a hundred non-governmental organizations, adding that “Russian plane does not land in EU.”
The statement also makes the unsupported claim that the “granting of permission for flights between Tbilisi and Moscow by the Georgian authorities is a direct sabotage of the EU membership candidate status” and is against the vast majority, nearly 9 in 10 Georgians and Article 78 of the Georgian Constitution, and how the government continues to change its foreign policy direction.
And continues to claim that before deciding on the status of a candidate for EU membership, such a demarche ignores the foreign course chosen by the Georgian people, and which has already brought to Georgia visa-free travel and direct flights to the EU, not to Russia.
The NGOs want to assert that the “Georgia population is already suffering because of the government’s current foreign policy, one of the results of which is the increase in Russian immigration to Georgia. They claim that the sharp increase in prices and inflation caused by this policy is an additional fee that the citizens of Georgia have to pay.”
Despite such simplified thinking, and the failure to understand basic economics, as to the real cause of out-of-control inflation in the world, hint, printing of money with no financial backing, US policy and a war of convenience in Ukraine started by the West that dates back to 2014.
It is a relief to witness how the hodgepodge of the so-called Georgian opposition is running out of steam. On the flip side, Georgia is not so easily intimidated by threats of US and European sanctions and the refusal of EU candidacy status or fast-tracked membership. Georgia is now looking for normalized relations with Russia, and [this trend] has the potential for greater things to come.
Only left to defend Georgian honor is Salome Zurabishvili, the so called Pro-Western president who is now calling for a boycott of Georgia’s national carrier. Now she claims that she will lead a personal boycott of Georgian Airways over its decision to resume flights to Russia, and urged her fellow citizens [travellers] to do the same. Moreover, she alleges that Georgian Airways is “ready to do anything for money” and “taking advantage of a reality that is unacceptable for a very large part of our population.”
One-sided and near-sighted policies
I think there have always been strange people among us, lone voices, and ones who will actually do anything for money, speaking mostly of Zurabishvili. It is only now because information spreads quickly we know more about such people—and in real-time. The reality is simple, if Georgia pursues an independent policy, it will benefit the entire nation and the larger region—not a zero-sum game.
Many Georgians should quote Victoria Nuland on “what to do with the EU,” as an appropriate commentary on their meddling and following one-sided and near-sighted policies. Let the EU do what it wants, and those who are impacted by overreactions can only hope that the EU and its so-called partners will not make the same mistakes as they did in Ukraine in 2014.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение A Handful of Georgians Protest OVER Resumption of “Direct Flights from Russia” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Recently, there has been an increase in Algeria’s efforts on the foreign policy track, which is associated with a significant growth in the profitability of energy supplies to the EU against the background of the rejection of Russian gas by the Europeans.
The sharp increase in financial opportunities has contributed to the development of activity in the field of regional policy of the PDRA, which is making significant efforts to combat terrorism and Islamic extremism. In this regard, the country’s government has sought to expand its interaction with neighboring countries in the region on political and economic fronts. In particular, official Algeria assists neighboring Tunisia, which is at the acute phase of sociopolitical crisis, by giving grants in the amount of 600 thousand dollars to decrease the influence of Islamists in this state.
It is also predicted that the Algerian foreign policy activity in Mali will increase, due to the desire of the PDRA to enable negotiations between the warring parties and to stop further destabilization of the situation there, for example, by using foreign military influence. Algeria notes that, given the long borders with Mali, it is advisable to restore and strengthen the joint Algerian-Malian Strategic Framework for Peace, Security and Development, established in 2015 and aimed at resolving the conflict in the north between the Tuareg rebels and the central authorities of Bamako.
Regarding the Maghreb region, Algeria attaches great importance to the processes of resisting the strengthening of the regional influence of Rabat, which, after Washington’s official recognition of its claims to Western Sahara, has intensified its actions to seek support from African states. The PDRA fears that US mediation might lead to the normalization or strengthening of Morocco’s relations with Israel in the security sphere and Tel Aviv’s supply of munitions to Rabat, which might disrupt the delicate balance of power in the region.
Against this background, Algeria is purposefully opposed to granting Israel observer status in the African Union (AU) and consequently to strengthening cooperation between the member countries of the organization and Tel Aviv, justifying its actions by the need for Israel to first resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given the above-mentioned aspirations of the PDRA leadership on the foreign policy track, Algeria in late 2022 initiated the Arab League summit, during which the Algerians managed to promote the final document favorable to the Palestinians, as well as condemning the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab countries.
As part of the diversification of foreign policy directions, Algeria has demonstrated its focus on intensifying cooperation with the BRICS countries, and is also considering the possibility of acquiring membership in this organization. In addition, the Algerians have taken a number of steps to develop cooperation with the PRC. In particular, the PDRA has purchased Russian arms and military equipment and expanded cooperation with Russia on some infrastructure projects.
At the same time, Algeria seeks to strengthen its relations with the West, especially against the backdrop of the conflict in Ukraine. Firstly, Algeria is cooperating with the EU in terms of natural gas supplies to Europe (11% of all European needs). It is also expected to increase hydrocarbon supplies after the completion of the Nigeria-Algeria gas pipeline project through Niger by about 100 billion cubic meters per year.
In that connection, and taking into account the significant role of the PDRA in providing security in North Africa, the Western states are not seeking to impose sanctions on the Algerians, who are actively cooperating with Russia, which is in fact providing the PDRA with 80% of its weapons and military equipment.
It seems that the above circumstances will contribute to the preservation of strategic planned Russian-Algerian cooperation in all areas of the economy, despite the presence of a trend to intensify the interaction of the PDRA with the West.
At the same time, Algeria should take into account the policy of neocolonialism towards African states followed by the West, which only pursues its own interests of siphoning off resources from the African continent. In its customary manner of “divide and conquer,” the Collective West is trying to discredit Russia’s foreign policy in the eyes of Africans in order to prevent a mutually beneficial rapprochement between Russia and African states on an equal footing, using for this purpose, among others, the Ukrainian crisis.
To counter this phenomenon, the PDRA would be well advised to focus on pursuing an Africa-centric policy and developing its own unique path as one of the regional leaders with a serious impact on the situation in Africa. This would also be facilitated by an independent and balanced position of the Algerian authorities on a number of international issues on peace and security, protection of cultural heritage, education, top level sports, etc.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Regarding the Foreign Policy of Algeria (PDRA) in Present Conditions появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On May 16, 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol met with First Lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska, who arrived in Seoul as a special envoy for her husband, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky. According to diplomatic sources, Ukraine’s first lady arrived in Seoul on May 15 and stayed for several days.
The visit of the wife of the President of Ukraine to the Republic of Korea as a special envoy could not fail to attract attention. The Korea Times was quick to note that the visit could serve as a catalyst for South Korea to provide weapons or other military support to Kyiv, despite threats from Moscow, and Professor Park Won-gon, quoted in the article, pointed out that the discussion of providing Ukraine with arms support “may not be explicitly stated in public comments.”
Currently, South Korea provides only humanitarian and economic assistance to Ukraine, following the principle of not including lethal weapons in assistance offered to countries in conflict. At the same time, South Korea is one of the few countries whose weapons and ammunition are compatible with the Ukrainian ones, and it has a rich stock of such ammunition: the 155mm artillery shell is especially important.
Actually, the fact that Yoon Suk-yeol adheres to the position described above, in the author’s opinion, is, if not the main, then an important reason that the counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has not yet begun. An effective offensive requires a powerful and protracted artillery preparation, for which you need not just a lot of shells but a huge amount of them. Meanwhile, the United States has actually exhausted the limit of ammunition that it supplied to Kyiv, using even shells from warehouses in South Korea, although the North Korean threat is positioned as one of the most important.
South Korean weapons served as replacement, but this was not enough, and therefore Yoon Suk-yeol was subjected to strong pressure, during which he made a statement that it could be difficult for Seoul to adhere exclusively to humanitarian or financial assistance if “a situation arises that the international community cannot tolerate, such as a large-scale attack on civilians, massacres or serious violations of the laws of war.”
But during Yoon Suk-yeol’s visit to the United States, this topic was not developed, and officials on both sides said they accepted Seoul’s position. This is important to the author because, given the status of the visit, Yoon could well have made the highfalutin statement that the cup of patience is overflowing, the ashes (of victims, whose names would have been carefully selected) are pounding in his heart, and South Korean shells are being sent to the front lines.
So they decided in Kyiv to get weapons by hook or by crook, and sent a beautiful woman as a special envoy, because her husband’s video speech at the National Assembly on April 12, 2022 had completely failed to impress: a significant part of the MPs simply did not show up, and most of those present “were absorbed by their phones.” Another detail: during their joint work, the husband was an actor, and the wife was a screenwriter.
In an exclusive written interview with the Yonhap news agency made before the visit, Zelenska called for more radical support for the fight against “Russian aggression that affects the “future of the whole world.” “We know from history what happens when the aggressor is not punished … Everyone should be interested in stopping him … It is the same as stopping street crime before it reaches your street.”
Demands for lethal weapons poured from her lips – “when there is a criminal in the house, the owners clearly need not only humanitarian aid, food and medicine, but something more radical to drive the criminal out ….”
She catalogued a raft of grim wartime stories, including a 12-year-old boy forcibly separated from his mother who is still in Russian captivity, and two siblings taken to an orphanage after his father was thrown in prison.
Referring to the idea of a ceasefire, Zelenska said that Ukraine would be satisfied only with the “peace that will result from our victory, not an abstract armistice.” “It is impossible to shake hands with the hand that has just killed your relatives and neighbors. You cannot sit down at the negotiating table with a murderer who has no regrets.”
In addition, Zelenska expressed her intention to invite President Yoon Suk-yeol and First Lady Kim Keon-hee to “her war-torn country,” calling South Korea “a model of resilience and development.”
However, the author was drawn to a very interesting statement: “I think the world should be more afraid of losing this interest (in the conflict – author’s note) than we are, because if the aggressor wins, the whole world loses… I don’t advise anyone to lose that interest, because it is an interest in your own life and the future of the whole world.” And it is an open alarm at the fact that the world is beginning to grow openly weary of fruitless support for Ukraine, once it is abandoned, the fate of the special military operation will be decided in an obvious way.
And here’s the meeting! According to presidential spokesman Lee Do-woon during a press briefing, “The president conveyed the support and solidarity of the Korean government and people for Ukraine and expressed his condolences to the families of victims and the Ukrainian people. The president also spoke highly of first lady Zelenska’s efforts to share the horrors of the war in Ukraine with the international community and her efforts to secure aid.” This is nothing more than a routine element of diplomatic protocol, as are statements that the ROK will “actively support the Ukrainian people in close coordination with NATO member states and the international community.”
Zelenska thanked Korea for the support and solidarity and humanitarian aid the ROK had sent to Ukraine and asked that it be expanded where possible, stressing that she especially hoped for mine detection and neutralization equipment and ambulances. In addition, the first lady asked for Korean businesses to participate in postwar reconstruction efforts in Ukraine.
A curious embarrassment occurred during the visit. At first, reports of the meeting emphasized that Zelenska did not ask the Korean leadership for supplies of South Korean arms and ammunition. On the contrary, the first lady “expressed her understanding of the difficulties that South Korea may encounter in the supply of weapons.”
Later that day, however, Zelenska wrote in her Telegram channel that she and Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko “discussed with the President (Yoon) the need for air defense means to stop the missile terrorism of the aggressor country.”
In addition, although Zelenska had expressed to Yonhap her intention to invite Yoon to Ukraine, there was no official invitation during the meeting with the president. Of course, Yoon Suk-yeol’s office promised to respond accordingly if she later made such a request unofficially, but the absence of such an invitation as an element of protocol suggests that the conversation was not cordial at all.
South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin also met with Elena Zelenska and discussed expanding humanitarian support and ways to work together on mine clearance and post-war reconstruction. He said, “South Korea will actively respond to the Ukrainian people’s need for assistance in the face of a crisis due to the war. South Korea will play an active role in Ukraine’s reconstruction based on their development cooperation mechanism.”
Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation Won Hee-ryong also promised to share Korea’s post-war reconstruction know-how with Ukraine and provide it with a “platform” or rapid growth strategy based on the knowledge accumulated over the past several decades. “Korea’s experience and know-how on smart city planning, high-tech industrial complex construction and IT-powered transport networks will be shared, an opportunity for Korea’s East European peer to learn from Korea’s case and further develop their own models.” The assistance may be limited due to thorny diplomatic or military considerations, but humanitarian grounds should be more than enough to help out a peer in need, Won Hee-ryong said.
The next day, May 17, Yoon Suk-yeol gave a speech at the 2023 Asian Leadership Conference event, which was also attended by the wife of the Ukrainian president. Expectedly, Yoon criticized Russia for its “attempts to change the status quo by force and coercive diplomacy. According to him, this is a gross violation of international law and requires a consolidated and harsh response from the international community to prevent it “to become a successful precedent.” This is important wording, because all criticism of Russia’s actions from Yoon’s mouth is along the lines of “violation of a rule-based order.”
Referring to his meeting with Zelenska the day before, Yoon said that he had been informed of the suffering and human rights violations faced by Ukrainians because of the “illegal invasion” and stated that countries that share the common values of freedom, human rights and the rule of law “should never allow the illegal invasion of Ukraine and the attempt to change the status quo by force to become a successful precedent.” Again, the author would point out that if the president of the ROK wished for a change in arms supply policy, this would be a good time and place.
Zelenska also gave a speech in which she had already openly called on the world to provide her country with military aid, especially air defense systems. “When there is a criminal in your house, who has come to kill your family, humanitarian aid alone will not save the residents. The first thing to do is stop the murderer.”
On the same day, May 17, a Conference on Cooperation between South Korea and Ukraine for the Future was held in Seoul to discuss the participation of South Korean companies in infrastructure restoration projects in Ukraine. The event was organized by the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) together with the Embassy of Ukraine in the Republic of Korea. The event was attended by members of the government of different levels from Kyiv, including First Deputy Prime Minister/Minister of Economy Yulia Svyrydenko, Deputy Chief of Staff of the President of Ukraine Rostyslav Shurma and others. South Korea was represented by about 10 businessmen from Hyundai E&C, Lotte E&C, POSCO International, Hyundai Engineering, Doosan and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), KITA. The Ukrainian delegation presented the medium- and long-term reconstruction plan after the war with Russia, in which Korean companies could participate.
In her keynote speech, Yulia Svyrydenko said South Korea is a reliable partner with expertise in infrastructure projects and called for further strengthening of bilateral ties in economy and trade in the future.
Rostyslav Shurma said the proposed reconstruction projects are expected to cost about $893.2 billion, and South Korean companies could play an important role in various projects, such as building two new nuclear reactors and infrastructure for hydrogen and electricity production.
He also expressed hope for Seoul’s help in rebuilding his country’s transportation system, manufacturing clean steel products, producing electric and hydrogen-fueled vehicles and developing battery technology.
In their turn, the representatives of Korean companies, who took part in the event, noted that the experience and technologies of Korean companies in the civil engineering and housing and utilities sector may contribute to the reconstruction projects in Ukraine. They also expressed hope that Korean companies would be able to demonstrate their capabilities in modernizing Ukraine by restoring social infrastructure, building nuclear power plants and developing smart cities.
Earlier that day, during a meeting with Svyrydenko, Seoul Finance Minister Choo Kyung-ho signed a preliminary agreement to provide Ukraine with an additional $130 million in material assistance from the Economic Cooperation and Development Fund (EDCF). More precisely, we are talking about a long-term loan at a low interest rate to support economic and industrial development. However, as the author’s colleagues point out, any project under the EDCF must comply with the Fund’s goals, which are spelled out quite clearly “the development of the economy of the Republic of Korea through export promotion.” So, first the EDCF will get a list of requests from Kiev (be it equipment or infrastructure) and then will place orders with South Korean companies, or hire South Korean contractors, paying for their services. Ukraine will not get any real money – only the ordered equipment or facilities and a debt to service and pay back.
Thus, despite the loud stories about the separated children and the resolute condemnation of the special military operation by Yoon, the Ukrainian president’s wife left the Republic of Korea “empty-handed”. No weapons were given (and probably a counter-attack by the AFU is postponed), no gratuitous aid either, and the author got confirmation of his assumptions that the ROK president is not particularly willing to cross the red line indicated by Vladimir Putin.
The question is however that the pressure of Washington and Kiev on Seoul is clearly not abating and, having said goodbye to Zelenska, Yoon Suk-yeol is flying to Hiroshima to participate in the G7 summit, where he will meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Charles Michel. A separate event on the sidelines of the meeting is a summit of US, Japanese and ROK leaders.
“Clearly, Seoul’s potential military support for Ukraine is likely to feature prominently in Yoon’s diplomatic schedule in the coming weeks,” conservative ROK media outlets wrote, which means Yoon will face a new round of pressure. Whether or not he will stand firm is for the audience to find out in the author’s next texts.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение On Olena Zelenska’s visit to South Korea появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The scandal concerning the US Congress investigation into President Joe Biden and his family’s “influence peddling” has reached new heights.
Just a few months ago, at the beginning of February 2023, in his State of the Union Address, Joe Biden described China as his country’s main opponent, adding that if Beijing threatened US sovereignty then the administration would act to defend America.
And now, on May 10, James Comer, Republican Representative from Kentucky and Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has revealed sensational details of the investigation into “shady business deals” capitalizing on Joe Biden and his family’s influence and benefitting China. The Republicans accuse the Bidens of using the President’s public position to enrich themselves, and in so doing, putting national security at stake.
“Instead of being honest with the American people, President Biden has claimed since the 2020 election that his family has not received money from China. That was a lie in 2020, and he continues to lie to the American people now. The Bidens have received millions of dollars from China. It is inconceivable the President didn’t know about it,” claimed Rep. Comer.
In his speech he stated that bank records show that while Joe Biden served as vice-President the Biden family unlawfully received over $10 million from foreign nationals, primarily China. The Republicans accuse the Biden family of deliberately trying to hide, confuse, and conceal their influence peddling schemes. “The Bidens made millions from foreign nationals providing what seems to be no services other than access and influence. From the thousands of records we’ve obtained so far, we know the Biden family set up over a dozen companies when Joe Biden was vice president. The Bidens engaged in many intentionally complicated financial transactions to hide these payments and avoid scrutiny,” said Rep. Comer.
Members of the investigation team claim that at least nine members of the Biden family received payments, and that their associates created a complicated and suspicious web of more than 20 companies. Hunter Biden also received money directly into his company’s account from a Chinese-controlled entity.
Readers will remember that back in March this year the Republicans announced that they had identified financial documents showing that between 2015 and 2017 members of the Biden family – Hunter Biden, James Biden and Hallie Biden and companies belonging to them had received a total of $1.3 million in payments from the Chinese energy giant State Energy HK Limited.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Bidens received millions of dollars from their “frenemies” in China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the 42nd ASEAN summit held in Indonesia in May, the group decided to “not become a proxy for anyone.” This was with reference to the increasing pressure the group on the whole is currently facing from the US to counter and contain China in the Indo-Pacific region. This comes on top of the idea that Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim recently floated to create the Asian Monetary Fund alongside a regional payment mechanism that promotes the use of local currencies. This, in a nutshell, is a step towards the de-dollarisation of ASEAN – a move that effectively shows how ASEAN as a region is resisting becoming a pawn in the US geopolitics of building a global coalition against China. In fact, the move shows how ASEAN is pushing itself away from the US-led great game.
This growing thinking is thus markedly different from what was said during the US-ASEAN special summit held in May 2022. The summit was the first time the US hosted ASEAN leaders in Washington as, perhaps, an indication of the US seriousness vis-à-vis the region. But, more importantly, the Biden administration’s goal was to secure ASEAN support for the US Indo-Pacific Strategy, which saw US ties – or competition – with China as a Zero-Sum game. In November 2022, in another summit held in Cambodia, the US delivered yet again a wrong message – a message that hardly anyone from Biden’s audience from Southeast Asia wanted to hear. Biden, while emphasising the need for avoiding a war with China, still reinforced the idea of tackling China to guarantee the so-called open, free and rule-based run Indo-Pacific. The same summit also saw the US-ASEAN ties getting an upgrade into a “comprehensive strategic partnership.”
But despite this upgrade, ASEAN has now doubled down on non-alignment with the US. While ASEAN isn’t interested in aligning with China at the expense of its ties with the US either, its decision to not support the US against China has the effect of rolling back proactive diplomacy the Joe Biden administration seemed to bring to the region immediately after Biden’s election in 2020.
In fact, it is blowing back. ASEAN’s decision – reached in the 42nd summit – to make an agreement to start using local currencies to boost trade within the block is an outcome of an increasing worry within the bloc about the role the US dollar plays in sanctions. The US sanctions on Russia and the latter’s exclusion from the SWIFT system have had a boomerang effect insofar as it seems to have pushed many other countries to contemplate alternative arrangements. ASEAN is, therefore, making its own preventive moves. The region expects that it might end up facing similar sanctions if, in a future conflict between the US and China, it refuses to support Washington.
As it stands, trade in local currencies is already happening in the region, and the 42nd Summit’s decision merely reflects that. As reports show, the central banks of the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand have already begun using contactless QR code payment systems for goods and services between the countries. By using this method of payment to settle transactions, these countries are not only promoting greater financial inclusion but also insulating themselves, although partly so far, against the geopolitical uncertainties involving possible future sanctions.
The move also shows to the US very clearly once again that ASEAN countries cannot be, and must not, be forced into taking a pro-US position on keeping a “rule-based order” – which is nothing short of a proxy for containing China, i.e., the country supposedly violating the so-called “rulers” set by the US – intact.
In fact, the US is using the narrative built around the idea of a “rule-based system” from the Cold War playbook. During the Cold War, the US divided the world into “free” and communist blocs. Today, the US divides the world into countries (e.g., the US and its allies) that follow the rules and countries (e.g., China) that do not. Accordingly, instead of promoting trade and connectivity, the US is militarizing – and even nuclearizing via such treaties as the AUKUS – the Indo-Pacific region to maintain and protect the “rule-based” order.
But this strategy is unlikely to yield positive results. Even according to the March 2023 report of the United States Institute of Peace, the US, by mindlessly following this strategy,
“ … may once again end up alienating some countries in the region or even driving them into China’s embrace. In other instances, insisting on greater alignment with the United States will lead to a loss of American credibility. Ultimately, there is little that Washington can do that would significantly reduce China’s already deeply entrenched economic and political presence in the region. Indeed, it can be destabilizing and even dangerous given the high level of interdependence that already exists. Insisting that Asian leaders follow the guidance that they are likely to reject will only highlight the limitations of American power and influence.”
The 42nd ASEAN summit manifests this US failure in so many ways. Instead of endorsing the US rhetoric of ‘Cold War 2.0’, the ASEAN summit statement reinforced “multilateralism” and “regionalism” in ways that “no one is left behind” i.e., not even China.
There is far from an ambiguous message. Given the clarity and the way ASEAN has repeatedly refused to become, on the whole, an ally of the US against China, there is little denying that the US must review its policy fundamentally. Where it can hope to really compete with China and where it can really hope to elicit genuine support from ASEAN is in the field of trade and economy rather than war, arms race, ballistic missile build-up, and nuclearization. In the absence of an effective economic policy, the US has – and will continue to – receive only superficial support from ASEAN, mostly confined to occasional summits producing nothing tangible.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение ASEAN Pushing Itself Away from the US появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On May 21, 2023, the first official visit of the President of France to Mongolia in the almost sixty-year history of relations between the two countries took place. The visit was accompanied by a number of “rituals of respect” – in particular, a solemn ceremony in the main square of Ulaanbaatar, as well as a trip by the French leader to the Genghis Khan Museum. At the end of the visit, a joint declaration was presented and the desire of the countries to achieve the level of “comprehensive strategic partnership” in bilateral relations was expressed.
Such “surprises” occur in Mongolian practice more and more often – as Jarantai Myadagbadam notes, in recent years the number of foreign visits to Mongolia of the highest and high levels has increased up to four times – primarily due to the so-called “third neighbors” of Mongolia – the developed countries of the West. Since the beginning of the year, the US Secretary of State and the President of Poland have visited the country, and the President of Mongolia had a telephone conversation with the President of Ukraine.
The agenda of Macron’s visit, it seems, included literally everything – from cooperation in the field of mining to energy, the fight against epidemic threats, climate challenges, cooperation in space exploration and the creation of centers for learning the French language. But keep in mind that Macron’s visit took place immediately after the end of the G7 meeting in Hiroshima, Japan. It is obvious that the President of France informed the Mongolian leadership of the theses agreed by the leaders of Western countries a few days earlier. In particular, Macron’s press service noted “the desire of the head of state to reduce the pressure exerted by Russia on its neighbors and provide them with the opportunity to choose.” Furthermore, Macron stated that “he shared with the President of Mongolia his desire to provide assistance to a country that had been subjected to an external attack.” A very lengthy formulation with an unambiguous message, however, did not receive any response during the speech of the Mongolian leader following the visit. Macron also actively told his Mongolian counterpart about the humanitarian and economic consequences of the Ukrainian crisis.
Nevertheless, the Mongolian side most likely considered it necessary to leave out the theses of the President of France related to the Ukrainian crisis from the text of the “joint declaration.” Despite Macron’s repeated “references” to this issue in his speeches during the visit, none of the 18 points of the joint declaration reflected any of them. The parties mentioned, as is traditional for joint international declarations with the participation of Mongolia, their “concern about the situation and commitment to the principles of a peaceful settlement in accordance with international law.”
On a separate note, Macron paid attention to the intensification of the work of French companies on the development of uranium deposits in Mongolia. He clearly promoted the interests of the French corporation Orano SA. In addition, this could be linked to the desire of the European Union to diversify its imports of natural resources necessary to achieve “carbon neutrality” – in particular, uranium needed for nuclear power plants (France is the world leader in terms of the share of nuclear energy in the national energy mix), as well as lithium used in batteries, and various rare earth elements. At present, the EU countries are significantly dependent on the supply of these resources from China and are striving to find new suppliers – even with such politically and geographically complex logistics as Mongolia. Also, the “joint declaration” mentions the desire of the two countries to accelerate the signing of an agreement on investments and distribution of shares in the project for the development of the Zuuvch-Obo field by Badrakh Energy. It was discovered only a decade ago and is one of the largest uranium deposits in the country – its reserves are estimated at 100 thousand tons. Two-thirds of the shares of the contractor company belong to the same French company Orano SA.
The French-style “decarbonization” was also proposed to Mongolia – for example, the parties discussed in general terms the possibility of creating a nuclear power plant in Mongolia.
Thus, Macron sought to “work through” two areas of bilateral relations in Mongolia – inducing the Mongolian leadership to renounce neutrality on the Ukrainian issue, and promoting French uranium mining projects in Mongolia. They are both directly linked to the blatantly anti-Russian and anti-Chinese policies of Western countries – if the numerous references to the Ukrainian crisis were designed to motivate Mongolia to share the position of its “third neighbors,” the intensification of interest in mining in the country is dictated by the desire of France and the EU as a whole to reduce their dependence on Chinese supplies of key resources for the “green transition.” Both directions seem adventurous from the outset: maintaining neutrality on the Ukrainian issue seems unshakable and optimal for Mongolia, as any deviation from it will only be fraught with an increase rather than weakening (in Macron’s logic) of the pressure exerted on the country by its direct neighbors, while the EU’s “liberation” from imports of valuable metals from China by increasing their production in Mongolia inevitably involves the need for direct involvement of Russia and/or China in ensuring their transit to Europe. It seems that the French leader has set himself two contradictory objectives.
Based on these inferences, Macron’s visit to Mongolia is indicative of the West’s increasing struggle for “potential partners,” or at least “sympathizers” of its vision of the world order. The prospect of finding such a partner in Mongolia remains very dim.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Macron in Mongolia – valuable metal and a “one-man theater”? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On May 19, the three-day, most recent G7 Summit started in Hiroshima. During its 10 thematic sessions, problems of both a global scale and a rather specific plan, which are of particular interest to the G7 countries at the current stage of the “Great World Game,” were considered.
However, among the G7 participants, there are increasing discrepancies, as successfully illustrated by the Chinese publication Global Times, regarding assessments and approaches to solving almost all of the problems mentioned. This was reflected in the course, as well as the results of this event, which require special commentary.
Here, however, the author would like to draw the reader’s attention to some notable circumstances related to the summit’s location. Although Japan is this year’s host and organizer of all G7 events, and the political career of current Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is closely linked to Hiroshima, it seems certain that the choice of this city as the venue for the recent G7 summit was agreed with other participants and had the character of a kind of joint message to the outside world.
Apparently, it is motivated by the intention to reduce the importance of the nuclear capability of the Russian Armed Forces and to prevent from rapid increase the importance of said capability in China’s Armed Forces. To accommodate this goal, all the negative information that still accompanies the discussion of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is used. It makes sense to dwell on this information and propaganda aspect of this historical fact, because many important aspects of the current political situation in the world are connected with it in one way or another.
Firstly, let us note that the devastating consequences of the first atomic bombs were no greater than the results of the bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden in Europe) six months earlier using quite “conventional” weapons. Many experienced experts in the use of the latter, having looked in a few days at the results of the atomic bombings, declared rather skeptically that they would have inflicted the same amount of damage in a one-time, medium-scale raid, and spent 4-5 times less “TNT equivalent.” That is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and earlier of Tokyo (Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg…), was only the final and already almost ordinary event in that madness, which was the World War II as a whole.
However, throughout human history, war has invariably looked like madness. More often than not, a collective madness. Although there are “scientific” definitions of was, for example, “the continuation of politics by other means.” That is, if in opponent refuses to be persuaded by “peaceful” means, then “other” means may be the solution. Maybe the opponent will come to his senses.
Especially since, as a rule, the initial intention is not to harm the opponent excessively. Because people are mostly good and everyone, without exception, wants to “do good.” “Doing good,” however, usually yields rather expected results with lots of people invariably dying in the process.
And with each new war, more and more people end up dying. Remarkably, with scientific and technological progress (accompanied, however, by the process of urbanization), the share of civilians in total losses only increases. If back in World War I the ratio between killed civilians and combatants looked like an even split, then today the share of civilian casualties already accounts for about 80%. If the dream of today’s connoisseurs of apocalyptic scenario of “solution” of global problems comes true, then there will be no one left on Earth at all.
The inherent insanity of war as a phenomenon also reveals itself in the conventional division of methods and means of its conduct into “humane” and “inhumane.” It is “humane” to slit an enemy’s belly with a bayonet, but not to kill him with sarin or alpha-gamma radiation. War as a phenomenon is most adequately evaluated by those who deal with it professionally. From outstanding generals to ordinary soldiers. For example, the miraculously surviving Japanese kamikazes. And in the most irresponsible way it is done by public propaganda fighters far from the front lines, easily waving nuclear weapons. State-owned weapons, mind you.
It had become clear to the Japanese leadership after Midway and the Coral Sea – that is, by the beginning of 1943 – that the Pacific War won’t be won easily. However, the prospect of a complete and crushing defeat became visible by the summer of 1945 with the loss of the Philippines and a number of islands in the Pacific remote from the territory of the “four main islands” of the Japanese archipelago at a distance of 1,500 km.
What the continuation of resistance could end with for the Japanese Empire was clearly described in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945. The already mentioned bombing of Tokyo showed that the threats to the very existence of the Japanese nation had not been an empty bluff. The only way to avoid the prospect of national catastrophe was specified in the same Potsdam Declaration. It consisted in the immediate and unconditional surrender of Tokyo.
Here, however, one must take into account the specifics of Japanese state-historical myth-making and national culture, which stood in the way of the only possible way to end the war. To justify the inevitability of accepting the proposed conditions, Emperor Hirohito had to have unbreakable arguments to lay out in the face of the Japanese turbo-patriots of the time.
And in early August such “arguments” were provided to him. First from the US and then from the USSR. These events laid the basis for Emperor Hirohito’s statement on the night of August 14 to 15 that he agreed to the conditions proposed by the victors. Although there were undoubtedly other motives in the decision to use the new weapons at the final stage of World War II that were important at the time and which the author will not discuss here.
Let us note that in the final phase of the drama in the Pacific all its main participants succeeded in completing it in one way or another (and sometimes even more or less satisfactorily). But in doing so, each of them also was solving their own problems. As for the Japanese nation, no matter how monstrous it sounds, the atomic bombings (together with the entry of the USSR into the war) turned out to be an act of salvation. One involuntarily recalls appropriate memes: “war is easier started than ended,” “fight fire with fire” and so on.
It is mainly because modern Japanese understand quite adequately what happened in August 1945 to their ancestors who took part in preparing and unleashing a large-scale military conflict in Asia and the Pacific that they refuse (admittedly strangely for some people) to make any claims towards present-day Americans.
It would make absolutely no sense today to utter some sort of apologies or repentances for deeds which the living Japanese and Americans have nothing to do with. And it is impossible to “replay” the past. Except in the fantasies of fighters from the “alternative history,” which has nothing to do with the science called “History.”
Whose subject of research is to find an answer to the question “What was really happening to humanity at this or that stage of development.” A complete and definitive answer to this question does not exist in principle. Nor does it exist with regards to main questions of any other areas of scientific knowledge. This does not mean that it is not necessary to engage in the search for such answers. Simply, the “History” of this or that event is eventually and inevitably subject to “rewriting.” A common phenomenon in any science. After all, even the laws of physics sometimes get “rewritten.” In fact, this elementary starting point is the basis of the famous “Appel de Blois” from 15 years ago.
How to use the results of scientific research is a matter of a person’s free choice. The same nuclear physics is used in the construction of energy facilities, but also in the process of creating the most advanced murder weapons. From the results of historical research, one can try both to draw some useful lessons and to apply them as an “information bludgeon” in the current struggle with this or that opponent. This is what certain individuals do, those who claim (it is not clear on what basis) to combine the functions of prosecutor, judge and executor, not only regarding certain historical events, but also regarding the people who are alive today.
Yet this is precisely what both the leadership of contemporary Japan and the majority of the country’s population do not want to do, when it is impossible to avoid the very need to respond in one way or another to each new actualization of the events discussed here. This has nothing to do with the notorious “American occupation,” in which Japan itself is primarily interested.
Almost for the first time the actualization of this, let us say, unpleasant (for both the United States and Japan) issue occurred back in May 2016 when Tokyo for the first time had to host a G7 summit, at the end of which the participants were supposed to visit the same Hiroshima. In order to get then US President Barack Obama out of a potentially embarrassing situation, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, i.e. the current prime minister, said that the high American guest did not need to utter any words of apology in Hiroshima.
Which was not only an act of political expediency, but also reflected the mood of ordinary Japanese, including the residents of this city. There was a message to the American president from them that read something like the following: “Don’t hesitate for a minute, come to our city, we will be glad to see you. Don’t say anything at all and just stand silently with us on the memorial square.” That was the end of it. The visit of the present US president to Hiroshima on May 19-21 last year followed roughly the same format.
It would be appropriate to conclude this text with a reference to an interesting interview that was taken before the G7 summit with one of the witnesses of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, who was at that time a child. He survived the event because a few days before it he had been sent for some reason to visit his relatives on a neighboring island 30 km away. On the morning of August 6, he saw a bright flash and “thunder like lightning” on the horizon. What he saw on his return a few days later in Hiroshima prompted him to conclude: “War is wrong.”
At that time the boy was only ten years old, but he was already so smart. Unlike some of today’s propaganda fighters.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The problematic location of the latest G7 conference появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently announced that six African leaders are planning to travel to Ukraine and Russia to try and find a solution to the conflict between the nations. According to the news, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian leader Zelenskyy agreed to receive the African peace mission in their respective capitals.
Ramaphosa reportedly briefed the Secretary General of the UN and the African Union on the upcoming meetings initiated by a proposal drawn up by Zambia, Senegal, the Republic of Congo, Uganda, Egypt, and South Africa. The announcement came on the heels of accusations by the United States that SA had supplied weapons to Russia. The U.S. continues to try and force neutral nations to pick sides in the widening Ukraine affair that is crumbling Ukraine.
Reading the broader reporting on these issues, it’s interesting that even Western elite-controlled media, such as the Financial Times, must include facts with the fictional propaganda churned out by Washington, Paris, Berlin, and London. For example, this paragraph from an FT story utters an immutable truth about geopolicy today:
“The contortions South Africa has gone through highlight a broader issue. Developing countries have a legitimate aspiration to push for a new world order that better represents their interests in a multipolar world. They are right to point out that institutions created after the second world war — from the IMF and the World Bank to the UN — no longer reflect our world.”
While FT thinks South Africa is on the verge of imploding, most experts see the coming BRICS meeting and the inevitable growth of that union as assured proof that a multipolar order is taking shape. South Africa’s Naledi Pandor published a piece highlighting how his country and the global south will benefit from an expanded BRICS. Moreover, citizens of SA stand to benefit substantially from being aligned with the BRICS more closely than traditional Western neocolonialists.
“For South Africa, the benefits of BRICS membership are undeniable. Total South African trade with BRICS increased from R487-billion in 2017 to R702-billion in 2021. In addition, to date, the New Development Bank (NDB) has approved 11 projects in South Africa valued at around $5.4 billion to improve service delivery in critical areas.”
Pandor is among the most outspoken critics of the recent International Criminal Court’s (ICC) idiotic warrant issued to arrest Russia’s Putin. Western leadership has undoubtedly noticed that the BRICS have now surpassed the G7 in GDP and that the Ukraine proxy war the United States and Britain are pushing seems to be backfiring.
The BRICS will contribute over 50% of global GDP by 2030, or much sooner should other nations join. Add to this, discussions on replacing the U.S. Dollar with an alternative international trade currency and the Joe Biden administration going to war with Russia will be seen historically as a kind of American Waterloo. Imagine the impact of this situation. Should African nations be vital to mitigating further bloodshed in Ukraine? However, the Biden administration has to have an ‘out’ where Ukraine failed gamble is concerned. So, African countries playing the pivotal role let Biden continue to talk tough while Vladimir Putin gets the neutral Ukraine the Russians sought.
It all makes more sense if we realize that the Western elites have to figure out how to hedge their bets and keep their economic dealings going. Maybe their heisting of the public legacy won’t be as stunningly profitable as before, but they must stay at the feeding trough no matter what. Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but it seems certain Blackrock and other investors counting on owning Odessa and other parts of Ukraine are about to be sorely disappointed if the war continues.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение An African Delegation Could Be Biden’s Way Out of the Ukraine Affair появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Readers of previous articles by the present writer will know that the present author has a special interest in defectors from North Korea. As a result of their efforts a number of extravagant myths have been spread for propaganda purposes, largely because they tend to be from an upper middle-class background in North Korea, and in order to be able to afford an equivalent standard of living in the South they need to earn money by selling alarming stories. One of the few exceptions to this rule was Thae Yong-ho, who has been able to attain a status and influence no less than those which had before his defection.
Formerly North Korea’s deputy ambassador to the UK, he defected to the South because he did not want his children to a life of political indoctrination and potato planting. After his arrival in South Korea, Thae Yong-ho did not choose to take on the role of a professional purveyor of horror stories, but rather gave a relatively honest interview, insofar as this was possible, and then started working in a secret research institute (in reality, for the intelligence services). However, when Moon Jae-in came to power, he left his position as a civil servant, as he claims, because he was requested to adopt a more conciliatory position. He then joined the Conservative Party and in 2020 was voted in as a deputy for Seoul, at the time a city seen as the preserve of the Democrats. It is true that he stood as a candidate in a constituency with a lot of wealthy residents, who tend to favor the Conservatives.
Currently he is a supporter of Yoon Sook-yeol, and in 2023 he joined the Supreme Council of his party. As a politician he is known for his aggressive stance against North Korea, and also, like many of Yoon Sook-yeol’s supporters, his support for “humane values”. For example, he has proposed a draft law, prohibiting the slaughter of dogs and cats and the sale of their meat as food.
However, this year Thae Yong-ho has featured in a number of scandals. On February 12 Thae Yong-ho stated in a speech he made at a Party meeting that the 1948 Jeju Island uprising was “obviously triggered by instructions from Kim Il-sung. Although he later apologized and published a photograph of himself kneeling in front of a memorial to the victims, the Democratic Party called for him to be investigated by the Parliamentary ethics committee for making “distorting statements about the civilian uprising”. The Democratic lawmaker Wi Seong-gon, who represents one of the districts on the island, stated that “I believe Rep. Thae has a huge problem with his perception of history,” and called on him to resign his seat in parliament and make an apology, and also called on the ruling party to expel him. Oh Young-hun, Governor of the island and a member of the Democratic Party, also called him to resign.
Thae Yong-ho, however, refused to apologize. He explained that his statement was based on information he had obtained during his study at university in North Korea, adding that in his view “the person who should apologize is Kim Il-sung’s grandson Kim Jong-un”. He added that his view was the same as that of the former Democratic President Kim Dae-jung, who claimed that many innocent people had been killed as a result of the “riots provoked by the Communists”. However, that disorder was primarily in reaction to the arbitrary conduct of the local authorities, although the official propaganda of both South Korea (before the Democrats came into power) and North Korea had presented it as a revolt organized by the Communists. Both sides were pragmatic in their approach, and, given the implacable enmity between the two Koreas, South Korean propaganda tended to present any opponent of the military dictatorship as a “Red”, whether they were a North Korean supporter, a Marxist or other type of leftist, or a democrat who supported universal human values, such as Kim Dae-jung.
The Democrats then again called for Thae Yong-ho to be punished for provocative statements addressed to them in relation to the investigation into the Song Young-gil case – he referred to the party as the Junk Money Sex (or JMS) Democrats. This was clearly a reference to JMS, or Jesus Morning Star, of a vile pseudo-Protestant cult that became infamous after its leader was charged with multiple offences of sexual assault- a scandal which later became the subject of a high-profile documentary.
And then, in May 2023 Thae Yong-ho’s troubles took a turn for the worse when he turned out to be involved in two more scandals. Firstly, it was reported in the media that after the most recent regional elections he had accepted payments and gifts from members of the regional and municipal councils elected by his constituency, as a token of “gratitude” for his support for their nomination. The former officer of the North Korean Foreign Ministry described the transfers of funds as “voluntary donations for media expenses” (specifically, his YouTube channel), and categorically denied the allegations of taking bribes, which he dismissed as “absurd and unworthy of comment”, adding that intended to take legal action to fight this attack on his reputation and good name.
Secondly, Thae Yong-ho took part in a conversation about possible intervention by the presidential administration in the procedure for nominating candidates for the upcoming parliamentary elections. The conversation in question was a telephone call between him and Lee Jin-bok, the President’s senior secretary for political affairs. In his official capacity Lee Jin-bok is suspected of having supported the President’s efforts to improve relations between South Korea and Japan in exchange for the President nominating him as a candidate in the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for April 10, 2024.
At first, Thae Yong-ho insisted: “I had no conversations at all with Lee, the senior secretary for political affairs, about sending statements made by members of the Supreme Council or about the party’s nomination of candidates”, but television channel MBC released a recording of a conversation between Thae Yong-ho and his assistants, referring to an assurance given to Lee Jin-bok that he could be sure of being nominated as a candidate in next year’s elections if he supported the President’s diplomatic initiatives in relation to Japan.
As a result, on May 3 the central Ethics Committee of the governing People Power Party held an expert meeting concerning Thae Yong-ho and the scandal related to the “leaked” recording of his call with Lee Jin-bok. As a result of the meeting a decision was taken to launch a disciplinary investigation into the conduct of the former North Korean diplomat.
On May 8, after five hours of deliberations the Committee decided to meet the following day after confirming certain additional facts, but on the morning of May 9, eight hours before the start of the meeting, Thae Yong-ho organized a special press conference in which he announced his resignation from the party’s Supreme Council. Thae Yong-hon explained that he was resigning because his actions had caused inconvenience and problems to the public, his fellow party members and Yoon Seok-yeol’s government, and that he took full responsibility for the contradictions and no longer wants to “be a burden to the party”, especially now, on the anniversary of Yoon’s coming to power.
In the end, Thae Yong-hon was let off fairly lightly, although the Democrats are trying to keep a balance between the Thae Yong-hon scandal and the corruption cases involving the current president Yoon Suk Yeol and the former president Song Young-gil. His party membership has been suspended for three months, which means that he will be able to stand as a candidate in next year’s parliamentary actions. Things were different for lawmaker Kim Jae-won, whose case was considered in the same meeting – he was suspended for a year and prevented from standing as a candidate next year. Time will tell whether he has lost the party’s confidence, or whether he will be able to continue his party career – after all the Conservatives do not have many members who are as high-profile and charismatic as he is.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Thae Yong-ho – is this the end of his career? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey’s political future is a matter of great interest for the rest of the world. And its 2023 general election has been the subject of much comment in many countries, not least Russia. A key reason for the international interest in the elections is the question of Turkey’s foreign policy course under its new government: will it keep step with the West, headed by the USA, or will it follow a more independent course while retaining its partnerships with such major powers as Russia and China?
As for China – let’s leave that question for the Chinese themselves to consider. In Russia, attitudes to Turkey and future relations with that country are somewhat divided. Specifically, the Russian government sees Turkey, if not as a strategic partner, then at least as an important one – a country focused on strengthening international relations and developing international relations in various directions, including political, cultural and economical cooperation, as well as cooperation in relation to energy, transport, national security and military and technical matters. The Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained a good friendship with the current Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
On the other hand, in Russia there is also a certain opposition to a “close embrace” with Turkey, given the two countries’ geopolitical rivalry and at times conflict over several centuries, Turkey’s continued membership of the anti-Russian NATO military alliance, as well as Turkish nationalists’ and even the Turkish government’s support for the Great Turan project – a revanchist policy aimed at increasing Turkey’s influence in the post-Soviet Turkic nations. Russia’s Turkey-sceptics argue that, in the best-case scenario, any apparent rapprochement between Moscow and Ankara is a purely temporary or even seasonal phenomenon and that in the near future this tendency is likely to change. In the worst-case scenario, opponents of a partnership between Russia and Turkey are suspicious of Russia’s diplomatic efforts in this area as they fear a new wave of Islamism and separatism within the Russian Federation, as well as new betrayals by Turkic nations in the former Soviet space.
Some of them see the current relations as a “holiday romance” overly dependent on the subjective factor of good personal relations between two heads of state (i.e. Putin and Erdoğan), while others see this tendency as the result of lobbying by liberal pro-business figures in Russia’s investment and government sectors, while yet others (including Aleksandr Dugin) see it as an ideological and geopolitical initiative aimed at bringing Moscow and Ankara together in a Eurasian union led by Moscow and Ankara.
Naturally, Russia is interested in developing constructive and mutually beneficial relations with all its neighbors, including Turkey. Moscow is well aware of Turkey’s special geographical position at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and, finally Russia is interested in having a good relationship with Turkey that owes nothing to US dictates. But Russia is also mindful of its long history of dealings with Turkey and has not forgotten the many wars and conflicts between the two nations, and it is well aware that Turkey, both as a member of NATO and as a potential sponsor of neo-Ottoman and pan-Turkic ideologies, may be a source of new external and internal threats.
Be that as it may, today Russia is in favor of peace and friendship with Turkey, has a positive view of President Erdoğan’s flexible approach to the crisis in Russian-Ukrainian relations, welcomes Ankara’s refusal to sign up wholeheartedly to the West’s anti-Russian sanctions, and is keen to develop economic ties and trade between the two countries.
In Azerbaijan there is a proverb: “if you say no evil, no good will come”. In the present case, if Turkey changes its course towards Russia, choosing confrontation rather than partnership and instead turning towards NATO and the EU, then at the end of the day the Turks themselves will be the losers. Russia has several options for cutting off Turkey’s infrastructure connections in the southern and eastern areas of the post-Soviet space, and could easily critically weaken its economy and cause it other problems. But Russia has no intention of following such a course, and regards Turkey as a friend and partner. That, at least, is the situation as of May 2023.
A number of Russian experts and opposition figures (some of whom have been labeled as foreign agents) have attempted to criticize Russia’s diplomatic policy in relation to Turkey by presenting a false picture of the economic cooperation between Russia and Turkey. For example, Boris Kagarlitsky, Professor at the Moscow Higher School for Social and Economic Sciences, and listed as a foreign agent, believes that the balance of trade between Russia and Turkey is not in Russia’s favor, as Russia provides Turkey primarily with raw materials, while Turkey, with its advanced economy, exports mainly finished manufactured goods to Russia.
Unfortunately, the economic reform process in Russia has not yet advanced beyond the “transit corridor” stage, and Russia has not yet fully reformed its industry, its high technology manufacturing sector is in its infancy and it is not yet able to fully do without importing manufactured goods. However, the growth of Turkey’s manufacturing sector and its technical modernization were achieved largely through cooperation with Europe and the USA, while Russia has had to rely on its own resources and develop its own technologies. And anyway, it should be pointed out that as far as trade between Russia and Turkey is concerned, Turkey can hardly claim to be the winner.
Turkey mainly supplies Russia with agricultural produce (fruit and vegetables, with a high chemical fertilizer content), food products (sweets, dried fruits etc), light industrial goods (textiles, clothes, shoes and carpets), and to a slightly lesser extent household appliances and chemicals (soap, cleaning products etc.), and since the 1990s it has provided construction services and tourism services.
This list is very interesting, of course, and it reveals a lot about Turkey’s development. But nevertheless, it can hardly be said that Russia would suffer serious shortages if it was deprived of any given category of Turkish goods. After all, these products and services are not crucial for Russia’s critical infrastructure. However, in view of the crisis in relations between Russia and Ukraine, the ongoing special military operation, and the sanctions imposed by the West, Turkey has become a significant transit route for the Russian economy. Given the current circumstance, Russia is well aware that Turkey may become a kind of “link with the outside world” (that is, with Europe, the Middle East and North Africa). The last of these regions is of particular importance.
If we look at the trends in trade between Russia and Turkey in the period of 2015-2022, we can see that it has increased in volume almost every year. There were just two exceptions: 2016 and 2020. In 2016 trade fell from $23.33 billion to $15.84 million as a result of a deterioration in relations between the two countries after Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber over Syria in November 2015. And in 2020 trade fell from $26.03 billion to $20.84 billion as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In all the other years there was a year-on-year increase of at least $1 billion.
The highest ever figure was in 2022, when trade between Russia and Turkey reached the level of $80 billion. That increase was the result of the West’s sanctions against Russia, which forced Russia to shift the focus of its foreign trade links from the West to the East. For Russia Turkey became a global crossroads and trading hub, and a route for the indirect import of goods from countries with which Moscow no longer had trading links because of the sanctions. As a result, Turkey became Russia’s second most important foreign trade partner after China. And while in previous years the balance in trade between Russia and Turkey was consistently in Russia’s favor, with Russia’s exports more than four times greater than Turkey’s, last year it shifted in favor of Turkish exports. But those exports were not primarily Turkish-made goods – the increase was due to the reexport of goods from other countries (with Turkey acting as a transit corridor) and the rise in gas prices.
Nevertheless, the trade balance between Russia and Turkey demonstrates that Russia exports more essential products to Turkey than vice versa. These goods include Russian gas and oil, nickel, copper and grain. There are two gas pipelines, Blue Stream and Turkish Stream, one of which also has a transit branch taking Russian gas to Europe, as well as Turkey’s first nuclear power station, the Akkuyu plant in Mersin Province, on the Mediterranean coast, constructed with the help of more than $21 billion in financing provided by Russia, and which will provide 10% of Turkey’s energy needs, and another nuclear power plant planned at Sinop, on the Black Sea coat (for which Russia is likely to provide $20 billion in financing, and which will also provide 10% of Turkey’s energy needs). There is also military and technical cooperation (including the supply of a high-technology S-400 Typhoon rocket system and the planned supply of the latest Russian Su-30 and Su-57 fighter jets, as well as the supply of military and transport helicopters). And a gas hub has also been agreed – this huge infrastructure project which will allow gas from the Nord Stream-1 and 2 pipelines, which were sabotaged by Western special forces, to be redirected to Turkey. The Turks will be able to purchase the gas at a reduced price and take part in energy auctions for the sale of Russian gas on foreign markets.
Turkey’s energy sector is thus highly dependent on Russia, and without gas or electricity its production capacity would be seriously reduced. The Akkuyu nuclear power plant has been described by experts from the IAEA as one of the best, most advanced in terms of its technology, and safest in the world. Russian arms retain their dominant position both in global arms markets and, more importantly, on the battlefield. So, one could ask, which country supplies its partner with more important goods and services – Russia, or Turkey?
In the author’s view, the answer is clear: Russians can do without Turkish tomatoes, consumer goods and construction services (especially since there have, tragically, been defects in Turkish construction, for example following this year’s earthquake in the South-East of Turkey, and, also, back in 2004, following the collapse of the roof of the Transvaal Park water park in Moscow, built by a Turkish company). Russia can also do without Turkish tourism, of which Turkey is the main benefactor, to the tune of billions of dollars, (especially since Russia, with its many different ecosystems and great geographical diversity has a huge amount to offer tourists and can easily compete with Turkey). But Turkey would definitely be the main loser if it was deprived of Russian gas, Russian preferential pricing, Russian nuclear power plants and Russian missile systems.
What is more, following the fall of the USSR, Turkey, in partnership with the US and UK, started to open up the post-Soviet space (including by exporting oil from Azerbaijan through Turkey to Europe, thus bypassing Russia), and Russia refrained from taking any radical steps to prevent Turkey from using this route – just as it is doing now in Central Asia. Russia showed restraint in 1999, when at its Istanbul summit the OSCE approved the route for the export of oil and gas from Azerbaijan, and in 2008, when Georgia attacked South Ossetia, and in 2020, during the second Nagorno-Karabakh war. As a result, with the tacit consent of Russia Turkey receives oil, gas and uranium via the Caspian Sea and benefits from new transit routes running through Turkey to global markets. Not to mention economic growth.
So, in the present case the author would beg to differ with the view of Professor and foreign agent Boris Kagarlitsky, and tell him: “Boris, you are mistaken …”. He is also mistaken in accusing Russia of working only with the government, and ignoring the opposition, both in Turkey and in other countries. It is not Russia that elects the government in Turkey or any other country, but that country’s citizens. But Russia is obliged to respect their choice and develop a systematic policy.
Certain experts, like fortune tellers reading tea leaves, have attempted to predict the winner of the current Turkish elections – the “pro-Russian” Erdoğan and the “pro-American” Kılıçdaroğlu. Firstly, Erdoğan is not a “pro-Russian” politician, and his only loyalty is to Turkey. Secondly, of course in the 20 years that he has been in power there have been ups and downs in the relationship between Turkey and Russia. In these years the two countries have stabilized their relations, established fruitful partnerships in areas where they have shared interests, and productive dialog where their interests diverge. We have built up more wide-ranging economic and political relations which represent the future interests of both countries and their citizens. Thirdly, irrespective of whether Erdoğan stays in power or whether he is replaced by another leader, Turkey will need to retain productive, level-headed and responsible relations with Russia.
As we have seen, Moscow and Ankara reestablished good international relations after Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24, following which they announced an ambitious goal of increasing trade between the two countries to $100 billion. And the Russian and Turkish leaders are steadily moving towards their target.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение “Boris, you are mistaken …”. Some comments on trade between Russia and Turkey появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Sudan’s armed confrontation, which began in mid-April between General Abdel Fattah al Burhan, Commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces, and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, Commander of the Rapid Support Forces, is becoming more prolonged. The conflict helps only the West and is not in the interests of Africans or the vast majority of the world’s population.
According to the most conservative estimates, the Ukrainian crisis has recently surpassed all previous armed conflicts in the global information arena, which number more than fifty. Many of them are on a huge scale, i.e. full-fledged wars. This includes the situation developing in Sudan, where thousands of wounded and hundreds of dead have been reported in the previous month alone. Artillery and planes are being used in the battles, which are taking place in the capital city of Khartoum, the Kafuri region in the north, Darfur in the west, and Port Sudan on the Red Sea. Citizens of several foreign nations were evacuated. There were numerous social and humanitarian issues in the disorganized nation. Supply of food and medicine, electricity and communications services were all observed to be widely disrupted.
Nobody wants to even attempt to forecast the short-term course of the Sudanese scenario because it is constantly changing. However, most analysts agree that the conflict becomes protracted. They also point out that the infighting only benefits the Collective West, which has a history of fishing in troubled waters by fomenting civil wars.
The current phase of Sudan’s conflict actually started in 2019, when a military coup deposed the country’s leader at the time, Omar al-Bashir, who had ruled since 1993 and was accused of money laundering and corruption. The coup had a clear Western trace. However, the coup d’etat, as these things usually do, did not restore peace to the nation. Following that, Washington and its allies attempted to deal with the undesired al-Bashir by requesting that the venerable International Criminal Court seated in The Hague issue an arrest warrant for him.
The “good” British of the colonial era scrambled the borders of Sudan, entirely oblivious to geographic, economic, and additional considerations. As a result, the country’s civil war essentially continued unabated, and in 2011, it split in two, creating South Sudan.
An agreement on the creation of a transitional civil administration in the nation was planned but derailed in early April between the current governing Sovereign Council, headed by Al-Burhan and his Deputy Mohamed Dagalo, and more than 50 civil associations and groups.
Analysts say that one of the main objectives of Westerners in Sudan at the moment is to weaken China’s position, which has managed to forge a strong foothold in the nation through years of work and multibillion-dollar investments. It has also been suggested that Western capitals are alarmed about the planned construction of a naval base of the Russian Navy in Port Sudan.
Germany declared that it would send roughly 1,500 troops to Sudan, with the condition that the contingent size may be raised if required. This will further complicate the balance of power in the country.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Sudan has become a battleground появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The unfortunate events in Sudan, which led to a bloody struggle between two rival generals, revealed the fragility of the policy of orientation towards the “hegemon of democracy,” the United States. The US policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations now reflects Washington’s inability to fully support and assist the democratic transition in that African country.
Despite the solemn commitment that US President Joe Biden made on his first day in office on January 20, 2021, and which he and other members of his administration demagogically reaffirm every day as a mantra, namely to make democracy and human rights a priority on Washington’s agenda, the US has done little to advance the democratic transition process in Sudan. Suffice it to recall that after the overthrow of the regime of Omar al-Bashir in 2019 and since the Sudanese military establishment regained its power over the country in October 2021, reneging on its promise to transfer power to a civilian government, Joe Biden has only been watching events in Sudan without lifting a finger. And this is also despite the fact that the US president held two “democratic summits” in December 2021 and March 2023, where American emissaries zealously pledged their allegiance to democracy and human rights.
It may be recalled that Sudan is torn by power struggle between two camps, one led by the commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and de facto president, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the other by his deputy, the commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly known as Hemetti), both of which are variously supported by complex networks of international and regional alliances with conflicting interests.
However, as of today Washington’s response to attempts to foment conflict by members of these networks shows the ever-diminishing limits of American influence in Sudan. The US is no longer the central international actor it was when it ignited the decades-long civil war between north and south Sudan in the African country and supported the South Sudan’s independence referendum imposed on the South, which was immediately recognized. Here is a cynical example of hypocrisy and cheap demagogy of “democratic USA” – when it was convenient, it immediately recognized the results of the referendum, despite the fact that the north and south of Sudan were a single country and lived according to this principle for more than a hundred years. And when the referendum according to all rules of international laws was held in the Crimea and this peninsula returned to its motherland, where it had been for more than 200 years, the evil USA unleashed the war against Russia in Ukraine.
The crisis in Sudan’s democratic transition was not a priority for the Biden administration. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has not visited Khartoum during his African tours, unlike previous Democratic and Republican administrations’ secretaries of state (Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Mike Pompeo and John Kerry). Nor has the Biden administration attempted to sanction or otherwise punish Sudanese military leaders for failing to comply with their commitments to transfer power to civilian authorities and orchestrating a coup against a democratic transition process, despite demands from Democratic and Republican lawmakers to do so.
The diminished US role in Sudan has allowed regional and international forces to increase their influence in the African country and spread ideas far removed from democracy. Due to the fact that Sudanese politics have received little attention in Washington, the Sudanese military leadership has been able to maintain control over the government in a way that is at odds with the goals of democracy, to which American politicians quite often pander to. These powers have become more influential in Sudan’s future than the US, which has always talked about the importance of this state in its African policy.
As the fighting between the two camps intensified, the Biden administration instantly forgot the principles of democracy and began to prioritize two main objectives. The first was to ensure the safety of US citizens in Sudan and then to evacuate them to prevent a repeat of previous US failures in conflict zones, which could have undermined Biden’s prospects of winning a second term in the US presidential election in November 2024. The second goal was to downplay the involvement of influential US international rivals who seek, quite naturally, to shape Sudan’s political future in a way that promotes their own special interests. Washington has always believed that Sudan must satisfy the interests of only one power, the United States.
With the decline of US influence in Sudan, the options available to the Biden administration to deal with the increasing hostilities and fading prospects for dominance in that country have been limited to two. The first is to call on Washington’s regional and political allies to intervene and pressure al-Burhan and Hemetti to return to the negotiating table, stop the fighting, and agree on a formula for restoring and maintaining stability and security. The US is aware that the state of stability and security in Sudan affects other areas such as the Horn of Africa, an area of priority importance for Washington’s influence on a continent that has become an arena of strategic rivalry between the United States and its global rivals. After numerous cease-fire violations by Sudanese belligerents, the US, in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, succeeded in launching the first serious initiative to end the military conflict by gathering representatives of the SAF and RSF for talks in Jeddah on May 6.
The second option was to fulfill the demands of congressional lawmakers from both parties, whose greater involvement in the Sudanese issue helped fill their government’s diplomatic gap, impose sanctions on Sudanese military leaders and their supporters, thereby depriving the revenue that supports their forces and their power, and creating opportunities to grow their influence in Sudan.
Three weeks after the outbreak of hostilities, Biden ordered sanctions on members of the armed forces in Sudan for their alleged use of violence against civilians, endangering the stability of the country and committing gross human rights violations. In reality though, as the US media itself has repeatedly reported, the sanctions were designed to maintain Washington’s influence over the country’s military leadership. In fact, the sanctions preceded the recent flare-up, but Washington was hesitant to impose them in 2019 and 2021 for fear of losing its influence over the military and thereby undermining its prestige in this country. It also feared that significant pressure on al-Burhan and Hemetti in this way might simultaneously drive them into the arms of powers competing with the US for influence in Sudan.
Overall, US policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations since the overthrow of the al-Bashir regime in 2019 reflects Washington’s failure to fully support and assist a democratic transition in Sudan. The consequence has been a decline in US influence in favor of regional and international powers whose interests conflict with those of the United States. This, combined with a disconnect between rhetoric and policy on the ground, has limited the Biden administration’s ability to respond to the current crisis in Sudan.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The United States’ futile efforts to keep Sudan in its orbit of influence появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The 49.51% vs 44.88% distribution after the first stage of the presidential election maintains Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s apparent prospects of triumph over his rival, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu.
Perhaps the incumbent president of Turkey could have snatched the victory on May 14, too, for the authorities could have counted 0.49% of the votes differently (for instance, in terms of invalid ballots). But Erdoğan, an experienced politician, decided not to test the reaction of his internal and external opponents, to show himself as a supporter of “mature democracy” (so widely paraded by the Collective West) and to stretch out the time of political intrigue by two more weeks. And in principle, what is the rush for Turkey’s “irreplaceable leader” who has been in power for 20 years?
It is often the case in politics that a long period of history can boast no significant events that can turn the tide or make decisive (or fatal) changes. Conversely, short-lived events are recognized by history as having a significant impact on its future path. The current presidential election in Turkey is somewhat reminiscent of this analogy.
Erdoğan has changed Turkey’s role and position in regional and global affairs during his years in power, and he has proven to be a better player at the table of political heavyweights because his bets have been justified by time. Yes, Turkey is now experiencing a serious economic crisis, but what other country is safe from these crises or has avoided them in its development?
Erdoğan, assessing the international situation in his own way, believes that the time has come for Turkey to enter a qualitatively new level, from a regional state to a super-regional power. At the same time, the pragmatic Erdoğan is well aware that his chances in the political and military field must be supported by a relative yet stable economic independence.
The latter, given the scarcity of national natural resources (especially limited energy resources), is not an easy task. But it is the favorable external situation that has emerged for Turkey after the collapse of the USSR that provides it with a chance to flexibly maneuver between different centers of power (the US, Russia and China) and build a new paradigm of Turkic integration processes led by Ankara.
How is Turkic integration within the Organization of Turkic States, based on common values and interests (ethnocultural affinity, new energy region, high demography, partnership with all the mentioned world centers) worse than the European integration within the EU, Eurasian integration within the EAEU and Chinese economic integration within the One Belt, One Road mega-project? For the Turkic world, the answer is obvious.
But it is to implement such a strategy of Turan that Erdoğan is building a new economic model of pragmatic partnership with all the world centers and markets (whether Europe, Russia or China). The result of this course is the obvious economic dividends and projects, new communications and transit, the increasing role of Turkey in the global political and business environment, the formation of the foundations of an alternative Turkic pole with Ankara as its leader. And while such conclusions in the recent past seemed to be in the realm of science fiction, today we have to acknowledge other realities.
That is why Turkish presidential candidate Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, before the second round of elections, rightly tells his own and others’ societies that the country’s president should be neither offended nor angry, but should be guided only by national interests. That is why Erdoğan says he has pursued a policy of open arms with the United States, Europe, Russia and China as well.
As a result, Turkey is no longer in perpetual expectation of the next financial and other material (including military) handouts from the main ally of the United States and NATO in order to solve urgent national issues. Moreover, Turkey is no longer entertaining illusions of integration with the EU and is not waiting for new decisions by Washington and Brussels on this issue. Instead, Turkey today is a country which through its partnerships with other world players (primarily Russia and China) has achieved a higher level of economic and political independence, finds ways to compensate Western weapons with comparable Russian munitions, and slowly and steadily forms an alternative Turkic common market with its own leadership.
Accordingly, in case of his victory Erdoğan will continue to maintain this pragmatic course (including with regard to Russia). Therefore, the leader of the ruling party devotes the remaining days of the election campaign to Turkey’s current serious political events in the domestic and foreign life (including visits to the earthquake zone, discussion of acute social issues of citizens, achieving new results in the mediation between Russia and Ukraine on the extension of the “grain deal”).
Naturally, the negotiations in Istanbul on the complex subject of preserving the “grain deal” could have had a different result, since Russia objectively has the right to interrupt this one-way game. If Russia’s interests in the export of its agricultural products (including fertilizers) to the world markets, the lifting of sanctions against the Russian Agricultural Bank with its connection to SWIFT, the import of foreign agricultural equipment and spare parts to the Russian market are not taken into account by the guarantor of the deal, represented by the UN and the authors of sanctions in the form of the Collective West, then why should Russia preserve the “grain deal” with Ukraine? However, Moscow, demonstrating to the rest of the world its goodwill and peacefulness, nevertheless, agreed once again to give all mediators (including Turkey) a chance to resolve this issue comprehensively and respect the interests of all parties.
It can be rightfully asserted that Russia, maintaining the high trust in the President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, agreed for a two-month prolongation of the “grain deal” thanks to the authority of the Turkish leader and in the counting that this advance will be adequately developed on July 18, 2023. Before the second round of the election, Erdoğan once again showed his voters the high level of relations with Russia and his diplomatic success.
And what about Erdoğan’s main opponent Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the People’s Alliance bloc? The opposition’s expectations of success in the first round did not come to fruition. Given that the time is running out rapidly there is no opportunity to hold large marches and rallies, exercise oratorical skills and raise the degree of conviction of the hesitant masses. Kılıçdaroğlu also decided to keep up with Erdoğan in his visits to the areas covered by the earthquake tragedy and those provinces where the potential of supporters remains.
Kılıçdaroğlu, however, decided to give his campaign a fiery appearance in the final stage of the elections. While at the beginning of the election he was quite correct in his assessments of the prospects for a mutually beneficial partnership between Turkey and Russia, as the elections drew closer more and more critical remarks against Russia and now President Erdoğan for allegedly subjugating Russia began to appear in his speeches.
In particular, in early May Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu decided to accuse Russia of allegedly interfering in the Turkish elections by means of… photoshop depicting him with the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is banned in Turkey. Though the real reason was obviously a strong positive evidence of economic and diplomatic partnership between Turkey and Russia that is connected with the name and policy of Erdoğan. The second factor of such public dissatisfaction with Kılıçdaroğlu can be considered the attitudes of pro- or American political technologists.
Before the second round of the election the opposition candidate decided to directly accuse the incumbent president of being subordinate to Russia (calling Erdoğan a “pseudo-leader subordinate to Russia”). It turns out that when there are no arguments left, the best remedy is to accuse your opponent of all imaginable and unimaginable sins.
Of course, you can say that a competent Turkish voter can separate the wheat from the chaff. That may be true. But what about the incompetent voters, and there are a lot of them in Turkey today, too? The latter means that the pro-American part of the Turkish political electorate, engaged in connections with big Western capital and maintaining Turkey’s own position of power, will take all possible provocations to rig the presidential election. In particular, Kılıçdaroğlu’s pre-election rhetoric already shows false attitudes and hostile anti-Russian propaganda, no guarantees and disruption of the results of the vote count, as well as provoking civil clashes after the election.
Kılıçdaroğlu and his Western sponsors will obviously try to reach an agreement before May 28 not only with the Kurdish political forces in terms of supporting the opposition leader (such cooperation has already taken place after the May 14 vote) but also with the nationalist Sinan Oğan, the third participant in the first round of election, who got 5.17% of votes. This figure is exactly what the leader of the CHP lacks in his clash with Erdoğan. Some biased circles are already leaking that such an unexpected U-turn of pan-Turkist and Azerbaijani (as noted in the press) Sinan Oğan in favor of the United States and Kılıçdaroğlu should not be ruled out. Apparently, there is a bidding for the next – the eighth – Turkish vice-presidential seat. Still, if Kılıçdaroğlu in his program promised the citizens to govern for one year in case of victory, return the former parliamentary model of governing the country and lower the status of the president, then what is the point of having at least 10 vice-presidents?
It is extremely difficult for the author to imagine that Sinan Oğan, a politician from the ranks of the main pan-Turkist organization Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and an associate of Devlet Bahçeli (who is allied with Erdoğan and the ruling AKP in the “Republican Alliance”), and an Azeri by birth (whose historical homeland President Erdoğan helped win the second Karabakh war), would agree to alliance with Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. But calculating (often cynical) pragmatism and force rather than emotion prevail in politics. The near future will show how this will play out. Sinan Oğan has no institutional capacity to compel his supporters to vote for another candidate, and there is neither money nor time to buy their votes.
Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Antalya, and Aydın are the major and resort cities where Kılıçdaroğlu was successful in the first round. Erdoğan, on the other hand, won in 51 of Turkey’s 81 provinces, mostly in nationalist and Islamist-ridden parts of the country. As a rule, the fate of revolutions and coups d’état is decided in the capital and major cities, while the periphery follows the center. Let’s hope that the second round of presidential elections in Turkey will also follow the established laws, and its results will reflect the objective balance of power and the choice of the people.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Elections in Turkey: tactics shift as time is running out… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Anticipating the collapse of the “Ukraine project,” NATO’s military-industrial complex is rushing towards the Asia-Pacific region to spark a new conflict in order to satisfy its financial demands.
NATO’s post-1991 history is the history of an organization that has outlived its usefulness. The “threat of world communism” that NATO cited as justification for its 40-year existence isno longer present. NATO was desperately searching for an understandable purpose for its existence to justify enormous expenditures for the military-industrial complex following the fall of the Warsaw Pact. In the late 1990s, NATO found what it believed to be the greatest answer, namely to militarization of human rights in order to utilize this narrative to target the policies of unwelcome states throughout the world. Fancying themselves as the new superheroes, NATOkept its guns and bombs ready “to defend the human rights from the tyrants who oppressed them,” wherever there was injustice, as stated by Washington propagandists.
Representatives of the US military-industrial complexcould not have been happier. All of the think tanks that they generously fund have finallyfound a win-win solution for keeping money in the pockets of the US and European military industries.
In 1999, the “renewed” NATO conducted its first test run in Yugoslavia. It was a dreadful, inexcusable tragedy for everyone except Washington and Brussels. Seventy-eight days of bombing a country that did not pose a danger to NATO resulted in the killing of hundreds of civilians, the destruction of infrastructure, and the legacy of depleted uranium weapons that would go on to poison Serbians for decades.
Then, NATO backed the Arab Spring in North Africa and was directly involved in the overthrow of the Gaddafi government in Libya. The Western-controlled press had spread the myth that destroying the country, killing its people, and removing the government would address all of Libya’s human rights concerns. As expected, NATO airstrikes have exacerbated rather than solved Libya’s problems. Chaos, civil war, terrorism, slave markets, and abject poverty – it’s no surprise that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their associates avoid discussing Libya these days.
Following a string of failures, the Washington-controlled NATO decided in 2014 to go all-in andstrike Russia directly in order to “change the authoritarian regime there that violates human rights.” The first phase was the toppling of Ukraine’s democratically elected government, which was handled by the US through NATO vassals – Germany, Poland, and France. Then, under the pretense of attempting to resolve the problem through the Minsk agreements, NATO provided eight years of substantial military assistance to Ukraine’s unlawful government in order to combat Russia.
Finally, in 2022, Russia’s demand to negotiate a European security agreement that would prevent NATO armies from encircling its borders was rejected.
NATO has had roughly the same amount of success using the Kiev regime and its guerrillas as it did in Libya and Afghanistan, despite extensive propaganda in the US and European government-controlled media. Hundreds of thousands of dead, a collapsed economy, millions of refugees, rampant lawlessness, corruption, and hundreds of billions of dollars gained by Western politicians and military-industrial corporations. The only difference this time is that NATO’s target, the nuclear-armed superpower Russia, played ahead of the game by sabotaging the West’s initial intentions. As a result, Russia has no intention of backing down and sees this proxywar as essential to its very survival.
And now, despite its history of failure, NATO has apparently decided to start making serious preparations for war with China, seemingly anticipating the impending collapse of its “Ukraine project” and perhaps as a means of deflecting attention from yet another of its failures as well as a new excuse for enhancing its military-industrial complex. NATO announced the creation of the organization’s first Asian office, in Japan, last week. What’s next, a promise to Tokyo, or maybe to Taiwan of NATO membership, as was the case with Ukraine? Would Taiwan or Japan (or other US Asian Pacific allies like South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Australia) gladly serve as NATO’s newest “Ukraine” in the Asia-Pacific region, surrendering themselves to the constant greed and hunger for NATO conflicts? Or perhaps there is a power in the region that will make a forceful protest against the West’s damaging practices?
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение NATO’s military-industrial complex has its sights firmly set on the Asia-Pacific region появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The interest of foreign world powers in the presidential elections in Turkey is not just idle curiosity, but is connected to the potential for future bilateral relations between Turkey and the countries in question. And in this, Russia is no exception.
Attitudes to President Erdoğan vary, with some leaders seeing him as a friend, while for others the relationship is governed purely by his status, but he remains the leader of an important state, and that accounts for a great deal. And international interest in Turkey will remain unchanged if his challenger Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu becomes the new leader. Politicians typically make an effort to observe diplomatic protocol in all circumstances, as all significant disagreements and discussions are dealt with at the negotiating table – frequently, as the saying goes, behind closed doors.
Nevertheless, many experts are trying to make predictions, based on this or that argument, about Turkey’s future and the likely relations between Russia and Turkey after May 28 2023. And there is a limited number of possible outcomes – in fact there are just two of them, one positive and one negative. Ideally, there would be only one option – the positive outcome, which would allow the development of a constructive partnership. But, in the current challenging international situation, and in view of Turkey’s specific character as a nation, not everything depends on what we want.
If the incumbent, Recep Erdoğan wins, there is every reason to assume that the plans developed by the two countries for their long-term relations will continue in effect. We can expect to see new progress in trade relations, the implementation of the gas hub project, the completion of Turkey’s first nuclear power plant in Mersin and the beginning of construction work on its second nuclear power plant in Sinop, which (like the Mersin plant) will be financed by Russia and then jointly operated by both countries, future discounts on oil and gas for Turkey, as Russia’s partner, potential new international land routes – both roads and railways – through the South Caucasus states, the development of a constructive dialog on geopolitical issues in the wider region (including on Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, Central Asia), Ankara’s ongoing role as an effective mediator in relation to the Russia- Ukraine crisis, and, most importantly, Turkey’s decision to keep the Bosphorus and Dardanelles closed to warships from non-Black Sea NATO countries (including the USA and Great Britain).
Those are the likely and clearly positive fruits of an Erdoğan victory. However, in the interests of objectivity, we should also consider the likely drawbacks of the ageing Erdoğan’s policies. After all, Recep Erdoğan is a complex political figure with a challenging character, for whom Turkey’s national interests are clearly the overriding concern.
Firstly, there remains the fact that Turkey and Russia are members of two different political and military alliances – NATO and the CSTO. Even though in recent times Turkey has been highly critical of the US and NATO, Recep Erdoğan has no intention of leaving the alliance – a step which he considers would threaten Turkey’s strategic security and territorial integrity.
Secondly, under Erdoğan Turkey has espoused imperialist revanchist ambitions based on neo-Ottoman and pan-Turkic ideologies, a tendency that risks jeopardizing its relations with a number of neighboring states, including Russia. It is no secret that under Recep Erdoğan Ankara’s policies have shifted from paying lip-service to pan-Turkic ideologies to adopting them as a policy and launching the Great Turan project. Recep Erdoğan was the first leader in Turkey’s modern history to transform Turan from a mythical idea into a 21st Century reality, and turn Antalya into the center (or a pole) of the Turkic world. And nothing – neither Turkey’s hyperinflation and the fall of the lira, nor the objections of the US and many other countries, including Russia, its energy dependence on other countries and overall shortage of natural resources, nor the ongoing rearmament of the armed forces and its status as a non-nuclear power – have prevented Erdoğan from following this course.
Thirdly, Erdoğan is able to skillfully manipulate the favorable foreign policy situation and play on the weaknesses of other major powers in order to obtain benefits and strengthen Turkey’s position. It is true that Turkey is currently experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis. But Erdoğan is continuing to receive gas and petroleum products at below-market prices from Russia, is benefitting from the new gas hub project, is hoping to implement a transit corridor connecting China to Europe and Russia to the South, has plans to have a fifth gas pipeline (ТАNAP-2) from the post-Soviet space (specifically, from Turkmenistan, which has 7% of global reserves), aims to acquire access to the Caspian Basin and the Turkic Central Asian nations (the Turan Project), and has not abandoned his dream of creating a unified Turkic-Islamic market with a total of population of between 160 and 390 million, taking in Turkey, the South Caucasus and Central Asian states, and possibly Pakistan.
Should Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu win the election, then there are two possible ways in which relations between Turkey and Russia could develop: they could remain stable, and favorable, or they could rapidly deteriorate.
Given the fact that economic links between Russia and Turkey have grown rapidly since the 2000s, that Turkey’s energy sector remains dependent on supplies of Russian gas and petroleum products, the Akkuyu nuclear power station is still under way, and that Turkey exports large volumes of agricultural produce, textiles, household chemical products and consumer electronics to the Russian market, there is every likelihood that this mutually beneficial partnership would continue under a government led by Kılıçdaroğlu.
What negative implications could the potential policies of a new Turkish leader have for Russia’s interests?
In terms of the economy, Kılıçdaroğlu is an open advocate of bringing Turkey into closer step with the EU and strengthening relations with the USA: he could change Turkey’s policy in relation to the West’s anti-Russian sanctions (i.e. by implementing them strictly), there is also risk of new obstacles to the parallel import of European goods through Turkey, nor is there any guarantee that Russian gas would be able to pass through Turkey under a “foreign flag”.
And as for the political implications, even if under a Kılıçdaroğlu government Turkey did not join the Ramstein group of NATO committed to supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, Turkey’s role as a mediator would still necessarily be diminished. Ankara, influenced by and working together with the US, could help reduce Russia’s influence in the post-Soviet space by creating new incentives for countries to break away from the CSTO and EAEU and also open up its border with Armenia, with no preconditions, in a bid to bring Yerevan into an alliance with Turkey, the West and NATO.
Kılıçdaroğlu could also continue with Turkey’s Great Turan policy while in an alliance with the US and Britain, but without publicly espousing any revanchist or neo-imperialistic goals. And, finally, under a new pro-American leader there is no guarantee for Russia that Turkey would continue to enforce the ban, enshrined in the 1936 Montreux Convention, on warships passing through the Black Sea straits, and this poses a further risk of military escalation in areas of the Black Sea close to those where the special military operation is under way in Ukraine.
As we have seen, depending on the results of the Turkish elections, we can expect either stability with a positive outlook, or highly negative consequences. But things are not as bad as our opponents might think. Whatever turn events take, Turkey should assess its strengths objectively and, in any case, value Russia’s positive intentions. Any attempt to destabilize partnership relations between Turkey and Russia could have negative consequences in the short and long term both for Turkey’s economy (specifically in relation to energy, transit, trade and tourism) and for security in the wider region. In such a case, Turkey might find itself faced with new conflicts near its borders (including in Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Iran, the black Sea and Central Asia).
However, taking into account the history of relations between Russia and Turkey, it seems likely that: firstly, Moscow will respect whatever choice the Turkish people make on May 28, secondly, that Russia will be ready to cooperate with Turkey whoever its new president is, and thirdly, that the leaders of the two countries and peoples will focus on continuing with their constructive partnership, dialog and friendship.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение What can Russia expect from the results of the Turkish presidential elections? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As the readers recall, Yoon Suk-yeol, the new President of the Republic of Korea, advocated right from the start for enhancing ties with Japan and shifting attention from the issues of the bygone past to building a better tomorrow. His speech on March 1, 2023 and his visit to Japan on April 16-17, during which, according to critics, Yoon made a number of unilateral concessions, fit into this agenda. In addition, the two leaders agreed to resume shuttle diplomacy, or regular visits to each other’s countries.
During a speech at Harvard in April 2023, Yoon also defended his commitment to improving relations with Japan, saying that South Korea must overcome the belief that they cannot take a single step further until the historical issues are resolved. “I know there could be a lot of emotional conflict and antagonism related to the colonial period among our people…But if we cooperate well in the future, I believe that our conflict and hostility about the past will be healed to a large extent.”
The fact that there would be a return visit by the Japanese prime minister to the ROK became known in advance, but as early as April 28 the South Korean presidential administration announced that no decision had been made on the announced summit plans yet, although the Japanese media reported that Seoul and Tokyo were in talks to arrange Kishida’s visit to Seoul for May 7 and 8. Only on May 2, the Presidential Administration of the Republic of Korea officially confirmed the visit on the specified dates, and this is important, since it was expected that Kishida would visit Korea after the G7 summit in Hiroshima on May 19-21; this anticipated visit indicated his desire to quickly respond to Yoon’s decision to contact Japan.
The status of the trip is a working visit, which does not involve signing resounding declarations or even a joint statement. However, the visit was the first bilateral meeting between the leaders of Korea and Japan in 12 years to discuss outstanding issues since then-Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda visited the South Korean capital in October 2011. The last time the Japanese leader visited Korea was in February 2018, but then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrived to attend the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, and there were no negotiations.
The ROK media immediately noted that “if Kishida is to come to Seoul, he needs to express a specific stance on the historical issue and move toward sustainable and amicable relations between the two countries” and therefore “special attention is being paid to the question of whether Fumio Kishida will apologize for the forced labor mobilization of Koreans during World War II” and whether he can at least repeat the 1998 Tokyo statement, which contained phrases such as “sincere apology” and “remorse”.
It is worth recalling that relations between the two countries deteriorated severely after the ROK Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Korean plaintiffs in October 2018, claiming compensation for the forced and unpaid labor of 780,000 Koreans used by Japanese employers during the war in the Pacific. Japan vigorously contested the decision and claimed that it had no obligation to pay such compensation, citing the 1965 reparations agreement between the two countries. The result was a trade war and severed ties, but “the US sought a close partnership with South Korea and Japan in an effort to counter Chinese and Russian expansion, combined with repeated military provocations from North Korea. Against this backdrop, the US praised the Yoon administration for its efforts to build ties with Japan despite fierce internal resistance,” and US President Joe Biden, in a meeting with Yoon Suk-yeol, personally thanked him for his determination.
In March, Tokyo and Seoul agreed to overcome the accumulated contradictions caused by the historical legacy of the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945), returned to cooperation under the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), which includes the exchange of intelligence on North Korea and achieved trade and economic détente in the “trade war.” Japan lifted restrictions on exports to Korea of key materials used in the production of semiconductors (semiconductors account for about 20% of Korean exports). In response, Seoul withdrew a complaint filed against Japan with the World Trade Organization. On April 28, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry announced a plan to begin the process of re-inclusion of South Korea in the “white list” of privileged trading partners following a similar move by Seoul.
On May 7, Fumio Kishida arrived in South Korea. Upon arrival, the Japanese Prime Minister went to the Seoul National Cemetery, where not only those who died in the Korean War, but also the fighters for independence are buried, and paid tribute to the fallen.
Later that day, the summit itself took place. Yoon welcomed Kishida to the official arrival ceremony, which included the singing of the national anthems of the two countries and a joint review of the guard of honor. Yoon Suk-yeol stated that he feels “a responsibility to make South Korea-Japan relations even better than they were during their good times.” Kishida thanked Yoon for the warm welcome, saying he was glad to see the full restoration of “shuttle diplomacy” between them and hoped to exchange views on ways to move bilateral relations forward. At the end of the summit, a joint press conference was held
During the visit, Fumio Kishida received the highest level of protection, which until now had been granted only to US presidents. However, although democratic NGOs organized a series of rallies at key points (the ROK presidential residence, the Embassy of Japan, etc.), there were no serious incidents. Kishida was required to make a direct, sincere apology for Japan’s wartime crimes, including forced labor and sexual slavery, committed during the colonial occupation of the Korean Peninsula by Imperial Japan in 1910-45.
In addition, environmental activists took part in the rallies, protesting against Japan’s planned dumping of radioactive wastewater resulting from the Fukushima disaster into the sea.
The main content of the meeting of the two leaders can be summarized as follows:
Routine rhetoric: the leaders of the two states promised to work on the establishment of future-oriented bilateral relations based on mutual trust; reaffirmed the intention to restore the so-called “shuttle diplomacy”; Yoon emphasized that cooperation between the two countries is necessary not only for the interests of the two peoples, but also for world peace and prosperity: “In the situation where liberal democracy, which has served as a foundation for the international community’s peace and prosperity, is under threat, South Korea and Japan, which share universal values, will have to cooperate through sturdier solidarity.”
Joint containment of the North (and China, although this was not explicitly mentioned). “Prime Minister Kishida and I share the understanding that North Korea’s nuclear and missile development poses a serious threat to peace and stability not only on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan, but also in the world,” Yoon said. The two sides announced strengthening security cooperation to counter North Korea’s nuclear missile program and consultations on regional security issues in the Indo-Pacific region. The trilateral US-ROK-Japan security cooperation has been emphasized, and talks are underway to concretize the agreement reached by the three leaders in November on real-time exchange of warning data on approaching North Korean missiles.
In this context, the possibility of interaction as part of the implementation of the “Washington Declaration” has not been ruled out. As the ROK president noted, “The Washington Declaration is not completed, and we have to fill in the details by continuing discussions, and in the process of carrying out joint planning and joint execution.”
The Economy. The process of returning South Korea to the “white list” of exports is underway as well as strengthening cooperation between the two countries in order to create a strong supply chain for semiconductor products with the participation of Korean manufacturers and Japanese suppliers of raw materials.
Ecology and more. The parties agreed to allow a group of South Korean experts to visit Japan at the end of May to verify the planned release of radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The permission is seen by Japan as a gesture of goodwill, as NGOs and the ROK media continued to be hysterical about it, despite monitoring by the IAEA. “I hope a meaningful step will be achieved in consideration of our people’s demands for a science-based and objective inspection,” Yoon said.
The position on the settlement of the issue of compensation for victims of forced labor mobilization during the years of Japanese colonial rule has not changed (through the Korean fund). Yoon confirmed that Seoul’s decision will not change, calling it the “only solution” that satisfies both the 1965 agreement that normalized bilateral relations and the 2018 decisions of the South Korean Supreme Court ordering Japanese companies to pay compensation to victims. As part of the settlement of the forced labor dispute, Seoul and Tokyo agreed to form a “future partnership fund” to facilitate private exchanges and entrusted this work to the Federation of Korean Industry (FKI) and the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren).
The parties also ignored historical disputes; rather, on the contrary, Yoon Suk-yeol stated that they need to “break from the perception that the two neighbors cannot take even a step forward for future cooperation without a complete resolution of their historical issues.”
However, it cannot be said that there was no apology. Kishida did not repeat the words of remorse, but said that the Japanese government’s commitment to inheriting the positions of past administrations regarding the common history of the two countries is “unwavering,” referring to the very 1998 declaration in which Keizo Obuchi expressed remorse for the “horrendous damage and pain” that Japan’s colonial rule had caused the Korean people. In addition, he stated, “My heart aches for those who had to work in harsh environments and went through difficult and sad experiences,” and when a reporter asked if his words were addressed to victims of forced labor, Kishida said that he honestly expressed his “own personal thoughts” about people who had gone through difficult experiences.
Critics, however, said that the remark was still not an outright apology, and the next day, a spokesperson for the South Korean president told the Yonhap news agency that Kishida’s remark had not been agreed in advance of the summit and came from the heart.
In another gesture marking a step forward, the two leaders agreed to jointly commemorate the Korean victims of the atomic bombing at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum during Yoon’s planned visit to Japan to attend the G7 meeting.
On May 8, Kishida held meetings with the heads of six leading concerns in South Korea, including SK Group Chairman Chae Tae-won, who now heads the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry. During his meeting with representatives of the business community of South Korea, the Prime Minister of Japan called on businessmen to work on strengthening cooperation in the field of creating sustainable global supply chains, designing advanced chips, batteries and developing other strategic industries.
On the same day, the Japanese Prime Minister met with members of the Korea-Japan Parliamentarians’ Union.
The results of the visit were greeted as expected. Conservatives welcomed the visit as a sign of the return of relations to normal, and “a way out of a long and dark tunnel.” Not everything turned out as desired: “You must not expect too much at the first attempt.” It was emphasized that “South Korea will only be able to guarantee its survival by fostering trilateral security cooperation among the United States and Japan, especially in the face of the ever-advancing nuclear threats from North Korea.” Therefore “Trilateral cooperation with the United States and Japan is key to South Korea’s security.”
Historical controversy has been pushed aside: the leader of the parliamentary faction, Yoon Jae-ok said, “We must not give up on the future by getting bogged down in the problems of the past. As South Korea and Japan move together towards the future, there will come a time when the two countries can share history with each other.”
The opposition Democratic Party criticized Yoon Suk-yeol for turning a blind eye to historical issues and failing to get a sincere apology from Kishida: “Why a prerequisite for the resumption of bilateral diplomacy should be the abandonment of our history.” Both party leader Lee Jae-myung and other representatives argued that the summit results reflect Yoon’s position to completely ignore the country’s history and “redress the submissive diplomacy of giving away everything.”
In a separate Facebook post, Lee urged Yoon to pursue the national interest, stating: “Restoring shuttle diplomacy without safeguarding national interest only constitutes waste of national resources.”
Yoon’s center-right critics made three points. First, Kishida received assurances from President Yoon Suk-yeol that Seoul would not stir up historical controversy, despite domestic opposition. At the same time, he himself said that his “heart ached”, but did not make an official apology. Second, Japan joins the DPRK’s extended deterrence, which will change little in substance but strengthen the symbolism of the trilateral alliance against North Korea and China. Third, Japan is one step closer to dumping contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plants into the Pacific Ocean.
North Korea strongly condemned the summit: Uriminzokkiri’s propaganda website stated that “the military collusion between South Korea and Japan, much wanted by the United States, has entered the stage for it to be recklessly carried out.” Then, on May 10, KCNA published a article by Kim Sol Hwa, a researcher at the Institute for Japan Studies of the DPRK Foreign Ministry, which noted the anti-North Korean orientation of the visit and the fact that “Japan openly revealed its attempt to get involved in the “Washington Declaration”, the most typical product of the heinous hostile policy toward the DPRK, which was devised by the U.S. and south Korean rulers.”
In contrast, the US welcomed the outcome of the South Korea-Japan summit, stating its intention to continue working closely with partners and allies to develop the Indo-Pacific region. As Deputy Spokesperson for the State Department, Vedant Patel said, “We welcomed the news from this past week that the Japan-ROK summit took place, and we commend Prime Minister Kishida and President Yoon for their leadership…This is an important new chapter and a new beginning for our alliance partners and an example of real leadership.“
Seoul and Tokyo have thus taken an important step forward, but many South Koreans still believe that an official apology for crimes committed during the colonial period is the first prerequisite for improving bilateral relations. According to the results of a survey conducted by Metrix agency commissioned by Yonhap news agency on May 6-7, 55.4 percent of respondents believe so. At the same time, 43.2 percent believe that building a long-term relationship should be conducted separately from efforts to resolve historical disputes.
Uncertainty over the future trajectory of relations between Seoul and Tokyo also remains, as Japan continues to lay claim to Dokdo Island and its right-wing politicians periodically visit Yasukuni Shrine, seen as a symbol of their country’s past militarism. Abrupt steps of this kind cannot be ignored by public opinion in the ROK.
Be that as it may, the next stage of the Washington-Tokyo-Seoul triangle is the leaders’ meeting in Hiroshima, where there will probably be new steps and new statements.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Fumio Kishida’s visit to South Korea появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On the 19th of May, the Financial Times quoted the British Minister of Defense, Ben Wallace, stating that the West could face the threat of full-scale war with Russia and China by the end of the decade and proclaimed defence preparation a paramount task for Western countries.
One has to wonder what universe Mr. Wallace and his boss, Rishi Sunak, are living in since Britain is engaged in war with Russia right now, has, with every step, every hostile action, set itself up for a full-scale war, a full-scale catastrophe, which they cannot prevent. Why Britain would go to war with China as well as Russia when China has not threatened it and is oceans away, no one can explain in rational terms. Yet, this is the British rhetoric, the fetishistic parroting of the words of their lord and master, the USA.
Many argue that statements, a war is not happening, that it is something that exits only in the future, are desperate attempts to fool the British people, to lie to them about their government’s intentions and what is coming. Others argue that they are signs that the British government has no sense of reality. But, in the end, one has to conclude that they are both at the same time.
Worse, these statements speak of a government, that seems to think it is untouchable, that the war with Russia will be limited in geographic space to Ukraine, that Britain’s participation in the war against Russia will have no direct consequences for Britain and its people, that Russia will not dare to follow military and political logic and conduct military strikes against Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet the British establishment, dreaming of its past, is unable to accept reality, is leading the British people towards disaster, as the gathering storm of war edges ever closer to their shores.
The deluded thinking in Britain is an extension of the same psychosis that grips all the halls of power in the western world, a psychosis that has its roots in the deeply troubled societies which have developed in the west and whose causes will be the subject of study of future social scientists and historians if there are any. In fact, these governments display observable and classical symptoms of paranoia and delusional disorders, leading to the complete break with reality that constitutes psychosis. This is a very dangerous state of affairs because someone who is delusional, who has no grip on reality, who cannot make distinctions between reality and imagination or wishful thinking, will make decisions and take actions that are dangerous to everyone around them, in this case, Russia, and beyond, the whole world.
Just after Russian began its Special Military Operation, Britain declared its support for Ukraine along with the rest of NATO and announced it would supply it with weapons and munitions to fight Russia. Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, in response, stated that NATO states providing weapons to Ukraine could be hit in strikes.
Ms Zakharova said:
“Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime?
“After all, this directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries.”
The Russian defence ministry, after several attacks inside Russia backed by NATO, has repeatedly said:
“We would like to stress that the direct provoking by London of the Kyiv regime into such activities attacking Russian territory, should there be an attempt to realise them, will immediately lead to our proportional response.”
In April, when the UK announced it was sending depleted uranium tank shells to Ukraine, Russia said it would respond and did so, destroying those munitions in Ukraine just after they arrived, and now a radioactive cloud is drifting west towards Europe and the UK. Russian warnings of the danger of this happening were ignored.
On May 11, Ben Wallace announced a further act of aggression against Russia with the decision to send Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine, which have since been used to attack civilian centres in Russia. Again, Russia stated clearly that there would be a military response to this action.
On May 23, during his visit to Laos, Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev issued another warning, on the day Russian security forces destroyed the Ukrainian raiding force that attacked civilians in the Belgorod region, an openly terrorist action backed by the UK and the other NATO states. From Vientiane, he stated,
“The North Atlantic alliance does not take the threat of nuclear war seriously enough, thus making a big mistake. NATO is not serious about this scenario. Otherwise, NATO would not have supplied such dangerous weapons to the Ukrainian regime. Apparently, they think that a nuclear conflict, or a nuclear apocalypse, is never ever possible. NATO is wrong, and at some point events may take a completely unpredictable turn. The responsibility will be placed squarely on the North Atlantic Alliance,”
Medvedev pointed out that no one knows whether the point of no return has been passed,
“No one knows this. This is the main danger. Because as soon as they provide something, they say: let’s supply this, too. Long-range missiles or planes. Everything will be all right. But nothing will be fine. We will be able to cope with it. But only more and more serious types of weapons will be used. That’s what the current trend is.”
But Russia can strike using its conventional weapons as well, against which the UK has no defence whatsoever.
Still, the British attitude towards these warnings is to call on the magic of “legality” as if they can weave a protective cloak around the island with incantations. Yet, everyone knows that to use incantations to ward off danger, the formula used must have mojo or force; otherwise the words have no effect.
In 2022, for example, then Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, hit back, after Russia suggested it could target British military installations over its support for Ukraine, by branding the Kremlin’s claim “unlawful.” Wallace, Sunak, and others have repeated this claim multiple times.
Raab, and the rest, can only be right if Britain had maintained its neutrality in the war between Ukraine and Russia. But, as we know, this is really a war by the USA, Britain and their NATO mafia against Russia and has been all along. Ukraine is the present battlefield. So, for Britain to claim that it has maintained neutrality is an absurdity.
A neutral state violates neutrality by breaching its obligation to remain impartial, to not participate in the conflict. It violates neutrality by supplying warships, aircraft, arms, ammunition, military provisions or other war materials, either directly or indirectly, to a belligerent, by engaging its own military forces, or by supplying military advisors to a party to the armed conflict, by allowing belligerent use of neutral territory as a military base, or for the storage of war material or passage of belligerent troops or munitions in neutral territory, by furnishing troops to a belligerent, or providing or transmitting military intelligence on behalf of a belligerent are also examples of violations of neutrality.
A State’s neutrality ends when the State becomes a party to an armed conflict, or, in other words, a belligerent. A State becomes a belligerent under the law of neutrality by either declaring war; or participating in hostilities to a significant extent, or engages in systematic or substantial violations of its duties of impartiality and non-participation.
Britain meets all the requirements of a co-belligerent, that is, of a party to the war with Russia; it not only supplies munitions and weapon systems to Ukraine with the objective of attacking Russia and Russian forces in Ukraine it has a direct role in directing the war against Russia, including sending military officers and soldiers to advise and operate with the Ukrainian forces, by preventing any peace negotiations -we remember the action of Boris Johnson just as Ukraine and Russia were about to conclude a peace settlement-by the training of Ukrainian soldiers in Britain and transporting them to the front, by supplying the Ukrainian forces with reconnaissance and intelligence data, actively sending aircraft close to the war zone for this purpose, by providing communications systems, by providing financial aid to Ukraine at the same imposing economic warfare measure on Russia, euphemistically termed “sanctions. These conditions apply to all the NATO allies, of course, but Britain’s role is an especially egregious one.
In fact, Britain’s aggression against Russia began much earlier than 2022. Britain, as part of NATO, supported the insurgency in the Caucasus region in the mid -1990s. Britain took part in the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, part of the strategy to attack Russia, eliminating a potential Russian ally, just as Hitler did in 1941. The Georgian attack on Russian forces in 2008 was also supported by NATO.
All through this period, the UK government and media put out a constant stream of propaganda against Russia, culminating in the wild claims by the British that Russia tried to use novichok nerve poison to kill two Russian citizens, the Skripals, in the UK. That incident had one objective, to prepare the minds of the British people for war with Russia. That no one has seen or heard from the Skripals for several years now, that Britain rejects Russia’s right to meet with them to see if they are all right, is never mentioned in the West. They have disappeared, their fate unknown, two expendable pieces on the chessboard of war.
Lastly, Russia claims, with some evidence to back up their claims, that the UK was involved, with the US and other NATO nations, in the attack on the NordStream Pipeline, an act of war against both Russia and Germany, though the Germans, still occupied by US forces, are required to accept this humiliation and keep quiet.
So British claims that Russia has no legal right to retaliate against it are absurd. Britain, as with all the NATO countries, cannot claim to have a neutral status in the war. It has become in law and in fact a party to the war.
It follows that any action taken by Russia against the UK to force the UK to stop its assistance to Ukraine and end its participation in the war against Russia will be legitimate under international law and justified under the ancient military doctrine that a nation cannot suffer the attack of another without retaliating to stop the attack and making sure that another attack will not follow.
The NATO gang’s claim of acting in “collective self defence,” a phrase Ben Wallace likes to use a lot, so that they can claim to maintain a neutral status, is not a valid or logical one and does not apply. It is clear that the USA and NATO have been planning an attack on Russia for a long time, and the Ukraine war is a part of this attack. The conspiracy to commit aggression has been developed over decades. Part of the preparation for the war was the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine and the installation in its place of a puppet government that was then used to attack the Donbass and Russia itself. They now openly admit that the Minsk Accords were a ruse to stall Russia while they prepared the Ukrainian forces for war against Russia.
Further, they cannot rely on Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, since that clause can only be invoked if there is an unprovoked Russian attack on a NATO country. But when a NATO country attacks Russia, and here we have them all joining in the attack, it is the aggressor and therefore cannot claim to be are acting in self-defence. It is also important to bear in mind Article I of the NATO Treaty, since it requires NATO to act in conformity with the UN Charter. It states
“Article 1The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
But the NATO nations have done the exact opposite. They have blocked peace at every turn and push Ukraine to keep the war going. Their forces are directly involved. They have even attempted to expand their military bloc by inviting Finland and Sweden to join the war alliance, in order to increase the forces available to them, with one purpose, to prosecute the war against Russia. They now openly state their objective is to destroy Russia. So, the NATO nations are not only active co-belligerents in the war, they are, in fact, the main protagonists of the enemy camp that Russia faces. They are, therefore, all legitimate targets.
But is an attack likely, and what will its nature be, and what will be the consequences? These are questions only the Russian General Staff can know and foresee. We can only speculate. But speculation can be useful, especially for the British people to realise the danger their criminal government is putting them in.
Medvedev warns again of the dangers of nuclear war, but Russia has no need to resort to that to retaliate against Britain. Conventional stand-off weapons will be more effective, and what can the UK do if a strike on military airfields takes place, on port facilities, to stop the shipment of weapons, on army bases where Ukrainian soldiers are trained, on warehouses storing munitions and weapons marked for shipment to Ukraine, or eliminating the UK Trident nuclear submarine force in Scotland, or any number of other targets they could select? They can do nothing.
The National and Defence Strategies Research Group based in the UK stated in a report on Britain’s air defences in 2016, that,
“Since the withdrawal from service of the Bloodhound missile system in the 1980s, the UK’s Air Defence posture has diminished to mainly a homeland benign airspace policing and point defence posture for deployed forces. The UK no longer has a comprehensive, integrated, or robustly layered short to long-range Air Defence capability, nor a credible or enduring operational capacity.”
Nothing has changed since then, except to get worse. In other words, the UK is defenceless against modern Russian stand-off weapons.
I can remember, as a boy, my mother taking me several times on a bus through London. It must have been 1955 or so and I can remember mile upon mile of burnt-out blackened buildings, as far as the eye could see, especially in east London where entire districts were levelled by German bombs. The country, despite its heroic RAF fighter pilots, could not stop the bombing and then missile attacks which went on for five years.
The British government assured the people before that war, that all would be well, that they would have peace in their time. But they lied to the people then, as they are lying to them now. Britain was never the same after that war. It never really recovered from it. Once again, the British government, ever saluting the masters in Washington, leads the British people into a dangerous war, which they were never asked about, and which they do not want. It lies to them about the causes, it lies to them about the fighting, and it lies to them about the dangers they face, placing them in a distant future, and hides from them the consequences of its actions. The British people must be warned. Britain is at war, and no amount of bluffing and lying can protect them from the consequences their government is provoking. They are predictable and they will be catastrophic.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Britain At War-Provoking The Consequences появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On May 10, an earlier announced meeting of the foreign ministers of the Astana format participants – Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria – took place in Moscow. It should be noted that this summit of representatives of the Quartet took the baton from the heads of defense departments. The latter shows that Russia, as the initiator of the Middle East dialogue on the settlement of the Syrian crisis, demonstrates a systematic approach covering all important aspects of the remaining contradictions between Damascus and Ankara.
Accordingly, the meetings of the heads of foreign intelligence agencies, defense and diplomatic departments of Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria are designed to discuss and find new opportunities to resolve the Syrian crisis, as well as to develop proposals for the preparation of the summit at the highest level. It is no secret that the main subject of the Quartet’s meetings in this format was the restoration of Turkish-Syrian relations and the resolution of sharp contradictions.
The fact that the Moscow summit of foreign ministers took place three days before the general elections in Turkey, to which the attention of key regional and global players is riveted, suggests that the administration of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is positive about restoring relations with Syria while satisfying Turkish interests (primarily in the field of security).
Moreover, more than a million Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons who found themselves in neighboring Turkey have now become participants in local elections. The topic of Syrian refugees (IDPs) for election purposes is actively used by the opposition to criticize the Turkish authorities. In turn, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the Popular Republican Party and the “Popular Alliance” bloc, has already indicated the restoration of relations with Syria and the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland as one of his policy theses should he win.
In addition to the political context, the topic of Syrian refugees has an important socio-economic aspect for Turkey in the situation of the devastating earthquake and severe financial and economic crisis.
That is why President Erdoğan is forced to show a more flexible stance in terms of Turkish-Syrian relations, exclude new conflict approaches and aim at a constructive dialogue with Syria in cooperation with influential regional players such as Russia and Iran.
Of course, the general public does yet not know the full content of the talks held in Moscow and the agreements, or at least the understandings and hopes, reached. After the two Moscow summits of the Quartet, both Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu spoke positively about the talks that took place and expressed their satisfaction and hopes for their continuation.
Çavuşoğlu assessed the Moscow summit positively: “The meeting was constructive and effective. As parties to the process, we reaffirmed our commitment to Syria’s territorial integrity, we have a common approach to combating terrorism, we emphasized the importance of the political process and joint work on humanitarian issues.”
From this short opinion of the main Turkish diplomat it follows that Turkey recognizes the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) with the exclusion of any new quasi-entities in its Kurdish-populated provinces. In other words, Ankara, together with Moscow, Tehran and Damascus, opposes the American course of speculation on the suffering of Syria’s Kurdish population. There is nothing new in the approach of Turkey and Syria, because in the twentieth century all Middle Eastern countries with the historical Kurdish community (particularly Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran), despite the presence of various interstate controversies, have always found an understanding and a common approach to the threat of ethnic separatism (in this case the Kurdish question), heated from the outside.
Accordingly, at the Moscow table, the parties found a “common approach to combating terrorism.” Translated from diplomatic language, this could mean that Turkey, together with Syria and its other partners (the Russian Federation and the IRI), regards pro-American Kurdish and other militant organizations as terrorist organizations that must be eliminated and destroyed.
It is no coincidence that at a meeting with his Iranian, Turkish and Syrian counterparts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that the US has stepped up work to create a so-called Army of Free Syria around Raqqa, involving fighters from ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in Russia), representatives of other terrorist groups and members of local Arab tribes. Washington’s goal is to destabilize the situation in Syria through the use of fighters against the legitimate authorities of the SAR. Accordingly, in the face of such a threat, Turkey and Syria, based on their national interests, find a unified approach against the forces of international terrorism.
The issues of the subsequent withdrawal of Turkish troops from part of the northern territories of Syria and the return of Syrian refugees from the south-eastern regions of Turkey will require, firstly, time, secondly, the continuation of the political process of dialogue and, thirdly, humanitarian cooperation. As a result, Turkey and Syria decided to continue constructive negotiations.
In his turn, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, positively assessing the May meeting with his colleagues, rightly stressed that the success of the Turkish-Syrian relations will provide new prospects and opportunities for the “Astana format” of resolving the Syrian crisis and strengthening Middle East security.
The resolution of the acute Turkish-Syrian contradictions with Russia’s assistance and Iran’s participation will certainly create new realities in the Middle East. In fact, the US and its diplomacy will lose ground in the region, where key players will show determination to restore peace and order in Syria with their own capabilities. Following this, a new page of successful diplomacy could open for Turkey to form a sustainable regional security in partnership with Russia, Iran, Syria (other countries of the Arab East) and China. Is this not the prospect of the real embodiment of Ahmet Davutoğlu’s neo-Ottoman thesis of “zero problems with neighbors”?
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Yet another success of Russia’s Middle East diplomacy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Congressmen from the United States are provoking Beijing and making serious preparations for a military conflict with China over Taiwan.
Florida’s Republican Senator Mark Rubio introduced ‘The Deterring Chinese Preemptive Strikes Act’ to Congress in the first week of May to fortify American military bases in the Pacific against potential missile assaults from Beijing. The text of the document was published on May 11 on the website of the congressman, who, citing data from analysts, predicts that in anticipation of a potential military invasion of Taiwan, China will attempt to strike and neutralize American military facilities in the Asia-Pacific region.
As conceived by Rubio, the future law directs the US Department of Defense to strengthen its armed forces in the Indo-Pacific region to “help further deter a preemptive strike by China against the US military before invading Taiwan.” A detailed inventory and reinforcement of all shelter types for American military aircraft stationed in the first, second, and third island chains in the Indo-Pacific region will be required, according to a directive to the Pentagon.
To be fair, it should be acknowledged that American lawmakers have recently displayed provocative behavior that has consciously fueled the conflict around Taiwan and raised a level of military tension in the Asia-Pacific region.
As a consequence of this, after the then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the island in early August 2022, the situation in the Taiwan Strait significantly deteriorated. Beijing, which views Taiwan as one of its provinces, interpreted this action by US senators as evidence that Washington is in favor of Taiwan independence. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) retaliated the day after with extensive drills and missile shooting in six different locations of the island’s waters.
Then, in January of this year, Republican Mike McCaul, a Texas-based member of the US House of Representatives and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declared that there was a “very high likelihood” that the United States and China would engage in battle over Taiwan. He also stated that if Beijing fails to secure bloodless rule over the island, the Chinese will consider launching a military assault. This public announcement came shortly after the scandalous revelation was leaked to the media on January 27 of this year made by US Air Force Four-Star General Mike Minihan, who warned his subordinates in a memo that the US would go to war with China in 2025 and instructed them to report on actions to prepare for war with China.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Washington is escalating military tensions in the Asia-Pacific region появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
After more than a year of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, Syria’s membership in the Arab League of States (LAS) was finally restored when Arab foreign ministers reached a consensus on an issue that has been causing sharp divisions since the start of the Syrian crisis 12 years ago. On May 7, the Arab League’s foreign ministers adopted a resolution by which they decided to readmit the Syrian Arab Republic into the LAS. The decision was taken on the eve of the Arab League summit in Saudi Arabia on May 19 and against the background of the rapid normalization of the region’s relations with Damascus in recent weeks.
The move is further evidence of warming relations between Damascus and other Arab governments. And there is no doubt that this was a huge diplomatic victory for President Bashar al-Assad, who at one point, before Russian military aid in 2015, was on the verge of collapse.
The new Arab approach to resolving the complex Syrian crisis is based on a number of factors. More than a decade of unsuccessful attempts to find a political settlement to end this brutal civil war have led to a deadly stalemate, with parts of the country under regime control and others under direct or indirect foreign occupation or influence. It ceased to be an internal crisis almost as soon as it erupted, because it involved regional and external actors who supported various opposition groups, both politically and militarily.
One must not forget the grim episodes of foreign extremists infiltrating Syria to join the terrorists and criminals who filled the vacuum left by the regime to create a disgusting anti-utopian society. Similarly, the documented atrocities committed by these terrorists, including the use of chemical weapons, will continue to demand investigation, accountability, and a final reckoning.
The impasse in Syria has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in all parts of the country, as evidenced by the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in February. Moreover, regional and global geopolitical shifts have changed views on how best to approach the Syrian crisis. Most Arab leaders have agreed that the current “status quo policy” is unsustainable amid shifting priorities, needs and challenges.
What is important to note here is that the process of a kind of rehabilitation of the Syrian regime is only the beginning. The step-by-step approach is open-ended, and it will be years before there is a genuine end to the Syrian tragedy. Meanwhile, the essence of the new approach is based on finding a working Arab formula that complies with UN resolutions on Syria and previous agreements and in other directions, such as Geneva and Astana, while achieving national reconciliation. This is not an easy task, and the recent decision of the Arab League to resolve this conflict is to be welcomed.
One thing to note here is that any genuine approach to resolving the crisis in Syria, which includes political reforms, the return of refugees and displaced persons, the dismantling of the drug smuggling network, and an end to the foreign presence, above all that of US troops, on Syrian soil, must be considered while maintaining the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria and, among other things, must be based on a mutual formula. This means that the legitimate government in Damascus and the opposition should give a clear response to this Arab initiative and should soon fully disclose their position on these and many other issues.
For Damascus to state its position on the aforementioned issues is crucial if the new Arab approach is to become a lifeline. Bashar al-Assad is unlikely to abandon his Iranian allies, although he may make token gestures regarding the presence of non-state players. But it will probably be a long time before he signals any concessions on important issues such as writing Syria’s new constitution. There is also the problem of the Syrian Kurds, including their demands for self-rule and the issue of the illegal presence of US troops on Syrian territory.
Washington’s reaction to this latest diplomatic breakthrough has been very predictable and sharply negative. A State Department spokesman stated that Syria did not deserve to be rebuilt, but that the US supported the Arab League’s long-term goal of resolving the crisis in Syria. British Minister of State Lord Ahmad stated that the UK remains “opposed to engagement with the Assad regime.” The fact that Washington’s key Arab partners, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the UAE, are now actively supporting the political rehabilitation of Syria sends a strong signal to Washington that its failed policy in this Arab country has completely collapsed and does not deserve much attention at present.
The new Arab momentum must be actively pursued in light of the historic rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran and its implications for the entire region, including Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. A broader perspective should include more vigorous Russian involvement to end the Syrian-Turkish rift, which could be decided by the results of Turkey’s presidential election in mid-May.
This is the position taken by Russia, which welcomed the Arab League’s decision, expressing hope that the move would create a “healthier atmosphere” in the West Asian region. “Moscow welcomes this long-awaited step, which was a logical result of the process of Syria’s return to the ‘Arab family’,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “We proceed from the premise that the restoration of Syria’s participation in operations [of the League of Arab States], as it is one of the organization’s founding countries, will contribute to improving the atmosphere in the Middle East region and overcoming the consequences of the Syrian crisis as soon as possible,” the TASS news agency quoted Maria Zakharova as saying.
An important quadrilateral meeting between Iran, Syria, Russia and Turkey at the level of foreign ministers has just been held in the Russian capital, Moscow. The meeting is a giant step forward in terms of ending the differences between Turkey and Syria, which have been at odds for the past decade. The meeting was made possible by a series of technical discussions that took place between the four states in Moscow in early April.
Although some international issues were also on the agenda, the meeting in Moscow focused primarily on the normalization of relations between Ankara and Damascus. The diametrically opposed positions of Syria and Turkey since the Syrian crisis began in 2011 have seriously undermined their relations. When the Syrian government regained control of most of its lost territory, Turkey has taken steps to normalize relations with Syria through the mediation of Russia and Iran.
The meeting in Moscow is further evidence that Syria is overcoming crisis and war, a trend that has prompted Turkey and many Arab states to restore ties with Damascus. Saudi Arabia, now the informal leader of the Arab world, has reopened its diplomatic missions in Damascus. There is now speculation that Syria’s president may attend the upcoming Arab League summit in Saudi Arabia, which has already officially extended an invitation to Assad to attend the summit.
The meeting in Moscow also provided a friendly atmosphere for bilateral meetings between foreign ministers. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian held separate meetings with his Syrian, Russian and Turkish counterparts. In a meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad, Amir-Abdollahian congratulated him on Syria’s return to the Arab League and expressed Iran’s support for Turkish-Syrian normalization. Amir-Abdollahian described the meeting in Moscow as a step forward in his meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. He also noted that the meeting in Moscow would have a strong message of peace and sustainable security in the region and strengthening good neighborliness between Turkey and Syria.
As things stand, Turkey and Syria are making progress in restoring their ties. Full resumption of ties, however, is hindered by the fact that Turkish troops are illegally present on Syrian territory, thereby violating the territorial integrity of the Arab country. This issue was raised in Moscow.
For Syria’s Arab neighbors, namely Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, the latest developments are undoubtedly taken, as they say, to heart. Amman, for example, views the smuggling of a drug called “Captagon” across its 360-kilometer border with Syria as a threat to national security. There are indications that it was the Jordanian Air Force that carried out the deadly strike on the drug factory, killing the most wanted Syrian drug lord in the process. This is indicative of Amman’s new strategy for dealing with this threat, which, according to various reports, involves members of the opposition actively supported by the US and its allies. Jordan and Lebanon are seeking solutions that will allow the voluntary return of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees to their homeland and thereby relieve the financial burden on these very poor Arab states. Iraq and Jordan, meanwhile, want to secure their borders with Syria to control smuggling as well as to eliminate ISIS (banned in Russia) militants who continue to pose a threat to both countries.
Negotiations with the Syrian government to resolve a long list of issues, either bilaterally or through an Arab League committee, will not be easy. The survival of the legitimate government in Damascus has come at a high cost, and new realities have emerged on the ground that will make it difficult for Bashar al-Assad and the opposition to reach mutual concessions. But in the absence of alternatives, the current path seems the only one that makes sense. There is hope that Damascus will see sense in preserving the benefits of its return to the Arab fold, while the opposition will meet the aspirations of Syrians and both sides, with the help of their international friends, will do their part to overcome the pervasive political stalemate.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Syria: the path to conflict resolution is open появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Very seldom is something that can be so beneficial for one country attracted the wrath of so many others, as in the reaction to Russia affording Georgia visa-free status and direct flights, after so many years of travel and visa restrictions, recriminations, and name-calling. The US and the Georgian president also want to stop flights from resuming between the neighboring countries, which were suspended last year in the wake of the Ukrainian civil war, Russia’s special operation, and in light of the US-EU instigating anti-Russian protests in Georgia and other countries.
Those speaking out the loudest are those who are the least involved and who are not stakeholders in what should make most Georgians happy: being able to freely visit family and friends in Russia without the need for complicated and expensive visa applications and having to travel overland to Russia. This can potentially be a game changer, as now the US is threatening Georgia, “The Beacon of Democracy” with sanctions.
Winners and losers
The US Ambassador, Kelly Degnan, has made it clear in her statements that the US is very upset over the decision of the Georgian government to look after its own best interests in her many remarks. On May 11, spoke about Moscow’s decision to resume flights with Georgia and noted that the United States cannot comment on whether this decision will affect Georgia’s EU candidate status.
At least it is good to know that she is not making policy decisions for the EU. The United States is not in the European Parliament, so we don’t have anything to do with those decisions, told the US Ambassador. She noted that Putin is doing this not out of the goodness of his heart [lifting visa restrictions] and “how no one believes that the Russian president cares about the comfort of Georgian passengers”.
Others are also closing ranks with the EU and US in labeling to Russia’s decision to lift the visa regime and direct flight ban with Georgia, describing it as a provocative offer and an apparent attempt to increase Georgia’s dependency on Russia.
Meanwhile, the lame duck US Ambassador continues by saying claiming how “We have seen that sometimes Putin uses the presence of Russians in the country to interfere in this country,” and how many Georgians are already worried about the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Russians in Georgia, and “now we hear from the Russian Tourism Agency that as a result of the resumption of direct flights, perhaps, another million will come.”
I am sure many Georgians would take exception to the rhetoric of the US Embassy, as [they know] firsthand the value that Russian citizens have added to the Georgia economy, especially in terms of the real estate market and bringing new skills, human resources, and investments to Georgia, and being active consumers.
As one Georgian university student, who has family in Russia, shared with me, “for Georgians whose family members live in Russia as immigrants: resuming direct flights between these two countries is really beneficial! As long as Russians are not free from visa regulations and can’t stay in Georgia for more than 12 months, everything is fine. The West tries to make the relationship between Georgia and Russia worse, but the authorities aren’t allowing that.”
According to the US State Department, “If direct flights between Russia and Georgia are restored, we will, of course, be concerned that companies in Georgian airports may face the risk of bankruptcy if they serve aircraft subject to import and export controls.”
It is interesting to see how what most Georgians welcome as normalization of relations is being reacted to, especially by the figurehead Georgian president, Salome Zurabishvili, the lifting of restrictions as a 2019 flight ban was quickly denounced by Georgia’s president as a “provocation.”
Earning frequent flyer points
But already some are trying to earn frequent flyer points from the decision, Giorgi Pkhaladze one former airport employee, who used the Vladimir Putin’s cancellation of the visa regime for Georgian citizens, to draw attention to himself or to his political sponsors. Later it was learned that he left the job for other reasons, aside from perhaps using his departure as a political ploy, and he only worked at the airport as a parking lot attendant.
Pkhaladze, an employee of Tbilisi International Airport, said: “I will not serve people flying from Russia on a direct flight!!! I wrote a statement about leaving my job, resignation, and effective May 19 I will no longer work at Tbilisi International Airport!
“Tbilisi and Batumi International Airports governing company, “TAV Georgia”—a Turkish company, responded, explaining that his employment status contained several inaccuracies.
We find it necessary to explain that Giorgi Phkhaladze addressed the company’s human resources management service on May 1 of this year with an announcement of his resignation. Accordingly, his resignation will not be in any connection with the lifting of the ban on flights to Georgia for Russian airlines, which was announced on May 10.
It is also noteworthy that Giorgi Pkhaladze, who worked as a cashier-operator at the parking lot of Tbilisi International Airport, had nothing to do with flight services. Accordingly, it is completely inappropriate to talk on his part that “those who fly from Russia will not be served”
Olive Branch or Provocation?
Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili said in a post on Twitter on May 10 that Putin’s dual decrees were “another provocation.” She describes the moves “as being completely unacceptable and coming at an inappropriate time. We do not need gifts from Russia, masked as some kind of a concession. In today’s situation, we are on the same side as all our European friends!”
She goes on to describe how the action “might serve to cover up their [alleged] failures in Bakhmut, “I don’t know how to describe it, but this might have served to cover up where they are unable to demonstrate strength. It might also have been a response to the new eleventh package of sanctions announced by the EU … describing it as it can be [many things] but most importantly for us, this is a provocation to challenge our society” and how it presents a very BIG challenge to the Georgian government.
She is correct when she says that “this will undoubtedly cause some kind of tension between the political parties, [as their only claim] to fame is complicating and Russian baiting at every opportunity. The claimed Pro-Western opposition parties issued a joint statement, accusing the ruling Georgian Dream of “once again” endangering Georgia’s European and Euro-Atlantic future, pointing out that the country’s international isolation may bring it under Russia’s dominance.
Girchi-More Freedom, Droa, StrategyAgmashenebeli, Lelo, UNM, and European Georgia pledged to “do everything to change this regime democratically.” They are constantly trying to prove to their outside sponsors, especially American, that they are more anti-Russian than the other parties. Apart from the former ruling UNM, these last leg parties are polling in the low single digits, and any future they may have may likely depend on outside sponsors.
As Salome goes on and on, it becomes clear that her own personal motivations are “most likely” funded by outsiders. She is not speaking for Georgia or the Georgian people, “I am sure that it will not cause any tension within society, but rather a very big reaction. She explains how “Our Society understands very well that Russia is taking such steps based on its own self-interest.”
Do the Russians know a way that others don’t know as well?
Every country, especially fledgling democracies, must act in according to their self-interests and not be too easily manipulated by outsiders. Georgians know only too well the results of listening to special interests in the US, back during the 2008 US presidential elections, and how a protracted war would have been good for John McCain, as ordered. The price Georgia had to pay was high as a direct result.
It is just the opposite as Zurabishvili, explains in her broken Georgian language diatribe,
“Unfortunately, our government has not yet understood, has not thought about our history, and it has not thought about all the existing examples that Russia never responds to the government’s concessions with concessions. Rather, it will respond with something that will make one’s situation more difficult. This is its constant behavior and I think the government should think about it.
As if Twitter Matters, Salome?
I have already expressed my position on Twitter, [as if she has no other forum]. I believe that this is completely unacceptable and [comes at] an inappropriate time.
“We do not need visa removals, nor do we need to restore flights.”
Certainly, she is not speaking for the Georgian people, or those who try to make it to the US, cross the US border illegally, where they face violence and death on the way, having to borrow and sell all they have to start new lives. Only too often, based on stories that I have been told, they find themselves living in the street and the American Dream proves only too soon a nightmare experience, and they wished they had never left Georgia.
She continues, “As long as Russia remains the aggressor over the whole world and the occupiers of our territories, such gestures are really untimely and unacceptable! I call on the government to make its position clear. It is time, as I have repeatedly requested, for the National Security Council to meet publicly and discuss the three-month visa imposition that we need, even given the internal challenge.”
She calls for more needed “governmental control over those Russians who enter and stay in Georgia, and [how it is] necessary to take some measures so that all of this falls into a normal, civilized framework.”
We are a very tolerant country, we accept everyone, and this has been shown last year, but some things cannot happen in the country: Russian-language kindergartens cannot be opened, where teaching the Georgian language will not be mandatory. We cannot avoid imposing some measures on different professions. And adds …“What are the requirements for people of this, or that profession; this means, the licensing of even taxi drivers, tour guides, and many other professions.
Her justification for imposing such “European values” is that “this will serve to protect our society and this will be the right response to today’s provocation. We do not need gifts from Russia, masked as some kind of concession. In today’s situation, we are on the same side of all of our European friends.
Naturally, “this is to protect the honor of Georgia by avoiding starting some kind of relationship with Russia, and unlike everyone else in the world … that will make everything difficult for us, even in terms of our country’s accusations of circumventing sanctions. I can confirm that there is no such threat from Georgia today, but we should not create a situation that will intensify these accusations and make it harder to defend ourselves against them.
Good that you are certain of something!
Therefore, I once again appeal to the government to listen to the voice of the people, and not to the power of the people!” I am certain that people are united around this subject, and not only because this represents yet another decision that might challenge the decision [for the EU] to grant us candidacy status but because this goes against Georgia’s interests and its honor.
We know where our country, with its occupied territories and its solidarity with friendly Ukraine, stands. This is our position and we must remain loyal to the end—this is the request of our society. I am certain that if events develop differently, which I hope they will not, society will also respond to it.”
You would think they [some people and many politicians] would understand that if Georgia ever wants its territory back, or in part, it needs to have good relations with Russia and learn to negotiate and not toss fuel on the fire.
Commentary is in her very words
Salome may be technically the president, and one thing is for sure, most of what she has proclaimed is not shared by the same populace that she claims to speak for, and society is looking forward to the best offers it can get from all its friends, close and far.
Why is she not making such heart-moving speeches on the EU’s refusal to offer Georgia Candidacy status or NATO’s unfilled promises to open membership, since 2008? Those are moot issues, and need not be discussed, as they are known to most readers and most Georgians.
Even VOA, Voice of America,(recognized in the Russia as a foreign media agent) a mouthpiece for US propaganda gets sometimes right, Zurabishvili, whose post is largely ceremonial, has often accused the ruling Georgian Dream party of having closer ties to Moscow since being elected with its backing in 2018.
But it fails to mention how she was elected, and the pressure applied by both the US and the EU to give her this “largely ceremonial” post. Now we know why, and what are her assigned duties, as if she is legitimately speaking about “what is in the best interests of Georgia and Georgians, and if she actually knows anything about conflict resolution and what is REALLY needed to resolve issues of territorial integrity between Georgia and its breakaway regions.
According to the AP, quoting a Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement, Putin’s decrees, “are in line with our principled approach of consistently facilitating the conditions for communication and contacts between the citizens of Russia and Georgia, despite the absence of diplomatic relations.”
As one 15-year-old Georgian schoolgirl, with dual Georgian-Russian citizenship, sums up the Georgian president’s: “Zurabishvili doesn’t care about some Georgians and only sees the negative side of resuming flights and is speaking on behalf of the West.”
My Georgian daughter-in-law, who now lives in the US, and is a former Georgian flight attendant, wrote me as this was going to press, and I am sure many Georgians feel the same. “I have an aunt in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia, she is my mother’s sister and at least I will be able to see her and her family. I’m very happy that the current government wants to have good relations with its neighbor, as if Saakashvili’s government was there now, they would never consider it.”
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение US Threatens Georgia with Sanction: “The Beacon of Democracy” over direct flights and visa free travel появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States and its NATO allies, firstly, regarded themselves victorious in the post-World War II conflict, and secondly, set a course for the formation of a unipolar world order under United States hegemony.
Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, during the difficult 1990s-2000s of the transition period, was in fact unable to oppose the American course with its own autonomous strategy. The situation was aggravated by the “parade of sovereignty” in the former Soviet Union, the virus of separatism within the Federation (North Caucasus, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, etc.), the lack of a collective ideology in society, and the systemic crisis of the economy and state institutions.
With the change of power in 2000 and positive changes in the economy (primarily in world energy markets) the new Russian president Vladimir Putin managed to reverse the trend of the deepening crisis, gain financial stability, and start reforms in the economy and defense complex in particular.
As some Russian politicians and businessmen have noted, even before 2014 (that is, when Russia was in the G-8) in his numerous meetings and negotiations with Western partners, Vladimir Putin repeatedly noted the importance for Russia to maintain its historical and geopolitical presence and influence in post-Soviet countries. The latter was determined not only by the history of living together as part of a single state for centuries (the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union), but also by the intertwining of human destinies, mentality, economic justifications, natural communications links, military security considerations and Russia’s status as a nuclear triad possessor like the United States.
Their Western counterparts, however, pretended to understand the Russian leader’s concerns, but, as time has shown, they continued with their anti-Russian policies and did exactly the opposite. The US and Britain were spinning the course of NATO’s eastward movement (in Russia it reminded of Adolf Hitler’s slogan “Drang nach Osten”), dragging the same Baltic States, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan into new programs of cooperation with NATO. As for the Turkic-Islamic republics of the CIS (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) the USA and Britain actively used the capabilities of Turkey with its modernized version of the doctrine of Pan-Turkism and Panturanism.
As a result, new hotbeds of tension with an anti-Russian bias appeared in the former Soviet Union. In spring 2004, the Baltic states joined NATO; GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova; from 1999 to 2005 it included Uzbekistan), a regional organization created in 1997 at the initiative of the West, was planning to join it. The “color revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, supervised by the US and British intelligence services, led not only to the replacement of weak local regimes by pro-Western leaders, but also to the initiation of an active policy of distancing Georgia and Ukraine from their alliance with Russia.
Unresolved conflicts as a legacy of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the costs of the national and administrative policies of the Communist Party occupied a special place in the former Soviet Union. These problems, in the resolution of which the same United States and EU countries (for example, France and Germany) became officially involved under the Aegis of the OSCE, have not yet received an objective resolution. The same situation persists in the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh, Donbass, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria.
Meanwhile, in 1994 Washington and London began to realize a new anti-Russian strategy in the post-Soviet area using geo-economic projects to form pipeline communications bypassing Russian routes to export strategically important oil and gas from the Caspian basin to the European market. At the suggestion of Great Britain, the USA began to actively use NATO’s Turkey with its doctrine of Neo Pan-Turkism and Neo-Panturanism in these projects. The latter was explained by the fact that the Turkic countries of the CIS (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), considering Turkey as their closest ally, are the main owners of oil and gas in the Caspian and Central Asian energy regions.
Moscow was looking for options that ruled out a radical path of confrontation with the West and the former Soviet republics. However, the more Russia tried to intensify diplomacy and provide economic and political bonuses to its CIS partners, the more the West saw in Russia’s actions a weakness and the possibility of another onslaught on the formation of centrifugal tendencies from Moscow. The results of this same US policy were:
– The involvement of more and more external players from among its allies (partners) in anti-Russian practices in the former Soviet Union (including Turkey, Israel, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.);
– implementation of new transport and energy communications bypassing Russia: Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan oil pipeline; Baku – Tbilisi – Erzurum gas pipeline, “Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline – TANAP”; Baku – Tbilisi – Kars railroad;
– “color revolutions” to change regimes in a number of CIS countries (Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Armenia);
– military conflicts in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine.
As is well-known, on February 10, 2007 the President of Russia declared at the international forum on security in Germany the inadmissibility of forming the unipolar world with the hegemony of the USA, which objectively doesn’t meet the interests of global and regional security under the condition of reality of the multipolar world with the variety of centers of gravity of the world order. This position of Russia caused shock among the Americans and the British, as well as understanding on the part of a number of world actors in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. Subsequently, the world observed the escalation of the situation against Russia, the new conflicts provoked by Anglo-Saxons in the former Soviet Union, Middle East and Africa.
In Kosovo, the USA created a precedent on revision of the Helsinki conclusion of 1975 about inviolability of the European borders after the Second World War. When Russia recognized the sovereignty of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in response to military provocation of international swindler Saakashvili’s regime, the West accused Moscow of “aggression”, “occupation” and other sins. The same practice of the Western diplomacy continued after the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation on the basis of the principle of self-determination of nations and the will of the Crimean people according to the results of the referendum.
All this gave rise to Russia’s forced appeal to the US and NATO in December 2021 about the need to stop the destructive policy of the West to promote the North Atlantic Alliance to the East (in the same Ukraine), to respect the rights and freedoms of the people of Donbass. The critical perception of Russia’s position by the collective West became a catalyst for the start of the Russian Military Defense Forces in Ukraine and the largest conflict in Europe since the Second World War, which has been ongoing since February 24, 2022, the victims of which are the peoples of Russia and Ukraine.
In a situation when Russia is busy with security issues in Ukraine, the US and its NATO and EU partners purposefully combine a policy of anti-Russian sanctions with attempts to alienate an increasing number of post-Soviet countries (including those officially allied to Russia in the CSTO and EAEU) from Moscow. To this end, they exploit both economic issues (e.g., in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan) and issues of unresolved conflicts (in particular, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations).
As we all know, January 2022 began with the escalation of the internal political situation in Kazakhstan, which forced the then acting President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to turn to Moscow and the CSTO for military assistance. With the prompt participation of the Russian president, the CSTO reacted very quickly to the request of the Kazakh leader and sent forces to maintain order and stabilize the situation in the friendly country. However, after the start of the USO in Ukraine, the very same Kassym-Jomart Tokayev publicly and categorically refused to support Russia’s policy of forced recognition of the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), considering it unacceptable and contrary to the principle of territorial integrity.
After Azerbaijan’s success in the second Karabakh war in autumn 2020, which became possible due to the external assistance of the Azerbaijani army from a group of countries (including Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and others) and the complete neutrality of Russia, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in November 2021 transformed the international organization Turkic Commonwealth into the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). This organization, coordinated by Ankara, began to pursue an offensive policy of economic, military and political integration of the Turkic countries of the CIS with NATO member Turkey. Meanwhile, Turkey, as a result of the second Karabakh war of 2020 entered Transcaucasia (as a participant of the Monitoring Center in Aghdam).
One of the strategic goals of the OTS is the idea of the Turan project with Turkey’s long-term access to the expanses of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Erdogan, as part of the policy of strengthening Turkey’s independence and reanimation of imperial ambitions to return to the “club of world powers,” is trying to get the shortest route to mainland Azerbaijan and historic Turkestan through the Meghri corridor in Armenian Zangezur. A number of new aggressive forays by Azerbaijani forces on the border with Armenia between 2021 and 2022 were dedicated to this goal, indirectly provoking Russia to form a “second front” in Transcaucasia.
Turkey, by conducting flexible mediation diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine, received new bonuses from Moscow in the form of a “gas hub” project, which significantly strengthens its energy security and independence from external factors. Meanwhile, the Turkish leadership, developing an inter-Turkic alliance, began to pursue an offensive policy in the Central Asian theater, hoping to change the flow of Kazakh and Turkmen oil and gas exports through Azerbaijan to Turkey and on to the EU world markets. At the same time, Azerbaijan’s regional role in international energy and logistics transit is increasing. Azerbaijan’s leading oil corporation SOCAR concludes new agreements with EU countries (Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Albania) to increase gas and “green energy” supplies in exchange for Russian gas because of the sanctions policy.
For its part, Kazakhstan began building up its tanker fleet (in particular, Kazmortransflot increased its fleet to five vessels) to supply oil for export bypassing Russia via Azerbaijan and Turkey. According to Reuters, by the end of the first quarter of 2023, Kazakhstan exported 163,400 tons of oil by sea route Aktau – Baku, which is six times more than in 2022. Supplies via Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan pipeline amounted to 104,000 tons over the same period, where the oil comes by the Caspian Sea by tankers again.
Such policy of Astana is carried out in order to reduce Kazakhstan’s dependence on Russia, as well as within the framework of Erdoğan’s policy of integration of the OTS countries and formation of the common Turkic market. In addition to the economic part, Astana under the leadership of Kassym-Jomart Tokayev began to demonstrate a policy more distant from the union with Russia. For example, by joining the policy of anti-Russian sanctions of the West in the hope of another bonuses, as noted by German political analyst Alexander Rahr, in the field of obtaining advanced technologies, profitable investments and relocation of the same German business from Russia to Kazakhstan. On the eve of May 9, the Deputy Minister of Defense of Kazakhstan noted that the country will not hold the Victory Parade this year because of the economy of funds. Kazakh authorities have introduced a stricter regime for the entry of Russians into the territory of the republic. At the same time, Kazakhstan (as well as Kyrgyzstan), being a member of the CSTO, is increasing military-technical cooperation with NATO member Turkey on the purchase of Bayraktar drones and other means.
In the situation of the unresolved Karabakh conflict, the USA has intensified its diplomacy to draw Azerbaijan and Armenia to the Western option of peace between Baku and Yerevan, using the EU platform in Brussels rather intensively in the negotiation process. Simultaneously, the US and France limit themselves to declarations on the observance of the rights of Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, but do not take effective steps towards the same in Azerbaijan. The West is counting on Caspian oil and gas for the European market and sees Azerbaijan as a springboard to enter Central Asia and put pressure on Iran.
In a similar dynamic of confrontation with Russia, the US and EU countries are trying to lower the bar of their old requirements for the strict observance of democracy, human rights and freedoms to their new partners in the same post-Soviet space. In particular, as Alexander Rahr has noted, the West is changing its diplomacy tactics from “sticks” to “carrots” for it is situationally hoping to discredit Russia and push it out of its regions of traditional presence.
The current reality compels Moscow to mobilize all its resources to contain such an openly hostile strategy of the West and to warn its traditional and new partners about the inadmissibility of rash steps, which may create for them problems of their own security.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The US and Europe are attempting to weaken Russia’s influence in the former Soviet Union появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As the US continues its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, it also continues preparations for a similar conflict with China using the island province of Taiwan as its proxy of choice in Asia.
Toward this end, the US continues flooding the island province with billions of dollars worth of weapons.
One of the more recent announced weapon sales was 400 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Washington’s Flawed “Porcupine Strategy” for Taiwan
The anti-ship missiles manufactured by Boeing would presumably be part of developing much wider anti-access area denial (A2AD) capabilities for the administration’s armed forces on the island.
A Taiwan-based analyst, Pei-Shiue Hsieh, in an article for The Diplomat titled, “Building Taiwan’s Own Area Denial Capabilities,” would claim:
While some assert that Taiwan cannot counter a Chinese invasion on its own, the results of my analytical wargames show the opposite. The drills by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) last month likely demonstrated Beijing’s intentions to impose a naval blockade on the island in the event of a military confrontation. Taiwan’s military needs to prevent Chinese fleets from moving into their tactical positions or, if unable to prevent the blockade’s establishment, to disrupt ongoing PLA Navy (PLAN) operations.
In order to do so, the author suggests:
Taiwan must develop its own anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy, which incorporates guided weapons and reconnaissance systems. Currently, Taiwan’s military possesses two possible options for guided anti-ship weapons: the ground-launched Hsiung Feng II/III and the ground- or air-launched AGM-84 Harpoon. With the reconnaissance information gathered by naval surveillance radars and MQ-9B SeaGuardian unmanned aerial vehicles, these legacy anti-ship missiles remain potent defenders of the island. However, as the PLAN is rapidly growing, Taiwan needs more than short- and medium-range options to cope with the PLA threat.
The Hsiung Feng III and Harpoon anti-ship missiles have ranges of 400 km and 139 km respectively. While these ranges may seem like more than enough to target and destroy Chinese warships imposing a sea blockade on the island of Taiwan, the problem is that while the missiles themselves have active radar homing, finding Chinese ships to home in on in the first place will be very difficult for Taiwan’s armed forces.
Land-based radars have a limited range because of the curvature of the Earth, far shorter than the operational range of the anti-ship missiles themselves, which is why Pei-Shiue Hsieh suggests naval surveillance radars and those mounted on unmanned aerial vehicles could help in target acquisition. However, it is widely acknowledged by even Western analysts that Taiwan’s naval fleet and air force will play little to no role in any hostilities between the island and the rest of China, as they would be targeted and destroyed first and foremost by Chinese missiles.
This is why Pei-Shiue Hsieh suggests using the AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) which has autonomous targeting. LRASMs however are air-launched, thus short of the US military utilizing the missiles on Taiwan’s behalf, Taiwan’s own air force would not survive long enough to use them.
Much of the author’s argument seems to depend on “intelligence sharing,” or in other words, US aircraft supplying Taiwan missile operators targeting information. The author cites the example of the Moskva, a Russian cruiser allegedly sunk by a Ukrainian anti-ship missile utilizing targeting information provided by NATO.
It should be pointed out that even if this was the result of Ukrainian missiles guided by NATO targeting information, it is only one ship out of the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet. Russia’s navy now simply keeps its distance, out of range of potential anti-ship missiles Ukraine may have, and is still able to control what flows to and from Ukraine by sea.
What Russia is unable to achieve with naval power along Ukraine’s coast it can achieve through long-range cruise missiles like the Kalibr, ballistic missiles like the Iskander, kamikaze drones like the Geran-2, and hypersonic air-launched ballistic missiles like the Kinzhal. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet also includes a number of submarines for which anti-ship missiles are irrelevant unless operating on the surface.
In a scenario where China is attempting to blockade Taiwan and China feels its surface vessels are at risk from anti-ship missiles, it can also employ submarines while using its formidable missile force to strike at and destroy not only military capabilities based on Taiwan, but also ports receiving military aid from abroad as well as ships attempting to deliver it. A blockade by any other name is still a blockade.
The other problem Taiwan’s administration faces is the time frame purchased weapons would actually reach the island. The 400 purchased Harpoon anti-ship missiles will take years at the earliest to arrive.
Reuters would report in its article, “Taiwan to buy 400 US anti-ship missiles to face China threat,” that:
The Pentagon announced a $1.17 billion contract for 400 of the anti-ship missiles on April 7 without naming the buyer, saying production was expected to be completed by March 2029. Bloomberg said Taiwan was the buyer.
According to most estimates, the gap in military capabilities between China and the United States is set to close somewhere around 2025. By 2029, the gap would be in the process of widening, but this time in China’s favor.
Contracts for munitions like the LRASM are not even being publicly discussed, but should such contracts be signed, it’s likely Taiwan will be waiting as long or longer for the missiles to arrive, and that is assuming the missiles are developed into ground-launched systems to adapt to the reality Taiwan’s air force will not play a role in any hostilities with the rest of China.
Profits and Provocations, Not Protection
While Boeing is certainly profiting from the sale of 400 Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan, the move hardly enhances Taiwan’s military capabilities relative to the rest of China, nor does it do so within the window of opportunity the US seeks to provoke an armed conflict with China over Taiwan. If any blockade imposed by China around the island province of Taiwan is to be broken, it will have to be by the US military using a combination of anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine warfare.
US policymakers having wargamed an armed conflict between the US and China noted that the US would likely exhaust its arsenal of long-range anti-ship missiles of all kinds, a result of America’s limited military industrial capacity, a shortfall on demonstration amid its proxy war with Russia in Ukraine at the moment.
But even if the US didn’t run out of missiles and if the US was successful in thwarting China’s use of naval vessels to impose a blockade, a de facto blockade can still be imposed through the use of China’s long-range missiles fired from the mainland at Taiwan’s ports and any ships attempting to utilize them.
There are no clear solutions for Taiwan if it continues down the path of US-sponsored separatism and antagonism toward the rest of China, so much so that the only logical solution to “defeat” a Chinese blockade of the island is to not provoke one in the first place.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение US Sells Taiwan 400 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles as US-Chinese Tensions Rise появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The special military operation in Ukraine has served as a watershed moment in the evolution of new international relations. The West, led by the United States, was able to rally behind the imposition of unprecedentedly broad sanctions against Russia. At the same time, our adversaries applied immense strain on emerging economies, coercing them to align with their efforts against Russia.
However, the global power balance has shifted. The countries of the so-called “Global South” wish to live and act freely and autonomously, defending their own interests. Washington’s diktat is becoming increasingly bothersome, which is not surprising given that emerging countries want to establish their lives according to their own norms, with no outside guidance. And in this, Russia’s and these states’ policies coincide: equality, respect for each other’s interests – notions unknown to the West, but familiar to the vast majority of people seeking justice.
The divergence in core principles between the West and the rest of the globe is becoming more visible; it is not confined to differences in political leadership or perceived interests: all of this contributes to a “rift” between wealthy democracies and emerging countries.
The majority of the globe’s attitude toward the West is best articulated by Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu, who stated that “the United States is hated by the entire world, and Europe is Washington’s pawn” (Aydınlık newspaper reported on this in the middle of April this year).
Even American journalists concede that “public opinion in developing countries remains much warmer toward Russia than toward the US.” A section of Cambridge University recently reached the same result. Furthermore, The Economist admitted that the number of countries opposing Russia’s invasion has decreased, while the number of countries neutral or supportive of Russia has climbed.
In mid-April, The New York Times had to conclude that the world is shifting toward Russia and China.
It is not restricted to policy differences: developing countries are gradually weaning themselves off of dollar dependence, with an increasing number of states announcing a transition to their national currencies for trade settlement.
Current developments are becoming so plain that even Western academics are recognizing this obvious truth: According to Bloomberg, the BRICS have “left the West behind” in economic growth. Since 2020, the BRICS countries have consistently outperformed the G7 in terms of their contribution to global economic growth: the agency estimates that in 2028, the BRICS countries will account for more than 33% of economic growth, while the G7 countries will account for less than 28%. In 2020, the BRICS overtook the G7.
China is the most significant contributor. During the period 2023-2028, its contribution to global GDP growth will be 22.6%. India comes in second with 12.9%, while the United States comes in third with 11.3%. Only 20 countries will account for three-quarters of global growth, with four accounting for half (the three mentioned above plus Indonesia, which will account for 3.6%).
China has eclipsed the United States, Germany, and Japan to become the world’s largest exporter. Steel, cement, cell phones, copiers, and other products contribute significantly to China’s development.
These items, coupled with household goods, furniture, textiles, and satellite dishes, have allowed China to grow its exports to the United States by 1700% in the last 15 years. As a result, the United States’ trade deficit with China has increased to $382 billion, while the EU’s trade deficit with China is $164 billion.
Beijing has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, estimated at $3.46 trillion in 2022.
The BRICS countries supply 25% of the world’s oil and 50% of the iron ore used in steel production. They also produce 40% of the world’s corn and 46% of the world’s wheat.
BRICS occupies about 28% of the world’s territory and is home to 45% of its population. Twenty states have already announced their desire to join BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in one form or another.
In 2014, BRICS members launched the New Development Bank as an alternative to the World Bank; in 2021, shares in this new bank were acquired by: Egypt, the UAE, Uruguay, and Bangladesh.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, even in the recent past a close ally of the United States, has twice in recent years refused Washington’s requests to increase oil production. Moreover, in close cooperation with Moscow, the Saudis have twice reduced their oil production and influenced other OPEC members accordingly.
The Saudis agreed in Beijing to normalize relations with Iran, which had been broken for several years. All this gave grounds for some US newspapers to conclude that a new alliance of Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia was forming that would act against US interests in the Middle East.
There was a trend toward the settlement of the long-running Syrian conflict, with three states – Russia, Turkey, and Iran – playing the main role in this. Meanwhile, all the West has done was putting spokes in the wheels of this process. Nevertheless, the Arab states have in fact decided to accept Damascus back to the Arab League.
Many Middle Eastern newspapers point out that Moscow played a positive role in achieving progress in settling the Yemeni crisis, especially after the visit of the Saudi foreign minister to Russia.
Russia and China are also seriously strengthening their positions on the African continent: Russia has traditionally had strong ties with Africa, after having supported the independence movements of almost all the states that fought to oust the colonial rulers. Many African countries – South Africa, Mali, Burkina Faso, etc. – are among those that openly support Russia. The son of Uganda’s president, General Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, stated that “Uganda will send soldiers to protect Moscow if it is ever threatened by imperialists.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent trip to a number of South American countries showed that support for Moscow’s course is growing in popularity there as well.
Russia’s new successes in the special military operation will further accelerate the formation of a new, more just world order.
Veniamin Popov, Director of the Center for the Partnership of Civilizations at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Candidate of Historical Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение A new world order is emerging появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In February, on an unusual visit to Japan, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasised the need for NATO to have more “friends” in the region. The obvious justification was, as Stoltenberg explained to his audience at Keio University in Tokyo, the fact that Russia and China were “coming closer” and the direct threat this alliance poses to the US-led international order. More obviously, what Stoltenberg said exposed active US attempts to expand the scope of its rivalry with Russia and China beyond Europe to include the Asia-Pacific region. At least this is how Beijing and Russia understood it. Responding to Stoltenberg’s projection of China as a threat, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning said in February that “NATO has constantly sought to reach beyond its traditional defence zone and scope.” The core purpose of this outreach is to turn the region currently connected by trade and economics into a battlefield where Washington can wage the war for protecting its hegemony.
Secondly, while an obvious purpose is to use the Asia-Pacific region against Russia and China, the US is also manoeuvring to have the Asia-Pacific countries bear upon the ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe between Russia and Ukraine (and Ukraine’s NATO allies). This was most evident through the visit of Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to Ukraine. Whereas this visit stressed Stoltenberg’s quest for NATO “friends” outside of Europe, it also underscored the marked visibility of the internationalisation of the ongoing military conflict in Europe via the Asia-Pacific region itself.
Thirdly, the US is pushing the Asia-Pacific region directly into (Eastern) Europe by sanctioning China for its support for Russia against Ukraine (and NATO). On April 12, the US Commerce Department announced fresh sanctions on more than two dozen Chinese companies for supporting Russia’s military and defence industries. The purpose is to hit Russian military and defence industries with a “tech shortage” to hamper Moscow’s ability to “sustain, repair, and resupply its weaponry [in Ukraine].” Sanctions on China are a charge sheet that highlights China’s indirect involvement in the conflict. Since, thinking from Washing’s perspective, a country located in the Asia-Pacific is already involved in the conflict against the West, it is extremely important for the collective West to take their war to that country, both economically (e.g., sanctions) and militarily (NATOization).
But this increasing ‘geo-politicisation’ of the Indo-Pacific region around Washington’s interests is also an opportunity for Russia and China. If Russia and China were coming closer due to Washington’s active attempts at sabotaging their rise globally, the potential of NATOization of the Indo-Pacific is only facilitating and accelerating this anti-US alliance formation, making it stronger.
It was in 2019 when the Russian president announced that Russia will help China develop a missile attack early warning system, a system that only the US and Russia possess and have operated successfully thus far. Now, the core purpose of this system is not merely to boost China’s defence capacity, but to develop an integrated system of defence region wide. For instance, there is little denying that Russia can use this system to collect data from stations located in its north and west whereas China could collect and provide data from its eastern and southern borders.
In fact, this move is only a part of a series of other moves that both countries are taking jointly and individually. In March, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu confirmed that a division of Russia’s Bastion coastal defence missile systems has been deployed to Paramushir, one of the Kuril Islands in the North Pacific, some of which Japan claims as its territory. The Minister confirmed that this move was a response to the US efforts to “contain” Russia and China.
“To contain Russia and China, the United States is significantly increasing its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthening its political and military links with its allies, continuing to create a new American security architecture in this region,” Shoigu said in a video of his address to Russia’s top brass, published by the defence ministry.
Even more recently, the visit of Chinese Defence Minister Li Shangfu to Russia on April 16 to 19 – and Li’s direct meeting with President Putin – showcases the depth of cooperation that currently exists between Moscow and Beijing vis-à-vis their collective politics of creating a multipolar world – an objective that found its most vivid expression during the recent visit of Xi to Moscow.
Pacific received official attention in Moscow when Shoigu went to see President Putin on April 17 (when Li was still in Russia). According to the official transcript, President Putin stressed that developing appropriate military tools for the “Pacific theatre of operations remains relevant”, asking Shoigu to “make sure these efforts [to maintain a robust presence in the Pacific] carry on, while paying special attention to developing other fleets, training troops and holding similar events.”
This NATOization of the Asia-Pacific is inherently dangerous, as it is provoking new forms of military competition. But a crucial question is: can the US really NATOize this region?
For one thing, Asia-Pacific is not Europe. Even though Washington has traditionally played a significant role in this region, recent years have seen a major failure on its part to offer the region what most countries of this region consider to be the most important element of their international relations: regional and international trade. NATOization means militarisation and militarisation entails conflict rather than open trade. Such prospects are more likely to push the region away from the US, just as the US attempts to force the Middle East to adjust itself to the new realities of the US interests has pushed the region to China and Russia much more effectively and decisively than would have been the case otherwise.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение Russia-China Response to the NATOization of the Indo-Pacific появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
According to numerous reports in the Israeli media, the resumption of ties and normal relations between Saudi Arabia and Syria has caused a state of discontent, severe anxiety and even dismay among the Israeli leadership. These troubles, as noted by the Israeli newspaper World Israel News, have added to the problems that have suddenly presented themselves in all their glory to Tel Aviv of late. Saudi Arabia’s moves to fully restore diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and Riyadh’s cease-fire efforts in Yemen are also a major concern for Israel and the United States, which is rapidly losing influence in that part of the world. According to US media, in this regard, dissatisfaction with the policy of Joe Biden’s administration was also expressed by American arms manufacturers, which began to lose a very promising and rich Middle Eastern market.
The Israeli Kan TV channel assessed the change in Saudi policy toward Syria, Iran and the Palestinian resistance movement: “When we compare all the points of view regarding Riyadh’s reconciliation with Iran and rapprochement with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Sanaa, this, from our perspective, from the Israeli perspective, is definitely a cause for deep concern.” The channel called the visit of Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud to Damascus “historic,” saying it was the first visit since the start of the war in Syria 12 years ago.
It should be recalled that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad held talks with the Saudi foreign minister at the presidential palace. A statement from the Syrian government said that President Assad assured the Saudi foreign minister that “a healthy relationship between Syria and the Kingdom is a normal state, and also reflects Arab and regional interests.” He also quoted the Saudi as expressing his country’s confidence in Syria’s ability to overcome the consequences of the war, stressing that “the Kingdom stands with it.” A high-ranking Saudi diplomat earlier described Arab attempts at dialogue, which will “inevitably” take place with Damascus in consultation with the international community, saying that “there is a permanent dialogue to bring Syria back into the arms of the Arabs.”
The Saudi foreign minister’s travel to Damascus came days after his Syrian counterpart, Faisal al-Mikdad, visited Riyadh for the first time in more than 12 years. In the Saudi capital, he held very active and positive talks about efforts to achieve a political solution to the Syrian crisis, to facilitate the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to the affected areas of the country. This, in turn, came after Iran and Saudi Arabia announced in an April 6 joint statement in Beijing the resumption of diplomatic relations in response to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s initiative.
According to Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi’s state visit to China earlier this year led to “new and very serious” talks between Iranian and Saudi delegations that have had a favorable impact on the improvement of situation in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia’s positive efforts to bring about a cease-fire in Yemen were also a direct result of these agreements. After three days of prisoner exchanges, more than 100 Yemeni prisoners of war were released with the help of Riyadh and Sanaa. According to world media reports, the situation in Yemen is now somewhat stabilized and there is talk of negotiations between the warring parties to end the civil war.
According to the state-run Saudi Press Agency (SPA), Brig. Gen. Turki al-Maliki said this was part of “efforts to stabilize the ceasefire and create an atmosphere of dialogue between the Yemeni sides to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable political solution that will end the Yemeni crisis.” But the International Committee of the Red Cross called the move by Saudi Arabia, which seeks a permanent ceasefire in Yemen in its own interests, “one-sided.”
It is interesting that the Committee is completely under the influence of the United States, and this assessment of the Saudi actions clearly shows the course of Washington to provoke a civil war in Yemen. There is no need to talk about the peace-loving actions of the United States, which at every turn talks about its efforts to “take care” of the peace in different regions of the world. One might recall how the “peaceful and democratic” US is pumping weapons into the neo-fascist Ukraine, pitting its leadership against Russia to wage war until the last drop of Ukrainian blood. At the other end of the globe, Washington is doing all it can to create tension and military action in Taiwan against China.
A Saudi delegation has just been to Sanaa in an effort to establish a longer cease-fire. Although various discussions ended without a truce, agreement was reached on a new meeting and new talks. According to the kingdom, the additional release was meant to help the cease-fire efforts. The two sides will continue their talks after Eid al-Fitr, the holiday celebrated this week at the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
It is only natural – and there is ample evidence of this – that talks between a high-ranking Saudi diplomat and the Syrian president in Damascus will further anger and enrage the “peace-loving” United States, which opposes any Arab revival of ties with Damascus. CIA Director Bill Burns confusedly told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that Washington feels “stunned” by Riyadh’s actions to re-establish ties with Iran and Syria because the Kingdom is pursuing a foreign policy that is not aligned with the West. From this episode alone, one can understand the very essence of the decisions of the American leadership, which is still thinking in terms of the rulers of the world.
But threats, demands, and appeals from Washington have gone unanswered, as the government of President Assad has witnessed a diplomatic surge in the normalization of Syria’s relations with several other Arab countries in recent months. The Saudi foreign minister’s trip was the first visit by a senior Saudi diplomat to Damascus since ties had been severed 12 years ago when the Syrian civil war had began with widespread foreign intervention, primarily by the United States and its local satellites.
The meeting, as reported by Saudi state media, discussed the steps needed for a political solution to the conflict in Syria that would preserve its Arab identity and return it to an “Arab environment.” Assad noted at the talks, and this is his firm view, that the kingdom’s “open and realistic policy” has benefited not only his country, but the entire region. For its part, the official Saudi Press Agency SPA reported: “At the beginning of the reception, the Saudi foreign minister conveyed to the Syrian president greetings from the keeper of the two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and their wishes for the brotherly government of Syria and its people for security and stability.” The agency stressed that “during the reception, they discussed efforts to achieve a political solution to the Syrian crisis that preserves unity, security, stability, Arab identity and territorial integrity.” The Saudi foreign minister emphasized to the Syrian president “the importance of ensuring proper conditions for aid to reach all regions of Syria, creating the necessary conditions for the return of Syrian refugees and displaced persons to their areas, ending their suffering, enabling them to return safely to their homeland and taking further measures that would contribute to the stability and situation throughout Syrian territory.”
However the statement did not mention the Arab League summit to be hosted by Riyadh this May. But Damascus has repeatedly stated that fraternal ties with neighboring countries are more important than its return to the Arab League, because an invitation to the League of Arab States (LAS) would be meaningless if relations with Arab states remain cold and normal fraternal relations with other Arab states are not resumed. In this regard, Syria’s foreign minister, who recently visited Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Tunisia, among others, said that his country’s return to the Arab League would be “almost impossible until bilateral relations are mended.” This could explain the rapid diplomatic meetings between Damascus and its Arab neighbors, on which Assad initially insisted.
All these facts and active diplomatic activity show quite clearly the failure of the Western policy, led by the US, aimed at maintaining a hotbed of tension around Syria. At the same time, it is obvious that Syria will be accepted as a member of the LAS at its next meeting, and normal relations will be resumed between the Syrian Arab Republic, which will help to improve the situation in this complex region of the world.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Syria: a new reality in the region появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On April 17, 2023 Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, the country’s main opposition party, made a public apology, not in relation to his own personal situation, but in relation to past events which primarily involved Song Young-gil, his predecessor as party leader.
Song Young-gil was the leader of the Democratic movement in the 1980s, and also served as mayor of Incheon, served three terms as a deputy in the National Assembly, and was, for a time, Moon Jae-in’s Special Envoy to Russia. In May 2021 he was elected chairman of the Democratic Party, beating his opponent by a margin of just 0.6%, but after Lee Jae Myung’s defeat in the 2022 presidential election he formally retired. On June 1, 2022 he stood as a candidate for the post of mayor of Seoul, but lost by a wide margin to the current mayor, the conservative Oh Se-hoon, after which he left the country, but without giving up his position as Executive Advisor of the Democratic Party. Since December 2022 he has lived in Paris, where he was invited as a visiting professor of the Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris.
At one time Song Young-gil was a close associate of Moon Jae-in, but as the latter progressively withdrew from politics he tried to build up his own political group, which supports Lee Jae Myung. Shortly after his victory as party leader in May 2021, his party is considered to have switched its allegiance from Moon Jae-in to Lee Jae Myung. Moreover, Song Young-gil’s career movements have also provided a certain political benefit to Lee Jae Myung. When Song Young-gil stepped down as a deputy to stand for the post as Mayor of Seoul, Lee Jae Myung stood as candidate for the deputy of “his” constituency of Incheon, and then, in August 2022, became leader of the Democratic Party.
The scandal dates back to the run up to the Party’s 2021 National Conference, which was to have elected the new party leader. Before the conference, envelopes containing 94 million won ($71 000) were paid to MPs and other party members. It is believed that money was paid to at least 40 people, including 10-20 deputies from the Democratic Party. The goal was to help Song Young-gil obtain the post of Party Chairman – in which he was, in the end, successful.
The story begins with Lee Jung-geun, formerly deputy general secretary of the Democratic Party, being suspected of having accepted unlawful payments. On April 12, 2023 she was sentenced to four and a half years in prison for accepting more than 1 billion won ($754 660) in bribes and illegal donations between December 2019 and January 2022 from a businessmen known only by his surname, Park. Court bailiffs seized money and luxury items which she had received in exchange for promises to lobby government officials and state organizations on behalf of the donors.
In her final statement to the court before the verdict, Lee Jung-geun claimed that she had initially borrowed funds from Park for political purposes, but that the businessman had turned out to be a loan shark who demanded large sums of money and then started spreading malicious rumors about her. She filed a lawsuit against him, after which he gave false information to the state prosecutors.
Significantly, the sentence imposed by the Seoul Central District Court was more severe than the three-year sentence requested by the prosecutors.
It then turned out that Lee Jung-geun is also suspected of involvement in paying bribes to party members, and it appears that she has “turned state’s evidence.” It may be that, angered by getting a more severe sentence than she expected, she decided to drag in others – those who had no wish to politicize her case and thus obtain her release at any cost. Anyway, be that as it may, on April 12 the prosecutors ordered the homes and offices of two Democrat MPs to be searched in connection with charges that they had helped finance a specific candidate and illegally received tens of millions of won from political funds in connection with the 2021 party leadership election. The MPs in question were Youn Kwan-suk and Lee Sung-man. The former had campaigned on behalf of Song Young-gil,who gave him the post of party general secretary after the election.
The prosecutors claim that, with Lee Jung-geun acting as an intermediary, Youn Kwan-suk illegally received payments of 90 million won ($68 110) from Kang Rae-gu, at the time head of the Association of Public Institution Auditors of Korea.
Naturally both the two MPs and Song Young-gil all insisted that they had nothing to do with this business and that the prosecutors had not provided any clear evidence to justify the charges against them.
On April 13, the Democratic Party criticized the charges as “politically motivated”. Lee Jae-myung accused the prosecutors of “distorting and manipulating facts on a daily basis” and the high-profile Democrat politician Woo Sang-ho has suggested that the case was brought at short notice in order to deflect attention from the scandalous allegations that US intelligence agencies had been listening in on conversations held within the South Korean government about whether Korea should provide arms to Ukraine.
But on April 17, Lee Jae-myung apologized for his allegations, which had snowballed out of control.
“As party leader, I apologize sincerely for causing people so much worry about this matter.” He added that “the full circumstances of this case are still unclear, but I am sure that our party needs to present our position… we call for a prompt and fair investigation uninfluenced by any political considerations.” The party also requested Song Young-gil to return to Korea as soon as possible in order to help deal with the accusations.
The radical change in the party’s fortunes occurred after recordings made by Lee Jung-geun of telephone conversations – some of which included discussions concerning the handing out of envelopes of cash – had been leaked to the media. For example, Kang Rae-gu, the former head of the Association of Public Institution Auditors of Korea, was recorded saying to Lee Jung-geun: “Ten envelopes are ready. Please give them to Deputy Youn (Kwan-suk).” In another of the conversations, three Democrat MPs openly asked to be included among the recipients. And in another recording a mid-ranking civil servant told Lee Jung-geun that Song Young-gil had thanked her for providing dozens of envelopes to party members. Another of the audio files contains hints that Song Young-gil was directly involved in getting together the money that would enable him to win the election. This evidence suggests that Song Young-gil, during his fifth term as deputy, not only knew about the envelopes of cash, but also – as alleged by the prosecutors – personally handed them to party members. Lee Jung-geun also claims that Song Young-gil knew about the alleged bribes.
What is the current status of the affair? Song Young-gil has still not returned to Korea, but he has announced that a special press conference is to be held on April 22 to address the scandal. He claims that he has discussed the matter with party leaders and that he will take a decision concerning his position based on the results of the ongoing investigation. “In my telephone conversation with Lee last night, I fully understood his comments and also explained my position… As I have already said, I do not know anything about the allegations and will decide what position to take depending on the investigation into the charges.” However he then added that he knew nothing about the bribery scheme, and then took a further step backwards by insisting that it was a matter of “wrongdoing by individuals”, and criticized the prosecutors for “political actions aimed at changing the situation.”
The Conservatives, naturally, have been gripped by the scandal. “We are shocked by the fact that in the run up to the elections of the head of the largest party in parliament envelopes of cash were being handed out all over the place.” Song Young-gil needs to return home as soon as possible and cooperate with the investigators, and Lee Jae-myung, while he has “apologized for the vote-buying scandal, is silent about the accusations concerning his own conduct. He needs to apply the same principles to himself as he does to others.” The Conservatives are also demanding an investigation into “possible links between the two factions”, given that “at the convention, Song Young-gil was helped by Lee Jae-myung’s supporters.”
Moreover, in the light of the escalating scandal, certain figures in the Democratic Party are calling on Song Young-gil to take full responsibility for the scandal and retire from politics. For Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, one of Lee Jae-myung’s most prominent critics, the whole case is “a dirty business, that belongs in the gutter and nowhere else”. And Deputy Ko Min-jung, formerly presidential spokesperson at the Blue House, expressed sorrow at the “collapse of the party’s reputation as the defender of democracy.”
The prosecutors are also continuing with their work, and have been questioning Kang Rae Goo, who is accused of collecting some 80 million won of the total sum from businessmen and other persons in Daejeon, a city 139 km to the south of Seoul. He is also accused of receiving 3 million won in bribes from a businessman who sought services in connection with power plant facilities operated by K-water. Kang Rae Goo is reported to deny most of the charges against him but he insists that “the day will come when I will speak out.” On April 21, a motion for his arrest was rejected by a court.
On April 22, the former chairperson of the Democratic party held a special press conference. During this event Song Young-gil apologized to the public and to his party, and announced that he was leaving the party so that he could cooperate with the court investigation as a private citizen. “In order to take all the political responsibility on my own shoulders I am leaving the Democratic Party and resigning as the party’s executive advisor … Irrespective of whether the charges are legally grounded or not, all the responsibility is mine, and I will answer the many allegations against those who have helped me.”
Song Young-gil added that he is returning to Seoul to deal with the scandal, asked the prosecutors to call him as soon as possible, and undertook to “actively cooperate with the investigation” and “only return to the Democratic Party once all the problems have been resolved.” He continued to deny that he knew about the alleged bribery scheme at the time of the Conference, claiming that he “was rushing around (from one event to another) every 30 minutes” and was “in no state to personally get involved with every issue.” Strangely enough, despite the busy schedule, the present author finds that explanation scarcely plausible.
As we have seen, Song Young-gil also decided not to give up politics altogether as “I was not in politics for career reasons or for the money…. I am motivated only by my calling to achieve reconciliation for our country and peaceful reunification (of the two Koreas).”
This speech did not have any effect on the line taken by the party. The Democratic party declared that it respects the decision of its former leader and that it “wants the truth about the incident to be revealed quickly and transparently, and independently of any political considerations”, while the Conservatives insist that “temporarily leaving the party, returning home, or apologizing are insufficient to quell the public’s anger or to hide the truth.”
For a number of reasons, the current situation is, to say the least, highly unpleasant for the Democratic party. Firstly, direct bribery and the handing out of cash in envelopes have always been the kind of tactics that the Democrats have accused the Conservatives of engaging in, and now it seems that they resorted to these methods themselves. Secondly, despite the audio recordings, nobody has accepted any responsibility. Song Young-gil has put all the blame on “wrongdoing by individuals”, while oun Kwan-suk and Lee Sung-man, the two Democrat MPs suspected of making the cash payments have accused the investigators of “political repression.”
Thirdly, there is the question of what to do about Lee Jae Myung. On the one hand, it is easy for him to attack representatives of a different party faction, and claim that the party is reforming and is fighting corruption. On the other hand, since he is also accused of corruption, this argument would appear highly specious. And, yet again, there is less than a year until the next parliamentary elections, and the deputies who are currently under suspicion are trying to keep their seats, so that their immunity can shield them from arrest. Lee Jae Myung could have expelled them from the party or prosed a motion for their arrest, but then how could he have done that while he is clinging onto his own post and only managed to avoid arrest by a margin of one vote And then if the deputies are expelled from the party, where would they go and would the party lose its parliamentary majority as a result?
The present author will follow the situation as it unfolds, and, for the time being, will wind up with a quote from a Korean newspaper: “Most of the party’s deputies who are now suspected or wrongdoing were at one time champions of democracy. Do they really want to be remembered, not as fighters against corruption, but as fighters FOR corruption?
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Will the Lee Jae-myung case be followed by a Song Young-gil case? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The US system of checks and balances began to disintegrate after the military situation in Ukraine erupted in February 2022. This is particularly noticeable in the energy sector. Therefore, while one-off agreements involving Qatar have partially replaced Russia’s portion of the LNG needed by Europe, the situation with Saudi Arabia remains unclear.
During his visit to Saudi Arabia in the summer of 2022, US President Joe Biden was unable to persuade the Saudis to boost oil production within the framework of OPEC+, resulting in the extension of the Russian-Saudi quotas until May 2023. Simultaneously, in March of this year, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf decided to reduce production in order to maintain steady hydrocarbon prices.
The recent reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, accompanied by the reopening of diplomatic relations and air travel between the two nations, sparked another wave of outrage in the United States. If the easing of the blockade against Qatar and its return to the Gulf family was regarded as a great diplomatic win for the United States, China took the credit this time. To compensate for this failure and bring Riyadh back into the lane of American foreign policy, Washington has increased interactions with representatives of the Kingdom. The Yemeni issue, namely its developments over the past year, has served as the formal reason for resuming US-Saudi engagement. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan made the first call to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, emphasizing the Kingdom’s involvement in the Yemeni settlement and referring to Saudi Arabia as “an indispensable partner for the United States in the Middle East.” The main emphasis was on the need to distance themselves from Iran, which the Americans visualize as the main danger to regional security and stability.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham sent the similar message to the KSA, pledging the US legislature’s commitment to continuing more than 80 years of successful US-Saudi relations. Given the intense debate in Congress in January this year about the necessity to restrict arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia, the American politician’s statements seem peculiar to say the least.
However, this strategy is not new. When it’s critical to adjust its ally’s course whose direction begins to diverge from the American viewpoint, Washington typically sends out its senior representatives. However, not always peaceful tactics are used to accomplish this. For example, it suffices to recall Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, whose eras declined when they went out of control of the Western world. Time will tell whether Mohammed bin Salman will be adaptable enough to maintain the regime’s and the Kingdom’s sovereignty.
However, the Emirati activities infuriate the West. As a result of its steadfast stance toward Russian residents’ economic dealings on its territory, the UAE was added to the Financial Action Task Force’s “gray list” on money laundering.
In addition, in February 2023, US Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian Nelson visited the UAE. According to official announcements, the American official visited a number of ministries and departments, as well as the local central bank, to discuss combating money laundering and bypassing US sanctions imposed on Iran and Russia. Prior to the American’s visit, the US Department of the Treasury issued a statement warning that “individuals and institutions operating in authorized jurisdictions” may lose access to major Western markets if they conduct business with sanctioned organizations. This actually means that Brian Nelson has arrived to voice Washington’s displeasure with the UAE’s lack of coordination on the issue of anti-Russian sanctions support.
The United States continues to be shifting the playing field for investments in the Emirates. Some foreign companies share the concerns of US authorities because they worry that doing business with the UAE could put them at danger of becoming close to Russian firms and individuals who are the target of Western sanctions. In such cases, big business tries to do a thorough audit of the object of investment, thus delaying transactions in every way.
Will Abu Dhabi be able to keep its ties with Moscow without jeopardizing its own interests? The question remains open.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The United States is determined to impose its foreign policy doctrine on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
This author will discuss the current round in the confrontation between the two Koreas in his next article, and pause for a moment to look at a more significant event.
On April 18 Kim Jong-un, General secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and head of state of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, headed a working party visiting the National Aerospace Development Administration.
He was accompanied by technicians, specialists in the field of scientific and technical communications research and senior officers from the Main technical intelligence division of the Korean People’s Army.
The North Korean leader, after being informed about new technical developments, “said that the development of the aerospace industry is of great importance in the creation of a powerful Socialist economy, which is stimulated and protected by science and technology, and then set goals for the radical development of science and technology in the aerospace sector.” “These goals include, as a priority, satellites for hydrometeorological and geographical monitoring, as well as a communications satellite, which would enable the country to develop systems to respond rapidly to climate emergencies, ensure the effective protection and use of its resources, and provide a powerful stimulus for national economy based on the sciences.”
Kim Jong-un also highlighted the role, strategic value and significance of a military reconnaissance satellite in strengthening the country’s defense capabilities. “For the purposes of strengthening the military, the possession of a military reconnaissance satellite is a top priority, both in view of the current security situation on the Korean Peninsula and also in order to monitor future threats, and this goal is one which must not be abandoned, missed or altered as it is essential to the sovereignty of our state and its right to self-defense.” Especially considering the current international situation, in which satellites are the “most important and highest priority goal,” required in order to strengthen the military’s effectiveness and thus prevent war.
Kim Jong-un therefore set “a number of military goals, including the creation of a committee to prepare for the launch in the shortest possible time of reconnaissance satellite No. 1, which has (as of April 2023) already been developed, to speed up the final preparations for the launch, and also to develop reliable intelligence gathering capabilities by having a number of reconnaissance satellites in operation at all times.” In other words, the first of a series of military spy satellite launches is to take place this month.
While the official reports did not mention this fact, the photographs published by the Korean Central News Agency show that Kim Jong-un was accompanied by his daughter, and experts have scrutinized the pictures for clues about the nature of the satellite and how and when it may be launched.
The photographs show an object in the shape of a six-sided cylinder (unlike the Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 and-4 satellites, launched in 2012 and 2016 respectively, both of which had the shape of a cube) with four side solar panels and a likely minimum weight of 300 kg, and equipped with two optical cameras. The booster rocket which is to carry it into orbit will probably have three stages, be powered with liquid fuel and be fitted with Baekdusan engines, mounted on Hwasong-14, -15 and -17 ICBMs. However, Jang Young-geun, a rocket expert at South Korea’s Aerospace University has suggested that North Korea may use the new solid-fuel booster or rocket which it used for its recent Hwasong-18 ICBM launch.
To summarize, Kim Jong-un’s high-profile visit may be taken as a sign that a reconnaissance satellite will be launched in the immediate future, perhaps, as hinted above, by the end of April. And although it is true that North Korea has always conducted its rocket launches in accordance with a “schedule of its own,” certain Western experts have noted that Pyongyang may have chosen the timing to coincide with a visit to South Korea by the US president, which is planned for the last week in April.
Yang Mu-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies claims that if weather conditions are right North Korea may attempt a launch on or around April 23-24, but other experts have suggested that, given the time required for all the technical preparations, North Korea will need several more months before it is ready to launch a satellite into orbit.
Naturally in the West and in South Korea politicians are getting ready to make a fuss. The South Korean Foreign Ministry, speaking through a Ministry official, has called on North Korea to immediately drop its plan to launch its first military reconnaissance satellite. It demands that North Korea heed the warnings and concerns of the international community, immediately cancel its launch plans and comply with its international obligations, including those under resolutions of the UN Security Council prohibiting North Korea from conducting any launches involving ballistic missile technology.
The Ministry official emphasized that any launch of so-called military reconnaissance satellites by North Korea would not only be a clear violation of multiple Security Council resolutions, but also an act of provocation that threatens peace and security in the region.
A spokesperson of the US Department of State has also stressed that the planned launch would violate UN Security Council resolutions, as it would use the same technology as that used in ballistic missiles. “Space launch vehicles (SLVs) incorporate technologies identical to, and interchangeable with, those used in ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles… Any DPRK launch that uses ballistic missile technology, which would include SLVs, violates multiple UN Security Council resolutions.”
Moreover, the Japanese Minister of Defense, Yasukazu Hamada, has called on the military to prepare to shoot down the North Korean spy satellite if fragments of the satellite or the launch vehicle were to fall on Japanese territory. To address this threat the military plans to deploy appropriate resources, including putting on standby Patriot (PAC-3) surface-to-air guided anti-missile units, based in Okinawa Prefecture, as well Aegis ships equipped with SM-3 interceptor missiles.
Unfortunately the Russian media reports on this issue have, as usual, been brief, omitting any qualifications or “if” clauses. The author would therefore like to remind the readers that a) the Japanese have no plans to shoot down the satellite as a preventative measure, and the b) the same thing happened in the past when North Korea attempted to launch satellites. The Japanese anti-missile systems were on standby to shoot down any booster rocket or major fragments of such a rocket if, following an accident, they were about to fall onto Japanese territory or territorial waters.
But if the satellite launch is successful then that would present North Korea’s opponents with a number of problems. Firstly because satellite data is required in order to collect intelligence and to closely monitor the progress of future developments in rocket technology. Experts consider that if North Korea has a network of reconnaissance satellites then it will be able to use them to promptly monitor changes in the disposition of US strategic military resources and to identify precisely and in real time the location, movements and nature of its main targets so that it can launch more accurate missile strikes against these targets. According to Cheong Seong-chang, an expert on North Korea at the Sejong Institute, a think tank, “with advanced satellites, North Korea would be able to more precisely strike key military facilities such as the United States Army garrison in Pyeongtaek, which is a grave threat to South Korea and the US.”
Secondly, such a show of strength, especially for military experts who are aware of the capabilities of the military hardware in question, would have the same effect as carrying out nuclear tests, but at much less risk to North Korea’s reputation.
Thirdly, the launch of a satellite would necessarily direct attention to the inherent contradictions in the international regulations. On the on hand, the UN Security Council resolution preventing North Korea from launching ballistic missiles would also prevent it from launching any kind of spacecraft or space equipment. On the other hand, all UN member states have a right to explore and use outer space for peaceful purposes – the prohibition only applies to the launch of military satellites, not reconnaissance satellites.
It is clear that to fully monitor the whole of the Korean Peninsula at least 24 small satellites and several larger ones would be needed Given that fact, it is possible that in the future Pyongyang will seek to develop miniature satellites similar to the CubeSat, and launch them into orbit.
What will happen next? Even if there is no launch in April, the present author would hazard a guess that by the end of this year this goal will have been achieved, triggering a new wave of instability in the region. It is likely that the US and its allies would respond to the launch with a show of strength, and also try to get the UN Security Council to pass another package of sanctions. However it is also likely that Russia and China would oppose such sanctions, and given the likelihood of those countries exercising the power of veto, the US may decide not to attempt this.
As for shooting down missiles in order to “make a point,” hawks have been considering such a step since 2012, but for many reasons this will not happen, at least on the present occasion. Firstly, the North Koreans have more than once stated that such a step will be treated as a declaration of war, and the US and South Korean military administrations are dominated by pragmatists rather than fanatics. Secondly, to the present author’s knowledge, such a step has been discussed in the Pentagon, and the argument put forward by one of the generals went something like this: “Good. So let’s say we can take down a North Korean satellite. But the likelihood of success is not 100%, maybe it’s more like 90%. So let’s think about the consequences of both scenarios, in the event that we hit it, but also in the event that we miss.” After that the issue was dropped from the agenda.
Of course, when the launch takes place, a separate article will cover the event, with a particular focus on the international reaction. For now, it would suffice to simply note that the creation of a spy satellite would be impossible for a country without a developed scientific and technical base, and in the view of Cha Do-hyun, a senior fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, it is not clear whether North Korea’s satellite would be able to provide sufficiently high-resolution images, “but the main thing is that North Korea needs to do what it has promised, thus sending South Korea and the USA a signal that it has made progress towards achieving its plans.”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Waiting for the launch of North Korea’s first military intelligence satellite появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There are nearly constant developments in the relations between the two major international powers that merit at least cursory attention. The most recent occasions for addressing the transformation of these relations were visits of former and incumbent presidents of Taiwan, respectively, to the United States and China, as well as a series of visits to Beijing (which took the nature of pilgrimage) by European politicians of various levels of importance.
In all these events, the factor of US-Chinese relations was undoubtedly present, even though more subtly so. Meanwhile, in the bilateral format over the past few weeks there has also been, to reiterate, a great deal that deserves attention. And it is not just about what happened. No less noteworthy is what did not happen, although it seems to have been planned by both sides. It is even possible that the latter is more informative in terms of assessing the current state of relations between the two leading world powers.
The wish expressed in January of this year by US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen and then Vice Premier Liu He to arrange a visit by the former to China “at an appropriate time” has still not been fulfilled. The evidence of the fact that the time for this, apparently, is still not too “appropriate” was the speech of the same Janet Yellen on April 20 at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
It was this speech, as well as the subject and content of US Trade Representative Catherine Tighe’s talks in Tokyo at the same time (discussed below), that are of the greatest interest in the sum of recent events accompanying the development of US-China relations. Still, there was no shortage of political intrigue and loud public statements from those in positions of power, backed up by a game of military muscle.
For in a significant way, both high officials of the current US administration (to which one must add a third, i.e. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo) are responsible for the main content, threats and, at the same time, a source of (potential) positivity in US-China relations. Although, of course, the banal thesis that economic and political-military aspects of real life are closely intertwined does not go anywhere.
If the problems in bilateral trade and economic relations are not resolved more or less satisfactorily, it will very likely be the turn of the “muscles.” The transfer of the use of which from the sphere of “game” into the sphere of real actions will inevitably have disastrous consequences for the whole world. Moreover, even if such an apocalyptic scenario can be avoided, humanity as a whole is threatened by a split and completely senseless exhausting struggle of divided, hostile to each other, interstate groupings.
The symbol of the so far unjustifiably exaggerated importance of “muscle” in contemporary world affairs (not least of which is shaped by propaganda fighters) is its current massive African-American possessor. He alone, apparently, weighs as much as all three of the above-mentioned “crumblies” put together, responsible, nevertheless, for the real sector of the functioning of the leading world power. And also, in fact, for the prospect of the development of relations of said power with its main geopolitical opponent.
Meanwhile, the first signs of a possible global world division are already emerging. The author is talking about the attempts of the same US with several major allies to isolate Russia (that is, in fact, the key ally of China) from the world economic body. This was particularly evident during the series of ministerial-level events leading up to the next G7 summit in May of this year. It is clear that such attempts are doomed to failure, but they continue with almost maniacal persistence, resulting only in strengthening Russia’s ties with China, as well as with the increasingly important “Global South.”
By the way, the G7 has also indicated the struggle with China for influence over it as its most important field of activity. It is almost entirely viewed from a trade and economic perspective. That is, not at all from the military and political with their notorious “bases.”
Recall that the the term “decoupling” in relation to the US-Chinese relations first appeared in the spring of 2020 article in The Wall Street Journal, which outlined a study of the mood in the circles of American business about the prospects for presence on the Chinese market. Even then, such a prospect, at least in part, was not excluded and was associated mainly with the manifestation of the same political factor.
The role of the generalized exponent of such negative trends in US policy toward China was (and still is) that of then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile his boss, former President Donald Trump, still considers as one of his achievements during his tenure in the mentioned position the conclusion of the so-called “Phase 1 Agreement” with the PRC in January 2018.
The main goal of the latter was to sharply reduce over the next few years the giant negative balance in trade with the PRC for the US, which has long been steadily at $400 billion. About the same figure (specifically, $380 billion) turned out to be the result of last year’s trade, the total volume of which amounted to about $690 billion.
That is, nothing has changed in this, one of the key problems of bilateral relations and the blame for this lies almost entirely with those circles in US politics that almost simultaneously with the conclusion of the Phase 1 Agreement, without waiting for the positive outcome of its action, began to increase tariffs on most of the products purchased from China. By the way, on the fifth anniversary of the trade “tariff war” a special seminar was held in China, the participants of which recorded how counterproductive it was for the US itself.
Afterwards, political games with the very “decoupling” began, which now resulted in attempts to exclude the PRC from the “global supply chain.” First of all, in the field of advanced IT technologies. This is done mainly under the pretext of preventing the use of these technologies by China’s defense industry. The case is completely hopeless because historical evidence consistently demonstrates that a technology that originates someplace, like the cat let out of the bag, will inevitably become widespread.
But it seems that, as with Russia, the US is becoming more and more willing to go beyond IT and give the process of “decoupling” from the PRC an all-out character. It is an absolutely crazy idea, taking into account at least the fact that bilateral trade has been at a gigantic level of $700 billion for many years. Which demonstrates the interest of a large part of US business in maintaining trade and economic relations with the PRC, rather than transferring the profitable Chinese market, for example, to European competitors. As it is already happening today in the process of Chinese air carriers’ renewal of the available fleet of airliners.
The continuing ambivalence of US trade and economic policy toward China is reflected in the above-mentioned statement byJanet Yellen. Although it should be noted that along with the prevalence of hawkish clucking initiated by the political wing of the current US administration, the goal of “promoting healthy and fair relations with China, and cooperating with it to solve global problems” was also outlined in it.
The author should add that this last goal would be extremely difficult to achieve if the process of “decoupling” mentioned above were to develop in any significant way. Meanwhile, this is exactly what Janet Yellen’s colleague in the current US administration Katherine Tai had to do during her trip to Tokyo, where she held talks with Japanese Trade Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura. The main subject of which was the process of implementing the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) configuration project launched last May. It is fully in line with the trend to “decouple” from China. Although words about the intention to maintain trade and economic relations with China were also heard from the American guest.
Finally, it should be noted that the state, and consequently the near future, of relations between the two leading world powers remain largely in the realm of reality that today rests on the fragile shoulders of the same Janet Yellen, Catherine Tighe and Gina Raimondo.
It is not easy for them to live in the same administrative company as the formidable holders of American political-military “muscle.”
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Regarding the current state of US-China relations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
A Facebook friend has been having trouble with the platform for his business page, which has been screwing up lately. He can’t get any help from Facebook, and believes this is because Mark Zuckerberg has fired many of the employees.
Allegedly, on their way out, the fired support staff infected the site with a range of viruses and bugs, which screw up business pages and other applications. As they were especially hard hit by the company’s economic realities, the support staff were fired and the first to go out the door.
My Facebook former employee informs me that “FaceBook is utterly ignoring known bugs and isn’t going to lift a finger to fix anything”. Business owners are now leaving in droves to other platforms which are actually interested in keeping users.
This may be an exaggeration by a disgruntled former employee, but it does give us a glimpse into the dismal mindset of America and the corporate meltdown that may be coming to a head, with many ticking bombshells ready to inundate American Society. However, by the time the populace wakes up it may be too late to do anything about it.
I am sure many other US businesses are also imploding—that is something worth looking into. But in terms of real threats, (at least) US citizens are only being told about things coming from far more insidious parts of the world, such as the source country of Tik Tok, and little real debate is ongoing over recent legislation, the RESTRICT ACT being introduced to ban it, as it is from EVIL China
The bill to ban Tik Tok gives enormous new powers to the federal government to punish American citizens, fine and jail them, and to regulate how they communicate on the internet. Is this real or something from a science fiction, black mirror series, or ripped from the pages of 1984 or Brave New World?
Far beyond cracking down on TikTok, the RESTRICT bill envisages creating frightening powers to control citizens’ access to what the US government, or Biden Administration, deems as ‘unwanted’ information.
No Sex in the USSR
But it is easier to swallow the Blue Pill with the following line of reasoning, “I know that Americans could spoil the world, but Russians are worse” – that’s the end of the story, and I should not spread such things for “non-informed” people or they can’t understand that Russia, just as much as China, is the Evil One.
It is complicated when simple foreigners want to compare Russia to the USA. It is because they don’t understand English. Some even have Soviet memories of “NO Sex in the USSR” and they believe every piece of bullshit presented.
This phrase originated from a Soviet woman on a talk show, who was referring to the Soviet journalist Vladimir Pozner and his American counterpart Phil Donahue. A joint American-Russian TV summit is where the trope “We don’t have sex in the Soviet Union” came from. Someone in the audience yelled out at end, to try to clarify, that there was love instead, but it was too late.
A meme was born on that day in 1986, and “so started the path of misunderstanding between the USSR-Russia”, now Russia-China-etc., and the so-called US, collective West.
However, people are starting to wake up, and not only in terms of the dream of being politically correct and swallowing everything hook-line-and-sinker for the sake as being “woke”. Mass shootings are on the rise, almost daily, and are barely front page headlines anymore.
This is like in the SciFi movies, where to take the blue pill means to go back to the life before, and forget everything about the series of events which brought us to this moment in history. Its counterpart is the Red Pill, through which the true nature of the world is revealed, as it has been with the most recent intelligence leak from the US Pentagon. Who knows what, when and who is spying on whom, and how – and not only about Ukraine and how that is turning out.
Not Intended for Public Consumption
As Geoffrey M. Young, who is running for the governorship of Kentucky, shares in response to a recent short article about the recent Pentagon leaks: “The main problem is not that the Biden Regime lied about Ukraine’s chances of winning, and that everything the US has done in Ukraine since 2014 has been illegal aggression against Russia. Obama, Trump and now Biden should all have been impeached for illegally waging war against Russia, especially since January 2022.”
Even the unwashed masses are beginning to wake up, freeing themselves from the Matrix of Deception, over vaccines, mandates, lockdowns and wars of convenience/aggression on the part of the West. Now they are being dubbed as having been taken as fools, and being based on self-reflection, a far cry from self-realisation.
This is not an easy pill to swallow in the “world of lies, deception, false flags and false hopes”, as we must open our eyes to the reality that surrounds us. The world we think we live in is a facade created by those who wish to control us. The time is now to peel back the illusion, remove the blinders of deception and take back our lives. They even tell us that what we are hearing about leaked documents should not be made public.
John Kirby: “There is no excuse for these kinds of documents to be in the public domain. They don’t deserve to be in the public domain
So they do, by this very statement, and it is the same MO. Another thing keeping Americans so engaged that they ignore everything actually going on is the argument over “wokeness”. That started with the BLM movement, due to which white people are now required to be overly sensitive to whatever might offend African-Americans (or any minority of colour).
Now some schools appear more preoccupied with being sexually correct in terms of pronouns, sexual identity and re-teaching history from a different perspective than teaching what were once deemed as shared and basic American values. Correction is all very well, but it cannot be an end in itself or there will be no way of knowing what needs correcting.
Now the process has extended into a discussion over transgender people. Americans are outlawing drag shows, with bills to do so have been introduced in more than 30 states, and even public schools are cutting Drag Queen Storytelling hours for young children.
Also, lawmakers are making any kind of abortion illegal, and saying the rights of the embryo outweigh the rights of the mother. The transgender argument going on now is switching to corporations fighting for control, putting children in the firing line, vaccines, child rights, etc. However, neither side really cares about the children.
Almost “Everything” is a Distraction
The New York Times summarises it well: the magic of waving away a “distraction” is that it lets you minimise and dismiss something without having to explain why. Take another noteworthy distraction amongst these: the new fad of book banning.
Democrats want to ban older books that are not sensitive to minorities, Huckleberry Finn for instance, and Republicans want to ban all books that discuss gender, transgender, LGBTQ issues, etc. They should be more concerned over global warming than nuclear warming, a term recently coined by Donald Trump. He was mocked for this statement in the mainstream press.
Foreign affairs always provide a convenient distraction, simply because you can interpret everything however you want. The same circumstances can be interpreted in vastly different ways, and some claim or other can be reignited to stir the pot when you are trying to hide what is inside it.
It is also still debatable whether the hype of leaks of top-secret classified material is done as a distraction. This has been recognised as such by journalists for decades, with “budget leaks” an issue which always arises when the actual content of the budget is suspect.
All the while the US economy is on the edge of a cliff, with deficits adding zeros to accounts from the Federal Reserve. Both sides of the aisle are trying to close ranks as to who is more to blame, another argument essentially circular but serving a purpose.
More attention is being placed on increasing the US defence budget than solving any real problems. Thanks to inflation, home ownership is becoming an impossibly for many Americans, who are now having to learn to live within their means, and not be debt slaves.
There are also always the standby distractions of choice – election meddling by foreign governments, the latest virus and its “real or alleged” source, border controls, immigration policy and the idea that masks work. The point is that the system is so accustomed to avoiding facing real issues, such as financial responsibility, that social and foreign policy, including distraction by military means, are being used to cover a multitude of sins, especially those of omission.
The seductive lure of your mobile phone or social media account is just part of the problem. The roots are deeper, as if people want to be distracted, not to face reality, take responsibility and hold their governments and elected officials responsible.
Lone Stars
Texas is working on creating its own gold-backed money. That would, in essence, make Texas its own country in the financial sense. Legally it already is its own country—at least it was before the American Civil war, the Republic of Texas. It claims the right to secede any time, but it would never fly currently.
Sooner or later the US will have to wake up and understand that problems must be addressed and solved rather than pretending they don’t exist and then looking for something to fix the blame on. The federal government would clamp down if Texas were to try to secede, but perhaps China, Brazil and Mexico will support self-determination, or be alleged to so the US can run away from creating the situation.
Manufacturing “Consent-Dissent, or Discontent?”
There is no apparent end to this in sight. Everybody is part of the problem and should be part of the solution, however that is wishful thinking. It is the same MO, over and over again, and does anyone remember the Pentagon Papers?
I hope it will not take a life altering experience, perhaps the collapse of the US or World Economic System, for the unwashed masses to wake up and focus. However, the present indications are that even that wouldn’t do.
The same MO can be seen in Canada as well. Here a student has organised some protests at a public Catholic School, opposing transgender ideology on religious grounds. In the US more attention was given to a Chinese weather balloon and a train derailment than this, or anything which would have long term consequences and a GREAT impact, like child poverty.
Even bloggers and podcast hosts are caught up in this, for instance, “Donbas Devushka” – or Donbas Girl – who is described as a Russian Jew from the Ukrainian city of Luhansk. It is stated that she has been faithfully broadcasting Kremlin propaganda for months, and has been outed as some deep agent of disinformation by the powers to be.
What does being Jewish have to do with her political opinions and personal views? That only matters if you are the president of Ukraine. Her case is the most recent example, and perhaps one of the most interesting cases, of why the news is no longer the news, and why what was once trusted as a source is more preoccupied with distractions than anything that resembles the old-fashioned unbiased news.
Even the Pentagon leaks are highly suspect, as only what we already known has been leaked. But now it is only for large scale public and provides both a scapegoat and exit ramp for the US to turn its back on Ukraine and walk away.
The system of mass-scale psychological brainwashing and conditioning is so developed that is likely much too late anything can be done to reverse it. As the quote by Thomas Sowell goes: “People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right—especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.” With enough distractions, right and wrong will no longer exist, merely attention, for which no one can be held accountable.
Even AI can sum up what I am trying to say about brainwashing and conditioning, and perhaps better. “Instead of engaging in speculation or fear-mongering, it is important to focus on reliable sources of information, critical thinking, and respectful dialogue to address societal challenges and promote positive change.”
*Facebook- is banned in Russia.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Facebook*-Tik Tok-MSM: Americans MUCH 2-far Distracted to “See the Forest for the Trees” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
“The OPEC+ decision has purely economic motives,” “Oil prices and voluntary production cuts,” “When OPEC is used as a boogeyman.” These and similar headlines are used by the Middle Eastern media commenting on the agreement of the OPEC+ countries at the beginning of April this year to voluntarily cut oil production by 1.66 million BPD by the end of 2023.
Local authors from Algeria to the Sultanate of Oman try to give a picture of the real situation in the “black gold” markets, explain the motives of this cartel decision and polemic with the Western analysts. The latter, in particular, argue that the time for the April move is not right and accuse the Omanis of artificial overpricing, which, in turn, spurs inflation. In doing so, the Western media manipulates the fear of cartel action.
According to most Middle Eastern observers, the OPEC+ demarche is not political, but economic in order to equalize supply with demand and compensate for the fall in real income due to inflation, which is exported to all parts of the world.
OPEC had nothing to do with turning on the printing press to produce over $8 trillion in new appropriations, which has led to a spike in inflation in a number of countries. The decision to foment Europe’s biggest conflict, namely the Russian-Ukrainian one, was also not prepared in the corridors of OPEC, the Saudi newspaper states. It wasn’t OPEC that had a hand in the global food crisis due to high fertilizer prices and Black Sea port closures. The Western banking sector did not consult OPEC when investing most customer deposits in cryptocurrencies and bonds, negatively impacted by the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hike from 0.25% in February 2022 to 5% in March 2023.
A number of experts from the Sultanate of Oman agreed that the cartel’s move would keep prices stable after being affected by the recent US banking crisis. It will bring them to a fair level for producers and consumers. The oil market would avoid a supply vs. demand crisis in the event of an economic slowdown and possible recession. They agreed that the OPEC+ decision was taken as a precautionary measure to avoid a repeat of the 2008 crisis, when OPEC cut production too late in an attempt to stop the collapse.
Producing countries have acted proactively, not waiting for another OPEC+ meeting, and to avoid losing their quotas in the oil markets, echoes Omani oil expert Khaled Boukhelifa of Algeria. The course of cutting is taken at the right moment, after oil prices fell to $70 a barrel and then rose again to $80, showing increased volatility under the influence of a number of factors. Thus, there are serious economic challenges, including those associated with extremely sensitive oil markets, which requires protection of the interests of producing countries. For international competition is fierce, and delaying an active response threatens losses for these countries. At the same time, the alliance relies on the research of marketing institutions of its member countries, on the analytics of the Secretariat of the organization in Vienna and specialized international organizations.
The OPEC+’s step demonstrates solidarity of the cartel countries and consistency of their positions after their national interests have become more interdependent. And this despite the fact that some media are peddling the thesis that there are non-existent differences between the members of the alliance in order to undermine their cohesion. It has come to define not only the ways of the world energy markets, but also many of the ways of trade and economic trends, says an Emirati specialist.
“Today, the alliance is stronger than ever, shaking off external pressures and strengthening the spirit of solidarity among its members, especially its Arab members after the last Arab summit in Algiers in November 2022,” concludes an Algerian newspaper.
The increasing role of the OPEC in maintaining market stability is undeniable, says prominent Arab oil expert Dr. Namat Al-Soof A few years ago, analysts argued that OPEC was losing its ability to control the market because of the emergence of shale oil in the US. But OPEC+ came along and the Kingdom established cooperation with Russia. The organization became responsible for more of the world’s oil supply than OPEC had previously done alone. As the group’s latest adjustment shows, it is fully prepared and willing to support the stability of energy security. According to the expert, the times of explosive growth of shale oil production in the US are over. It will continue to grow as long as the price is reasonable, but at a much slower pace than before the collapse in 2020 and at a lower rate than expected a few months ago.
At the same time, analysts draw attention to the firm position of Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer within OPEC+. Riyadh is interested in oil prices in the range of $90 per barrel to finance an ambitious program of domestic economic reforms called “Vision 2030.” Its goal is to diversify the Kingdom’s economy. Thus, in previous months, contracts worth $8.5 billion were signed for the construction of a hydrogen plant near the city of Neom, $8.8 billion was allocated for tourist facilities on the Red Sea, etc.
It is a fact that OPEC now has more influence in the international energy market than Western countries believe, the Gulf Center for Strategic Studies concludes. And this reality will determine the dynamics of strengthening their geopolitical ties with this cartel during the current year.
Yury Zinin, senior researcher at the Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The OPEC+ factor and oil prices появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
While the United States and the European Union are unified on the issue of Ukraine, the UAE has chosen a neutral posture, which has generated worry in Western capitals.
Consequently, the Emirates, in pursuit of long-term economic growth, is taking an “easier” approach to commercial issues, bolstering its position as an international transportation hub connecting Africa, Asia, and Europe. The openness of the Emirati economy has drawn many Russians caught up in Western sanctions, for whom asset transfers in the UAE have become a way out of a financial deadlock, as well as a free platform for real estate transactions and commerce.
Furthermore, the Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) granted a license to Russia’s MTS bank in 2022, which opened its branch in Abu Dhabi. According to the CBUAE’s statement, the project is being implemented “to support legitimate trade between the two countries and service the Russian community in the UAE.”
The expanding Russian presence in the Emirates was also noted by Maha Abdelmajeed, Commercial Manager at VTTI Fujairah Terminals, during the recent Fujairah Bunkering & Fuel Oil Forum (FUJCON 2023). In 2022, the UAE became one of the largest centers for Russian oil exports to India and other countries.
The contact with the Russian PMC Wagner in Sudan demonstrates Abu Dhabi’s distinct role. For several years, the UAE has been the primary consumer of Sudanese gold. According to the Central Bank of Sudan, the turnover was $1.5 – $2 billion per annum. Emirati consumption of Sudanese gold exports has increased, including after the PMC Wagner became active in that sector.
At the same time, Abu Dhabi is expanding commercial ties with Moscow’s CIS partners. This is reinforced by Belarusian President Lukashenko’s recent visit to the UAE, where he signed a series of memorandums on collaboration in areas of mutual interest during talks with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. As a result, the UAE has become the Persian Gulf’s largest investor in the Belarusian economy.
Another example of rapprochement with the CIS was the signing of a deal in digital technology and artificial intelligence between G42, which is part of a business empire overseen by its chair, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and the Kazakh government.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The US seeks to drive a wedge between Russia and the UAE появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has called on BRICS nations to create an alternative to replace the dollar in foreign trade. Other experts suggest President Joe Biden’s policies will destroy America’s middle class for good. The news comes when China and Russia strengthen ties with Brazil and Latin America. Brazil’s leader questioned the institution of the U.S. dollar as the world’s trade currency in the first place and asked why each country could not trade in its currency.
This brings to the forefront the historical moment when the gold standard was abolished in favor of the current system. When President Richard Nixon moved to abolish the gold standard as a commitment mechanism, his administration ushered in decades of relative volatility and made hard currency.
The exchange of gold was severely curtailed through the Bretton Woods international monetary agreement of 1944. When the International Monetary Fund was established, the U.S. Dollar became the most potent currency in the world. Initially, the role of the IMF was only to assist with international transactions, but as we see today, that institution has far overstepped its original purpose. Today, the IMF is a leverage arm for the United States and a few European nations to fund countries/regimes that align with its policy. The U.S., for instance, has an almost 20% share of contributions to the fund.
The primary purpose of remaining off the gold standard is that the government can print money endlessly, with two primary goals. First, a massive defense budget and needless proxy wars would not be possible if the United States were on the gold standard. Secondly, the people who control the central banks cannot extract interest on national debts that are currently out of control. So, the fiat currency supposedly backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government, the dollar, is worth what lying politicians and finance ministers say it is.
One look at the worldwide bond market reveals a disturbing imbalance. The U.S., which now has over $51 trillion in outstanding debt, has borrowed more to finance wars and programs than China, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, the U.K., and Canada combined. The American taxpayer is responsible for almost 40% of all the foreign debt in the world. And the outlook for the short and long-term future could be better.
President Joe Biden wants to borrow even more when his administration conducts a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. With billions flowing into Europe’s most corrupt country, Americans are on the precipice of an economic catastrophe not seen since the Great Depression.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington and the Congressional Budget Office, the government will no longer be able to pay everyone — including bondholders, Social Security recipients, and federal employees — sometime this summer or early this fall. A New York Times report from late March outlines the situation. But the problem is far worse than many experts suggest. No matter which way lawmakers move, the U.S. has almost insurmountable fiscal issues. The ramifications will be dire whether or not they raise the debt limit. And if the BRICS countries go off the dollar as a trade currency… Well.
Many experts predict that American greenbacks won’t be worth the printed paper if the world stops using the U.S. dollar as its world currency reserve. Moreover, if the dollar loses its value significantly, every American who owes a credit card loan or a home mortgage will find it ten times harder to pay off those debts.
To make matters worse, millions of jobs will be sacrificed for the Federal Reserve to get any financial stability. Analysis from RSM International shows that the central banks must “induce” a recession to get America’s economic situation in check. And the dollar being made useless by the larger world community was not a factor in their analysis.
The bottom line is if we were still on the gold standard, this would be fine. The gold standard reduced the risks of such economic crises and recessions. Income levels were higher when we were on the bullion-backed system. More importantly, the gold standard created hard limits on printing money and limiting military spending. For more intuition on this, this Barron’s report reveals how our current failing system came into being. The information also serves as a crystal ball for what will happen.
As confidence in the dollar wanes and U.S. policy overseas gets more aggressive toward BRICS nations and others, the tipping point of the American hegemony draws closer.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
The post The Impending Economic Collapse – A Cause of Current Conflict appeared first on New Eastern Outlook.
This spring on the Korean Peninsula has been hot so far. The United Nations Security Council held a meeting on the North Korean issue at the end of March, at the request of the United States and its allies. The reason was another missile launch carried out by Pyongyang on March 16. The US condemned Pyongyang’s actions, stressing that the Security Council should have responded with a resolution that was appropriate. Miroslav Jenča, Representative of Slovakia, made a report in which he indicated, in reference to another missile launch by the DPRK, that the situation around the peninsula was heading in the “wrong direction.” North Korea carried out another missile launch on April 13 at 7:23 a.m. The new solid-fuel Hwasong 18 intercontinental ballistic missile flew into the sky.
Although no state openly supports DPRK’s nuclear missile programs, the following picture is emerging if you dig deeper and consider the issue from all angles, without allowing it to drift toward the Western viewpoint. There are very specific reasons for a new round of tension on the Korean Peninsula. The US put strategic weapons here and began large-scale field training exercises across the peninsula, making no attempt to conceal the fact that the exercises are intended to simulate an attack on the DPRK.
A US Air Force B-52H strategic bomber flew over the Korean Peninsula on April 5. The flight was part of a joint exercise that included the South Korean and US fighter jets. “The South Korean and US militaries have been expanding their combined military drills in response to North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats. The drills show the strong resolve of the (South) Korea-US alliance and its perfect readiness to respond to any provocation by North Korea swiftly and overwhelmingly,” said the commander of the South Korean air force operation command.
“The US and its followers should never forget the fact that their rival state has possessed a nuclear attack capability in practice as well as the characteristics of the people and army of the DPRK which do not make empty talk,” responded the Korean Central News Agency.
In reality, it is the Americans who are deliberately ratcheting up the tensions in the area. The North Korean nuclear threat has evolved into a handy justification for the United States, Japan, and South Korea to boost their military spending and military attack capabilities in the area. Despite the fact that the justifications put forth by Washington have so far found no support, the Americans are deliberately persuading the world that Pyongyang intends to carry out underground nuclear tests.
As a result, in order to deter future US aggression, North Korea has increased efforts to construct its own nuclear arsenal and conduct missile tests. Nuclear weapons become the sole trustworthy assurance of safety and survival. Pyongyang does not want to end up in the shoes of the former Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya. Washington, for its part, is not in a rush to address Pyongyang’s legitimate concerns and take steps to de-escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula and resume dialogue.
Bakhtiar Urusov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The post New tensions on the Korean Peninsula: who is to blame? appeared first on New Eastern Outlook.
A genre the author refers to as “anti-predictions” may be found in his various works. They describe the most dismal developments in the hope that others who read them would approach the situation in a different way.
In this vein, the author anxiously anticipates the key results of Yoon Suk-yeol’s visit to the United States. The crucial dates will be April 26-27, when Yoon will deliver a speech at a news conference or gala dinner, the substance and implications of which will almost certainly reshape the regional security architecture.
If and when Yoon does, it won’t matter whether he says these things under duress or out of pro-American sycophancy. As they say in Russia, a word spoken is past recalling.
In the past, the relationship between Washington and Seoul has always been rather dichotomous. On the one hand, Yoon talks about a comprehensive strategic partnership between the US and South Korea that is grounded in shared democratic values rather than political goals. And this commitment to American values is more significant than other international ties.
On the other hand, Seoul has previously endeavored to avoid escalating tensions with China and Russia and to stay out of direct conflict with them. In the case of Russia, for example, South Korea joined in with the sanctions while emphasizing that it exclusively sent nonlethal weapons to Ukraine. Even when Yoon took a step back and was forced into a corner, in an interview with Reuters, he said: “If there is a situation the international community cannot condone, such as any large-scale attack on civilians, massacre or serious violation of the laws of war, it might be difficult for us to insist only on humanitarian or financial support.” The author interpreted this as an attempt to find a last-minute justification, implying that Seoul cannot alter direction on the spur of the moment.
However, the pressure has increased, and released classified Pentagon documents show how Yoon’s advisers dreaded a situation in which the US president would call South Korea’s president and ask him a direct question: “Who are you friends with, me or the bear?” Moreover, the rules of the state visit compelled Yoon to make certain declarations reinforcing South Korea’s position as one of America’s most steadfast allies. In contrast to working meetings, where participants can argue, a summit of this type is a ceremonial affair where they don’t wash their dirty linen on public. This visit is especially significant since it coincides with the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the countries as well as the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea which serves as the cornerstone for US-ROK political-military cooperation.
Even worse, nothing precludes Yoon from receiving a multi-page report on the Russian Armed Forces’ misdeeds in Ukraine upon his arrival, after which it will be discovered that the ashes of burned children necessitate the provision of armaments. Nobody will be concerned about how little this report deviates in terms of accuracy from the South Korean reporting on the DPRK’s human rights situation.
Note that the ROK media opposing the president has speculated that during his visit to the US, Yoon Suk-yeol may arrive at “ill-advised decision to extend Korea’s support for Ukraine beyond humanitarian and economic aid to encompass the much-heralded provision of lethal weaponry in return for his state visit.”
Terence Roehrig, a professor of national security and Korea expert at the US Naval War College, “strongly suspected” that this subject would be on the agenda at some time during the summit not only because of the importance of the issue, but also because of the way the issue became public. Given the sensitivity of the situation, he feels that, aside from condemnation of Russia’s behavior and declarations of support for Ukraine, there may be a few specifics in the joint statement; more likely indications would be the Korean government’s subsequent actions.
However, the prospective decision to transfer weaponry and military equipment to Ukraine is hardly the most catastrophic outcome. Several claims were made by Yoon in the above mentioned interview with Reuters that sparked the interest of the Chinese media.
Yoon once had a reputation as the only Asian leader who did not meet with Nancy Pelosi after her visit to Taiwan. This has led to rumors that Yoon Seok-yeol is fearful of upsetting China and/or that he exhibits some political independence. Now, he explained that the “increased tensions around Taiwan were due to attempts to change the status quo by force, and he opposed such a change.” He also added that “the Taiwan issue is not simply an issue between China and Taiwan but, more like the issue of North Korea, it is a global issue.”
Naturally, the interview with the ROK president resulted in comments from Chinese diplomats that were criticized as impolite in Seoul. In light of this, it’s probable that Yoon will retreat even farther during the summit, and Beijing has made it plain that it won’t let such anti-Chinese demarche go unanswered. While this is going on, US hawks have long persuaded Seoul to believe that it should be more involved in the anti-Chinese geopolitical institutions that are forming in the region and that the Chinese menace to Taiwan should be seen as a threat to South Korea as well.
Yoon then discussed inter-Korean relations in the interview, making two crucial comments. As was the case with Moon Jae-in or Roh Moo-hyun, there won’t be any summits to “show off” to voters for domestic political interests. “They used those talks ahead of elections, but ultimately inter-Korean relations were always back to square one.” Secondly, Seoul will improve its capacities for intelligence analysis, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as create “ultra-high-performance, high-powered weapons” to combat North Korean threats. “In terms of responding to a powerful nuclear attack, I think stronger measures than what NATO has should be prepared.” Because “if a nuclear war breaks out between South and North Korea, this is probably not just a problem between the two sides, but the entire Northeast Asia would probably turn to ashes. That has to be stopped.”
The author detects a hint that despite the fact that analysts are divided in opinion what kind of superweapon Yoon had in mind, Pyongyang’s nuclear bomb can only be stopped by their own bomb. Formerly marginal, this strategy is now supported by a number of conservative leaders and a sizeable portion of the population as a whole. 56.5%of South Koreans, of whom 29.8% are extremely convinced, believe that the ROK should acquire its own nuclear weapons, according to a survey conducted by Realmeter on April 20–21, 2023. The necessity to tackle the nuclear threat from North Korea was mentioned by 45.2% of respondents. Only 3.3% of people aspire for a US nuclear umbrella, while the majority say that nuclear parity is in the interest of the country. Others questioned whether US support in the case of a confrontation on the Korean Peninsula would be effective.
A total of 40.8% of respondents opposed having nuclear weapons, with 24% unequivocally opposing nuclear weapons in their own nation. They explained their position by possible sanctions from the international community, since South Korea is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Additionally, there are worries that such a move may exacerbate relations with the North and spark an arms race in the area.
Yoon might suggest that in order to prevent the unfavorable American reaction to Seoul’s attempt to replace the US nuclear cover with that of the ROK, a return to the conditions of the late 1950s could be envisaged so that American nuclear weapons would be stationed on the peninsula. Additionally, it is very possible that these won’t be mines or artillery shells but rather carriers that can launch a nuclear attack against not just North Korean soil but also Chinese and Russian territory.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated on April 24 that during the summit, “We will have the presidents, the two presidents actually release a statement that deals with the question of extended deterrence, particularly in the context of the threat and the evolving threat posed by the DPRK.” “We also believe that the ROK has been a good steward of its non-proliferation obligations under the (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and will continue to do so,” Sullivan said, implying that the United States would expressly oppose the idea of South Korea creating its own nuclear weapons. However, the concept of prolonged deterrence is about to take a decisive stride forward, and it is important to pay attention to what former US National Security Adviser John Bolton said on April 25, 2023. Bolton emphasized that in order to make Washington’s extended deterrence against North Korea “credible,” the United States should immediately transfer tactical nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula. He stressed that such a measure would buy time for Seoul to “think long and hard” about whether it wants its own separate nuclear capability.
In summary, weapon deliveries to Ukraine, the stationing of American nuclear weapons in the ROK, active participation in anti-Chinese initiatives, and statements endorsing Taiwan all point to a dramatic shift in favor of the US. The author has highlighted multiple times that Washington’s potential to destroy Seoul is just as good, if not better, while being cognizant of all the problems that a rupture in relations with Beijing and Moscow could create to Seoul. The main thing is that value orientation takes precedence over economic or political ties, and it is what matters most. Yoon Sook-yeol most likely realizes the dangers he is taking, but there is no way out for him, and South Korea, regrettably, has no alternative but to accept “the choice between two evils.”
As a result, we are about to hear something that could restart the traditional Cold War and bloc confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. Beijing will respond angrily to both US TNW deployments in South Korea, which would be actually directed at Russia and the PRC, and to flirtations with Taiwan. Relations between Russia and South Korea in the case of arms supplies to Ukraine will also be destroyed (as Vladimir Putin promised) and the status of an “unfriendly country” after such steps will be applied to the fullest extent.
Another round of escalation could be sparked on the part of the North as well. Pyongyang interprets these words as a covert intent for aggression even though they talk of a preventative strike in the South more out of a lack of other options to thwart a North Korean missile attack should it occur (the ROK missile defense clearly lacks sufficient forces).
Of course, the author hopes that things won’t be too horrible and that Yoon might not give up so easily. As a result, on April 25, a spokesperson of the South Korea’s presidential office stated that the summit’s agenda does not include a discussion of potential South Korean weaponry supply to Ukraine.
A presidential spokesperson told reporters that Ukraine would be discussed in the context of global issues, but “on whether weapons support will be on the agenda, I will say that as of now, it will not.” This was despite White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan telling reporters the day before that Ukraine would be an important topic of conversation (though he did not go into detail about weapons assistance). “It’s quite possible to talk about the two countries’ positions on the war in Ukraine as a global issue, and I think it’s okay for any leader of a country to do that at this point in time.”
Yoon was also interviewed by The Washington Post upon his arrival in the United States. Whereas on the one hand he claimed in connection to the ROK and the US, “It is indeed the most successful alliance in history and, above all, an alliance based on values.” On the other hand, he chose to distance himself from US pressure on the Ukrainian issue. “Of course, Ukraine is under an illegal invasion, so it is appropriate to provide a range of aid, but when it comes to how and what we will supply, we cannot but consider many direct and indirect relationships between our country and the warring countries.” Such an interview continues an old trend rather than underscores a new one. The “multitude of direct and indirect relationships” Yoon talks about is a clear hint at the state of Russian-South Korean relations. If Yoon Sook-yeol had been willing to make a breakup of his own free will, the tone of his remarks would have been different.
The crucial days will have gone by the time this piece is published, and the author may somberly note that “he was already talking about it then,” yet his optimism will endure. As we have noted, anti-predictions are written to prevent them from coming true.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The post Anti-prediction on the anticipation regarding the outcome of Yoon Suk-yeol’s visit to the United States appeared first on New Eastern Outlook.
Janet Yellen, the American Treasury Secretary, or Finance Minister, took the US hostility and threat against China to a new level in a speech on April 20 at Johns Hopkins University. In a speech laced with colonialist attitudes and arrogance she talked as if the USA was emperor of the world and China was a rebellious vassal, a speech, despite her rhetoric of seeking ‘constructive” economic ties, that can only destroy any chance of that succeeding.
To read her speech is to understand the mafia mind set of the American leadership for she spoke as if she were the lieutenant of a mafia don threatening to break someone’s legs for not obeying his criminal demands.
She began her long-winded speech by welcoming China’s adoption of some “market reforms” in prior years and claimed the US was responsible for China’s rise as an economic power claiming that “The US Congress and successive presidential administrations supported China’s integration into global markets.” The Chinese have a different view of the matter since China was never disconnected from world markets and relied on its own efforts and the success of the policies of the Communist Party to develop and expand its economy and its trade with the world.
After that introduction, she quickly switched gears by decrying China’s “decision to pivot away from market reforms toward a more state-driven approach that has undercut its neighbours and countries across the world,” and that, “this has come as China is striking a more confrontational posture toward the USA and our allies…”
In effect she admits the communist government of China has succeeded in developing China’s economy and the living standards of its people while the successive US governments have adopted policies destroying the US economy and standards of living. The glaring contrast makes the Americans both angry and embarrassed.
As for China being, “more confrontational,” Yellen cannot point to any evidence of China “confronting the USA at all since the end of the Korean War when China was attacked by the United States. Since the “opening up” to China by Trudeau of Canada, and Nixon of the US in the early 1970’s, China has always sought to cooperate with and improve its relations with all the nations of the world. It is the United States that has always been confrontational, and things have accelerated beginning with President Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” which was the beginning of their renewed strategic objective of forcing China to become their vassal.
President Trump continued with this objective with the imposition of trade tariffs in violation of World Trade Organisation agreements, with increased military sabre rattling over Taiwan, the arrest of Meng Wenzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, the Chinese communications company. President Biden continues this hostile policy today with increased military posturing and interference in the internal affairs of China over Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinxiang and other issues, all accompanied by an intense level of propaganda about China threatening American security and American “democracy.”
The United States is hardly a “democracy.” It is instead an extreme example of a plutocracy, a society ruled by the very wealthy but no matter; just a day before her speech, this “democracy” arrested two US citizens of Chinese ethnicity in New York City on absurd charges that they were running a “Chinese secret police station” in New York and members of a black, socialist party that expressed opposition to US war against Russia were charged with crimes amounting to treason for simply expressing their opinion.
She then claimed the US was the largest and most dynamic economy in the world, when data shows that Chins has now surpassed the USA in goods and services produced, and when latest figures project a growth rate in China of 6% this year while the USA may not even grow by 1%. A number of economic analysts and politicians warn of a deepening financial crisis in the US brought on by its failed economic policies and system and by the severe consequences on the USA and Europe of the illegal ‘sanctions” or economic warfare against Russia.
And she was quick to bring Russia into her speech. She made the claim that the “world is confronting the largest land war in Europe since World War II.” when we remember that in 1999 the United States, in an unprovoked attack, bombed Yugoslavia relentlessly for four months and during that war crime attacked the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing several diplomats, and when we remember that the United States continued to invade and occupy Syria as she was speaking. She never mentioned Syria of course in her remarks, nor all the death and destruction the USA has wrought on the countries it has attacked and destroyed just since 1945.
And is it the “world” facing the war in Europe-meaning Ukraine? No, it is the US and its NATO allies facing the war which they started in 2014, with the NATO coup, in Ukraine, overthrowing the legitimate government and installing Nazi puppets in its place; which immediately began attacking Russian speakers in Ukraine using shells, bombs and machine guns. Their aggression in Ukraine, their planned offensive, using the Ukrainian army against Russia, the movement of NATO up to Russia’s borders and the nuclear threat, required Russia to take action in self defence of itself and the Russian speakers in Ukraine. The causes of the war are to be found in one place, Washington and it is Washington’s war the world faces.
The military conflict in Ukraine could end tomorrow if the US wanted it to, but it does not, and, as a recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine proves, the goal of the USA is to break Russia into over 40 separate statelets that it will control. The fact is the world faces an American war to destroy Russia and control and exploit its remnants, then bring China to heel, then the rest of us.
Her speech is laced with the usual platitudes about “cooperation”, “negotiation” and “goodwill” but she stated,
“Some see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict: a zero-sum, bilateral contest where one must fall for the other to rise.”
Well, who does? Only people like herself and the government she works for. China, with all the good will it can muster, has been pushing the opposite idea for a long time, the concept of win-win situation achieved through meaningful negotiations, in an atmosphere of trust. But again, she states a good outcome can be had only if China “cooperates” and “makes the right choices.” Underlying these platitudes is the threat of force.
She winds up her speech stating she hopes to travel to China to “engage in dialogue.” No doubt the Chinese will agree to meet her. Talking is always a good thing to do. But how can the Chinese deal with an interlocutor who distorts reality, who lies and slanders China, whose smooth words are followed by threats and diktats, and whose US Navy is cruising off China’s coasts threatening China with war over Taiwan and supporting Taiwan with the hope of overthrowing the communist government in China? The Chinese have been complaining for a while now that the US says one thing but then does the exact opposite. But here in Yellen’s speech we see this contradiction stated as a matter of policy. We say this, but we mean that. There is no good faith expressed whatsoever, no amity between nations, no respect for the other party.
Yellen is forced to acknowledge that the US and its allies face debt challenges and economic and financial “pressures” but fails to mention that they are their own entire making. The fact is the USA is essentially bankrupt. Its debt far outstrips its assets. It cannot pay its 31 trillion dollar debt to the world and has to keep increasing its legal debt ceiling to put off the day of reckoning, which causes bickering within the US elites. A large part of this debt is due to their huge military spending and their inflation is largely due to the massive printing of US dollars since the US finally went off the gold standard in the 1971 so it could print money to pay for its defeat in Vietnam and all its other wars since then. It has not stopped the printing presses in all those years and with covid it accelerated. The result is making life miserable for citizens in the USA. Canada and Europe and elsewhere and effectively lowers the cost of labour, the value of wages. This results in the many strikes taking place across the West as workers fight back.
The gutting of the US industrial base in prior decades as US companies left the US to go to China to take advantage of cheaper labour for higher profits is no one’s fault but their own. The American government allowed US companies to leave, even helped them leave, abandoning American workers to destitution, creating the Rust Belt across the USA, the decayed cities and towns, the increased violence, the general misery.
Yellen felt she had to say something relevant about the other elephant in the room, abrupt global warming. She stated that the “Earth is likely to cross a critical global warming threshold within the next decade-if no drastic action is taken.” But what has the USA done about that? The answer is nothing. It is all empty rhetoric and useless programs that have had no effect whatsoever. The “critical threshold “was crossed years ago and the effects of crossing it accelerate with each passing day. We all see it around us. This is the reality. But the Americans always seem to be out of touch with reality.
And while she bragged, that “we remain the largest and most dynamic economy in the world”, she linked that statement to defending “our values and national security,” and that, “within that context, we seek a constructive and fair economic relationship with China.”
But what does fair trade and economic competition have to do with “national security and our values”? It means that the US will continue to use the pretext of “national security and values” to gain unfair economic advantages over China as the recent claims made about security against Huawei and Tik Tok, among other companies have established. By “fair” she means what is good for the USA,” not both parties, and that means nothing but more confrontation with China.
She wound up her speech by stating three “principle objectives” of the US in its economic approach to China, though they are just three ways of saying the same thing, that the principle objective is the domination of China. But she dresses that real objective up in fancy clothes. The first objective is “securing our national security-and protecting human rights.”
So, right after she claimed the US is look for more cooperation with China she boldly stated that the US will continue to violate Chinese sovereignty and to interfere in Chinese internal affairs in every way possible. She stated,
“We will clearly communicate to the PRC our concerns about its behaviour.” Of course, the “behaviour she is referring to is all in the imagination of their propagandists, so that, in effect the Americans intend to increase their slanders against China at every opportunity.
Then she added the following astounding statement, which admits the American confrontational posture,
“Even as our targeted actions may have economic impacts… we are motivated solely by our concerns about security and values.”
One just has to admire their use of words.
The second declared principle, seemingly contradicting the first, but in fact supporting the first objective, is “too seek a healthy economic relationship with China. A growing China that plays by international rules is good for the USA”. She means American rules.
She then spoke about “Chinese unfair economic practices,” a puzzling phrase since she does not state what they are, but we can assume she meant that it is unfair the communists in China are running an economy better than the capitalists do in the USA. She again referred to a “rules-based global economic order” meaning to an American controlled economic order.
Since China insists, as it should, that there is no such thing as a rules-based order, only international law by which all nations are bound, this statement is another declaration of intent to pursue war with China unless China kowtows to the United States. For there to be “rules” there has to be a ruler issuing them but the Americans have forgotten it seems that there are no world rulers on this planet of ours, only individual sovereign nations, governed by the principles set out in the UN Charter. The insistence, by the Americans, and their allies, on the existence of such an order is itself a violation of the founding principles of the United Nations.
Article 2 of the UN Charter states,
“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. “
Their so-called “rules-based order” is a complete negation of the UN Charter. They have, by adopting this phrase, torn up the UN Charter and international law and the entire West has acquiesced in this crime.
The Third principle she stated to be “seeking cooperation on urgent global challenges” by which she means challenges facing the USA, such as the war with Russia. And of course, the Americans are always claiming they are seeking “cooperation” when they mean they are seeking obedience.
Finally, she entered into a long statement meant to reassure American and foreign investors, and the American public, that the mess they see around them in the USA is not real, that everything is just fine, in fact it’s just great. The economy is just fine. The economy is growing. It’s dynamic. Inflation will be beaten. And she assured the world the US financial system is secure, despite the collapse of several large banks in the US in the past few weeks, requiring the government to step in, with warnings of further problems in the near future.
She has to admit China’s growth, its success in the elimination of poverty but tries to minimise and obscure that success by drawing a dark picture with a long list of claimed economic problems, China faces, all sorts of head winds, and again complains about state control of the economy-forgetting of course that in the USA many large corporations are funded by state contracts and large corporations control the government. A number of US companies have been assisted by government sanctions on Chinese companies, by export and import controls, unfair tariffs, and false claims of the use of child or forced labour, all designed to keep Chinese goods and services out of the world market in favour of US goods. She claims the USA is better in everything, while China is in decline. It was quite a sales pitch, and like most sales pitches, a litany of lies and half-truths.
Her big lie was to claim that eliminating Chinese companies from US and allied markets is for “security reasons” not for economic reasons, when we know “security reasons” are just a pretext
Then, right after that lie she again called for “cooperation” between the US by threatening China over Russia. She said,
“It is essential that China and other countries do not provide Russia with material support or assistance with sanctions evasion. We will continue to make the position of the United States extremely clear to Beijing and companies in its jurisdiction. The consequences of any violations would be severe.”
So much for seeking cooperation. What cooperation? This is just the same old bullying and coercion the Americans have been known for all over the world for a long time. And, again, for one nation to make such threats to another sovereign nation is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter dealing with peace and security and threats to international peace which this threat of “severe consequences” surely is.
She makes things even worse by repeating slanders about China repressing this or that group in this or that place and declares the US intention to take more hostile action against China based on these pretexts. She said,
“The United States will continue to use our tools to disrupt and deter human rights abuses wherever they occur around the globe.”
Yellen then put on a fake smile to be more conciliatory and talked about the strong economic links between the US and China, only again to reveal the true intention; “A growing China that plays by the rules can be beneficial for the United States. For instance, it can mean rising demand for U.S. products and services and more dynamic U.S. industries.”
She closed by stating she hopes to travel to China to talk about the situation. But can the Chinese accept her in the face of this posturing and these threats? They are always polite, and ever seeking some peaceful way forward, so we can suppose they would be willing to talk with her if she asked to meet with them. But what is there to talk about when the United States has made it clear what their objectives are, the domination of China, Russia and the world?
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Yellen Threatens China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
We recently discussed how stories of North Korean weapons shipments to Russia were now being proven by saying things like, “Here’s a train with weapons on it; you can’t see them, but believe us, they’re inside.” But John Kirby, the coordinator of strategic communications for the National Security Council, showed that he was more than qualified. On March 30, 2023, he said:
- a) North Korea is working to send dozens of kinds of weapons and munitions to Russia to be used in the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine
- b) North Korea seeks to secure food supplies in exchange
- c) The potential arms deal is being arranged through a Slovakian arms dealer, identified as Ashot Mkrtychev, against whom the US Department of Treasury has imposed sanctions.
Kirby voiced fear “that North Korea will continue to back Russian military activities against Ukraine,” despite the lack of proof that North Korea sent huge quantities of ammunition to Moscow late last year.
Kirby emphasized that any arms deal between North Korea and Russia would directly violate a series of UN Security Council resolutions prohibiting the sale of weapons to and from the North.
What do we see when we look at it this way? The fact that the loud discourse of alleged deals was stated by an influential person should apparently be deemed evidence, and no more corroboration is required. Despite the fact that any clarifying inquiry of the class, “how exactly the DPRK sends such large quantities of weaponry to Russia,” leaves no stone unturned. As the author has already being ironic, Kirby is only credible if one believes the DPRK invented teleportation.
In reality, Defense Department Spokesperson Brigadier General While Pat Ryder tried to soften his tone, he was actually disputing what Kirby had said. According to him, “there currently was no indication that additional weapons or munitions have been delivered to Russia, but we continue to keep a close eye on it.”
An examination of the name of the US sanction recipient indicates the types of arguments Washington is employing to sever military ties between Moscow and Pyongyang.
To begin with, Mkrtichev was described as a “Slovakian citizen with Azerbaijani roots” in various Russian-language periodicals recognized by the Russian Federation as foreign agents (hence no references). This amount of investigation recalls an old joke about how to spell Iran or Iraq? Given the tense relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the fact that the person’s first and last names are both plainly Armenian makes us laugh.
But what was the mysterious Ashot up to? According to a press release from the US Department of the Treasury, Mkrtychev, 56, a resident of Bratislava, worked with DPRK officials between the end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023 to buy more than two dozen weapons and ammunition for Russia in exchange for items like commercial airplanes, raw materials, and goods to be shipped to the DPRK. More precisely, he “might be involved in the organization of deals.” “Schemes like the arms deal pursued by this individual show that Putin is turning to suppliers of last resort like Iran and the DPRK.” An individual has been sanctioned by the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for seeking to arrange arms sales between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Now the questions. First, it is not very clear who Mkrtychev is. If he had even a passing knowledge of the armaments trade, the US Treasury’s statement would have likely indicated this for propaganda purposes. This “no name” was going to organize an epic transaction on an epic magnitude. Therefore, how was he to supply commercial aircraft as opposed to a large quantity of raw materials and goods? The author would like to recall a few important details. First, the North continues to be isolated, and trade across the border with the DPRK occurs in a number of places that are tracked by satellites. On the Russian-DPRK border, for example, there is just a train bridge. Ships cruising around the DPRK that could be used to dodge sanctions are also being monitored, and the UN panel of experts report gives specific data on ships that often trade coal by turning off transponders and regularly accessing Chinese ports. Mkrtychev must possess the ability of a James Bond 007 secret agent in order to organize the aforementioned plot.
Now the question is, why do we need an obscure middleman from Slovakia for two countries who share a geographical border and direct diplomatic ties, even if Russia and North Korea are interested in backdoor deals? Previous Kirby’s stories were a little more realistic in such a context.
Furthermore, it is not at all evident from the American comments whether any of the deals Mkrtychev mediated were successfully executed. Yet, a failed attempt to do business with the DPRK, from an American perspective, should be penalized in the same way as a successful one, because intent is punishable…
This prompts the author to consider the following points.
As part of their so-called “open source intelligence” operation, the US deploys neural networks to search the unprotected Internet for relevant content using a keyword system, providing them access to data on a variety of forums or chat rooms. Therefore, it seems possible that American “intelligence” discovered a method of getting around the sanctions by compiling a list of a few pertinent statements. Added to that is a misunderstanding of the context, as previously stated, when the author of a telegram channel about the secrets of Russian domestic politics in general may be a schoolboy fantasist.
Finally, this situation reminds him of the preparation for a fraudulent plan, which he had recently encountered on multiple occasions. The fact is that various fraudsters periodically try to cash in on the situation of DPRK. Such people come in contact with North Korea, depict themselves as sympathetic to the country’s situation, and occasionally reach Pyongyang to be photographed with a number of important people. Then they come in contact with a “third party” and try to buy or sell anything while appearing as someone with the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) and Kim Jong-un’s personal trust. As middlemen, they receive commissions for risky and difficult work, which accounts for the majority of their earnings when a deal fails for whatever reason, even though the scale closely resembles the American reports.
I would venture to guess that we have dealt with something similar. However, any fraud of this nature provides the US State Department with a good excuse to impose sanctions. Although it is unlikely that such a person will visit the United States, it is not difficult to add a new victim to the sanctions list.
In order to better keep track of them and to be more critical of the loud propaganda remarks, I want to highlight three points as I draw to a close another text regarding flaws in evidence.
- When a high-ranking individual states a fact, the evidence for that fact is not that it was uttered by the “respected person” but, at the very least, some other form of confirmation, like “Yesterday I was in a cab, and the driver told me that…” Even a mention of an unnamed but knowledgeable “expert” is better than none at all.
- When an act is offered to you, it makes sense to try to understand the technical intricacies of it because, usually, it is ignorance of the details that makes an act physically impossible. Consider “mortar shootings,” the exchange of urine samples stored in canisters that require identification to open, or the immeasurable amounts of armament shipments.
- Remember that fabricated stories follow specific literary canons when the story being presented is too evocative of a blockbuster storyline. Reality can also be unrealistic, but not in the same way as the proven plot. Provocation is indicated by overdramatization.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение An Azerbaijani named Ashot, or a little more on how the North Korean arms trade in the Russian Federation is proven появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
When the Trump administration announced a policy suggesting a “decoupling” from China in the sense that the world’s two biggest economies will no longer do business together, his idea was to turn “America into the manufacturing superpower of the world, consequently ending its “reliance on China once and for all.” This was thought to be crucial for maintaining the US hegemony in the world in the face of proactive attempts by China – and Russia – to shift the global political and economic system towards multipolarity. In forming this policy, policymakers in Washington relied on the belief that the US decision to “decouple” from China will automatically lead many countries across the world – especially, in Asia – to do the same, i.e., minimise their trade ties with China and thus end Beijing’s global ambitions. Policymakers in the US also believed that the activation of the policy of “decoupling” from China will also require another parallel policy: an increase in the US trade ties with Asia, including Southeast and East Asian nations.
Many years have passed since this policy was activated, but the results show a drastic US failure in achieving even its primary objectives, i.e., Asian nations decreasing their trade ties with China. In fact, as the data shows, the opposite has happened, i.e., many Asian nations have increased their trade ties with China, showing how these nations, instead of uncritically accepting US dictates, are actively resisting Washington.
As The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2022, between 2018 – when the so-called ‘trade war’ was started by Washington – and November 2022, China’s trade with 10 of its neighbours – mostly ASEAN countries – grew by a whopping 71 percent, reaching an all-time high level of US$979 billion. During the same time, China’s trade with India – one of China’s main rivals in Asia and an ally of Washington as well – grew by 49 percent.
The growth in bilateral trade points to the continued operation of what many call a universal economic logic i.e., countries tend to trade with big economies and economies in close geographical proximity. In other words, the fact that China is located very close to ASEAN and that it happens to be the second-largest economy renders the economic logic much more powerful than the geopolitical logic that various US administrations have been advancing for the past decade or so, with the so-called “Asia Pivot” of the Obama-Biden administration being the pioneering act in the series of steps culminating in “decoupling” and a potential military conflict, as projected by the US, around Taiwan.
This response is also a logical result of years of work that China undertook, since the 2008 financial crisis, to establish its deep economic roots in ASEAN and elsewhere. The US, it seems, completely underestimated the strength of the bilateral system. It was in the early 2000s when China took over Japan, Taiwan, and the United States as the supply hub of value-added exports for the ASEAN nations. China concluded a free trade agreement with ASEAN and put it in force in 2005. Existing pacts were reinforced by the November 2020 signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEPA). It was always naive on the part of the US policymakers to expect the ASEAN countries to reverse these arrangements in favour of establishing similar trade ties with the US, especially when Washington didn’t have – and still doesn’t have – any viable plan or programme of similar nature and magnitude to offer to these countries.
Enter the anti-Containment BRI
The absence of a well-defined and well-targeted economic and trade plan allowed China to reinforce its own existing trade ties with its own anti-containment strategy: the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). Consider this: if the core purpose of the “Asia Pivot” and “decoupling” was to contain the rise of China to ensure continued US hegemony, Beijing responded by massively expanding its global economic outreach to make it nearly impossible for the US to either contain or roll it back. Through the BRI, China was able to expand much more rapidly than the US could put its own plans into action.
The scale of BRI tells the story. As the data shows, at least 147 different countries – accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population and 40 percent of the global GDP – have signed projects with China. Apart from ASEAN and many countries in Asia and Africa, China’s trade ties, via BRI, have exponentially increased in Latin America as well. As the data shows, China’s trade ties with Latin American countries in 2021 amounted to US$450 billion, registering a 41 percent increase from 2020. This growth rate thus clearly defies the US logic of “decoupling.” In 2022, this trade reached US$486 billion. With the BRI logic at play, six Latin American nations – Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay – have already joined the China-dominated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
China, in simple words, continues to grow in the face of Washington’s resistance and projection of China as a bad economic partner. As the data shows, this is just an element of US propaganda, which explains why no countries bought it. More recent data shows, China’s engagement with these countries is far from what Washington calls a Chinese “debt trap.”
On the contrary, the data shows, China is using the same playbook to advance its interests and expand its economic – and eventually geopolitical – reach that the US and its allies have always used. More crucially, China has already emerged as the international lender of the very last resort, helping its BRI partner countries overcome their economic problems through, for instance, debt restructuring and rollovers.
These findings – the obvious rise in global trade volume with China and the actual, no “debt-trap” nature of China’s trade ties with its partners – combine to explain the failure of the US policy of “decoupling” from China and effecting a structural shift towards US unilateral dominance in the world.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение The Big Failure of the US Policy of “Decoupling” from China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Many experts consider the current elections in Turkey as fateful. Depending on who wins – the incumbent president Erdoğan or the representative of the pro-Western opposition Kılıçdaroğlu – the vector of Turkey’s subsequent development will be determined.
And this opinion corresponds to reality in the sense that the intensity of the confrontation between the main candidates for the highest post in the state is related not only to the topic of the struggle for power of the main political forces of Turkey, but also the enormous impact on the pre-election process from interested external forces (and more specifically, the United States).
The reasons for such attention and complicity of the United States in Turkey’s political life are obviously motivated by Washington’s dissatisfaction with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s foreign and domestic policies. In particular, the US does not accept: the strengthening of Turkey’s independence from the US dictate; the building of effective and pragmatic relations between Ankara and Moscow and Beijing; Erdoğan’s refusal to support the anti-Russian sanctions in connection with the crisis in Ukraine; the decline of democracy in Turkey and the strengthening of the authoritarian power of the President; the mass repression of the Turkish authorities against members of the opposition.
Such an approach by the US is based on the traditional imperial strategy of “divide and rule.” Washington does not intend to give up Turkey, because it understands the importance and strategic significance of its geography both in terms of military interests of the NATO alliance, and in terms of the world trade land and sea communications passing through the Turkish territory. The United States aims to restore its monopoly in Turkey.
The fact that 80% of the Turkish Army’s current arsenal, as President Erdoğan says, is being supplied by Turkey’s domestic military-industrial complex is of course a result of the Turkish President’s own policies. However, the Turkish military-industrial complex’s technological advance is largely dependent on the Western NATO countries and their satellite Israel. The Turkish economy’s successes under the Justice and Development Party (AKP) are now relatively lost, as the financial crisis in Turkey has created a massive inflation rate of 89% or more. Consequently, the Turkish economy needs profitable loans, in which the position of the United States and its Federal Reserve play an important role. In addition, Turkey’s financial and economic problems have now been exacerbated by the severe consequences of the devastating earthquake.
Competitors usually use all means to achieve success in pre-election races. Often the rhetoric of confrontation crosses the permissible boundaries or appeals to emotions and unfortunate associations.
Today, for example, the leader of the ruling AKP, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, compares himself to the former prime minister and leader of the Democratic Party, Adnan Menderes. The latter came to power in 1950 on a wave of pro-American orientation of Turkey, and in 1960 he was deposed by Cemal Gürsel, Chief of Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces on the orders of the same United States because of his passion for an independent and nationalist policy that threatened the interests of Washington and the NATO bloc. Erdoğan and right-wing supporters consider the execution of Adnan Menderes and two ministers of his government (Foreign Minister Zola Skweyiya and Finance Minister Hasan Polatkan) a day of national shame. In other words, Erdoğan is counting on the support of Turkish voters who are in favor of an independent and strong Turkey and against the dictate of the West led by the United States.
Meanwhile, one of the main issues of Turkey’s contradictions with the outside world (partly with the same West led by the United States) is the geopolitical project “Turan” (i.e. the strategy of Pan-Turkism and pan-Turanianism).
The ideological and political movements of Pan-Turkism and pan-Turanianism that had been consolidated in the minds of the Young Turks ruling forces as a result of the unsuccessful Balkan wars on the eve of the World War I and the loss of part of the Ottoman state territories were born in the political cluster of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks, defeated in World War I, were forced under pressure from the victorious Allied countries to abandon their imperial status and concentrate on a form of republican (regional) state-building.
However, the past century clearly showed that the political elite of the new Turkey (starting with Ataturk and ending with Erdoğan) never excluded the possibility of reviving the imperial status under a favorable historical conjuncture. Objectively assessing the critical attitude of the vast number of countries and peoples of the so-called post-Ottoman space to the very idea of reviving the Turkish empire, the intellectual thought of Anatolian Turks was inclined towards the north-eastern vector of the future geography of imperial revival based on the doctrines of Pan-Turkism and pan-Turanianism, that is, with a stake on the Turkic peoples and entities.
In this paradigm, since the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923, Turkey became strongly oriented towards the strong and anti-Russian West (alternately towards England, Germany, and the USA). Correspondingly, Turkish politicians in the years of Cold War were counting on their participation in Western “crusades” and subversive activities against the USSR to break the Russian state into “national apartments” and get an opportunity to reanimate the very doctrine of Turan. And it must be said that by the end of the 20th century with the collapse of the USSR and the systematic weakening of Russia such a prospect became a reality for Turkey and motivated President Turgut Ozal in 1992 to declare that the coming “twenty-first century will be the golden age of Turks.”
In the latest period, the collective efforts of Turkey, the UK and the US under the formula “NATO partnership for peace” (or rather “NATO movement to the East”), “globalization,” “Turkey as a bridge between Europe and Asia,” “Turkic culturalism,” “soft Islam,” “alternative energy cooperation,” “international transit communications” began to form new contours of Turkey’s entry (and on its shoulders, the NATO bloc) into post-Soviet Turkic countries. Over the past three decades, new ethno-cultural, ideological-political, transport-communication and economic platforms for Turkey’s effective cooperation with the newly formed Turkic countries of the CIS have emerged, possessing considerable natural resources of a strategic nature besides ethnic affinity.
Within the framework of this policy, Turkey has formed a specialized structural unit of Turkic integration since 1992, from the Agency for Communication with Turkic States (TIKA) to the Commonwealth of Turkic States in 2009 and the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) in 2021. Today only blind cannot notice the intensification of multi-vector bilateral and multilateral relations of Turkey with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
Many opponents or skeptics of the Turan project note that, both in the past and especially today (that is, after the devastating earthquake), Turkey did not and does not have sufficient financial and other economic capabilities to implement the Turan project under its leadership. Moreover, the idea of Turan poses a threat to the national interests of such key states in the Eurasian space as Russia, Iran, China and India.
However, Turkey has always been distinguished by flexible diplomacy and in this case has achieved a lot in the years since the collapse of the USSR, especially after the success of Azerbaijan in the second Karabakh war in autumn 2020. Ankara always proceeds from pragmatic considerations; today, Turkish politicians are trying to talk less (at least publicly) about the same pan-Turanianism and pan-Turkism and prefer to deal with issues of economic (energy, transport and communication, investment), cultural, educational, humanitarian and military integration with related countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
Step by step, from cultural to religious, from energy to transport and communication, from military and technical to military and political, from spatial to structural confederation Turkey is moving to the East (to the historical Turkestan). At the same time, Erdogan’s diplomacy through mutually beneficial cooperation with the same Russia and China is gradually achieving consent, rather than opposition from the leading countries of Eurasia in the expansion of Turkey’s relations with the Turkic countries.
And what about the West? Naturally, this strategy, in the creation of which the same Britain took a considerable part in the past, corresponds to the interests of the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon world (Britain and the United States) only partly within the policy of “divide and conquer.” Turan for London and Washington continues to be a means of international regional policy to weaken Russia and Iran, the formation of a new dividing middle corridor between China and Russia, and in the future, perhaps, a new wave of separation and collapse of Russia, Iran and China using the Turkic ethnopolitical factor.
However, neither the US, nor the UK (nor Russia, Iran or China for that matter) are interested in the revival of a new Turkish empire, because it could become another challenge at the global level. That’s why Turkish opposition to president Erdoğan represented by the “National Alliance” bloc headed by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and international Islamic movement “Fətullahçılar” headed by Fethullah Gülen are trying to strengthen Turkey under the patronage of the United States and the West without bidding for the imperial ambitions, but with the avant-garde participation in the anti-Russian campaign of Washington.
Turkey, independent from the US dictate under the leadership of Erdoğan, can be established only under the condition of effective economic, military-technical, cultural and political cooperation with Russia and China, where the Turan project and the “Turan Army” should give way to pragmatism and respect for the interests of key Eurasian partners, rather than create new problems of prospective confrontations. That is why the formula of multipolar international order, where Turkey is one of the independent poles with the vector of active alliance with Turkic countries, can be the achievement of stability and security in Eurasia without confrontation with Russia, Iran and China.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkish Elections and the Fate of the “Turan” Project появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Numerous facts show that the Syrian Arab Republic is slowly but surely emerging from isolation and entering international life. Although there are still many obstacles on this difficult path, the legitimately elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is establishing ties with his neighbors and, above all, with Turkey, which now plays a key role on Syrian territory.
It may be recalled that after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the Turkish embassy in Damascus closed in March 2012. Despite this, the two countries maintained some contact even during the worst moments of the Western-imposed conflict. These contacts, mostly between intelligence agencies, were not diplomatic in nature, but they are important in terms of demonstrating that negotiations between the two countries continue, albeit at a lower level.
After Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced that he was open to meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, diplomats of the two countries started to establish contacts under the professional and diplomatic mediation of Russia. These talks quickly yielded results, and with the defense ministers of the two countries meeting in Moscow on December 28, 2022, the first high-level official contact between Ankara and Damascus in 11 years was established. Although negotiations were expected to continue, two events caused this process to slow down: Iran’s insistence on being involved in the talks and the February 6, 2023 earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş, which deeply affected both countries.
Initially, Iran did not participate in the Russia-sponsored talks on Turkey and Syria. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian’s insistence on being included in the talks through shuttle diplomacy in Ankara and Damascus was eventually accepted. As a result, negotiations between Ankara and Damascus, mediated by Russia, were transformed into the Astana format with the participation of four countries: Turkey, Syria, Russia and Iran. This process, in turn, led to a reduction in contacts between Turkey and Syria.
After Iran was included in the negotiations, there was an earthquake on February 6, 2023, which killed more than 50,000 people in the two countries. As a result, contacts between the two countries were suspended. However, as soon as the wounds caused by the earthquake began to heal, talks resumed on April 3-4 in Moscow. The meeting, attended by deputy foreign ministers, was devoted to organizing meetings between the foreign ministers of the four countries. In his opening speech, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asked the sides to make efforts toward comprehensive normalization, using such expressions as “we expect you to be as flexible and constructive as possible.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Ankara on April 7, 2023 where he met with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and President Erdoğan. The talks touched on several topics, including the US-NATO war in Ukraine, the grain crisis, the Karabakh crisis and, most importantly, the Syrian crisis in the context of Ankara-Damascus talks. It is worth noting that Lavrov’s visit to Ankara followed the talks in Moscow, and his bilateral meetings with Turkish officials certainly helped speed up the slow and difficult process of negotiations.
Despite the slow progress of the talks between Ankara and Damascus, the talks are expected to continue and eventually succeed. In fact, it is not a sustainable situation for the two countries, which share a 911-kilometer-long border, to continue to live with the problems accumulated during the civil war unleashed in Syria by the US-led West and several monarchical regimes in the Persian Gulf region. Politicians who are aware of this situation are determined to bring these problematic issues to the table and achieve positive results.
Another important issue discussed was Syrian refugees in Turkey. Turkey is currently hosting 3.6 million registered refugees and expects Damascus to take the necessary legal and practical measures to ensure that refugees can return safely and voluntarily to their home country. In addition, the situation of extremist armed groups in the region is also among the topics under discussion. While Damascus expects the suppression of armed opposition elements that fought against it, Ankara, for its part, expects the disbandment of the Kurdish People’s Self-Defense Units (YPG), which it perceives as a threat along its border.
Obviously, it is impossible to offer immediate solutions to all these issues. Nevertheless, it is likely that the parties will take certain and positive steps towards the normalization process, initially focusing on the general points. Both sides, and this should be noted especially, give priority to the issue of Syria’s unity and territorial integrity. No one is talking, as has been the case in the past, especially in the Western media, about dismembering Syria and creating different enclaves on its territory.
Moreover, a renewal of the Adana Agreement, signed in 1998, would enable a united effort against any perceived threat along the Turkish-Syrian border. At the same time, Turkey could contribute to Syria’s reintegration into the international system and help rebuild the country. Although the main goal of negotiations between the two countries is to normalize their relations by finding solutions in problematic areas, it is possible to start by establishing communication on common areas in order to promote dialogue. Indeed, both sides, as the first steps in the negotiations have shown, attach great importance to the issue of normalization.
In order to ensure sustained progress in the talks, it is likely that the sides, as suggested by Russia, will adopt a strategy of dividing the issues and dealing with them independently and step by step. Since many problems have accumulated over the years, it may not be possible to resolve them all immediately. Hence, prioritizing issues that can be resolved over time can be very effective in developing mutual understanding and maintaining open channels of dialogue. Turkish-Russian relations serve as an example of this approach to resolving any issues and problems with the goodwill of the parties.
Moreover, the normalization of relations between the two countries could have broader geopolitical implications. The conflict in Syria, in which many states have had a hand, among which the United States should be singled out, has been a major source of tension in the region, with various regional and global powers taking sides in the conflict. Normalization could help reduce tensions and increase cooperation between countries in the region, which could ultimately lead to greater stability.
Finally, it is important to note that normalization will not be a simple process, given the complex and longstanding problems between the two countries. It will require mutual trust, compromise, and the ability to constructively address each other’s concerns. Nevertheless, with determination and commitment, continued negotiations between the two countries can lead to a positive outcome that benefits both sides and the region as a whole.
The position of many countries in the Arab world, whose top officials met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in mid-April to discuss Syria’s return to the Arab fold, also contributes to this. On that occasion, Qatari Foreign Minister Majid Al-Ansari pointed out that the position of Damascus and President Bashar al-Assad has significantly strengthened as Damascus’ more than a decade-long isolation begins to weaken. The meeting was attended by the foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt.
It may be recalled that Syria was expelled from the Arab League when a civil war broke out in the country in 2011 because the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, supported the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad. The government in Damascus then began to receive support from Saudi Arabia’s regional rival, Iran. The Arab League is expected to hold a summit in Riyadh in May, with the return of Syria likely on the agenda. There is no confirmation as to whether Bashar al-Assad will attend, but his presence would mark the most significant step toward normalizing the entire situation in this turbulent region.
The devastating February 6 earthquake, which affected parts of Turkey and Syria, prompted countries in the Arab world to lend a helping hand to an already war-torn country. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Saudi Arabia said there was a consensus among Arab states to end Syria’s isolation and return to dialogue to resolve outstanding humanitarian problems.
In the GCC, Oman has been one of the few countries that have maintained normal relations without severing diplomatic ties with Syria over the past decade. Assad also visited the UAE twice last month, signaling closer ties between Damascus and the Gulf states. Qatar has previously stated that it has no intention of normalizing relations with Assad and has dissuaded other countries from doing so. Majid Al-Ansari said that Doha’s position has not changed, but that it is in line with the emerging general Arab consensus.
The positive changes taking place in the Middle East region clearly show that more and more countries not only support Russia’s and personally President Vladimir Putin’s idea of a multipolar world, but are taking firm and effective steps in this direction.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Syrian Problem on Course to a Positive Resolution появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
This year Japan is hosting the annual meetings of the G7 group, which includes four leading Western European nations (Germany, the UK, France and Italy) plus the USA, Canada and Japan. This group, (sometimes incorrectly referred to as an “organization”) has been in place since the mid-1970s, and provides a forum in which the seven main nations of the so-called “collective West” (itself an increasingly meaningless term) attempt to develop a unified strategy in the face of current international challenges.
For the USA, as the leader of the “collective West”, the most pressing of these challenges is China’s status as the de facto world power number two. Washington’s hostile reaction to that fait accompli has resulted in the development of yet another latest global fault line. As this fault line intensifies, it raises the threat of another world war, one which could easily end up being the last war in human history. Following such a conflict there would be no-one left to participate in any subsequent conflict. Moreover voices on different sides of the fault line are, if not publicly then with little attempt at secrecy, “making plans” for such an apocalyptic scenario.
Closely related to the main challenge mentioned above is another issue of concern for the current US leadership – the ongoing rapprochement between China and the Russian Federation. This tendency has been evident for a long time, and has recently become much more clearly defined. One issue that should be viewed in terms of this trend (as well as from other perspectives) is the way in which the Ukrainian conflict was provoked and the course that that conflict has taken.
It seems unlikely that the conflict can be resolved in geographical isolation from the rest of the world, that is, without any impact on the current radical reshaping of the world order. It is more likely that the resolution of the conflict will represent an important interim stage in the ongoing transition to a new global balance of power.
But, so far, Washington has shown a (counterproductive, as already noted) determination to prevent any such development. This attitude is behind its insistence on the need for participants in international affairs to “follow the rules”. As it is, that statement is hard to disagree with. Certainly, in any kind of community all the members must uphold certain mutually agreed rules. The problem is that the current rules reflect an increasingly outmoded world order, which is already undergoing radical change.
Moreover, whenever “current needs” so require, those rules are flagrantly violated by those who, as victors in previous global conflicts, most recently the Cold War, established them in the first place. And the country that is making every effort to prevent any changes to the convenient status quo is, as already noted, the current leader of the “collective West”.
Of the various options available for liaising with allies and developing joint strategies aimed at preserving at least the semblance of the unipolar world format that arose at the end of the Cold War, the G7 has been the platform of choice in recent months. In the last year this group has served as the main platform for organizing attacks on the allies’ main geopolitical adversaries.
And the outlines of a strategy to prevent any further rapprochement between Russia and China are now clearly evident. Thus, in the concluding documents we read the uncompromising words in relation to “resisting Russia’s aggression in Ukraine”. China, on the other hand, receives admonishments. It is as if the G7 nations were trying to tell Beijing “it’s not a good idea to have any dealings with that aggressor state. At least in your relations with Russia you should stick to certain boundaries, which we will set out for you. Otherwise we will extend our reprisals to you as well.”
The issue of “Russian aggression” and the attempts to prevent China from working closely with Russia have dominated meetings between G7 foreign ministers over the last year. Take, for example, the telephone conference between the ministers on December 7, 2022 as well as the face-to-face meetings two and a half months later as part of the most recent Munich Security Conference.
The more-or-less standardized structure of the texts, the main arguments and even the wording tend to be copied and pasted from one document to the other. Thus, in the Communiqué adopted following the most recent meeting of G7 foreign ministers, held from 16-18 April in the Japanese resort town of Karuizawa, in Nagano Prefecture the first paragraph in the body of the text is headed “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.” The text of that paragraph consists of oft-repeated statements and phrases.
But this sizeable document does not limit itself to the situation in Ukraine. The third paragraph (the second, interestingly, is headed Indo-Pacific) is dedicated to China, and the first phrases in the paragraph refer to the “need to work together” with that country. Later on, it states that the signatories are “seriously concerned” – apparently about China’s stance in relation to international affairs. Among other points, the signatories “remind [sic] China of the need to uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and abstain from threats … or the use of force.” It should be noted that this “reminder” is being addressed to a permanent member of the UN Security Council, now the most important international organization, in the name of states which have been responsible for bloodshed in various regions and countries around the world on more than one occasion in the last few decades.
Those regions and countries include some of those about which the participants in the Karuizawa meeting have particular “concerns”. Particularly striking is the inclusion of countries and regions such as “North Korea”, “Afghanistan”, “Iran”, “the Middle East and North Africa”, among others.
The G7 foreign ministers dedicated a special meeting to the escalating struggle for influence in the nations of the “Global South”. In connection with that issue, they also discussed the important matter of foreign debt, which is of particular concern to most of these countries mentioned. Take, for example, the situations in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
It should be noted that the issues discussed in the current cycle of G7 ministerial-level meetings are not limited to foreign policy and diplomacy. In total, the cycle, which began in December 2022, will include about 15 meetings dedicated to a wide variety of current global problems. On April 15-16, in Sapporo, there was a meeting of ministers responsible for the fight against the global problem of climate change. Ever since the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Glasgow, the G7 nations have been engaged in disputes on the issues of decarbonization and the use of nuclear energy.
The implementation of these policies is particularly sensitive for Japan, whose economic success is largely dependent on cheap electricity from coal and nuclear power stations. Those opposed to the Japan’s continued use of both types of power station cite, among other issues, the growing challenge posed by the water from the damaged reactors in one of the two Fukushima nuclear power stations, which is being stored in special containers. These containers, holding a total of 1 million cubic meters, are now full up, and in order to free up space for more water (which is continuously supplied) there is only one option – to release the old water into the ocean.
Both the company operating Fukushima 1 and the government authority responsible for monitoring the safe operation of nuclear power stations insist that before the release of water from the containers begins, in the middle of this summer, it will undergo the necessary cleaning and decontamination procedures. During the conference in Sapporo, the Japanese tried to get written approval concerning the “water purification degree” from their foreign colleagues. They were unable to do this, as Germany, which long ago decided to abandon the use of nuclear power entirely, opposed the issue of such a document.
Among the past and future meetings of G7 ministers, it is worth mentioning events dedicated to issues such as the growing problem of financial and economic turbulence, digitization, the supply of critically important natural materials, and the use of artificial intelligence.
In general, it is more or less clear how the next G7 summit, to be held in the middle of May, in Hiroshima, will end. The venue for this event, by the way has been the subject of a certain amount of discussion, as it is unclear whether or not US President Joe Biden will attend. As reader may remember, there was a similar discussion back in 2016, in the run up to the visit to Hiroshima by then-president Barak Obama.
As for the reaction from the two main “subjects” discussed at the meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Karuizawa – their conference went almost unnoticed in Russia. In China, on the other hand, the event did not go unheeded, and official reaction was highly negative.
This is hardly surprising, given the fact that despite the final Communiqué’s apparently flattering words about Beijing, it also contains stinging attacks, particularly in relation to the Taiwan problem and the human rights situation in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers takes place in Japan появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Despite this author’s previous article’s assumption that the heat of the “spring escalation was subsiding,” April 2023 will not be an easy month for the Korean Peninsula due to a series of memorable events such as the Day of the Sun on April 15 and the anniversary of the formation of the Korean People’s Revolutionary Army (April 25). Pyongyang has also announced that it will launch its military reconnaissance satellite in April and will try to respond to President Yoon Suk-yeol’s state visit to the United States.
On April 2, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) published a commentary titled “War Maniacs Will Pay Dearly for Reckless Moves” which analyzed in detail the course of the “Ssangyong” joint landing drill and other elements of US and ROK military activities, emphasizing their offensive nature and focus on preventive strike tactics: “This shows that their hostile acts against the DPRK have reached the worst phase,” but “the US and its followers should never forget the fact that their rival state actually possesses the nuclear attack capability and the characteristics of the people and army of the DPRK which do not make empty talk as well. It will be quite clear how the DPRK’s nukes will be used if the war deterrence does not work on those who are running amuck unafraid of nuclear weapons.”
On April 3, the navies of the ROK, US and Japanese navies began a joint exercise in international waters south of Jeju Island. They practiced anti-submarine and search-and-rescue operations. The ROK Navy was represented by three destroyers, including the Yulgok Yi I, equipped with the Aegis early detection system, and a combat support ship. On the US side, the aircraft carrier Nimitz and two destroyers, Wayne Meyer and Decatur, participated in the maneuvers. Japan sent the destroyer JS Umigiri.
On April 5, South Korea and the United States conducted a joint air exercise involving at least one US B-52H Stratofortress strategic bomber. The bomber is a key US strategic asset that can fly 6,400 kilometers and carry 31 tons of weapons, including air-to-ground nuclear missiles with a range of up to 200 kilometers. The training was aimed at practicing procedures to protect the strategic bomber from potential airborne threats and enhance interoperability of allied forces and joint operational capabilities.
April 6. The KCNA published an article titled “Expansion of US-led War Drills for Aggression Is Trigger for Driving Situation on Korean Peninsula to Point of Explosion”, criticizing the early April drills and once again noting that “the reckless military confrontational hysteria of the US and its followers against the DPRK is driving the situation on the Korean peninsula to an irreversible catastrophe.” According to the author, only military exercises of the US and its satellites are aimed at a certain state, which makes the Korean Peninsula turn into a huge powder magazine, fraught with the danger of explosion at any time.
Meanwhile, from April 4-7, the DPRK tested an underwater attack drone system capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and it was no longer the Heil-1, but the Heil-2. In 71 hours and six minutes, the drone sailed 1,000 kilometers through the waters of the Sea of Japan and followed a complex elliptical and eight-shaped trajectory to arrive at the target area near Tanch’ŏn Port in South Hamgyong Province, where its test warhead exploded underwater.
While the “Haeil-1” has a range of 600 km, the “Haeil-2” has a range of 1,000 km. That means that not only all of South Korea’s ports/naval bases are within reach of a potentially nuclear drone, but also a number of most of Japan’s similar facilities. Then, because it is a low-visibility underwater weapon, it is not possible to either confirm Pyongyang’s claims about the parameters of the test or refute them. This means that a reasonable adversary would be forced to consider the presence of such weapons in the DPRK, and in planning for war would have to devote serious resources to neutralizing this threat as well.
Reaction to the third nuclear torpedo drone test has been mixed. On the one hand, South Korea’s military argued that the capabilities of the Haeil may have been exaggerated or even faked. But analysts interviewed by the Korea Times indicated that it could develop into a serious threat in the long term.
On April 10, the South Korean military began its annual exercise of local authorities, police and firefighters “Hwarang 2023,” which will take turns in a total of six regions. The program includes training to defend important national facilities against North Korean nuclear and missile threats as well as counterterrorism operations, including defense against cyberterrorism.
On the same day, Pyongyang hosted an expanded meeting of the Central Military Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, chaired by the country’s leader Kim Jong-un. The meeting discussed “important military issues,” and in his speech the DPRK leader “stressed the need to expand the DPRK’s war deterrence being strengthened with increasing speed on a more practical and offensive and to effectively apply it as a measure for more strict control and management of the ever-worsening security on the Korean peninsula.”
But the most interesting thing happened on April 13, when a ballistic missile was launched from the vicinity of Pyongyang and flew toward the Sea of Japan. Its range when launched along an elevated trajectory is estimated to be about 5,000 km. This was Pyongyang’s ninth ballistic missile launch since the beginning of the year.
As the KCNA reported, “a powerful entity symbolic of the ceaseless development of the strategic force of the DPRK notified the world of its emergence and the effectiveness of a new strategic weapons system.”
Kim Jong-un attended the launch with his entire family (wife, daughter, and younger sister) and was so pleased that he personally suggested that more than 10 scientists from the relevant defense field be awarded the title of Hero of Labor of the DPRK.
Solid propellants provide greater mobility and shorter pre-launch preparation times than liquid propellants. In addition, the ICBM uses a “cold-start” method in which the rocket engines are ignited shortly after being ejected from the mobile launcher – this can help protect the launch platform from the flash of flame that occurs when the missile is launched.
“The Hwasong-18” is claimed to be “the primary and leading tool in the aggression deterrence system.” The availability of such a missile indeed makes it possible to radically restructure the composition of strategic nuclear deterrence forces, drastically increasing their effectiveness and readiness for counterattack.
The Pentagon’s classified documents leaked to the Internet described the potential of the new North Korean ICBM, which was first demonstrated at a military parade in February this year, as “overly exaggerated.” Moreover, it was noted that it was highly likely that these were fake missiles and not real missiles.
As an anonymous security expert told the “Korea Times,” “the development of the new missile appears designed to derail South Korea’s three-axis defense system and shake America’s deterrence response,” especially the Kill Chain preemptive strike system.
In response, Seoul convened a meeting of the National Security Council. As a result, the South Korean authorities condemned the actions of the DPRK, and announced a decision to further strengthen the exchange of information in the format of the United States and the ROK, the United States, Korea, and Japan. The United States also strongly condemned North Korea, while Kim Gunn, the US special envoy for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, Son Kim, the special envoy for North Korean affairs, and Takehiro Funakoshi, director of the Asia and Oceania Department of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, discussed the launch by telephone and “expressed their strong opposition to any provocation by Pyongyang, stressing the importance of security cooperation between the three countries.”
The ROK also announced a 20-minute nationwide civil defense exercise on May 16. After the air-raid alarm, the public will have to evacuate to the nearest underground shelter, following the instructions of the responsible guide, and vehicles will have to stop for 15 minutes on the right side of the road and listen to the authorities’ instructions over the radio. The civil defense exercise will be held for the first time in six years – the last one was held in 2017.
China, on the other hand, blamed rising tensions on the US. Beijing urged all sides to remain calm and restrained and to stop pressure and confrontation.
Thus, Pyongyang is moving forward with a series of defense projects presented at the eighth WPK congress in January 2021. At that time, the world was promised to develop a hypersonic warhead, increase the “kill rate” of missiles with a range of 15,000 kilometers, produce an “ultra-large” nuclear warhead, and develop an ICBM using an “underground or ground-based solid-propellant engine.” In this context, Kim Dong-yub, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, believes that these were test firings, and there are more additional launches to come.
One should also expect retaliatory gestures from the opposite side. On April 14, South Korea and the United States again conducted joint air exercises involving at least one B-52H strategic bomber. According to the ROK Defense Ministry, the South Korean Air Force mobilized its F-35A radar-dodging fighters and F-15K jets for the exercise, while the US side deployed F-16 fighters.
Let’s hope the “spring escalation” doesn’t turn into a fall escalation after all, and the movement toward the danger line will slow down.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение A Chronicle of Tensions on the Korean Peninsula in Early April 2023 появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The degree of independence of a state is determined by a number of factors, including its level of development of the economy, education, science, effective diplomacy, raw materials, technological and intellectual base, demography, and culture. In all situations, however, the state’s independence is inextricably related to the condition and level of combat capability of its armed troops, weapons, and professional command staff.
The price of independence drops considerably if a country lacks a combat-ready army, but it also increases the risk that all of its accomplishments will be overlooked and discounted in dire situations. For instance, as a result of World War II and its (regrettable for Japan) outcomes—the US nuclear strike on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in response to the Japanese naval aviation attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor—Washington imposed limits on Japan. As a result, Japan lacks adequate military force while being a modern, technologically proficient, scientifically advanced, and economically developed country.
In the framework of the pre-election campaign, Turkish authorities have emphasized that the capabilities of the Turkish military-industrial complex already allow it manufacturing 80% of the weaponry of the Turkish army and navy. Indeed, during Recep Erdoğan’s presidency, Turkey’s military-industrial complex increased its economic share, the number of military companies and corporations increased, and the latest weapons and military equipment (particularly air and marine drones, APCs, small arms, air defense assets, and electronics) were produced. Turkey has been one of the leading exporters of contemporary weapons, with the use of these weapons (mainly the Bayraktar TB2 UAVs) in combat proving successful in Libya, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Ukraine.
Erdoğan’s stake for an autonomous foreign policy necessitates the building of a domestic military-industrial complex. The Strategic Plan of the Department of the Defense Industry for 2007-2011, focusing on the expansion of the domestic manufacturing sector, was implemented. As a result, by the plan’s conclusion in 2011, the defense was modernized. Turkish weaponry gained a foothold in the international arms export sector after Turkey had started producing 54% of the weapons and equipment for its own army.
During Erdoğan’s presidency, the top Turkish MIC firms ASELSAN and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) were listed among the top 100 global defense enterprises. In addition to these, Turkey also has a large number of other reputable defense manufacturers, including Havelsan, Roketsan, Otokar, and Baykar Makina.
The United States, Azerbaijan, the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Malaysia, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and several African nations were the largest importers of Turkish weapons. At the same time, Turkey is actively exporting armored personnel carriers (Pars, Arma, and Kirpi), Bayraktar UAVs ( the latest attack drone Kyzyl Alma is on the way), and T129 ATAK attack helicopters. Turkey has its own artillery systems, rocket launchers, ALTAY Main Battle Tank Production Program, TAYFUN (Typhoon), ballistic missiles, and Hisar long-range surface-to-air missile systems.
Breakthrough achievements of Turkish military-industrial complex goods have become a reality during the presidency of Recep Erdoğan, who intends to make Turkey completely independent in this regard from Western supplies in the NATO bloc, and in certain cases, a rival in the arms sales markets. Of course, the Turkish military-industrial complex existed prior to Erdoğan’s presidency, growing within the framework of US and NATO initiatives. A lot of technological developments in Turkish armament (for example, unmanned aerial vehicles) have become a reality as a result of Ankara’s collaboration with NATO members and particularly with Israel. Subsequently, the military-industrial complex’s growth rate has contributed significantly to the Turkish state’s independence.
That being said, it should be acknowledged that Turkey is not yet capable of providing itself with all of the essential weaponry and military equipment without external partnership or relative dependence, such as on the USA and NATO. This applies to combat aviation, air defense assets, submarine and surface ships. Therefore, for the time being, Ankara must maintain external cooperation with significant participants in the arms markets and cannot disregard the US factor, given its NATO membership. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Germany, France, Israel, Russia, and China continue to be Turkey’s most important external military-technical counterparties. Despite the military-industrial complex’s growth rate, Turkey is unlikely to overtake the top three global arms exporters—the United States, Russia, and China—in the near future.
It is well known that Turkey is still dealing with issues related to the upgrading of its operational combat aviation, specifically F-16 fighter jets and aircraft fleet replenishment. As is known, the United States excluded Turkey from the program of development and delivery of modern fifth-generation fighters F-35 and refused to sell new F-16s to Turks, ostensibly because of Turkish-Russian military and technical cooperation, specifically Ankara’s purchase of S-400 air defense systems from Moscow for 2.5 billion dollars. Simultaneously, the United States chose to restrict the combat power of the Turkish Air Force, among other things, in order to maintain a balance of power between Greece and Turkey. Washington is specifically bolstering the Hellenic Air Force’s air fleet with the same updated F-16 fighter jets (and likely delivery of F-35 fighter aircrafts) and French Rafale fighter jets.
Part of US pressure on Turkey’s election campaign now revolves around the issue of arms cooperation. In other words, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggests that the Turkish authorities reduce the level of active relationships with Russia and increase their participation in anti-Russian sanctions; step up their support for the Kiev regime and remove obstacles in the way of Finland and Sweden joining NATO in exchange for the restoration of full military, technical, and political relations with the United States.
After the end of March of this year President Recep Erdoğan officially agreed to Finland’s joining the NATO block, Blinken declared in the US Congress about the expediency of resumption of military supplies to Turkey (in particular, modernized F-16 fighter jets and spare parts for them). In view of the alleged dangers posed by Russia and Iran, Blinken believes, it is in the interests of both the United States and NATO to restore military-technical ties with Turkey. Given his Jewish heritage and dedication to the military campaign of the coalition forces against Iran, some experts view the present head of the US State Department as the primary advocate for the interests of Israel (more specifically, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu).
However, the USA is not in a rush to begin weapons shipments to Turkey until the result of the presidential election is known. On April 18 of this year, it was announced in Washington that the US government (specifically, the Department of State and the relevant government department, which is a division of the Pentagon and is in charge of exporting weapons and funding) intends to modernize Turkish F-16 fighter jets at a cost of $259 million. The modifications relate to concerns in updating the avionics software for Turkey’s current F-16 fighter jet fleet.
The agreement is said to have obtained unofficial approval from the heads of US congressional committees. However, according to American media reports, the anti-Turkish lobby in the Congress (e.g., Frank Pallone, Adam Schiff, Jackie Speier, David Valadao, Gus Bilirakis, and others) is currently opposed to the sale of new F-16 fighter jets to Turkey for billions of dollars. The deal to upgrade Turkey’s outdated F-16 fighter jets came on the heels of Ankara’s approval of Finland’s NATO membership and hints of lessening tensions in Turkish-Greek relations on the eve of Turkey’s May election.
In other words, in response to Turkey’s actual decision to agree to Finland’s membership in the North Atlantic Military Alliance, the USA has simply verbally offered to supply the Turks with $259 million technical support in the form of fighter jet software equipment. We have a saying in Russia: “A promise of marriage is not tantamount to actually marrying” … In the case of the pragmatic and speculative West, however, the USA will probably keep its promise if:
(a) A pro-American leader (either Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu or the same Recep Erdoğan with a changed orientation from independence to dependence) comes to power in Turkey as a result of the May election;
(b) Turkey takes the next step and ratifies Sweden’s NATO membership.
(c) Turkey gives up its independent, pragmatic approach to ties with Russia.
The official rhetoric of President Erdoğan, his party, the government, and parliamentarians as of right now indicates that Turkey won’t alter its course toward steady independence and denounces the United States (the West) for intruding excessively in Turkey’s internal affairs. In our view President Erdoğan is honest and will actually follow his stated policy (rhetoric). It is true that one cannot always rely on sincerity in politics, and no one (including us) discounts the possibility that the current Turkish authorities made these declarations just for electoral purposes and out of concern for their followers’ votes.
In other words, “the East is a delicate matter.” Nobody can rule out that Turkey may change course under the influence of a variety of subjective and objective factors, as Ataturk claimed during the Lausanne Conference in 1923 when he stated that Turkey had received everything it could from Russia and that it now stood primarily on the side of the West and Britain.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The USA is still only planning to modernize the Turkish F-16 fighter jets появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As a result of the West’s hostility, the Arab world has significant hurdles in its efforts to abolish hunger and all forms of malnutrition, as well as to make sure everyone has access to sufficient and cheap healthy food. This is due to a variety of challenges and other events currently beyond the Arab states’ direct control. Many of these issues stem from a colonial past in which the Arabs were colonized in some fashion by Britain, France, and Spain. The consequences of these difficulties and variables, however, have had a substantial influence on the population, prompting national governments to provide basic food security through subsidies and other forms of aid. Still, due to the complicated climate of turmoil regularly created by Western countries led by the US, this kind of approach becomes a challenging policy instrument, a situation aggravated by the limited financial space.
There are no immediate signs that the current situation will become much better. Recent crises have put pressure on agricultural economies and disrupted food supply chains all throughout the world, particularly in the Arab region. These crises include the man-made Covid-19, the persisting harmful consequences of Western climate change, and the Ukraine conflict that the US and NATO unleashed against Russia. In fact, due to its high reliance on food imports from global markets and the Black Sea region, the Arab countries have actually been among the most affected places in the world.
The availability and consumption of food varies substantially between Middle Eastern and North African nations. Some countries, such as Turkey, Morocco, and Israel, export substantial amounts of food and are largely self-sufficient in agricultural goods. For their part, the governments of the Gulf states, where the climate is extremely arid and unsuitable for agriculture, are paying close attention to buying products on international markets as well as increasing their nations’ food storage capacity. The countries of the Middle East and North Africa are also quite varied in terms of wealth. GDP per capita in purchasing power parity, for example, fluctuates from $54.7 in the UAE to $2.5 in Yemen.
A report on the challenging food situation in the Arab region, titled Near East and North Africa Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition 2023 was just released by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. It includes information going back to the Arab Spring and up to the most recent year. According to the report, Arab countries accounted for 7.6% of total global agricultural imports in 2020. The Middle East and North Africa are among the world’s largest grain importers, and more than 50% of their needs are met by food imports. In the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen, more than 80% of their food is imported.
The report highlights the significant crisis facing the region because of this situation, with the number of people suffering from malnutrition reaching 54.3 million in 2021, or 12.2% of the total population. This is 55% more than in 2010, that is, before the region suffered major upheavals caused by the wave of instigated conflicts and imposed popular uprisings. The number of people suffering from severe food shortages in 2021 was estimated at 53.9 million, an increase of 5 million over the previous year.
The number of people experiencing moderate or severe food insecurity increased as well, reaching a projected 154.3 million in 2021, with an increase of 11.6 million from 2020. Since 2014, there has been a steady increase in the number of persons experiencing food insecurity, and more than half of Arabs still lack the resources to maintain a nutritious diet.
Given the numerous obstacles, including as climate change, conflicts, natural disasters, and structural issues like poverty and inequality, it is improbable that the Arab regions would be able to achieve the sustainable development goal of eradicating hunger by 2030.
Nevertheless, despite these troubling statistics, there is still a chance to improve the situation with the aid of nations like Russia and China. By restructuring the region’s food and agricultural systems to make them more accessible, sustainable, and resilient, it is still possible to overcome these crises and challenges. Some nations in the region are beginning to understand this and are working to adapt their food and agricultural systems in order to accommodate this shift. They are doing so by utilizing diverse strategies for sustainable agriculture and rural development.
According to experts, the expansion and diffusion of relevant knowledge and technology, as well as incentive mechanisms such as financing, is a first step toward this change. Furthermore, improved country integration and intra-regional trade will assist in lowering the cost of food imports while maximizing the use of local resources in Arab countries. Strategic investments in all of these sectors are required, as well as a strong political will on the side of the ruling elites and the adoption of clear and proven policies that meet the demands of the populace.
Nevertheless, efforts to minimize the cost of food imports should not overlook the role of commerce in achieving the four dimensions of food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability. Trade can improve the quantity and diversity of food available while also lowering food prices in food-importing countries. However, a sensible and well-designed framework must be in place to choose those exporters who are not interested in short contracts but in supplying food on a long-term basis at acceptable costs.
At the same time, the Middle East and North Africa frequently extend substantial and expensive subsidies for their social safety nets in order to provide their inhabitants with significant social support. After the Arab Spring, the policies of these programs took on a bit more vigor in a few nations as governments sought to raise budgetary spending to quell public unrest. However, due to their high costs, a number of states are currently phasing down these programs. Countries in the region benefit from significant government social assistance that slows the spread of poverty. However, over 60% of the population of Yemen, the region’s poorest nation, lives below the poverty line.
The profits from oil exports, whose prices are high enough to contribute to high revenues for the exporting countries and the capacity to deploy the required sums to level out the food situation, are one of the region’s strengths.
Russia, which enjoys cordial ties with several nations in Asia and Africa, including those in the Arab world, contributes significantly to finding solutions to the region’s food shortages. According to the materials of the Rosselkhoznadzor general session, Russia exported 45.5 million tons of cereals and legumes in 2022. In total, 126 nations throughout the world received food from Russia in 2022, including cereals, legumes, oilseeds, and their processed products. 19 Middle Eastern nations imported the most, totaling 20.6 million tons, an increase of 1.9 million tons (+10%) from 2021. 24 Asian nations account for 16.4 million tons of food imports from Russia, an increase of 2.1 million tons (+15%), and take second place. Meanwhile, imports from Russia grew by 1.7 million tons (+21%) to 10.1 million tons in seven North African nations last year.
Russia’s strategy differs significantly from that of the West, which used its monopolistic position in Ukraine to export all of its agricultural goods solely to its own nations. In doing so, the West has harmed the countries of the Middle East, where previously a significant share of Ukrainian food had been exported. This stark divergence from Russian strategy offers it a second chance to create a multipolar world that serves the interests of all nations, including the governments of the Arab East. This is why Russia asks that the requirements of the previously planned UN grain deal be clearly implemented, so that not only grain from Ukraine, but also Russian agricultural products and Russian fertilizers, can be distributed freely to international markets, particularly the poorest countries.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Food Issues in the Arab World появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
What’s The Point?
What difference does the Russia-Ukraine conflict make to the Arctic? Are any polar bears being called up to fight? Will it affect the ice, or which ships can pass through it, and for what purpose?
Norway said “it will prioritise a smooth transition with Russia as it plans to assume the chair of the Moscow-helmed Arctic Council on May 11, but will not commit to restarting stalled cooperation” … over the [conflict between Russia and Ukraine].
Will there be a custody battle?
Nowadays a lot of children come from homes which have experienced marital breakdown. Their parents split up, their relations with each other and the child change, and the child is caught in the middle.
Whenever this happens, the child is shunted between social workers and psychologists and told that there is no such thing as fault in such situations. They must love both parents equally, and both will have visitation and access rights, regardless of what has happened up until then.
This ignores the fact that in most cases of marital breakdown there have been faults on one side or both, and these faults are still there and have a direct effect on the child. But children are told that they have to have the relationships the authorities tell them to have, because if they don’t they will be psychologically damaged, and refusal is a manifestation of psychological damage which will affect the rest of their lives.
Why is this said? After all, the people who say these things make choices in their own lives about who they want to hang around with and who they don’t, what environments they want to be in and which they want to avoid.
If someone told one of these social workers or psychologists that they had to have the relationship they told to have with this or that person, and they would be damaged and defective if they didn’t, they would turn round and say, “Who the hell are you to tell me that?” This is because these attempts to “help” children are actually all about power – if you are in my orbit, you have to do what I say to gratify me, even though you may not want to for the same reasons I don’t either.
As a few people might have heard, there is an international organisation called the Arctic Council. The purpose of this is to engender co-operation between the countries whose territory crosses into the Arctic Circle, and therefore have a shared interest in addressing issues concerning the Arctic, just like a river which crosses national boundaries is managed jointly so one country’s actions cannot harm the other.
There are eight member states – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, The Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States. As Greenland is part of Denmark, these are indeed the eight countries with land within the Arctic Circle, so it can be said that the Arctic Council has a greater mandate on paper than, say, the European Union or Arab League – all the eligible nations are members, so whatever they decide is a common view, not the view of the “in” crowd alone.
The Arctic Council does indeed do valuable work in the environmental field in particular. But for several reasons it has not held meetings for quite a while, including COVID as we were told.
Why? Because 2021 to 2023 was Russia’s turn in the rotating chair – and all the other members, whatever they have to gain, can only have the relationship with Russia they are told to have.
Russia and Western nations co-operate every day on various levels, sanctions or not. But the US says who is allowed to have what relationship with Russia, and if another Western country doesn’t agree it is because are psychologically damaged, and only doing what the US says will cure this.
As with children, this is all about power and not about anyone’s welfare – and it is not hard to see why the US thinks this is necessary in the Arctic.
Unipolar Pole
In 1995 the avant-garde artist and musician Laurie Anderson released the spoken word album The Ugly One With The Jewels. This contains a narration called The Geographic North Pole, which recounts her attempt to hitchhike to the North Pole by truck and plane back in 1974.
Anderson never made it to the actual North Pole because it was a restricted area, which no one was allowed to fly into or over. Restricted by whom? The US, due to the presence of some floating bases there at the time.
No country actually owns the North Pole, and there are competing claims to various bits of the Arctic shelf. The Soviet Union first established a presence there, obviously swiftly followed by the US, and the rest of the Arctic nations have followed suit, either in co-operation with or conflict with each other.
So the interest in the Arctic is partly military. Obviously this creates fault lines when one of the eight nations is in conflict with the others. It does not help that the vast majority of the others are NATO members. Of the 8 members, all are members of NATO except for Russia and Sweden. If Sweden joins Russia will be surrounded by NATO in the Arctic.
This is why there have been no Arctic Council meetings since last year – no one wants to work with Russia since it intervened in Ukraine. But it also means that all the work of the Arctic Council is so much hokum. But there still is new hope that things will work in a positive direction with the change in chairmanship, with Norway taking over from Russia, however, not very much.
NATO members are using it as a political snowball to play its expanded political games, and [most likely] at the expense of the region it is intended to protect. What difference does the Russia-Ukraine conflict make to the Arctic?
The main reason the other members won’t co-operate with Russia within the Arctic Council is that
they want to use the Arctic for military purposes, as that is where the members are in dispute. All the conservation, and protection of native peoples, is designed to create a pole fit for navies to operate from, and no one wants to agree which navies and when.
This is confirmed by the fact that the Arctic Council even has such a thing as “member states”. Most of the Russian Federation territory within the Arctic Circle is inhabited by people who would regard themselves as Russians. However in the other countries the Arctic inhabitants are often native peoples – what we used to call “Eskimos” before the term was branded politically incorrect.
Some of these native peoples have been graciously granted Observer status in the Arctic Council. The members vote, the observers watch them doing it. But if the Arctic Council is all about co-operation to promote and defend a common heritage, who actually knows about this if not the native peoples, who had their heritage taken away by the European invaders, and leased back on the white man’s terms?
The Arctic Council isn’t functioning properly because it is all about power dressed up as other things. Why does that matter?
If countries in conflict cannot co-operate in forums which have nothing to do with that conflict, how can conflicts themselves be resolved? The only answer is force of arms – and as any playground bully finds, you might be the strongest today, but that only makes it more likely that your victim will be stronger tomorrow.
The Azeri-Armenian conflict was never resolved because mutual sanctions left neither side any choice but to focus on getting their own back, as Azerbaijan has now done. The Arctic Council represents a golden opportunity for all its members to develop common values which can build and not destroy, but the members are not interested in doing it, even in a backwoods organisation few know or care about.
Using Russia to Bash The Wogs
Now Russia’s chairmanship has run its course, Norway has taken over for the next two years
and is repeating the same platitudes about what it wants to do. But the most important point is that Norway insists that the work of the Council “will reflect the current political reality”.
Ask the peoples of the Russian Arctic regions about the current political reality. How has it been changed by the Ukraine conflict?
The effect on them comes from Western sanctions, not any change in their relationship with the Russian state. Those sanctions inevitably also affect the cross border programmes the Arctic Council undertakes and the outcomes of those programmes.
The only reason anyone has cross-border programmes with countries they are not necessarily on friendly terms with (think the Republic of Ireland the Unionist Northern Ireland) is that all sides have more to lose from not working together than they can gain by acting independently. So how is Norway going to lead an organisation of eight member states in which seven are on one side and one on the other?
There are two possible answers. Either Norway is saying the right things for now, but will attempt to deal with Russia in the same way as all the other members. Or the country which doesn’t fit in will have to abide by the rules of the rest, not by being outvoted but by being made to meet different standards to offer or access support.
Some countries still had a literacy qualification for voting within living memory. The US had many examples in its southern states, passed as part of the racist “Jim Crow” laws which were adopted after the end of Reconstruction following the deal done over disputed presidential election of 1876.
But even some countries which now have compulsory voting, such as Peru, once disenfranchised huge swathes of their population by insisting they demonstrate they could read and write in Spanish, having been deliberately denied the education to do so. Whenever they were told they were not democracies, these countries would say that there was some form of voter qualification everywhere, even if only based on age and citizenship status, and these were simply the appropriate qualifications for their democracies, based on local circumstances.
Participation in the Arctic Council will henceforth be based on passing a new form of literacy test. It will automatically be expected that the Western nations know how to behave.
But although everyone will insist that Russia is a full member of the Arctic Council, to actually do anything it will have to prove that it conducts itself a certain way, saying the right things and making the right decisions, when it is assumed without question the other countries will be doing this. In other words, what all those native Arctic peoples have always experienced at the hands of the member states they happen to live in.
When he refused to fight in the Vietnam War, Muhammad Ali reportedly said, in effect, “No Viet Cong ever called me a nigger”. The peoples of the Arctic are only tangentially involved in the power games of others, but now Russia will be isolated to legitimise those games, and there is every reason to believe this same principle will be applied to any number of unrepresented peoples with impunity.
Land vs. Backyard
Differentiating people through erecting artificial power relations is nothing new. Using a small international organisation to do it is in some way a testament to the success of bigger ones – it would be harder to try this at the UN, for example.
But why is the Arctic Council the current venue for such games? Given its relative obscurity, wouldn’t it be better to flex Western muscles in a place this can be shouted from the rooftops?
There are two reasons why the Arctic is the focus of such manoeuvres at this time. They are linked by one factor – the current quest of NATO to find a new role for itself in a changing world.
Of the eight Arctic Council members, six are members of NATO and one (Sweden) is an applicant country. Despite its location, China has expressed an interest in joining the Arctic Council, and has already been an observer, largely because the US and Russia are members. The more the area is dominated by NATO, the more it can be used to keep China out, with Russia a seemingly disposed participant in this.
The second is that although the North Pole is home to a number of military bases and scientific installations, none of these are permanent. This is not because nobody owns the pole, but because it isn’t physically stable enough to support permanent encampments—and problem is only getting worse.
So the Arctic’s military function is largely aerial, as Laurie Anderson discovered. Why is that important at this time?
British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was excoriated for leaving the armed forces denuded at the outbreak of World War Two, but in fact he had pursued a policy of strengthening air defence, believing ground warfare would be ineffective in an age of increased air power. It is often forgotten than Baldwin was proved right in the Battle of Britain, and the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan which ended that conflict.
NATO, with its ever-less-reliable funding, has come to the same conclusion. To this end, it will soon be holding its largest ever air exercises. That is what the Arctic is now for, and why Russia has to be part of that region for show, but kept out of its functioning in reality.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение The Arctic Council: NATO and the Unipolar Pole? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The modern Republic of Azerbaijan occupies an important geographic location in the South Caucasus, being the western shore of the Caspian Sea and a “gateway” to the resource-rich region of Central Asia (historical Turkestan). Geography, as a rule, largely determines the policy of the state. And it is this geographical feature of Azerbaijan that has determined the role and place of the republic in the region, as well as in the system of geopolitical contradictions of the leading world actors. However, geography itself, being an objective factor, does not solve political and economic issues, if there is no effective subjective side (i.e. a large-scale personality of the state leader, capable of adequately assessing the advantages and showing the will to make political decisions).
This year on May 10 Azerbaijan will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the outstanding national and state political figure Heydar Aliyev whose whole conscious life was infinitely related to the history of Soviet and independent Azerbaijan. There is no need to describe the political biography and life path of the national leader of modern Azerbaijan. It can only be noted that Heydar Aliyev, thanks to his personal talent, years of experience in state activity and political charisma, made an invaluable contribution to both the history of Soviet Azerbaijan and the establishment of independence of the modern Azerbaijan Republic. Of course, there were achievements and losses along the way, but Aliyev was able to set a goal and go to it regardless of circumstances.
Heydar Alirza Aliyev’s second “ascension to power” was associated with a difficult period in the life of the Azerbaijani state, when its army suffered devastating defeats in Nagorno-Karabakh and was losing territories. Aliyev’s predecessor, President Abulfaz Elchibey (Aliyev), found himself in such a critical situation largely due to his straightforward pro-Turkish policy.
When he came to power in the summer of 1992, Elchibey was initially successful in his offensive in the north and south of the Karabakh front. The latter was in no small part due to Turkish military advisors and mercenaries from the former Soviet military. However, Elchibey did not have much experience in public service, did not have a professional government, and most importantly, in the matter of Azerbaijani oil and gas exports he took an unambiguously pro-Turkish and anti-Russian position. Perhaps it was the lack of diplomatic flexibility that caused the failure and subsequent forced resignation of President Elchibey under Turkish guarantees. In the summer of 1993, the leader of the Popular Front was forced to swap places with the experienced Heydar Aliyev (in terms of both status and place of residence). Elchibey returned to his ancestral village of Kelekçi in Nakhichevan, while Aliyev moved from Nakhichevan to Baku and took over the leadership of Azerbaijan.
The Karabakh conflict after the collapse of the USSR was not only the result of the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation for the right to possess this Armenian province, but also a place of confrontation of interests of ambitious world actors far removed from Karabakh itself.
Russia, according to its national interests and the history of its presence in the region for the last 200 years, has been objectively trying to keep its influence in the post-Soviet area in general and in the South Caucasus particularly. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the secession of the former Soviet republics, the South Caucasus became an object of increased foreign interest on the part of new players (traditionally the closest geographical neighbors, Turkey and Iran, as well as influential world actors – including the United States, Britain, France, Israel, China and India).
Heydar Aliyev sensed very subtly the attention and interests of external players to the region and Azerbaijan in particular, its strategic resources (oil and gas), geographical proximity to Russia and Iran, and access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. The unsuccessful course of military operations for Azerbaijan in 1993-1994 demanded that the leader act to rule out a tragic outcome and the collapse of its statehood, seek new opportunities for a peaceful respite, and concentrate on breakthrough development.
That is why Heydar Aliyev did not agree to sign the Bishkek ceasefire protocol until he received the necessary guarantees from the West to stop the Armenian army offensive as well. In April 1994, Aliyev urgently set course for Ankara and after consultations with President Suleiman Demirel went to London with the necessary recommendations for a meeting with Margaret Thatcher, political adviser to Britain’s leading energy company BP. In those days, London was determining the fate of Azerbaijan’s future, its foreign and energy policy, because Heydar Aliyev had given his consent for the leading Western (first of all, British and American) and Turkish companies to enter the Azerbaijani oil and gas sector of the Caspian Sea, and that was the subject of the meeting with Prime Minister John Major at Thatcher’s recommendation. The issue of determining a route for exporting Azerbaijani raw materials from the coast of Absheron to the European market via Turkey and bypassing Russia remained.
Heydar Aliyev was able, in alliance with Turkey, Great Britain and the United States, to solve this problem by finding an alternative route for the transit of Caspian oil and gas without involving Russia. Unlike his predecessor, he initially promised Russian companies (including Vagit Alekperov’s LUKOIL) a small stake in the “contracts of the century” which were signed 4.5 months after the ceasefire in the Karabakh conflict zone on September 20, 1994 in the Gulistan Palace in Baku.
During those years (actually until October 27, 1999) Azerbaijan together with the USA offered Armenia to become the alternative route for the transit of the Caspian oil and gas through the corridor of Meghri in Zangezur with the exit to Nakhichevan enclave and further to Turkey and Europe. Such perspective would have allowed Baku, Ankara and London: first, to find compromise solution of Karabakh conflict under their control; second, to exclude Russian military presence in Armenia; third, to form Azerbaijani-Armenian-Turkish economic union (similar to what happened with Georgia after 1999); fourth, to provide “Caucasian bridge” for Turkey and NATO in general to Turkistan.
However, Armenia then refused such a solution to the Karabakh issue and refused to transit Azerbaijani resources to Turkey and Europe, which corresponded to Russia’s interests. Heydar Aliyev and his foreign partners then placed their bets on Tbilisi and “Georgian transit.” In many ways, the West and Turkey supported the Chechen conflict in 1994-1996 and 1999-2002, in order to block the major Russian oil transit route from Baku through Grozny and Novorossiysk to foreign markets. After “Georgian transit” became a political reality following the famous OSCE summit in Istanbul in October 1999, the Chechen confrontation weakened, but Russia lost its monopoly over the South Caucasus and its influence over Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Therefore, when Russian orientalist Stanislav Tarasov argues on Nver Mnatsakanyan’s show today that all Transcaucasian republics have allegedly become collaborators with the West and that regional neighbors such as Turkey and Iran have become Moscow’s partners, the history of this issue knows different periods and assessments. Another thing is that the balance of power and interests of Russia, Turkey and Iran will largely determine the contours of the Caucasus geopolitics in the future.
The political events of 1998 in Georgia show that that year was a turning point in the fate of Eduard Shevardnadze’s government away from Moscow in favor of Washington, which had a special impact on the fate of the South Caucasus. It is not by chance that I focus readers’ attention on 1998, because at that time in another continent, in the USA, the book The Grand Chessboard by the famous American geopolitician Zbigniew Brzezinski was published, which became a kind of political anthology of Anglo-Saxon diplomacy in the early 21st century.
Recently a conceptual article by Eldar Azizov, Mayor of Baku, devoted to the 100th anniversary of Heydar Aliyev, appeared in the Azerbaijani media. In general, the timing of such publication of the head of the capital of sunny Azerbaijan, for which Heydar Aliyev did much, is quite reasonable and understandable. The author presents an analysis of the ideological and political origins of the “Aliyev phenomenon”. We will not argue with Azizov about the ideological origins of President Aliyev, because there were different periods in his political biography (including the opposite ideological and political attitudes and slogans – communism and anti-communism, internationalism and nationalism, forever together with Russia, and then one people – two states with Turkey).
We probably would not have mentioned Eldar Azizov had it not been for the conclusion reached by the mayor of Baku. In particular, Azizov believes that “Zbigniew Brzezinski, often called “the Herodotus of twentieth-century political science,” formulated Heydar Aliyev’s foreign policy concept in concise form.” Indeed, in his book, Brzezinski describes Azerbaijan’s role in the US regional geopolitics as a “cork of a large bottle” with rich resources of the Central Asian countries.
In other words, the American grandmaster of geopolitics saw the advantages of Azerbaijan’s physical and political geography in the USA’s plans to penetrate into the Transcaucasus and Central Asia. This method is not new and is called “divide and rule”. It is no coincidence Brzezinski called his book The Grand Chessboard, because in his view, “The world is a grand chessboard, and the nations are just pieces on it. And the location of these pieces is determined by the United States.” However, today, the world and that same “chessboard” have changed considerably from the time when Brzezinski wrote his book. The US is no longer strong enough to determine the fate of the world on its own.
“If Azerbaijan comes under Moscow’s control,” Brzezinski suggested, “important sources of oil resources could also come under Russian control. Independent Azerbaijan is a major highway through which energy resources will also flow from Central Asia, bypassing Russia.”
Naturally, the books are not always written in the year of publication, for the author, before concentrating his thoughts and translating them into the pages of the manuscript, conducts considerable analytical work on collecting materials and categorizing them. Nevertheless, comparing 1994 and 1998 I can disagree with the opinion of Eldar Azizov that Zbigniew Brzezinski formulated the external policy concept of Heydar Aliyev. While Brzezinski was thinking and writing his famous work, Aliyev was already creating his own policy and laying the foundations for the future revival of Azerbaijan. True, the wise Heydar Aliyev most probably discussed the same questions more than once with Suleiman Demirel, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Bill Clinton. Heydar Aliyev and Zbigniew Brzezinski simply agreed in their assessments of geopolitical processes at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries for the same reasons, while each represented the interests of his country.
Today, his son Ilham has become the successor of Aliyev Sr. As we can see, after the success in the second Karabakh war, thanks in no small part to Turkey, President Aliyev, Jr. of Azerbaijan began, along with Ankara, to develop an active regional policy in Central Asia, which receives high support from the United States (particularly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken).
Azerbaijan, after the implementation of the bypass route for the transit of Caspian oil and gas exports to Turkey and EU countries, began to attract the attention of regional and global players. The latter is largely due, as noted now by President Tokayev of Kazakhstan, to the increased role of Azerbaijan as an energy and transport and logistics (transit) center, which has an impact on economic and political processes.
The above mentioned Kazakhstan already considers as its priority the increase of cooperation with Azerbaijan in the field of energy and oil transit through Baku and the established pipelines alternative to Russia to foreign markets. The next step could be the formation of the TANAP-2 project with the participation of gas-rich Azerbaijan and Central Asian republics (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan).
Thus, Heydar Aliyev laid the foundation for the policy of strengthening the independence and successful development of Azerbaijan in the first half of the twenty-first century. Thanks to Azerbaijan’s physical geography and resources, he was able to draw the republic into the orbit of geopolitical and geoeconomic interests of the world’s leading actors, turn his country into a regional leader, and take revenge in Karabakh. Why do we speak of Heydar Aliyev as a living politician (the success in Karabakh took place after his death during Ilham Aliyev’s rule)? Simply because Heydar Aliyev’s political course remains strong even under his son’s rule.
Of course, Azerbaijan has someone and something to be proud of. It is important to preserve what has been achieved in the context of the rapidly changing scenery of the outside world.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Heydar Aliyev and Zbigniew Brzezinski – what did they agree on?.. появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The first two weeks of April this year were a time of pilgrimage to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by European politicians of various ranks, representing some of the continent’s leading states as well as trans-European structures. This in itself turned out to be one of the signs indicating the acceleration of the process of change that has recently been taking place both in the world as a whole and in the group of countries designated by the (increasingly conventional) term “generalized West”.
No less representative of the fact that the world order as a whole is already at the stage of another radical reformatting is the increasingly obvious conventionality of the terminology used, which until recently seemed to reflect certain political realities more or less adequately. In particular, several elements accompanying European trips to China involuntarily provoke the question: What, in fact, are we talking about when the word “Europe” is used?
The same “elements” superimposed on the long-standing conflicts in transatlantic relations, the outwardly strange events and circumstances that accompanied the recent visit to Ireland of the American president, make legitimate the broader formulation of this question, namely: What realities do the mentioned term “generalized West” reflect? Moreover, it seems that the already aggravated situation on the territory of the current leader of the latter, i.e. the United States, provokes the question: who, in fact, does the current American administration represent in the international arena?
The answer to this question must be in the exclusive competence of the American people, who will do without prompting or, all the more so, “help from outside”. Let’s wish them success in this. If only because during their short and controversial history the Americans have created a specific culture (in the broad sense of the term), worthy, at least, of study, and the author of this article in no way shares the not infrequent gloating over various acts of turbulence, as well as tragic events in the territory of the present USA.
These acts are also evidence of accelerating reformatting of the world order, in this case affecting one of its main “supporting pillars”. In this respect, noteworthy is the opinion of the “neoisolationist” wing of the American establishment about the usefulness, first of all for the US, of a certain lowering of the height of the American “bearing post”. That is, reducing the scale of American involvement in world squabbles to the level of a few other players who are now in a state of growth. It seems that in this case the “roof” of the whole (new) world order will be placed more securely on them.
Today the key problem in it remains the “state of clash” with the de facto second world power in the form of China. This state is mainly defined by the Taiwan problem. But not only. To varying degrees, the same condition can be observed in the area to the north and south of Taiwan, as well as in the vast subregion that comprises the countries of Central and South Asia.
It is increasingly clear that the conflict in Ukraine is no more than an important element of this general US-Chinese “clash.” With its help, Washington is trying to remove from the global game the de facto most important ally of Beijing. Consequently, the prospect of resolving this conflict is hardly imaginable outside the context of the above mentioned global US-China “clash.”
The same “clash” factor is also present in China’s relations with European countries individually and trans-European structures as a whole. The latter include both the EU intergovernmental bureaucracy and the two parliamentary configurations. Moreover, all the actors in the European political space do not always demonstrate coordinated behavior, both on the continent and in the international arena. This is largely due to the presence of the “American factor” on the continent.
The recent Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) concluded at the turn of 2021-21 between the PRC and the EU is a case in point. It was an important breakthrough in the decades-long exhausting negotiation process on various topics in the area of economic cooperation. And the firm overseas hand holding the Europeans by the tails of the tailcoat during these negotiations was and still is quite discernible.
This grip weakened somewhat in the period indicated above due to the sharply aggravated situation in the US in connection with the procedure of power transfer from one part of the American establishment to another. Even then, the procedure began to take on the nature of domestic political violence. So, for a short period, both American groups had no time for Europeans. The latter were not slow to take advantage of this by signing CAI on the sly with China. The cheerful faces of the participants in the signing of this Agreement (with the exception of Angela Merkel, almost all of them are still sitting in the same administrative chairs today) can be seen here.
But their joy was short-lived, because another turmoil in Washington came to a swift end with the “neoconservatives” coming to power in the US and starting their favorite rattle about widespread (although not in the US) “human rights abuses.” Anyway, they had to urgently “fix it” and in May of that year the European Parliament froze CAI under a minor pretext.
Apparently, this incident began the process of rethinking Beijing’s relations with the aforementioned actors on the European continent, the results of which were reflected in the formats and contents of the recent visits of European politicians to China. Until the spring of 2021, there was probably hope for the possibility of using EU structures as a counterweight to the US influence on the continent. The current very tepid form of communication with top EU officials shows that Beijing has apparently given up on such hopes. And of course, there are no grounds for any illusions as to the possibility for Beijing to build favorable relations with the parliamentary branches of power in Europe. On both the interstate and national levels.
This is illustrated by the reaction of French parliamentarians to President Macron’s controversial remark on the Taiwan issue after his visit to China. It can hardly be regarded as an explicit challenge to the US position (as presented in the Global Times illustration) on this issue. But it certainly falls out of the rather well-established context of Washington’s position on the Taiwan issue in particular, and its policy towards the PRC in general.
The words said by prominent French parliamentarians at a meeting with their counterparts from Taiwan who arrived in Paris a week after Macron’s visit to China are just as obviously at odds with the said position of the president (and fully consistent with the conditionally “American” stance).
All this once again proved that the executive branches of the leading European countries (in contrast to the legislative and current leaders of trans-European interstate structures) retain a window of opportunity to maintain constructive relations with China. That is taken into account by Beijing, where even the current head of the Foreign Ministry of Germany A. Baerbock, not a sympathizer (to put it mildly) of China and quite obvious supporter of transatlantic trends in modern world politics, was given quite a decent reception, sharply different from what the head of the European Commission Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen underwent in Beijing. Beijing is clearly not giving up hope on the possibility of building constructive relations with the leading European country, despite its participation in the US attempts to exclude leading Chinese IT companies from “global supply chains.”
In view of all the above, it seems appropriate to turn to the generalized topic of “Europe in the New World Order”. The author is not a supporter of total skepticism about the participation of Europe in the process of forming the latter. But it seems obvious that there is a need for a radical revision of the structures governing interstate relations in Europe.
It may be necessary to downgrade their significance, but in such a way that centuries-old inter-European “skeletons in the closet” do not manifest themselves. It seems inevitable to reject the principle of “one state, one vote” (this question arises from time to time in the format of the present EU), whereby the small limitrophe states, playing the role of “Lansquenets”, get the opportunity to engage in political and economic racketeering, as well as serving as a barrier between Russia and “Old Europe.” The current Ukraine is a typical example of this. And, of course, the Crime of the Century of undermining gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea must be dealt with exhaustively.
All in all, the recent pilgrimage of leading European politicians to one of the now two leading world powers is an appropriate occasion for reflection on the fundamental problems of the modern world order.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Pilgrimage of European politicians to Beijing, a sign of accelerating the transformation of the world order появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Violent bloodshed erupted in Sudan on April 15 after weeks of power struggles between Sudanese Army Commander-in-Chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and his deputy Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, who commands the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Force (RSF). According to medics, the conflict between the army and the RSF has killed over 200 civilians and 45 soldiers in the first three days alone, with 1,800 wounded. This was due to airstrikes and clashes in the capital Khartoum and the unrest that swept through the country. UN head Antonio Guterres condemned the outbreak of fighting and called for a restoration of calm, saying that the already dangerous humanitarian situation in Sudan has now become catastrophic.
So far, there are no signs that either side is ready to give up. Although the army has more air power, RSF forces are widely deployed around Khartoum and other cities, making it difficult for both sides to win quickly. In Darfur, active fighting continues unabated, according to residents. “It’s calmer than yesterday but there was heavy shelling in the morning,” said Mohamed, a doctor in Al-Fashir in North Darfur. Meanwhile, fighting between the parties in Darfur has threatened to reignite conflict in the western region, which has suffered from years of bloody war since 2003, killing up to 300,000 people and displacing 2.7 million.
The World Health Organization has already warned that several of the nine hospitals in Khartoum that receive wounded civilians have “run out of blood, transfusion equipment, intravenous fluids and other vital supplies.” In the western region of Darfur, “Médecins Sans Frontières” (MSF), an international medical aid organization, reported receiving 136 wounded patients at the only hospital in Al-Fashir, still operating in North Darfur state. “The majority of the wounded are civilians who were caught in the crossfire — among them are many children,” MSF’s Cyrus Paye says. Due to limited surgical capacity, “11 people died from their injuries in the first 48 hours of the conflict.” Three UN World Food Program workers were also among those killed on April 15 in Darfur, where medicine and other supplies were looted from humanitarian missions, according to Save the Children and MSF. A number of organizations have temporarily suspended operations in the country, where a third of the population is in need of aid.
It should be noted that the army’s commander-in-chief, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, heads the ruling council established after the 2021 coup and the overthrow of veteran leader Omar al-Bashir in 2019 during mass protests. RSF leader General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, is his deputy. Under the internationally-backed Transition Plan, the RSF was soon to merge with the army. Al-Burhan ordered the group to be disbanded on April 17 as both sides exchanged bitter accusations.
In comments to Sky News, al-Burhan said that he was safe in the presidential guest house at the Defense Ministry compound. He expressed that his goal was to defeat RSF, but did not rule out any form of negotiation. “Any war ends at the negotiating table, even if the enemy is defeated,” the general stated. RSF leader Hemedti, whose whereabouts have been unknown since April 15, called on the international community to take action against what he called “the crimes of al-Burhan.” On social media, Dagalo called on the international community to intervene against al-Burhan, calling him a “radical Islamist who bombs civilians from the air.” “We will continue to pursue al-Burhan and bring him to justice,” said Dagalo, whose RSF and its predecessor Janjaweed in Darfur have previously been accused of atrocities and war crimes. Army statements call the RSF “a rebel militia” intent on “engaging near populated areas.”
Continued violence could, and most likely will, destabilize this unstable region and lead to a rivalry for influence between the Great Powers, which have an interest in the rich natural resources of Sudan. A rivalry will also undoubtedly develop between the regional powers, which are “cajoling” the various military and political actors in Sudan. Egypt, long wary of political change in Khartoum, is the most important supporter of Sudan’s armed forces. Hemedti, for his part, has managed to establish ties with several foreign powers, which, of course, will get involved in the fight for Sudan.
The outbreak of fighting last weekend followed growing tensions over the integration of the RSF into the armed forces. Disagreements over the timing of the process have delayed the signing of a framework agreement to begin civilian transformation, which was due to be signed earlier this month. This comes four years after al-Bashir’s ouster and nearly two years after the military coup. But it was only an excuse, as tensions had been brewing for weeks between two of Sudan’s most powerful generals, who had jointly staged a military coup just 18 months earlier to derail the country’s transition to democracy.
Over the weekend, tensions between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, head of the paramilitary group RSF, erupted into an unprecedented battle for control of the resource-rich country of more than 46 million people. The two generals, each with tens of thousands of troops deployed in the capital Khartoum alone, have vowed not to negotiate or cease fire despite mounting global diplomatic pressure. This is a deadly setback for a country at the crossroads of the Arab world and Africa, which ended the rule of a longtime dictator four years ago thanks in part to largely peaceful popular protests.
Of course, the fierce fighting did not arise out of nothing, and then the legitimate question arises – what preceded the fighting? In recent months there have been negotiations for a return to a democratic transition, which was halted by a military coup in October 2021. Under growing international and regional pressure, the military and RSF signed a preliminary agreement in December with democratic and civilian groups. But the internationally brokered agreement contained only broad outlines, leaving the most pressing political issues unresolved.
During the difficult negotiations to reach a final agreement, tensions rose between al-Burhan and Dagalo. The key dispute is how the RSF will be integrated into the military and who will have ultimate control over the fighters and weapons. Dagalo, whose RSF has been involved in violent repression during tribal unrest and pro-democracy protests, has also tried to make himself look like a supporter of the democratic transition. In March, he openly told Al-Burhan that he did not want to cede power. Analysts argued that Dagalo was thereby trying to whitewash the reputation of his paramilitary force, which began as a brutal militia implicated in atrocities in the Darfur conflict.
Are there ANY PROSPECTS FOR AN IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE AND A RETURN TO DIALOGUE? The prospect of an immediate ceasefire seems elusive. Al-Burhan and Dagalo have so far stubbornly held their ground, demanding that the other surrender. The tense nature of the fighting may also make it difficult for the two generals to return to negotiations. On the other hand, both the military and the RSF have foreign supporters who have unanimously called for an immediate cessation of hostilities. The Muslim religious calendar could also play a role. The fighting broke out during the last week of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, and the three-day Eid al-Fitr holiday marks the end of the month of fasting. The population is experiencing increasing shortages of basic necessities, with many forced to return home because of the violence.
Meanwhile, there was a flurry of diplomatic contacts to bring Sudanese society and the population back to peace and organize a negotiation process between the generals. In a telephone conversation, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and South Sudanese President Salva Kiir said they were ready to mediate between the Sudanese parties amid ongoing clashes between the Sudanese armed forces and the paramilitary RSF. The two leaders discussed recent events in Sudan, “in light of the historical ties and outstanding fraternal relations between the three countries,” and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, according to a statement by presidential spokesman Ahmed Fahmy. The two leaders warned that “an escalation of violence will only lead to a further deterioration of the situation, which could spiral out of control,” the statement said. They also called on all sides to prioritize wisdom and peaceful dialogue and to uphold the supreme interests of the Sudanese people, Fahmy said.
In any case, there is no doubt that the fighting that has erupted in Sudan must be immediately resolved at the negotiating table. And in this case, the idea proposed by Russia and Vladimir Putin of establishing a multipolar world is like nothing else suited to resolving the Sudanese conflict. For the basic idea of a multipolar world is the resolution of any conflict only peacefully at the negotiating table, taking into account the interests of all parties and countries.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение What’s happening in Sudan? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Against the backdrop of growing global concern about the ubiquity of corruption and skepticism about the prospects for its eradication, there is heightened interest in “best practices” – real successes achieved by individual states in this area.
The Republic of Singapore is a good example of a successful struggle to eradicate this plague in Asia. It has developed and implemented an effective strategy that has made it possible to eradicate corruption as a “way of life” in a historically short period of time and created one of the most important conditions for the “Singapore miracle.”
Singapore’s success in the fight against corruption has been receiving widespread international recognition. Over the past quarter of a century, the republic has been consistently ranked among the cleanest nations in the world. According to the well-known international ranking “Corruption Perception Index,” at the end of last year, Singapore, along with Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and Norway, was again included in the top five of 180 countries, leaving the rest of Asia far behind.
When discussing the sources of Singapore’s success in this sphere, the experts invariably highlight the importance of the subjective factor – the political will of the country’s top leadership to put the fight against corruption at the heart of government policy. The contribution of Lee Kuan Yew, the “father of the Singapore nation,” the republic’s first prime minister, is particularly noteworthy. In his famous memoirs, he made a strong case for the need to root out corruption, which he dubbed “contagious greed.” This success allowed Singapore to make a historic “leap from the third world to the first.”
An argument could be made that Singapore’s anti-corruption strategy is based on two interrelated blocks of tasks. The first one is aimed at elimination of conditions for corruption. It includes the development and improvement of legislation, formation of special anti-corruption bodies, organization of supervision of those activities where power can be used for personal gain, control over the passage of budget funds, reduction, simplification and transparency of most administrative procedures.
Another problem block is related to the elimination of incentives to commit corruption. Its main content was the formulation and approval in practice of the principles of “honest and incorruptible government” and their extension to the entire civil service. Singapore’s anti-corruption legislation is based on the principle of “rule of law and equality of all before the law.” Leaders of the state have traditionally set a personal example in enforcing the law by making information about their wealth, income, commercial interests and financial transactions publicly available. In the case of detection of violations, no post, no matter how high it may be, can serve as a protection from punishment.
An important key to the success of Singapore’s anti-corruption efforts has been to build broad public rejection of this scourge. After all, in Singapore, where over 70% of the residents are ethnic Chinese, the basis of the prevailing morality and ethics is traditionally Confucianism, orienting people to unconditional assistance to family members and relatives. However, as a result of the purposeful and strict line under the slogan “if you want to defeat corruption, be prepared to send your friends and relatives to prison,” Singapore has broken the stereotypes that have been rooted in the public consciousness. The measures have led to a shift from the earlier perception of corruption as a “high-yield, low-risk business” to a “dubious-yield, high-risk business.” According to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Singapore’s chief corruption watchdog, the government’s current course has the support of an overwhelming majority of Singaporean society.
Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy that Singapore’s impressive achievements in the area of anti-corruption have been met with a mixed response. Moreover, they are in the focus of a sharp ideological confrontation with the adherents of liberal values from the West. The essence of this conflict was formulated in his time by the famous American political scientist Fukuyama, who said that “the soft authoritarianism of countries such as Singapore is a potential rival to liberal democracy.”
Without any reason to openly ignore Singapore’s obvious successes in the fight against corruption, Western critics focused on exposing the “authoritarian and undemocratic” nature of Singapore’s anti-corruption methods as inconsistent with “liberal norms and values.” What they did not like was that Singapore’s flagship Prevention of Corruption Act, unlike other legal practices around the world, establishes a “presumption of guilt”: any gratuity received by an official from another person will be considered a “corruption inducement” or a “reward for services” until proven otherwise. Proof of innocence would fall on the suspect himself. Singapore’s penalties for violators of the law have also been deemed inhumane and excessively cruel in the West. The penalties for those found guilty of corruption offences, which include bribe-giver and bribe-taker alike, are up to 100,000 SGD (about 80,000 USD, or imprisonment for 5 to 7 years.
Western liberals’ attacks on Singapore’s anti-corruption policies have often misfired. The patriarch of Western liberalism Samuel Huntington’s prediction that “the integrity and efficiency that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew instilled in Singapore is likely to follow him to his grave” did not stand the test of time. Contrary to such prophecies, the clear and easy-to-understand objectives of the anti-corruption strategy as well as the rigorous methods of achieving them laid down by the father of the Singapore nation have produced programmed results and have gained acceptability in the policies of the current government of Lee Hsien Loong, the acknowledged successor to his father.
The criticism of Singapore’s anti-corruption strategy in the West from the perspective of the fundamental liberal values – the development of democracy, parliamentarism, freedom of the press, etc. – is openly politicized and often quite clumsy. Supposedly, if Asia were to follow the liberal formula in fighting corruption, countries such as Thailand and the Philippines, which have a long tradition of democratic institutions, would be way ahead of the rest of Asia in combating corruption, while Singapore, with its rigid legislation, would never be a leader in this area. In reality, the exact opposite is true.
The prospects of resolving the sharp ideological dispute over the preference of liberal-democratic or authoritarian tools for achieving victory over corruption on the example of Singapore seem premature. Moreover, given the growing intensity of the struggle for the formation of a new global world order and, in particular, the prospects of forming its new pole (or poles) in Asia, this struggle is acute and uncompromising. Today, the strong and consistent policy of Singapore’s leadership has caused a painful reaction of the West, especially in the US, where it is seen as a manifestation of the growing “authoritarianism offensive” in Asia, which is a threat to the unipolar world order and the “American leadership” on the continent.
Leonid Gladchenko, expert political analyst and member of the “Analitika” Association, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Is Singapore’s success in combating corruption undermining the foundations of the unipolar world order? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
You feel it, don’t you? There’s something deeply wrong with our world. And I don’t refer to the planet’s geosphere. I mean, there’s something deadly wrong with society overall, and the ways in which we interact and react. Something is coming, and many understand what it is.
“We are like people under [a] sentence of death, waiting for the date to be set. We sense that something is about to happen. We know that things cannot go on as they are. History has reached an impasse. We are now on a collision course. Something is about to give.” – Reverend Billy Graham
A few years ago, I wrote a report on NEO entitled “Vladimir Putin’s Third Way: As Seen Through the Nooscope.” The piece covered Mr. Putin’s “Third Way” of governance, and a stunning invention by his now chief of staff Anton Vaino. The invention, the Nooscope was reportedly a device capable of measuring the noosphere, or the highest stage of biospheric development, that of humankind’s rational activities. And through the measurement of humanity’s activities, along with the use of advanced artificial intelligence (AI), the Russian leadership seemed to be seeking a new order not simply of which countries have a say so, but a system that could elevate humanity to its next logical level.
At first, the western academic and journalistic communities exhibited acute curiosity mixed with tongue in cheek skepticism such as is always leveled at Russian ideas. Then, of course, a maze of misinterpretations and distractive propaganda campaigns buried Putin’s ideas, and the probability that our collective conscious and energy can be measured for good. Sure, Google, Amazon, and a hundred other entities powered by Big and Minute data operate such measurements for profit, day in and day out. But those pesky Russians using advanced thinking and algorithms to fix humanity’s woes! This kind of idea had to be branded ridiculous propaganda. But is it?
Let’s remember that it was Plato who predicted that Noocracy was humanity’s future political system. The philosopher also claimed that Democracy (“the authority of the crowd”) and other forms of governance would eventually be replaced by a system such as that Vladimir Putin has suggested. So-called “Russia experts” scoff at the noosphere as a part of Russian Cosmism. However, a Rand Corporation report in 2020 acknowledge the developing noosphere, and made recommendations for the United States to considered adapting U.S. grand strategy to the information age—noopolitik, which favors the use of “soft power”—as a successor to realpolitik, with its emphasis on “hard power.” So, the bastardization of Mr. Putin’s “Third Way” concepts by the likes of the Brookings Institute and authors Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes (2009),
The theories of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Édouard Le Roy, who were the practical co-founders of the noosphere, in the early 1900s dealt with a noosphere wrapping Earth as a progression of the teleological character of evolution. Or, for lack of a better description, a result of an overarching “goal-directed evolution.”
Another report I completed that was never published deals with what I believe Putin has been working on. His “Third Way” and nooscope experiments having been put on hold by a new Cold War these days, is for purpose, I believe. There are those in the west who would welcome a new and more successful way of governance. And, there are those who are terrified that the Nooscope/Noosphere project will put an end to their engine of power. The latter group are certainly not attempting to halt the development of the noosphere, but they are trying to ensure it is the west that harnesses it for their purposes. This is one reason you see the western tech giants “all in” to try and censor the opposing side. Anyone who disagrees with the liberal order now, is an enemy of “the state.” As evidence, consider, that NASA and Cisco are currently collaborating on something called the Planetary Skin Insitute, a cousin or competitor to the Nooscope.
Putin’s “Third Way,” what an intriguing and potentially game changing thing! After having written about Russia’s emergence for a decade now, I continually recall what a speech V.V. Putin wrote an editorial for a German newspaper concerning his much-maligned Lisbon to Vladivostok proposed unified market. The quote below is from Putin’s editorial:
“We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros.”
This was 2010, and the notion scared the hell out of everybody at the World Economic Forum, including the janitor. It was at about this time that the hierarchy decided that Putin and Russia as the boy from Leningrad envisioned it, must go. And here we are, witnessing a proxy war with one purpose, to tear a deep crevice in between Europe and Asia. The situation is a bit like the space race back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Washington and the old gang in London cannot have the Russians controlling this evolved human potential. If anyone is going to take advantage of this noosphere, it’s going to be the same elites who dumbed our schoolchildren down to iPhone troglodytes.
Read the chapter Getting Back on Track Through Noopolitik, in the Rand report. It’s not a recommendation for the planet, but one for the deep state that currently has a former US president on trial to keep him out of office. You see, the liberal order is already manipulating the noosphere through owned media, academia, and government. To these people the sphere of human consciousness hugging our globe needs to be seeded with the “right” ideas. They seek to transform us, to evolve earth into the same slave planet it’s always been, only more efficient. It’s evil. A modern version of the worst parts of the Bible. The Matrix movie or 1984, take your pick.
We have to stop them. Or, wait until Jesus comes back.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Earth’s Ultimate War: A Battle to Control the Noosphere появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Ukrainian situation is still being actively debated in Mongolia. However, a trend has emerged in Mongolian writings on this topic from the beginning of 2023: the Mongolian media and experts are increasingly talking about the prospects for resolving the crisis rather than the current crisis situation itself. Simultaneously, the ideas of Mongolia mediating a peaceful conclusion to the conflict are steadily gaining traction in the country. Currently these ideas are only circulated within the media and the community of experts, but they already have a big presence in the country’s media space.
On March 23, 2023, The Diplomat published an article by Mongolian analyst Tuvshinzaa Gantuulga proposing Mongolia as the best place for Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations. The author mentions Mongolia’s friendly relations with both countries, the presence of a “Ukrainian” and “Russian” phase in the lives of modern Mongolia’s four presidents, and the desire of its citizens to contribute to the resolution of the crisis. The article was reproduced in several additional Mongolian news outlets as well as on the personal profiles of important Mongolian residents.
The author’s conclusions are not without merit. Mongolia maintains strong and beneficial ties with both states. Russia is one of Mongolia’s most important political and economic allies, with whom it has a comprehensive strategic alliance. Ukraine, in turn, has been Mongolia’s “cooperation partner” since 2011.
Russia is Mongolia’s second economic partner, a significant supplier of electricity and fuel resources, and a key guarantor of the country’s foreign security, according to the Mongolians themselves. At the same time, Ukraine serves as an ideological “companion” for Mongolia, stating a desire for a “democratic society” and “maximization of sovereignty.” Assurances of Mongolian-Ukrainian relations’ partnership character were repeated during a recent phone discussion between the two countries’ presidents. Mongolian-Ukrainian relations cannot be treated outside the context of the “third neighbor policy” – maintaining a dialogue with Ukraine for Mongolia is a prerequisite for keeping favorable contacts with the United States and European countries in general.
It is also worth remembering that Mongolia has already offered its services as an international mediator. Previously, the Mongolian side presented its own negotiation platform for an inter-Korean settlement, citing amicable connections with the ROK and DPRK. By the way, the so-called “Ulaanbaatar Dialogue on Northeast Asian Security” initiative was created, among other things, to support a peaceful solution to the “Korean issue“. Later, in 2018, there were plans for a US-North Korea summit in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Mongolia’s partnership with the two countries, its significant contribution to UN peacekeeping missions, its political and military neutrality, and even its unique religious values of harmony, concord, and pacifism all contributed to the “Mongolian negotiating platform’s” promise.
However, both ambitious projects were far from being realized for a number of reasons. First, they were created from the beginning as a loud statement about Mongolia’s peace-loving and progressive foreign policy guidelines, rather than as real action plans. There was no active discussion of the summit prospects with the leaders of the countries formally invited to Ulaanbaatar in either case. Second, in such cases, preference is frequently given to more well-known and popular venues, or those that have been agreed upon by the participants themselves. It is usually them who take the initiative to bargain.
Nonetheless, Mongolia’s proclamation of such ambitions more than served its genuine goals. Such evidence of Mongolia’s commitment to a peaceful solution, for example, has been very helpful in lending substance to its representatives’ declarations to international bodies, thereby sustaining the country’s favorable image in the international arena.
The idea to begin peace talks now, in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, is a reinforcement of Mongolia’s neutral posture, which is increasingly under attack from the outside. Mongolia has a significant need to maintain an unbiased position between the competing factions in the current global political context, and agreeing to hold peace talks without proposing specific terms is a very effective way to reinforce this neutrality.
Internal political “functionality” of such comments cannot be ruled out either. The majority of Mongolians, according to a recent survey by Sant Maral, think that keeping the country neutral is the wisest course of action. The government has nonetheless come under fire from a number of Mongolian citizens for the lack of “specificity” in Mongolia’s official stance on the Ukrainian situation. In this light, the concepts of Mongolian mediation spread through the media may be both an attempt to elicit the public’s opinion and a concretization of Mongolia’s as-yet-undefined neutrality by giving it useful and applicable content.
In any case, it appears unlikely that such an initiative will materialize and become official at this point. If such a plan is approved by the government, it will be utilized to uphold and enhance Mongolia’s positive and peaceful image and is unlikely to be presented to the leaders of Russia and Ukraine as a specific “business proposal.”
Boris Kushkhov, Department of Korea and Mongolia, Institute of Oriental Studies, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Ukrainian Crisis: Mongolia as a Mediator? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Finland’s inclusion in, and the consequent expansion of, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), has supposedly brought much joy to the Western world supposedly fighting Russia for the protection of democracy and human rights. The real purpose of this fight, as we already know, is to preserve the West – mainly, the US-led – dominated post-Second World War world order, which assumed the shape of unilateral US hegemony after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. With Russia – and China – delivering the hitherto clearest shock to this unilateral hegemony of the US, the latter is doing all it can to win more and more allies to augment its position against a very formidable threat. NATO’s expansion is one of the many steps the West – again, mainly the US – has recently taken to preserve the world order. But the ongoing Russia-Ukraine (NATO) military conflict has changed the world in many significant ways. For one thing, NATO’s expansion notwithstanding, the US cannot possibly even hope to successfully “isolate” Russia globally. As far as China is concerned, the US can neither “decouple” from China without facing a heavy cost, nor will be doing so without geopolitical consequences.
More than anything else, the recent decision of the OPEC+ countries to cut their production levels – and consequently raise oil prices – shows that the world’s most powerful oil producers continue to stand with Russia. This unanimous decision is not just an economic matter. In fact, the ability of the OPEC countries to reject US pressure and follow an autonomous approach – and support Russia – shows how these countries are actually following the Russian and Chinese vision of a multipolar world where countries – or blocks – can act according to their own national interests and without compromising them to appease the US. For the US hegemony, this irresistible drift toward multipolarity is much more damaging for its future than the expansion of NATO. NATO’s expansion means the organisation now has one more country with no significant military power from within Europe as its member, but the consolidation of alternative – and counter-hegemonic – power blocks outside of Europe/NATO means a fast shrinking space across the rest of the world for the US and its allies to force advantageous foreign policy outcomes.
Now, whereas the decision to cut oil production is going to hurt the US and its allies in Europe already facing an economic crunch and a cost of living crisis, the decision also shows an acute indifference to how it will hurt the Biden administration directly both geopolitically and domestically.
Consider this: since the start of the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) conflict, the US has been selling expensive oil to Europe. In March, the US oil sales to Europe hit an all-time high. But this enhanced supply has also led to about a 50 per cent increase in prices. Now, with OPEC deciding to cut its production and raise oil prices, Washington’s European allies – and indeed consumers in the US itself – will now be buying even more expensive oil and gas, which could add to the cost of living crisis they’re already facing.
Domestically, therefore, the Biden administration’s decision to force Europe to cut back their sale of Russian oil and/or put a price cap and thus start an economic war against Russia will become even more sensitive. Politically speaking, the Biden administration’s policy to release oil regularly from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve in attempts to micromanage the oil prices and keep them abnormally low in the interests of American consumers will become even more difficult to implement in the next few weeks.
For the Biden administration – which is jubilant over NATO’s expansion – its decreasing inability to permanently micromanage oil prices coincides with the start of what many see as Donald Trump’s aggressive presidential campaign.
There are, as such two shocks. The fact that Russia has OPEC on its side means the US and NATO have so far failed to defeat Russia in any meaningful sense at all. Joe Biden cannot claim a victory over Russia for his re-election due next year. On the other hand, Washington’s inability to influence OPEC means drastic foreign policy failure, indicating a Russian success. In geopolitical terms, the OPEC+ move came after a meeting between Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman in Riyadh on March 16 that focused on oil market cooperation. Therefore, it is widely seen as the tightening of the bond between Russia and Saudi Arabia.
The failure to manage the cost of living crisis and the fact that the Biden administration has lost allies, such as Saudi Arabia, combine to become very crucial rallying points for an assertive Donald Trump, who is already framing hurdles against his come-back in terms of the Biden administration’s “conspiracy” to have him convicted and eventually arrested.
Within Europe, this oil shock will complicate domestic politics and foreign policy even further. Recent large-scale protests in France against pension reform or the widespread strikes in Britain for higher wages will become a recurrent scene. Replication of such protests across Europe could force many of the European countries to reconsider the extent of their support for the US war on Russia (and China).
The oil shock delivered by Russia and Saudi Arabia, therefore, outweighs the shock the US expected to deliver to Russia via NATO’s expansion – which is unlikely to have any effect on the ground in Ukraine, and which Russia has other means to counter.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение NATO Expansion versus OPEC+ Oil Shock появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Peace settlements are filled with contradictions, which are necessary for motion. In their turn, the Middle East and the South Caucasus have a long history of contradictions (historical, ethno-religious, economic, and political), which can spark new wars. Peace in a complex region can usually be maintained by a balance of forces and interests, with the dominant nations playing an essential role.
Iran holds a special place in this political geography as the exponent of centuries-old Persian civilization, the flagship of the modern Shia Islam, the owner of large global reserves of strategic raw materials (oil and gas), and an example of autonomous and self-sufficient development in the face of 44 years of harsh sanctions. Iran along with Turkey and Saudi Arabia are significant players in shaping the Middle East’s development trajectory. Iran has often proved to the world its potential to resuscitate and reach new heights of nation-building throughout its magnificent history.
Unfortunately, as a result of US imperial tactics in the Middle East following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a new fundamental crisis in Iranian-Israeli relations occurred. The positions of Tehran and Tel Aviv on the Palestinian question are irreconcilable, and these disagreements extend to the block of economic matters as well.
Israel has regularly utilized targeted strikes against Iran’s military and military-industrial facilities (both within and beyond Iranian territory), accusing the mullahcracy regime of catering to international terrorism and authoritarianism against its own people. The Israeli government opposes Iran’s nuclear program, despite the fact that they themselves regard nuclear weapons as a critical means of strategic security.
In its regional diplomacy, Tel Aviv is attempting to split the Islamic world’s unity, to use the ethnic and religious contradictions of the Middle East and the Shiite world to minimize external threats to Israeli security interests, and to establish bases around its opponents (particularly against Iran) for subversive activities and military logistics in local conflicts.
Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War, which had previously (from 1944 to 1967) been part of Syria’s Quneitra Governorate, the establishment of partnerships with the Northern Kurdistan leadership in Iraq (the Barzani family – Masoud, Nechirvan and Masrour Barzani), and now reaching strategic partnership relations with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev were all achievements of Tel-Aviv’s longstanding diplomacy.
At the same time, despite a number of disagreements with the Ottoman successor, Israel maintains reasonable predictable and stable ties with Turkey. It is a well-known fact that Turkey was the first Islamic country to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The history of cooperation between Zionist leaders and Young Turks; Turkey’s membership in the NATO bloc; the role of the United States and Britain in the fate of the Turkish state after World War II; and the contribution of the Jewish community and business to the development of the modern Republic of Turkey all contribute to the unique nature of Turkish-Israeli relations.
Iran, for its part, has used equally effective tactics to increase its influence in Israel’s geographic context. Tehran has achieved a somewhat steady position in Lebanon relying on Hezbollah, in Syria with the support of the local Shiites and Alevis, and in Iraq through to a cooperation with the Kurdish Talabani dynasty in Sulaymaniyah and an alliance with Iraqi Shiites. Tehran has amicable connections with Armenia to the northwest of its borders and is currently re-establishing friendly relations with Saudi Arabia to the southwest.
Nonetheless, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is spinning a new round of Israeli-Iranian conflict in the hopes of establishing a broad coalition that includes the US, Britain, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Pakistan. Israel does not rule out the possibility of initiating a major conflict with Iran to destroy nuclear sites, overthrow the mullahcracy regime, and perhaps even divide the Iranian state into several ethnic entities (Azeri, Baluchi, Kurd).
Iranian-Azerbaijani ties have recently deteriorated. Tehran, in particular, expresses dissatisfaction with Baku’s diplomacy in opening its Embassy in Tel-Aviv and accuses Azerbaijan of collaborating with Israel by providing military logistics (airfields and technical reconnaissance facilities) for the IDF and Aman on its border with Iran. Terrorists attacked the security personnel of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran in February of this year. Baku reacted by removing its embassy personnel. In Azerbaijan, anti-Iranian rhetoric is increasing in the media. Special forces arrest a large number of Iranian supporters (particularly Shiite religious figures), and four employees of the Iranian Embassy are expelled on intelligence-related accusations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan demanded that Iran follow a policy of non-interference in internal matters. Outside forces, interested in destabilizing the situation in Iranian Azerbaijan, are attempting to begin separatist movements with the support of the local Azerbaijani population.
It came to the point that Tehran initiated an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation with a call to the countries of the Islamic world to condemn the Azerbaijani-Israeli partnership and the opening of the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Tel-Aviv. Israel’s Foreign Minister Eli Cohen famously directly urged Baku to present a united front against Iran during a meeting with his colleague Jeyhun Bayramov in Tel Aviv to mark the opening of the Embassy of Azerbaijan.
Iranian structures are spreading information that allegedly President Ilham Aliyev found himself in a situation of complete dependence on the Israeli government in terms of obtaining Israeli weapons against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, which played a key role in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in the fall of 2020.
Azerbaijan’s militarization agenda remains active, with new weaponry and military equipment adding to its arsenal from Israel and Turkey. Despite Azerbaijan’s persistent posture of military tension with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, Baiden administration rejects the initiatives of US Congressmen to ban military aid to Baku.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated in March of this year at a meeting of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in favor of repealing Amendment 907, which forbids the United States from providing military assistance to Azerbaijan. The statement is part of Washington’s anti-Iranian campaign, because Azerbaijan, according to Blinken, need security because “it has a long border with Iran.”
Washington is attempting to disrupt the process of Russian-Iranian regional partnership in order to weaken Moscow’s ability to conduct successful special military operation in Ukraine, to exclude the growth of Russian-Iranian military-technical cooperation, and to use Turkey and Azerbaijan to systematically exploit NATO’s entry into Turkic countries of Central Asia which are historically rich with resources.
Meanwhile, according to Russia-based analyst and Iranian studies specialist Karine Gevorgyan, closed meetings are held between Iran and the United States. Iran and the United States have reached some significant agreements. Iran, in particular, handed three previously arrested US individuals to the American side, and the US unfroze $10 billion from the dormant Iranian holdings. This evidence indicates that Washington is keeping a tight eye on developments in Iran, jealously scrutinizing the development of Iran-China, Iran-India, and Iran-Russia relations, as well as the fact that Tehran and Riyadh have begun to reconcile under Beijing’s supervision.
The latter suggests that the US is hardly interested in starting a major military conflict against Iran. There are both internal and external causes for this. In particular: Iran’s achievement of a threshold limit on atomic weapons development, which does not preclude Tehran from using WMD in the event of a coalition force attack; Iran’s intensified relations (including military and military-technical relations) with China, India, and Russia, which do not preclude Washington from interfering in disputes involving such significant global players; the beginning of the restoration of the Iranian-Saudi diplomatic relations with the aid of Beijing, which is potentially capable of blocking the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf for coalition forces in the event of anti-Iranian aggression; lack of confidence in the military success of coalition forces over Iran; finally, the entry of the United States into the pre-election period and the announcement of Joe Biden about his candidacy for a second term.
It is no coincidence that Herzi Halevi, the Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, said on April 5 this year that Israel can do without the assistance of the United States in the war against Iran and ostensibly does not depend on the United States in security matters. However, Halevi has so far pledged to increase Israel’s military power within a few years in order to carry out a fictitious strike on Iran in the future, and he has thought it prudent to secure American support.
For some reason, another significant player, Turkey, whose participation in the anti-Iranian coalition is desired by Israel and Azerbaijan, chose to remind its ally Azerbaijan through its Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu that without increased defense spending by its army Azerbaijan could not succeed in Nagorno-Karabakh in the fall of 2020. “Turkey has increased national and local production in the field of military industry to 80 percent,” Çavuşoğlu said. “If we hadn’t reached that figure, if we hadn’t manufactured combat UAVs, if we hadn’t manufactured all kinds of ground, air defense and attack systems, including helicopters, it would have been difficult for Azerbaijan to take Karabakh.”
Since Baku, Yerevan, and other capitals are well aware of the facts and the scope of military assistance provided to Azerbaijan during the previous Karabakh war, the Turkish Foreign Minister’s statement actually doesn’t cause any special sensation. Here, the moment of disclosure and overtone are more crucial than the text itself. Turkey is currently in a dire situation as a result of: the disastrous aftereffects of a devastating earthquake (more than 50,000 fatalities, although this statistic, alas, may change in relation to the number of destroyed buildings); an acute financial and economic crisis; the requirement for significant investments for reconstruction work in the earthquake zone (and the real investors can be China and the wealthiest Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which are not interested in the aggression of the coalition forces against Iran); finally, a complicated general election.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is more interested in building positive ties with China and Russia than in making Turkey face new challenges for Israel’s sake. Determining them to be a provocative conduct during the holy month of Ramadan, the Turkish President has harshly criticized recent operations taken by Israeli law enforcement authorities against the Islamic shrine of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. As a result, Turkey is sending a message to both Israel and its little brother Azerbaijan that starting a new confrontation in the region with unknown implications is not a good idea.
Meanwhile, a recent phone conversation between Azerbaijan’s and Iran’s foreign ministers resulted in Mr Hossein Amir Abdollahian canceling his decision to change the Envoy to Baku. This could imply that Iran does not see the need to initiate a new policy with Azerbaijan, or that it has stopped issuing warnings to Baku. Indeed, the deterioration of relations between Shia Iran and Azerbaijan recalls a certain resemblance in the relations between Slavic Russia and Ukraine. Neither Russia nor Iran wants conflict with fraternal Ukraine and Azerbaijan, where relations are artificially aggravated with the interference of the same US and its allies.
They say that “better a bad peace than a good war.” It is preferable for Israel to accept the “bad peace” (or, even better, to reestablish good relations with Iran through the lens of the same mutually beneficial economy) rather than to escalate a conflict into the flames of a major war. The battle against Iran is an equation with many unknowns and a high likelihood of regional and global conflict becoming international with new participants.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Iran and Israel: A Conflict with Global Consequences or Peace with Contradictions? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
It is as if the president-elect, Joe Biden, who promised to bring together instead of divide, has not missed many opportunities to divide an already polarized country even more. Now The US government under the guise of National Security is threatening to go all-out communist-fascist boot-stomping dictatorship—not in words but deeds.
The much-touted RESTRICT ACT is not limited to just TikTok, but affects average Americans, with the threat of jail sentences, 20 years in prison, hefty fines, upwards of 1,000,000 USD, and the forfeiture of everything you own, and that is just for starters. Even VPN users can risk long jail sentences in the US under the newly-proposed RESTRICT Act.
As Geoffrey M. Young, a Democratic candidate running for governor in the US State of Kentucky recently shared, “The Restrict Act should be called, “The Put the CIA in Control of the Internet Act.” As far as I can tell, it eliminates the First Amendment.”
This Act, at least officially, may be cited as the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” or the “RESTRICT Act”. The pending legislation gives the US government almost unlimited authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad. It also grants powers to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to national security now and in any “potential future transaction”.
Whatever does that mean?
The act also grants unlimited hiring power to positions of enforcement, unlimited funds with little or no review, and immunity to FOIA. At first impression, even based on the lame news coverage, this legislation is more likely intended to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, if passed.
It should come as no surprise that without hesitation, the White House backs the bipartisan bill that could be used to ban TikTok–calling it “a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans.”
However, it is becoming obvious, even to casual observers, that the real intentions of the pending are to restrict and hold back Americans from freely accessing technology and information that is not supportive of the status quo and efforts to limit basic American liberties, such as the 1st and 4th Amendment, Free Speech and Being Secure in one’s Papers and Communications. Critics worry it may have much wider implications for the First Amendment, as the ‘Insanely Broad’ RESTRICT Act could ban much more than just TikTok!”
So WTF is going on?
In short, under the guise of controlling Chinese and foreign governments, the US government can arbitrarily classify anyone it supposedly deems is a security threat, even US citizens as foreign individuals, and you can have your profession and life destroyed. This makes the US Patriot Act and other means of government censorship, restriction of free speech, and free trade look like child’s play.
RESTRICT renders the US government as totalitarian as the CCP, and its language and potential reach fly into the face of everything that it means to be an American. It will not only be interesting to know what the ACLU and all those so-called Watchdog organizations of free speech and human rights are going to say and do about it.
I suspect it will be passed, hands down, as was the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 under fueling fear of what has turned out to be “most likely” self-inflicted fears, and a false flag to boot. They’re also claiming it’s to protect US citizens from the CCP. But then those giving us such laws turn around and the US becomes the CCP.
It’s like how Germany and Italy became fascist constructs, and how Ceausescu rose to power in Romania, stole everything from everyone, and tortured everyone with impunity. Nowadays how many under the age of 40 even know who the dictator Ceausescu was and his plight?
To stand to the side and not take notice, is in fact like being one of Hitler’s Willing Executioners; the greatest sins are those of omission. This is about what is to come for Americans, not like what is going on in former Nazi regimes, as even now in Germany you can be prosecuted for speaking out for free speech and the provision of aid to IDPs in Ukraine, if the money was raised using social media in the West.
The whole discourse around the Restrict Act is very interesting—it is something like a Trojan Horse. However, I think it should be addressed from a wider perspective. Many governments are dealing with similar issues, but they differ a lot in terms of approach. It might be interesting to compare their examples at a later date, at least in theory, to a more virtuous one, the contrasts between the differing laws and implementation should benefit the reader greatly—and the motives are far from one another.
Any Action as Necessary!
As the National Law Review describes, the proposed RESTRICT Act grants the secretary of commerce broad authority to take “any . . . action as necessary” to carry out its responsibilities. Such authority explicitly includes establishing “rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary deems appropriate,” issuing guidance and advisory opinions and conducting “investigations of violations of any authorization, order, mitigation measure, regulation, or prohibition issued” under it.
Considers or deems appropriate is especially concerning, as that appears something closer to the 1917 Espionage Act in intent so that the enforces can use it as they “dam-well-please”, and it is not just targeted against adversarial relationships but ordinary folk who will be subjected to police state like procedures to control them, as in an Orwellian or Brave New World scenario.
Even protected individual and collective free speech can be interpreted without limitations as being connected to “coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that is designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission.”
Those who do not agree with the foreign policy and methods of the United States can come under such a blanket enforcing dragnet, and all they need to do to run afoul of the legislation is to use mechanisms, electronic or share in some partnership with public and private entities are can have collective or individual assists seized amongst other threatening and punitive measures.
This includes but is not limited to cutting off money access, i.e., the use of Bitcoin since it applies to any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data in the United States at any point for the year preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review.
Or if the Secretary initiates a review of the covered transaction, including— internet hosting services; cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party to utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; managed services; and content delivery services, etc.
So it is a catch-all piece of legislation that can knot up not only foreign governments, and various entities, but individuals – who may get caught up under the swoop of this legislation simply for communicating or dealing with targeted entities, and using electronic, devices and online means to interface, transferring of things of value electronically. So that covers so many of us, and without thinking of what we are getting ourselves into.
Covers too much territory
It gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad and grants powers to “enforce any mitigation measure to address any risk” to national security now and in any “potential future transaction.” So this bill that claims to protect US interests from foreign entities: allows the feds to classify anyone they deem is a security threat, even US citizens as foreign individuals.
But the RESTRICT Act is going to be imposed upon US citizens as a being a concerted repose to the ills of TikTok and those SNEAKY Chinese, so clever, and for the public good; it might be wise to ban not only TikTok but the wide range of social media, as it is far more insidious than anything Made in China, including Facebook at the top of the heap.
Even the ACLU understands that the Congressional efforts to ban TikTok in the U.S. threaten the basic rights of free speech this legislation would silence 150 million Americans who use the platform daily. The American Civil Liberties Union said that blocking access to entire platforms would violate the First Amendment rights of the millions and millions of Americans who use the platform daily.
There is also another pending legislative, HR 1153, DATA Act. It has similar intentions—and if one piece of legislation will not be approved then the other might.
The ACLU has confirmed in its recent press releases and correspondence that should various bills move to a vote that the “purported attempt to protect the data of U.S. persons from Chinese government acquisition, this legislation will instead limit Americans’ political discussion, artistic expression, free exchange of ideas — and even prevent people from posting cute animal videos and memes.”
It does not stop there: such legislation opens a floodgate of human rights violating activities, restricting data, and fundamental Constitutional rights, on behalf of BIG Brother and the discretion that its long list of enforcement agencies have in interpreting and enforcing enacting enabling legislation.
Collectively the shifting mindset and paradigm shift in Washington and other Capitols may take us into territory where there is no way back from the deep and dark abyss. Under the flimsy veil “guise” of protecting us they are abusing us … and to “say otherwise: is very un-American.
It will target you for a wide range of problems: retribution as if they are not allowing tolerance, and what they claim they are doing on a limited scale under legislation to protect us from terrorists and ourselves is a far cry from the reality on the ground.
Already American journalists are targeted, with little opportunity to defend themselves, and sanctioned for exciting basic freedom of speech, under the Obama era US Treasury Sanctions, and not based on enabling legislation, but executive authority, not having access to wire transfers through Western Union and facing harassment, attacks, sudden job loses, and overt blacklisting. They have even threats to change one’s profession when arriving and departing from US airports.
All for the mere allegation of submitting articles to a foreign-funded media site, as it was a crime—and not a US Constitutionally protected right. With such legislation making its way through Congress, it is not hard to fathom what can come next, and it will make Georgia Orwell 1984 just a sample of hell.
The RESTRICT Act can be best summed up, even by think tanks that deal with digital globalization as: “No transparency, No due process, No accountability, and the designations of undue risk are made in secret. The Secretary of Commerce is not required to publish an explanation for the designation. The Administrative Procedures Act is waived – there is no due process. The Freedom of Information Act is also waived – so there is no transparency!
“The only good thing about this law is that for once, the cute acronym attached to the bill, RESTRICT is an honest one. This law is all about restricting – if not choking off entirely –trade in information and communications technology.”
To add insult to injury, US Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) wants the United States armed with the ability to take swift action against technology companies suspected of cavorting with foreign governments and spies, to effectively make their products disappear from shelves and app stores when the threat they pose gets too BIG to ignore
Mark Warner, officially the bill’s sponsor, describes in a recent interview with the internet outlet WIRED how “we’ve seen challenges coming from foreign-based technology. He describes how it was as originally was Kaspersky, a Russian software company, then [the next target] was Huawei, a Chinese telecom provider, and more recently, the discussion has been about this Chinese-owned social media app, TikTok.
“We seem to have a whack-a-mole approach to foreign-based technology, and I think instead we need a comprehensive rules-based approach that recognizes national security is no longer simply tanks and guns, but a question about technology and technology competition.”
But the threat is not those being targeted but from a government that is getting too BIG and intrusive for its people–it is much too preoccupied with devising new schemes to further restrict our already restricted liberties, even to speak out at school board meetings and voice concerns over issues of public concern. Warner also thinks that “the onus is on the FBI to ensure privacy is protected, and I do have concerns about some of the American-based companies, the Facebooks and Googles of the world.”
And if anyone in their good mind wants to trust such agencies, CIA and FBI to protect basic human rights then they need to move to China or North Korea and lend their support from there, as history has taught Americans–and much of the world that such entities are not in the business of protecting rights but their “claim-to-fame” is to blatantly violent them–and with almost total impunity or legal recourse.
As much as I personally dislike Tik-Tok, no government should have that sort of power… Tik-Tok is just a lame excuse to put into law highly-suspect mechanisms to further restrict guaranteed freedoms of speech and basic human rights.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение US RESTRICT ACT: All-out Communist-fascist Boot-Stomping Dictatorship-legislation! появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On March 28, 2023 South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol stated that “the reality of the horrific human rights violations against the North Korean people must be fully revealed to the international community.”
On March 31, 2023 the Ministry of Reunification of the Republic of Korea (ROK) published the 2023 Human Rights Report of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) for the first time in seven years. Under the North Korean Human Rights Act passed in 2016, the Unification Minister is required to submit an annual report to the National Assembly on the human rights situation in North Korea. But the previous Moon Jae-in administration classified the reports as confidential, citing privacy concerns of North Korean defectors who gave interviews. In addition, South Korea was careful not to initiate discussions about human rights in the DPRK and not to co-sponsor relevant resolutions. According to conservatives, the Moon government did not release the report in the interest of appeasing the regime in Pyongyang for the purpose of inter-Korean dialogue, being duplicitous with human rights and indulging Kim Jong-un.
The 450-page document was compiled based on some 1,600 cases of human rights violations attested to by 508 North Korean defectors between 2017 and 2022. The ministry noted that through the publication of this report, it expects to reveal to the world the real human rights situation in the DPRK in order to improve it.
In the conservative media, the content of the report was presented as “there is no other place in the world where human rights are more brutally suppressed than here,” but is it all right? After all, the issue of “human rights,” as we well know, is quite often used to accuse North Korea of all possible sins, although we addressed the problems associated with collecting evidence back in 2014-2015, when the UN published a heartbreaking report that presented North Korea as a country “worse than Nazi Germany” in some respects. However, most of the “stories” were based on the testimony of Shin Dong-hyuk, who was later exposed as a liar and disappeared from big politics.
Since the new president of the ROK is clearly paying great attention to “human rights,” Seoul could not avoid touching on this topic. Alas, the submitted text has similar issues to the 2014 UN report. It is based on the accounts of defectors, most of whom appeared to be either retelling rumors or saying what interviewers wanted to hear. And while the list of the report’s main theses should theoretically horrify the untrained reader, it raises questions from more experienced ones. There are counterarguments to nearly every crucial point or sound bite.
Drug trafficking, dissemination of South Korean goods and content, religious practices and superstitions (such as keeping the Bible, and spreading Christianity), homosexuality, and prostitution all carry the death penalty (including execution in public). The regime also carried out the secret execution of a homosexual man in 2014 and a woman “who was accused of prostitution in 2013“.
The DPRK Criminal Code is available for public review. And from its text it is clear that, except for political crimes, the death penalty is imposed for premeditated murder or drug-related crimes with serious aggravating circumstances. There is no article for homosexuality in the DPRK Penal Code at all, and the punishment for prostitution or distribution of South Korean content is much more lenient.
Information about shootings for other crimes is taken from invalid sources, because as a rule, defectors retell rumors or adjust to the interviewer, understanding what he or she would like to hear. Sometimes anti-Pyongyang propaganda publishes supposed quotations from secret orders, but they are not copies of documents, so we “have to take their word for it.”
In addition, one can note that a single incident becomes mainstream. Data about a single incident (say, the execution of a gay man) are presented as “the regime executes homosexuals,” and this wording gives the impression that it happens systematically.
“In 2020, the North enacted a ‘rejection of reactionary ideology and culture’ law, with penalties of up to 10 years’ hard labor for people who bring and spread other people’s culture and information in an attempt to tighten state control over people’s ideology. The punishment is known to be more severe for those who watch and distribute South Korean dramas, movies, and music.”
As the author repeatedly noted, the problem with this law is that no one has seen its official text. Its description is given only by propaganda resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which had previously published falsehoods of this kind on more than one occasion. The problem is that, according to Western experts, if such data have no refutation, they are taken into account.
“The report states that a pregnant woman was publicly executed because of the 2017 distribution of a video in which she dances while pointing her finger at a portrait of the country’s late founder, Kim Il-sung. In 2015, six teenagers aged between 16 and 17 were executed in Wŏnsan for watching South Korean videos and using opium”.
The examples mentioned in the media show the breadth of interpretations and are reminiscent of the very famous case of the two teenagers from Iran who were hanged. It is alleged that they loved each other and were executed for homosexuality, but it later turned out that the reason for the trial and execution was the kidnapping of a 13-year-old boy, whom they had long tortured and raped.
Here we have the story of a group of students where it is not so much about watching soap operas as it is about opium. Given the past, the attitude toward opium in the DPRK is no less harsh than in China, and regularly watching movies while drugged is quite in line with the establishment of an opium den and the involvement of minors in drug addiction.
Most residents earn their living through private economic activity because the food supply system is not working properly.
The non-working food supply system actually works, but there are two comments: on the one hand, the rations are small and it is very hard to live on them. On the other hand, it is not planned. Against the backdrop of Kim Jong-un’s economic transformation, most rations are bought with wages and not obtained with ration cards – these remain only a symbol that the distribution system works.
There is discrimination against women who are subjected to various types of violence in the family, in educational institutions, in the army, and in places of detention.
There is discrimination against women victims of violence, but at the level of society, not the state. A mother whose daughter was raped by Shin Dong-hyuk complained that now no one would marry her daughter. But this problem is characteristic of the traditional society with its corresponding attitude toward premarital sex. Also, it is not up to South Korea to criticize someone for domestic violence or school bullying.
Students are often involved in extracurricular activities.
Involving students in extracurricular activities could be a feature of the mobilization economy or part of the learning process. But the authors of the report found this to be a violation of children’s rights.
The freedom of residence of persons with disabilities is restricted.
The author has seen disabled people in Pyongyang, and it is likely that “restricted freedom of residence” actually means that disabled people stay in boarding houses where there are comfortable conditions for them.
Prisoners in political prison camps, prisoners of war, abductees, and separated families face serious human rights violations such as executions, forced labor, surveillance, and discrimination.
Actually, the correctional system is built on surveillance and forced labor. Living conditions in DPRK prisons are indeed difficult, the problem is the verifiability of the information. Also, the author wonders, where have the prisoners of war come from since 2017?
The system of free medical care does not function adequately, and patients have to “thank” doctors in other ways (money, goods, etc.).
Just because doctors have been “thanked” since the Arduous March and there is corruption in the medical system, this does not mean that the healthcare system has collapsed. Otherwise, the country would not have coped with the coronavirus outbreak last year.
There are cases of “summary“ execution: for attempts to cross the border, unauthorized stay in the border area during the tightening of security in 2020-2022, in cases of prisoners caught trying to escape, etc.
As can be seen, “summary executions” in fact refer to the “sentry on duty shot a man who tried to cross the prohibited area” type of situation. The garrison regulations of any army give a sentry such an authorization. In this case, if all the procedures were complied with, he would not even be the subject of an investigation.
The DPRK has a total of 11 “camps” where political prisoners are held, of which five are currently operating.
In essence, there is a decrease in the number of camps, but the authors of the report chose not to publicize this point, although it is a very important indicator that the repressive burden on the masses is actually decreasing.
Meetings and public hearings are held once a week to address various life circumstances.
Interestingly, “self-criticism sessions” or party meetings in which certain elements of private life are discussed have been recorded as violations of human rights. Internet analogies with similar practices within the “culture of abolition” in the West or South Korean audiences are suggested on their own.
There are searches and inspections of homes, search and seizure, and wiretapping of phones.
This fact is hard to deny: even the leader of the people’s group (the neighboring communities) has such rights, but the authors of the report have remained silent about how often this is done and to what extent it is accompanied by abuse.
Discrimination based on “songbun” (social origin) in terms of education, employment and choice of place of residence.
All attempts to verify the use of “songbun” in the 21st century rest on the materials of the right-wing conservative newspaper Chosun Ilbo. According to the author’s personal data, today’s songbun is more reminiscent of Soviet questionnaires of the 1980s, where questions about relatives abroad and presence in the occupied territories were still present. The author’s respondents also emphasized that personal qualities were placed above origin.
Forced mobilization for participation in major public events and rallies.
As far as the author knows, student meetings in the ROK, as well as participation in rallies by members of trade unions or Protestant sects are also held under the “attendance of all those who want is strictly mandatory” system, but like party meetings or homeroom periods at school, this is considered a violation of human rights.
Workers sent abroad work up to 17 hours a day for very little compensation.
North Korean workers’ living conditions abroad are, in fact, quite well known. And the author has repeatedly written in the pages of the IEE that the remaining portions of North Korean workers’ wages are enough to return home a respectable and well-off person. And talk of a 17-hour workday is more about the plight of defectors working illegally in China or Southeast Asia.
Torture, forced labor, sexual violence, and hunger in correctional institutions.
When it comes to the detention of prisoners, there are plenty of problems, but the authors of previous reports were compelled to note an improvement in the overall state of affairs.
Thus, the indication of practices typical of most authoritarian regimes is interspersed with outright lies, and will be another aggravating factor in inter-Korean relations.
It should be noted that this activity of the South is taking place against the backdrop of Seoul’s intense attempts to fit into the “universal” agenda in general. South Korea is in every way expressing its approval and support for the UN reports of the group. On March 28, the South Korean government welcomed a new UN human rights report condemning abductions and human rights violations in North Korea. In the report, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) highlighted the economic, social, and emotional suffering of victims of enforced disappearances. It also criticized North Korea’s systematic abductions and enforced disappearances as “crimes against humanity.“
The report is based on 80 in-depth interviews conducted between 2016 and 2022 with 38 men and 42 women victims of enforced disappearances. These included relatives of the enforced disappeared, North Koreans who fled their country, and foreigners who fled the North after being abducted. Unfortunately, there are not many details, which already leads to questions.
For example, it is not very clear to the author where “abductions and enforced disappearances” come from in North Korea. Regimes of this kind try to act according to the law, even when it comes to reprisals in the extrajudicial system. Enforced disappearances without trial are typical of other types of regimes, be they Latin American juntas or Lee Seung-Man-era South Korea, because even under Park Chung-Hee they tried to arrest and charge people.
A separate story concerns the kidnapping of ROK citizens. We’ve also written about it before, so let me remind you briefly: up to a certain time, persons with relatives in the North were subjected to reprisals because they were believed to have gone north with the Communists. But a loophole was found in the laws, and suddenly it turned out that if relatives were taken away by force, they were victims who deserved compensation. Of course, all those who wished to upgrade their official status changed their versions.
As for the foreigners who were kidnapped and managed to escape, it is assumed that we are talking about kidnapped Japanese citizens – this fact was recognized in 2002, after which those who survived did not escape, but were released.
On March 4, 2023, the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a resolution condemning the gross human rights violations in North Korea. The UNHRC has been passing resolutions condemning human rights violations in North Korea since 2003, but importantly, the document was again co-sponsored by the ROK for the first time in five years. The ROK did not co-sponsor such resolutions between 2019 and 2022, seeking to avoid tensions in inter-Korean relations and to resume dialogue with the North.
The document criticized “widespread and systematic” human rights violations in the north of the Korean peninsula. It calls on the North Korean authorities to ensure freedom of speech, allow the creation of independent media outlets, and revise the law on blocking foreign cultural content. In addition, the resolution requires Pyongyang to disclose information about the whereabouts of foreigners who have been detained or abducted by North Korean secret services.
The resolution also calls on Pyongyang to disclose all relevant information, including the whereabouts of foreigners detained or abducted in the North, to the families of the victims. This appears to reflect a demand to clarify the circumstances surrounding the death of a South Korean fisheries official who was shot and killed by North Korean border guards during the “Yellow Sea incident” in 2020.
Pyongyang categorically rejected the resolution, calling it “the product of a political conspiracy”. As Han Tae-song, permanent representative of the DPRK to the UN office in Geneva, said in his address to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), “This document was written for the sole purpose of embarrassing the DPRK. It is aimed at realizing a pipe dream of overthrowing our society.” “The DPRK will never tolerate any hostile action by the US and the forces following it that infringe on our sovereignty and dignity, and will make every effort to protect the genuine people’s system and their rights.“
Thus, the topic of human rights in the DPRK is used by Seoul rather as an element of the general agenda, despite the controversial evidence base and the risks that playing on these strings will provoke an understandable reaction from the DPRK that is not conducive to easing regional tensions.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Seoul’s efforts to intensify the human rights issue in North Korea are met with difficulties in justifying their actions again появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Saudi Arabia, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, who is effectively the kingdom’s leader due to his father the king’s late age, has pursued a strong foreign policy, both regionally and globally. China arranged an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, easing long-standing tensions between the two countries. The decision surely validates expectations of an end to the region’s recent volatility, which has been expertly engineered by the West, led by the United States. The agreement was a continuation of previous Saudi-led reconciliation agreements with Qatar and Turkey. In turn, Riyadh’s recent measures have thrown a “stone in the still waters” of regional conflicts, allowing diplomacy to grab opportunities to transition from tension to calm. It could be argued that the multipolar world plan proposed by Russia and its President Vladimir Putin is being actively pursued in the Middle East region.
CIA Director William Burns had nothing to offer on the subject except to express disappointment over the China-brokered agreement for Saudi Arabia to reestablish ties with Iran in March. Burns sadly stated to Saudi officials that the United States was caught off guard after the kingdom agreed to an agreement to normalize relations with Iran. In this way, the CIA director only confirmed that the Crown Prince, in the spirit of creating a new multipolar world, has clearly demonstrated that he and the Kingdom now look out primarily for their own interests, rather than catering to former overseas patrons.
In this context, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian and his Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud have already held talks in Beijing and issued a joint statement in which they agreed to restore diplomatic relations. It also said that the two countries agreed to work to revitalize a general agreement on cooperation in the economy, trade, investment, technology, science, culture, sports and youth, signed back in 1998, as well as a security cooperation agreement signed in 2001. The agreement also had an impact on other issues: Riyadh has begun negotiations with Syria to resume consular services in exchange for concessions that serve the kingdom’s interests. These successive steps could be followed by others to resolve the complex crises plaguing the region, in a win-win situation for both countries.
Reports have surfaced that Saudi Arabia plans to invite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to an Arab League summit that Riyadh will host next month. According to Reuters, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud will travel to Damascus in the coming weeks to extend a formal invitation to Assad to attend the summit, scheduled for May 19. Quite naturally, the current steps could not have happened without the Crown Prince’s will and determination to adopt a pioneering policy aimed at genuine positive change in the region.
The Kingdom has adopted a new vision to curb disputes and reorient the regional compass in favor of development and cooperation rather than the chaos artificially created by Western countries. The Kingdom’s vision is already in conflict with the interests of the Western powers. Riyadh is moving forward with a more regional foreign policy that is more balanced and independent of the Western powers. Suffice it to say that the gnashing of teeth in the West was caused by the latest OPEC+ decision, in which the Kingdom plays no small part, to cut oil production by an additional 1.1 million barrels per day.
This brilliant plan, which underlies Saudi interests, was articulated by the kingdom’s leader, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, in his “Vision 2030”, which argues that long-term prosperity for the Saudi people is the main driver of the country’s foreign policy as well as the region’s prosperity and stability. Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud elaborated, adding: “Saudi foreign policy cannot be understood apart from the significant changes occurring within the Kingdom at all levels. The Kingdom has made development at all levels in recent years. It has presented the region with a model of economic, social, and cultural modernization at a time when the region is plagued by disputes, chaos and crises. Saudi Arabia is a paradigm of a nation that is independent of East and West. Its policy is centered on diversifying partnerships and building bridges with the whole world without restrictions or dictate.”
This approach has proven the Kingdom’s determination to take decisive steps to ease tensions in order to prepare the way for a new age based on the creation of a multipolar world, which Russia has clearly justified and suggested. One of the fruits of this very sensible policy is Saudi Arabia’s thriving economy, which has become the fastest growing economy in the world. For the first time, the country’s GDP has reached a trillion dollars, and by 2030 the kingdom aims to be among the 15 largest economies in the world. The Saudis seek to make their model an example for others to emulate in order to achieve a quality regional transformation, free of interventions and rivalries that only fuel disputes.
This model is in line with the forward-looking vision of the region developed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. It clearly reflects a profoundly beneficial turn, away from the recurrent crises and turmoil generated in the past by Western colonial powers, and toward stability, modernization, and prosperity.
As a result, Saudi Arabia follows two parallel pathways. The first is to boost stability and reduce tensions. This was demonstrated by the resumption of diplomatic relations with Iran and the invitation extended to the Iranian president to visit Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, the country prepared to open a new chapter in relations with the Syrian regime, paving the way for the return of Syria to its Arab sphere, with the Kingdom acting as a “key gateway.” These steps complement mediation and other traditional roles Saudi Arabia has played in the region, such as Riyadh-led mediation efforts that will soon allow Sudan to emerge from its political crisis, not to mention other efforts to defuse crises and promote peace.
The second is the introduction of initiatives to promote regional prosperity. Saudi Arabia’s vision is not limited to resolving crises, it also puts the region on a positive trajectory. For example, its Green Middle East initiative is not just about combating climate change; its main goal is to prepare the region for a post-oil era. It is a dynamic, forward-looking vision that will make the region a future supplier of renewable energy to the world, as it already is with oil.
There is no doubt that all parties are waiting for Saudi Arabia’s initiative and dynamic foreign policy to push the region toward stability. This includes ending the war in Yemen, restoring stability in Iraq, advancing the political process in Lebanon, resolving differences between parties to the crisis in Sudan, and ending proxy wars — in addition to addressing other threats to regional security and stability.
Saudi Arabia’s vision, Arab News notes, was adopted from a position of strength and the path chosen by the Kingdom is a path of survival for the crisis-ridden countries of the region, allowing them to overcome challenges and crises, and to play a relevant role in the future.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Saudi Arabia in keeping with the Politics of a Multipolar World появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
For a very long time, most Western states – and financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – have framed China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a massive “debt trap” that China is using to establish its geopolitical tentacles across the world. For Washington, China’s spread threatened its own unilateral hegemony that it has been maintaining since the end of the Second World War. Therefore, the US would frequently demand “transparency” and warn the BRI countries of the dangers associated with partnering with China. More recently, as a global economic crisis began to develop in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine/NATO military conflict, the West started to re-project China’s BRI as an underlying cause for all the problems that some countries – such as Sri Lanka – faced. This was despite the fact that Sri Lanka owed only 10 per cent of its foreign debt to China. But by pointing all fingers at China, the West (unsuccessfully) tried to build an image of China as a country that robs other countries’ resources. Many in the West demanded that China must restructure its debts and/or help its BRI partners in economic distress.
But new findings indicate that China has been, for a very long time, helping its partner countries. The Western propaganda notwithstanding, a new study conducted by researchers from the World Bank, Harvard Kennedy School, Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the US-based research lab AidData shows that between 2008 and 2021, China as an “International Lender of Last Resort”, spent US$240 billion bailing out 22 countries.
Three days ago, China decided to roll over US$2 billion to Pakistan to help the latter navigate a complex economic situation. This Chinese practice is neither new nor exclusive to Pakistan. More importantly, this practice is not different from what the IMF and other West-based private lenders have been doing for the past many decades. According to the said report,
“In terms of incidence, we identify 128 separate rescue lending operations. Most of these are rollovers, meaning loans renewed upon maturity and going to the same country … [the data] shows that some debtors, like Argentina, Mongolia or Pakistan, have received continuous balance of payments support from Chinese banks and the PBOC [People’s Bank of China]. These types of repeated bailouts by China are reminiscent of the “serial lending” practices by the IMF in recent decades …. and more broadly, the serial restructurings and bridge credits by private creditors prevalent during the 1980s debt crisis …”
This finding reveals many things that dismantle Western propaganda. First, China undertook 128 different rescue missions. It means that Western claims that China has countries under its “trap” are completely unfounded. Were these countries actually under the Chinese trap, the latter would have simply taken over their assets. Secondly, some countries have continuously received Chinese support. In other words, this support is not episodic or came as a result of Western pressure at points of crisis. Thirdly, the US claims that China is violating the so-called “rule-based” international order. The report shows that this is far from the case. In fact, the report shows that China is using the same playbook that the US-dominated IMF follows. How come China violates the international system? If anything, this report shows how China is actually reinforcing the same order. Therefore, the US propaganda about China being a “revisionist” power is nothing short of a hoax it is trying to sell to the world to discourage other countries from allying with China. Ultimately, the US wants to maintain its own hegemony. The crisis for the US is real, for China is doing exactly what the US has been doing for a very long time. To quote the report once again,
“Similarities between Chinese rescue lending and past US Treasury bailouts go beyond the terms of lending. The US Treasury, in conjunction with the US Export-Import Bank, has acted as an international crisis manager since the 1930s and extended bilateral bailouts through a variety of instruments, including its Exchange Stabilization Fund … Consistent with China’s contemporary approach, US bilateral bailouts systematically targeted countries with high level of outstanding debt to US banks and exporters, most importantly during the Latin American debt crises of the 1980s and 1990s. More recently, bailout loans during the Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crises were strongly driven by the large exposures that private banks in Northern Europe had vis-à-vis Southern European banks and sovereigns.”
While some western pundits were quick to point to the “fact” that China is bailing out countries that partnered with Beijing’s BRI, the report shows that the US has been doing the same, i.e. rescuing countries under Washington’s own debt, for decades. Again, China does not appear to be “violating” the so-called “rules-based” international order.
Secondly, it is wrong to project that China’s rescue missions are directed towards those countries – Argentina, Ecuador, Suriname and Venezuela in Latin America; Angola, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania and Kenya in Africa; Turkey, Oman and Egypt in the Middle East; and Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mongolia and Laos in Asia – that borrow heavily from China. There is no denying that many of these countries – Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc – also borrow from the IMF and other private lenders. For instance, out of Pakistan’s about US$125 billion-dollar external debts, Pakistan owes only about US$30 billion to China.
But when we read Western media reports and when we read statements by western political officials, the image we get of China is always negative. There is a simple intention behind this image: maligning China as an international player to undermine its rise and ability to dominate the world. The question, however, remains whether this propaganda will succeed. China’s recent diplomatic success in facilitating a “geopolitical bailout” between Saudi Arabia and Iran shows the strength that Beijing has acquired through its massive economic projects, mainly the BRI. From here, China only stands to grow further, with Western propaganda losing its appeal.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение How China is Managing its BRI Partners: New Findings появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Yoshimasa Hayashi, the foreign minister of Japan, paid a visit to China on April 1-2 of this year, and everything that went along with it ended up being rather indicative of the complex and contentious processes going on throughout the Indo-Pacific area as a whole, since during this visit, the complicated relationship between two of the many important participants in these processes was discussed.
We should note at once that the talks in Beijing ended without any noticeable positive results, and the state of bilateral relations can continue to be described by the same (politically correct) term “complicated”. Proof of this is the rarity of the very acts of the negotiation process which if they have happened recently at all, then on the occasion and in the margin of various international platforms. When, as they say, “parting in the corridor without noticing each other” would have looked quite unseemly. By the way, the discussed visit of Yoshimasa Hayashi was postponed several times.
When it finally took place, then over the course of one day (April 2) the PRC’s Foreign Minister Qin Gang, the newly appointed Premier Li Qiang, and the current second in command of Chinese foreign policy (after President Xi Jinping) Wang Yi held consecutive talks with the guest.
As far as we can understand, the substance of the entire negotiation process was the subject of the first meeting, which was also the longest. The third stage, apparently, was a kind of “final review” of what had been discussed during that first meeting. The second stage (which lasted 40 minutes) was designated on the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s website as a “courtesy visit” to an important new person in the PRC leadership hierarchy.
Let us point once again to the main component of the mentioned contradictory nature of Japan-China relations, which is quite typical for many paired configurations comprised of other Indo-Pacific countries. Which, we note, include the United States, i.e. simultaneously the main ally of Japan and the principal geopolitical opponent of the People’s Republic of China. Washington itself has been constantly insisting in recent years that the United States belongs to this region.
As for the inconsistency in the overall picture of relations between China and Japan, until recently one could speak of a more or less prosperous state of economic relations, which was contrasted to varying degrees by a steady process of degradation in the political sphere. In general, the same picture was observed in the system of relations between China and the United States.
But in the past few years, Washington has turned entire sectors of the economy into a field of struggle with its main geopolitical opponent. First of all, those that operate with the so-called “high technology”. At the same time, persistent attempts are being made to draw the closest allies, primarily Japan, into the new field of struggle with Beijing.
Recall about the recent institutional and legislative measures taken by Washington to block China’s access to the world system of development, production and marketing of advanced microelectronic semi-finished products (chips). The latter are now increasingly becoming a critical element of the final products (including military) of the above mentioned “high technology”.
Japan now joins the US (and the Netherlands with its critically important ASML) in restricting China’s access to interstate “supply chains” for chips. At the end of March, that is, on the eve of Yoshimasa Hayashi visit to Beijing, strengthening of export control was announced over a number of “instruments” manufactured in Japan, which are used in the above-mentioned production and logistics “chain”.
Apparently, the issue of Japan’s involvement in the US anti-Chinese chip making measures was among several major issues that were raised before the Japanese guest by the hosts of the meetings held in Beijing. It is noteworthy, however, that the topic was not mentioned at all in the reports issued by the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
Meanwhile, reports on a number of countermeasures planned in China, which came immediately after the meetings, show that little headway had been made in preventing a “high-tech war” during the talks. First, it is reported that an appeal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is being prepared with a request to review the aforementioned Japanese export restrictions for their compliance with the statutory provisions of this organization.
Secondly, there are plans to introduce controls on exports from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) of rare-earth magnets. These latter are also extremely important, especially in the manufacturing of modern electrical products and, above all, in the advanced automotive industry. And since China is almost a monopolist both in REM mining and production of electromagnetic semi-finished products based on them, the most important industries mainly of the US and Western Europe may be under threat.
Japan, on the other hand, has some opportunity to avoid such a prospect, since it maintains some ties with Chinese manufacturers of these products. It has even been claimed that the technological know-how of Japanese companies was used in the organization of their production ten years ago in China.
But overall, it seems that Washington (and Tokyo in its wake) had hardly calculated, at least their first subsequent moves in the dangerous game that began with attempts to isolate from modern technology a country of such importance in the world economy as China already is.
Yet the main contribution to the thickening shadow over Japan-China relations as a whole is, we repeat, their political component. The adoption of Japan’s new National Security Strategy with its clearly defined anti-Chinese orientation was another very significant act in this sphere.
Moreover, that document already serves as the basis for launching a fundamentally new phase of the country’s military development, during which the Japan Self-Defense Forces (one of the most powerful armed forces in the world operating under this euphemistic name) will take on a completely “traditional” appearance. In other words, the JSDF will have the ability to conduct preemptive offensive operations in order to “prevent the expected strikes by a potential enemy.” The role of the latter continues to be faithfully performed by North Korea. In fact, however, we have long been talking about a much more important contender for this role.
China is also wary of the impending publication of a foreign policy white paper that Japan is preparing. Leaks in the media space about some of its main provisions, among which the thesis on the “greatest strategic threat” from China may be the most important, provoke understandable comments from Beijing.
The generalized message of the hosts of the Beijing meetings, which was addressed to the (rare, I repeat) guest, was to advise him not to involve Japan in the “US efforts to encircle China.” In turn, the countermove was the guest’s statement of his country’s interest in “maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait,” as well as “concern” over the situations in Hong Kong and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
There was also an exchange of views on the topic of the upcoming dumping into the ocean of a million tons of “decontaminated” water from the cooling system of the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant reactors. The Chinese side expressed concern over this issue, while the guest said there was nothing wrong with the level of purification.
Finally, we note that after the completion of the discussed visit to China by Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi, no noticeable positive shifts in relations between the two leading regional powers have occurred. That is evidenced by the lack of clarity regarding at least continued contacts between the foreign ministers of the two countries.
For China, however, more serious evidence of this was the fact that on April 3 (i.e., the day after the visit to Beijing ended) the same Hayashi visited Belgium and had a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The reaction in China to the publicly announced outcome of their talks was quite predictable.
The news of the completion of the Hotline between the defense ministries of the two countries is a rare positive act (more of symbolic significance, though) in Japan-China relations lately. This was done in order to prevent “unwanted incidents” that may arise while the sides’ coast guard ships are in the disputed areas of the East China Sea.
And this has been happening with increasing frequency in recent years.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Japan’s Foreign Minister Visits the People’s Republic of China появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
A Pentagon radio memo that was leaked and made public claims that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency encouraged demonstrations against judicial reform by the Netanyahu administration. This accusation comes amid an investigation into classified US document leaks.
According to a top-secret US National Security Agency dossier, the Mossad encouraged its personnel and common people to take part in large-scale protests against the Israeli government’s proposed judicial reform. This document is only a small portion of a vast collection of NSA files that contain information about Washington’s allies and enemies in the Middle East that was gathered through espionage. When it comes to intelligence gathering methods, the Americans make no distinction between the former and the latter.
According to intelligence released to the press and Internet, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff operational reports, the anti-government protests in Israel were supported not only by five former Mossad chiefs, but also by the current head of Israel’s Mossad espionage agency, David Barnea. The latter in particular gave permission for agency personnel to take part in disobedience actions directly.
Spying by US intelligence agencies on Israeli colleagues is not unusual. Numerous cases of spying on European allies, including economic and political espionage against European countries, support experts’ findings that former intelligence agency partnership obligations are being replaced by American “concepts.” Washington views foreign allies as potential targets of aspirations, against which not only spying but also other hostile activities are acceptable.
If the Netanyahu administration is expelled and resigns as a result of the current political crisis in Israel, the White House will play a role in this, because it did not want to warn its ally about local security forces’ hostility to the Israeli government.
Bakhtiar Usmanov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Mossad Rebellion against the Netanyahu Administration’s judicial reform появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The island province of Taiwan has been pushed closer still to conflict by Washington recently as the US hosted a visit by Tsai Ing-Wen of the Democratic Progressive Party who currently heads the administration in Taipei.
During her trip to the United States, Tsai Ing-Wen met with the current US Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in a move meant to deliberately undermine China’s sovereignty through oblique political recognition of separatist elements within China.
The BBC in its article, “China moves warships after US hosts Taiwan’s Tsai,” would claim:
China has launched military drills in response to a much-anticipated meeting between Taiwan’s president Tsai Ing-wen and US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
The article also claimed:
Beijing, in turn, has vowed a “resolute response” and sent warships into the waters around the self-governed island.
Taiwan, it appears, is caught in the middle of a dangerous love triangle. The timing of Ms Tsai’s visit is hardly a coincidence. In the US there is deep and growing hostility to China.
And this is driving ever more open displays of support for Taiwan, with Democrats and Republicans competing to out-do each other.
The British state media outlet failed to inform readers that officially, according to the US State Department’s own website, the US government does not recognize Taiwan’s independence and observes a “one China policy.” The “one China policy” means Washington recognizes there is only one China, Taiwan is a part of China, and that there is only one legitimate government of all of China, the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Washington’s Double Dealing Over Taiwan
Official US policy regarding Taiwan mirrors that observed by the vast majority of nations on Earth along with a multitude of international institutions including the United Nations itself.
However, also on the same US State Department webpage, the reality of Washington’s double-dealing is revealed. The page claims:
The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence; and we expect cross-Strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means. We continue to have an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes available defense articles and services as necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability -– and maintains our capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of Taiwan.
The “three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances” involve communications and agreements made between Washington and Beijing recognizing the PRC’s sovereignty over all of China including Taiwan. These agreements were followed by the complete withdrawal of US forces who had been occupying the island province for over two decades until 1979.
However, the additional “Taiwan Relations Act,” was a unilateral law passed by the US Congress with no input or approval from Beijing, intended specifically to undermine Washington’s own agreed-upon one China policy. The Taiwan Relations Act “allows” the US government to supply the administration in Taipei with political and military support, undermining China’s sovereignty through the sometimes tacit, sometimes direct backing of separatism on the island province.
“Fight China to the Last Taiwanese”
The US is currently entangled in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. The proxy war is depleting US and European military inventories, exposing the weakness and limitations of Western military industrial output, and through related economic and financial sanctions placed on Russia, inflicted what may be a fatal blow to the collective West’s economic and financial system.
While the US seeks to escalate in Ukraine, it is also openly preparing for war with China over Taiwan and the separatism the US is increasingly supporting there.
US policymakers have repeatedly claimed that “China” seeks war over Taiwan by 2025. In reality, it is the US desperate to provoke a conflict within the next several years, fearing that the gap between the US and China militarily and economically is soon to close before widening again, this time in China’s favor.
The US government and arms industry-funded policy think-tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a paper earlier this year titled, “The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan.” In it, CSIS argues:
China’s leaders have become increasingly strident about unifying Taiwan with the People’s Republic of China. Senior US officials and civilian experts alike have expressed concern about Chinese intentions and the possibility of conflict. Although Chinese plans are unclear, a military invasion is not out of the question and would constitute China’s most dangerous solution to its “Taiwan problem”; it has therefore become a focus of US national security discourse.
And by “a focus of US national security discourse,” CSIS is referring to both the open planning and actual military preparations underway for a potential war with China over Taiwan despite official US policy regarding Taiwan having already long-since solved China’s “Taiwan problem.”
It is unofficial US policy supporting separatism on Taiwan, part of a broader strategy to encircle and contain China, that is creating and increasing “the possibility of conflict.”
Just as the US is fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian, US policy papers reveal a similar strategy being prepared regarding Taiwan.
The CSIS paper admits that the cost of preserving Taiwan’s political autonomy would likely be vast levels of death and destruction including infrastructure and industry on the island of Taiwan.
The paper at times infers this is inevitable and owed to Chinese military actions, however, in other parts of the paper it’s admitted that the US itself would deliberately destroy Taiwan’s infrastructure in a bid to deny its use by the PRC and China’s armed forces.
The paper notes:
Ports and airfields enable the use of more varied ships and aircraft to accelerate the transport of troops ashore. The United States may attack these facilities to deny their use after Chinese capture.
Regarding war games CSIS conducted which were the subject of the paper, it concludes:
In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years.
The entire destruction of Taiwan for the sake of maintaining an “autonomous Taiwan” is a familiar theme throughout US foreign policy in general, but also a reoccuring theme regarding Taiwan specifically.
An October 2022 Bloomberg article titled, “Taiwan Tensions Spark New Round of US War-Gaming on Risk to TSMC,” would report:
Contingency planning for a potential assault on Taiwan has been stepped up after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to people familiar with the Biden administration’s deliberations. The scenarios attach heightened strategic significance to the island’s cutting-edge chip industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. In the worst case, they say, the US would consider evacuating Taiwan’s highly skilled chip engineers.
The article also stated:
At the extreme end of the spectrum, some advocate the US make clear to China that it would destroy TSMC facilities if the island was occupied, in an attempt to deter military action or, ultimately, deprive Beijing of the production plants. Such a “scorched-earth strategy” scenario was raised in a paper by two academics that appeared in the November 2021 issue of the US Army War College Quarterly.
And while Washington continuously frames its interference in China’s internal political affairs as championing democracy and freedom, US planners have proposed the use of coercive export controls targeting Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, forcing it to migrate to the United States, transfer technology to American shores, and spend at least as much money in the US as it does on the island province of Taiwan.
It is all done in a bid to reduce and eventually eliminate dependency on Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and allow the US to begin developing a monopoly over associated technologies and processes involved in semiconductor manufacturing.
Bloomberg would report:
Taipei is feeling pressured by Washington on the chip front as attempts are also made to reduce Taiwan’s role in the global supply chain, effectively diminishing what President Tsai Ing-wen has called the island’s “Silicon Shield.”
The paradox was on show during Kamala Harris’s September visit to Asia. Hours before hailing Taiwan’s technological contributions to the “global good,” the vice president touted a new US bill authorizing $50 billion for semiconductor research and manufacturing in America.
“Our dependence on Taiwan for chips is, you know, cut substantially,” Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said Sept. 29, when asked at an Atlantic Council event where she saw the US in 10 years. “It’s just like a new dawn.”
In essence, the US is stripping away anything of value from Taiwan that it can ahead of armed conflict US planners are fully aware will scour the surface of the island of all essential industry and infrastructure.
Any infrastructure or industry not destroyed in the fighting will be deliberately targeted by the United States for destruction to deny its use by China. Such plans have been developed to the extent that Taiwan’s administration has responded.
In a Gizmodo article titled, “Taiwan Official Explains With Extreme Calm Why the U.S. Doesn’t Need to Blow Up TSMC if China Invades,” it is reported that:
A recent Bloomberg report showed that the U.S. was drafting up contingency plans that could include evacuating Taiwan’s chip engineers and even considered hypotheticals of putting troops on the ground.
But one aspect of all the war games is the few war wonks who have advocated that the U.S. threaten to destroy TSMC facilities if China were to move in. A paper published in the Army War College Quarterly last year mentioned a “scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan not just unattractive… but positively costly to maintain.” Bloomberg cites one former Pentagon official who also advocated for Biden to come up with a plan to bomb TSMC.
Of course, those are just a few voices in a very crowded and loud room, but the old children’s sandbox rules of “if I can’t have it, then nobody can” have attracted enough attention that Taiwan’s military officials apparently made a response.
The article then cites Taiwan’s National Security Bureau Director-General Chen Ming-tong who claimed that even if China secured TSMC’s facilities, supply chain issues would make it impossible for the facilities to continue functioning. Whether this is true or not, the US would likely take a “better safe than sorry” approach and destroy the facilities anyway.
The entire purpose of provoking this conflict with China is explained by CSIS in their abovementioned paper:
…failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule.
The hope is not just to drag China into a highly destructive and costly military conflict, but also to undermine the political stability within China and perhaps even create conditions conducive with regime change in Beijing.
Additionally, an armed conflict the US triggers with China may create an opportunity for the US and its European and Australian partners to impose a global maritime shipping blockade of China. The US Marine Corps has been reconfigured as a fighting force specifically to target shipping and to potentially threaten or close down straits essential for maritime shipping.
Between now and 2025 represents Washington’s best opportunity to achieve these objectives, reducing or destroying China’s political and economic influence around the globe, and allowing the United States to reassert its long-standing primacy over Asia, a region thousands of miles from US shores.
Whatever the outcome, Washington’s immense and growing desire for war with China means the complete destruction of Taiwan, following the ongoing destruction of Ukraine in yet another US proxy war. Taiwan’s population and the administration in Taipei must look at Ukraine and ask what, if anything, will be worth leading Taiwan down the same path.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Taiwan Pushed Closer to Conflict by Washington появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
People left on the edge of society often speak truth to power, and reveal inconvenient truths.
For instance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a visit to Poland on April 5, and the Polish media did their best to censor it, at least the news of it before it was to happen. Why?
Was it only because they did not want people to know too much, or was something more sinister going on? Should the truth about this get out to a wider audience, it would sound like classic conspiracy theory, like the Sky is falling, but these have been proven accurate often enough.
I was provided a list of portals which had removed the forewarning of the visit: onet.pl, euronews.com, independent.co.uk, etc. Was this due to security concerns, as with the non-announcements of British or Irish prime ministerial visits to Northern Ireland?
If so, why did Zelenskyy even go?
Don’t Look Up!
The AP described the state visit, on the actual day, as “a gesture of thanks to the neighboring nation for its crucial support in Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion.” It was also described as an opportunity to meet Ukrainians and discuss the grain glut in Poland, which exists due to exports from Ukraine which were supposed to be only in transit—much to the dismay of Polish farmers, who cannot sell their own production at normal prices.
It should come as no surprise in retrospect that during two recent international trips, Zelenskyy travelled through Poland. On his way back from the US and Europe, Ukraine’s president has held meetings with his Polish counterpart Andrzej Duda.
Considering some of the recent media hype describing Poland being the upcoming military force, a powerhouse on the European Continent, one obvious thing they could have discussed is, “Will Poland and Rump Ukraine Unite?”
With the current number of Polish soldiers only 20,000 less than that of the German Bundeswehr, it is not impossible that the political ground for this would be harder to prepare than the military one, and that is exactly what two presidents would be talking to each other about.
Ukrainisation of Poland
One thing is certain; Poland is not the UK, a “has been” military force. It is however having to face harsh realities, due to its inconvenient location, threats real or perceived, and how it has got itself caught up in a war it can’t just walk away from, which is just a stone’s throw away.
But alternative media touches on some of the fear facing Poland: for instance, one report describes how in 2022 the streets of Warsaw witnessed a protest march under the slogan ‘Stop the Ukrainisation of Poland,’ organised by the Konfederacja Korony Polskiej (Confederation of the Polish Crown), a far-right party headed by Member of Parliament Grzegorz Braun.
Those taking part unfurled banners, ‘This is Poland and not Ukropol!’, making a reference to the concept that Poland is being overtaken by Ukrainians. Posters and slogans spoke of ‘Stop replacing the ethnic structure of Poland.”
Something shadowy is going on below the surface in Poland. For instance, some recent headlines are revealing: Memories of Russian tyranny are driving Poland’s rearmament, i.e. not those of the tyranny of the Soviet Union or Imperial Russia, is a telltale sign of the Sky is Falling.
As Politico notes, Poland’s ambitions for military hegemony in Europe will not immediately translate into political strength, as the state is led by the ultra-nationalist PiS (Law and Justice Party), and thus remains a secondary force in the European Union for the time being. But Poland is part of a process of NATO rearmament which has been greatly accelerated by the war in Ukraine.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg describes this dynamic as “the biggest overhaul of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War”. To buttress this with political doublespeak, Polish President Andrzej Duda has [unconditionally] assured Ukraine of further support in the ‘fight against the Russian aggressor, because if Russia is not stopped, it will continue its aggressive actions”.
The venue for such remarks was almost something from a sitcom. Duda was speaking online at the Second Summit for Democracy, organised by US President Joe Biden, Ukrinform reports.
“Ukraine has never been and will never be alone in its struggle, because Ukrainians are fighting for all of us. If Russia is not stopped, it is ready to go further,” Duda stressed.
He also told how Poland has accepted more Ukrainian refugees and guest workers than any other European country, and most of these refugees have found help in private households and not refugee camps.
“Today Poland is home to over 3.5 million Ukrainians,” he said, adding that the Polish government has to date spent over USD 9 billion on humanitarian aid for Ukraine.
Oxymoron for Ukraine
The honoured and special guests at this online summit included Special Guest “The Honorable” Vitali Klitschko, Mayor of Kyiv, Ukraine. The virtual gathering also featured Volodymyr Zelenskyy discussing his vision for a just and lasting peace, alongside Foreign Ministers from a regionally diverse group of countries.
It appears however that what Poland is doing for Ukrainians may prove counterproductive. Ukraine has no real friends or (fair-weather friends) at best, as Americans don’t like losers, and will leave a high school ballgame at halftime if the home team losing or not far ahead. It is even conceivable, for conspiracy theorists, that Poland has its eyes on lost territories and is just waiting for the opportune time.
RT reports that Poland’s military assistance to Ukraine is part of a secret plan aimed at destroying the country’s statehood. The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergey Naryshkin, warned on March the 4th that “if Kiev is ultimately defeated by Moscow, Poland will be able to retake lands that it lost to the Soviet Union in the 1940s.”
The Ukrainian narrative has taken almost total control, and not only manipulated Duda but many European leaders, as too many political stakes now depend on how things turn out. However if Poland is willing to retake land from Ukraine, this would provoke German revisionists to retake West Pomerania, and a flood of other claims made simply for being on the right side of the argument, like the swathes of the Adriatic claimed by Italy in 1919, with no foundation, refusal of which was a contributory factor to the rise of European fascism.
There are much BIGGER issues globally to contend with–mostly related to economic and security fault lines in Europe and divisions within NATO itself. But globalists would rather see chaos everywhere, as this would leave their ideology being the only “solution”. We are seeing the results of this in the impact on internal political processes within European countries, with left parties gaining ground.
Even in Austria, MPs have protested openly over a televised addressed by Zelenskyy, walking out, and this only shows that Europeans are not closing ranks in support of the grand scheme of things—the American plan of taking control of key political processes and ownership of politicians.
Another thing starting to concern Poles is that Ukrainians who have migrated to Poland are being fast tracked through a process which will give them the same rights and responsibilities as Poles, and then provided with Polish passports rather quickly. This has taken many by surprise, and Poles are fearful that it could upset the cultural, language, and political balance.
Not in any other countries in Europe are refugees/migrants so quickly integrated, at least legally. There are rumours circulating about the setting up of Ukrainian minority parties which will end up in the Polish parliament, and how this could really be a game changer.
Ukropol as a Union
Ukropol began as a word used by anti-Ukrainian propaganda to describe Poland’s alleged dependence on Ukraine. The concept of Ukropol as a Union between Poland and Ukraine was discussed even at the beginning of that war, and with things going as they are in Ukraine, this may become an unintended consequence based on demographic realities, military and political outcomes.
Ukrainian nationalists want Rzeszow and some other Polish towns back, lost as a result of the so-called Vistula Action in the wake of the Ukrainian population being transplanted to West Pomerania/Yalta. At least this is the view of Max Kolonko, described as an independent Polish correspondent in New York.
Poles tell me that “this guy comes off as a bit crazy in his radicalism, writing letters to all major politicians explaining how to stop that war. He is living and working in New York: here is his resolution, again it is in Polish; he is on YouTube I guess, some stuff in English as well.”
Another Polish respondent touches on the same territory when he writes, God, how I am so bewildered by media propaganda in our nation!
I’m not talking about help; let’s take an example from the West: they keep refugees in camps and on social welfare for only three months, and then they have to work! This is the case in Germany for Ukrainians; they only support them until June “free”!
Another shared,
This is true about the gender issue, which is also part of the agenda – it is hysteria, like in the USA; in Poland we have a parade and show on the streets, but for political correctness you had better be silent otherwise they call you homophobes. The government is saying that Russia is ready to divide Ukraine, and we Poles represent naivety at its best … and we may have problems with Nazis coming from Ukraine and Maidan like incidents may be staged in Polish towns soon. And yes, there may be revision of the Polish border. The US and NATO will do nothing to help us!
Against this background, we will see what the results of Zelenskyy’s latest visit to Poland will be. As another correspondent suggested, “is this damage control or some kind of last ditch attempt by the embattled Zelenskyy to find the help that is fast-disappearing as the West reconsiders its military assistance and unconditional political commitments?”
Museum of Victory/Defeat
In the meantime, some Ukrainians are discussing establishing a museum of Victory over Russia, as one report reads, “Will a Ukrainian museum of victory over Russia be established in Sędziszów?” This looks like an opportunity to make money, like some of the stolen NGOs and Fund me sites in Ukraine. Yes, the main goal is to collect money from every possible organisation across the globe, this is their 5 minute chance”.
In Sędziszów Małopolski, it is planned to create the Museum of Victory over Despotism, which will be the first institution in Poland with a permanent exhibition of destroyed Russian military equipment, such as tanks, self-propelled guns and helicopters.
The initiator of this project is a lawyer from Kiev, Michał Strełnikov, who wants to “resist” Russian propaganda in this way. In August 2022, the Polish-Ukrainian Foundation “Museum of Victory over Despotism” was registered in Poland.
It is all starting to fit together, and adequate words cannot be found to describe what is going on between Ukraine and Poland, at least in the minds and imaginations of some Polish politicians, foreign pundits and at least one Ukrainian actor.
It should come as no surprise that Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak pledged in July that his country would have “the most powerful land forces in Europe.” It’s well on its way.
It is worth nothing that Poland already has more tanks and howitzers than Germany, and is on course to have a much larger army, with a target of 300,000 troops by 2035, compared with Germany’s current 170,000.
Who exactly are Poland’s enemies? With defence budgets everywhere under strain, Poland will expect a huge quid pro quo for ramping up its own force to suit other purposes—but whose purposes?
Will Poland provide the next proxy army for the Americans?
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Ukropol-Zelenskyy: The Sky is Falling—“Polish Version of Chicken Little!” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Following the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the parliamentary “Two Sessions,” the Chinese leadership’s involvement in the area of foreign policy has increased in recent weeks. The global optimism of such action stands in stark contrast to the increasingly paranoid and aggressive rhetoric on both sides of the argument that is re-emerging on the long-suffering European Continent.
The “black-and-white” picture of the world order being stubbornly shaped by certain influential political forces contradicts China’s ancient historical culture and is totally unsuitable for it today. Let’s at least draw attention to the reality that practically all the PRC’s geopolitical rivals’ economy is significantly intertwined with the economy of China. Therefore the former’s systemic collapse (which results inevitably from the idea that “whoever is not with us is against us”) spells disaster for China as well. As a result, the Chinese are unlikely to accept the “traditional-European” definition of the term “winning” in a particular fight.
Although there were some Manichean aspects, which critics referred to as “assertiveness,” in PRC foreign policy practice a few years ago. In relationships, for instance, with India and nations in the Southeast Asian region. This has significantly strengthened the standing of the abovementioned (“outside-regional”) adversaries in some of these nations. Evidently, this explains why China’s ties with its “problematic” neighbors have become much more flexible in recent years.
This shift is especially relevant for how relations with India are being established since it removes critical reasons from those representatives of Indian establishment who want to see their country abandon its historically neutral foreign policy stance and join the opposition of the PRC.
As they say, China is successfully learning along the way to play the role of a major geopolitical actor, which is fairly new to it. The concept of creating a “Community of One Destiny,” which is totally congruent with China’s historical past, serves as the foundation for the “learning” process. It was proposed by China’s current leader, Xi Jinping, around the year 2012-2013.
Its future development might be seen in the “initiatives” proposed by him in the fields of global security and the social and economic development of all humanity. The CPC held a video conference on “Path towards Modernization: The Responsibility of Political Parties,” on March 15, 2023 (more than 500 party representatives from 150 countries attended). China’s leader Xi introduced the Global Civilization Initiative.
The language used to formulate this Initiative is fairly general, much like any political undertaking of this nature. This doesn’t lessen its significance because a person, living anywhere in the world, is considered the foundation of the global development process. At a time when entire peoples are being used as cannon fodder for the political purposes of the global bargaining, this is an incredibly impressive starting point.
The same Initiative was highlighted at the Forum two weeks later, marking the tenth anniversary of the Community of Common Destiny concept under the general title “Chinese Path to Modernization and Global Community of Shared Future”. The attendees this time included “dozens of senior officials, business representatives, international delegates and experts from 14 countries,” according to China Daily.
Mushahid Hussain Syed, Chairman of the Pakistani Senate’s Defence Committee, currently serving as a senator on the ruling Pakistan Muslim League platform since spring 2022, was notable for both his attendance at the event and his keynote talk. In the first place, it demonstrates once more the tenuous ground of the repeated claims that the current Pakistani leadership is “pro-American“. The guest’s remarks that “the focus on solving human problems as well as the win-win cooperation of the Chinese modernization experience” provide rich experience for developing countries as they address their own problems when faced with the “politics of hegemony” are noteworthy in the second place and serve as confirmation of the first point. It is hardly necessary to specify which of the world’s superpowers was referred to as a source of “hegemony” by the Pakistani participant at the Forum.
The head of the BRICS Institute, New Delhi was also there, and his remarks about the modernization experience in China were very positive. He claims that China’s expertise has been substantially incorporated into India’s current phase of global development. Really poignant words given the tense status of the bilateral relations at the moment.
The Global Security Initiative was introduced by President Xi Jinping in his speech at the regular Boao Asia Forum for Asia a year ago. Let’s recall that this global forum, which has taken place on the Chinese island of Hainan since 2002, is frequently called the “Asian Davos”. Nonetheless, it is safe to argue that the former has already surpassed the latter in significance as a result of the shifting of the center of the global political and economic activities to the Indo-Pacific area.
In the context of a sharp aggravation of the international situation, both of the above-mentioned initiatives of the Chinese leader were unavoidably at the forefront of conversation at the BAF Annual Conference 2023, held from March 28 to 31 under the theme “An Uncertain World: Solidarity and Cooperation for Development amid Challenges.”
Recently appointed Chinese Premier Li Qiang delivered the keynote address on behalf of the PRC, positioning his country as “an anchor for global peace and development amid the uncertainties across the world.”
The prime ministers of Singapore, Malaysia, and Spain were the guests of honor at BAF Annual Conference 2023 and were greeted by the Chinese leader at the end of the event. From the perspective of the issue highlighted here, China’s rejection of the “black and white” approach to world order, the appearance and speech at BAF Annual Conference 2023 of all three of these international guests, and the follow-up talks with the Chinese leader are of a significant nature.
The dominance of Taiwan and the Southeast Asian subregion, which the first two of these leaders represented, has long been crucial in terms of strategic relevance. Both for the PRC and its key opponents. Various sensational “military” information—warplanes have crossed South China Sea’s airspace, someone’s submarines, destroyers and/or aircraft carriers have entered or left it—takes up most of the media space allotted to the situation in Southeast Asia.
Nonetheless, the opposing players in this situation resolve the aforementioned strategic goal mostly by “silent” means. Together with flexibility, the terms patience, constructive spirit, and mutual benefit can be added to the list of words that define China’s approach to forging relations with ASEAN regional association countries. Recall that China is the main trading partner of the majority of ASEAN member states. President Xi reportedly used some of these terms in his conversation with representatives from two of the 10 ASEAN counties.
As for the other, no less significant, political and economic region for China, which is located on the European continent, relations between the two sides are virtually totally governed by trade conditions. For the time being, we should add that some of China’s European allies are beginning (for whatever reason) to become involved in Indo-Pacific region using military “tools“.
Let us also add that one of the motivations for the Spanish prime minister’s travel to China, followed by the French president’s and senior EU officials’ visits to Beijing, was clearly an attempt to influence (including through trade and economic channels) the PRC’s position on critical global issues. These current problems are mostly caused by the deterioration of the situation in Europe itself, which was mentioned at the beginning of the article, and the intense enhancement of China-Russian relations following the Chinese leader’s recent trip to Moscow.
Finally, it is worth noting that, according to the Chinese Global Times, regarding the recent visits to PRC by European politicians, portraying relations with Europe in the notorious “black and white” mindset is unacceptable. The US has been accused of attempting to evaluate Sino-European relations from this vantage point. Yet, despite their current acuity, US-Chinese interactions do not conform to such a simplistic coloring either.
This is also why, as previously stated, the Chinese dislike this kind of primitivism in depicting the outside world. This is the way they are, and it must be taken into account when building relations with the PRC.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение China disagrees with the “black and white” coloring of the world order появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In Turkey, the active pre-election struggle of opposition and government candidates for the presidency of the country continues. So far, four candidates have been registered. These are the leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), representative of the “Republican Alliance” bloc and incumbent President Recep Erdoğan; Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the Popular Republican Party (PRP) and a single representative of the six opposition parties, the “Popular Alliance”; Sinan Oğan, leader of the “Ata” (“Father”) party; and Muharrem Ince, leader of the “Memleket” (“Fatherland”) party. Doğu Perinçek, head of Vatan (Motherland) party, also announced his plans to run for president, but so far he has apparently not passed all the procedural requirements.
It should be noted that, according to the Turkish electoral law, candidates for president from parliamentary parties do not need to collect 100,000 votes in support of their candidates because the parties they represent have already confirmed the trust of voters in previous elections. Accordingly, Recep Erdoğan and Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu are registered by the fact of applying to the CEC.
Some experts assessing the process of nomination of candidates argue that the ruling regime by allegedly increasing the number of “opposition candidates” (such as Sinan Oğan, Muharrem Ince and Doğu Perinçek) is thereby trying to take away additional opposition votes in favor of a single candidate from the six-member bloc K. Kılıçdaroğlu and improve the position of incumbent President R. Erdoğan.
One cannot deny, of course, that almost all candidates use all kinds of (including “dirty”) political technologies to achieve success in the elections. Turkey is no exception in this regard. Meanwhile, judging by the number of registered candidates, so far we cannot accuse the ruling regime of violating the national legislation and the principle of justice. Naturally, the opposition in Turkey (as in all other countries), despite its criticism of the authorities, remains multidirectional. And if six parties have united in an alliance, it does not mean that there are no other political forces and programs.
When Muharrem Ince, the leader of Memleket, refused to support a single opposition candidate K. Kılıçdaroğlu (although he had previously been a member of the PPR and even ran for the presidential election in 2018), the opponents of the six parties rushed to suggest the alleged complicity of the ruling party in this process. If we follow this logic, why don’t the Turkish authorities increase the total number of “pocket” opposition candidates (including Doğu Perinçek)?
“The People’s Alliance would not spread such rumors if they were confident of their candidate’s success. The upcoming presidential elections in Turkey will be extremely difficult for both the government and opposition candidates for a number of internal and external reasons. In particular, these are: the consequences of the devastating earthquake; grave economic and financial crisis; irremovability of authorities for 20 years; large-scale corruption; mass repressions; the Kurdish question; relations with the United States, the EU and Russia; reduction of foreign investments; Turkey and external conflicts. All of these problems are a set of topics that tomorrow Turkey’s new leader will not just have to face, but to solve them.
Meanwhile, it would be unfair to accuse the candidate of the bloc of six opposition parties of his (their) lack of patriotism, since Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu may be willing to negotiate and cooperate constructively with the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (KDP). Opponents of the KPP leader accuse him of the KDP allegedly cooperating with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is banned in Turkey. However, the reality is that the PDP represents 10 to 30 percent of the Kurdish population in Turkey; a serious politician should not totally ignore the opinion of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin. It is unlikely that such electoral cooperation between the “People’s Alliance” and DPN is a manifestation of incitement to ethnic (in this case Kurdish) separatism and terrorism. Rather, it is a manifestation of the PPR’s political responsibility and wisdom.
Unfortunately, in politics, not everything that candidates promise in elections becomes a reality of life as a result of their success after the election. So in the Kurdish issue, in my opinion, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu can promise a lot to the Kurdish representatives in terms of democratization and liberalization of relations, release of their leaders and illegally repressed political figures by the previous administration, perhaps providing some rights in the field of cultural autonomy. However, a political and comprehensive settlement of the Kurdish question in Turkey on the initiative of the Turkish authorities is unlikely to take place.
With all the assessments and forecasts of experts and sociological research centers, today it is very difficult to predict with certainty who will be the leader at the end of the presidential elections on May 14 or 28 this year. One thing is clear that the gap between Recep Erdoğan and Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu may be quite small. Turkish society is able to decide on its own the choice of a leader for the next five years. However, this “choice” may be greatly influenced by the external interference of the same United States, which is interested in the strengthening of the subordinate bond of Turkey and reduction of the independent impulses of the Turkish diplomacy (especially in relation to Russia).
As for Moscow, in fact the Russian political and expert community has a very positive perception of the partnership between the countries that has taken shape over the past two decades of Recep Erdoğan’s rule. It is no secret that Russia is interested in the preservation of Turkey’s similar course, the implementation of major economic projects that have been launched and declared and the joint strengthening of elements of regional security. In this regard, it is quite logical that Moscow conditionally supports the candidacy and program of Recep Erdogan. However, there is, by definition, no external interference and Russian complicity in the Turkish elections.
The only major manifestation of Russia’s positive attitude to Turkey’s achievements on the eve of the upcoming elections is Russia’s partner reliability in all deals and projects of recent years. It just so happens that the first block of Turkey’s first nuclear power plant, Akkuyu, built by Rosatom using the latest technology, is scheduled for commissioning on April 27 this year. In other words, Turkey will acquire the status of a nuclear country on the eve of the election, the potential capacity of the nuclear power plant is 35 billion kWh per year and will cover 10% of Turkey’s electricity needs. In the long term, three more nuclear power units are planned to be launched by 2025. Undoubtedly, the “red ribbon” start of the first nuclear power plant in Turkey is a serious achievement of the Russian-Turkish business and political partnership during the years of R. Erdoğan’s rule, and its operation will significantly increase the level of energy security and political independence of the Turkish state.
In other words, Russia made a significant gift to Turkey on the eve of the general elections and the 100th anniversary of the Republic and has the right to expect the preservation of such a course of mutually beneficial cooperation from the Turkish authorities, regardless of their party affiliation and attitude towards the rest of the world.
In this sense, the outcome of the presidential election in Turkey is not yet known personally, but for the interests of the Russian-Turkish relations should be known with the index “confirm, preserve and develop”.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение The number of candidates vying for Turkey’s elections is on the rise, and the result remains uncertain… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Behind the ghastly military conflict in Ukraine a proxy war has been declared against the Russian people. And deeper still, a spiritual conflict between the Canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and a nationalist movement of stunning iniquity.
The world has witnessed over the last year a shocking military collision between Russia and Ukraine. Yet behind the military conflict is a spiritual conflict between the historic Orthodox Church which has existed in Ukraine for over a thousand years, and a new nationalist sect created by the patriarch of Istanbul in 2018.
The true shepherds of the Orthodox Church have always stood faithfully to defend the faithful, whether they were persecuted by pagan Rome, oppressed by the Ottoman Turks, or martyred by the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.
The Zelensky state has sponsored soldiers to seize churches and monasteries, assault priests and monks of the canonical Orthodox Church. The regime has allowed a new nationalist sect created by the patriarch of Istanbul back in 2018 to forcibly install members of the new nationalist sect in these holy places. The pressure, the fear of this ungodly regime, has transformed and shattered traditional orthodoxy in the country. In order to survive, many in the high clergy of the Ukraine church have bent to adopt doctrines, essentially abandoning their faith.
Many of the faithful in Ukraine believe they have been taken hostage by what Archpriest Geoffrey Korz, a priest in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada recently called a schismatic sect that has infiltrated the faith. This situation is a manufactured one. This is abundantly clear. Those in the know, the loyal clergy and astute believers understand the assault on the church to be part of a nationwide social engineering experiment being conducted by the United States and its European allies.
Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department and it EU counterparts have launched PR campaigns refuting this. They claim that Zelensky’s secret police and Nazi thugs are only carrying out counterintelligence security measures. They claim Russian special services are at work in the church of Ukraine, and the “efforts” are a matter of state security. The real goal is the eradication of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was under the patronage of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the same way that Russian as an official language of Ukraine was banned immediately after the 2014 Euromaidan coup, the NATO/NAZI regime so many in the world are proud to support, it aims to shun God, and to make the human figureheads holy.
Most Christians I talk to in the United States understand what all this world chaos represents. Some in the clergy I speak with take the position that the biblical narrative is playing out, and that prayer and comforting their flocks is what’s important. Others, high up in the American religious hierarchy act to survive in a faith and a world where popularity is all that keeps institutions alive. Big money, the revisionist trend, and the power of the non-believers have steamrolled the word of God into an inky blur on the parchment of our belief. Abortion, transgenderism, pedophilia, every manner of sin practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah permeates western societies. And the Russophobes laugh at Vladimir Putin and others who suggest this proxy war flaming in Ukraine, is in fact a holy war for the survival of traditional beliefs and societal freedom.
“Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil” (Proverbs 3:7–8).
In the information backchannels where good journalists must prospect for truth now, the Zelensky fascists have exacted horrific war crimes on camera. Russian soldiers held captive, helpless, having their throats cut to writhe in agony, before being shot by some godless Georgian mercenary. Others, tortured on camera as Azov fiends use the victim’s smartphones to let wives and other relatives back in Russia watch. Every manner of lie, misdeed, and evil is being paid for with billions in American taxpayer money, while big time PR companies help create fake Russian atrocities for the US press.
I tell you, the world has never seen anything like this. A comic Hitler propped up by every lawmaker in America, in the EU, and by the same elites who bleed the people dry with $1300 dollar phones, gas guzzling pickup trucks that cost more than a house, and who promote children changing their sex like changing their socks. It’s a kind of morality carnage not even Emperor Caligula would condone.
“Be of sober spirit, be on the alert, your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” (1 Peter 5:8)
Even though the United Nations condemned civil authorities of Ukraine for harassing and persecuting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church a year ago, the Voice of America and other western propaganda media proclaim this persecution is a figment of the imagination of the Kremlin. But there’s no denying the efforts of the Ukraine regime’s persecution. Just recently, when Zelensky’s government demanded that the clerics left the Kiev Pechersk Lavra by the end of the day, it was just the latest in a decade-long campaign to destroy the church.
The creation of the autocephalous Church of Ukraine under the US backed Poroshenko regime signaled the beginning of the persecution, and now the Verkhovna Rada is discussing the possibility of passing a law banning the canonical church. Seizures of Ukrainian Orthodox churches continue, and the dark forces attacking the church pretend to be sheep. Nazi extremists set fire to churches, and the police do nothing. And in Washington the leadership and the elites have gone all-in to either cripple Russia, ruin Ukraine, or initiative Armageddon. Nothing is sacred. My country, once a nation under God, now shuns the free worship of a higher order than the empire America was mutated into.
Earlier this year, when Zelensky moved to strip 13 Ukrainian Orthodox priests of their citizenship, Russia’s Maria Zacharova, who’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, called the move “Satanism as it is.” As a person of faith, myself, I find it difficult to imagine any clergyman I ever knew who would in good faith argue her point. I believe that those who profess to support what Ukraine stands for today, will be found to be shunning their deepest spiritual convictions.
“He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations.” Revelation 2:26
And Russia fights…
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Stand with Ukraine and Shun God появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
While we concentrated on the March 23 shooting in last week’s Chronicle of Moving to the Dangerous Line, the Korean Central News Agency broke news on March 24 that merits separate thought as Pyongyang laid another set of trump cards on the table.
The recent “confrontational hysteria of the U.S. imperialists and the South Korean puppet regime of traitors” is unparalleled in its recklessness and danger, according to the North. Moreover, they intend to continue to get “more frantic in their persistent military provocations to aggravate the situation as ever with a more aggressive stand of confrontation“. It requires DPRK “to make its entire armed forces gird themselves for an all-out war and bolster up its nuclear force both in quality and quantity on a priority basis.”
The latest KCNA article made it clear that the cruise missile launch we previously described involved two missiles of two distinct types, Hwasal-1 and Hwasal-2, and that each of the missiles was outfitted with a nuclear weapons simulator.
However, it is possible that the missiles were launched from underwater. Some reports claim that North Korea has developed a strategic cruise missile that can be launched by modifying the torpedo launcher. This creates a really intriguing scenario because the DPRK has a fairly sizable submarine fleet, which is largely made up of small boats that were previously more ideal for sabotage activity in coastal seas. (The South Koreans believe that this is how the ROKS Cheonan sinking happened). However, if such submarines carry at least one missile with a potential nuclear warhead, the enemy faces significant challenges because a successful pre-emptive strike requires “catching them all.”
Even nonetheless, this was not really exciting news. The Haeil, a new autonomous underwater vehicle which can generate a gigantic ‘radioactive tsunami’ and quietly strike its adversaries, was successfully tested by North Korea on March 24, according to the KCNA. This Haeil autonomous underwater vehicle was deployed on the east coast of Riwŏn in South Hamgyong Province. It changed its course frequently while buried for 59 hours at a depth of 80 to 150 meters. On March 23, in the late afternoon, the drone reached its objective in the waters of Hongwon Bay, which was acting as an enemy port, with the test warhead submerged. If fired from commercial ships, it could reach US bases in Japan and Guam and has a long enough range to target all South Korean ports.
The Haeil is referred to as the Kimseidon by analogy with the Kimskander because, in the opinion of Vladimir Khrustalev, a Russian military expert, it is somewhere between the Russian Poseidon, conventional nuclear torpedoes, and the now fashionable high autonomy underwater drones. The importance of this weapon is significant It is crucial for both sides to cut down the communication channels that allow troops and supplies to reach the theater of operations in the event that war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula. This calls for the destruction of a number of ports on Japanese and ROK soil, which could require disproportionate force and time to accomplish with conventional weapons.
As the experience of the 1946 underwater nuclear explosion at Bikini Atoll usually illustrates, a nuclear explosion, particularly one that occurs underwater and is accompanied by a tsunami, is actually a fantastic opportunity to deliver a single strike. A charge of 20 to 40 kilotons can reliably send out massive radioactive waves of boiling water that will destroy nearby ships and port buildings within a few kilometers. This is enough to completely destroy a large commercial port or naval base. Despite the obvious number of casualties, the author remarks that if such attacks occur, it will be a battle of annihilation in which there will be no point crying over spilled milk.
But that wasn’t the end of it. Kim Jong-un paid a visit to the DPRK Institute of Nuclear Weapons on March 27, where he “supervised the case of putting nuclear weapons into service.” Kim “familiarized himself with the technical situation of the state system of integrated control of nuclear weapons information system, the science, reliability, and safety of which have been strictly confirmed in the recent comprehensive tactical exercises on practicing a conventional nuclear counterattack.” As Vladimir Khrustalev pointed out, this suggests that “the DPRK’s system for managing nuclear forces is rapidly improving.” Level C4 (Command, Control, Communications, Computers) has been reached.
In giving instructions, the North Korean leader stressed the need to “expand the production of weapon-grade nuclear materials, powerful nuclear weapons,” and photos published by the KCNA show at least ten tactical nuclear warheads called Hwasan-31 (Vulcan-31). The presence of markings on them may suggest serial production, implying that there are a great deal more than a dozen of them. The warhead’s diameter is approximately 40-50 cm, the likely yield is less than 10 kilotons, and its compactness allows it to be installed on a variety of carriers.
On the same day, March 27, a “missile unit taking on the important task of a firing strike on the central front” practised receiving and confirming orders for a nuclear attack: a tactical ballistic missile equipped with a simulated nuclear warhead exploded 500 meters above the target.
Furthermore, on March 27, the DPRK launched two short-range ballistic missiles (supposedly capable of carrying KN-23 nuclear warheads) from the Chunghwa County, North Hwanghae Province, that travelled 370 kilometers at an altitude of 50 kilometers and landed in the Sea of Japan.
This sparked amazement, confusion, and yet another wave of conjecture in the Western world that Russian assistance was involved, given that a negative evaluation of North Korea’s military capacity has dominated the “expert market” for quite some time. After all, a totalitarian administration is only capable of achieving accomplishments in terms of propaganda, and then the “cartoon reality” replaces the real one.
As a result, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said “they are still evaluating information on the warheads to determine whether they are operational.” In general, the Pyongyang’s claims on the nuclear submarine drone might have been exaggerated or fabricated, they believe.
By the way, as they completed their block of maneuvers, the Southerners were also active. The primary event was a joint drill between the Republic of Korea Navy and the 11th United States Carrier Strike Group, which was led by the Nimitz aircraft carrier. The Aegis-equipped destroyer Sejong the Great, the destroyer Choi Yong, and the logistics ship roks Hwacheon participated in the exercise, which took place in international waters south of Jeju Island.
Rear Admiral Christopher Sweeney, commander of the 11th Carrier Strike Group, spoke to the press onboard the aircraft carrier carrying roughly 70 aircraft and emphasized the partners’ readiness to fight the North Korean threat: “The United States has strategic assets ready to deploy on a daily basis… We are serious about bolstering international security and the global commons.”
General Kim Seung-kyum, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed the exercises onboard the American aircraft carrier on March 27 and stated that Pyongyang’s actions endanger security on the Korean Peninsula and in the area. He emphasized that the ROK-US alliance is capable of responding forcefully to any provocation. Kim Seung-kyom emphasized that the naval exercises featuring a strike group led by an American aircraft carrier were both a demonstration of the ROK-US partnership and a deterrent to Pyongyang.
The Republic of Korea Navy and the United States Marine Corps performed an amphibious landing exercise in the Pohang district of Gyeongsangbuk-do Province, 272 kilometers southeast of Seoul, on March 29. This was the main component of the Ssangneung-2023 joint exercise, which included division-level airborne troops, around 30 ships, more than 70 planes and helicopters, and 50 amphibious assault vehicles. The exercise was conducted in conditions as close to combat as possible. Aircraft and ships aided in the landing of troops. General Kim Seung-kyum, Chairman of the ROK Armed Forces’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul LaCamera, commander of US military forces in the ROK, Admiral Lee Jong-ho, commander of the ROK Navy, and other representatives of the two countries’ military command attended the exercise.
At this point, the spring fever seems to end, and the author is glad that it passed without “accidental incidents.”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Large Military Exercises End on the Korean Peninsula but “Spring Fever” Goes On появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The recent visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Russia, the talks between the leaders of both nations, and the signed agreements have sparked significant interest in Middle Eastern media. Observers are analyzing the event’s course and outcome, its impact on the region and the world, and its contribution to the development of relations between the two great powers.
Commentators have highlighted the historical dimension of Moscow-Beijing ties, which date back many years to when both countries stood together against the West. One Emirati analyst recalls how, in the early 1970s, Washington exploited gaps in the “Chinese wall” to weaken the Soviet Union and its foreign policy positions. However, it seems that the two great powers have learned from this experience.
With the Ukraine crisis, Washington has brought the intricate economic and political connections between Europe and Russia to the brink of collapse. Still, despite its efforts to disrupt relations between Moscow and Beijing, it has not succeeded.1
As per a local author, the President of the People’s Republic of China, who has recently visited Russia, is aware that the West’s objective is not only Russia but China as well, and that the latter’s defense begins with Ukraine.2 Beijing understands the idiosyncrasies of Washington’s strategic plan and the fact that it perceives China as a potential adversary due to the “latent Chinese power”… Therefore, Beijing requires an international support system that it can depend on for potential tools and resources in the event of a possible conflict.
America has “drummed up confrontation with China and Russia.” It did not heed the warnings of some of its experts. And China and Russia had no choice but to “deepen their strategic partnership,” according to a prominent Lebanese media figure.3
The prevailing notion in Middle Eastern media is that China needs Russia, just as much as Russia needs China, and the two nations are endeavoring to shake off the age-old dominance of the dollar, which is the primary instrument of American influence on the global stage. Although it will not happen overnight, the process is already underway.
The Russian and Chinese sides have integrated their bilateral and multilateral connections into the tapestry of regional and international partnerships, particularly with the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and others. Notwithstanding the economic sanctions imposed on Moscow, numerous trade and economic agreements worth over $100 billion have been reached in recent years. These agreements serve as a channel for the Russian economy.
The recent summit in Moscow is also perceived by Arab commentators through the prism of the growth of diverse Sino-Arab ties. It is clear that the center of the world economy is shifting to the east, towards Asia. The energy markets of the Persian Gulf countries are oriented from west to east, and the main flows of their oil and gas are directed to China and Asian countries, not to America and Europe. Today, the economies of the Arabian countries are more connected than ever with China, which since 2020 has become their largest trading partner, replacing the European Union in this regard.
These countries see in the development of their relations with Beijing a factor in favor of easing the US-Western pressure on them. A noticeable resonance was caused by Beijing’s sponsorship in the signing of a recent agreement between Riyadh and Tehran on the resumption of diplomatic relations between them.
Such mediation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran and Russia’s role in working to resolve the problems between Turkey and Syria, and through it between Syria and other countries in the region, highlight the signs of a Sino-Russian project. It is aimed at establishing a new basis for international relations in the Middle East, different in form and content from what the United States tried to do. Sino-Russian efforts aim to push the region toward integration and peaceful settlement of differences.
One can be sure, a Lebanese publication summarizes, that “mature, stable and strong relations between the two powerful countries are needed by the whole world.” The two countries look comprehensively at planetary problems – from trade to economic relations, demonstrate a generally identical assessment of the exacerbated political problems of the world through the fault of Washington.
On an economic and financial level, it is clear that both countries are openly and directly challenging the dollar. The goal is to free itself from its dominance in the world’s reserve currencies and in trade, especially in energy markets. The success of this mission will lead to a turning point in the dynamics of international economic relations, says director general of the Economic and Social Council in Lebanon, a specialist in Russia’s national security and Russian-Atlantic relations.
And if this happens, it will cause a “tsunami” for the “green” currency, will be a blow to it in the light of the fact that Russia decided to sell energy resources in rubles and actively use local currencies in trade with various Asian countries.
In the media space of the region, the thesis is often heard that there is an objective need in the world to reformat geo-economic ties and chains. Xi Jinping’s visit and his outstanding relations with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin are regarded by a local commentator as the culmination of Russian-Chinese relations. They are able to give new features to the world order, which is being formed in opposition to the desire of the West, led by the United States, to preserve the previous system.
Such a turn definitely does not suit the West, Arab experts say, and it will not abandon its attempts to put sticks in the wheels of the commonwealth of the two powers in various ways. But on the waves of international relations, the Russian-Chinese ship will not go down the course the “west winds” would like.
Yury Zinin, senior researcher at the Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Sino-Russian alliance: a viewpoint from the Middle East появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As you might be aware, the Taliban insurgents who are proscribed in Russia took over the Afghan capital, Kabul, on August 15, 2021, with minimal resistance and have since become the sole governing power in the country. The Taliban have expressed their willingness to engage with the international community, establish an inclusive government with representatives from all regions of the country, and uphold the basic rights of the populace, including women.
Despite these assurances, the Taliban have failed to deliver on most of their pledges made almost twenty months ago, leading to a lack of recognition from the international community. The media and politicians from various nations continue to portray Afghanistan as the most perilous country full of Islamic extremists, a primary source of refugees, a nation with a corrupt economy, and dire demographics.
The population of the country exceeds 40 million people. Afghanistan holds the championship in the world in terms of fertility (women, on average, have 6-7 children), although with an average life expectancy of 44.6 years (214th place in the world). Its GDP per capita makes it rank 169th in the world out of 189, foreign aid amounts to $ 2.6 billion with a state budget of $ 3.3 billion. The country has rich natural resources: coal, iron, copper, precious and rare earth metals, oil, gas, etc., which, however, are not used or developed. The humanitarian situation is very difficult, 20 million people, half of the country’s population, are experiencing food shortages. There was an outflow of tens of thousands of highly qualified workers who fled the country. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs was dissolved, and women’s rights continue to be curtailed. In terms of civil liberties, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.
The number of ISIS (a terrorist group banned in the Russian Federation) fighters in the country is estimated to have grown from 2,000 to 6,000, and the radicalization of society is increasing, which has caused constant concern among Central Asian (CA) countries about threats to regional security. And this concern was further heightened after the sensational revelations of Taliban leader Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada a few days ago, after the theses of his speech appeared on Afghan social networks. It appears from the published material that the first phase of the jihad in the country has been passed and now the Taliban (a formation banned in the Russian Federation) intends to spread the Shariah system of governance around the world.
The statement of the Taliban Emir shattered the hopes of many politicians that democratic principles would be established in the country, because Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada said during the above-mentioned speech to the scholars that there would be no “inclusive government” in Afghanistan. A complete Shariah system in the country is planned by combining the actions of religious scholars and “rulers”, i.e. Taliban administrators. And the scholars, who know the religious norms better than the Taliban, will be present in all the structures of power to control the observance of Sharia, and they are entrusted with the main task in this process.
A few months ago, prominent American political scientist Cheryl Bernard, wife of former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad through the media openly called on the head of Defense Ministry Mullah Yaqoob and Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, who are trying to negotiate behind the scenes with foreign partners and criticized the fundamentalist environment of Mawlawi Haibatullah, to stage a coup in Afghanistan. In this connection, seeking to preserve the old order and strengthen control over life in the country, Emir Haibatullah Akhundzada announced the establishment of a 40,000-strong personal guard corps, not ruling out the possibility of changing the leadership of security agencies. This personal guard corps will be financed from the country’s budget and act as a counterweight to law enforcement and the army.
As for the army, the Defense Ministry of the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” (IAE, as the Taliban call their country) is planning to increase the number of soldiers to 200,000 this year. The army’s chief of staff, Qari Fasihuddin Fetrath, disclosed this intention. In this case, it is taken into account that the IEA has all military equipment left from the previous government and has eight military units, including the Central Army Corps in addition to two military units in Bagram and Badakhshan, and in the provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Paktia, Laghman, Kunduz and Balkh. To date, the Taliban have even managed to establish their own air force, which they have not had for the past 20 years. This Air Force has dozens of aircraft, which are already being used in combat operations against armed groups of the opponents of the current regime.
It is noteworthy that at the time of the seizure of power in Afghanistan in mid-August 2021 the number of Taliban fighters was estimated at 100,000 people. According to Global Firepower Index, the total number of troops in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) today is about 222,000 soldiers. Against this background, the 200,000-strong jihadist corps created by the Taliban can pose a serious threat to the countries of this region.
The sensational revelations of Mawlawi Haibatullah thus refute the assertions of many politicians and experts who have assured public opinion that the Afghan Taliban allegedly has no global jihadist ambitions. In this regard, it is worth recalling who Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada is.
He was born on October 19, 1967 in the Panjwayi district (south-west of Kandahar city), belonging to the Nurzai tribe. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he took refuge with his family in Pakistan, where his religious views were formed. In the late 1980s he fought against the Soviet troops and trained the mujahedin.
Haibatullah Akhundzada holds the title “mawlawi,” a title above that of mullah held by Muhammad Omar, the founder of the Taliban. He was elected by the movement’s council on May 25, 2016, following the assassination of Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour. After former Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar appointed him head of the military court in Kabul in 1996, he was responsible for most Taliban fatwas and resolving religious issues among movement members.
After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Haibatullah Akhundzada played an active role in the revival and organization of jihad against the United States and coalition forces on Afghan territory.
On May 22, 2015, former Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansoor was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Balochistan province in southwestern Pakistan. On May 25, 2016, the election of Haibatullah Akhundzada as leader of the Taliban was announced by members of the Shura Ahl al-ḥall wa-l-ʿaqd, the Taliban’s highest governing body. Immediately after this election, the leader of al-Qaeda (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation) Ayman al-Zawahiri swore allegiance to him and called him “the lord of the faithful,” which strengthened his credibility among the jihadists.
On February 29, 2020, the Taliban signed the historic Doha Peace Agreement with the United States in Qatar under Akhundzada’s leadership.
In his latest speech, Mawlawi Haibatullah emphasized his special political status in the “Islamic system” being created in Afghanistan. Which some Afghan experts saw as a message from the emir of the Taliban, not only to individual ambitious ministers of the Taliban government in Kabul, but also to the rest of the world.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение What does the future hold for Afghanistan? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
National Security Advisor of the Republic of Korea (to put it bluntly, a key advisor on foreign and national security affairs of South Korea) said that he was stepping down on March 29, 2023, less than a month before President Yoon Suk-yeol’s state visit to the United States.
Kim stated in a press release, “When I was offered the position by the president a year ago, I told him I would establish a foundation for restoring the South Korea-US alliance, improving South Korea-Japan relations, strengthening security cooperation between South Korea, the US and Japan.” He will return to his prior position at Korea University now that “such conditions have been met to some extent.”
Kim expressed confidence that his successor will be able to carry out his responsibilities smoothly because preparations for the president’s visit to the United States are proceeding well. He consitnued that he did not want “the dispute he caused” to become a further burden for the South Korean diplomacy and public affairs. “Even after returning to university, I will continue to do my best for the success of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration.”
A replacement was quickly found. Cho Tae-yong, former Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States will take over for Kim Sung-han.
This is a crucial moment in South Korean politics. First, Kim is one of the president’s longtime acquaintances and could even be called Yoon Sook-yeol’s mentor in foreign policy. Kim is an Americanist, and it was obvious from the start that he would be in charge of foreign policy and security. Kim was one of the president’s most ardent supporters at this point, thus his resignation cannot be interpreted as an indication of factionalism. Nevertheless, such an iconic person left power rather early, and even more so in the midst of preparing a state visit to the United States. Almost every English-language source stated that the resignation came “amid reported trouble planning President Yoon Suk-yeol’s April 26 state visit to Washington.”
The resignation’s timing is extremely unique in terms of “changing horses halfway through”. The South Korea-US summit will take place in Washington on April 26. Afterwards, Yoon will attend G7 Hiroshima Summit in Japan from May 11 to 13, and have a South Korea-US-Japan summit on the sidelines of it.
Secondly, there was a lot of interesting commotion following Kim’s resignation. On March 28, the Presidential Administration denied the Donga Ilbo newspaper report that Kim could be replaced “over a planning issue related to President Yoon Suk-yeol’s state visit to the United States next month.” “That article is different from the truth,” a presidential official told reporters. Then Kim stepped down, leaving everyone to question if the resignation was not fully voluntary or if the choice was taken at the last minute in any case.
Thirdly, this is not the only resignation. Presidential Protocol Secretary Kim Il-beom resigned on March 10; Lee Moon-hee, Secretary to the President for Foreign Affairs, was also replaced two weeks later. The official reason stated was “suffering from a heavy workload over the past year“, and this author has frequently noticed in prior texts that such situations are not seen as coincidences, even though they truly may be coincidental.
In addition, the media are already discussing that on the eve of the 2024 parliamentary elections, Foreign Minister Park Jin and Unification Minister Kwon Young-se will both resign from their current positions in order to run for a seat in the National Assembly.
Kim, in contrast to the other people in Yoon’s entourage, acted quite rightly and kept out of trouble. Because of this, there have been many squabbles and speculations in response to the National Security Advisor’s resignation on the eve of the president’s visit to the United States.
The main topic that has been widely discussed in the ROK media is that American First Lady Jill Biden, who has a passion for Korean culture, proposed having K-pop girl group Blackpink and American pop star Lady Gaga perform together at the gala dinner. At the same time, the US has suggested that South Korea take on the cost of the concert in the amount of about $2-3 million. The plan, however, was not sent to the presidential office in a timely manner, and as a result, the US government had to repeatedly ask South Korea for a response because of lack of feedback with the presidential office.
Nevertheless, the presidential office announced on March 31 that the performance being reported in the media was not included in the president’s official schedule for his visit to the United States. The statement offers no further justification for this choice and does not specifically name the group being discussed (although everyone knows who they are talking about).
According to the conservative JoongAng Ilbo, Kim Sung-han’s resignation may have been the result of a discord with Kim Tae-hyo, the first deputy national security advisor, who is even more right-wing. Its editorial emphasizes that “such dubious episodes pose grave risks to national security and diplomacy. The presidential office must ensure that Yoon’s diplomatic schedules will not be affected. The presidential office must clearly explain what happened and find effective solutions to such mishaps.”
Democrats have their own interpretations. Park Hong-keun, the DP’s floor leader, “raised suspicions of problems within the presidential National Security Office, citing reports that there was a power struggle and a conflict between an official close to first lady Kim Keon Hee and another official formerly from the foreign ministry.”
In this context, on March 30, the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) called on President Yoon Suk-yeol to explain why former National Security Adviser Kim Sung-han resigned: people are concerned Yoon’s trip to Washington will end up like his trip to Japan earlier this month, calling on Yoon not to risk the “national interest” and “people’s dignity” when the future of domestic companies are at stake in his trip to the US.
There are, in the author’s opinion, a number of more plausible justifications for Kim Sung-han’s resignation. The first is that Yoon Suk-yeol has dramatically changed the direction of his foreign policy to one of outspoken support for the United States and the re-establishment of friendly relations with Japan. He had to do this despite opposition from both legislators and the bureaucrats designated by his predecessor Moon Jae-in. All of this had to have an impact on the man who was usually seen as the major architect of the “new course.” Hence, from the perspective of that “he has done his job and can leave”, there may be a lot of truth to this, as burnout and exhaustion in such a position are detrimental.
The second explanation can be related to the fallout from Yoon’s trip to Japan, which sparked controversy in South Korea. Although the Democrats have been very active in rocking the boat on this matter, there haven’t been any outright accusations or demands that Kim Sung-han be fired. However, the seasoned politician was probably aware that Yoon would contact him, so it’s important to put a stop to this possibility. The ideal scenario would also prevent Kim’s departure from coming across as a scapegoat, as that would be seen as a triumph for the opposition, from whose pressure and particular actions the advisor was fired. Technically, no one was dismissed in this case.
The third justification relates to Yoon’s obligation to “show up with a basket of goodies” to symbolize the infamous “global strategic partnership between Seoul and Tokyo” during the president’s state visit to the United States, as the president’s political opponents rightly point out. In this case, the Americans can demand a lot. And, let’s face it, most of this is not in South Korea’s best interests. As a result, one should rule out the prospect that Kim will succumb to American pressure. This notion may be confirmed by the fact that the South Korea Ambassador to the US is his successor, but the definitive confirmation won’t come until after the visit to the US, when we’ll most likely understand what concessions Kim Sung-han may have deemed unacceptable.
Furthermore, if this version is accurate, it would support the author’s key claim that Yoon Suk-yeol is significantly less pro-American than his vehement rhetoric would imply. And if he sometimes appears to be submitting to the United States verbally, in practice he is only working to keep his hands free. The issue is that the Americans understand this very well, and in light of the impending worldwide unrest, they obviously require a political figure who is far more submissive. The resignation at hand may be a result of the challenging circumstances and possible behind-the-scenes pressure on Seoul.
Konstantin Asmolov, Ph.D. in History and a leading researcher at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение On Kim Sung-han’s resignation появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
This is the question Donald Trump brought to the forefront when he started asking why the US was paying the lion’s share for European security and demanding that members of NATO foot the bill, with at least 2 percent of their GNP. It remains pertinent because the present situation can only exist if the US has the capability to project itself in any direction it wants, when it wants, and whenever it does that this assertion becomes increasingly less credible.
Parties on the same side of a global argument do need to help each other, and NATO provides a structure within which to do that. However, the present arrangement creates a power imbalance which does neither side any good, and is more likely to generate disunity in the face of enemies real and imagined than an effective response to threats.
The swamp didn’t like that….
Until now Europe has been double dipping. The US has subsidised its defence bill and Russia has provided cheap energy. However, this has happened mostly by default, and by allowing the individual European states to be a proxy for the real owner of NATO—the United States.
Europe’s over-dependence on the United States for its security has given the US a de facto veto on the direction of European defence. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically, according to the independent views of American Progress, a US think tank, “used its effective veto power to block the defence ambitions of the European Union, thus not allowing Europe to be able to stand alone in its true defence needs.”
But the fact that Ukraine is not going according to America’s plan opens up a new discussion of what should be the role of NATO in the light of legitimate European Security needs, and even what needs can be called legitimate. With the exception of Poland and Romania, few NATO countries are willing to buy in on instructions from abroad, as if NATO was not already facing real structural problems.
Europe is not what it was. Over the past 30 years, since the proffered end of the Cold War, it has changed dramatically, and particularly in its collective and individual mindsets. It has been living in its own bubble and been only too willing to let others decide its fate.
It is clear that US policy towards European security does not currently reflect Europe’s transformation, and has actually jeopardized its energy security and business model, which is based on the production of high-value products subsidised with cheap Russian energy and imported foreign labour.
If you want to know what NATO is in actuality and what are its real ambitions, look at who is paying for it. The principle enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty commits them to protecting each other against attack, but at times when they are not under threat, this is more of a stick than a carrot.
NATO claims to be striving to secure a lasting peace in Europe, based on common values of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. But this is irrelevant when no one is trying to take those away, and its members are not in agreement as to whom is attacking whom, and what is and what is not a defence organisation.
It’s easy for NATO to beat the war drums when its member states know they don’t have to foot the much of the direct bill. However, it is equally easy for the US to foot the bill, claiming that NATO is doing so, as long as the sons and daughters of European voters, not their own, are going out and getting killed.
It is amusing at this time to read the self-serving comments on NATO sites, including its tweets. Jens Stoltenberg in his annual report describes 2022 as having been a pivotal year for security, and how in a more dangerous and contested world, NATO is standing strong and united, providing unprecedented support to Ukraine.
The above link to the referenced report is portrayed as an opinion, and as such does not reflect the official views of NATO or the United States. However, that is moot for now, as NATO has its own internal problems and does not speak with one voice or represent the “REAL” interests of all members, especially when it comes to supporting a non-NATO member unconditionally.
NATO, is it Friend or Foe?
Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, summed this up well when he said, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” Aside from the claims in Stoltenberg’s annual report, it is clear that things are not going well, with all the money spent, NATO stocks depleted and NATO weakened as a result.
NATO and its birds-of-a-feather have spent vast sums in Ukraine to lose the war. The economies of its main supporters, including Germany and the US, have been brought to a standstill and may never recover to former levels.
At the time of the quote Kissinger was referring to Ngo Dinh Diem, the “American-supported” President of South Vietnam, who was assassinated by his own military after the US removed its support. Nguyen Van Thieu, a later President of South Vietnam, was himself abandoned when the US pulled out of Vietnam a few years later. Will history be repeating itself in Ukraine, or does the Ukrainian president, who campaigned for office based on peace and conflict resolution, have an exit strategy?
Back in the US they would say, “with friends like these, who needs enemies?” Germany knows exactly what this means when it comes to the blowing up of Nordstream 2 at the hands of its staunchest and closest ally, the US, with some help from Norway.
The point is that NATO is no longer a collective security organisation, as there are too many separate agendas amongst its own members. For example, Turkey is no longer a fully-fledged supporting member, as it is too pragmatic to get involved in conflicts artificially created for the benefit of the hegemonic power that sees NATO and its some of its members, such as Romania, Turkey and Poland, and potential members, such as Georgia and Ukraine, merely as useful cannon fodder for some greater good.
Georgia and Ukraine are case studies of what results from sudden change: it further destabilises an already unstable situation, and prevents the evolution of a security system which would allow real change. Even Poland is skating on thin ice, with few real friends, as the proxies of aggressive US policy in Europe, which is basically “poking the bear.”
Let us not forget the way Poland responded within hours that the missile which landed on the village near its border was “most likely” an errant Ukrainian rocket, as to think otherwise would give the Ukrainians too much credit for an attempted false flag. It came as no surprise that Poland immediately dropped all talk of invoking Article 4, which amounts to nothing more than a request for “consultation.”
Tongue-in-cheek
Any notion that Poland dreams of taking back Western Ukraine is pure imagination. Unlike Russia, which the Poles claim is constantly hankering for lost territory; Poland should have zero interest in recovering impoverished territory in either Ukraine or Belarus.
Whenever you ask Poles whether they would like to get back Grodno or Lviv, they look at you as if you are a mad hatter. They gave up such territory happily in 1945 in return for far more enticing chunks of Germany in the West.
Who would ever want to give up Wroclaw, an amazing and prosperous city, for Grodno, a dump on its border with Belarus? So Poland isn’t going to be persuaded to get more involved than it wishes to, however close it is to Ukraine, by invoking centuries-old territorial disputes.
However, Poles are very conscious of being Poles, and if things go wrong in their own country West Ukraine and Belarus do have special meaning for them because they provide a way out. They may not care about them as former Polish territories, but if Poland is destabilised they might have significance as new ones which will give Poles living space.
Poles know already if something is not done soon, the dominant language in Poland may become Ukrainian. War is encouraging further immigration, for which Poland would want some compensation, as it is one of those countries which claim that free movement of refugees is harming it.
That is the significance of Western Ukraine to Poland – it wants NATO to protect it from invasion by people who were once themselves Polish. They don’t want to make the conflict worse, but will still want something in return for doing nothing, to maintain themselves as a viable state having gone down the road NATO told it to.
Did not the Germans kill about 10 percent of the Polish population, not including its Jews? NATO and the US may indirectly kill and dispossess even more, in the name of common security, in which Poles see themselves as the only ones making the sacrifices.
Joining the Primary Club
US claims that Europe should pay more for its own defence also ring hollow in the ears of prospective members. Some, like Georgia, have tried to bleed itself into NATO, only to find that the negative consequences of doing so outweigh the practical support they receive in return.
Hopefully Georgia does not go down the same path as Ukraine did in 2014. Tbilisi has been in the news over a foreign agent registration law which the Georgian parliament wanted to pass, but the NGOs, NED and CIA would not allow.
Foreign agents come in all shapes and sizes, as most countries also have a presence in many others through diplomacy, business, foreign assistance, programmes etcetera. A law requiring people to register as foreign agents, and therefore purveyors of a particular viewpoint representing a particular interest, should be no threat to anyone who takes the Western position that they deal in truth and their enemies deal in propaganda.
But for now, the Government of Georgia has backed down, under threat of sanctions from the EU and the US for trying to adopt the same laws they have, like all the others they were told were prerequisites of European integration. They can see they are the advance front of further attacks, having been enslaved once by previous US offers of friendship.
Things are quiet in Tbilisi for now, but this is not over, as there are still contingency plans by the US and some of its NATO friends to replace the current government. Ukraine has ended up the way it has because it largely replaced Georgia as the regional CIA dirty tricks capital, so Georgia is the obvious place to run to if it can again be run by compliant crooks pretending to be Western reformers.
Poland should also remember its own history, with the West going to war over it when Germany invaded, and then the allies sacrificing it to the USSR for a decades-long occupation after it had been on the winning side.
It had been predicted that the stick to poke the Russian Bear would be much sharper should the Democrats win the White House, and small countries always see changes in major ones as potential opportunities for geopolitical advancement at the expense of their neighbours. Poland does not want to be that next stick, as it fears that the West, especially the United States, will again sacrifice its close supporter, a full-fledged member of NATO, for the sake of political expediency when faced with the unpleasant alternatives.
Alarms not sounding
The real question is not if the West and the US be jointly responsible for European Security. It is whether Europe is willing to self-reflect and identify its main security risks, and be willing to discuss how to find a way out of a mess created for the benefit of a few, on a level few are willing to accept as possible.
Europeans are keen on the concepts of self-determination, democracy, rule of law and a “rules based” international order. If Europeans were paying for the damaged being inflicted on Ukraine for their sake, they would know the meaning of “if you break it then you pay for it!” But there is also no reason for them to pay for policies which are written in their name, but have little to do with their interests.
As Andrew Korybko so accurately writes, in terms of the demise of American unipolarity, “American officials frame their country’s foreign policy in flowery language alleging that it’s formulated in pursuit of defending “democracy”, “human rights”, and the so-called “rules-based order”, but it’s really driven by the desperate desire to delay its declining unipolar hegemony over international relations.”
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Should the US Remain Responsible for European Security? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Israel is renowned for its active diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East and surrounding areas. Tel Aviv is seeking partners among the pro-Western countries of the Arab East, the de-facto Kurdish autonomy in Iraq, NATO Turkey, and the newly formed Muslim countries of the post-Soviet space, for obvious reasons of localizing external threats arising from the consolidation of the Islamic world (including both Sunni and Shiite parts). Israeli diplomacy is largely affected by pragmatic economic aims as well as geopolitical concerns, particularly the search for new oil and gas-rich energy areas for oil and gas imports.
Given the tense nature of Israel-Iran relations, as well as their lack of geographical proximity, Tel Aviv, on the one hand, is attempting to pinpoint military strikes primarily by combat manned aircraft and unmanned vehicles, as well as, as part of special sabotage operations, to localize the spots of pro-Iranian proxy forces near its borders, specifically in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. On the other hand, it is actively involved in acquiring bridgeheads near the Islamic Republic of Iran’s borders in order to deploy its military units in conducting local operations to destroy individual military facilities on Iranian soil.
Several Israeli leaders and analysts believe that the present Iranian mullahcracy regime’s strategic aim is to eliminate the Jewish state in the Middle East by making groundless accusations of Zionism. In this context, Tel Aviv sees its strategic duty as preventing Tehran from developing weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, Israeli competent experts with experience in national security service divisions, such as Yaakov Kedmi, the former head of the Nativ liaison bureau, believe that modern Iran has already approached the stage of developing nuclear weapons and is one of the so-called “threshold countries”.
That’s why, according to Yaakov Kedmi, the United States doesn’t want to launch a military operation against Iran and spark a large-scale war in the Middle East, as Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is intermittently seeking. The reason for this position in Washington is that the Americans do not rule out the very possibility of Tehran using nuclear weapons against coalition forces and Israel. In the event of a prolonged conventional battle, Iran is capable of withstanding and dealing irreparable damage to Israel and its partners in Iran’s geographical context. Transferring military equipment and personnel to Iranian territory would be challenging for Israel for purely geographical and logistical reasons.
The complication of the possibility of a lightning military operation against Iran is also evidenced by China’s diplomatic success in launching the process of restoring relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This fact in the regional agenda “nullified” Israel’s aspirations for anti-Iranian support from the Persian Gulf’s wealthiest Arab monarchs.
Meanwhile, the Netanyahu administration pursues its strategy of escalating tensions with Tehran rather than looking for chances for mutually beneficial deals including key external actors (including Russian peacemaking diplomacy). Tel Aviv places some faith in Baku and Azerbaijan’s proximity to Iran in this regard.
It is well known that Israel has significantly contributed to the development and modernization of the Armed Forces of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) and is one of the primary suppliers of modern weapons and military equipment worth billions of dollars to Azerbaijan, including combat and reconnaissance drones, artillery and communications means, combat and reconnaissance drones, small arms and ammunition. A significant amount of this military collaboration has helped Azerbaijan construct a modern army, implement successful military reforms, and be victorious in its military campaign in Nagorno-Karabakh in the fall of 2020.
Naturally, Azerbaijan generously compensated Israel for the armaments with the supply of its premium oil in addition to the payment of dollars. Israeli companies have established themselves successfully in Azerbaijan’s energy and financial industries, and they have taken the initiative in integrating cutting-edge technologies into the Caspian Republic’s economy across a variety of sectors, including agriculture, the military industry, logistics and transport facilities, information communications, education, and science.
It is safe to say that a positive experience in the development of the strategic partnership between Israel and Azerbaijan over the past 20 years is an example of constructive relations between Jewish and Shiite states, pragmatic thinking and multiculturalism. Also, the fact that Azerbaijan is one of the few Islamic nations to establish a consulate in Tel Aviv indicates the significant potential and opportunities to develop mutually beneficial ties with Israel.
According to Israeli Ambassador to Azerbaijan George Dick, Foreign Minister Eli Cohen will attend the joint meeting of the intergovernmental committee in Baku in April 2023. Cohen intends to propose Mikayıl Cabbarov, Minister of Economy of Azerbaijan, a $200 million package of active cooperation in innovation, advanced technologies, agriculture, tourism and investments at this meeting.
As a result, the opening of the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Israel on March 29 this year with the high-level delegation from Baku, headed by Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov, just confirmed the unique nature of interstate relations. It is no coincidence that the head of the Azerbaijani delegation, Jeyhun Bairamov has received high attention of the Israeli Government and had audiences with the Foreign Ministry Eli Cohen, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally.
Everything would be fine, but, for some reason the Iranian issue was presented as a common regional threat, against which joint action is needed, in the speech of Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen on the occasion of the visit of his Azerbaijani counterpart Jeyhun Bayramov. In particular, Cohen stated: “Azerbaijan and Israel share Iran’s threat. Iran threatens our region, and creates non-stability in the Middle East by supporting and financing terrorism. We should jointly act against Iran. We should not allow Iran to expand its nuclear opportunities.“
First, when did Israel combine the Middle East and the South Caucasus into a single region? Second, where and when did Iran threaten to deploy nuclear weapons against South Caucasus countries, particularly Azerbaijan? Third, given Baku’s triumph in the last Nagorno-Karabakh war, recognized by Tegeran, and Iran’s potential to become a very successful economic partner of Azerbaijan and Russia for the transit of products along the North–South International Transport Corridor, why should Azerbaijan become involved in the Iranian-Israeli conflict? Finally, why would a nuclear-free Azerbaijan need another battle with a neighbor engaged in a nuclear project?
Perhaps this is why Israel worked so hard to assist Azerbaijan in defeating Armenia in the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh in order to establish a foothold in Baku-controlled territory along the Aras River on Iran’s northern border. Several specialists are still puzzled by the economic viability of Azerbaijan building a network of airfields in Fizuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, and Qubadli districts of Nagorno Karabakh which are geographically close to Iran in a short period of time. For Tehran, for example, these facilities are viewed as a danger of the expansion of logistical infrastructure for the deployment of Israeli combat aviation units and drones in the event of a conflict with Iran. Obviously, the Baku authorities deny such a possibility, while Tel Aviv, according to the same Eli Cohen, suggests uniting the two nations’ resources, including their military forces, against Iran.
Baku is hardly ever dependent on Tel Aviv. That’s why, President Ilham Aliyev responded to Iran’s suspicions by openly stating that Azerbaijan follows a policy of non-alignment and independence and will not offer its territory for hostilities to any state.
Likewise, on March 29 this year in Moscow, executive negotiations were held between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian. The Russian side believes that the “tensions” in the relations between Baku and Tehran “are temporary in nature and will be overcome as soon as possible.” Within the context of the project for the North-South international transport corridor, Moscow depends on the maintenance of peace in the area and the promotion of trilateral cooperation including Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran. Russia declares its willingness to actively participate in helping to resolve the long-standing issues between its southern partners (Azerbaijan and Iran).
The confrontation between Israel and the Anglo-Saxon coalition with Iran, engaging Azerbaijan, does not fit it with the Russia’s interests. Moreover, Russia has agreements and shared interests with Azerbaijan and Iran, both of which are significant regional partners. Instead of adding new contours to the continuing confrontation, Russia is attempting to engage in constructive diplomacy in the Caucasus and the Middle East by working with its allies to find solutions to disagreements and crises. If Moscow and Baku had not signed a number of military accords, how would Russia act in the case of a military war involving third parties and Azerbaijan? Consequently, Iran remains Russia’s long-standing regional partner, and the peculiarities of modern geopolitics and Western sanctions draw the two countries closer together in economic and military-technical cooperation. Thus, in contrast to the militant regional diplomacy of the West, we see a constructive approach of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Conflict Between Israel and Iran Adopts New Contours появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Could this just be a coincidence that the US has begun conducting airstrikes on Syria right after the announcement of a China brokered peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Following the announcement of this deal, it was revealed that the Saudis are also in talks with the Syrians to normalise ties. The China factor, it seems, is reshaping the Middle East in ways that leave little to no room for the US to manipulate the region’s geopolitics to its advantage. The US still has almost one-third of the Syrian territory under its control. With almost 900 troops, unaccounted-for Special Forces and contractors operating in Syria, the US has been able to prevent Syria’s unification for the past many years. But if Saudi Arabi’s ties with Syria become normal and if Turkey follows suit and withdraws its forces as well, it will further squeeze the space for the US to maintain its occupation of the Syrian territory. A military exit from Syria could further push the US out of the Middle East in a geopolitical sense. Hence, the US efforts to reignite the flares of conflict to sabotage normalisation.
The US has a significant military presence in Syria and it is able to maintain it via its airbases spread in the region, including the one in Qatar that Washington most recently used to strike the Iran-backed groups in Syria. The US officially justifies its military presence in Syria to prevent the “return” of the Islamic State (ISIS, banned in Russia). But we know the US actually uses its presence either a) to keep significantly large portions of the Syrian oil under its control to prevent the war-torn country from recovering from years of war, and b) to prevent Iran from consolidating its position in Syria and put geopolitical pressure on Israel.
But both of these objectives are likely to become a lot harder to achieve in a reshaped Middle East that China (and Russia) are keen to create. A major breakthrough is likely to happen later this year, when Beijing will host a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iran. Were Iran’s relations with the GCC to become normal, it would become extremely difficult for Israel and the US to project Iran as a “threat” to the Middle East and/or sell Iran’s nuclear programme posing an existential challenge for the Arab states. Presumably, any understanding between Iran and the GCC via China will be incomplete without a comprehensive understanding regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, i.e., the will to make the bomb.
For the GCC states, following the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA and the subsequent failure of the Joe Biden administration to revamp the deal, China is the best-placed geopolitical player to devise a workable deal between Iran and the GCC to the exclusion of the US, EU, and Israel. Were Iran and the GCC ties to become normal and were Iran to be no longer seen as an enemy, the US will lose the support of its traditional allies in the region for maintaining a heavy military presence; hence, the US airstrikes in Syria on the Iran-backed militias to re-project Iran as the “real” enemy and troublemaker in the region.
The message the Biden administration has sent reads like this: if Iran can manage to attack the US forces, what’s going to prevent it from attacking other countries? But the message that the GCC is receiving from China (and Iran) is completely different. It reads: China needs a stable Middle East for its Belt and Road Initiative to come to fruition. Iran – like many other GCC countries – needs China for various reasons, including selling oil in return for investment. Therefore, it will make no sense at all for Iran to “attack” GCC countries directly or indirectly (e.g., via the Houthis based in Yemen), create instability, jeopardise Beijing’s interests, and compromise its vital economic interests tied to Beijing.
As far as Iran is concerned, it understands that Saudi ties with the US are far from ideal. Saudi is selling most of its oil to China and the former has repeatedly declined US “requests” to increase oil production to bring the prices down. In Riyadh, there seems to be a real political will to move decisively away from over-reliance on the US and align with China. Iran, therefore, also has a similar level of confidence in the China factor that the GCC countries have.
For Washington, this is a very serious development that it has no means to undo diplomatically. Due to very bad ties, Washington is unable to influence the Saudis and the latter being the most powerful state in the GCC, Washington is unable to influence the bloc as well. Since the US lacks the necessary diplomatic channels to exert influence, it is forced to resort to the only means it has on the ground: the military.
Will it succeed? Mere military strikes may not be enough for the US to influence the larger geopolitical process of normalisation. Therefore, the US might need to re-activate an old asset: jihadi militias. In fact, as media reports indicate, these groups are already trying to break into the territories under Syrian control. Oleg Gurinov, deputy chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Parties in Syria, said on last Friday that “Militants from the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorist group (banned in Russia) tried to break through into the government-controlled territory near the settlement of Urum al-Sugra in the Aleppo governorate.”
Taking cues from the old playbook, Washington, by manufacturing instability in the region, is re-creating conditions where it can project its relevance. A key problem for Washington is that it is unlikely to find the support from regional countries that it had during the peak of the Syrian war to support these militias directly or indirectly. Therefore, the chances of Washington finding any meaningful success to sabotage the China-led process are grim.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение Why’s the US Doing Air Strikes on Syria? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Due to the fact that May 14 falls on the 77th anniversary of the elections in 1950, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan endorsed the decision made by the Turkish parliament to hold national elections on that date this year. The Republican People’s Party of Turkey, which was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, lost its monopoly on power in the 1950 elections.
There were several negotiations between the various coalitions formed among the political parties on the eve of the approval of the final date for the March parliamentary and presidential elections. It was initiated by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which collaborated with two other parties. One of them is the New Welfare Party, which was a continuation of the Welfare Party created by conservative leader Necmettin Erbakan. His son Fatih Erbakan founded a party, which he called the New Welfare Party (YRP) to emphasize that it was a continuation of the party created by his late father, still revered in Turkey.
As one of the AKP’s strict demands, the YRP was forbidden from running in the 23 constituencies because it had previously lost and had no support there, giving the impression that Fatih was already preparing for his defeat in these elections. Therefore, it is expected that when the YRP does not participate in these districts, the Conservative vote will go to the AKP. The dispute’s final resolution is unknown, but local observers assume there must have been a serious concession exchange that took place behind closed doors. The dissatisfied expressions on the negotiators’ faces on the part of YRP at the signing ceremony may imply that not everyone was pleased with the agreement.
Another point of conflict involved Fatih’s attempt to amend the legislative Act to Protect Family and Prevent Violence against Women. Yet regardless of the outcome of the talks between the two parties, the discovery of their differing views on this matter has sparked a wider discussion in Turkish society. The talks were attended by the AKP vice-president in charge of family matters, as well as the Minister of Family Affairs, who had to unwillingly side with women due to societal pressures.
Another significant agreement was reached between the AKP and its former member Mehmet Şimşek, who also successfully served as minister of finance. He left the AKP a few years ago to return to his prior profession in international finance, but he retains authority not only among local bankers but also among overseas financiers. Erdoğan hopes to work with him to build strong ties with global financiers and secure a number of advantageous loans.
The AKP held its third major negotiation with the Free Cause Party (HÜDA PAR), which is known for killing its opponents. It is mainly based in southeastern Anatolia, although it is also present in other regions of Turkey. At the 2018 general election, it only received 0.3% of the vote and has no seats in parliament. In this regard, it’s unclear whether the AKP’s arrangement with this party will increase support for it or, instead, turn away potential supporters. Local experts predict that Erdoğan’s 2018 presidential election backer HÜDA PAR will do so once more in 2023. This is true despite the fact that a few years ago Erdoğan did not spare this party and comprehensively swept out its ranks.
Another round of negotiations was held, this time between the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), whose political strength in the country is estimated at about 12%. Even if there was broad convergence of views for the negotiations’ conclusion, it cannot be expected that their efforts will be sufficient to win the future elections.
Many presidential candidates have already applied for the position. For the Supreme Election Council to approve each of them, they must each collect 100,000 signatures. It goes without saying that Erdoğan and Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, Chairman of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), will compete. The other candidates must register with the hope of negotiating concessions with one of the two front-runners during the second voting round.
Muharrem İnce has taken an active role in the approaching elections. He chose to run under the banner of his Homeland party, which split from the CHP. In the most recent presidential election, he ran as the CHP candidate and gained almost 30% of the vote. Opposition parties urged him not to run as an independent candidate this time because his votes would be “deducted” from the opposition parties. The ruling AKP is doing everything it can to promote İnce in order to “take” as many votes from the opposition parties as possible. But he maintains his dubious position.
If Erdoğan wins again, it will be difficult for him to keep the exaggerated promises he is giving out left and right. But for now, his first goal is to win the election. He reasons like Napoleon: first we have to go into battle, and then we’ll see. If successful in the May 14 election, he plans to reshuffle positions in the cabinet with fresh faces, claiming that present ministers will run for parliament to help the ruling party’s parliamentary group in a new era. Erdoğan called serving the Turkish nation “racing under the flag” in his final presentation to his Justice and Development Party’s parliamentary group before the election, emphasizing that all members of the ruling party would continue to serve the people in different ranks and places. “Here are our ministers. They will continue serving the people in the Parliament after May 14. We will appoint new figures as ministers,” Erdoğan said. “We are making effort to build the Century of Türkiye with the confidence we will receive from our people in the elections. We will altogether write history of tomorrow’s happy days.” To show the AKP’s dedication to the process of “reconstructing the cities and reviving life,” the present ministers, who are rumored to be running for parliament, are primarily from the 11 earthquake-affected regions.
The government propaganda is currently extolling the accomplishments made while Erdoğan is in power. The Daily News reports that since the AKP came to power in 2002, Turkey has made consistent advancements in terms of democracy and economic development and is now establishing new objectives for the future. With a per capita income of $10,650 and projected growth, Turkey now ranks among the top ten economies in the world. According to the publication, the approaching elections would be a true test of Erdoğan and his AKP’s initiatives.
Erdoğan used administrative resources to entice supporters to his side and his party, announcing a drastic lowering of utilities prices beginning April 1. Electricity rates will be reduced by 15% for everyone, and natural gas prices will be reduced by 20% for industrial firms. Furthermore, the government has promised to continue assisting the private sector in its efforts to produce and export goods and services overseas. Thanks to local government and private sector efforts, the TOGG, Turkey’s first domestic car, was able to be produced, and already more than 177,000 people have applied to buy the car.
Yet Erdoğan is facing fresh challenges. Representatives from three Turkish opposition parties, the Good Party, the Democracy and Progress Party, and the Homeland Party, have petitioned the Supreme Election Council to remove President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from the list of candidates for the upcoming presidential elections, according to Haberturk TV. It was stated that Erdoğan has no right to run for president again because doing so would be a violation of the Constitution. The Turkish president is currently serving his second term. The country’s authorities argue that Erdoğan’s presidential term was invalidated following the 2017 constitutional vote. Erdoğan himself stated that the opposition was frightened of losing the next elections, therefore it began to focus on this issue. Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ asserted that Erdoğan faces no legal obstacles in his bid for the upcoming presidential elections. He bases this on the fact that this is Erdoğan’s first term in office since Turkey transited to a presidential system in 2018.
On March 21, it was announced that Erdoğan has received official nomination to run for president in the upcoming election. As a single candidate, he represents the Republican Alliance, which is comprised of the ruling Justice and Development Party and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Although there haven’t been any clear front-runners in the pre-election surveys for this election, experts believe that the ruling party may find it difficult to win because of the disastrous earthquakes that killed almost 50,000 people in Turkey.
On March 5, Hürriyet newspaper stressed that the majority of voters may vote for Erdoğan during Turkish presidential election. A number of experts, including the ruling Justice and Development Party, suggest such a development. Polls show that after the country’s earthquakes, Erdoğan’s popularity has increased, giving him a boost in the presidential race.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkey: The Fight over the Presidential Election Grows появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the news in the western hemisphere today, the truth is like the Holy Grail. And like the cup of Christ, it too may be lost forever. Take any information about Russia or China, for instance. Reality is now shifted not only in the halls of power in Washington, London, and Brussels, but in journalism, academia, the nonprofit sector, business, and on the loading dock at break time at the Amazon warehouse. The lie is complete. The multi-trillion-dollar propaganda machine did its job. The stage is set.
What are the chances that every nation, every leader, every opinion poll, and every word from every mouth on the evening news is in love with what America is doing (has done) in the world? The situation is at its worst in the very places where intelligent humans are supposed to sort out the world’s problems. Take the Washington think tank, the Stimson Center. According to these sellout geniuses, India’s position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not a show of support for Russia. According to the authors Akriti (Vasudeva) Kalyankar, and Dante Schulz in the report “Continental Drift? India-Russia Ties After One Year of War in Ukraine,” said India is just walking a detente tightrope to keep from pissing off the Americans. As proof, the experts cited comments by General Manoj Pande, Indian Chief of Army Staff discussing India becoming more self-sufficient militarily and concerning supply chains.
The Stimson Center’s board of directors includes Kris M. Balderston, the General Manager of FleishmanHillard, and a former legislative director to Senator Hillary Clinton. Condoleezza Rice was also on the board from 1991 to 2001, which pretty much tells us the direction of thinking this think tank is going. Think “perpetuate the hegemony,” and you’ve got them pegged. If India joined a military alliance with Russia, against NATO, these people would claim Modi & Co. as posturing. The truth, the reality of international relations at these think tanks is conjured, stirred in a witch’s pot, brought to a boil, and cast with a magic media wand at anyone who will pay attention.
Over at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Europeans are united with Ukraine and against Russia like the Zulu were against the British in South Africa. Timothy Garton Ash
Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard say a new poll proves this unbreakable solidarity. The experts say “Americans and Europeans agree that Russia is their avowed adversary.” Mass demonstrations and reality aside, the propaganda machine has not worked as well in Europe, especially since U.S. Navy frogmen blasted the underwater prosperity fuel line from Russia to Germany. It’s the chiefs sending tanks, missiles, ammunition, and mercenaries to fight and die in Ukraine, not the souvenir salesman beneath the Eiffel Tower. Short version. These people are lying. A larger and more balanced poll would show the Europeans heavily against perpetuating the conflict in Ukraine.
“An increasingly multipolar world requires an entirely different kind of U.S. foreign policy: far from being unilateralist, it necessitates a complex form of power-sharing on both a global and regional basis.” – Author: Martin Jacques
I could go on, obviously. But we do have the “official” side of India-Russia relations direct from the Modi government. No one is reminding great thinkers in the western capitals about the India-Russia Defence Cooperation, the meetings between Russian and Indian pharmaceutical companies, or the 400% increase in imports to India from Russia in the past 12 months. It’s probably high time for free thinkers to begin reading Indian or Russian media, instead of choking down the information nonsense every editor, professor, diplomat, or general in the west keeps feeding us. This story from The Tribune, the largest paper in Northern India, is a good start. There’s the fact that Russia and China proclaimed a “new multipolar order” last month at the BRICS summit, and at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit.
And while western Cold War idealists try and focus on former India-China adversarial relationships, the fact is India envisages itself as a major pole in global politics. And rightfully so. Washington and its coconspirators would like nothing better than to drive new wedges between these Asian countries to deflect reality for some decades to come. Today, or should I say “this time,” it appears that the waking world is not falling for US lies anymore.
“China and India are friendly neighbors. We are also natural partners. Both of our countries stand for amicable and peaceful relations between countries and a multipolar world. The peaceful and friendly relations between our two countries is a blessing not just to Asia, but to also the whole world.” Li Keqiang
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение The West’s Denial Strategy and the Surfacing Multipolar World появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Summit for Democracy had its second forum on March 28-30 this year. The current US administration established the event in the second part of 2021, and it was held for the first time in December of that year. Because the Covid-19 pandemic was still active at the time, this event was held online a year and a half ago.
The second Summit for Democracy was held in a similar manner, but with the added benefit of coordinating some of the conversation processes that have arisen over the past two years using current communication tools. There is no obligation that the remarks stay confidential, especially if they take place in a short period of time and include leaders from several different countries.
And such countries, organized in a very diverse manner, numbered more than 120 this time. This already casts doubt on the viability of combining them all into a single concise definition. And if there is one linked with the name “democracy,” one cannot help but ask what type of action we have observed in the global informational and political spheres once again. It was briefly mentioned earlier in the NEO while addressing the first such event.
First and foremost, the difficulties involved with its preparation and implementation can only be justified by the fact that some political dividends will be obtained in the conflict between the Summit’s organizer and its primary geopolitical opponents. These dividends stem from the challenge of attracting as many individuals as possible to their side (still quite vague). That is why the aspect of a slight but noticeable increase in the number of participants in the second Summit compared to the first is given so much weight. It should attest to the inexorable triumph of history’s luminous side over the dark side’s dangers. The former, of course, is being represented by the United States, while the latter is being incarnated by its primary opponents, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.
In fact, the situation underlying the creation and implementation of the Summit under consideration is a parody of the unsophisticated dominant Hollywood dream factory scenario. With its view of the world in black and white, and of any large human communities as composed of “good guys and bad guys.” It is odd that there are adepts of identical ideas of the world order in Russia, with a reversing of the signs that identify its subgroups.
The obsessive expectation of a “final battle” is prevalent on both sides of the increasingly evident “front line” among proponents of this type of perspective. The weapons of this “battle” are regarded as a “global cure” for all international ailments.
It is vital to realize the fundamental difference between such a “black and white” approach to analyzing all that is going on in the modern world and PRC’s place in it. President Xi Jinping’s latest Global Security Initiative provides more evidence of this. This was proven on the platforms of succeeding summits, which deserve a separate commentary.
As for the aforementioned major task of the Summit’s organizers, its solution, that is, the successful sale of the proposed “product” in the international market of political services, is meant to be achieved through its designation by an appealing brand. The latter, in line with the “organizers’” goals, ought to have a favorable impact on the scatterbrained buyer’s hazy perceptions of his surroundings.
The word “democracy” frequently elicits favorable feelings, yet these feelings are rarely or never grounded in reality. Both historical and current. The term “Man and Citizen” referred to little more than one-third of the population in the ancient Greek polis, where the concept of “people power” was therefore inapplicable. The rest of the population was said to be “talking cattle.” Its aim included trimming stone blocks for a bowl of stew, which were then used by inventive architects to construct various “wonders of the world.” The key weapon for establishing diverse “democracy” procedures among citizens was the use of manipulative political technologies.
As is the case today, when they are widely used not just within “democratic” governments, but also internationally in the geopolitical struggles. Similar strategies have been successful in Ukraine, and the Second Summit for Democracy’s main theme was that country’s current state of affairs. It is worth noting that the inclusion of the current Ukrainian government in the list of “democracies” is itself a sign of the absurdity of the situation.
For a typical Ukrainian layman who occasionally traveled to developed (and less developed) “democracies” to perform menial labor, it was sufficient to “explain” all the riches perceived in them as a result of their “democratic structure.” And then suddenly, there was such a benefit for the “explainers”: a Ukrainian supporter of “democracy” (in steeply declining numbers, but nonetheless) was willing to serve as cannon fodder in the proxy conflict the Summit’s organizers were waging with one of their geopolitical rivals. Almost for the same bowl of stew that is now marked with the magic word “reparations.”
Ukraine’s situation, however, is more of an exception than the rule. Because the majority of the target nations of the political safari conducted by the primary organizer of this and other comparable events, evaluate their actual political goal setting in a cold and realistic manner. The favorable response to the invitation to participate in the Summit is mainly explained by the fact that it poses no significant danger to the relatively neutral positioning of the majority of the invited participating countries.
Eventually, it all came down to the necessity for a day or two to attract attention to the rubbish that the event’s hosts were spewing into their visitors’ ears. Among them were some colorful characters, such as Samantha Power, the former US ambassador to the United Nations. The guests’ patience is also justified by the fact that the organizer and its associates proclaimed their desire to lavish on economic development aid somewhat earlier.
So, one can suffer speakers’ utterances (many of whom should undergo a psychiatric assessment) as well as the presence of really singular persons among the visitors. According to the agenda of the full event released by the US State Department, the guests included “Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the democratic opposition, and Natalia Pinchuk, wife of imprisoned Nobel Laureate Ales Bialiatski, Belarus.” Simultaneously, the former was not labeled as “President of Belarus” this time.
This would be regarded as evidence of some common sense on the part of the Summit’s organizers. Yet, the emphasis on a “new normal” with its current focus on “values below the belt” casts some doubt on this. However, it is important to remember that Me too, an externally relatively innocent and in some ways even positive campaign, can be considered the beginning of the process of paying special attention to these “values” today. Which in turn might be understood as a modern development of the relatively old issue of equating women’s rights in a naturally divided humanity, with each gender having distinct essential roles and obligations.
Women’s rights were discussed at the Summit as a measuring stick of “democracy” (The Status of Women is the Status of Democracy). Without delving into the above maxim, we can only observe a strange trend that is becoming more pronounced: the better the position of women in a particular country corresponds to it, the worse the picture of the fulfillment of the commandment “Be fruitful and multiply,” and the more perfect the instruments of murder developed in it. This commandment, however, is probably certainly meaningless in the minds of the creators of this maxim.
Finally, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remark in a plenary address that his country’s example demonstrates the “possibility” of the success of a democratically governed state is noteworthy. One of the most respected statesmen in the world today appears to be unsure about the relationship between a nation’s success (which is a worthy concern) and the claim that it is “democratic.”
India’s great neighbor, which (like Russia) was not invited to the Summit and where the event was quite adequately characterized as one of the technological methods of the general course of the US (that is the organizer of this event) aimed at maintaining its hegemonic position in world politics, demonstrates that such cause-and-effect linkage is not predetermined.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Second “Summit for Democracy” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Yoon Suk-yeol, the current president of South Korea, has consistently expressed a desire to strengthen bilateral ties with Japan, in contrast to his predecessor, Moon Jae-in. Yoon has said that both nations should abide by the spirit of the Japan–South Korea Joint Declaration of 1998 issued by Japanese Prime Minister Keizō Obuchi and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung which called for overcoming the past and forging new relationships.
The president of South Korea paid his first visit to Japan on March 16–17, 2023, and met in person with Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The president of South Korea traveled to Japan for a summit meeting for the first time in 12 years.
The primary outcome of the visit are agreements on a number of fronts. In general, they were all expected because the events leading up to them had been planned well before the visit.
- Confirming the issue of compensations to Korean forced labor victims has been resolved. In fact, Japanese companies will not be involved in paying financial compensation to victims of forced labor mobilization. A dedicated fund will take care of this, using contributions from Korean and Japanese businesses.
- The end of the trade war. Tokyo is removing export restrictions on supplies and raw materials to South Korea, including chemicals needed in the production of semiconductors, which make up 20% of the country’s exports. In response, Seoul withdraws its complaints at the WTO against Japan’s activities.
- Restoration of the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA). This includes an agreement to continue strategic dialogue in the 2+2 format at the defense deputy and foreign deputy ministerial levels; as well as security consultations at the level of military and foreign ministry heads of departments.
- General nature of rhetoric The parties expressed their willingness and desire to lay the groundwork for the development of future-oriented bilateral relations, heralding the start of a new era; security, economic issues, and humanitarian exchanges were recognized as major areas of contact. The stated aims are to revitalize shuttle diplomacy and regular exchange visits, as well as to build a Korea-Japan dialogue on economic security issues.
- Steps towards the Washington-Tokyo-Seoul Triangle. The importance of establishing a free and open Indo-Pacific region was reaffirmed, as was the significance of alliances between South Korea and the United States, Japan and the United States, and trilateral cooperation between Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo.
- But at the same time, Yoon and Kishida recognized the importance of restoring high-level talks between South Korea, Japan, and China.
- The parties condemned North Korea’s efforts to develop nuclear missile programs and expressed readiness for a joint response, including USA participation.
- Finally, Fumio Kishida stated his intention to invite South Korea to the G7 summit in May, which will be held in Hiroshima. Bilateral and trilateral negotiations with the leaders of South Korea, the United States, and Japan are expected to take place on the sidelines of the summit. On March 20, an official invitation was issued, which Yoon Suk-yeol described as a positive step related to the summit’s outcome.
The response to the visit was likewise anticipated, and the way the assessments were divided was rather typical.
Of course, both the South Korean and Japanese governments gave the visit’s outcomes favorable reviews. According to South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the meeting between South Korea and Japan has created fresh opportunities for the two nations’ relations. He argues that the restoration of bilateral relations in the rapidly changing situation in the world is not a choice, but a prerequisite.
The ruling People Power Party also claimed that the summit’s outcomes had had a substantial impact, particularly on the growth of the economy. “A wall of distrust and lack of communication between the two countries that has built up over the years has started to crumble,” said the PPP floor leader Joo Ho-young.
The business community also voiced positive views. According to a joint statement released on March 20 by the Federation of Korean Industries, the Korean Chamber of Commerce, the Korea International Trade Association, the Korea Federation of SMEs, the Korea Enterprises Federation and the Federation of Middle Market Enterprises of Korea, “president Yoon Suk Yeol’s visit to Japan has set a turning point for improving bilateral relations, and we welcome that it has laid the foundation for economic cooperation between Korea and Japan.”. Businesspeople claimed that because “unnecessary trade obstacles” had been removed, the meeting will contribute to the ongoing expansion of trade and investment cooperation.
Washington is even more supportive of a reconciliation between Seoul and Tokyo. US National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby referred to the agreements made at the summit as “truly historic,” reiterating that the United States will continue to support efforts to normalize relations between Seoul and Tokyo.
The Democratic Party was also anticipated to oppose, with its leader Lee Jae-myung denouncing the summit as the most shameful and appalling incident in Korean diplomacy history and claiming that the Yoon administration had chosen to become a puppet of the Japanese government because “Japan’s apology or regret on the biggest issue of forced labor was nowhere to be seen”.
Given that the anti-Japanese debate was still alive and well, the bulk of media outlets, including the center-right Korea Times, chastised Yoon. “Liberal or conservative, the consensus towards Japan is the same for all: apologies and compensation first, friendship and moves toward the future later,” as one critic observed.
People generally oppose this rapprochement as well. According to the most recent Realmeter poll, Yoon Suk-yeol’s support is waning; only 36.8% of respondents approve of the president’s policies, and 60.4% have negative opinions about them.
According to the author, Yoon has made a bold move in a manner comparable to how Park Chung-hee defied convention by establishing diplomatic ties with Japan in 1965. Still, he will absolutely have to deal with ramifications —mostly in domestic politics.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Yoon Suk-yeol’s Visit to Japan появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
A methodical, deliberate approach has been a hallmark of Chinese diplomacy for a millennia, and the outcomes of its actions are calculated over a considerable amount of time.
In recent years, China has generally been assessed by experts as a country that has achieved breakthrough technological and economic development, the initiator of the global One Belt One Road Initiative with the formation of new alternative land communications for the mega-transit of Chinese goods to foreign markets, where the countries of Eurasia represent the key destination.
Nonetheless, China has mainly restricted itself to its territorial interests in geopolitics, such as the reunification of Hong Kong and Taiwan. China’s strong geopolitical potential and intense diplomacy are, however, attested to by the economic expansion of Chinese commodities and lucrative large-scale investments in countries including Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Europe.
The flow of Chinese investment is also frequently directed towards nations that pose a danger to China’s interests in maintaining its territorial integrity. Beijing, for instance, creates the environment to contain the ambitious intentions of advocates of pan-Turanism who aim at promoting the PRC’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region’s secession; the PRC achieves this goal by forging an active trading and economic partnership and investing, for instance, in Turkey.
China’s diplomacy always takes a broad view of the subject of partnership (including geography, history, culture, politics, economics and resources). In this context, the nature of the emerging strategic partnership between China and Iran is of particular interest. Beijing and Tehran signed a $400 billion deal in March 2021. The Chinese government has also committed to investing this amount in Iran over a 25-year period in exchange for a steady supply of oil at a reduced price. In fact, the total amount of these investments, spread over a quarter-century, is comparable to Iran’s GDP in 2021.
And thereby, China has demonstrated to the rest of the world (primarily the United States and the West) that, first, it is committed to long-term rapprochement with Islamic Iran, which is subject to sanctions, and second, China’s large-scale investments can stimulate the Iranian economy’s breakthrough growth (especially in infrastructure and technological development, energy and transit communications). Naturally, the United States, Israel’s main strategic ally and the author of the anti-Iran sanctions, immediately began putting pressure on China’s largest company, Huawei, to scuttle the deal with Iran or reduce investment. However, the current dynamics of tense Sino-American relations over Taiwan and ties with Russia do not bode well for the United States and Israel to disrupt the investment agreement between Beijing and Tehran.
A compelling argument for the success of Chinese diplomacy in the Middle East, and particularly in Iran, is that it was the Chinese who signed an agreement in March 2023 to restore diplomatic relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which were severed on January 3, 2016 following the execution of prominent Shia cleric Sheikh Al-Nimr.
The agreement to restore relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, signed by the Secretaries of the two countries’ National Security Councils (Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani and Musaad bin Mohammad Al Aiban) with the participation of Wang Yi, head of the CPC’s Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission, is a significant breakthrough in regional and global policy issues. Beijing was able to persuade Tehran to end its military support for the Houthis in Yemen against Saudi Arabia.
As it is known, Iran and Saudi Arabia are key centers of power in the Middle East, as well as leaders of the Shiite and Sunni Islamic worlds; the restoration of interstate relations between them, as well as a promising partnership involving China, significantly limits the United States’ ability to monopolize the regional agenda.
Given Saudi Arabia’s leadership role in the Arab world, it is highly unlikely that the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf will support Israel’s, the United States’, and Britain’s plans to launch a military operation against Iran. As a matter of fact, Tehran dashes Israel’s and the NATO coalition’s, including Turkey’s, hopes for a northern strike against Iran from the position of Azerbaijan, as there could be military, technical, and diplomatic support from China, India, and Russia behind Iran, with the Middle East remaining neutral. Furthermore, the Maritime Security Belt 2023 exercise of the navies of China, Iran, and Russia, held in the waters of the Gulf of Oman from March 15 to 19, 2023, revealed new security outlines in such an important region of the world.
The Celestial Empire’s ability to convert its economic influence in the region into political influence is demonstrated by China’s successful mediation in the Middle East. Riyadh has solemnly hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping, hoping to gain new roles in world politics through Beijing, as China is equally active in cooperating with countries in the West and the East.
China launched an ambitious new peace agenda and proposed a plan for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on the anniversary of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine in February 2023. The cessation of hostilities and the resumption of peace talks for a political settlement of the current problems and contradictions between Moscow and Kiev, a 12-point plan – this is another Chinese initiative. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s official visit to Moscow in March of this year, as well as his discussions with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, demonstrated that the Russian side generally supports the Chinese initiative.
Turkey, which has been an active mediator between the conflicting parties since the arrival of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine and has repeatedly proposed peace talks centered in Istanbul instead of a “war of attrition to the last Ukrainian,” supported the PRC peace initiative through presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin. Ankara’s position was apparently made public following a phone call between Erdoğan and Putin on March 27 of this year.
Unlike China, no country (including Turkey) has so far offered Russia and Ukraine a specific plan for peace talks, including principles and approaches, both in relations of conflicting parties and on a global scale (in particular, excluding unilateral sanctions against Russia, a throwback to the Cold War era and bloc confrontation). While expressing support for the Chinese negotiating strategy, Ibrahim Kalin also proposed a fundamental condition related to convincing Kiev of the importance of accepting Beijing’s proposals. In other words, Turkey makes it clear to China that Moscow’s agreement is only half the battle; convincing Kiev, which is controlled by the USA and Britain, is much more difficult. In turn, the Turkish official criticized the US’s harsh anti-Russian stance, which leaves Russia with no choice but to form a global alliance with China.
Some experts believe that Kiev will not hurry to agree to Beijing’s proposal to stop the hostilities and begin peace talks, because, first, it is not sure that through negotiations it will change the realities on the ground by March 2023, and second, it hopes for a turning point on the front during a possible counteroffensive in spring-summer of this year.
However China is unlikely to tolerate another attempt by the Kiev regime to disrupt the peace initiatives of a global player, whose investments may determine the fate of reconstruction work in Ukraine in the post-war period, or whose weapon deliveries may determine the outcome of the conflict and the future of the Ukrainian state.
In assessing the results of Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Moscow, many experts focused on the phrase the Chinese leader used to say goodbye to Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Change is coming that hasn’t happened in 100 years. And we are driving this change together.” Kiev should also take the Chinese leader’s advice on the systemic changes of the twenty-first century.
Meanwhile, fighting for Artyomovsk (Bakhmut) and Avdeevka continues…
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Chinese peace negotiations in Eurasia are gaining ground появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Who’s Who
Despite occasional protests from Tucker Carlson, the Murdoch disinformation organization is, to the largest extent, a prime mover toward war on Ukraine and efforts to destabilize Russia.
Murdoch himself inheritor to the Greenbaum news organization in Australia needs to be understood. The Murdoch organization is also the inheritor to the Maxwell mantle, an entirely Mossad run disinformation project operating hand in hand with British fascists under the mantle of freemasonry and resurgent fascist extremism.
Espionage using blackmail, bribery and disinformation is their stock and trade, not simply the News of the World “phone hacking” scandal but so much more.
Murdoch’s move to the United States signaled a move toward not simply fascism but open collusion between organized crime, foreign intelligence agencies, not simply Israel but those aligned with the neoconservative movement in the US.
The Arrest of Donald Trump
The recent arrest of Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the political world, but it should not come as a surprise. Trump, who has long been associated with the neoconservative movement and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, was always a potential liability for those who wished to maintain control over the political landscape.
Personal sources have Trump working for the Soviets as far back as the Carter administration. Similarly, the CIA used Trump to launder stolen Russian banking assets, billions that eventually flowed into Bush family coffers. I had a direct role in this operation and was at the table during every meeting. One meeting included two Democratic United States senators, who helped “rig” the Senate Banking Committee to back mob owned Cypriot Banks that would handle the “laundry.”
More
The neoconservative movement, which has its roots in the Democratic Party but found a home in the Republican Party under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, is known for its aggressive foreign policy stance and its strong support for Israel. Trump, who ran on a platform of America first, was not a natural fit for this movement, but he was able to garner their support by playing into their fears and prejudices.
However, once in office, Trump’s erratic behavior and impulsive decision-making made him a liability for the neoconservative agenda. He repeatedly undermined US alliances, including with NATO and the European Union, and his cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin raised concerns among neoconservative policymakers about his loyalties.
In addition to his foreign policy missteps, Trump also proved to be a liability domestically. His mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his support for far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys led to widespread condemnation and calls for his removal from office.
The Arrest as a Message
The arrest of Trump should be seen as a message to Israel and the neoconservative movement that their power is not absolute. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to control Trump, and in the end, he became a liability for their agenda.
The fact that Trump was arrested by US authorities, rather than extradited to Israel, also sends a message that the United States is not willing to be a pawn in the geopolitical games of foreign powers. This is a departure from past US policy, where Israel has been given a free hand to pursue its agenda in the Middle East, often at the expense of US interests.
The arrest of Trump also serves as a warning to other political leaders who may be tempted to cozy up to foreign powers or undermine US interests. It sends a message that there are consequences for such behavior, and that those who seek to undermine US democracy will be held accountable.
Lessons from the Past
The lessons of the past have been largely ignored by those in power, both in the United States and abroad. The history of US foreign policy is littered with examples of leaders who were willing to put their own interests ahead of those of the country, often with disastrous consequences.
One such example is the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, where senior officials in the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and used the proceeds to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua. This was a clear violation of US law and policy, and it led to a major political scandal that tarnished the Reagan presidency.
Money supposedly intended to supply “contras’ was laundered into GOP election coffers. The 2005 SCOTUS decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission would end such efforts as direct cash payments from mobster to politicians, with GOP support, became “the law of the land” in the United States.
Another example is the Iraq War, which was launched in 2003 based on false intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The war, which was strongly supported by neoconservative policymakers and the pro-Israel lobby, cost the United States trillions of dollars and led to the deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
These examples serve as a warning that when leaders prioritize their own interests over those of the country, the results can be disastrous. The arrest of Trump should serve as a wake-up call to those who seek to undermine US democracy, and a reminder that there are consequences for such behavior.
Moving Forward
Moving forward, it is important that the United States and its allies recommit themselves to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. This means holding leaders accountable for their actions, regardless of their political affiliation on the lessons of the past and taking steps to prevent future abuses of power.
One way to do this is to strengthen institutions that serve as a check on executive power, such as the judiciary and the media. In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the erosion of democratic norms and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals. Strengthening these institutions can help prevent abuses of power and ensure that leaders are held accountable for their actions.
Another way to prevent abuses of power is to promote greater transparency in government. This means ensuring that the public has access to information about government actions and policies, and that there are mechanisms in place to hold officials accountable for any wrongdoing. In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the use of secret government programs and the expansion of executive authority, particularly in the realm of national security. Promoting greater transparency can help prevent abuses of power and ensure that the public is informed about the actions of their leaders.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the United States is not an island. The country’s foreign policy has a direct impact on the rest of the world, and it is important to consider the implications of US actions for other countries and their citizens. This means promoting greater cooperation and understanding between nations, and recognizing that the US cannot act unilaterally without consequences.
With this, the “war within the war” now fought in Ukraine is a battle against a unipolar world dominated by a banking system not “now controlled by” but “invented by” organized crime which has been with us since the dawn of civilization.
Trump in Chains
The arrest of Trump should serve as a wake-up call to those who seek to undermine democracy and the rule of law. It is a reminder that there are consequences for such behavior, and that leaders must be held accountable for their actions. By learning from the lessons of the past and taking steps to prevent abuses of power, the US can help ensure that democracy and the rule of law remain strong and vibrant for generations to come.
Manу, if perhaps most, outside the United States, particularly Russians, who support Trump or feel he is being persecuted, generally get all news from Fox, part of the Zionist controlled Murdoch organization. Educated Americans tend to shy away from Fox as not just “slanted” but outright lies and disinformation, continually banging on in support of apartheid in Israel or supporting expanded powers for “big business,” the name that no longer applies to a community dominated by organized crime.
It is certainly true that media bias and disinformation are significant challenges facing both the United States and the international community. In recent years, there has been growing concern about the role that media outlets such as Fox News play in spreading disinformation and promoting partisan agendas.
In the case of Fox News, many Americans and international observers have accused the network of being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party and promoting a conservative, pro-business agenda. The network has also been criticized for promoting divisive rhetoric and conspiracy theories, as well as for its coverage of international events such as the conflict in Israel and Palestine.
However, it is important to note that media bias and disinformation are not unique to Fox News or to any one particular media outlet. All media outlets, whether conservative or liberal, have a responsibility to report accurate and unbiased information to their audiences.
Additionally, it is important to recognize that the issue of media bias and disinformation is not limited to the United States. Many countries around the world face similar challenges, and there is a growing need for greater transparency and accountability in media reporting.
Ultimately, it is up to individual citizens to be discerning consumers of news and to seek out sources that are known for their accuracy and objectivity. It is also important for governments and other institutions to promote greater transparency and accountability in media reporting, and to work to combat disinformation and propaganda in all its forms.
To this extent, the horrific quality of reporting on the conflict in Ukraine has made Fox seem less outrageous as platforms like the New York Times, on a daily basis, set new standards for journalistic sleaze.
It is certainly true that media coverage of the conflict in Ukraine has been controversial and often deeply flawed. Both mainstream media outlets and alternative news sources have been accused of bias, disinformation, and outright propaganda.
In particular, some critics have accused major media outlets like the New York Times of bias and sensationalism in their reporting on the conflict. Some have argued that the Times and other mainstream outlets have adopted a pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian stance, while downplaying or ignoring human rights abuses and other issues on the Ukrainian side.
At the same time, other sources have been accused of promoting a pro-Russian agenda and downplaying or ignoring Ukrainian government abuses and war crimes. This has led to a complex and often confusing media landscape, in which it can be difficult for readers to know which sources to trust and which to dismiss as biased or unreliable.
In light of these challenges, it is more important than ever for readers to be discerning consumers of news, and to seek out sources that are known for their accuracy, objectivity, and ethical standards. This may mean relying on multiple sources and perspectives, and being willing to challenge one’s own assumptions and biases.
Independent news organization like SouthFront, Veterans Today, The Intel Drop, The Duran and others along with military analysis by Doug MacGregor and Scott Ritter are setting a new standard for unbiased reporting.
It is also important for media outlets and journalists to adhere to high standards of journalistic integrity, including accuracy, transparency, and a commitment to the truth. This requires a willingness to engage in critical self-reflection and to be accountable to readers and the wider public.
Ultimately, the quality of media reporting on the conflict in Ukraine, as on any issue, will depend on the willingness of journalists, media outlets, and readers to uphold these principles and to work together to promote a more informed, responsible, and democratic media landscape.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Trump’s Arrest a Message to Israel and the Neocons появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Reiterating that the Central and South Asian region as a whole has enormous potential for overall development that will benefit all of its members as well as its neighbors, such as Russia and China, let us note that this was the reason behind the North-South Transport Corridor project’s inception two or three decades ago. It has persisted as an intriguing concept ever since for one basic reason, which boils down to more or less ongoing political upheaval in the world’s overall situation, in virtually every country in the region, and in the connections between them in particular.
The fact that the big “outside” parties are interested in everything that happens in this area seems to be very clear. The tight interaction of “external” and “internal” reasons driving the events that are occurring here makes it difficult to identify the precise source of the periodic acts of turbulence that happen in every country in the region without exception.
In connection with the terrorist attack in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, as well as the country’s escalating internal political conflict, the author has already had cause to speculate on this subject. It appears that conducting special elections for the local parliaments of both the aforementioned and Punjab provinces, which are home to over half of Pakistan’s population, could serve to lessen the intensity of the latter. But after an article on the topic appeared in the NEO, it was revealed that the election process had been moved from the initial date of April 30 to October this year. This decision is hardly likely to help defuse the situation in Pakistan.
On the territory of Pakistan’s biggest regional rival, contemporary India, the internal political situation does not appear to be getting any better. Its political structure features unique fault lines of different kinds. A long-standing sore spot, caused by the recurring concept of Sikhs acquiring (or “restoring”) their own political entity, Khalistan, surfaced in acute form in March of this year.
The 25 million Sikhs worldwide, who predominantly reside in the Indian state of Punjab but also have communities in the UK, Canada, and the US (this is significant), are followers of a particular form of monotheism. The founder of this faith, Guru Nanak, lived between the 15th and 16th centuries. He passed away and was buried in a temple of Kartarpur in the Pakistani province of Punjab a few miles away from the border with the Indian state of Punjab.
The completion of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor, a Sikh pilgrimage route to the grave of their primary teacher, by the fall of 2019 might have been one of the first steps in a larger process to end the state of hostility between the two de facto nuclear powers. But, a number of other adverse factors have so far prevented it from happening.
Particularly, India believes Pakistan is using the same “Sikh factor” against it. The latter accuses the former of “provoking the Baluchs,” in turn, or people who live in the same-named Pakistani province and who are similarly worried about the “restoration” of their own sovereignty.
Sikhs have frequently caused problems for various Indian administrations. The Amritsar Massacre, which took place in 1919, was a deadly attack by the British troops against the Golden Temple in the holy city of the Sikhs, Amritsar in Punjab. In June 1984, the government of now independent India carried out a similar military operation in the same Golden Temple. A few months later, the Prime Minister of the time, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by a Sikh bodyguard.
Due to their inevitable integration with other sociopolitical groups, the conflict between the Central Government and the leadership of Punjab on the one hand, and separatist Sikh organizations on the other hand, became more complicated than it already is. In particular, Sikhs have been conspicuously present in recent farmer demonstrations against the laws that were to serve as the foundation for the nation’s agricultural reform which has long been discussed.
The police action in the second half of March against one of the Sikh movements located in the city of Jalandhar in the state of Punjab, whose leader is thought to be a well-known reporter, Amritpal Singh, also had a “farmer” motif. The fact that this action was taken after the latter published many pieces exclusively on the “farmers'” issue is scarcely a coincidence. It is also interesting that he wasn’t one of the more than 100 movement sympathizers who were detained. Today, residents find it amusing to read about the “police pursuit” of the fugitive on a daily basis.
Yet, it’s probable that Amritpal was merely given the chance to abscond because his arrest would have almost surely sparked widespread unrest. Not only on the Sikh side, we might add.
And there have been protests about what happened in Jalandhar, but in the UK, Canada, and the United States, where, again, there are compact Sikh communities. Such protests were particularly violent in London, where even the National Flag was hauled down at the Indian Embassy. All of this served as justification for the Indian Foreign Ministry’s demarches against all three of these countries, which have recently been attempting to portray themselves as friends of India.
In March, London was also the setting of another action, which was met with displeasure by the Central Government of India. We are talking about another, and by no means the first, outburst by one of the current leaders of the oldest, now in opposition, party of the Indian National Congress, Rahul Gandhi (grandson of Indira Gandhi). The theme and target are both flaws in the country’s democratic order and Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally. It should be mentioned that Modi has been the leader of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party for nearly a decade.
Rahul’s “London” action appears to have two motivations. First, he was then in the position of being charged with defamation for a rather careless—to put it mildly—comment he made to Narendra Modi back in 2019. The second, and possibly most significant, factor is that India will have another general election in a year. This tremendously significant (from both a domestic and international policy standpoint) forthcoming event is already having an impact on nearly every element of the operation of the Republic of India.
In any case, on March 23, Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years in prison, which resulted in his expulsion from the Lower House of the Indian Parliament. That is, the Indian National Congress will face up against the Bharatiya Janata Party without his involvement in the upcoming elections in a year’s time.
At first glance, it appears that the causes behind all of these and other various acts of instability in contemporary India’s political life can all be explained by “multiplying the factors” with “external” elements and facts. Indeed, the UK, Canada and the United States are simply the territories where some peculiarly-religious people live; there’s a myriad of them in India.
“Does this ethnic group object to certain Central Indian Government policies affecting co-religionists in the ancestral homeland?” They have the legal right to do so. Are the protests accompanied by excesses against Indian diplomatic missions? Well, yes, there is some of that, but it is quite minor and quite fixable. Our Indian friends have no special issue of concern.” The same kind of “explanations” must have been uttered in connection with the above-mentioned speech in London by an important Indian politician.
The Narendra Modi government’s stance towards one of the key elements in the present stage of the “Great Global Game” has, however, clearly caused some displeasure in the capitals of all three of the countries listed. It essentially comes down to a conflict between the “generalized West” and both of its principal rivals, the Russian Federation and the PRC, on a global scale.
While the Modi government is clearly interested in developing comprehensive relations with Europeans, the United States, Japan, and Australia (as was the previous Indian National Congress government), it not only manages to maintain positive relations with Russia, but also gradually moves toward restoring such relations with the PRC. And this cannot be acceptable to those who advocate painting the geopolitical map in black and white. In order to convey to Narendra Modi the said discontent, messages to him in the form of excesses of a seemingly purely internal nature will do.
Yet, the political unrest caused by such activities in the region’s major economies does not help create the favorable conditions necessary for the realization of cooperative economic ventures.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Indian activists support Khalistan’s independence появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in his third term, and he has yet to get an invitation to visit Washington. Despite the fact that there are numerous subjects for discussion. Consider, for example, how strongly everyone around the world, including Americans, condemned the far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s call for the Palestinian town of Huwara to be “wiped out.” Smotrich, the head of Netanyahu’s hardline coalition’s pro-settler party, made harsh public comments amid a succession of deadly punitive operations against Palestinians and Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank. The White House and Joe Biden “got nervous” over other similarly harsh statements made by Israeli ministers in light of the complex situation that is currently playing out not only in Israel but also throughout the Middle East. And not at all in favor of the USA.
According to World Israel News, if Israeli officials had made the same claims in private, Netanyahu would already be meeting with Biden in the Oval Office. But Joe Biden doesn’t want to endanger his campaign for a second term as president as the presidential election draws near. Yet, this year, three to four billion dollars in military aid from American taxpayers will continue to go to Israel. This is the same military aid that Israel uses in its crimes against Palestinians.
While the White House declined to clarify whether Netanyahu would still be invited, a State Department official directed reporters to the Cabinet of Israel for information on the prime minister’s intentions for such a trip. David Makowski of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy believes that “the message the US clearly wants to send is: If you follow unwanted policies, you have no right to sit in the Oval Office.” A senior Israeli official, who wished to remain unnamed, was quoted in US media reports on the matter as stating that the US position was not unexpected given that the two sides had been at odds on a number of topics for decades. Nonetheless, the official stated that “the solid relationship between Israel and the United States has not and will not be damaged as a result of these disputes.”
Two major crises that Israel is currently experiencing are affecting Netanyahu’s cabinet. Since the beginning of the year, protesters have crowded the streets of major cities to voice their opposition to the government’s proposal to curtail the authority of the so-called Supreme Court, which detractors claim will force Israelis to live under a dictatorship. Footage from Tel Aviv, where police actively used tasers and fought with Israeli protesters, was widely circulated.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennet warned last month of a “civil war in Israel” and called for talks on Netanyahu’s amendments. “There may be a settlement on judicial amendments,” Bennett said. “There are things that need to be fixed and changed, but we shouldn’t go from one extreme to the other.” At the same time, Bennett added that “the majority wants adjustments, not system changes,” warning against a civil war “over nothing.”
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit believes the current security crisis has only just begun, and he predicts “bloodshed.” According to Israeli media, Mandelblit said, “We are only at the beginning of the conflict. The situation will continue to worsen, and there will be bloodshed inside Israel.”
The Knesset (Israeli parliament) is trying to overthrow the so-called judicial system. On first reading, the law received 63 votes in favor, which is more than the quorum’s required threshold. The goal of the action is to make the Knesset stronger so that Netanyahu’s hardline alliance can maintain its majority and overturn Supreme Court rulings. Members of the Knesset will have more influence in the selection of judges as a result of Netanyahu’s actions.
Netanyahu is allegedly attempting to utilize the reforms to remove a lot of accusations against himself that are related to 2019 according to the protest organizers. Fraud, bribery, and breach of trust are among the charges and scandals. According to Israeli media, hundreds of thousands of settlers protested in Tel Aviv and other settlements in the occupied areas, including Jerusalem, as well as outside President Isaac Herzog’s residence. The president urged Netanyahu’s cabinet to halt reforms and speak with the opposition in order to reach a consensus. Despite not ruling out conversation, the ruling cabinet refused to defer or postpone the reform vote. The president of Israel warned that the situation was going to erupt.
Netanyahu’s political opponents slammed the moves as an attempt to “abolish the courts.” The suggested measures, according to Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, are an attempt by the prime minister to avert continuous corruption cases. “Just because they have a majority in parliament does not mean… that they can demolish the Supreme Court simply because the prime minister has been indicted,” Lapid stated.
The so-called reforms open the path for additional issues that the regime will be concerned about. Analysts worry that Netanyahu’s policies will have a long-term negative impact on Israel’s economic growth and the living standards of Israeli settlers. Although the judicial reform has not yet taken effect, it has already had an impact on the Israeli shekel. The planned reforms, in the opinion of businesspeople and economists, would jeopardize Israel’s investment interests in the occupied territories. According to Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s obsession with supposed reforms has brought the government to the “depths of a serious crisis,” with the threat of civil war looming.
The Supreme Court justified all crimes and atrocities committed against Palestinians, so this has nothing to do with them. This includes the ongoing expansion of settlements, which are illegal under international law yet are approved by the US.
According to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who also expressed “grave concern” about the proposal, the US supposedly opposes allowing Israel to establish Jewish settlement outposts in the occupied West Bank. This action came less than two weeks after he expressed the opposition of the United States to such measures during his visit to the region. According to the Tehran Times, it is probable that the Secretary of State covertly supported this type of conduct, despite his words of “condemnation” by Washington. As usual, there is a game going on here that is costing the Palestinians dearly.
Simultaneously, the United States continues to utilize its veto power in the UN Security Council to allow illegal Israeli settlements to thrive. Other than public words to calm the international community, Blinken has exhibited no significant resistance to settlement expansion. The hypocrisy of the Secretary of State is astounding: “We strongly oppose such unilateral measures, which exacerbate tensions and undermine the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution.” Ned Price, the spokesman for the US State Department, went even further in his euphemisms, asserting that Blinken had made it clear during his visit to the occupied territories that he opposed the legalization of settlements.
The increase of violence in the occupied West Bank is Israel’s second crisis. Punitive actions have intensified since young Palestinians started using armed resistance earlier this year, including numerous Israeli crimes against humanity.
Speaking before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned the current actions of the Israeli authorities as “an incomprehensible declaration of incitement to violence and hostility.” According to this international organization, at least 65 Palestinian adults and children have been killed by Israeli Security Forces since the beginning of the year. “Settlements in the occupied territories must be stopped soon; the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is tragic. A catastrophe, first and foremost, for the Palestinian people,” both Türk and the entire world agree.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Israel Still Pursues its Old Policy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Finland and Sweden are reported to have applied to join NATO in May 2022, ostensibly because they fear a military danger from Russia as Russian-Ukrainian military-political relations deteriorate. Yet in truth, neither then nor now, has Russia been a military danger to the Scandinavian nations. However, in case they join the alliance, Russia will have to take adequate measures along its northwestern borders including the deployment of strategic deterrence forces.
Ankara, which is an active mediator in Russian-Ukrainian ties and has maintained its alliance with Moscow, originally presented to the two new NATO candidates its demands about Kurdish separatist and the extradition of some members of that ethnic movement to Turkey. Certainly, Russia had nothing to do with these intra-NATO conflicts. At the same time, Turkey’s current position on the fact that it might block Finland and Sweden from joining NATO was in Russia’s interests.
In fact, the entire Russian special military operation in Ukraine began with Moscow’s unequivocal warning to NATO and the USA in particular in December 2021 about the unacceptable nature of the Alliance’s policy of its eastward advance, which poses obvious threats to the Russian Federation’s security interests. As the reader may be aware, the issue concerned Ukraine and the violation by NATO of its verbal promises to refrain from trying to expand the North Atlantic Alliance in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR.
Turkey, whose energy security is inextricably tied to Russia and which has a number of interesting economic partnership projects with Russia, has maintained respectful relations with Russia even after the start of the special military operation. Ankara has refused to participate in large-scale anti-Russian collective Western actions (with the exception of UN-approved sanctions), has taken peacemaking initiatives to end hostilities, authored the “grain deal,” and has repeatedly participated in prisoner exchanges.
In this regard, the position of President Erdoğan to block Finland and Sweden from joining NATO (at least in the situation of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian military crisis) would, of course, not only correspond to the interests of Russia, but also fall in line with peacekeeping logic and responsible initiative of Turkey itself. In other words, with this approach, Ankara would counteract the tactic of “war to the last Ukrainian,” which is so zealously advocated by US President Joe Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, with the course towards reducing military tension and beginning direct negotiations between the conflicting parties.
Turkey is still unable to resolve a set of problems and contradictions with the United States, associated with Washington’s refusal of military supplies (in particular, the Patriot missile defense systems and F-16 fighter jets). At the same time, Russia, as in the case of the sale of its S-400 air-defense system, would not refuse the Turks another deal on modern Su-30SM, Su-35 or Su-57 air defense fighters, which are even more superior to the same class of American fighters. Ankara has often publicly allowed such a possibility, arguing that it has an alternative choice and a favorable price, but in reality it has not moved from words to deeds (as in the case of the S-400).
Despite the acute financial and economic crisis, the devastating scale of the earthquake, and the upcoming May 14 general (presidential and parliamentary) elections, Turkish authorities decided to minimize the problematic relations with the USA, and made some concessions to Washington on the “Finland in exchange for the F-16” formula.
During the February visit of the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Ankara, the American side apparently linked the decision to resume military supplies to Turkey (in particular, the same F-16 fighter jets and spare parts for them) with the question of Ankara’s consent for the new members to join NATO at the forthcoming summit of the alliance in Vilnius in summer 2023. It was noted that the final decision of the administration will depend on the opinion of the US Congress. It cannot be ruled out that Antony Blinken in his talks with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu also mentioned other issues of the US-Turkish agenda (including the topics of profitable investments, economic aid, relations with Russia, anti-Russian sanctions, the upcoming presidential elections, etc.).
As a result, President Recep Erdoğan announced a change in Turkey’s position on Finland’s accession to NATO after a short disagreement (saying that Helsinki had fulfilled its obligations to Ankara). Accordingly, the Commission on the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) adopted a protocol on Finnish membership in NATO on March 23 this year (exactly one month after Blinken’s visit to Ankara). The corresponding positive decision was signed by President Recep Erdoğan and the document was submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for final approval. On the same day, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö signed the law on the country’s accession to NATO.
At the same time US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on March 23 that Turkey should receive an upgraded version of the American F-16 fighter jets because it is important for the defense capabilities of NATO as a whole. Such synchronous actions of the Turkish and US authorities once again convince of a preliminary agreement of the parties.
Hence, Finland’s accession to NATO creates a new line of military tension in Europe, 1325.8 km long (the length of the Russian-Finnish border). Of course, every government leader, when making certain decisions, proceeds, first of all, from the interests of his or her country. However, how Finland’s membership in NATO will benefit Turkey’s interests is still unknown. The near future will show whether such a curtsey in favor of the United States will help Recep Erdoğan to retain his power at the end of the coming elections.
On March 24 this year, a number of media outlets widely publicized populist statements by one of Turkey’s presidential candidates and leader of the Patriotic Party, Doğu Perencık, who positions himself as a “great friend” of Russia and an advocate of strengthening the Turkish-Russian alliance. In particular, the emphasis is made on such theses of Doğu Perencık’s pre-election program as “Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO,” “NATO’s eastward advancement is a threat to Turkey’s security,” “Turkey’s accession to the EAEU,” “The USA is an enemy of Turkey and Russia,” etc. All this would be nice, but the realities of Turkish politics are somewhat different. Ankara and Moscow are well aware that the author of such utterances is an outsider rather than a genuine candidate for the Turkish presidency, and he can say anything he wants whenever he wants, but his claims will have little impact.
Turkey is not going to leave NATO, otherwise it would not be playing lots called “Finland” or “Sweden.” In reality, Turkey remembers very well that its accession to NATO was a complex process of two years and was associated with acute geopolitical issues of the fate of the Turkish territories. Accordingly, Turkey’s withdrawal from the alliance could have a painful impact on its territorial integrity, given its pressing internal and external problems. NATO, one way or another, has so far guaranteed the strategic security of Turkish statehood. At the same time, Turkey itself participates in the American strategic course of NATO’s eastward expansion in relation to the Turkic countries of the post-Soviet space. In Azerbaijan, for example, Ankara has already implemented the formula “One nation, two states,” has actually integrated the armed forces of the two countries, and is now trying to expand its zone of influence in Central Asia through the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) and the “Turan Army” project.
Turkey has always been and remains a difficult partner for both the West and Russia. Yet, Moscow wishes to continue its alliance with Ankara while reducing real and potential difficulties. It appears that the Russian-Turkish collaboration will have a situational nature rather than a strategic one. The latter is subject to alter according to a variety of objective and subjective factors.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Turkish move: Finland in exchange for F-16s? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Spring is finally here, and it has been a very mild winter for Europe. However, the month of March can be very unpredictable, and not only in terms of the weather.
The National Endowment for Democracy, NED, CIA, is hard at work in Moldova and Georgia, and coming soon to Turkey, if it doesn’t just let it be and let nature run its course in the wake of the earthquake and the political fallout. I still don’t understand how NATO considers it has any potency without Turkey getting on board with its aggressive behaviour.
What was that wise tale about “once upon a time how firemen put out fires and did not start them, when discussing the burning books, as in Fahrenheit 451?” The same can be said about NATO, and whether it was actually a defence organisation to begin with.
I have the impression that that is just another rumour someone started. Now there are more rumours of the same kind, that the usual suspects are funding NGOs and groups that are looking for regime change in Israel.
Has the world gone crazy, or have I just woken to realise how things are? I bought some onion sets and a big bag of fertiliser today, Russian-made; I am drawing the line and planning for the future, as it may be a hard winter. The onions have made me think of the many levels and layers of what is going on in the world – the more you peel them back, the more you find.
The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia
The most ironic of all situations is what is happening in Georgia, with the apparent effort to change the government; this is not a homegrown manifestation but an invasive one. It is not as if it was not expected, even predicated, and there is more to come.
I suspect there is a contingency for not letting Georgia go as Ukraine did in 2014. However the effort is backfiring. Ukraine may take down NATO, the EU, Georgia and Moldova like a house of cards. The West, especially the US, has spent and continues to spend too much on Ukraine. But not out of the goodness of their collective hearts. It is no wonder that some pundits and many Americans think it is high time to walk away, even in the style of Afghanistan!
Many Americans think Georgia is where the movie “Deliverance” took place. All they know is “oink, oink, and squeal like a pig” (if you understand that movie reference). Now however it is Georgia which is seeking to be delivered from all the squealing inflicted upon it.
Tbilisi has been in the news due to a foreign agent registration law which the democratically elected parliament wanted to pass. A group of NGOs, funded by the NED and CIA, etc., would not have it.
So the Government backed down, under threat of sanctions from the EU and US, at least for now. Its members understand they are next in the crosshairs, and are expecting something like the bloodbath in Maiden, 2014.
Things are quiet now, however it is not over, as there are still plans by the US and its friends to replace the current government. I suspect that because things are going better for Russia in Ukraine they need Georgia as the backup location, and Moldova if that fails.
Scott Ritter, a former US Marine and frequent contributor to Russian information and international talk programnes, writes about the reality of the US when it comes to Georgia:
To most Americans, it is just food, wine, and some fun dancing. This is the reality of the society you Georgians are betting your future on—America doesn’t care about you. Americans don’t even really like you.
- We barely tolerate your food and wine, and we view your culture as a mere curiosity.
- History clearly shows that we are not going to die for you. You exist only to serve our larger geopolitical goals and objectives.
- You are nothing more than part of the “belt of instability” being installed by the United States along Russia’s periphery.
- Reflect on that for a moment—Georgia’s American purpose is to generate regional instability.
- It is not going to be Americans who will pay the price, [as they already think they own Georgia and Georgians].
Finally, we have a wake-up call for Georgia and Georgians. Unfortunately many Georgians don’t want to come to the realisation that they’re inviting in and propping up a worse invader, who as Scott Ritter pointed out does not care about them as a people at all, but only how they can be used to fulfill their BIGGER objectives.
Meanwhile Back in the USA
The only problem with the plan is that many in the West, especially Americans, are not happy with higher taxes, more inflation and less money in their pockets, and can’t see why the US is involved in a proxy war with Russia using an intermediate country they could care less about, and would even have a hard time finding on a map, i.e. Ukraine.
The US prefers to export all its money to wars they have no reason being involved with in the first place, as in Syria, keeping poor people poor, and letting US citizens get poorer. That is what makes the world spin out of control; the rulers are only serving themselves, and do not care about those who they purport to help.
Seeing the situation on the ground, and knowing many of the personalities involved, I am glad that we at NEO and others in the alternative media have been warning the Georgian government what was going to happen with articles and associated interviews with Georgian media.
Particularly as it is now apparent why former President Mikheil Saakashvili came back to Georgia, risking everything, despite being a fugitive from justice thanks to a long list of financial crimes and human rights violations.
He is currently behind bars for just a few of these of these various crimes. He would doubtless be facing more charges, but has acted well and served as the useful idiot, a short fuse for a ticking time bomb.
What has happened to Saakasahvili, who terrorised the population of the US behalf for ten years, shows what the rest of the country can expect for thinking the US is a genuine friend. There is a strong attempt by the US State Department to make sure that Georgia can be turned into a potential Maidan 2014 if need be—as we can see from some of their media releases.
As the perfect storm for Foreign Influence Gathers
Trying to pass the blame to Russia is ironic, considering the cat is already out of the bag. As the US Embassy press statement reads: U.S. Embassy Statement on Parliament’s Rushed Advancement of Kremlin-Inspired Legislation on So-Called “Foreign Influence”. This is of course the same US which devoted billions of dollars to preventing Russian interference in any country, and invented such laws for this purpose, until Georgia and other countries elected leaders who actually took them at their word, and actually wanted Russian influence to be removed when the US had spent that money for show.
What is unfolding in Georgia is so scripted it is as if it came out of an NED regime change playbook, as in Kyiv 2014 and many other venues in the spider web of US operations. Many Georgians, especially the over 50s and even a few in the younger generation, are starting to think: “We will be better off with the Russians!”
Pigs are Pigs
Many real stakeholders in the West are too preoccupied with other things, including banking meltdowns and political standoffs that may implode the entire system, than to care what is happening in the latest foreign hotspot. Most Americans, the silent majority as Nixon used to describe them, think Georgia is just north of Florida, and fewer see any deliverance other than a Nick Betty inconvenient moment when it was demanded by his hosts that he squeal-like-a-pig.
To the extent Americans know anything about Georgia and Georgian culture, this “knowledge” is limited to a superficial appreciation of Georgian cuisine and dance, and the fact that Uncle Joe Stalin was from there. The majority of Americans do not even know that Georgia exists.
There was a song by the Beatles that mentioned Georgia by name – the one that was then controlled by Russia: “Back in the USSR” name-checked a few Soviet republics, including Georgia. Other than that, Georgia hasn’t been mentioned in American pop culture at all.
I am too close to much of what is going on in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East and Asia to not realise that its history, as recorded, seems to be engineered by wars, threats of wars and invasions of one empire by another, which are not undertaken to see which one is superior but whose ideology can stand the test of time.
As an insider with a US military background, I should be, by all accounts, on the side of the foreign influences who want to degrade Georgia to the level of a banana republic. But I am on Georgia’s side, because this “foreign influence” should not be of any consequence if it is benign, and it is only the West which does not want to be held accountable for its actions in Georgia. .
Here are some questions to ponder:
- Why is the average Georgian protestor or youth against the foreign agents law anyway?
- Why would a Georgian not want to know the origin and funding of their news sources?
Being pro-Western is cool, and the more independent young Georgians claim to be, the more they want to be what all their friends are. Some of the NGOs here, such as the Franklin Institute, have been programming them for this very purpose. I know one 15-year-old student who has been attending US and foreign civil society training as part of her high school education. She tells me how they are trying to brainwash them. The same is true with many private schools, including some of the very prestigious ones, including those with IB programmes such as the European School. Basically, if you want a better life you have to do what the US wants, even though you will never be rewarded for doing it because you only exist to serve their purposes.
The Peace Corps, no longer anything like the idealistic initiative of the Kennedy years, is in Georgia too. There is also a Fifth Column of Ukrainian Nationalists backed by members of the Georgian Legion who have been serving as mercenaries in Ukraine, who are funded by the NED, CIA, USAID and crowd funding.
Those who stand behind Saakashvili are not known for using non-violent methods. In fact they are cold blooded killers who taught him everything he knew.—and what to say. The proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions, which never go beyond being expressed as good intentions. In the case of Georgia, it will be stained with blood.
School for Scoundrels
Jeffrey Silverman, the Georgian Bureau Chief for Veterans Today, and contributed to the newly established, Intel Drop publication, has worked in public schools and several private universities and public colleges in the country. He describes how in his own MA diplomacy programmes in the US he was taught how to take over countries. First destroy the education, local sustainable economies and culture, rewrite history, and then go after religion and its leaders by getting them to Westernize.
Silverman has spent 20 years watching Georgian students become progressively more academically and morally degraded. “If you could see the difference between the students I had in 2000 and the new crop, each year the level is less and less, and this is not by happenstance.”
Georgia will be like Casablanca was in the famous 1941 movie, a place for shady deals, dirty business and backstabbing, where companies set up their entities as forward operating bases for US proxy conflicts. It is becoming a very wild place which will serve many purposes, where the Great Game will be reinvested.
Let us not forget 2014 and who hired Maidan snipers who were mostly from Georgia. Now it is time to watch how the West has taken the media war in Ukraine to unprecedented levels, at the expense of the truth and survival of humanity. The forewarning of what is spinning out of control can be found everywhere.
On social media platforms, even in some papers, the script remains the same: it is all about support for freedom—but whose freedom, and at whose expense? Georgia should be careful not to allow those who have been militarised, especially those Ukrainians and Georgian and other foreign volunteers who have been fighting in Ukraine, to enter or move freely in Georgia. They need to be detained, vetted and placed under close supervision – as many have been trained for a NED-CIA orchestrated change of government in Georgia.
Georgian fugitives, criminals ,the disillusioned and other thrill seekers have nothing to lose and everything to gain by participating in ongoing coup efforts—or at least they think they do! However their brighter tomorrow is the same one promised in every other invasion, the one the natives are still waiting for, and blaming the US for not delivering.
The next coup attempt is planned for the 9th of April, a National Holiday in Georgia. To all those pro EU kids and supposed adults who complained that the Georgian Police response to the recent violent protests by those opposed to the FARA law was “undemocratic,” you should take a look at what is going on now in France and what may come next in Georgia.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение CIA, NED: Georgia and Colour Revolutions: “Oink, Oink, Squeal like a Pig!” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
While European officials and individual members of the European political elite try, to the detriment of ordinary Europeans, to develop a mechanism that would allow EU members to block even Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies without imposing additional sanctions, Europe’s deepening gas and economic crisis has already begun to shift the balance of power. The initiators of this “effort,” as expected, were Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell, backed by the current political elites of Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, who are notorious for their commitment to Washington and Russophobia.
As everyone is well aware, the energy crisis of 2022 occurred as a result of the redistribution of the EU gas market planned by Washington in 2021 in order to gain a trade advantage in a civilized and non-competitive manner. The White House launched a sanctions campaign against Russia, putting pressure on European authorities who only support the USA, compelling them to succumb to American dictate and, to the detriment of Europe’s economy and interests, to refuse cheap Russian gas in favor of far more expensive gas from the USA.
This is not the first time the White House has taken control of the energy market and established the circumstances for its national debt to be written off. This was the primary purpose of all US military actions in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East in general.
The Swedish tabloid Nya Dagbladet reported rather convincingly on how Washington was hatching an evil plan for Ukraine and Europe, citing “scary documents” from the American RAND Corporation on the subject. One can see from these documents a “special interest” in such actions for the United States in preserving the American economy and banking system, in destroying cooperation not only between Germany and Russia, but also between Berlin and Paris, whose rapprochement is recognized as a major competitive economic and political threat to the United States. As a result, as the RAND analysis points out, the White House’s only route out of the current scenario is to draw Paris and Berlin into the fight in Ukraine, hurting their economy and increasing the leadership positions of Europe’s green parties.
And Washington’s evil plans began to be strenuously pursued, with the active cooperation of obviously pro-US European officials. Frankly speaking, it was not that difficult given Europe’s broad relaxation from the fixed-price guaranteed conditions of blue fuel supplies from Russia over many years, coupled with their confidence that this would not one day come to an end or bring about a general crisis.
As a result, the German and French leaders previously installed by Washington did not challenge the White House’s demand for increased involvement of Paris and Berlin in the conflict in Ukraine, sending weapons and ammunition even at the obvious risk of their own security. As a result, as Der Spiegel reported the other day, Germany is eager to raise its financial and military support for Ukraine from the current three billion euros to more than 15 billion euros. And this in the face of Germany’s own economic disaster and the country’s need for such substantial funds!
Of course, the issue arises: given the financial limits that even the richest parts of Europe face, how long will Europe be ready to pay for a considerably more expensive blue fuel than the EU budgets can afford? After all, Europe now spends ten times more for filling its underground gas storage facilities than it did a year ago due to the shift from cheap Russian piped gas to liquefied American gas. This financial load will only increase in all EU countries in the future. As the United States now has monopoly rights on gas supply, it will not hesitate to line its pockets further at the cost of European customers, even if it means profiting the most from the sale of its LNG on the European market. According to a research by the White House Council of Economic Advisors, US LNG exports to Europe grew to 117.4 million cubic meters in 2022, nearly 2.5 times higher than the previous year (47.8 million cubic meters). And Washington is doing everything it can to boost its gas expansion into Europe by shackling Europe’s gas supply.
According to European media, as the EU’s energy problem worsens, there is already a severe division within the bloc, with “first cracks” forming as early as the end of last year. Legislators from the EU’s unmistakable “American bloc” are currently speaking out more and more about the US’s involvement in the European energy crisis, particularly the blatant terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea. Steffen Kotré, a member of the parliamentary committee on climate protection and energy and a member of the “Alternative for Germany” faction in the Bundestag, for instance, thinks that the West’s refusal to support a Russian-Chinese resolution in the UN Security Council calling for an international investigation of sabotage on the Nord Streams demonstrates a clear desire to keep the United States’ involvement in this subversion hidden from the public. As a result of the ban on the import of cheap Russian gas, which is also causing an increase in the number of bankrupt firms and people poverty, Germany is steadily becoming immobilized by a large public transportation strike as well as other industries. Several export-oriented German enterprises that have not yet gone bankrupt as a result of the Washington-caused crisis have been compelled to quit Germany, transferring their operations to the United States or other nations where conditions are calmer, energy is cheaper, and taxes are lower. Living standards in Germany have decreased throughout the past year due to this aggressive US policy, and as a result, social demands from the working class for better salaries have intensified, and strong anti-government rallies are brewing.
In a situation exacerbated by the energy crisis of rivalry among European governments for gas providers, the British energy giant BP, along with ADNOC of the UAE, proposes to pay a hefty premium for NewMed Energy’s stake in Israel’s largest field Leviathan in the Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore, these actions take the same severe turn as before, when American oil giant Chevron purchased a share in Leviathan.
Today, Europe is paying close attention to the words of Mohsen Khojasteh-Mehr, the head of the National Iranian Oil Corporation (NIOC), who has stated that Iran can raise its oil and gas production capacity by 50%, for which the government is waiting for $71 billion in foreign investments in the gas industry. Given the EU’s interest in gas, it cannot be ruled out that, as a result, not only China, but also some European governments, may take additional efforts to build ties with Iran and ease some sanctions against it, hastening the end of American hegemony and the emergence of a new multipolar world.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Gas Crisis has already Begun to Change the Balance of Power in Europe появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The military conflict between Russia and Ukraine (as also Ukraine’s NATO allies) has brought some very interesting changes to the international political economy. Whereas this conflict has led Europe – working under immense pressure from the US – to stop its purchase of oil and gas from Russia, it has also allowed Russia to divert its resources, both material and otherwise, to regions that were previously on the margins of its priority list. In other words, while the West thought that it would be able to “isolate” Russia by pushing it out of Europe, this “pushback” has led to Russia’s “big entry” elsewhere. This is most evident in Africa, where Moscow has clearly emerged as a big player. During the recently held Russia-Africa summit in Moscow, Vladimir Putin surely reset Moscow’s priorities vis-à-vis Africa, saying that Russia like Africa “defends traditional moral values” by “resisting neo-colonial ideology imposed from abroad.”
This was a very successful event, as the next summit is going to be held from 26 to 29 of July in St. Petersburg, indicating the actual pace of Russia-Africa integration. The West is of course paranoid about it, as it sees Russian expansion in the African continent coming at expense of its own influence.
But what is even more concerning for the West is not just Moscow’s growing footprint in Africa. In reality, it is the geopolitics behind this engagement that is troubling the West. For Russia (as also for its allies, including China), Africa could be one of the global leaders in the multipolar world that both Russia and China are trying to build to get rid of the unilateral US hegemony. In fact, Putin gave this message to his guests from Africa very clearly when he said that “We are ready to jointly shape the global agenda, work together to strengthen fair and equal interstate relations, and improve mechanisms for mutually beneficial economic cooperation.”
Putin’s message is a clear contrast with how the West – especially, former colonial powers – are today seen in Africa. There is widespread discontent. As a 2022 report in New York Times pointed out, “Over the past few years there has been a sharp rise in criticism of France across its former colonies in Africa, rooted in a feeling that colonialist practices and paternalistic attitudes never really ended.”
Russia, on the contrary, is offering trade rather than colonial domination in an otherwise “post” colonial period. Apart from being the largest exporter of arms to the continent for many years, Moscow has also increased its export of oil to Africa, especially since the beginning of its military operation in Ukraine. Russia sent 214,000 barrels a day of refined petroleum products to Africa in December 2022, roughly three times more than in December 2021.
A lot of Russian oil is going to West African countries, such as Ghana, for the first time since 2018. North African countries, such as Morocco, have increased their purchase of Russian oil. Morocco’s imports of Russian diesel, which stood at around 600,000 barrels for the whole of 2021, surged to 2 million barrels in January. Tunisia, which similarly imported almost no Russian oil products in 2021, took 2.8 million barrels of Russian oil products in January and reportedly imported another 3.1 million barrels the following month.
What really stands out is the fact that many African states are rising against the influence of their former colonial masters and are instead tying up with Russia speaks volumes about the current state of international politics. Africa, as it stands, is far from following the US in its bid to create a global coalition against Russia. Africa, on the contrary, is following a policy that best serves its interests, as it continues to buy Russian oil despite the threat of US sanctions. This is clearly a quick glimpse into what international politics would look like in a multipolar setting.
Africa’s role in creating a multipolar world is, thus, not insignificant. It is playing an equally important role via its deep ties with China. For one thing, with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) being a move against the US geopolitics of China’s containment, there is little denying that Africa’s active participation in China’s BRI is defeating this very politics of containment and facilitating China’s rise as a global power.
Today, China is the largest foreign investor in Africa, with bilateral trade hitting US$254 billion in 2021 and US$282 billion in 2022. Out of this, Chinese exports to Africa were US$165 billion, while it imported goods from Africa worth US$117 billion. Although the trade balance is in favour of China, China has already enabled dozens of African nations to begin exporting some goods duty-free. The new policy includes over 8,800 commodities, with China aiming to increase African imports to $300 billion by 2025. Africa is, thus, benefitting from its trade ties with China.
With Russia being the largest supplier of weapons to Africa and with China being the largest investor, it is clear that Africa is quite well tied with what the US calls “revisionist powers” bent upon undoing the US-dominated, unilateral global system. Africa is one key continent where this dismantling of the old-world order is actively happening via a coalition between local African forces and external powers. For the many African nations tearing apart flags of their former colonial masters, ties with China and Russia are one crucial mechanism that could help them shun cloaks of neo-colonialism much more effectively than has so far been the case. For Russia and China, the more these African states stand against their former colonial masters, the better for the multipolar world they are trying to build.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение How Africa is facilitating Multipolar World появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Since the activization of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s position and activities, the Saudi authorities’ resolve to make significant changes in the Kingdom’s foreign policy and image has been particularly strongly disputed.
Back in 2017, he predicted that the world would eventually transit to alternate energy sources everywhere, rendering gas and oil obsolete. In these conditions, it is critical for Saudi Arabia to have time to “shift ground,” as oil sales account for 80% of its budget. The young monarch set out to keep the country “afloat” with the support of advanced technology, the best health care, infrastructure, and tourism services in the world, entering the Top-10 largest economies and becoming one of the world’s leading powers.
And in this regard, for the last five years the Kingdom began to implement a very futuristic for those times idea of building NEOM – a project of a completely new type of city, which promises to transport people from reality to the distant future. The futuristic city built from scratch will be powered by solar and wind energy, all routine jobs will be transferred to robots, and vehicular traffic will be moved under the ground to ensure favorable environment. The first phase of the NEOM City is scheduled to be finished after 2025; the second phase is linked to the building of a scientific and industrial city in the desert based on cutting-edge technology. Work is extremely active in this direction, and those interested can see for themselves by visiting the construction site.
Yet, the Kingdom’s efforts to transform Saudi Arabia’s image are not restricted to NEOM. Last year, the economy of the Kingdom showed unprecedented growth with an increase in GDP by 8.5%, which was the best indicator among the G20 countries. The unemployment rate is now at its lowest for the last 20 years (9.7%). Saudi Aramco is creating a global logistics center in the Kingdom, which will be the first of its kind for the region and will increase the efficiency of supply chains for companies in the industrial, energy and petrochemical sectors.
Notwithstanding the current US administration’s efforts to undermine Saudi Arabia’s role in international affairs and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s leadership, Riyadh is gradually gaining universal recognition and becoming a more active player in the events of the recent days. This is true despite Washington and London’s active efforts over the past few decades to use Saudi Arabia as a tool to destabilize a vast region that stretches from North Africa to Iran. In particular, by plunging into chaos a number of nations (mainly Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Egypt) that maintained a left-nationalist ideology and preserved peace in a broad region, brought about by the birth of a new mutation of radicalized Black Islam. Also, by involving Riyadh in the tumultuous conflicts in Yemen and Syria, as well as by stirring up a conflict with Iran.
But, the Kingdom’s officials have now had an “epiphany” on who is the real culprit for the troubles and disasters of recent decades in the Middle East. And Riyadh started to shift from acting lopsidedly in accordance with “instructions from Washington” to building a multipolar world alongside Russia, China, and many other nations who have chosen to buck the trend of Washington’s establishment of global hegemony.
This first started to happen “in the oil market,” when HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud, Minister of Energy, declared at the October 5, 2022 OPEC+ Ministerial Meeting that the group of oil-producing nations would reduce oil production by 2 million barrels per day despite increased pressure from Washington. The United States’ proposed oil price ceiling was then rejected in a statement that followed.
It was also made public that Saudi Arabia’s investment in US government debt had significantly decreased. And although today these figures remain quite high (about $110 billion), nevertheless it is the lowest for the last 7 years.
Saudi Arabia has grown openly interested in joining prestigious international groups like the SCO and the BRICS as part of the diversification of its foreign policy stance. Saudi Arabia plans to end the dollar monopoly in its trade for the first time in 48 years, according to Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan, who made the announcement at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Despite increased US pressure, Riyadh does not agree to join the coalition against Russia, and is actively developing trade and economic relations with it. Political ties between Russia and Saudi Arabia have recently tended to grow steadily as a result of shared or complementary stances on the majority of global and regional concerns. Last year, under the personal supervision of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, a prisoner exchange operation took place between Russia and Ukraine. It is actively being debated to build a nuclear power plant and to work with third countries on nuclear energy projects.
Relations between Riyadh and Beijing are progressing pretty favorably. When speaking in London at the beginning of March, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud referred to the relationship between the Kingdom and Beijing, which is already the largest trade partner of the Kingdom, as being strong in many other ways. In December the leaders of 14 Arab states greeted the Chinese leader Xi Jinping overtly friendly during his visit to Riyadh. As China increases its diplomatic presence in the Arab world, the restoration of ties between the Saudi Arabia and Iran, mediated by Beijing, has further demonstrated the trustworthiness of relations with the PRC.
Resuming diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia represents not only the first step in putting an end to sectarian and interstate hostility, but also Riyadh’s blatant refusal to adhere to previous “instructions” from Washington, which has been actively forging a coalition against Iran in the Middle East in recent years. Additionally, the agreement made on March 22 by the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran to meet, among other things, to prepare for the arrival of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi in Riyadh at the invitation of King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, is a glaring illustration of the failure of US policy towards Riyadh and in the Middle East as a whole. The aforementioned facts also unequivocally show Saudi Arabia’s intention to create the nation of the future in the broadest sense, actively contributing to the creation of a multipolar world.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Saudi Arabia is Building the Country of the Future появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The discussion of many contentious issues in Turkish society has been considerably enhanced in light of the impending elections in this nation. As the political battle rages on, several candidates and parties are attempting to play both domestic and foreign policy cards to win over voters.
For instance, the leader of the Rodina party and Turkish presidential candidate Dogu Perincek recently made a statement at the opening of a conference on the integration of Azerbaijan into Eurasia about the recognition of Crimea and new regions as Russian regions if he wins the elections in May.
While reminding Russia of Turkey’s NATO membership, pro-Western opposition politicians in Turkey also rely on “Moscow’s kindness.” In this regard, supporters of the single leader of the main opposition Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu have suggested great promise to “continue cooperation with Russia” if he wins the elections. Ünal Çeviköz, chief foreign policy adviser to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, has recently began to emphasize that Russia is indisputably an essential neighbor and partner for Turkey, and that relations with it, particularly the resolution of issues of mutual interest, cannot be overlooked.
In addition to including the following topics regarding Turkey’s future relations with Russia, China, NATO, the USA, and the European Union in pre-election battles, the most important regional issues for this country, particularly the Kurdish issue, relations with Syria, the Libyan question, and the eastern Mediterranean, are actively addressed. In terms of the latter, the issue of Ankara’s relations with Egypt, which have deteriorated dramatically since July 2013, is being debated extensively. Subsequently, following the 2013 Egyptian coup d’eta Ankara-backed President Mohamed Morsi, an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood (outlawed in Russia), was deposed. President Erdogan reacted by labeling El-Sisi a dictator and refusing to acknowledge him as Egypt’s rightful leader.
It cannot be ruled out that one of the reasons for this reluctance was Erdoğan’s worry that such a “revolutionary situation” in Egypt may be transferred to the activities of the Turkish military elite, which already had enough of experience in carrying out coups. The events in Turkey in July 2016, when certain members of the Turkish army attempted to overthrow Erdoğan, confirmed the reality of these suspicions.
Another factor contributing to the significant deterioration in relations between the two countries was growing dispute on a number of regional development concerns. In particular, Turkey’s ambition to become a regional leader was hampered by Egypt’s actions, which began to actively play on the side of the US and even take part in the Yemen war on the side of Saudi Arabia, to counter Ankara in Libya.
In any case, Egypt and Turkey were and continue to be two highly important Eastern Mediterranean countries with big populations and militarily prominent positions in the region, which have a significant impact not just on regional affairs. The current political confrontation between both countries has had a significant influence on the economy and well-being of the two countries’ populations, therefore finding common ground and resolving years of tension in ties has become extremely important for them.
This issue has recently been extensively pursued by both official Ankara and representatives of the opposition forces in Turkish society, with the hope of benefiting from this agreement in the pre-election battle. In March 2021, a number of media sites reported on secret encounters between officials of the two countries’ intelligence services, during which the opposing side’s sentiments were examined. And it’s not at all impossible that these relationships had an impact in the 85% rise in trade between the two countries in 2022.
The mediation efforts of Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani did not go unnoticed by the international community either: in November, during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 in Doha, he hosted a private meeting between the presidents of Egypt and Turkey, which allowed the two politicians to find ways to ease the tensions in bilateral relations.
The call by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi to Erdoğan to express his condolences following the February 6, 2023 earthquake that struck southern Turkey, as well as Cairo’s subsequent dispatch of rescue teams, ships carrying humanitarian aid, and the visit of Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry to Turkey, was undoubtedly a significant step in establishing contacts. The return visit to Cairo of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu on March 18 also helped to restore bilateral relations. Following its completion, Çavuşoğlu stated that an agreement was reached to maximize diplomatic, trade, and economic relations, as well as Ankara’s investments in Egypt in many areas, including trade, energy, and transportation.
In the context of the two nations’ rapprochement, special attention is now being paid to tracking mutually sensitive positions and the respect of “red lines,” particularly in the Libyan agenda, and the development of the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cairo is expecting Ankara to extradite members of the Muslim Brotherhood (organization banned in Russia) who are hiding in Turkey and wanted in Egypt for their involvement in terrorist attacks. As well as termination of the presence of Turkish military in Libya, withdrawal of all pro-Turkish fighters and settlements of disputes with Cyprus and Greece.
Turkey, meanwhile, fervently hopes that Cairo will modify its stance in the Eastern Mediterranean and refrain from undermining Ankara’s foreign policy. Turkey is especially concerned about Egypt’s support for Ankara’s involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Pipeline project and delimitation of maritime boundaries.
The personnel of the two Embassies, whose opening can be anticipated after the month of Ramadan, will painstakingly address the fact that these delicate issues and “red lines” cannot be handled overnight.
Outside analysts and the public in these nations highlight the positive aspects of the rapprochement between Turkey and Egypt while highlighting the absence of the United States and the West as a whole from this process due to the latter’s significantly weakened position in the region. It is acknowledged that this has in turn driven Cairo and Ankara to separately look for methods to calm bilateral and regional tensions, creating the groundwork for a new multipolar world order, as opposed to the West’s aim to maintain its supremacy.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Why has Turkey Stepped Up its Diplomatic Efforts with Egypt? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
President Xi Jinping undertook a landmark visit to the Russian Federation from March 20 to 23. It was full of events and symbolism, which will be analyzed by political scientists for a long time to come. It is now clear nonetheless that this visit signaled the beginning of a profound transformation of the entire international relations system, which would have a direct impact on the African continent.
The very fabric of the visit and the manner in which it was arranged demonstrate that it was conceived and realized by both sides precisely as designed: the Chinese leader came to Moscow on his first state visit since his re-election; his arrival was preceded by an exchange of conceptual articles by the Russian and Chinese leaders, in which they essentially heralded the beginning of a new era in international relations; during the visit, the parties exchanged important statements and demonstrated a model of cooperation between the countries in the 21st century.
If we summarize the two leaders’ statements, they spoke in unison in favor of constructing a multipolar world based on respect for the norms and principles of international law, particularly those enshrined in the UN Charter, and on the principles of security indivisibility, recognized universal values, mutual benefit, and a long-term positive partnership in which the parties adhere to a strong tradition of continuous and substantive dialogue.
Western commentators focused on the Chinese leader’s streamlined wording, primarily with regard to the conflict in Ukraine, missing the main point: Xi Jinping’s visit in the midst of the Russophobic campaign in the West and attempts to pressure and harass Russia, as they say, to isolate it “across the board”, was in itself a challenge to the system of coordinates in foreign policy that the West has decided to impose on the world.
Let us now see what the collective West, which claims to be “more united than ever,” has to give the world.
First. They effectively seek to return the world to a paradigm that isn’t even unipolarity, but a completely colonial structure of thought and action, hidden behind accusations of Russian imperialism and aggression. This means the selective application of international law: Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi (meaning ‘what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to an ox’). Yugoslavia was bombed in 1999 by the US and its allies under the pretext of “humanitarian intervention” after creating “evidence” of the massacre of civilians in Srebrenica by the Serbs. A similar strategy was used in Iraq, whom the US invaded alongside its allies under the guise of Saddam Hussein’s regime developing biological weapons. As it turned out later, none of this happened, but the country was destroyed. The same plan was then implemented in Libya, but this time it was done so in the name of defending the rights of the opposition. The same is true for Ukraine: there, the West resolves its security issues by unceasingly growing NATO and advancing its war capabilities closer to Russia’s borders, entirely ignoring Moscow’s worries, while attributing the aggression to the Russian side, which dared to defy Western demand.
Because of this, the West has rejected the idea that security cannot be divided, declaring that security for itself and its allies comes first while actually treating them like vassals without the ability to vote.
The second component of the Western-centric model is the total subjection of those who have declared themselves allies to the interests of the superpower, notably the United States and the global elites behind it. There is no democracy, no efforts are allowed to anyone to defend their best interests. Germany’s efforts to build its economy at the price of cheap Russian energy resources is a noteworthy example. They were ignored coldly, and the Russian gas pipes were simply blown up: purchase our LNG at three times the price and keep quite! Furthermore, a “war till victory” in Ukraine is being imposed on all Western European allies, regardless of whether it is in their national interests.
Moving on. The Western concept of democracy is not open to debate, and country differences, cultural identities, customs, and values are not taken into account. Everyone is given the same prescription, which cannot be changed – the framework is one and is declared to be mankind’s greatest achievement. Any divergence is subject to penalties and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which effectively establishes a universal criminal code that, for reasons that are not clear, must supersede domestic law. It is mandated that gender equality come with mandatory protections for the rights of sexual minorities. Why sexual? Nobody offers an explanation; it is simply how it is. Yet, as experience has shown, notably in Ukraine, national minorities’ rights can be crushed with impunity, even up to the prohibition of national language and culture, expulsion of clergy from the Temple, and erasure of national memory.
Now let’s look at the economics. It is postulated in Western discourse that if your country develops democratic institutions in the Western sense, it must be doing well economically. What if it isn’t? The IMF and World Bank subsequently rush to your aid. However, it turns out that these loans are given at high interest rates and have a relatively short “leverage,” which means that you are required to pay back the debt quickly, and if you do not have time, the debt will not necessarily be restructured and certainly will never be forgiven, but new, unfavorable conditions would rather be imposed. All of these loans will prohibit you from expanding your own business, but they will keep your market open to Western goods and capital, sustaining your dependence on Western nations in other areas as well as in terms of technology. It is unlikely that anyone will develop high tech production in your country; instead, they will be preoccupied with how to swiftly and inexpensively pump out your resources. Europe, which has been left without Russian resources and is now looking for alternatives, desperately requires them, particularly oil and gas. In light of this, Europeans do not aspire to build processing facilities on the African soil, at least not ones owned by Africans.
The same holds true for Africa’s single currency. Muammar Gaddafi’s fate, who sought to adopt the gold dinar for the entire continent, is highly revealing. The best model for Western countries is the CFA franc zone, in which 70% of the finances of 14 African states, principally members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), are held in French banks. Yet any of these countries may only withdraw these funds theoretically since there hasn’t been a precedent for the practice.
We may be told in response that the West remains the world’s economic and technological leader, that it, represented by the US Federal Reserve, is the issuer of the world’s main currency, the dollar, which is used in 42% of settlements, while the yuan is used in only 2% of global trade transactions, and Russia’s GDP is only 2% of global GDP. Such data, however, appears deceptive, because it is clearly evident to everyone that the Western model of financial capitalism is in its last throes, the dollar is printed indiscriminately at the same pace as in some African countries, and it is backed only by Washington’s “word of honor” (remember When George H.W. Bush said, Read my lips), the United States’ national debt has surpassed the unfathomable $30 trillion threshold, and Western countries consume more than 40% of global GDP, producing many times less commodities but many times more financial services in the form of purely speculative transactions. Unlike the yuan, which is rich in full-fledged goods produced in the Celestial Empire, and Russia’s use of the Chinese currency (renminbi), which was agreed upon during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia, makes it much more appealing for international settlements, because Moscow is the source of 20% of the world’s hydrocarbons and a producer of a diverse range of military and civilian goods.
When you combine this well-functioning model of equal partnership between Russia and China with the growing popularity of non-Western associations such as the BRICS, SCO, and others, it becomes evident where the wind of global change is blowing and who will shape the world in the future.
Africa is invited to decide whom it wants to cooperate with and in what kind of world to live in – a world of diktat and constant robbery or a world of mutually beneficial cooperation leading to security and development.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Russia-China Partnership: What is the use of it for Africa? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addressed his country in an interview with Turkey’s NTV channel: “Turkey will never be a party to any war; it will always stand for peace and preserve peace. As it does now in the situation with Russia and Ukraine.”
It goes without saying that Erdoğan’s assertion runs counter to Turkey’s actions in regional crises in the Middle East, North Africa, and the South Caucasus. In particular, Turkey participated in various ways and to diverse degrees in the wars in Syria, Libya, and Nagorno-Karabakh throughout the previous years of Erdoğan’s administration. Naturally, Ankara was driven to respond in each of these situations by its own national interests, its efforts to combat global terrorism and ethnic separatism, as well as the necessity of maintaining the unity of the Turkic World. As a result, it is difficult to assert that “Turkey will never be a party to any war” and that “it will always stand for peace.”
It is another matter that Turkey, under Erdoğan’s leadership, has adopted a relatively positive stance in the context of the crisis in ties between Russia and Ukraine and the ongoing Russia’ special military operation in Ukraine. In particular, Ankara has refrained from fully joining the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the collective West, has upheld cordial ties with Kiev and Moscow, and has undertaken and is still undertaking a number of initiatives to halt hostilities and end the conflict peacefully (including prisoner exchange, the “grain deal,” organization of bilateral talks in Istanbul, and regular contacts with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine).
Despite being a NATO member, Turkey urged NATO alliances and partners to forgo one-sided approaches to the Russia-Ukraine situation, avoid bloc conflicts, and prevent a return to the Cold War era. President Erdoğan has now taken the initiative to extend the “grain deal” and intends to negotiate directly with his counterparts Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky again in search of opportunities to stop the fighting and resume direct dialogue, even through the well-known internal political issues brought on by the earthquake and the pre-election situation. The concept of constructing a fertilizer agreement as is the case with the deal for the grain corridor may be one of Ankara’s latest proposals.
It is accurate to say that Turkey is not an impartial observer of the ongoing crisis between Russia and Ukraine. Although Erdoğan is not directly involved in this conflict, Turkey clearly supports the Kiev government on the issue of the ownership of Crimea and other Ukrainian regions that were annexed by the Russian Federation from Ukraine. In the military field, the Turks assisted the Ukrainian side by supplying weapons and military equipment (including Bayraktar UAVs and BMC Kirpi), sent their instructors to the combat zone to operate drones, the ranks of foreign mercenaries on the side of Ukraine were also attended by Turkish fighters, and Ankara announced its intention to build a joint venture in Ukraine to produce Bayraktar UAVs.
Erdoğan has been urged, without a doubt, to entice the electorate with new measures from his platform in the midst of the presidential campaign. As the reader may know, all members of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), as well as Pakistan and Hungary, recently came up with initiative to award Erdoğan the Nobel Peace Prize for his personal contribution to the Ukrainian peace process. On the eve of the election, the popularization of Erdoğan’s personality in the Turkic world and other allied countries clearly has pragmatic goals of maintaining the AKP leader in office.
As for the Nobel Prize, Erdoğan, like any other high-level politician, could be a candidate. But, in this situation, whether with or without Erdoğan, peace in Ukraine was never achieved for a variety of well-known and little known reasons. Therefore, there is a contribution (an endeavor, an effort), but no peace has been achieved. What is the prize for? In Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh, for example, Erdoğan is unlikely to enjoy the reputation of a peacemaker. Besides, how will Stockholm view Erdoğan’s candidacy positively if Ankara continues to oppose Sweden’s membership in NATO?
Russia, on the other hand, highly respects Erdoğan’s personality and policies, which demonstrate consistency in strengthening Turkey’s independent course, developing mutually beneficial relations with Russia, ending hostilities and establishing peace in Ukraine while respecting the interests of all parties. As a result, if Erdoğan is awarded the Nobel Prize, Russia will take the news with respect, if not rejoice.
The Turkish president plans to undertake further direct conversations with Putin in the near future. In the current circumstances of escalating combat on the battlefield, such actions on the part of world politicians and leaders of significant states are seen positively, because indefinite fighting and “war of attrition” strategies cannot be relied on (which, for example, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg calls for).
Attention, backed up by realistic ideas and suggestions, is the only way to normalize the regional and global security systems. In this regard, Turkey is a very productive partner.
But, unless the parties to the conflict desire to do so, no outside entity interested in peace can solve the problem of conflict and restore peace. In this regard, Russia has repeatedly, at various levels, stated its readiness to resume peace talks for a political settlement of the crisis, taking into account the fait accompli and realities over the past year.
It is also critical that Turkey, which offers peace to Russia and Ukraine, develop its agenda and concept of negotiations, that is, what principles and approaches are acceptable in Ankara’s opinion for the spring of 2023. In this context, China issued a constructive 12-point peace plan, which was commonly accepted by Moscow.
It is not by chance that Eastern wisdom says: “Saying halva won’t make your mouth sweet.” Likewise, in politics, peace is accomplished not simply via wishful thinking or declarative statements, but also through a responsible attitude and a concrete program that considers the balance of power and the possibilities of compromise.
Certainly, Erdoğan, as an experienced politician, understands all of the intricacies and details of the complex process of reaching peaceful solutions. Perhaps his influence will persuade Ukrainian allies to agree that resuming direct talks with Moscow is the best course of action rather than planning another military operation.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkey’s Peace Agenda появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In late March a drone strike was carried out in Syria. Not by the United States or Israel, but by forces opposing the illegal US occupation of eastern Syria. The strike left one American contractor dead and several US service members injured.
While the US responded by carrying out airstrikes of its own in Syria against groups Washington claims are linked to the drone strike, the limited response and subsequent attacks on US troops reveals the deep and growing quandary the US has found itself in both in Syria and across the wider Middle East.
Why is the US in Syria in the First Place?
The US has operated militarily in Syria since 2014, doing so without any United Nations mandate, nor with permission from Syria’s internationally recognized government in Damascus. The US predicates its presence in Syria including its military occupation of eastern Syria on fighting terrorist organizations including the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS, is banned in Russia)
In reality, as US Deputy Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Dana Stroul admitted publicly during a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) event titled, “Syria in the Gray Zone” in 2019, the US military occupation is meant to deprive Syria of its primary agricultural and energy resources, using the freezing and starving of the Syrian population as leverage against both Damascus and its allies including Russia and Iran.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Stroul would claim during the CSIS event that the US possessed what she called “compelling forms of leverage on the table to shape an outcome that was more conducive and protective of US interests.”
This included the US occupation of one-third of Syrian territory in the nation’s eastern region. Stroul would note that:
That one third of Syria is the resource rich – it’s the economic powerhouse of Syria. So where the hydrocarbons are which obviously is very much in the public debate here in Washington these days, as well as the agricultural powerhouse.
She noted that together with the US’ “economic sanctions architecture,” the majority of the nation reduced to what she called “rubble” could be kept that way by denying Syria and its allies the ability to invest in reconstruction.
She noted:
The rest of Syria though, is rubble and what the Russians want and what Assad wants is economic reconstruction.
That is something that the United States can basically hold a card on via the international financial institutions and our cooperation with the Europeans. So we argued that absent behavioral changes by the Assad regime we should hold the line on preventing reconstruction aid and technical expertise from going back into Syria.
In other words, the US military presence in Syria is part of an overall policy meant to either coerce the Syrian government into subordinating itself to Washington’s demands and interests, or suffer a perpetual humanitarian crisis stemming from the deliberate obstruction of food, energy, and reconstruction aid. The notion that the US is in Syria “to fight ISIS” serves merely as a smokescreen behind which this agenda is advanced.
What the Escalation Tells Us About US Power in the Middle East
The New York Times in a March 24, 2023 article titled, “Conflict in Syria Escalates Following Attack That Killed a U.S. Contractor,” would claim:
The conflict in northeast Syria escalated on Friday as Iran-backed militias launched a volley of rocket and drone attacks against coalition bases after American reprisals for a drone attack that killed a U.S. contractor and injured six other Americans.
President Biden, speaking at a news conference in Canada, sought to tamp down fears that tit-for-tat strikes between the United States and militant groups could spiral out of control, while at the same time warning Tehran to rein in its proxies.
The US reprisals for the original drone strike do not appear to have convinced various armed forces operating in Syria to abandon their strategy of applying growing military pressure on US forces occupying eastern Syria.
It is abundantly clear to all parties in the region that Syria, Iran, and its allies possess escalation dominance.
The US is heavily committed to its proxy war in Ukraine against Russia and is deeply invested in ongoing preparations for war with China. The US military footprint in Syria is small and while USCENTCOM still consists of tens of thousands of US troops in the region, the US does not have the logistical means of fighting a large-scale conflict in and around Syria without indefinitely compromising its objectives in Eastern Europe and in the Pacific.
Thus, US President Joe Biden is attempting to avoid an escalation despite the growing military pressure placed on US forces occupying eastern Syria, simply because to do so would mean abandoning either its operations in Ukraine or the Pacific – perhaps even both.
Conversely, it appears forces in the region targeting the US military occupation are carefully managing the frequency and scale of their military operations to avoid forcing the US into a drastic escalation. The goal appears to be making the US occupation in eastern Syria increasingly unsustainable, forcing the US to eventually abandon its positions.
Additional details from the above-cited New York Times article illustrate other important aspects of Washington’s waning military might both in the region and in general.
The article notes:
Two U.S. officials said the main air defense system at the base was “not fully operational” at the time, raising questions about whether the attackers had detected that vulnerability and exploited it, or just happened to send the drone at that time, according to people who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.
Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the Pentagon spokesman, said that the air defense’s radar was working but he declined to discuss any other details of the system, citing operational security and an investigation by the military’s Central Command.
The article reveals that at least part of the US base’s air defense consisted of the Avenger missile defense system. This is a vehicle-mounted version of the man-portable Stinger anti-aircraft missile. Thousands of the man-portable variety have been sent to Ukraine along with a much smaller number of Avenger systems.
While the US Stinger missile provides formidable short-range protection against a variety of aerial targets, it falls far short of providing the protection provided by the tiered integrated air defense systems employed by nations like Russia, China, Syria, and also Iran. Ukraine’s use of the Stinger missile prevents Russian warplanes and helicopters from operating with impunity across much of Ukraine’s airspace. However, the missiles have proven less effective against missiles and drones.
The shortcomings of US air defense technology was already a growing problem long before these systems were put to the test in Ukraine. US-manufactured Patriot missiles have repeatedly failed to provide Saudi Arabia protection during drone and missile attacks carried out by Yemeni forces, as reported by articles like NBC News’ “Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites.”
In fact, the US and many of its NATO allies have for decades neglected air defense systems in favor of emphasizing air superiority. However, despite the US possessing air superiority over eastern Syria, technology that the West once monopolized like drones and missiles have now proliferated into the arsenals of national armed forces and local militias alike. These drones and missiles can easily slip past warplanes and require advanced ground-based air defense systems to intercept, systems the US simply doesn’t have at the moment.
The US’ inability to protect its forces against the growing drone, missile, and artillery capabilities of regional forces coupled together with its military being increasingly stretched elsewhere, gives local forces the ability to inflict both physical and political damage on the US occupation, making the occupation increasingly unsustainable.
Geopolitical Tides are Washington Away US Domination in the Middle East
The transformation of the Middle East geopolitically ensures that this process continues undermining Washington’s military presence in the region. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Turkey all being brought to the table by Russia and China to reverse years of hostilities-by-proxy leave the US increasingly isolated politically and also militarily.
USCENTCOM relies heavily on the illusion of chaos in the region to justify its military footprint on the Arabian Peninsula. With this chaos in the process of being reduced, so follows the justification the US uses to maintain that military footprint. If one or more nations in the region reduce or entirely end the US military presence inside their borders, Washington’s ability to escalate in response to attacks on their forces in eastern Syria dwindles even further.
A combination of the growing military capabilities opposed to the US’ illegal occupation of Syria and the shifting geopolitical order in the wider region is leaving US forces increasingly isolated and vulnerable. Their occupation of eastern Syria, predicated on starving and freezing the Syrian population into submission, already indefensible, will also become militarily unsustainable. Any attempt by the US to bolster its position in eastern Syria will come at the cost of its ongoing proxy conflict with Russia in Ukraine and its planned conflict with China over its island province of Taiwan. Only time will tell where the US decides to place the remainder of its military might in its attempt to dominate Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific, but one thing is almost certain, it cannot successfully dominate all three.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Washington’s Position in Syria Under Fire (Literally) появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The trite claim that “global political processes are accelerating” is most glaring at their center, which is steadily evolving into the Indo-Pacific region as a whole and, notably, its “particularly heated” zones, of which Taiwan is still on the list. A number of events in the coming days could be indicative of both the maintenance and potential escalation of the level of “warming up” in the Taiwan crisis situation.
First off, it’s probably going to have a “reverse” version of the Nancy Pelosi effect. In other words, the fact that the current Taiwan’s president Tsai Ing-wen will spend some time on US soil is another landmark in the context of Washington taking the next significant step in the overall creeping process of making relations with Taipei “ordinary interstate.” She was about to visit several Central American countries on the list of the few that still maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Due to the recent challenges in relations with Honduras, this measure has a particular urgency.
The question of the presidential plane’s flight path lies at the center of the entire impending event. The most favored path avoids US territory if we are led by fundamental optimization concerns, such as saving time, fuel, money, and the environment. Yet, in this instance, there is no political element because the main objective of the event is merely a stopover “somewhere in the USA.” Just not a trip to multiple “banana republics,” which simply helps to conceal the achievement of this core objective.
Eventually, in the ongoing mystery, there is a new character named “Where” who follows the actor with the name “Route.” That is, where exactly on US territory the current president of Taiwan will make this stopover. The states of New York and California are the two choices under consideration. As previously described in the NEO in relation to the same Mrs. Tsai’s alternate visits to each of them in 2018 and 2019 accordingly, each has its own unique and intriguing (for both guest and host) aspects.
The character Who is then anticipated to appear next. That is, a person who will communicate with the visitor who is staying “transient and on occasion” on US soil. The principal geopolitical rival of the United States, which is modern China, is particularly interested in the issue of specific American politicians who assert to fill this function. For the past two or three months, Kevin McCarthy, the new speaker of the US House of Representatives, has claimed this role. In reality, this would be a repetition of the “Nancy Pelosi effect,” with the same unfavorable impact on the world’s two most powerful nations’ ties as it did over a year ago. The relationship between the United States and China has not yet returned to where it was before the “effect” was unleashed.
The following details have come to light as of the time of writing, among the several aspects of general uncertainty caused by information leaks about the very potential of such a tour by the president of Taiwan. First of all, it actually occurs and will take place from March 29 to April 7. Secondly, the “stopover” is in the American state of New York. As for the possibility of a Tsai Ingwen-Cavin McCarthy meeting, the information is contradictory which could be a result of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s previous submission to their American colleagues on the overall inadmissibility of this event.
For prominent American politicians and their closest allies, Taiwan continues to be a destination for ostentatiously anti-Chinese pilgrimage. Among the most notable figures who have visited the island recently is Robert O’Brien, former national security adviser, who served under former US president Donald Trump. He delivered the customary speech that “the US will stand with Taiwan in fending off attacks by authoritarians and has no intention of changing the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait,”at the Presidential Office in Taipei, where President Tsai Ing-wen conferred on him the Order of Brilliant Star.
A delegation from the CHIPS Program Office, established at the US Department of Commerce to assure the PRC was actually blocked from the most recent advancements in the field of microelectronics, was anticipated to arrive in Taiwan just after this important guest. The US-led “Chip 4” alliance will include Taiwan and also be comprised of Japan and South Korea. The delegation will first visit Taiwan and then pay visits to these two nations.
European delegations of all stripes continue to go to the island, representing both the interstate and national systems of the continent. Once again, European visitors are mostly members of the legislative spheres of government. Up until now, the executive branch has made an effort to stay away from these events, giving it a chance to keep its relationship with the PRC intact.
When Greg Hands, a member of Rishi Sunak’s newly formed cabinet, the Minister of State for Trade Policy, visited the island last fall, the United Kingdom government was the first (of course) to break this unwritten law. Six months later, the German government took the blazed (slippery) path. Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Federal Minister of Education and Research, traveled to Taiwan in the second half of March. Here is a picture of the visitor. Naturally, the PRC was compelled to comment on the additional dimension this visit brought to the process of forging ties between a major European nation and the “rebellious province“.
Let us state the assumption that there are serious differences of opinion over some key elements of German foreign policy inside the coalition government that currently governs the Federal Republic of Germany. Let’s only think back to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s recent trip to China, which seemed to be quite positively assessed in Beijing and seen with discreet cautiousness not only by Germany’s allies but also by certain German politicians.
It is also significant that Australia’s Defense Minister Richard Marles responded to the Taiwan problem during an ABC interview. He specifically said that Australia “absolutely” did not promise to support the US in any military conflict over Taiwan. The commentary on this statement highlights the fact that it came almost immediately after the recent AUKUS summit held in San Diego with the participation of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Nonetheless, details about providing the Australian Navy with nuclear-powered attack submarines were the primary outcome of this event (with the decisive involvement of the closest allies).
The aforementioned rejoinder once again testifies to the weak validity of the not infrequent very “expansive” interpretation of the AUKUS format itself, which does not yet go beyond a narrowly specific business project. The answer to the question of what will happen next remains in the realm of speculation because of the abundance of very high uncertainty on the global gaming table.
We should also take note of the consistency of this statement with Canberra’s continual (over the course of at least the last two decades) denials to Washington’s inquiries about the possibility of including Canberra in American military operations with allies in the event that the situation in the Taiwan Strait worsens.
Finally, the announcement of former Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou’s desire to visit the PRC (Tsai Ing-wen’s predecessor in office) attracted attention. In a strange historical coincidence, when the current president of Taiwan makes the above-mentioned tour, the former leader of the now oppositionist Kuomintang party will be in the region where the main source of unrest is located for the current ruling Democratic Progressive Party and its representative Tsai Ing-wen (and for the main hope of the latter two – the United States).
Ma Ying-jeou has a very compelling motive for traveling to the Mainland because there are his ancestors’ graves there, which he has never been to before. He will very certainly speak with high-ranking CCP (Chinese Communist Party) officials during this trip as well. A delegation of his party colleagues experienced the same thing a month earlier. Let’s recall that in less than a year Taiwan will hold another general election, following the results of which the Kuomintang hopes to return to power.
So, in the series of recent events accompanying the development of the Taiwan issue, this latest one, related to Ma Ying-jeou’s trip to the PRC, may be the most important.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Current events in relation to the Taiwan issue появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There’s a lot more to the news that India-based defense company BrahMos Aerospace will soon close a deal to sell Indonesia supersonic cruise missiles worth at least $200 million than meets the eye. The India-Russia joint venture via BrahMos could have lasting geopolitical effects in Southeast Asia and on the current American hegemony.
Another India-Russia joint venture was just clinched last year when the Philippines ordered $375 million in shore-based anti-ship missiles. This deal was part of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ambition to triple India’s defense exports. And for Russia, every partnership sealed in Asia is a thorn in the side of the so-called western alliance.
The Philippines have indicated their deal is a kind of “icebreaker” for potential further corporations. And the India component of the negotiations going on is both vital, and brilliant from the Russian standpoint. The United States has been busy trying to torpedo direct Russian sales to the Philippines and other countries in Southeast Asia, so Modi edging closer and closer to Russia economically, and perhaps strategically, is a thorn in Washington’s side.
Whatever the reasons, Indonesia’s acquisition of new weapons grew by about 28% in 2021 and then 69% in 2022. As for the Philippines, the country elevated acquisitions by 29% in 2021 and 40% in 2022. Take note, these figures are much higher than the average investment in military hardware and systems elsewhere in the region.
Traditionally, much of Southeast Asia’s new weapons acquisitions have come from traditional suppliers, like the United States, France, and Russia too. However, India, which is now the world’s largest defense importer, is entering the game with BrahMos to gain market share. According to BrahMos CEO
“We have got the go-ahead to market to every country in southeast Asia from both the government of India and the government of Russia.”
Meanwhile, the US is busy trying to leverage every Asian nation it can to turn on the Russians where the Ukraine crisis is concerned. So far, there have been few takers. The Philippines government was slammed recently for allowing the US to expand military bases in the country. Joint US-Philippines military drills recently, were another important card played by the west in what is now a battle for hearts, minds, and strategic necessity. Friction in the region is building not only in the military sphere but as the US and other banks recoil after the huge Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) went bust. Reverberations are hitting markets in Southeast Asia, as well.
On a positive note, from the Russian side, news the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) has held a Forum titled “Pushing the Horizon: Strategy of Eurasian Economic Integration in the New Conditions and the Role of Business” seems promising for the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) to push towards internationalization. The EAEU free trade bloc is comprised of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. The bloc connects most of Eastern Europe to Western China. In addition, the finalizing of the EAEU free trade agreement with Iran, as well as an FTA with Egypt, put still more pressure on the west since sanctions on Russia have backfired.
Now there are negotiations underway with Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. And, if Mexico is serious about joining the BRICS, America’s military bases surrounding Russia and China will be less significant than the trade and economic encirclement of the western allied nations. Western economic leaders seem intent on continuing interest rate hikes across the board despite the fragility of the banking system and the market. It’s as if Humpty Dumpty is already falling and is in denial. From Washington to Geneva, Switzerland the strategy seems to be to print more money to give a transfusion to a terminal economic blowout. The west’s central banks seem all too eager to jump in to raise debt ceilings still higher.
Finally, the genius plan to destroy Russia and take over the world in one swoop seems to have run into insurmountable roadblocks. What’s shaping up is a multipolar world where resource-rich, but economically poorer nations are in a pitched battle with stagnant North America and resource-poor Europe. The hegemony has already crumbled. It will be interesting (maybe scary) to see how the Biden Administration reacts to it all.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение US-Led Economic Alliance – Doing the “Humpty Dumpty” Blindfolded появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
As from the beginning of 2023, an increasing number of Western companies are looking to invest in Vietnam and India. Leading economists around the world believe that these countries have favorable grounds for foreign investment.
In turn, during the past few years, China has seen a decline in the amount of investment coming from the West. The reason for this is the ongoing informal trade conflict between Beijing and Washington since the latter half of the 2010s, as well as the numerous lockdowns enacted by the Chinese government as part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even the unofficial term “China Plus One” has been given to the corporate strategy that aims to gradually decrease investment in China in favor of Vietnam, India, and other developing nations.
The Indian authorities are interested in economic rapprochement with the West as part of a foreign policy line aimed at maintaining and strengthening the status of a regional power. As a counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, New Delhi is carrying out its own infrastructure projects across Eurasia. Several Indian overseas projects will either be suspended or considerably slowed down without a rise in the volume of the economy through increased trade with the West. If India doesn’t use this approach to foreign economic strategy, it would eventually be compelled to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative in order to avoid a severe economic disaster.
Currently, Vietnam’s top commercial partners are Western nations. This is partly because during the past ten years, Vietnam has seen the emergence of numerous facilities owned by Western businesses that are dedicated to the manufacture of machinery.
The Vietnamese leadership is not interested in weakening the US position in the Indo-Pacific region, as this could lead to the complete domination of China in the South China Sea, which does not meet the geopolitical interests of Hanoi.
The fact that there is no longer any lingering hostility between the Vietnamese people and the United States should be noted. This is because a lot of time has passed since the Vietnam War ended in 1975, and several generations have grown up without having been subjected to American military aggression.
Western companies see a great future in cooperation with India and Vietnam. For instance, the US company Apple is thinking about shifting some of its manufacturing to India from China. By 2025–2030, several other significant American corporations’ business strategies call for shifting a portion of their production from China to other developing nations, including India and Vietnam. It is well acknowledged that concentrating the manufacturing of a certain type of product in a single nation might result in an extreme reliance on that nation’s domestic politics. For instance, the repeated lockdowns in China have adversely impacted the financial results of several multinational corporations.
The fact that Vietnam and India have reached a level of education that enables citizens to work successfully in high-tech production can also be used to explain why Western investors want to increase their presence in these nations. Over the past few decades, the proportion of people with a higher education in India and Vietnam has increased significantly. Despite this, a significant number of people in these states continue to work in agriculture. Indian and Vietnamese workers are inexpensive and educated, and this is something that Western businesses want to take advantage of. When Western firms begin to establish operations in the country, promising young people will be able to develop themselves more successfully. Yet, initially, they will have to accept lower pay than their international coworkers from affluent nations. Nonetheless, this strategy will have a significant impact on the formation of a new international relations system in the following ten years.
Bear in mind that China represents a growing economic and military power every year. Beijing adopts a highly hostile foreign policy toward Western nations, refusing to sanction Russia when it began a special military operation in Ukraine in February 2022 and issuing statements to regain control over Taiwan by force. The United States wants to be a major commercial partner with as many Eurasian and African nations as possible, and China’s Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure project goes against those geopolitical goals.
Executives from US companies are aware that the money invested in China would eventually enhance its state budget, enabling the Chinese government to continue expanding its intensive foreign policy. A proactive Chinese foreign policy might also result in Washington and its allies losing all influence in Eurasia and Africa.
Also, it should be considered that earlier Western investments in China are making a decreasing amount of money each year. The average wage in China is currently just above the global average, but in the 2000s the West saw it as a secondary nation with a sizable market and cheap labor. Today, China is the second-largest economy in the world. The overall level of life and well-being are improving along with earnings, which motivates foreign companies with offices in China to increase employee compensation and ensure that production facilities adhere to more stringent safety rules with every passing year.
India and Vietnam are connected by a shared aversion to an excessive rise in Chinese influence. China will not permit the Vietnamese and Indian governments to pursue an autonomous foreign trade strategy, entirely enclosing them in its zone of interest, if Beijing grows too powerful, according to Hanoi and New Delhi. That is why India-Vietnam relations are getting stronger every year. The construction of a highway, which, once operational, will substantially improve trade between the two nations, as well as the cooperative exploration of oil deposits in the South China Sea are among the present ambitions of the Indian and Vietnamese sides. The two countries’ leaders will find it difficult to carry out their ambitions without outside capital investment.
It is extremely possible that India and Vietnam will soon rank among the top countries in which Western investors choose to invest. These countries support Washington’s decisions on international issues and maintain a reasonably loyal policy toward the US. Both countries aim to strengthen communication with Western countries in order to attract more investment because they do not want Chinese influence to grow.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Why have Western Investors Turned Their Attention to India and Vietnam? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The United States, South Korea, and Japan continue to conduct bilateral and trilateral exercises designed to combat North Korea. This activity has climaxed in Freedom Shield military exercises between the United States and South Korea, which are being held on a grand scale this year after a lengthy break. North Korea, for its part, sees this as an invasion threat and actively bares its teeth through hostile statements and its own combat readiness measures. The author presents a chronicle of the latest phase in this text. There have been many developments…
On March 13, the major US-South Korean joint exercise Freedom Shield has begun, on a par with the Foal Eagle drill that the Moon Jae-in administration cancelled in May 2018.
On March 14, from 7:41 a.m. to 7:51 a.m., two short-range ballistic missiles were fired by North Korea in the direction of the Sea of Japan.
In an effort to improve operational readiness for times of conflict, the South Korean and American Air Forces performed a 36-hour combat practice with continuous sorties on the same day. The drill comprised F-35A, F-15K, and KF-16 aircraft from South Korea.
On March 15, at the border zone 62 kilometers north of Seoul, South Korea and the United States have begun a 12-day combined river-crossing military drills. Participating in the exercise were 400 troops, two Apache attack helicopters and 50 pieces of engineering equipment.
On March 16, at the Sunan military base close to Pyongyang International Airport, North Korea launched a ballistic missile toward the Sea of Japan.
A massive “aerial penetration” exercise on the southern front started on March 16 in Jangseong, 252 kilometers south of Seoul, and Uiryeong, 274 kilometers south of the capital, involving over 1,500 troops and more than 30 aircraft. Simultaneously, some 100 American and South Korean soldiers practiced air attacks utilizing six UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and a US squadron using a Stryker armored vehicle.
Around the same days, special forces from the allies’ Navies wrapped up their regular Flash Knife exercise. “The exercise is known to target an enemy leadership under a crisis scenario.” Working off the head of state’s liquidation is undoubtedly a highly protective move.
On March 17, the Rodong Sinmun stated in an article that “the situation in the Korean peninsula is inching closer to an uncontrollable and dangerous state” and that “the reality clearly shows that the danger of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula is shifting from a virtual phase to a practical one.” The ICBM launch, in this perspective, is a strong indication that the North Korean Nuclear Armed Forces Policy Act clearly stipulates the principles and conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, allowing for a preemptive strike. “There is no vouch that if the dangerous military provocations of the US and south Korea are continuously overlooked as now, a fierce physical conflict will not occur in the Korean Peninsula where huge forces of both sides stand in acute confrontation with each other. In case such conflict occurs in reality, the US security, to say nothing of the regional stability, will face an uncontrollable, catastrophic phase.”
On March 18 and March 19, North Korea conducted “the combined tactical drill simulating a nuclear counterattack by the units for the operation of tactical nukes”.
More specifically, on March 18 they tested the reliability of the tactical nuclear armed forces’ command, control, and monitoring system several times, practicing the regulations for rapid response and the accuracy of issuing and receiving an order for a nuclear attack in a contingent emergency situation. In other words, handling of charges and carriers as well as the chain of command were worked out.
On March 19, a ballistic missile launch exercise simulating a tactical nuclear assault was staged in front of Minister of National Defence Kang Sun-nam and relevant officials of the Party Central Committee, commanding officers of the Missile General Bureau and relevant personnel of the Nuclear Weapons Institute. The launch simulated “a nuclear strike against a major enemy target,” and the missile was tipped with a test warhead simulating a nuclear warhead. The missile (believed to be an enhanced version of the Kimskander) took off from Cheolsan county in North Pyongan province, hitting the target with pinpoint accuracy at a range of 800 kilometers and an altitude of 800 meters. Kim Jong-un personally conducted the drill again, was with his daughter again, was impressed again, and stated that the thorough tactical exercises considerably strengthened the ability of units and subdivisions to fight in real warfare, because simply having nuclear weapons is insufficient to deter a war. It must be constantly improved and displayed for the fear of enemies. This necessitates regular surprise inspections and drills of the separate forces, allowing fighters to become accustomed to acting in a variety of scenarios and situations.
Meanwhile, analysts have evaluated North Korean photographic data, noticing the odd shape of the flame at the moment of launch – in the form of the Latin letter “V.” Presumably, the flames were reflected off the horizontal surface, implying that the rocket was fired from an underground mine. That means, North Korea is working to diversify its launch platforms. Moreover, according to the North Korea’s account of the nature of the exercises, the North Korean nuclear warhead detonator may have been tested during the launch.
Furthermore, Korean Central News Agency announced on March 18 that the number of young people volunteering to join and rejoin the KPA is steadily increasing across the country because “the move to provoke a nuclear war by the US imperialists and the south Korean puppet traitors, which is the worst-ever in their aggressive nature and scale… is now inching close to the unpardonable red-line.”
The number of volunteers has reportedly surpassed 1.4 million as of March 20, according to a report from the Korean Central News Agency.
On March 19, B-1B strategic bombers were used in a joint drill between the South Korean and American Air Forces.
On March 20, for the first time in five years, South Korean and US marines launched the Ssangyong joint landing practice in the Sea of Japan. The 2023 Ssangyong exercise will take place in Pohang, North Gyeongsang Province, and will run until April 3 as part of the implementation of agreements agreed by the defense ministers of the two nations last year to broaden the scope of joint exercises. Up until 2018, Ssangyong exercises were conducted at the brigade level; this year, the scope has been expanded to the divisional level. The maneuvers were carried out with the participation of a company of British Marine Special Forces, with observers from Australia, France, and the Philippines present. The exercise involves more than 30 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island and the South-Korean Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship, as well as approximately 70 aircraft, including the F-35B and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and 50 amphibious assault vehicles. Of course, “the exercises of amphibious landing on the enemy’s coast, which implies North Korea, are purely defensive in nature.”
On March 22, North Korea launched four cruise missiles into the Sea of Japan from the Hamhung area of South Hamgyong Province. They were most certainly Hwasal-2 strategic cruise missiles, also known as North Korean Tomahawks.
On the same day, March 22, John Kirby, US National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, stated that there is no indication that North Korea may use its nuclear weapons to attack the United States or its allies in the near future.
On March 23, a large-scale combined live-fire exercise was performed near the inter-Korean border by South Korea and the United States. The four-day drill took place about 30 kilometers south of the Demilitarized Zone and featured roughly 100 howitzers, armored vehicles, and equipment, as well as more than 800 troops.
To recap the Freedom Shield exercise, while previous programs of similar exercises had featured different maneuvers relating to defense and counterstrike, this time the focus was on counterstrike.
But that is not all. US Navy’s Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will participate in a joint naval drill in late March, while Warrior Shield field exercises and the 2023 Ssangyong amphibious landing exercise will run until early April.
Also, the next round of escalation will occur in the summer rather than the fall. South Korea and the United States intend to conduct their “largest-ever” combined live-fire drills in June 2023 as part of a program commemorating the 70th anniversary of their military alliance. The drills are “designed to strengthen the allies’ solidarity, demonstrate their militaries’ technological edge and highlight their focus on “realizing peace through strength via action,” according to the Seoul’s defense ministry.” High-tech military vehicles, as well as manned and unmanned weapons, will be deployed.
Of course, Pyongyang will keep watching it, which means that the red line will get a few steps closer.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Spring Madness Continues появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Turkey has been a part of NATO since February of 1952. And it took more than two years for this country to join the North Atlantic military alliance, which it was allowed to do only after meeting the US political requirements, which included rejecting Atatürk’s one-party political system in favor of democratizing the electoral process and establishing a multi-party system, as well as liberalizing trade relations and strengthening the position of pro-Western capital.
Between 1945 and 1952, the United States and the United Kingdom both succeeded in preventing Turkey from losing territory to the Soviet Union after Stalin recognized Turkey’s neutrality as hostile towards the USSR during WW II and made territorial demands to Ankara concerning the status of the Black Sea straits and the fate of a portion of western Armenia (Kars, Ardahan, Artvin, and Ararat). According to the officials from the Embassy of Turkey in Moscow (especially Mustafa Kunt and Berksun Hasan), the “nuclear umbrella” of the West was what gave confidence to Turkey and kept the mentioned lands within Turkey’s boundaries. Stalin did not dare to strike Turkey, and in Potsdam, the USSR took Poland instead of Turkey in its zone of interest.
As a result, Turkey’s eastern territories and western straits were “rescued” by the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon world twice in the twentieth century (after World Wars I and II). All of this, along with the strategic value of its location at the juncture of continents and access to the sea made Turkey eligible for membership in NATO. Naturally, decades of membership in the North Atlantic Alliance, on the one hand, guaranteed Turkey’s security, but on the other, deprived it of key elements of independence from the foreign policy dictate of the USA.
During the 1974 Cypriot crisis, Turkey felt the full force of “American democracy,” for it was the United States, dissatisfied with Archbishop Makarios’ independent policy and pro-communist passion that actually authorized the landing of a Turkish sea assault in the northern part of the island and its occupation (“Operation Attila”). However, Turkey was subjected to a US military embargo that lasted until 1978 and was lifted during President Jimmy Carter’s administration.
During the Cold War, Turkey was an outpost of the United States and NATO on the southeastern flank against the USSR and the Warsaw Pact because of its geographical proximity to, and historical contradictions with, Russia. In February 1986, US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said, “Turkey, with land and sea borders with the USSR and Bulgaria, occupies a key position on the Soviet Union’s path to the Mediterranean and is an outpost of NATO’s southern flank.” The US and NATO placed on Turkish territory about 60 various military installations and bases. These include Incirlik Air Base located not far from the city of Adana, the radio and electronic surveillance centers in Sinop and Anadolu Kavağı (Bosporus Strait), NATO Joint Staff at South-eastern part of South-European Theater in Izmir, the US 6th Fleet ships that refuel in Turkish sea ports, etc.
The United States’ operational interests in Turkey slightly changed after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War as it became clear that Russia no longer posed a military threat to NATO’s interests in general and Turkey’s interests in particular. Instead, the United States was more interested in enlarging its sphere of influence in the Middle East and the Black Sea basin. Although still important to NATO, Turkey has lost some of its appeal as an “anchor” on the southern border of the theater, where there was no other option, particularly in the wake of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the dissolution of the regional military alliance CENTO. By including the nations of the Black Sea (Bulgaria and Romania) in NATO, actively collaborating with Georgia and Ukraine, as well as entering Iraq and a portion of Syria, the USA has increased its sphere of influence in the aforementioned regions.
Turkish citizens remember the United States and NATO for four coups d’etat in the second half of the twentieth century (1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997), when Turkish leaders’ enthusiasm for an independent foreign policy led to their demise and the military leadership of the General Staff of the Armed Forces took power. A similar US attempt to depose the “unwanted and unmanageable President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan” failed miserably in July 2016. Erdoğan’s life was saved in large part due to the Russian Russian Foreign Intelligence’s informational assistance during those crisis days.
Washington has always taken a radical stance toward its military and political allies and partners whenever local leaders deviate from the US course. To that end, the CIA Directorate of Covert Operations has a covert unit that conducts active measures to eliminate undesirable politicians and forces, Operation Gladio.
A mistrust crisis erupted between Washington and Ankara in 2003, when the Turkish Parliament refused to allow the Fourth United States Army to pass through Turkish territory to occupy Iraq. Since 2009, when Ahmet Davutoğlu’s Strategic Depth Doctrine (indeed, a declaration of a new, neo-Ottomanist foreign policy strategy) was published, Turkey under Recep Erdoğan has gradually started to pursue a foreign policy distinct from that of the United States, focusing on contemporary Turkic states in the post-Soviet space in order to strengthen its independence and revive its status as a major power. Naturally, this strategy could not please the USA and was of concern to a number of other states bordering Turkey.
The development of mutually beneficial relations with Russia (including not only economic and trade, but also military and technical cooperation) and Erdoğan’s policy of making Turkey a key transit state for the export of energy resources from the Middle East and the former Soviet Union to Europe drew criticism from the United States. As a result, Washington imposed military restrictions on Ankara once more, specifically by declining to give Turkey its Patriot air defense systems, F-35 or F-16 fighter jets. Turkey’s relations with the United States in the run-up to the 2023 general elections and the approaching 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Turkey have been strained.
President Erdoğan started to conduct active peacekeeping diplomacy to end hostilities after the deterioration of Russian-Ukrainian relations and the beginning of the special operation by the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine in 2022. Turkey declined to participate in anti-Russian sanctions not approved by the UN. Moreover, Ankara initially opposed Finland and Sweden to join NATO due to their support of pro-Kurdish forces linked to the PKK.
Sadly, the tragedy of the catastrophic earthquake in southeast Turkey, which claimed more than 49,000 lives and left behind massive devastation (the damage is proverbially estimated at $100 billion) has presented the Turkish leadership with a difficult choice. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is in need of additional funding and lucrative loans for reconstruction work. He has been the target of scathing pre-election criticism from his rivals, and is aware of how the United States is contributing to Turkey’s current predicament. Yet, Erdoğan (like his forerunners) is very adaptable and centered on Turkish interests.
Erdoğan has consented to Finland’s membership in NATO in light of the country’s acknowledged economic issues and in an endeavor to revive a strong (great) Turkey. This poses new issues and tensions for Russia in the northwest and will necessitate more work along the 1,330 km border with Finland. The interests of high confidence and strategic collaboration between Turkey and Russia are hardly served by President Erdoğan’s stance on this topic, as well as other concerns (such as the status of Crimea or competition in the regions of the South Caucasus and Central Asia).
Turkey, as a NATO member, clearly serves as an effective tool and instrument of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance in the post-Soviet southeastern regions. Active military and technical cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan is being developed. The importance of Turkish command and combat equipment on Azerbaijan’s side during the second Karabakh war is well known, and Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises have become routine. With the formation of the Organization of Turkic States in November 2021, a number of politicians in Turkey make statements about plans to create a new military bloc called “The Turan Army” from time to time.
All of these processes cannot contribute to Eurasian peace and security, and are causing concern in a number of countries bordering Turkey, as well as undermining trust between Moscow and Ankara. The latter is actively pursued by Washington.
Naturally, Turkish citizens have the sovereign right to elect a new Turkish leader and a new parliament. In all areas of interstate relations, Russia seeks a fruitful and mutually beneficial partnership with Turkey (including in economics, culture, politics, defense and security). However, in Russia, NATO’s expansion into the southeastern regions of the post-Soviet space on “Turkey’s shoulders” is unlikely to be viewed positively.
It is worth reminding Turks that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was not so much a result of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but of NATO’s desire to include nationalist Ukraine in its ranks and create a belt of instability around the Russian Federation. Today, Turkey bases its military operations in Iraq and Syria on concerns about its own security, ostensibly to combat Kurdish separatism (though what do Iraqi or Syrian Kurds have to do with Turkish separatism?). Russia, too, has its own set of interests and “red lines” near its borders. If Turks advocate neo-Ottomanism, why can’t Russians defend the Russian world and the Russian state’s interests in their historical interest and presence?
Russia poses no military threat to Turkey’s security, either alone or as part of a bloc. Accordingly, Moscow can expect Ankara to take a similar approach. Attempts by the West, represented by the United States and the United Kingdom, to continue the historical tradition of using Turkey as a tool of anti-Russian strategy will be met with opposition from both Russia and the countries targeted by this NATO policy.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkey Continues to be a Tool of NATO появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which took place in Moscow, were a great success. The Russian leader emphasized that substantial progress in the Syrian Arab Republic’s battle against international terrorism has been made possible by the nations’ combined efforts and the vital role played by the Russian Federation Armed Forces. Syria is making steady progress toward eradicating the negative consequences of the civil war unleashed by the West and the Gulf states, thanks to significant efforts on both sides.
At the same time, Beijing made a significant contribution, allowing the Iranian-Saudi agreement, which is critical for Syria, to be concluded. Syria’s president praised the agreement to reestablish diplomatic relations, calling it a “wonderful surprise.” Bashar al-Assad has made it clear that his country is no longer a battleground in the Saudi-Iranian conflict, as it was at one point, and that Riyadh took another direction in its relations with Damascus several years ago.
Syrian government applaud Beijing’s stance on Syria and the new role China appears to be playing in the Middle East. Beijing not only mediated the agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but it also publicly accused Washington of plundering Syria and demanded that the United States leave the country. Both of these issues have a long history with long-term consequences, indicating that the Syrian situation is likely to develop in unanticipated and positive ways as a result of Russia and China’s efforts.
China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian recently accused the USA of “major and continued pillaging” of Syria at a recent press conference. Zhao said that US intervention, especially military intervention, has resulted in “major losses among civilians and immeasurable economic losses. It also displaced millions of people.” The United States imposed harsh coercive measures that deprived Syrians of their basic needs. Control of 80 per cent of Syrian oil by US forces further compounds the humanitarian crisis. “The US measures of aggression, sanctions and support of terrorists rendered a once prosperous nation that welcomed refugees into a destroyed country that resembles a large refugee camp,” he concluded.
This unprecedented Chinese attack on the USA has two goals. The first is the report that Beijing, which has used its veto power six times in favor of the Syrian regime against the opposition, is also an ally of Damascus. It is also an organic partner of Russia, which actively supports President Bashar al-Assad. And unlike the stances of the majority of other nations, who, under American pressure, demand that the Syrian government agree to some sort of political solution before establishing relations with Damascus, this relationship will continue.
Syrian political analyst Ayham Rifaat contends that China aims to prop up the Syrian regime by removing sanctions and ending the global boycott of the regime. That is why he is actively and justifiably trying to blame the USA for the tragedies that have occurred in Syria over the past 12 years. The Syrian opposition was shocked by the Saudi Iranian agreement, which was initiated by Beijing, and found it to be more alarming than China’s criticism of Washington. The deal opens the door for the reestablishment of diplomatic ties between Iran, a steadfast ally of the regime, and Saudi Arabia, the biggest backer of the opposition. The Syrian government enthusiastically embraced the agreement and applauded China’s “sincere efforts,” while the opposition voiced concerns.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry made a statement that “this action will strengthen security and stability in the area” and expressed optimism that similar initiatives would continue. The agreement is also expected to strengthen ties between Syria and Saudi Arabia, eliminate economic restrictions on the Syrian government, and pave the way for a larger Arab normalization, according to the government.
Iran has aided the Syrian regime in its protracted conflict for 12 years, much like Moscow. Via Iranian, Iraqi, and Lebanese militia, Tehran supported war operations financially and militarily. This had some effect on Syria’s political and military choices. Saudi Arabia, a major backer of the overthrow of the Syrian government, gave the opposition political and military assistance in the meantime. Both the opposition and the government are unsure whether Saudi Arabia or Iran will change their stances on the Syrian crisis as a result of this agreement, or the Syrian situation will be omitted and nothing will change because it is a “sensitive matter” for Washington.
China’s efforts come at a time when USA-China relations are very tense, especially after Chinese balloons were spotted over US territory and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled a trip to Beijing that would have helped mend bilateral relations. Congress debates China’s danger to US hegemony abroad while tensions over Taiwan remain high. Washington is also strengthening relations with China’s neighbors by building anti-Chinese alliances, particularly with Japan, Australia and India. Washington threatened sanctions if Beijing gave Moscow the armaments it needed to fend off Western aggression against Russia in Ukraine.
The deal also comes at a time when relations between the USA and Saudi Arabia are at an all-time low, especially in light of the latter’s decision to cut oil production in violation of American recommendations that it not do so. Yet, all of this is taking place while Russia-Saudi Arabia relations have significantly improved, and both countries’ oil policies have been aligned to equitably export their oil and carbon resources. Ironically, it is now the producing countries that choose the export policies of their vital raw materials for the entire world rather than the West.
Some in the Syrian opposition believe that Iran will struggle to keep its end of the bargain and will continue to provide substantial support to Bashar al-Assad’s legitimately elected government, including by keeping its advisers and Hezbollah volunteers in Syria. However, all of these specific requirements were spelled out in the agreement with Saudi Arabia.
The more optimistic opposition camp believes that a Saudi-Iranian agreement will bring the region’s controversies to an end. If the deal is implemented, it could be used to “put out the fire,” reducing tensions between the main opposition supporters and the official authorities. This might compel everyone involved in the Syrian conflict to abide by international resolutions pertaining to a political settlement in the nation.
“It is a victory for China to impose itself as a strategic player in the Gulf region,” according to Syrian researcher Mahmoud Othman. The deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran represents a geopolitical challenge for Washington in the 21st century, an unprecedented historical turning point, opening not only the era of China, but also of Russia in the Middle East, and possibly worldwide. This means “any Iranian aggression against Saudi Arabia will be deterred by China not the US. More accurately, Gulf security in general, and Saudi security in particular, has become China’s responsibility when in the past it was Washington’s.”
What will occur in Syria next is hard to foresee. It would be challenging for Saudi Arabia to abruptly change sides and back the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad, who was duly elected to office. The Iran deal is one thing, but one with the regime is quite different and needs to be based on a lot of other considerations and calculations. Yet, it is certain that China, which has attacked the US presence in Syria and started the agreement to reconcile Iran and Saudi Arabia, has entered a new stage in its efforts to establish itself as a significant political force in the region. Russia and China stand at the forefront to ensure the security of the entire region, not just Syria.
This is what was implied during the Russian-Syrian talks in Moscow. It is quite obvious that the multipolar world policy, developed and actively promoted by Moscow, is really making its way even in such a turbulent region as the Middle East.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Syria on the Way to a Possible Settlement of the Conflict появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Mongolia is increasingly in the sights of most major geopolitical players, according to modern experts in the field of international relations. For example, the United States intends to establish an Indo-Pacific region in which Mongolia will play an important ideological and political role. Mongolia is regarded as an important East Asian “dialogue partner” by South Korean and British politicians. Investment cooperation is intensifying everywhere, numerous business forums are being held, and the participation of extra-regional economic agents in the development of deposits on the country’s territory is expanding.
Japan is also looking to expand its presence in Mongolia. It is constructing road infrastructure, re-equipping thermal power plants, and constructing and jointly operating a new international airport in Mongolia. Despite its small population, the Japanese are becoming increasingly interested in Mongolia’s natural resources and labor force.
In the 21st century, the big capitalist countries have to resort to sophisticated methods of “bribing” and “persuading smaller partners to cooperate” in order to carry out the very selfish plans of economic giants in small developing countries. This is accomplished by the United States through ideological solidarity and the promotion of democratic and liberal values. South Korea and the United Kingdom are more concerned with cultural and linguistic means. Against this backdrop, China has long opted for economic stimulation.
Japan, on the other hand, is charting its own, largely distinct course. In its strategy of expanding its influence in Mongolia, Japan emphasizes the development of humanitarian cooperation. It is based on Japan’s funding of social and humanitarian programs and projects in Mongolia. It is carried out through various Japanese organizations, such as the Japan International Cooperation Association (JICA), the Japan International Cooperation Bank (JBIC) and the Japan Foundation, and through numerous Mongolian-Japanese programs, such as the Joint Loan Facility, non-project official assistance, the Export Credit Line and Grassroots.
Japanese financial aid since 1991 has reached three billion dollars, accounting for more than 30% of all foreign aid Mongolia has received in 31 years. And if in the 1990s, most of the Japanese money was invested in Mongolia’s democratic and market institutions, since the early 2000s, partnership in the field of humanitarian programs has come to the fore.
In particular, bilateral cooperation in health care has been actively developing. In May 2012, the countries signed an agreement to build a hospital at the Medical Research University of Mongolia. The facility was built with $68 million in Japanese donations. As part of the Grassroots charity program, medical facilities in 16 aimags of the country as well as the city of Ulaanbaatar were renovated. In 2021, Japan donated $8 million to Mongolia to fight coronavirus and also sent specialized equipment to the Mongolian National Federation of the Blind. On January 5, 2023, the two sides signed a memorandum on health cooperation, agreeing on the details of Japan’s participation in Mongolia’s national Healthy Mongolian project. The plans for bilateral cooperation for the coming years included the prospect of creating a cardiovascular center, training and retraining of Mongolian doctors, as well as expanding the opportunities for Mongolian citizens to receive medical services in Japan. The Japanese company “Tokushukai Medical Group” has declared readiness to allocate up to 43 million dollars for implementation of promising bilateral projects.
Cooperation between Japan and Mongolia is dynamically developing in the field of education and youth policy. Since 2004, the Mongolian-Japanese center of support of youth cooperation has been functioning, the main direction of which is to promote learning of the Japanese language in Mongolia. In 2009-2012 within the framework of a special program of school exchanges, about 1000 Mongolian school students visited Japan. In 2011, 50 Mongolian specialists in the fields of energy, agriculture, and disaster management were sent to Japan for training. In 2012, the Mongolian Cultural Heritage Center was technically re-equipped with Japanese funds. In 2018-2021, a project to renovate and modernize schools in five districts of Ulaanbaatar was implemented with funds provided by the Japanese government on a grant basis ($18 million). Since 2019, as part of the Mongolian-Japanese humanitarian cooperation, a $51 million project for the development of higher engineering education in Mongolia has been implemented. Funding is provided by the Japan Association for International Cooperation on a grant basis. Yamaha Japan has been training music technicians for the Mongolian State Philharmonic since 2022. The year 2022 has been declared the year of exchange and friendship between Mongolian and Japanese youth. There are currently 70 Mongolian students studying in Japan on Japanese government scholarships. Through the Grassroots Program, Japan has provided free repairs and technical upgrades to 55 Mongolian schools located in 10 Mongolian aimags. The Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences has cooperation programs with 80 educational institutions and hospitals in Japan.
The parties pay special attention to cooperation in the field of environmental protection and protection of the environment. In 2013, in order to support a favorable environmental situation in Mongolia, the parties developed the so-called “Joint Loan Facility.” It involves the Japanese government allocating loans on favorable terms to finance Mongolian projects to reduce hydrocarbon emissions. In particular, the mechanism provides concessional loans for the Mongolian government to buy Japanese monitoring equipment as well as to reduce air pollution in the country. In March 2019, the environment ministries of the two countries agreed to conduct a joint environmental balance study in Mongolia. In the 2010s, Japanese firms upgraded the water supply network in Ulaanbaatar, Altai and Mandalgobi with funds provided by the Japanese government as a soft loan. During the March 3, 2023 visit of State Great Khural Speaker Gombojavyn Zandanshatar to Japan, the parties announced the launch of the third phase of the small and medium-sized enterprise development and environmental protection program, which provides financial and technical support for environmentally friendly enterprises.
Bilateral humanitarian cooperation is also carried out in the field of tourism development. In 2013, the two sides signed an agreement on the construction of a new international airport in the Khushig Valley with a favorable loan from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation worth $210 million. Japanese corporations Mitsubishi and Chiyoda are involved in the project. The final cost of the project has reached $476 million. Within 15 years from the date of commissioning, the airport will be jointly managed by the Mongolian state company Khushig Valley Airport Company and Japanese Airport Management LLC, after which it will be fully transferred to Mongolia. Also, during a meeting between the State Great Khural Speaker Zandanshatar and the head of the Japanese parliament, representatives of the two countries expressed their desire to simplify the procedure for obtaining visas for Mongolian citizens traveling to Japan.
Other bilateral humanitarian cooperation projects include the technical re-equipment of the Ulaanbaatar city fire departments in 2012, the construction of the Solar Bridge in downtown Ulaanbaatar, Japanese participation in financing the Mongolian programs “New Railway,” “Housing for 100,000 Families,” “Development of Small and Medium Industries,” and the opening in 2013 of an export credit line worth $58 million to fight poverty in Mongolia.
So, how does Japan use such peace-loving initiatives to satisfy and protect its interests in developing countries?
First, actively promoting the development of various regions of the world is intended to improve Japan’s image in the international arena and strengthen its credibility at the UN as the country seeks permanent membership in the UN Security Council, which can be facilitated by the support of the majority of the organization’s members. In bilateral joint statements, Mongolia, in particular, expresses its solidarity with Japan on this issue on a regular basis. Japan’s “development assistance” is viewed by the UN as a tool for addressing global economic and social issues.
Second, the provision of concessional loans to developing countries, including Mongolia, is a government tool to stimulate Japanese industrial exports during the prolonged economic downturn. (Japan’s average annual GDP growth rate has not exceeded 1.5% since 1992). The terms of concessional loans frequently include the purchase of Japanese machinery and equipment, denying developing countries access to a competitive international market. Also, creating a favorable image of Japan in Mongolia is a means to strengthen political influence as well as a kind of “advertisement” for Japanese goods on the Mongolian market (43% of Mongolians view Japan “very positively” and another 41% view it “rather positively”).
Third, Japan’s funding of a number of Mongolian government programs is intended to make the Mongolian political elite to a certain extent dependent on Japanese aid, because the rejection of it will be accompanied by an increase in the deficit of the Mongolian state budget (the budget for 2023 was approved with a deficit of 2.6% of GDP, in previous years the figure was as high as 7%). Most of Japan’s financial aid goes to support budget projects. At the same time, Mongolian politicians’ hopes for more aid will push them to cooperate with Japan, shrinking the room for political maneuvering in directions that are disadvantageous to Japan.
Fourth, grant aid for transport and infrastructure facilities is designed to increase the possibility of exporting Mongolia’s natural resources to Japan by modernizing the country’s rail and road networks. Currently, this opportunity is not available because of China’s monopoly on the transit of Mongolian exports to Asia-Pacific countries.
Fifth, the promotion of the Japanese language and culture in Mongolia through educational programs and youth exchanges is intended to create a long-term favorable “conductive environment” in Mongolia for Japanese business plans.
Thus, the “generous” humanitarian partnership between Japan and Mongolia is only a tool to meet the needs of Japanese authorities and major business. A number of projects focused on long-term economic benefits are artificially equated by the parties with humanitarian and charitable ones. And those projects that do not involve direct material benefit work to promote Japan as a great friend and partner of Mongolia, justifying Japanese ambitions in that country, which will not weaken for a very long time to come.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Japan and Mongolia: How Economic Giants are Strengthening Small States появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On March 15, two days after the conclusion of China’s annual “Two Sessions”, Xinhua News Agency reported an equally remarkable event that was in fact a continuation of the previous one.
The Chinese Communist Party officials hosted a video conference, which was titled “Path towards Modernization: The Responsibility of Political Parties,” in which the Chinese President introduced the Global Civilization Initiative, while speaking to a number of overseas colleagues. It should immediately be noted that it is in complete accordance with the original idea of creating a “Community of One Destiny,” which was advanced by the same Chinese leader in late 2012 – early 2013 when he became the country’s top official.
The mere existence of this event, its main theme, and the Chinese President’s vision of key global problems and approaches to their resolution must surely draw attention. Specifically, the Chinese leader’s words about the substantive aspect of “Modernization” itself, in the center of which the individual with his concerns and problems, living anywhere in the world, is placed. And this at a time when entire peoples are viewed as commodities in global political bargaining, and sometimes simply cannon fodder.
Meanwhile, the category of “Inclusiveness,” which implies participation by all countries and peoples, regardless of their domestic and foreign political characteristics and preferences, is central to the Chinese leader’s Initiative. Because of its semantic content, a Global Times commentator, was able to compare it to other, once popular global concepts. For example, the one implying the inevitability of the “Clash of Civilizations.” According to the author of the aforementioned commentary, this latter concept (based on the thesis that “the hatred and estrangement among different civilizations” cannot be eradicated), as well as other similar concepts, serve to interfere with the organization of mutually beneficial international cooperation.
Xi Jinping’s “Initiative” places an equal emphasis on respect for the civilizational diversity. This once served as justification for China’s own path to “modernization.” In turn, it corresponds to the Chinese Communist Party’s original ideological concept of “Building a Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Last year’s 20 th Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Congress, followed by the aforementioned Two Sessions, falls within this concept.
However, noting that the ongoing “modernization” is “rooted in the Chinese national tradition,” the PRC leader cited other countries’ experiences. He believes that this could aid in the development of the latter.
According to Xinhua News Agency, Cyril Ramaphosa, President of South Africa and the president of the African National Congress participated in the video conference, along with 500 party representatives from 150 countries. The latter expressed their highest regard for the Chinese leader’s Initiative.
However, while “the world is full of kind people,” there are those who are difficult to categorize as such. This, in fact, is the root of all global turmoils. It is especially doubtful that the leaders of the AUKUS member countries who gathered in San Diego, California, USA (exactly at the same time as the Chinese President was presenting his “Initiative”) can be qualified in this way.
Note the fact that AUKUS is commonly defined as a “military-political alliance uniting Anglo-Saxon countries.” There appears to be little justification in this definition for using almost all of the words which has already been discussed in the NEO. The choice of San Diego for the AUKUS summit was not accidental, since this city is the headquarters of the US Indo-Pacific Command, which includes the largest group of the US Navy. And the “naval theme” was the primary reason for the event under discussion (as, indeed, the very fact of the formation of AUKUS). Not even “naval” in general, but specifically “nuclear submarine-related.”
According to the Joint Statement of the meeting’s participants, there was no indication of the possibility of expanding AUKUS competence beyond the initial, narrowly specific business project Tobias Ellwood, the chair of UK’s defense select committee, suggested the AUKUS agreement expand to include India and Japan two months before the San Diego summit, but his suggestion was not reflected in the mentioned document.
As for declarations of readiness to “protect freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region shoulder to shoulder,” this can also be done within the framework of long-standing bilateral agreements in the US-Australia-UK triangle.
That is, nothing has been added to the actual original goals of AUKUS, coming from the US and UK, which was (approximately): “To take control of the process of equipping the Australian Navy with new submarines from France.” The Chinese Global Times has captured this goal-setting in graphic images, as it always does.
Beijing’s reaction to the San Diego summit was predictable, both in general and in detail. Doubts have been raised, in particular, about compliance of the initiative for equipping the Australian Navy with American multi-purpose Virginia-class submarines and then building new submarines in the country, which will be developed by UK and US shipbuilding companies, with IAEA requirements. Notwithstanding this, the Joint Statement’s authors assert that said compliance is up to par.
It should also be noted that Anthony Albanese’s center-left government, which took power in Australia last May, intends to at least partially overcome the blockages in relations with China created (mostly in the final stages) by its center-right predecessors. That is, it appears that in relations with China, Anthony Albanese would gladly continue concentrating on extraordinarily lucrative sales of iron ore, coal, fossil fuels, sheep, grain, wine, and seafood to this country.
But once more, he is faced with challenges that appear to be difficult to conquer. In order to ensure that American Virginia-class submarines are stationed in Australian ports, purchase the identical ones for his own Navy, and subsequently construct further nuclear submarines, he will have to use the money well-earned through trade with China. Thus putting a completely superfluous test on the entire framework of Sino-Australian relations.
On the whole, the two events being hold practically simultaneously are the most obvious to demonstrate the cross-road that the major participants in the current stage of the Global Great Game are approaching.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Chinese leader’s new “Global Security Initiative” and the latest AUKUS summit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In 1947 the socially notorious Welsh poet Dylan Thomas wrote the untitled poem beginning “Do not go gentle into that good night”. In it he exhorts the unknown addressee, often presumed to be his dying father, to “Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
In the pitiful backwater that is Brexit Britain, friendless, alone and going nowhere but down, this poem has particular significance. The “good night” is the inevitable collapse of the Revolt of the Dispossessed which lay behind the Brexit dream. Those who still pretend this isn’t happening are not going gentle but raging, hoping the same old arguments will somehow become true if they scream them louder, and make them badges of honour they think will protect them from the Day of Reckoning.
No British voter is able to move on from Brexit because of the economic and social damage it is causing them, but also because its proponents have a cop out. Those who didn’t support Brexit still think the reality of it will eventually win the other side over to their point of view, and they are correct in that.
But the Brexiteers don’t care if anyone agrees with them. Their arguments remain exactly the same as before the referendum, because they can’t point to anything positive Brexit has produced which they can argue for. If anyone disagrees, they can simply be branded, as ever, as Enemies of the People, crooks conspiring against the whole population, rapidly dwindling though that “whole population” actually is.
Will anything change that? Is there a way the supporters of the Great Con can avoid ending up like the lonely madmen who still scrawl “Hitler Lives” on the back of the Komgresshalle in Nuremberg
Finally there appears to be one. Rather than the ranks collapsing from within, one of the few figures on the other side who Brexiteers respect has changed the terms of the argument when all others have failed.
He never set out to do this, and must be humbled at sleepwalking into being his country’s salvation. However Brexiteers can now face the reality without fear, as the enemy now has discovered a human and sympathetic face.
More Important Than Life and Death
Former England football international Gary Lineker is many things to many people. But above all he is regarded as a nice guy, and as he was never yellow carded during his playing career, despite being a striker subject to often brutal provocation by defenders, this seems to be one example where fan worship is fully justified.
Lineker scored 48 goals for England, one short of the national record, and gained much sympathy when his manager took him off during his final game when he was trying to break that record. Given that he is also highly articulate, knowledgeable and handsome, it was perhaps inevitable that he was invited to join the BBC as a sports presenter when his playing days were over, soon fronting its flagship football programme, Match of the Day.
Brexit supporters, like football fans, come in all shapes and sizes. But there is a symbiotic relationship between staples of the English tradition, such as football, and those who feel left behind in a world controlled by other people.
England invented the game, its league and first cup competitions are the oldest in the world and the competitive structure of the English game has been copied in practically every country. This is the sort of tradition Brexiteers see as threatened by foreigners, or non-white British, hence the objections to clubs buying success when their funds come from foreign sources.
Nevertheless, even the most ardent foreign-basher will still turn out to support their favourite club, whatever the composition of the team, management or ownership, because the club can absorb any individual into the tradition it represents. The same is also true in reverse: few saw Lineker as a traitor when he exchanged Everton for Barcelona, even though some would maintain that his views might then have been corrupted by exposure to nasty foreign ways.
It can therefore be said that football is part of the Brexiteer’s self-proclaimed identity, regardless of the range of views of English football supporters as a whole. In their view, the “real” supporter is the dispossessed Brexiteer, for whom the club and the game are more important than foreign innovations.
But this also means that Gary Lineker, the face of football, is someone they instinctively feel a bond with. Whatever his politics are, he is on their side by default. Events have now shown that football may not be more important than politics, but the love of football is.
Loudmouth in Sheep’s Clothing
Like any other individual in the UK, Gary Lineker has political views and the right to express them freely. He does this quite a lot on social media, and has developed a reputation as a left-leaning liberal, not an extremist but someone identified with the “trendy” positions Brexiteers blame for everything.
But Lineker holds these views as exactly that: a private individual. He has no connection with BBC political programming, and never talks about politics in his sports presenting work.
Indeed he can be said to be highly professional in this area. Whilst he was being sued by another player, Harry Kewell, for comments he had made in a newspaper article, Lineker discussed Kewell as he would any other player, which played a part in the case being settled without money changing hands. Nor is Lineker asked to contribute to anything other than sports programmes, precisely because his views are his own, he doesn’t represent any party, group or ideology.
BBC presenters operate under “impartiality guidelines”. They are not supposed to go mouthing off about politics in case their personal views are taken as those of the BBC itself. However those same guidelines specify that “The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.”
There are many Brexiteers who would disagree with Gary Lineker’s Twitter comment that the UK government’s new refugee policy is “immeasurably cruel” and “expressed in language not dissimilar to that used in Germany in the 1930s”. If a politician said that, they would be dismissed out of hand as someone out to destroy the good, decent football fans who are rapidly losing their remaining jobs and hope.
But this is Gary Lineker, their own Golden Boy, the face of what they say they are. Attack him, you attack the tradition you claim to be defending against views such as these.
Lineker isn’t a direct BBC employee, he is a freelancer, so how far the guidelines even apply to him is an open question unless he is commenting in an official, work-related capacity. But the BBC thought that Tweet was a step too far.
It was announced that Lineker had “agreed to step back” from presenting Match of the Day until agreement was reached over his social media usage. Lineker made it clear through other outlets that he had not agreed to anything of the kind, they had suspended him.
Cue petitions in his favour signed by hundreds of thousands of people. Cue all the other BBC sports presenters refusing to present programmes either, and football managers refusing to give interviews to the BBC unless they could complain about how Lineker was being treated for exercising his democratic rights.
Now the BBC has backed down, and announced a review of its guidelines, and Lineker will be returning to Match of the Day, at least for now. For the first time in recent history, it matters what sort of person someone is, not what his politics are, despite all the Brexiter attempts to make the opposite hold true forever.
The BBC has behaved exactly as the Brexiteers maintain the EU does, subverting their traditions and interests with petty regulations. So the large percentage of Brexiteers who have supported Lineker in this row can be said to have now started to believe that it isn’t Remainers who are their enemies, but the British institutions they claim to uphold, who are attacking their cherished values to a greater degree.
Penny for the Guy
Lineker wouldn’t be the first popular figure from outside politics to change the paradigm of public debate. In one particular case it only took one comment to demonstrate to the public that what they didn’t like was more important than the people they held responsible for it, and their own side was doing it, not the supposed enemy.
In the 1970s Astrid Lindgren, author of the globally popular Pippi Longstocking children’s books, complained that she was being taxed at over 100% of her earnings by the Swedish government. The Social Democrats had been in power for 40 years, but lost the subsequent election largely because of this.
Taxing “class enemies” for the common good was one thing, but bleeding dry one of the people’s own, whatever their politics might have been, was quite another. The government had become the enemy of the very people they claimed to be representing, using the very same repressive methods they accused the other side of using.
Nor would this development come as a surprise to those who lived under Communism, and saw all its egalitarian ideals create a self-perpetuating elite even more restrictive and out of touch than the one before, and behaving in the same way. Nor to the residents of countries where the military has taken over to restore order, then created more chaos than before, or where the US controls the national government to ensure democratic standards are met, but is the prime mover in preventing those ever existing.
In each of those other cases the new broom which swept the same old rubbish into people’s faces defended itself with the same old arguments. Intellectually, the arguments still held some water. But this did not obscure the fact that the things people didn’t like, the ones which had resulted in that group gaining power, were still there because the current rulers were forcing them on them, and the public hadn’t grown to like these abuses over the years.
The BBC is often accused by its critics of left-wing bias. More recently the extent of what former news presenter Emily Maitlis has described as “infiltration” by the Conservative Party has been revealed.
The public doesn’t like either side controlling its media companies. Gary Lineker has unwittingly brought this fact to a head, just when we thought the same old arguments would be enough to disguise what has always been going on.
No Way Back to Nowhere
Will this issue go away, now Lineker has been partially reinstated? Not on your life. What the incident has exposed is still there, and won’t go away unless someone else comes along, promising to rescue everyone from Brexit and its underlying ideology.
At present, no one is doing that. Politicians of all stripes are still running scared of Brexiteers because they are so loud and aggressive, not because they have a majority any more. No party which might win significant votes is saying “enough is enough”, rather than offering to pilot the sinking ship onto different rocks.
No one could call Gary Lineker loud and aggressive though. Here is the opportunity to replace that behaviour with decency even the most ardent Brexiteer can’t claim is unwelcome.
No one needs to argue about Brexit anymore, only about the corruption the EU was once accused of, but is now more visible in the ranks of the Brexit government and its patsies. The answer is not, in itself, reversing Brexit but in making a new “no victor, no vanquished” speech, attacking the abuses themselves, not whomever they are associated with.
Within that paradigm, the EU is a means of improving the living standards and influence of the UK, including for those most stridently opposed to immigrants taking their jobs and homes, or roaming around living on benefits, or both simultaneously. It won’t be the means of preventing the abuses of the present UK government, but if others are doing that, this will be irrelevant.
The UK has a way out because everyone wants to be Gary Lineker, and be seen supporting him, whatever they think of his politics. His country may not have known this itself a few weeks ago, but if it really wants to do what is in its best interests, which it will eventually conclude is its best option, putting values over enemies is the way to do it.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение UK Football Presenter Succeeds Where “Politicians Have Failed!” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The recently concluded summit consolidated Russia’s and China’s joint bid to challenge the US-dominated global system as well as concerted US efforts to undermine, using any means, emerging global powers. That the push to challenge this system is gaining momentum, evident from the support that both Russia and China continue to receive from the non-Western world, has left the West – especially, the US – paranoid about the future of the system they created after the Second World War. This growing paranoia is at the heart of an arrest warrant that the International Criminal Court issued last week against Putin. Ridiculous as this may sound, such actions only reveal the West’s inner anxieties about the failure of their combined efforts to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
On the contrary, even as reports in the mainstream US media show, assembling enough military strength from within NATO countries for Ukraine against Russia has become an extremely difficult task, as more and more NATO countries are becoming “worried” about their own ammunition stockpiles. In addition to this, as reports in the US media show, there are growing differences between Washington and Kyiv as well with regard to the conduct of the war. How will Russia be defeated in such a case? For many Western powers – especially, the US and its old allies (the UK) – this is nothing short of a nightmare.
This nightmare is exacerbated by the Russia-China alliance. China, as it stands, has more manufacturing capacity today than the US-Europe combined. And, it is strong enough a military power to confront any western power in the Pacific or beyond. What can the West do to break this alliance? There is virtually no way the West can do any damage to this alliance; hence, the growing paranoia.
In fact, the West’s combined failure to defeat Russia has given a bit more confidence to the Russia-China alliance to pursue its politics of creating a multipolar world. For decades, the combined West projected its supposed superiority over the non-West. China’s rapid emergence as a global power and Russia’s success against the combined strength of NATO has unambiguously proven this sense of superiority to be false. Xi, in an article he wrote for Russian media, minced no words to express the same fact:
“The international community has recognized that no country is superior to others, no model of governance is universal, and no single country should dictate the international order. The common interest of all humankind is in a world that is united and peaceful, rather than divided and volatile.”
Reinforcing the same, Putin said,
“Our countries, together with like-minded actors, have consistently advocated the shaping of a more just multipolar world order based on international law rather than certain ”rules“ serving the needs of the “golden billion.” Russia and China have consistently worked to create an equitable, open and inclusive regional and global security system that is not directed against third countries.”
For the West, this agreement is nothing short of a shock, as many western politicians and media political pundits are known to have argued for years regarding some underlying – and seemingly irreconcilable – differences between Russia and China. These differences, the argument goes, were supposed to be exacerbated by the military conflict in Ukraine. Clearly, yet another western prediction has proven to be utterly wrong and self-defeating.
Now that Russia and China are not only allies but have no-limits friendship too, the West stands petrified.
This alliance is not passive. It is active and dynamic and is working to reshape the world. While Russia is facing off the combined military strength of NATO in Ukraine, China recently found a big success in the Middle East where it was able to broker a peace deal between two arch-rivals: Saudi and Iran. This deal has allowed the Russia-China alliance to expand the strength of the alliance into other countries and regions, thus squeezing the space for the US and its allies.
China is seeking to play the same role between Russia and Ukraine. The recent peace proposal Beijing offered is promising. Although the West has so far ignored it, the political message that this peace proposal contains is very hard for many non-western powers to ignore. In fact, its opening lines reflect the very world that China and Russia are seeking to build. The message is not only powerful but also enticing. It says:
“The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.”
Why would countries that have traditionally been mistreated by the west reject this message and the principle of equality? Granted that absolute equality – especially in material terms – may not be possible even in the multipolar world that Russia and China are trying to build, it seems fair to emphasise that no international system can work when a few countries are able to bend rules to suit their own interests at the expense of other states. Indeed, the Iraq war would not have happened if the US had not decided to undermine the UN and act unilaterally on the basis of concocted evidence about Iraq’s possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. NATO’s intervention in Libya destroyed a stable system, a fact that the British Parliament’s foreign affairs committee admitted years after completely destroying the country. Who is responsible for this destruction? Will the ICC act against the proven culprits?
For the West – especially, the US – the Russia-China bid to create a new world order will create a space in which Western unilateralism would become extremely costly, especially if directed against their competitors. For them, the end of “their” world must be prevented at any cost. But the problem lies in their consistent failure in preventing this from happening and in the success of Russia and China in pushing ahead.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение Why’s the West Paranoid About the Putin-Xi Summit? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Now, it is abundantly clear that the United States’ dishonest and aggressive Middle East strategy, which is at odds with the aspirations of the Arab world, has utterly failed. The establishment of a multipolar world by Russia, China, and Iran was a significant milestone in this process. The convergence of these three nations and the global support for this new diplomatic triangle have been impossible for the United States and its allies to prevent.
Around the world, anti-Russian sentiment is being stoked to confront the White House’s growing Russophobia, Sinophobia, tightening of unlawful sanctions measures, and even outright terrorism: the illegal undermining of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea and the apparent planning of similar terrorist activities against the TurkStream in particular (the activation of flights of the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones in the Black Sea, one of which crashed on March 14, can confirm this).
The US intelligence agencies continue to seek to arm ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation) fighters, particularly at the US military base Al-Tanf in Syria, in order to exacerbate the chaos in the region. According to incoming information, the Islamists would soon get several dozen four-wheel drive pickup trucks equipped with heavy machine guns, BGM-71 ТOW and NLAW missile defense systems, 9K38 Igla, and other weapons.
While American hegemony, which Washington has been actively trying to impose on the world in recent years, is being eroded with each passing day, the concept of a multipolar world promoted by Russia and China is being further strengthened. Beijing’s efforts to mediate the dispute between Iran and Saudi Arabia were also a crucial stage in the process. This is supported even by American media, which saw the announcement of the restoration of diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran as a direct challenge to Washington’s quest for dominance in the Middle East and around the globe. The signing in Beijing on March 10 of a peace treaty between the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and his Saudi counterpart and the decision to open Embassies within two months show the intention and willingness of Middle Eastern states to solve pressing regional problems without American involvement, to seek ways out of existing conflict situations, the vast majority of which were created and fomented by the White House.
The situation in Iraq, which was invaded by the US and its allies without the consent of the UN Security Council 20 years ago, is a stark example of how Washington’s policies and authority have collapsed. The United States, which had promised to create a “free nation,” has reduced this nation to corruption and the ruins of what was once a powerful, affluent state, and has thrown it into an economic and political catastrophe. The US invasion, civil war and rampant terrorism killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. By international agreement, the United States and its allies’ attack was unleashed to enable the Anglo-Saxons’ unchecked looting of Iraq’s economy and oil fields. According to Orientalists, it was this policy that led to a surge of sectarian conflict, rampant terrorism and a series of civil wars throughout the Middle East. The US intervention, like with past armed aggressions by Washington in recent decades, has shown America’s dedication to militarily interfering in sovereign states and utterly eliminating their statehood, which is openly despised in the Middle East.
Washington made contempt for the interests of the countries in the region the defining feature of its policy in the rush to bolster its global hegemony following the fall of the Soviet Union. And this position was reinforced by the unrelenting US military presence in the region, the continuing attachment of Middle Eastern companies to Western markets, and the regional elites to the “democratic and financial values” of the United States. Following the election of US President Donald Trump, the White House began to focus primarily on the needs of Israel, so that the idea of the Abraham Accords, without resolving the Palestinian issue, began to be misrepresented in Washington as the ideal way to befriend Jews and Arabs on the grounds of instilling fear of Iran.
The White House therefore experienced Iran’s diplomatic successes in collaboration with Russia and China as well as the “treachery” of former American allies, the Saudis, with great agony. Furthermore, Washington’s realization of the decline in American influence in the region was a dreadful wakeup from its previous Middle East slumber.
The United States is currently unable to manage the Middle East crises and build a consensus among the region’s nations due to Washington’s deadlocked relations with the major Persian Gulf powers. This became particularly clear after Russia launched its special operation in Ukraine: except from Israel’s modest actions, not a single nation in the area has applied even the most rudimentary sanctions against Moscow. Concurrently with Trump’s 2015 decision to pull out of the nuclear deal with Iran, relations between Washington and Riyadh have deteriorated significantly in recent years, and against this backdrop the Saudi government has been forced to worry about both their own security and efforts to bring about peace in the region.
As a result of the US credibility being completely called into question by the White House’s tardy backing of the sheikhs’ activities in the adjacent Yemen, Riyadh is now looking for ways to resolve the conflict through direct communication with Tehran. And these contacts proved to be very effective, with Iran agreeing to stop clandestine arms shipments to the Houthi militia in Yemen as part of a historic agreement with Saudi Arabia to restore diplomatic relations. The region’s nations have a chance to move toward peace on their own, without relying on Washington. And since Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has invited Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi to visit Riyadh, these actions will undoubtedly be quite spectacular in the near future.
In light of these circumstances, there is growing discussion in the area about the necessity for the United States to end its aggressive actions in the Middle East and sail back home before a regional wave of protest in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and many other nations forces it to do so.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The Collapse of U.S. Policy in the Middle East появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There are numerous evaluations of the development of Mongolian attitudes towards significant global players by the international media.
According to a number of international experts, the Russian Federation’s foreign policy actions since 2014 have allegedly pushed the Mongolian public away from Russia, forcing them to look increasingly hopeful toward their “democratic partners”. They use statements made by journalists, historians, and public personalities in Mongolia that are overtly anti-Russian and pro-Western to support their argument, omitting the reality that some “notable” and “prominent” individuals have the power to shape public opinion but they do not reflect it. In light of this, it would seem prudent to examine a thirteen-year historical cross-section of Mongolian public opinion surveys to comprehend the actual situation of events.
What has changed in Mongolia’s view of Russia over the past few years, and how do these changes stack up against those of other political and economic powerhouses?
It appears appropriate to use data from the Political Barometer, a comprehensive social survey conducted by Sant Maral, a nonprofit non-governmental research organization that has been operating in Mongolia since 1994, for this analysis. It is difficult to accuse this organization of being pro-Russian: it is far more interested in domestic socioeconomic and political issues of Mongolian citizens than in their foreign policy orientations. Moreover, all of its advisers and consultants come from the United States and Germany. Consequently, their assessments of the perception of Russia and other countries by Mongolians are clearly not adjusted in favor of the Russian Federation.
Polls show that the number of pro-Russian Mongolian citizens has increased significantly, and events in Russia-West relations in 2014 and 2022 have not only not harmed Mongolians’ perception of Russia and Russians, but have increased Mongolians’ awareness of the critical role of Mongolian-Russian cooperation in this small country’s foreign policy. Despite massive anti-Russian propaganda conducted in Mongolia by Western “democratic” and “religious” NGOs, as well as some national democrats and nationalists, the image of Russia as Mongolia’s main foreign policy partner and Russians as the most convenient and profitable partners for Mongolians has only strengthened over the last 12 years. Over that period, citizens who consider Russia to be Mongolia’s best partner have increased by 13%, while the number of those who consider Russia to be one of them has grown by 10%.
In reality, the events of 2014 only strengthened the Russian Federation’s image in Mongolia, while the image of Western states was somewhat tarnished as a result of these events. Survey data from 2013 and 2014 support this view. Thus, following the events of the Maidan in Ukraine, the reunification of Crimea with Russia, and the first wave of anti-Russian sanctions in 2014, the number of Mongolians who listed Russia as one of the country’s best partners increased by 5%, from 72 to 77%. At the same time, the majority of Mongolia’s “democratic” partners saw this indicator fall by 2%: the US, from 26 to 24 percent; the EU, from 11 to 9 percent; and Japan, from 22 to 20 percent. The perception of the Russians as the most advantageous and practical partners for the Mongolians has also grown, from 43% to 47%, while it has declined significantly for other Western partners, with the exception of South Korea.
In 2022, the Mongolians didn’t develop a dislike for Russia either. Russia was identified as one of Mongolia’s finest partners by 4% more people that year, going from 80 to 84%, while Russians were listed as the best partners for Mongolian citizens by 5% more people, going from 59 to 64% over the course of the year. 2% more respondents (42% as opposed to 40%) identified the Russians as the best partners. It turns out that Russia has maintained and strengthened its absolute leadership in these two key parameters, even at such a difficult juncture as 2021-2022.
The pattern for Mongolia’s democratic partners in 2021–2022, however, is slightly different from that of the 2013–2014 data. Their statistics improved as well, and more quickly than Russia’s. In particular, the number of Mongolians who consider European Union countries to be Mongolia’s best partners has doubled. Comparable increases were also seen in relation to the United States, Kazakhstan, and Japan, though not to the same extent. Additionally, a growing number of Mongolians now view Western partners as useful and profitable. For example, the formerly tiny figure for EU citizens was multiplied by a factor of four during the year. Only the United States did not see an increase in this indicator among the other “third neighbors”.
There is no doubt that the situation in 2022 is less clear-cut than it was in 2014 due to the size of the events taking place on the global stage, the presence of different states in civil society, the countless ways in which these events can be interpreted, as well as the significantly increased pressure from Western nations on Russia. Yet, there are still a great deal more pro-Russian Mongolians, and their numbers are increasing, albeit more slowly. And indeed, it cannot be denied that the number of “pro-Western” Mongolians has started to grow more quickly than it did ten years ago, albeit still being significantly less than the number of pro-Russian local citizens.
But, this emergence of “Western powers” is not without its own inequalities. Several states are, in fact, progressing in the minds of Mongolians at various rates. This causes former important partners to leave their ranks and results in former minor players rising to the top positions.
Notably, during the past 12 years, we have observed a gradual but very clear fall in Mongolians’ interest in the United States. The percentage of Mongolians who believe that the United States is their best or one of their finest partners has practically halved between 2010 and 2022, falling from 30 and 9 percent on both measures in 2010 to 18 and 5 percent in 2022. The perception of Americans as convenient and helpful partners for Mongolian nationals has declined to a similar extent.
This is most likely a result of unmet high ambitions for bilateral collaboration, which have been extremely popular since the early 1990s. Mongolia started looking for such foreign policy allies after giving up the socialist development path who might assist it “ideologically” and “materially” on the new democratic path of development. The United States of America, which had the largest economy in the world and was at the time almost the sole global superpower, was considered the key partner. Even the Mongolian expression for a democratic partner that does not share a border with it, “third neighbor” was originally used to refer to the United States.
The United States, however, really made a much less contribution to the economic and social growth of Mongolia, and it swiftly lost its position as the primary “democratic benefactor” and “liberal market partner” to nations such as Japan and the Republic of Korea. In contrast to the United States, these countries’ figures have significantly increased. From 8 to 25 percent, the proportion of respondents who think South Koreans make the ideal partners for Mongolian citizens has more than tripled in the past 12 years.
Additional studies done among younger Mongolians reveal an even bigger rise in the two nations’ impact in the public, particularly the Republic of Korea. The export of the “Korean wave” to Mongolia and Japanese humanitarian activities both had positive results in this situation. By the way, the strategy of humanitarian partnerships hasn’t been as successful as the export of national mass culture. For instance, very few Mongolians are aware of Japanese humanitarian efforts in their country, whereas almost all of them are familiar with Korean films, TV shows, cuisine, and pop music (which they listened or continue regularly listening to).
The historical “2010-2022” cross-section thus reveals the preservation and strengthening of Russia as a key partner of Mongolia in the minds of the average Mongolian citizen, as well as the serious disappointment of Mongolians in the United States, accompanied by the gradual emergence of South Korea and Japan as Mongolia’s main partners among the “democratic states.”
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение 2014 and 2022 – Discrediting Russia’s image in Mongolia? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On March 19-20 in Moscow, the Russian State Duma has initiated the Second International Parliamentary Conference “Russia – Africa in a Multipolar World,” in anticipation of the Second Economic Forum “Russia – Africa,” which will start on July 26 in St. Petersburg.
Participants in this meeting included representatives of more than 40 African nations, members of the Russian and African scientific, educational, and expert communities, and representatives of the government and private sector. They discussed the potential for collaboration across a range of sectors, their contribution to the African continent’s economy and security, and their work in the realms of science and education, politics, and techno-military area. The event also featured bilateral talks between Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin, and State delegations of the African continent.
During the conference, the African continent was invited to work together to form a new multipolar world order. This is especially important given the significant human resources of Africa, which is home to more than 1.5 billion people and has enormous mineral reserves in its soil. What’s more, while African countries still account for barely 3% of global GDP, the region’s governments have every opportunity to show the outperforming growth rates of their national economies and wealth.
Yet this is only conceivable if they move away from the historical Western hegemony over the region, in which the USA, France, and Britain continue their neocolonial policies by owning African mineral and other deposits and taking 90% of the raw materials while leaving the local population with only 10%.
Many African countries still have foreign contingents that, although ostensibly battling terrorism, are actually protecting the interests of former metropolises and Western capital. And local officials have long been unable to remove them from their jurisdiction. But this situation can be changed, as Mali, Burkina Faso, and the Central African Republic have demonstrated, and which several other African nations are currently working to achieve. Such states have successfully shifted their foreign policies and foreign relations away from the former Western metropolises, which have already demonstrated aggressive intentions in this region, towards Russia, China, and the BRICS group, which seek to form a fair and independent multipolar world.
As stated by Oleg Ozerov, Ambassador at Large of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the eve of the start of the international parliamentary conference, this conflict for Africa is taking place in the face of increased efforts by the United States, Canada, and the European Union to pressure African countries to sever relations with Moscow. The Russian envoy claimed that people from Washington “actually besiege” the governments, parliaments, and leaders of Africa virtually daily. For example, Oleg Ozerov recalled how US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen spoke about sanctions on Russia while touring African countries, and moved to explicit dictates and threats, and demanded that cooperation between African states and Russia be limited, which is unacceptable in the modern world.
Russia benefits from the growth and expansion of its relations with Africa since, in addition to China, India, and other friendly Eurasian nations, it gains access to a market of 5 billion people, even without the participation of Western nations. This expands joint export and trade opportunities tenfold. Relations between Russia and the nations of Africa have always been based on an equal, altruistic foundation, in contrast to Western nations, who still maintain a colonial strategy in their approach to the continent.
Furthermore, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the writing off of more than $20 billion in debts owed by African countries during the International Parliamentary Conference. However, it should be recalled that Moscow began to write off African states’ debts even earlier, during the era of intensive collaboration between the Soviet Union and African countries. In the last two decades, this process has been especially vigorous. Thus, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, $140 billion of debts have been written off since 2000. Nothing of the kind is happening on the part of Western countries and, especially, former metropolises, but on the contrary, their policy of ruthless enrichment at the expense of the appropriation of natural wealth and welfare of African countries is intensifying.
These facts objectively explain why Russia and African countries have maintained their usually high level of engagement in a variety of disciplines. Cooperation in the realm of education is a particularly clear illustration of this. Now, in Russia, there are more than 27 thousand African students, a fifth of whom study at the expense of the federal budget, and this annual quota of admission to public places will more than double as President Vladimir Putin emphasized in his speech.
Recognizing the importance of providing grain and agricultural products to the poorest African states in order to prevent hunger on the continent, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated during his speech at the Parliamentary Conference that if the grain deal is not extended, Russia is ready to supply the entire volume that was sent in the previous period free of charge to particularly needy African countries.
Russia has recently been actively engaging with African countries to combat terrorism and militant activities of all orientations, as mentioned during the conference. This is reinforced, in particular, by official information and public comments in Mali, Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, and a number of other countries where France and the EU have promised to construct a peaceful life in recent years but have done very little. Moreover, attempts by the West’s so-called “peacekeeping contingent” to enrich themselves through criminal ties with local militants, instead of fulfilling their direct duties, continue unabated. The Democratic Republic of the Congo media, in particular, wrote about this, pointing to the illegal transfer of weapons by such “peacekeepers” to militants. The Central African Republic news agency further stated that it has acquired evidence of radicals being aided by the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSCA). It has also been reported that the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) may act as a middleman in the delivery of munitions from Bulgaria to Ukraine, making it not a peacekeeping contingent but an outright initiator of armed conflict. Given these facts, it is not surprising that at the demand of the African populace the French forces were compelled to depart from a number of countries where they had previously been stationed for many years.
The African countries and Russia’s initiatives in the international arena have already given the Second International Parliamentary Conference “Russia – Africa in a Multipolar World” a substantial number of favorable reviews. For instance, Cipriano Cassamá, President of the National People’s Assembly of the Guinea-Bissau, praised Russia, calling it “a great nation and a powerful country,” and expressed his admiration over the fact that Moscow continues to support other nations despite increased Russophobic insinuations from the West. He emphasized that the people of this nation will continue to stand in solidarity with Moscow, particularly as they work together to create a multipolar world.
According to Jacob Mudenda, Speaker of the National Assembly of Zimbabwe, the decolonization of the majority of African nations marked the beginning of the new world order, and he also recalled that Russia had actually provided moral and military support for the decolonized African nations. Therefore, in his opinion, Russia and Africa must act as a “counterweight” in the multipolar world that is developing since stability cannot be preserved under the rule of a hegemon, a position that the United States is vehemently and fruitlessly claiming.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Russia and Africa Building a New Multipolar World Together появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
My country is failing, falling into the same dismal slough all dying empires are swallowed by. The Senators and Caesars of America have one last hope of holding onto their gain. If they can sew hatred and bitterness between brothers on the Russian steppe, the old western world order can buy time. They can hang on a little longer to their unimaginable wealth and power. Perhaps.
I have a friend in Russia whose wife begged him to take his family away from the border of conflict. Her reasoning was sound: save her small children in case the NATO threat flooded Russia’s western borders. Her husband, one of my closest Russian friends did what he had to, but not for reasons the New York Times or the mighty White House press department would seek advantage from.
This stout and capable friend, I’ll call him Vasily here, after the hero Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev, the famous sniper of WW2, is Russian through and through. Brave, capable, and honest as the day is long, he lives half in and half out of the forests and the traditions that fortify Russia. What I mean to say is, combat would never be a reason for him to flee. Save two purposes, that is. If your brothers and cousins live over the border in Ukraine, or Latvia or another corner of crisis, the probability of killing some of them is too much to ask. Russians and Ukrainians have no real hatred for one another. The hate that caused this conflict was manufactured through extremist groups like the Bandera/Nazis, and NGOs run by our CIA and people like George Soros.
But this is what America’s President Joe Biden, and the ghastly mafia that has gripped my country want. It’s the reason Ukraine is not already a smoldering pile of ashes. Russia’s Putin has informed the world of this many times, but his voice is muffled by censors in the west.
“Enmity and its synonyms “hostility,” animosity, and animus all indicate deep-seated dislike or ill will. Enmity (which derives from an Anglo-French word meaning “enemy”) suggests true hatred, either overt or concealed.” – Webster’s Dictionary
In Russia, especially on the borders of this conflict, there are hundreds of thousands, like Vasily, torn between the love of country, and other devotions even more sacred. Several hundred thousand reservists have already donned their plate armored vests and AK-47s to push NATO and Nazis out of neighboring Ukraine. Within their ranks, I also have friends torn just like Vasily is torn. So, darkly and horrifically, the deep state who envisioned Ukraine’s Euromaidan has won a war for hearts and minds in Ukraine. Those scoundrels who faked a Minsk peace deal, and who turned eastern Ukraine into a kind of Maginot Line (WW2 fortifications), are only evil, not stupid. They know how to create perpetual chaos better than any cabal or tribe on earth.
“Hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy.” – Liu Xiaobo
Unfortunately for the American empire, they built, greed and arrogance blended with mediocrity is their undoing. The elite order has thrown everything they have at Vladimir Putin and Russia, but Russia is stronger now than ever by comparison. News that banks are starting to fail in the U.S. has not been missed by the people of my country. Neither have the train or other infrastructure catastrophes. The U.S.A. is falling apart from rust and decay, and our leaders funnel trillions into the lords of Blackrock and other money-plundering pirates.
And the hundreds of billions Biden and Co. are giving to the most corrupt regime on the planet are not appreciated by three hundred million men, women, and children who don’t want war. In Europe, widespread protests are already popping up. A few have taken place in the U.S., for the idiocy of it all is so powerful, the nightly news cannot keep a lid on it. No, dear George Soros, the enmity you and your henchmen drove between liberal and conservative Americans won’t hold long now. When we’re all digging in the dirt for a turnip root to feed our kids, your billions and even your existence will be forfeit.
“Oh, sure, we have another world war coming, and another great depression, but where are the leaders this time?” Kurt Vonnegut
The European Union will soon disintegrate, as it should have decades ago. When your Zelensky demands Greek, Romanian, and Croatian soldiers to fill his destroyed ranks, Germany will be leading nothing. Brussels will go back to being just a town, only a much poorer place to live than before NATO promised protection for all. The Russians will not even have to invade after a while now.
Once the monetary bubble bursts, poverty, and loss will rip the treaty alliances in the west to bits. The enemies the brains on Think Tank Row in Washington picked this time are too many and too powerful. This big stall by Biden’s handlers, will not work. Slav against Slav, everybody in the world knows who did this. But the real fall is coming not because our leaders are found out, but because empires built by conquest, always fail.
Enmity sewn by my country in the past has transmuted. Now, in the face of an unrelenting, godless, and unquenchable hegemony, China, Russia, India, the expanding BRICS nations, and much of the rest of the world have reason to embrace one another. The hatred America planted all over the earth, will now haunt my poor countrymen. It’s not what I would have ever wished for, but the “Whore of Babylon” will surely suffer as it said in the Bible. God help us at harvest time.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Operation Enmity: A Holding Action появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Fumio Kishida, the current Prime Minister of Japan, was at the heart of a number of significant events that occurred over the course of a very brief (one-week) period in March of this year and had a significant impact on the Indo-Pacific region as a whole. Furthermore, the sheer fact that these events are happening makes it increasingly obvious that Japan’s influence at the Great Global Game table is expanding.
The first event in the preceding chronology occurred on March 15-16. South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol paid a two-day visit to Tokyo, which was significant in itself, and met with Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. At the final news conference, the participants verbally conveyed the major outcomes of the discussions. Given that there have been no summits between Japan and South Korea since 2011, and that the relationship between the two countries has been, to put it mildly, very tense over the past two to three decades, the main success of this event should be seen in the fact that it even took place.
Among the various issues that have prevented these relations from becoming more or less trustworthy are recent legal claims by Seoul against Tokyo regarding the forced recruitment of Koreans for labor by some Japanese companies during World War II. It should be noted that, based on the public rallies held on the streets of Seoul during the president’s visit to Japan, the president’s intention to resolve this problem through some kind of compromise is not met with undivided enthusiasm among his countrymen.
Naturally, the mere fact that these talks took place was met with complete acceptance in Washington, where plans to form a trilateral alliance have long been nurtured, despite the turmoil between Tokyo and Seoul. However, the press conference also mentioned the importance of restarting the stalled trilateral talks with the participation of Beijing. That is, Japan and South Korea are by no means closing the window of opportunity for developing relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as well.
The day after this event, Fumio Kishida held another, no less significant one related to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to Japan on March 18. Let us reiterate what was previously noted in the NEO in the context of last November’s bilateral meeting in the 2+2 format (that is, with the participation of foreign and defense ministers): namely, the United Kingdom remains the leader among Japan’s partners, despite the growing importance of the European vector in Tokyo’s foreign policy.
This is especially true in the defense sector, as evidenced by the March 17 meeting of the defense ministers of Japan, Britain and Italy in Tokyo (on the eve of the Fumio Kishida – Olaf Scholz summit). One of the primary topics of discussion at this occasion was the implementation of the Japanese-British effort to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet. Now, Italy will be one of its co-executors.
The sides formed Inter-Governmental Consultations (IGC) with a primary focus on economic security in a Joint Statement signed at the conclusion of the 1st Japan-Germany Inter-Governmental Consultations. Note, however, that during the activities that followed the German Chancellor’s visit to Japan, significant emphasis was paid to the security sector even in the “usual” interpretation.
Overall, the outcomes of the recent Japanese-German summit show the growth of the key World War II losers’ process of “moving by touch” towards one another.
Two days later, the Japanese Prime Minister traveled to India for three days where he met with Narendra Modi. Since we are discussing the potential for the establishment of relationships between two of the many major players in the developing regional game, this event, out of all those previously discussed, has garnered the greatest interest. Despite the fact that the numbers describing the current level of bilateral economic cooperation appear to be fairly low in comparison to what each member has accomplished, for instance, with China and the United States.
We highlight two of the tangible outcomes of Fumio Kishida’s journey. Initially, it was declared that a program to extend Japan’s economic presence in the Indo Pacific Region and in general in countries now popularly referred to as the “Global South” would be launched. Second, as the organizer of all G7 events this year, Narendra Modi was invited as a guest to the next summit in the given configuration, which is slated for May and will be held in Hiroshima.
The fact that this invitation has been extended fits well into the strategy of the United States, as the head of the “generalized West,” to include India in the camp (which is still fairly ambiguous), which seeks confrontation with the PRC and the Russian Federation. Japan, on the other hand, is clearly designated as a regional representative in this camp.
Clearly, China keeps an eye on all significant Tokyo maneuvers in the Indo-Pacific region. Among those mentioned above, the last one was especially keenly observed, since it was used by the Chinese Global Times to signal the possibility of opposing blocs forming in the region. This is in stark contrast to the current PRC leadership’s perspective of the world, which holds that all nations must cooperate to create a “Community of Common Destiny.”
Consider the following remarkable occurrence that took place at the leaders Olaf Scholz and Fumio Kishida’s final press conference. We are discussing the subtle differences in how each of them responded when asked about their views on the controversial ruling by the International Criminal Court that designated President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, as a defendant (for whatever reason). In response to the question, Fumio Kishida said that he would hope to “monitor with strong interest” how the investigation developed. Which is true, given that a politician of his stature needs to be aware of everything somewhat “interesting” that occurs at the global gaming table. Yet that is obviously not what German Chancellor Olaf Scholz permitted himself to do. Rather vaguely but he endorsed his justice minister’s vow to detain the Russian president if he appeared on German soil.
In connection with the approaches to some of the “values” that his G7 colleagues are vigorously promoting, the author has already had reason to suspect the current Japanese Prime Minister of being a “dissenter“. And new facts only strengthen these suspicions. For example, the same-sex marriage bill is still being lengthily discussed. All questions should have been answered, though, now that the US ambassador to Tokyo has himself! hinted very openly on how the problem should be resolved.
For a long time, Fumio Kishida also avoided answering directly another question with which he was constantly pestered by reporters. Specifically, when will he travel to Kiev, which the unnamed director of the current world drama has selected as a location of devotion, which every member of the free-democratic-civilized world should visit and bring with him the necessary offerings. Greta Thunberg previously held a position identical to this one. It is possible that in addition to Japan’s obvious interest in preserving the window of opportunity for developing relations with Russia in recent decades, Fumio Kishida was also guided by some (unavailable to “others”) information about the state and prospects of the conflict in Ukraine itself.
An apparently strange claim that certain “pro-Ukrainian troops” were responsible for the bombing of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea—truly the Crime of the Century—attracted attention in this regard. But the most important thing is apparently the message to the Kiev clowns, who are now being urged to be ready to take responsibility for everything. For example, for the Turkish earthquake. They probably rode too high on the Maidan, upsetting the tectonic plates, which started moving under one another and, ten years later, collided in a country that genuinely provided Bayraktars to Ukraine, causing an earthquake. And it took place right before the Ukraine project needed to be finished.
But, this final display of “dissent” was obviously short-lived. After all, two months later, Fumio Kishida will have to host his G7 colleagues. So he didn’t have to fly home from New Delhi, but had to make a long detour with a short stopover in Kiev. Yet, the “offerings” being brought do not appear to have contained any overtly ritual anti-Russian elements.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Japan’s Prime Minister at the Center of Recent Regional Developments появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
One of the most significant festivals in the Republic of Korea is March 1, which honors the widespread protests against Japanese colonial rule. Under President Moon Jae-in the holiday became a memorial to martyrs, a reminder of unresolved grievances, historical disputes, and the need for the Japanese to weep, repent, and pay.
In his speech on the March First Independent Movement celebration on March 1, 2023, Conservative President Yoon Suk-yeol told a different story. Yoon claimed that “the March First Independence Movement in 1919 was a movement to build a free, democratic nation where the people are the rightful owners,” where the people showed to the whole world how much they yearned for change. He also recalled “those patriotic martyrs who gave their all for our country’s freedom and independence during the dark days when no one could ever imagine independence coming in their lifetime.”
However, the current analogies have proceeded in the opposite direction. “Today, 104 years later, we must look back to that time when we lost our national sovereignty; the time when our people suffered because we failed to properly prepare for a changing world… If we fail to read the changing trends of world history and do not properly prepare for the future, it is evident that the misfortunes of the past will be repeated.”
The Democrats’ rhetoric that “the awful Japanese invaded and took over Korea with the help of a bunch of pro-Japanese collaborators, while the entire country and people bravely resisted,” is at variance with Yoon’s account of the loss of independence. Yoon openly asserts that Korea’s loss of independence was also its own responsibility since it was unprepared for the modern world. Yoon’s interpretation, unfortunately, is much more accurate, according to the author: the ruling regime did little to modernize the country and its capacity to resist aggressors in the years preceding the protectorate and annexation, and when its fate became clear, it did not attempt to organize popular resistance, relying instead on Japan to be driven by the Western powers. The author may discuss this awful incident in a different text.
And then Yoon said bluntly, “Now, a century after the March First Independence Movement, Japan has transformed from a militaristic aggressor of the past into a partner that shares the same universal values with us.” Seoul and Tokyo cooperate on issues of security and economy, and “the trilateral cooperation among the Republic of Korea, the United States and Japan has become more important than ever to overcome the security crises including North Korea’s growing nuclear threats and global polycrisis.”
Furthermore, the current spirit of solidarity and collaboration with nations that share universal values—specifically, “universal” American values—is “the same spirit that called for our nation’s freedom and independence 104 years ago.” And hence, the right way to honor the patriotic martyrs is “our ceaseless efforts to defend and expand our freedom as well as our enduring belief in universal values.”
Yoon Suk-yeol closed his brief address with the line “whether glorious or shameful, our history must not be forgotten,” and offered to contemplate on what must be done for the future prosperity and to get ready for the decades to come.
In fact, the president said that they should stop to speak out against Japan and relations should get back to normal. Unlike his predecessor, Yoon did not mention Japan’s misdeeds during its colonial occupation or the unresolved problems between the two countries. No mention of restitution for past atrocities, or that there is the remilitarization process of the Land of the Rising Sun, or any exhortations for Tokyo to profusely “think on its past” and express regret for it immensely were made. Yoon didn’t say anything that could be understood as calling for Japan to apologize for its previous conduct, according to the Korea Times. This contests sharply with Moon Jae-in’s speech he gave in 2018 calling on Japan to issue an apology as a “perpetrator” of “crimes against humanity.”
The democratic opposition was devastated by such a speech on such a holiday. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung accused the Yoon Suk Yeol government that it “is oblivious of the March 1 Independence Movement spirit and is damaging the spirit of the March 1 Independence Movement,” claiming that trust-building with Japan is impossible unless the neighboring country takes responsibility and offers legal compensation for its 1910-1945 colonial rule of Korea. “No one would oppose building future-oriented Korea-Japan relations. Without historical responsibility and legitimate legal compensation, however, it is impossible to build trust”. DP floor leader Park Hong-keun stated that “the president’s speech denied the spirit of the national foundation and the noble spirit of resistance stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on the day all of its people had resisted against Japan’s colonial rule,” and called on Yoon to apologize to the people for making such a speech, claiming it shows the president believes in Tokyo’s justification that its colonization led to Seoul’s development. Park Jie-won, an adviser to the DP and a former chief of the National Intelligence Service, said that it was like a Japanese prime minister giving a March 1 Independence Movement day speech. While the minor opposition Justice Party leader Lee Jeong-mi also said a country’s ruler’s wrong concept of history can wreck the diplomatic strategy, noting Seoul-Tokyo relations should be based on “Japan’s thorough introspection and self-reflection.” In a general statement on the Independence Movement, the party stated that the Yoon government maintains a submissive stance to Japan under the guise of improving bilateral ties, “which is a disgrace to our ancestors who fought for independence with their bare hands.”
The center-right Korea Times also criticized the president. For this futuristic leader, the past does not matter; only the present and future are essential. But how can Koreans remember patriotic martyrs without recalling their contributions on the very day to commemorate them? Hence, the speech “was unbalanced at best and totally out of place at worst.” The idea of loss of sovereignty was just “parroting the colonial views of history injected by occupiers, and “we will never understand why collaboration with Japan conforms to the spirit of our ancestors who fought against Japan.” The author of the article believes that “seeking cooperation with an unrepentant neighbor while ignoring the victims’ rightful demands and swallowing our national pride cannot succeed or last long” just as it is a sign of weakness. “Korea is no longer the weak, helpless country of a century ago, but a global top 10 economy and top 6 military power. It can – and should – act more squarely, especially in dealing with its former colonizer.”
The fact that Yoon was “kicked” for his excessive reliance on the US is particularly intriguing: “Still, in this increasingly multipolar world, few countries put all their eggs in one basket. Korea failed a century ago by changing sides frequently without maintaining a balance among competing powers and using their rivalry for its interest. The lesson holds today.”
In turn, US State Department Press Secretary Ned Price supported Yoon by saying, “Let me say generally that bilateral cooperation between the United States and our treaty allies is important, but so too is trilateral cooperation. And we do applaud both the Republic of Korea (ROK) President Yoon and Japanese Prime Minister (Fumio) Kishida for their efforts to improve bilateral relations in recent months.” The State Department spokesperson also emphasized that they believed that US-ROK-Japan trilateral cooperation was critical to addressing the challenges that the three countries collectively were confronting in the 21st century.
Some people view the US is behind Yoon’s move as it believes that the Washington-Tokyo-Seoul bloc should be more of a triangle rather than an L-format. While Washington has expressed support for such a course, the author believes Yoon’s desire to normalize relations with Japan stems more from Yoon himself, who is more concerned with constructing a future in which Seoul and Tokyo are allies than he is with historical disputes.
Yoon’s actions are taking place against the backdrop of several significant trends:
- The logic of a divisive world leads to the emerging of a new bloc system. And the idea that supporters of ‘universal values’ should band together isn’t just a figure of speech for Yoon; it’s part of his worldview.
- Several ugly scandals have undermined anti-Japanism in the last two years of Moon Jae-in’s rule. Despite the fact that Yoon Mee-hyang, the main person involved in the case of fighters for the rights of comfort women, received a suspended sentence for embezzlement and even returned to activism, there are many unpleasant moments.
- The rise of anti-Chinese sentiment in the Republic of Korea has substantially supplanted anti-Japanese sentiment, and it is coming not only from the “top” but also from the “bottom.”
- It is unclear to what extent the two countries’ trade war or the cooling of security cooperation has harmed Japan more than the Republic of Korea.
As a result, both before and after the First March Day speech, the Yoon Suk-yeol administration took several significant steps, each of which deserves its own text.
First, Yoon finally visited Japan and held a full-fledged summit with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, rather than a “short-term meeting on the margins of a more important summit.” Seoul had been planning this visit for a long time, and for the time being, let us note this fact while saving the outcome for a later analysis.
Second, the trade war that began in 2019 under Moon Jae-in has actually been terminated. The parties are re-establishing economic cooperation and abandoning mutual claims.
Thirdly, long-running negotiations to compensate those who were forced into mobilization, gained momentum and appeared to have reached a conclusion under Yoon. The issue of “comfort women” has nearly been forgotten in the media due to the conflict over compensation for those who were forcibly mobilized during the colonial era. This is because the elderly former comfort women are slowly passing away, and there are only a dozen of them left with an average age of over 90 years.
Additionally, the forced mobilization of Koreans owned later by Japanese zaibatsu did occur. Democratic activists were able to secure a number of successful lawsuits allowing the seizure of assets of companies believed to be the heirs to Japanese prewar business conglomerations, even though the severity of the discrimination varied from case to case. The Supreme Court of Korea ordered Japanese companies to pay compensation to 15 Korean victims in separate rulings in 2018, but no payment has yet been made, resulting in a five-year freeze in bilateral relations.
Japan upholds its position that the 1965 Korea-Japan Treaty, which normalized relations between the two countries, settled all claims for damages arising from Japan’s colonial rule on the Korean Peninsula from 1910 to 1945. The money was paid in full at the time, and the fact that the Korean side invested it in an economic miracle rather than distributing it to relatives as compensation is the Korean side’s problem, not the Japanese.
In this regard, the choice made under Yoon, which is presented as a remedy in this situation, can be perceived as a concession to Tokyo. A foundation that will receive contributions from Korean and Japanese businesses will be used to provide compensation. 56% of people oppose this alternative, which is harshly criticized by the opposition, but it is at least a significant interim step and a project that can be discussed. Especially now that the initial donations have arrived.
In any case, by making such a speech on March 1, Yoon Suk-yeol took a sharp turn towards Japan, and against the backdrop of other domestic political issues, such a dramatic demonstrative turn was a very risky move. And we’ll see how well the president handles the tight turn without dropping anything or losing control.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Yoon Suk-yeol Turns to Japan появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
This was inevitable. When the US started to strategically withdraw from the Middle East and shifted its focus towards Southeast Asia and (Eastern) Europe to contain its two rivals (China and Russia), the Middle East was left without a traditional balancer. Without making an orientalist argument and arguing that the Middle East always needed an external ‘balancer’ for its survival, the fact remains that the US exit from the region created a vacuum that forced the relevant states to search for ways to re-balance and seek alternative ways of geopolitical configurations, i.e., alignments and realignments. China became a natural choice for many of these states. First, China was already slowly spreading its economic footprint in the Middle East. Its economic might become an additional reason for the Middle Eastern states – including Iran and Saudi Arabia – to ally with Beijing to reinforce their own development and modernization goals. Secondly, China is perhaps one of the few countries in the world today that has the capacity to talk to all parties, or the principal contenders, in the Middle East (e.g., Iran, Saudi, Israel) and facilitate a durable peace.
The US, on the other hand, does not have this capacity. While it does have deep ties with Israel, Washington’s ties with Saudi have deteriorated ever since Joe Biden became the US President. Therefore, Washington’s ability to shape emerging geopolitics in the Middle East – especially, in the wake of the China-brokered Iran-Saudi deal – is hardly relevant today. Therefore, it wouldn’t be wrong to contend that ‘peace-making’ in the Middle East is no longer a US business, a business that the US skillfully conducted for decades to create divisions and exploit these countries’ resources (e.g., Middle Eastern countries paying for the US forces deployed on their lands to protect them from the same ‘enemies’ the US itself would create) to its material advantage.
Whereas Saudi Arabia is a classic example of Biden’s folly of alienating an ally, Iran’s resistance against the US sanctions is a classic failure of the US deep state’s firm belief in the ability of their self-presumed most feared weapon, i.e., economic and financial sanctions. The end result of these ill-advised policies is the Iran-Saudi détente. This détente is deep.
According to the details of the deal, the Saudis will substantially tone down their criticism of Iran, including via Iran International, a Farsi language news channel reportedly funded by the Saudis targeting Iran. According to Iranian officials, this channel has been playing a role in instigating protests in Iran for some time now. Tehran, on the other hand, agreed to scale down its support for Houthis in Yemen, making sure that cross-border attacks from Yemen on Saudi don’t take place.
What this deal, in effect, means is that the Chinese were able to convince Iranians to potentially end the war that the Saudis, even when they received direct and indirect military support – and weapon sales worth billions of US dollars – from the US and other NATO allies, failed to win for themselves in the past 6 years. That’s quite an impressive development, which could facilitate Saudi-Iran normalization across a range of issues, including the question of Iran’s potential move towards nuclear weapons.
With the US out of the equation, i.e., not unnecessarily penalizing Iran and forcing the latter to retaliate by expanding its nuclear capability – which the US said will be used to target Saudi Arabia and Israel – Iran will not necessarily be seeking to push aggressively for atomic weapons, not least against Saudi.
But China is not acting out of goodwill only. China’s expansion in the Middle East is part of its counter-containment strategy. Ever since Obama’s ‘Asia Pivot’ and the politics of containment, the Chinese have really been investing in ways to create alternative possibilities. Beijing’s response was its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Today, Beijing’s deep presence in the Middle East – including Saudi and Iran – is a direct result of the counter-containment idea of BRI.
It has vital economic links with both states, and Beijing realizes the necessity of undoing the US-create divisions within the Middle East to materialize its material objectives i.e., trade from and to China and Europe intersecting all the countries located in between.
Therefore, unlike how some western geopolitical pundits have argued, the Iran-Saudi deal is not simply an outcome of the “isolation” that Iran has been facing. If this was true, what will explain Saudi Arabia’s decision to be a part of this deal? If Iran was really “isolated”, this was not simply the result of Saudi policies, but an outcome of a concerted application of a strategy of (economic) application by the US and its allies. But Iran was not “isolated” as western policy makers tend to believe. Yes, it was under immense economic pressure, but it was still able to maintain vital links with the world’s major powers (Russia and China) and regional states, including the UAE, which happened in almost a year ago.
Therefore, instead of Iran being an “isolated” state begging to be ‘un-isolated’, what is happening in the Middle East must necessarily be understood in terms of a major geopolitical realignment underpinned by a deep convergence of interests amongst a range of regional states and a global power striving to build a new, alternative world order. This is also evident from an emerging agreement between Riyadh and Beijing as well to conduct business in local currencies rather than USD.
Indeed, the Middle East is turning into a place that might just give birth to an alternative world order, shattering, even according to CNN, the [unfounded] assumption of the US supremacy in the Middle East.
While CNN’s analysis is limited to the Middle East only, China’s success in brokering a deal between two hard-core rivals could have ramifications much beyond the Middle East. It could use its deep presence in Africa to transform the landscape of conflict in that continent as well; it could expand BRICS and SCO by including both Iran and Saudi; and it could start a major diplomatic effort in Southeast Asia to resolve any points of contention in South and East China Seas. To all of these, China, via its successful brokerage of the Saudi-Iran deal, has demonstrated its importance as a state willing to resolve thorny issues via diplomacy.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение China is Making the ‘New’ Middle East появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
When Michel Aoun left office as president of Lebanon last October, many politicians assumed that finding a successor would be relatively easy, not least because none of the main political parties were interested in blocking the election of a new president. Four months later, however, no compromise solution has been found, and many wonder when and if an agreement will be reached anytime soon.
The contours of a broader agreement have already been outlined, but at this point any agreements seem to have reached a dead end. They presuppose a consensus between regional and international powers and local politicians. It is becoming increasingly clear that, given Lebanon’s severe economic crisis and Hezbollah’s regional role, the new president will have to meet a number of conditions. He must be acceptable to regional states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and must enjoy the trust of the United States and France.
Iran and Hezbollah, for their part, are looking for a president who will not threaten that party’s status in Lebanon, and at the same time, any new head of state must be able to show regional and international players that he will live up to their expectations. For Saudi Arabia and the Western states, this means a president who will maintain good relations with Lebanon’s Arab partners, as well as carry out much-delayed economic reform.
Some time ago, five countries – the US, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt – met in Paris to outline the profile of the candidate they were looking for. Again, they stressed the need for a “consensus president” who would carry out reforms without ties to the country’s corrupt patronage networks and oligarchs. However, what does the roadmap proposed by the five mean in practical terms?
One: It means that Saudi Arabia will not invest in the Lebanese economy as long as Hezbollah operates in Yemen. Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Azmi Mikati confirmed this in an interview with Al-Jadeed TV when he spoke about what Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told him: “There is a party in Lebanon that is planning a plot against Saudi Arabia in Yemen … If there is any help for Lebanon, the crown prince said he is afraid that this party might benefit.”
If Saudi Arabia delays in Lebanon, it will slow down other Arab leaders, not least the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who has played an important role in trying to find an acceptable solution. It should be kept in mind that the Qatari emir can talk to all parties and act as a mediator. After taking a more active stance in the presidential elections a few weeks ago, as confirmed by Arab diplomats, he then backed down, according to Arab media reports. This happened after a phone conversation with him by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud.
Interestingly, however, Hezbollah and its allies have declared their willingness to engage with the Persian Gulf countries. In an article published last November, they launched a trial balloon through their affiliated media outlet, the Al-Akhbar newspaper. In it, editor Ibrahim Amin offered a quid pro quo in which Hezbollah and its allies would elect a president, and Saudi Arabia and its local allies would elect a prime minister. Mr. Amin even named names: Suleiman Frangieh for president and Nawaf Salam, Lebanon’s former ambassador to the United Nations, for prime minister.
Although Saudi Arabia had no reason to react to the newspaper article, the message was clear. After years of trying to block the Gulf states’ strong influence in Lebanon, Hezbollah offered a compromise. If there were any doubts, a meeting was held in early February in Beirut between a representative of the Lebanese Speaker Nabih Berri, who is also the leader of Amal, and Saudi Ambassador Walid Bukhari. Mr. Berri’s representative reportedly stated that Hezbollah and Amal were seeking “normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia.” In an interview published on February 23, Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy secretary general, also confirmed that the president the party was looking for was someone who could, among other things, “normalize relations with Arab countries.” Hezbollah’s change of position may be due to the party leadership’s realization that the situation in Lebanon is so dire that the country cannot move forward without some Arab support. Nevertheless, it is clear that Riyadh will not reconsider its position on Lebanon until Iran and Hezbollah cede their positions in Yemen.
This suggests that the presidential election will remain blocked for the time being. In addition, the local aspects preventing the elections are just as complex. Hezbollah would like to see Frangieh elected, but so far he faces serious obstacles. Notably, the two main Christian parties, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and the Lebanese Forces, oppose him, making it impossible for him to successfully run for president. The FPM was until recently allied with Hezbollah, while the Lebanese Forces is close to Riyadh.
Without Christian support, Frangieh (who is also a Maronite Christian, like all presidents) would have no public legitimacy, which would make his presidency difficult. Hezbollah and Amal would want to secure the votes needed in parliament to bring him to power, but it is unlikely that they would be able to do so. Moreover, the FPM and Hezbollah have informally declared invalid the agreement that linked them, signed in 2006, because FPM leader Gebran Gerge Bassil expected Hezbollah to support his candidacy.
The situation in Lebanon, meanwhile, is very volatile. Tensions are very high, and the only means to prevent a complete collapse is the army. But the army commander is raising funds to feed his soldiers. Last year, Qatar donated 60 million dollars to prevent the collapse of the armed forces, a scenario that will definitely lead to chaos. But what’s next? When that money runs out, who, if anyone, will be the next donor to pay the army’s salaries? The situation is unsustainable. Lebanon needs a proper state with functioning institutions.
The loosening of gun control in the country remains another difficult problem. The army often finds entire caches of weapons in the homes of ordinary Lebanese. Hezbollah is notoriously armed, but it is not the only armed entity in the country, and hostility toward it is growing. Various groups blame Hezbollah for the current deplorable situation. For example, the exchange rate went from 1,500 Lebanese pounds to the US dollar to 80,000 very recently.
Lebanon can either reform and create a state with functioning institutions, or face chaos. But chaos in Lebanon, which would lead to internal divisions and could lead to civil war, would be very destabilizing for the region. It could also be destabilizing for the EU. People are already risking their lives and leaving the country illegally in the hope of reaching Europe. Instability in Lebanon is not even in Israel’s interest. Although some experts argue that the best way to get rid of Hezbollah is to let the country collapse upside down, Israel does not need another Gaza on its northern border
The only way out of the stalemate for local and regional actors is to reach an agreement that takes into account all their preferences. It is possible that a comprehensive deal could eventually be worked out. But for now, even if negotiations are taking place behind the scenes, a positive outcome remains elusive unless one side makes a serious concession. Today, however, neither side is willing to concede, which means that the political crisis in Lebanon will continue, and no one knows when or how it will end…
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Lebanon’s Tragedy and the difficulties in overcoming it появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Since 2018, Canada, in complete synchronisation with the United States of America, and under its aegis, has accelerated its anti-China propaganda and hostile actions. This is not so surprising, since the Canadian attitude towards China has changed over the decades depending on the requirements of the global hegemon of the time. Before the Second World War, London called the shots; since then it has been Washington.
The Canadians have been friendly or hostile as the hegemon required or as economic benefits dictated but they have never been open and sincere. The relationship is always tainted by a colonial attitude towards China that has been absorbed from the British and Americans into the Canadian establishment, a smug condescension that only Canadians can exhibit, along with a rabid hostility to any socialist nation or any nation that stands up to the world hegemonic claims of the United States of America, for the Canada government, controlled by the financial, industrial, and resource extraction elite has become a very loyal lieutenant of the American imperialists, and obeys their orders with enthusiasm.
There is no objective basis for this hostility. It is true that Canada took part in the American aggression against China in Korea in 1950-53 and the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 though China had done nothing to harm Canada in any way. It is true that Canada has sent spies to China even during periods of warmer relations and supported efforts to undermine China; by supporting the Chinese province of Taiwan as a bastion of reactionaries bent on overthrowing socialism in China to once again reduce China to a western colonial possession, by making false claims about internal Chinese conditions, about the Uyghurs, about Hong Kong, to making claims China is not a democracy when it is a thriving socialist democracy.
But again, this hostility has no reason to support it. Canada is far from China. There have never been any signs of hostility from China towards Canada, except in reaction to Canadian actions against China. Trade was increasing between the two countries to the benefit of both since the 1970s. Almost everything we buy in Canada now is marked “made in China.” Canadian companies have been doing business in China. China is an important market for Canadian agricultural produce, for timber used for construction and paper, for minerals and several Chinese companies invested in mining operations in Canada. There is a large and prosperous Chinese population in Canadian cities. Yet despite this growing trade over the years, and the cultural ties, Canada risks losing it all by a series of actions that have been not only hostile towards China as a sovereign nation, but are designed to humiliate China, something I think it will be difficult for the Chinese to forget, if they can ever forgive.
The arrest, on US orders, of Huawei chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou in 2018, was not only meant to hold her hostage to US President Trump’s attempt to damage the Chinese economy, it was also meant to humiliate her, Huawei and the Chinese people. She was treated in a humiliating manner on her arrest, forced to face fabricated charges based on illegal US “sanctions,” forcibly detained under house arrest for several years, and forced to endure the sneers and jibes of the Canadian media and politicians. Huawei has now been kicked out of the Canadian market forcing Canadian companies and government to use inferior technology from US and European companies.
Canada insulted China again at the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing when it refused to send any diplomats to the opening and instead insulted China when Prime Minister Trudeau stated, with his usual smug tone,
“On the international stage, Canada has been a consistently strong voice for protecting and advancing human rights, and we remain extremely concerned by reports of human rights violations in China, including the persecution of Uyghurs. As a result, Canada is not sending any diplomatic representation to the 2022 Olympic Winter Games.”
He stated this knowing that the only source of claims about the treatment of Uyghurs was the CIA, which claims were refuted by the UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet, the former Chilean president, who, after a visit to Xinjiang in May 2022 rejected western claims of genocide against the Uyghurs, in retaliation for which she was pressured by the US and decided not to seek a renewal of her term. Canada did not support her.
Trudeau said this despite being the Prime Minister who spent his entire speech at the UN General Assembly meeting in 2022 apologising for, in essence, inflicting cultural and physical genocide on the indigenous peoples of what is now marked on maps as Canadian territory. He apologised the same year to Italians for the Canadian government putting them in internment camps in WWII, and to the Japanese for their internment in the same period. Canada has a lot of human right abuses and war crimes to apologise for.
But he has never apologised for Canada participating in the US attempt to invade China in 1950 through Korea, for the wars of aggression Canada has waged as an auxiliary of the USA against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Ukraine. But then, gangsters don’t apologise.
And just this month the same Trudeau, whose father first opened diplomatic relations with China in 1971 and spoke warmly of China and its people, and reminded us all of the role of Canadian doctor, Norman Bethune, whose selfless dedication to the Peoples Liberation Army in the 1930s saved thousands of lives, spewed out, in a March 7 news conference, a series of racist paranoid delusions of China “corrupting Canadian democracy,” of China “trying to influence elections” and announcing several official investigations into this fantasy. It is the Russia Gate scandal of the USA all over again, but this time China is the scapegoat and it is taking place in Canada.
In his press conference of March 7 Trudeau spread the allegations even wider to include Russia and Iran. He stated,
“he would ask members of parliament and senators in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to begin a review of foreign interference and to report its findings to parliament. He added that Canada has long been aware of meddling attempts by China, as well as Iran and Russia. The countries, as well as several other non-state actors, “have attempted to interfere not only in our democracy, but our country in general”.
Of course, he and his secret services, who fabricated these fantasies, fed them to the Globe and Mail newspaper and Global News TV network in Canada, which then played the game of calling for government action and then closed the circle by presenting them with drama at the televised news conference one evening, never thought to tell us just which party the Chinese were alleged to be benefitting or promoting. And why would the Chinese care which of the five major parties in Canada was in power, since all of them are anti-Chinese and anti-Russian. Only the Communist Party remains distinct as an anti-imperialist party, but since it is kept out of the mass media one can hardly see that they are the subjects of this allegation. So what does it mean?
Well, what does it mean when a few days later the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stated that rumours, spread by anti-Chinese elements, that China had placed their secret police in certain Chinese consulates and other offices in Canada allegedly to intimidate local Chinese, were true and named two places where they thought some were located.
This absurd rumour started in far right circles some months ago but we can guess that, again, as with the elections interference claims, the seed was planted by the secret services and has now become an open claim by the government. It is absurd of course because if China has placed officials in Canada outside permitted protocols then Canada would immediately expel them. No one has been expelled.
But that is not the point, we know, The point is to make propaganda, not to tell the truth, to create suspicion and fear, not respect and love, to drive people to want war, to demand an end to peace.
And now, as of the date I write this March 17, we hear of actions by the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and other nations directed at shutting down Tik Tok the Chinese based information sharing platform popular with many around the world, again, as in the case of Huawei, based on vague allegations regarding “threats to national security.” But everyone with a half a brain knows that this is the same old market protection racket for US competitors of Tik Tok trying to force the upstart company out of their market.
In fact one can see that all these methods being used to “contain” China, to put it back in the 19th century box they would like it to be in and to which it will never return, are nothing less than gangsterism; using intimidation, blackmail, bullying, threats, slander, and military force to ruin a competitor. Capitalists don’t like competition. Especially when, as Vladimir Lenin so well put it, they have reached their highest stage, imperialism, beyond which looms their collapse.
Canada, along with Australia has become a clown playing the fool to the American empire. Canadian ships, the few that it has, harass China along its east coast and Canadian spy planes fly with American planes there, all at Canadian taxpayers expense, just as Australians are now trapped in a deal to buy US nuclear submarines that will ruin them and all for the benefit of the Americans.
Former Prime Minister of Australia Paul Keating in a recent speech to the National Press Club in Australia, stated,
“We are going to buy eight submarines for $360 billion. This must be the worst deal ever. In the end, history will judge this project. But I want my name to be clearly written among those who say it’s a mistake. Despite its enormous cost, it does not offer a solution to the problem of great power competition in the region or the security of the Australian people and its continent” and that, “ the submarine deal is aimed at maintaining “US strategic hegemony in Asia.”
According to the ex-premier, Australia has recklessly linked its fate with Washington. Keating pointed out that the current government has allowed itself to be drawn into the US policy of containing China, which is not in Australia’s national interest.
The same can be said of Canada, that it has recklessly linked its fate with Washington, has not thought through the consequences and has no idea of what is going to happen next.
As Keating stated in his speech,
“This week was forged the last link in the long chain the United States has established to contain China. Beijing has committed a great sin in the eyes of the United States. And what is this sin? Develop an economy of the size of the United States. Americans will not tolerate a big state like them. That’s what China is. They would prefer that 20% of humanity remain forever in poverty. And the fact that China is now an industrial economy, larger than the United States, is not included in their plans.”
The same words apply to Canada, which made a fool of itself, along with the Americans, with the comic opera jet fighter attacks on balloons over North America in February. But the Canadian establishment, which feels no shame about anything it does, shrugged off this national humiliation and continues its anti-China rhetoric along with its anti-Russian propaganda.
On March 17, the very day the International Criminal Court issued its fake warrant of arrest against President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, for rescuing children who were the victims of Kiev regime shelling of the Donbass, Canada welcomed the move, a move not only meant to humiliate President Putin in the eyes of the people of the west, and to prevent any possibility of negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but also to attempt to embarrass President Xi of China who will meet with President Putin in Moscow on March 20.
Canada, with the UK, Australia, Germany and Japan, is one of the most loyal lieutenants of the American empire, an empire that is weakening and crumbling faster than the American attempts to shore it up. Blinded by ideology, racism, colonialist attitudes, corrupted by American influence, ignorant of history and the forces of history, pathological in their willingness to lick the American boot, the Canadian establishment is leading the people of Canada and the world to a disaster. The few who protest or speak out are silenced or ignored. This very journal is now “sanctioned” by the Canadian government.
And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut wrote in Slaughter House Five, his account of the firebombing of the German city of Dresden on February 13, 1945, a demonstration of American firepower to the advancing Red Army that cost 135,000 civilian lives. The Americans have never paid for this crime. And so it goes.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Canada and Anti-China Propaganda появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Everyone is now aware of the fact that the United States aggressively meddles in practically all political movements and elections that take place in different nations. In fact, the US publicly touts its “successes” in this area, making no secret of the fact.
It is sufficient to read Scott Shane’s article in the New York Times, which states openly that since their inception, American intelligence services have routinely carried out covert operations interfering in foreign elections, and that these operations have long served as the foundation of Washington’s foreign policy. This New York Times article discusses, among other things, CIA involvement in the overthrow of unpopular leaders, assassination of many politicians, and support for reactionary regimes in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Additionally, dozens of official organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are involved, in addition to the CIA, the US Department of State and numerous American intelligence agencies. Various media reports detail more than a hundred instances of US meddling in the sovereign affairs of more than 60 countries over the last 70 years. For example, Dov Levin of Carnegie-Mellon University (Pennsylvania) identified more than 80 instances of covert US interference in other countries’ elections in the second half of the previous century alone, citing the 2016 Russian Duma elections as one example.
When Donald Trump took office as President of the United States, he also mentioned such illegal US policies, emphasizing that such criminal activity at the state level must be stopped. Of course, these words of Donald Trump are of particular importance, because they were probably said after he had seen all the secret files that were shown to him.
One of the White House’s top priorities today is to depose incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AK Party). In particular, as reported by the Turkish publication Haber7, John Bolton, former national security adviser to Donald Trump, called for “interference in the presidential election in Turkey” on social media in January. The United States intends to interfere in the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey, scheduled for mid-May, in order to make sure that the outcomes exclusively reflect Washington’s political judgment rather than a democratic choice made by the nation’s citizens, as it did in the previous poll.
The United States is attempting to impose strict control over the populace and destabilize Turkey in order to remove Erdoğan and his party. To this goal, the Western media has been actively promoting anti-Turkish pieces that strongly criticize the policies of the AK Party and the Turkish leader, especially in recent months.
The White House is still considering the possibility of forcibly removing Ankara’s government, though. This, in particular, is confirmed by the discussion in a recent publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) of possible options for interfering in the upcoming Turkish elections.
According to the Turkish newspaperAydınlık, Doğu Perinçek, Chairman of the Turkish Patriotic Party, allegedly said that the USA intended to instigate a “bloodbath” in Turkey during the country’s general elections The Turkish MP reminded readers that Foreign Policy, which he dubbed “a semi-official instrument of the US Department of State,” had earlier published an article entitled “There will be a bloodbath in Turkey during these elections.”
Yet, many experts believe that the USA will actively pursue its objectives in Turkey and would undoubtedly employ hackers. And one is reminded, unintentionally, of the close cooperation between the US and Israel in various covert operations, including cyberspace. Such operations have recently been particularly well publicized with the example of joint operations against Iran. However, we must not forget that Turkey is also part of Washington’s assignment to Israel to “monitor the regional situation.”
Israel is “famous” for its hackers, who make a living by hacking and conducting “special operations.” Thus, one of the most mysterious, according to Kaspersky Lab researcher Brian Bartholomew, is Candiru, which does not even have a public outlet. However, it is known that this particular Tel Aviv company sells cyberweapons to a number of governments, particularly Uzbekistan, and hacks information space in various countries for a number of “customers” of various countries’ intelligence services. The Candiru hackers’ program to monitor certain “clients” of interest was employed, among other things, in the process of attacking Uzbek human rights campaigners and the nation’s independent media, according to information provided by Bartholomew to Western media in 2019.
Another Israeli hacker group, Team Jorge, based in the small Israeli town of Modi’in, was recently discovered during a journalistic investigation. More than 30 elections have been rigged by the group around the world. It was discovered that the hackers used computer attacks, sabotage, and disinformation bots on social media to carry out their schemes.
This is how hackers spread fake news about candidates in Nigeria before the presidential election in February 2023, and in Kenya before the election in the summer of 2022, misinformation about politicians flooded TikTok.
Major General Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF Military Intelligence, boasted in March 2010 that the Jewish state, as the world leader in cyber warfare, has unlimited capacity to paralyze any enemy infrastructure. The invisible work of thousands of Israeli cyber warriors, honed in IDF military intelligence and communications units is recognized not just in the United States.
So there are many potential opportunities for Israel to participate in Washington’s “electoral plans” in Turkey. Concerning hackers’ ability to influence political processes and elections, it is important to remember that their activities can extend far beyond the dissemination of false or targeted information against specific politicians in social networks and media space. Hackers can change the unofficial voting results that the public and media receive because, in this digital age, parts of many countries’ electoral infrastructure are vulnerable to cyberattacks. Hackers can sway voters’ ability to cast ballots or tamper with unofficial vote totals through cyberattacks. Experts from the US Department of Homeland Security claim that depending on the technology and procedures utilized at polling sites, hacking threats might differ from country to country and disrupt the voting process in different ways.
Thus, Washington won’t just be allowed to utilize its hackers in Turkey’s forthcoming election.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение What Kind of Hackers will the USA Use in the Turkish Elections? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
With the breakthrough of energy links in the South Caucasus from 1994 to 2006, Turkey gained new favorable opportunities for oil and gas extraction and export to the world market (especially to EU countries). Azerbaijan was the first post-Soviet country to gain access to the western shores of the Caspian Sea.
Over the past two decades, Georgia has become a link for Turkey’s transport and energy relations with Azerbaijan. More specifically, new pipelines and railway lines (including the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, the Baku–Tbilisi–Erzurum and Trans-Anatolian TANAP gas pipelines, the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railroad) were built and put into operation. In addition to the Turkish-Azerbaijani energy cooperation, Ankara has been equally successful in developing a gas partnership with Russia. In the post-Soviet period, two Russian gas pipelines “Blue Stream” and “TurkStream” were built to Turkey along the Black Seabed. Accordingly, as gas exports and transit grew, Turkey gradually diversified its strategy of gas dependence on Russia in favor of a balancing course.
With the proposal of the Russian side in October 2022 to build a gas hub in Turkey in order to depoliticize the Russian gas export, Turkey gets new unique economic and political opportunities to influence the global gas trade (including the EU countries) and strengthen the independent status of the Turkish state in the foreign arena.
So far, due to objective and situational reasons connected with the disastrous consequences of the ruinous earthquake in the South-East of the country and the start of the pre-election process in Turkey Ankara has not discussed in detail with Moscow the whole range of problems related to the gas hub construction (specifically, financing matters and coordination with potential buyers and other gas suppliers). Nevertheless, it is already obvious that Russia will not be able to fully depoliticize Russian gas exports to Europe through the Turkish transit and the gas hub.
In particular, due to the categorical position of the US and its financial system, the Fed, EU countries will seek to limit, if not completely boycott, Russian gas exports. The latter means that the financial intelligence and other controlling bodies of Western countries will constrain Turkey’s ability to issue Russian gas with a different index. The fact is that the volumes of Russian gas and competitors in the same Azerbaijan, Qatar, Iran, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are simply not comparable.
In discussing the prospects of the gas hub project, Ankara leans towards the necessity of increasing the gas export flow from all the mentioned above countries to Turkey, the cooperation of the Caspian basin countries with the TANAP gas pipeline system to implement the possibilities of reexport of Russian gas and conceal the volumes of the blue fuel in the Eastern Thrace reservoirs.
These days, Ankara is hosting the regular summit of the heads of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS). The summit agenda includes the energy cooperation (including the gas hub project) in addition to other issues of pan-Turkic cooperation. It’s no accident that on March 16 this year, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stated that Ankara stands for increasing the cooperation on the Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline TANAP project with the purpose of increasing gas supplies from the Caspian basin to the international market.
Naturally, Turkey’s weight in the global energy equation is increasing, as Çavuşoğlu noted. Ankara, with the support of London, Washington and Brussels, has already implemented a number of important energy projects (oil and gas pipelines) jointly with Baku and Tbilisi on exporting the natural resources of the Caspian basin to Europe. However, so far the matter concerns the shelf of the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian basin. To increase the volume of natural gas supplies to the international market in Europe, Turkey proposes to expand the list of potential exporters of blue fuel in the Caspian region.
Of course, on top of this list is the Turkmen sector of the Caspian Sea with the potential of 7% of the world’s gas reserves, as well as Kazakh gas with a volume of 0.87% of world reserves. Previously, Russia had a critical attitude to such an option, based on economic and geopolitical considerations. However, in the situation of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis and large-scale sanctions of the collective West, Moscow decided to strengthen the vector of strategic partnership with Turkey, hoping for the reliability of the Turkish side in terms of transit of goods and gas exports. Thus, after the well-known sabotage by the Western security services on the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 and 2, Moscow made a favorable offer to Ankara to build a gas hub and redirect the export volumes of gas from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
What is Turkey’s response? Turkey, represented by its President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, supports President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to build a gas hub. But Turks are in no hurry, or rather take their time in terms of the implementation of the project. On the one hand, the Turks say they (especially after the devastating earthquake) have a shortage of finance, so the Russians will have to build the infrastructure of the gas hub on the territory of Turkey (similar to the Akkuyu NPP project) almost with their own money. Perhaps Turkey’s partners are merely probing Moscow’s reaction on the issue of their own financing of the project, since no official request of this kind has been received so far. On the other hand, Ankara offers its allies at the Pan-Turkic summit to take an active part in the expansion of additional gas exports via TANAP.
How will Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan participate in the project without Russia’s consent? Are there any new gas pipelines on the Caspian Sea bed to connect with TANAP, or will they have to be built (but who will pay)? Finally, would the throughput capacity of the existing TANAP guarantee the increase of gas exports from, say, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to meet the needs of the European energy market? As you can see, there are more questions than answers.
In this disposition also emerges the topic of the route of the new global transit from the eastern shelf and the shores of the Caspian Sea to the West through Azerbaijan to Turkey and Europe. Azerbaijan and Turkey have so far used the territory of Georgia for the connection, which predetermined the “final” establishment of Tbilisi’s pro-Western foreign policy in 1998-1999. However, the Georgian route turned out to be the most expensive from a financial and economic point of view. And the choice of the West with Turkey in the 1990s had no alternative, because at stake was the idea of bypassing Russia’s territory with the geo-economic projects to further the geopolitical introduction of NATO in the post-Soviet South and East.
After the second Karabakh war in the autumn of 2020 and the success of Azerbaijan, Turkey became interested in a transport corridor through the Armenian Meghri in Zangezur for the shortest connection with Baku and the Turkic countries of Central Asia (the historical Turkestan). Can this route be considered by Turkey (OTS countries) and the West as an alternative to the Georgian route and justification of the increase of gas supplies to Europe? Such a possibility cannot be ruled out.
Turkey will justify the participation of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan in gas export via TANAP (or TANAP-2) before Russia by the need to “hide” re-export of Russian gas in this route. It cannot be excluded that in the West (in the talks with the same US and EU with the support of Great Britain) Turkey is likely to justify the construction of TANAP-2 by the need to exploit the “weakness” of Russia, currently under Western sanctions and dependent on the Turkish transit, to ensure that a NATO country (and later the whole NATO) has access to the Turkic East (Turkestan) which, together with gas of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, has nearly 9% of global gas reserves. Besides, one cannot exclude the mentioning that Turkey’s gas exporting power due to its advantageous geography at the junction of Europe and Asia will also influence Iran’s policy. The accession of Iran to the Turkish gas transit route will lead to the fact that Ankara will gain control over almost 60% of the world’s gas reserves (including exports from Russia, Iran, Qatar, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Algeria).
Thus, the Russian gas hub project allows Turkey to simultaneously develop a new gas export project, TANAP-2, with access to the eastern shore of the Caspian basin.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkey proposes a parallel project, “TANAP-2”… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The US aims to ship oil to the EU by massive tankers as a result of Washington’s sanctions campaign against Russia and the requirement it placed upon Europe to purchase a sizeable amount of American oil as a result. Specifically, these tankers include the 320,000-ton Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) and the 200,000-ton Suezmax vessel. Because of the higher cost of using smaller vessels, 27 of these supertankers are scheduled to arrive in Europe as early as March from the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, the amount of oil transported by supertankers to Europe will almost double.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that large-tonnage oil tankers have long been causing the ocean’s worst environmental catastrophes. For instance, the Torrey Canyon, the largest oil tanker in the 1960s, collided with a reef off the west coast of Cornwall, United Kingdom, on March 18, 1967. Due to the rupture of 14 of its 18 tanks, the British resort of Cornwall sustained significant damage from the 225 km2 oil slick. In an attempt to reduce the damage from close to 80,000 tons of oil remaining on the vessel the British Air Force bombarded the sunken tanker with several dozens bombs and used rockets and napalm to burn the oil spill for several days, causing a huge fire and damaging the environment in the process. Around Cornwall, 90% of the bird population and many fish and sea creatures perished.
Following this incident, a number of international conventions, laws, and guidelines governing such rescue operations were adopted. These precautions, however, do not rule out the chance that similar catastrophes could occur again. This was proven by the tragedy of the American oil supertanker Amoco Cadiz, which sank on March 17, 1978, off the northern coast of France after colliding with submerged rocks. The 240,000 tons of oil spilled in the catastrophe contaminated a sizable stretch of the Brittany shoreline. Many fish and bird species that inhabited the coastal area, as well as oyster beds, were killed by the ecological catastrophe.
The Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker traveling from Alaska to California, struck a reef in March 1989 and sustained significant damage. The incident caused thousands of tons of oil to spill, killing a large number of fish, birds, and other animals that lived along the Alaskan coast. Oil was detected in samples taken many years after the catastrophe.
The MV Braer, a tanker sailing along the Scottish coast with a large cargo of oil from Norway, crashed on January 5, 1993, due to engine failure. The unguided vessel could not be rescued after it washed up on the rocks. The wreck spilled nearly 85,000 tons of oil, and a 9-square-mile oil slick covered St Ninian’s Isle’s sandy beaches, affecting the Scottish coast as well.
The sinking of the oil tanker Prestige off the coast of Spain on November 13, 2002, was one of the most significant incidents that harmed Europe, according to environmentalists. Due to a hole in the ship’s hull caused by the violent storm, hundreds of tons of oil poured into the water, creating an oil slick that stretched over 1,000 kilometers down the shoreline. The catastrophe caused 4 billion euros worth of anticipated damage to flora and fauna.
Environmentalist figures indicate that 6 million tons of petroleum hydrocarbons enter the sea each year, covering vast expanses of water, particularly in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with an oily coating. The prevalence of this oil contamination is seen in satellite photographs of maritime regions, particularly along shipping lanes.
Experts concur that marine tankers, whose combined global capacity exceeds 120 million tons, constitute the greatest threat in terms of oil contamination of the world ocean’s waters. When petroleum hydrocarbons enter the marine environment, one part evaporates into the atmosphere and the other spreads to form an oily film on the water’s surface. Some substances accumulate in seafloor sediments and are dissolved in seawater. As a result, the oil film has largely covered the central part of the world ocean between Central America, Africa, and Europe. Oil shipments from North and South America to Europe are cited as the main source of pollution in this area.
Environmentalists claim that oil tankers represent a severe hazard to the environment even regardless of accidents because of the persistently toxic gases released from the cargo tanks.
According to environmentalists, millions of tons of oil enter the saltwater each year, polluting it almost constantly. Here, it is important to think back on the worst ecological and biological catastrophes brought on by oil pollution. The artificially synthesized bacterium Synthia created in the United States to combat oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, mutated and started infecting animals and humans, according to media reports. As previously reported, British Petroleum (BP) commissioned Synthetic Genomics Inc. to create Synthia or Mycoplasma laboratorium, an artificial bacterium that feeds on oil, to combat the environmental disaster of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. According to experts, the potentially lethal bacteria can infect people through raw or undercooked shellfish or through scratches and open wounds. The American media has repeatedly blamed Synthia for mass bird deaths from Arkansas to near New Orleans, as well as fish off the coast of North Louisiana. But, clearly under the direction of the people who came up with this delusion, the full scope of the catastrophe is being kept secret at the governmental level. Nonetheless, information leaked to the Western media indicates that Synthia is spreading along European coasts with the Gulf Stream, which does not rule out catastrophic damage to Cote d’Azur beaches in France, Catalonia, Italy’s Liguria, or even Greece and Turkey.
Ocean pollution is a very important and urgent problem that must be addressed by all nations. Only after realizing the gravity of this environmental threat can Europeans decide whether the United States should use large oil tankers in its aggressive policy of capturing the EU energy market.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение US Supertankers Pose an Environmental Threat to Europe появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The NEO last commented on the situation in Pakistan in connection with a large-scale terrorist attack on the (apparently) heavily guarded grounds of a Shia mosque on January 30 in Peshawar, capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Once again, the author has to state with regret that terrorist acts and simple guerrilla warfare in “problematic” regions are almost a mundane background to the political life of this country. A month later, two prominent functionaries of one of the Islamist groups were killed in Rawalpindi and Karachi, who, in particular, are considered to be involved in the famous terrorist act in Mumbai, India in November 2008. Another week later, not far from the capital of the “Balochistan” province, Quetta, another suicide bomber blew himself up next to (again) a truck carrying police officers. Nine people were killed and 13 injured.
It should also be recalled that Pakistan is a de facto nuclear power and it is largely for this reason that acts of political turbulence of various natures on its territory are monitored so closely, almost continuously, from abroad. An important foreign policy component of almost all terrorist attacks is also that they serve as a pretext for directly or indirectly blaming these on neighboring India.
In the coming months, however, the main source of domestic political turmoil in Pakistan may be the electoral process, which this year will have two components. First, on April 30, there will be early elections to local parliaments in the provinces of Punjab (where about half of the country’s population is concentrated) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Second, regular general elections to the national parliament should be held before the end of this year, because the (“calendar”) powers of the current parliament will expire in August this year.
As for the first component, its emergence is due to a sharp deterioration in the internal political situation in the country after the removal from power last spring of the government of Imran Khan, which represented a coalition led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. They were replaced by a faction led by the Pakistan Muslim League (N) party and the Shehbaz Sharif government.
But it was not so much the legality as the questionable “political correctness” of the procedure for changing the country’s leadership that led to protests from the PTI and the former prime minister himself. They immediately demanded an extraordinary general election so that the people could have the final say on the political crisis.
Since then, the elections have been at the center of the struggle between the current ruling PML-N and the PTI, which has gone into opposition. Since the latter had a majority in the two provincial parliaments mentioned above, this resource was used in this struggle. The PTI MPs left the parliaments of both provinces, and the central government had no choice but to agree to early elections at least in those provinces. The levers of government in these provinces had temporarily passed into the hands of representatives of the central government.
For Imran Khan himself, the situation was complicated by the fact that several criminal cases were initiated against him. The most serious of these (with the prospect of blocking his ability to engage in political activity and hold public office) is the accusation of trading gifts from foreign colleagues during his tenure as prime minister. Under various pretexts, Khan has so far ignored repeatedly scheduled court hearings, and therefore there are even attempts to arrest him. The last such action, held on March 14 near Imran Khan’s residence in Lahore, the capital of Punjab province, led to several hours of clashes between the police squad that arrived and an even larger crowd of supporters of the former prime minister.
A day earlier he had had to cancel a planned rally of his supporters because the interim administration had imposed content restrictions on the intended speeches in accordance with the legal provisions of the state of emergency. Unfortunate words spoken by any of the participants of the (failed) rally could have aggravated the situation between Imran Khan and the judiciary.
Among the various topics of bickering (with the use of labels, as they say, on the edge of foul play) between representatives of Pakistan’s opposing political factions, the issue of guilt for the very real prospect of the country’s sovereign default is particularly acute. Which already brings to mind analogies with what happened a year earlier in Sri Lanka. There is reason to say that under the current government, Pakistan’s foreign debt has more than doubled in less than a year. However, the amount already accumulated a year ago by the previous government also looked serious enough to at least start the work on postponing such a prospect.
But today, again, all that matters is its threatening reality. Which is exacerbated by the persistent effects of the catastrophic flooding that occurred in late summer last year due to monsoon rains of unprecedented intensity. It is the combination of these and other domestic problems that essentially defines the positioning of the current Pakistani government in the international arena. And not some “inherently pro-American-Western” attitude of the Sharif government that came to power a year ago.
Like its predecessor, it is, above all, pro-Pakistani and is guided by its own understanding of what is good and what is bad for the country it leads. Both in general and in details. “In general,” at the official level, the “ironclad” nature of relations with China and the willingness to continue the key bilateral project to form a “China-Pakistan economic corridor” are confirmed.
Also noteworthy is the very fact of readiness to buy Russian oil (given the special importance of this issue for the US) despite the disagreement over its possible price. Which, however, can be explained by the above-mentioned situation in the sphere of financial (in)solvency of the current Pakistan.
The fact of the latter’s contribution to the moneybox of arms supplies to Ukraine should be considered unimportant for the Russian-Pakistani relations.
The present government of Pakistan, not without reason, connects the question “to be or not to be” (not so much for itself but for its country) with the prospect of getting some much needed amount from international financial structures, which are under the de facto control of Washington. Islamabad has to take into account the specific interests of the United States in the Ukrainian conflict. That is how one should assess reports about alleged deliveries of “Soviet caliber” artillery shells from Pakistan’s arsenals to Ukraine.
The visit of the head of the Pakistani Foreign Ministry to Lithuania at the end of February should be treated in a similar way. On the surface it is an extremely strange event, because, as they say: what does one have to do with the other? But lo and behold, the government of Pakistan did not spare the money for the visit of its minister to one of the most hardened anti-Russian actors in the “post-Soviet space.” Which never misses a chance to yell at not only Russia but also China, again Pakistan’s key ally. For which Lithuania gets a bone from the table of its master.
However, according to the above-mentioned considerations, this fact too in no way indicates the “pro-Americanism” of the government of Sharif.
And, in general, Russia has no need to give preference to any of the political groups in Pakistan, which are now in a state of extremely fierce struggle. It should be stressed again, for purely domestic political reasons.
Just as Russia should treat with equal goodwill all countries that are part of the increasingly important region of Central and South Asia. A region that has no less potential for mutually beneficial cooperation involving the world’s leading players than other regions of today’s world.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Further aggravation of the domestic political situation in Pakistan появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
A year has passed since Russia launched a special military operation to denazify Ukraine’s criminal regime. Against this backdrop, various parties continue to try to draw South Korea into the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. According to the British newspaper The Telegraph, the Republic of Korea is currently ranked 27th out of 57 countries providing aid to Ukraine. In 2022, the ROK provided Kyiv with $100 million in humanitarian aid, including medicine, ambulances, computers and power generators.
On February 24, Korea decided to tighten export controls on Russia and Belarus, significantly expanding the list of goods subject to export restrictions—an additional 741 items were added to the list of goods banned for delivery to Russia and Belarus relating to chemicals, steel, cars, machinery, quantum computers and other goods, including machine tools, oil and gas processing equipment.
At a February 27 briefing, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the South Korean government’s decision “was made in line with the anti-Russian policy of the Washington-led collective West.” The new South Korean restrictions have once again demonstrated the limits of Seoul’s ability to pursue an independent policy on Russia. This will damage Russian-South Korean cooperation, which has already suffered severely after the ROK had joined the first sanction package of the “collective West.” The unfriendly actions of the ROK will affect not only the whole complex of bilateral ties, but also the quality of cooperation between the two countries in the sphere of the Korean settlement.
On February 23, representatives of the US military (US and Korean Joint Forces Command), the ROK (Joint Chiefs of Staff) and Ukraine (specific entity not named) participated in a videoconference at Camp Humphreys, a US military base in the ROK. During the meeting, the sides discussed humanitarian actions of the ROK military toward civilians during war and peacetime. It was separately emphasized that this kind of activity is allegedly not connected in any way with, and does not provide for, the participation of the ROK army or USFK in the implementation of such activities on the Ukrainian soil.
Nevertheless, more is expected from Seoul in the West, although according to some political analysts, the ROK’s passivity with regard to providing lethal assistance to Ukraine is explained by its desire to maintain a significant economic partnership with Russia and China, and may also make it difficult for the Yoon administration to convince China to support its interests in the North Korean direction. In addition, South Korean law makes it difficult to sell arms directly to countries in active conflict.
We’ve written before about how Yoon Suk-yeol was pushed by the NATO Secretary General, demanding that South Korea “step up“. But he is not the only one to exert pressure. For example, an anonymous Western diplomatic source in Seoul told Reuters that “South Korea should do more, and we regularly communicate that to the Yoon administration.”
On March 2, 2023 National Security Council Coordinator John Kirby said that whether South Korea will provide direct military assistance to Ukraine “depends on the country itself“, but, as they used to say during the author’s youth, “volunteering is strictly mandatory.”
Dmitry Ponomarenko, Ukraine’s ambassador to the ROK, is also conducting a fairly active campaign to promote his country. On the one hand, he quite actively praises Seoul for its help, but on the other he says that more could be done, periodically drawing incorrect parallels with the Korean War, in which, in his opinion, “the international community united and expelled the aggressor.” Thus, on February 23, Ponomarenko said he expected Seoul to join the global effort to “ensure a lasting and just peace” in his country and guarantee global security. He stressed that Kyiv will not stop until it wins.
During a February 27 seminar organized by the Korea Institute for Defense Studies (KIDA), Ponomarenko said: “I hope that the Korean government will find a solution to the issue of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine.” The ambassador specifically noted that his country needs artillery shells of NATO standard, 155 millimeters. He also demanded a total ban on Russian energy imports, removal of Russian banks from the SWIFT payment system, a complete ban on Russian media outlets outside Russia, an unconditional withdrawal of foreign companies from the Russian market as well as a ban on Russian tourists from the EU, G7 and other parts of the world.
On February 25, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also stated that it would be good if his country received South Korean weapons.
Another line of pressure comes from statements by Western experts, printed in abundance by the center-right Korea Times, which is controlled by the conservative faction that opposes Yoon Suk-yeol.
Peter K. Lee, a fellow at the Center for United States Studies at the University of Sydney, told the Korea Times that “Korea is perfectly placed to support the defense capability needs of liberal democracies around the world.” Zach Cooper of the American Enterprise Institute and a former US National Security Council official says Poland could re-export South Korean weapons to Ukraine if the Korean and Polish governments agree to do so.
Sarah E. Kreps of the Brookings Institution observes that US non-NATO allies, including South Korea, are not obliged to provide material assistance to Ukraine. Nonetheless, “a Putin victory would create further instability in Europe and call into question the effectiveness of US efforts to maintain a rules-based order,” with South Korea being a key supporter of the Biden administration’s initiatives.
Other Western experts have pushed the concept of a “global Korea”. According to this concept, since the ROK is a regional power, it is supposedly obliged to be a responsible member of the world community and deal with problems all over the world, not just around the peninsula.
As for appeals on the part of ROK citizens, more pro-Ukrainian statements are made not so much by supporters of Yoon Suk-yeol but by their ideological opponents – both democrats and opposing factions within the People’s Power, such as former Chairman Lee Jun-seok, who actually went to Ukraine without consulting the Foreign Ministry and met with Zelensky, and is now advocating the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine. In an interview with the Korea Times” Lee Jun-seok openly calls for an analogue of the Lend-Lease Act and directly hints that “if Seoul supplies actual military weapons to Ukraine (directly) and these are to be used in the war, then this will be a huge boost to the country in terms of amplifying weapons-based confidence-building measures.” And it would also boost exports of South Korean weapons that would perform well in combat.
Now let’s move on to talk about actual arms deliveries. Although Volodymyr Zelensky’s adviser Mykhailo Podolyak admitted in an interview with the Korean media that Kyiv and Seoul are negotiating direct deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, the situation is more complicated.
First of all, at Ponomarenko’s suggestion, the media was informed about the possible purchase of 155 mm guns from the depots of the Korean army under the command of the American military contingent. Seoul has nothing to do with this, but for the author, by the way, this is an important indication that the shell-hunger much written about in the West and in the TG channels with regard to Russia is in fact not the Russian problem at all.
Secondly, negotiations are allegedly underway with the Pentagon to sell 155 mm shells to the US provided that they will only be used to replenish the dwindling US military reserves, as Washington supplied Ukraine with huge amounts of weapons and ammunition. Allegedly Washington has said it wants to send the ammunition to Ukraine, but South Korea insists that the end user must be the United States.
Third, on March 8, Reuters, citing a representative of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in the ROK, reported that Seoul decided last year to approve an export license allowing Poland to supply Ukraine with Krab self-propelled artillery units, which are manufactured by the Polish company HSW using the chassis of the South Korean K9 self-propelled gun. To date, Poland has shipped at least 18 self-propelled guns to Ukraine.
According to the authors of this leaked information, it confirms that “South Korea has officially agreed, at least indirectly, to supply Ukraine with weapons components for the latter’s war against Russia,” but the ROK Ministry of Defense issued a commentary from which it follows that the South Korean side still adheres to the position of not directly supplying lethal military equipment to Ukraine. The deliveries of the chassis do not, however, fall under this category as this is not a Korean weapons system, but a piece of equipment that uses only individual components manufactured by the ROK, along with products from other countries.
Fourth, the ROK signed a major deal with Poland for $5.8 billion in 2022 to supply hundreds of Chungmu missile launchers, K2 tanks, K9 self-propelled howitzers and FA-50 fighters. However, according to representatives of the South Korean defense procurement agency, Poland would need additional South Korean permission to provide any of these new weapons to Ukraine, as the sales were aimed at strengthening Poland’s defense capabilities, not helping a third party.
There is also some calculation that reports of alleged North Korean aid to Russia should persuade the South to cross the line. However, on February 7, an anonymous diplomatic source told RIA Novosti that experts of the UN Security Council’s sanctions committee on North Korea had not found any confirmation of US allegations of arms shipments from North Korea to Russia.
In summary: The ROK is holding out for now, and Yoon Suk-yeol’s government is not going to risk its own interests so much to please the US. On February 27, 2023 the South Korean Defense Ministry reiterated its official position of refusing to directly supply weapons, military equipment and ammunition to Kyiv, and on March 3 in an interview with CNN’s Quest Means Business, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo said that South Korea had not yet decided whether to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, despite calls from Ukraine. Nonetheless South Korean aid to Ukraine will be increased to $130 million in 2023.
The question is whether Seoul will withstand the next round of pressure.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение South Korea at the Ukrainian Crossroads появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Once something is denied, and adamantly, you can suspect it is either true or something which raises too many inconvenient questions. Old news, such as US Produced Sarin Gas Used in Syria in Ukraine Lab, is now very current when we see vivid clips of Russian soldiers suffering horrific deaths from canister of poison gas dropped from drones.
The news in question dates back to 2014, when several US defence contractors apparently died in the same manner in Tbilisi Georgia, after working in the US-funded Lugar Lab. Their deaths were officially described as food poisoning, and Georgian journalists were threatened not to cover the story by Georgian intelligence.
However, several sources from the US military-intelligence journal Veterans Today, including the US Veterans Gordon Duff and Jeffrey Silverman, both frequent contributors to NEO, have gone to lengths and described how “US Contractors were involved in Syrian Chemical Attacks” blamed on the Government of Syria as part of a false flag attack in 2014.
Duff has detailed the mechanism for transferring chemical weapons by sea from Georgia to Syria. Silverman has confirmed how Duff provided him with information, based on reliable sources, and that he and a team of American veterans found that the supply of chemical weapons in Syria entered from outside, via Turkey.
In fact, Silverman was detained several years ago by Georgian Security for following a shipment from a BP warehouse in Borjomi to the Turkish border, by truck that was then intercepted by Turkish intelligence, MIT, posing as sheep herders, and moved forward for apparent end use by Syrian rebels.
It is worth nothing that Silverman had previously been stationed, whilst attending the University of Kentucky, at the Bluegrass Army Depot, Richmond Kentucky, the main Chemical Weapons Storage site in the US, and knew as an insider how such weapons are stored, transports and can be deployed — and the links between Bechtel National and claims of a network of US bio weapons labs, research facilities, public health as their purported mandate, in Georgia and the former Soviet Union.
Ukraine as well!
Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) is committed to providing America’s Joint Warfighters with reliable, timely and cost-effective munitions and chemical defence equipment in support of full spectrum Military Operations, so it says. That most likely includes Ukraine as well, though it doesn’t say that
But BGAD is home to more than a chemical weapons stockpile. Amongst its other missions, it’s also the location of 902 earth-covered magazines, known as igloos, of which 853 are used to store a variety of conventional munitions destined for the US’s joint warfighters around the world.
Duff and Silverman have also detailed how heavy materials, which can be used to build underground bunkers and special chemical, biological or even nuclear research facilities, were imported into Georgia back in 2010.
Russian State TV, Izvestia, aired a series of investigative reports in late February on how the US military has relocated some of its bio materials (ESPs, especially dangerous agents) from Ukraine, and detailed how Nazi-style experiments with dangerous viruses are still being carried out in the Georgian capital on its population, including young military recruits.
It is claimed that mass indignation about this has already flared up in Tbilisi. More and more is being learned about the dangerous experiments still being conducted in the Lugar Center, which is controlled by the Pentagon, Georgy Dzhabishvili, the Georgian-based freelance correspondent reported.
US military projects in Georgia, Ukraine and NATO allies
Dzhabishvili recently interviewed several respondents who have been collaborating in investigating the inconvenient links between US military projects in Georgia, Ukraine and NATO allies. Following earlier investigations by Jeffrey Silverman and Gordon Duff, in tandem with Georgian investigators have also managed to obtain evidence of chemical and biological weapons for use by the Ukrainian military.
For example, there is a short clip in which two Russian soldiers on an operation go into convulsions, likely from a nerve agent capable of causing an agonising death. This can be watched in the link above, but viewer discretion is advised.
According to General Tristan Tsitelashvili, a retired Georgian General, the reaction seen could only be produced by poisoning, and is “scary to look at”. Biological and chemical weapons are forbidden to be used, and the United States, like Ukraine, has signed all the conventions and documents which ban them.
“As a military man, I can’t even imagine how you can get to the point where you decide to use such weapons. They should all be tried in the Hague Tribunal. Everyone! Both the organizers and those who use weapons of this type”, said former Georgian General Tsitelashvili.
The General is confident of his allegations, as he has received copies of secret documents tracking the route of the “test tubes”- canisters, petri dishes – hurriedly taken out of Ukraine and subsequently delivered to the Richard Lugar laboratory.
“I know for sure about at least a whole shipping container that was brought here. There could be almost anything: in Ukraine they produced, for example, special pills, after taking which soldiers will throw themselves under tanks, or asphyxiating gas, the stocks of which were already used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine”, he said.
It was such laboratories, in Ukraine and other locations, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his State of the Federation speech two weeks ago when he stated that that their threat was one of the reasons for launching a special military operation.
The result of American biologists’ work was widely apparent in Tbilisi back in 2012, just a year after the grand opening of the laboratory and even years before. Silverman suggested the same in several TV interviews two months ago, and detailed that “when history is written, one of the main reasons for the Russian special operation in Ukraine will be that of the bio threat it presents to Russian National Security and International Public Health and Safety.”
The existence of such biological laboratories in Ukraine was officially confirmed by the United States on March 8. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said that biological research should not fall into the hands of Russian forces, which it couldn’t do if it wasn’t there.
Bring it home
It is becoming clear that all effort is being made for this not to happen, and the US military and its civilian contractors are working together to transport the bio-laboratories from Ukraine to Georgia. Experiments with dangerous viruses are now being conducted in the Georgian capital.
It is hard to say where all this is leading, as there are many allegations of what these labs are actually involved with. Back in May, Jeffrey D. Sachs, along with Columbia University professor of Neil L. Harrison, penned an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggesting Covid-19 had originated in a laboratory.
It is hard on one’s reputation and career to question what appears to some as the obvious. However, “In June, [Sachs] went even further in his public statements at a Spanish think-tank, describing the COVID virus as probably having an American origin, and considering links with the NIH and China, via EcoHealth Alliance, there is a can of worms waiting to be opened”.
Truth will set you free
FBI director now says COVID pandemic ‘most likely’ originated from Chinese lab Department of Energy has also concluded COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from lab leak in China
They act like this is “news”—with three years of silence, and silencing everyone who suggested this. It was always obvious and why only now does the FBI and the Department of Energy finally admit what was actually known. What about all those people they silenced in recent years who were saying this all along? Will they even get an apology?
We know from US military documents that in Georgia and Ukraine, a total of 3,000 young recruits, often under duress and without proper informed consent, had their blood used as part of the Pentagon’s offensive programme covered by the flimsy veil of civilian research. It is hard to find any public mention of this study, only described as Human diseases epidemiology and EDPs surveillance in Georgia CBR/DTRA, GG-21.
Some of the studies being conducted include those into anthropoid-borne and zoonotic infections such as Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF, West Nile virus (WNV) brucellosis, tularemia, anthrax, Q fever, etc. Despite the alleged importance of these for public health, the GG-21 programme is only ever mentioned as a footnote; however, all of its insidious purpose has been cleansed from the internet.
The author has compromising documents related to this research, provided by concerned citizens working in the Lugar Lab, both US and Georgian citizens. These state its purpose as to:
(1) Determine the prevalence and serological diversity of CCHFV and Hantaviruses in patient populations using samples collected from previously funded CBEP projects, human samples (GG-21). Selected samples will be sent to the USAMRIID for virus-specific neutralization tests in BSL-3 or BSL-4 containment laboratories.
All this is purported to be part of the effort to establish strategic research collaboration between the Georgian Military Hospital and the US Army Research United (USMRU-G) to target EDPs, especially dangerous pathogens. The experimental nature of this work is confirmed by the Military’s own documents, which describe how most of the material used in the study is not licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration, and are the not very accurate ELISA, rapid tests.
The research is to determine epidemiological risk factors associated with prior exposure, and to make use of the military disease surveillance system for scientific research on especially dangerous pathogens (EDS). It is expected that the blood samples from 1,000 young military recruits, often draftees, will be used as part of a broader US military project, which also involves 2,000 so-called recruits from Ukraine. The knowledge gained will establish baseline for 14 pathogens; and, together with a survey and medical review will be used for military purposes.
To put this in simpler language – as Silverman described in a recent TV interview, “They took hundreds of soldiers, young naive people who should not be allowed to sign any contracts, gave them insurances—claimed they provided informed consent, drew blood from them, and then tested them on what they could resist and “possibly” what they could not.
“According to PISA tests results, and varies media reports, 60-70 percent of 15 year olds in Georgia in every given year are functionally literate. The PISA plus Report of 2009 showed that only 38% of students in Georgia were estimated to have a level of reading literacy at or above the baseline needed to participate effectively and productively in life.
“Naturally many of those who end up in the military are those unable to circumvent the draft by going to university or finding medical or other innovative ways, including payment, to avoid mandatory service. Naturally their literacy level is lower, and as a young solider, you are scared shitless of authority, your stronger peers in training, and do what you are told, or you may face harsh consequences, at least in their imaginations, when they get back to the barracks”.
Was this a test of bio weapons?
The anticipated duration of the Georgian study is approximately 5 years, according to confidential US military documents. It is anticipated that sooner or later, since the records will be held indefinitely by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency, history will be written as to the true intentions of this apparently illegal research.
Investigators in the study seem to have ignored the Nuremberg Protocols and the legal grounds for the protection of human subjects in clinical research, and may face the same legal remedy. The Nuremberg Code, drafted at the end of the Doctor’s Trial in Nuremberg in 1947, has served as the basis of medical and research ethics for the past 60 years.
Close examination of it reveals that it was based on the Guidelines for Human Experimentation of 1931. Did not the Germans draw blood from children in Ukraine and parts of the former Soviet Union for their war wounded?
It is good to know that, according to the project report, “it is very unlikely that the amount of blood drawn from each volunteer during this study would lead to any symptoms of anemia.” However the report also states that “there is no direct benefit to individual volunteers for participating in this research study.”
Therefore the only purpose of this study is bio weapons-related research, which is illegal under international treaty law. All exclusion criteria will be self-reported, no verification of age will be performed and none the listed side effects considered.
Many recruits, aside from not being literate, come from minorities in Georgia. This, coupled with the fact that informed consent, as specified by US DOD regulations and public health regulations in Georgia, was never sought, brings the study close to a Joesph Mengele style war crime.
Informed consent translation
The regulations of the study state: “If the volunteer is unable to read the Informed Consent Document, it will be read aloud to them by a study team member, the volunteer will place his mark or fingerprint on the signature line, and a non-study team member witness will observe the process and provide their signature and date on the ICD”. But this document is written in the Georgian language, and not all recruits know it, as they belong to the Azeri, Armenian or other ethnic groups.
No mention is made of how to deal with those who don’t know Georgian well, only that all translations will be performed by a trained translator who will translate the English version into the Georgian language. I wonder if this was the case in Nazi death camps.
Naturally the deaths associated with this study have been attributed to COVID. The last section of the report, 9:0 Reporting of Unanticipated Problems and Deaths, sets very restrictive criteria for the definition of these, which are:
- Unexpected (in terms of nature, severity, or frequency) given the approved research procedures and the subject population studies;
- Related to possibly related to a subject’s participation in research; and
- Suggest that the research places subject or others at greater risk of harm (physical, psychological, economic, or social hard) than was previously known or recognized.
These documents have been shared by those working in the military and the Lugar Lab with investigative journalists. Some fact checking sites want to dismiss them as fake news, Russian disinformation, and attack the journalists involved.
There have even been threats and physical attacks against the main investigative journalist who exposed the bio weapons program in Georgia. So this is about public health?
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Are Young Soldiers being used as White Rats in Georgia and Ukraine? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The US appears to be pursuing an old policy of plundering natural resources in Yemen, where the same Americans have been responsible for the civil war for over a year. This is what the commander of the United States Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), the United States Fifth Fleet, and the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) recently concluded tour of the Yemeni provinces of Al-Mahrah and Hadhramaut strongly suggests.
Yemen has enough oil and natural gas to meet both domestic needs and export. This is precisely what the United States and its Western allies require in the face of severe shortages following the outbreak of war in Ukraine. Ansarallah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said in a recent speech that Washington had established military bases in Hadhramaut and Al-Mahrah provinces in eastern Yemen. He went on to say that the commander of the 5th Fleet accompanied by American diplomats, had landed at the headquarters of the illegal US-Saudi military coalition base in Al-Mahrah province.
Vice Admiral Brad Cooper and Steven H. Fagin, US Ambassador to the Saudi-led proxy government in the Aden Movement, traveled to the city of Al-Ghaydah in Al-Mahrah province in a blatant violation of Yemeni sovereignty. Cooper and the American Ambassador were accompanied by a delegation of top US military officials at Al-Ghaydah airport, which has been converted into a military base for American, British, and Israeli forces on the Arabian Sea, according to reports citing reliable sources. They also discussed “maritime issues” with the pro-US-Saudi coalition and self-proclaimed governor Mohammed bin Yasser.
Since 2018, the airport has been occupied by the so-called “coast guard commander” of the US-Saudi coalition, which has been bombing Yemen with impunity since March 2015, taking advantage of the Yemenis’ lack of even the most basic air defense. The reports indicated that the US military’s visit came after Mohammed bin Yasser met with a US official in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. They discussed new tasks for the American soldiers stationed at Al-Ghaydah Airport, allegedly including “fighting smuggling” and “thwarting potential terrorist threats”.
The US and British occupying countries’ claims to control oil and gas resources have recently been focused on the oil-rich eastern Yemeni provinces of Al-Mahrah, Hadhramaut, Shabwa, and Marib. Since the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine last year, the United States and European countries have intensified their efforts and shown a keen interest in Yemen’s eastern provinces. The most recent events occur as a result of the West’s own senseless sanctions against Russia’s energy industry following the start of the war in Ukraine, which have led to shortages of both oil and gas.
The Pentagon has kept two CIA military bases under the jurisdiction of the pro-Saudi coalition government, notably in the town of Mukalla in the Hadhramaut governorate, according to Saudi media reports. The Pentagon’s presence in the area is ostensibly intended to “deepen bilateral and multilateral maritime cooperation,” as Western-controlled media claims, but the facts show the exact opposite.
Yemen views the presence of foreign forces on its soil to be an occupation, which raises the question of why there are such an unusual number of foreign military bases there. Is the world currently experiencing a situation comparable to what is occurring in northeastern Syria, where the US has stolen billions from the nation’s oil deposits, denying millions of struggling Syrians? According to Al-Houthi, the US is actively attempting to block negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Yemen in Oman to end a war that has severely harmed both nations at the same time. “The US seeks to thwart Oman’s efforts, that is, to distance the coalition from any agreement or understanding, and this is totally unacceptable,” he said.
According to experts, this makes sense because reaching a comprehensive political settlement entails ending the war. Ending the war would also necessitate the withdrawal of all foreign forces, led by the US and British militaries, from Yemen’s eastern and southern coasts. For this and other reasons, the United States and the United Kingdom are actively working to suppress negotiations and prevent any political settlement from being reached. In other words, the West is attempting to carry out its old policy of colonialism and plundering other countries and peoples, just as it did two centuries ago.
Likewise, Yemen has one of the most strategic locations in the West Asian region. It has a long Red Sea coastline and extremely important and profitable outlets to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, which extend to other parts of the Gulf. It is clear that USA requires control of these states in order to build military bases and achieve its other sinister goals of enslaving the countries of this vital region.
The nature of Yemen’s Western-occupied regions’ relationship, as well as Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s ties to Yemen, is also critical. The main point here is that the puppet government in Yemen, which was established with the assistance of the US-Saudi alliance, is only concerned with its own survival, not with the country’s sovereignty. If the power established by the US and its regional allies had an independent voice, there would be no occupation, military and naval bases, blockade, or plans to seize the country’s natural resources. In any event, the puppet government is complicit in violating Yemen’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, as numerous facts demonstrate.
Analysts argue that foreign military bases, which “Ansarallah leader” have described as zones of occupation, are likely there to keep US-Saudi control strong in the nation. Others believe that it would be reasonable for Yemeni rebel forces to conduct lethal attacks against foreign military bases at this time after displaying great resiliency throughout the eight-year conflict. Fortunately, the Houthis have everything they need: military experience, military equipment and weapons, local support, and the sympathy of the international community, which is already debating and condemning the US-Saudi aggression against the Yemeni people at the UN.
While the US is stalling negotiations in Oman, Sanaa claims that its military potential is expanding and that all branches of the military are prepared for the next phase, which could lead to “the option of a broad military operation.” The “actions” of the US Congress, which “insisted” on ceasing military aid to Riyadh, and all of US President Joe Biden’s pronouncements about ending backing for Saudi military operations have now been demonstrated to be entirely fruitless. The Iranian newspaper Tehran News pointed out that it was merely an effort to divert attention from the growing international criticism of the criminal operations of the US-Saudi alliance in Yemen. Notwithstanding its failures in the conflict, it started in Ukraine, the US continues to be interested in maintaining and increasing its military presence, as illustrated by what is happening in Al-Mahrah and Hadhramaut right now.
Analysts suggest that Saudi Arabia, working with the USA and local officials, has nearly entirely gained control of the Al-Mahrah province. The US Navy has recently dramatically extended its foothold in Yemen, and numerous sources also indicate Israel’s growing cooperation with it. These circumstances have many political analysts questioning whether the USA would make Yemen into a new Syria. – Only time will tell.
However, Yemeni rebel forces have demonstrated their ability to counter threats and turn their slogans into extremely effective response operations in recent years. Since the beginning of the aggression, “our degree of military capabilities has increased,” al-Houthi warned. – “There is a major difference in the level of Yemeni military strength if we look at the scenario today compared to the commencement of the attack with previous years,” the Ansarallah leader said.
In response, UN Secretary General António Guterres urged the international community to set aside $4.3 billion to assist 17.1 million Yemenis who are in need. Without consistent outside assistance, he noted, “millions of Yemenis’ lives will be put in jeopardy, and efforts to resolve the conflict will grow more challenging.” Preceding that, the UN Security Council conducted a meeting to discuss the situation in Yemen in the middle of January. At that meeting, Hans Grundberg, the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, reported that the situation in the nation is now stable. According to him, there hasn’t been a significant escalation or shift on the front line recently. He also stated that regional and international diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict are being stepped up. He did not, regrettably, explain that it is Saudi and American diplomats who, under the guise of “peace,” want to establish tight control over the country and begin plundering Yemen’s natural resources. The Pentagon is particularly interested in the country’s advantageous strategic location at the southernmost tip of the Arabian Peninsula.
On the one hand, it goes without saying that the end of the civil war and the initiatives made in this direction by international organizations with support from the United States are to be applauded. It’s as clear as day. As a result of their failure in Yemen, the USA and NATO want to put an end to the combat there. A sizable quantity of Soviet weapons, which Yemenis are still successfully using, will be purchased and sent to Ukraine so that the onslaught on Russia may continue. This is the logic and practice of American “democracy”: if the conflict in Ukraine fades, it must be re-ignited and fought to the death until the last Ukrainian is killed. Here it is – democracy and freedom in the American way!
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The United States’ New Yemen Strategy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The crash of an American MQ-9 drone heading for the Russian border in the Black Sea near the Crimean Peninsula on March 14 in the morning is likely one of the most discussed topics in the global media in recent days.
According to an official communication from the Russian Defense Ministry, the US UAV’s flight was in violation of the temporary airspace use regime established in accordance with international norms for the area’s boundaries due to the special military operation, and its transponders were turned off. Fighter jets from Russian Aerospace Forces were deployed in the air to identify the intruder. The MQ-9 made a quick maneuver that caused it to lose control of its flight and crash into the water. The Russian fighter jets did not engage the unmanned aerial vehicle during the incident and did not fire any of their on-board weaponry.
The MQ-9 Reaper is a modular reconnaissance and strike US UAV that can carry a variety of combinations of weapons and electronic equipment depending on the mission, including carrying an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. As a result, there is no doubt about Russia’s eligibility for protective measures against the United States’ hostile use of the said UAV against Russia. Especially in light of recent open calls by various US representatives for the armed destruction of the Russian Federation. In particular, former US National Security Adviser John Bolton’s call to define the objectives of the US-Russia war.
In contrast to US military officials’ attempts to portray the incident as a “wrongful act by Russia,” particularly Gen. James Hecker, Commander of US Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa, ordinary Americans are discussing the blatantly “insane” US version of the incident that caused the MQ-9 UAV to crash into the Black Sea. Thus, US armed forces veteran Noctis Draven emphasized that Washington’s anti-Russian propaganda narrative is “easily disproved,” and that if Russia had hostile intentions, the MQ-9 would have been shot down without endangering the pilot or the aircraft.
The MQ-9 incident has been widely discussed in the US media, noting that it is in fact the first direct military confrontation between Russia and the US since Moscow launched its special operation in Ukraine.
For example, Joe Rogan in his podcast PowerfulJRE pointed out that the current White House administration is actively pushing the US to an outright war with Russia, bringing about the feeling of chaos in the country.
According to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, an administration like this could lead to a hot war with Russia and China whether you want it or not.
According to a CNN report, the MQ-9 incident in the Black Sea may contribute to growing support in the United States for the view that aid to Ukraine is not a national security issue for Washington.
The international public has also reacted strongly to the incident, in a way that is clearly unfavorable to the United States and US propaganda.
According to the Chinese Huánqiú Shíbào (english: Global Times) tabloid, such incidents have become more common in recent years around the world. It is emphasized that the United States is surprisingly involved most of the time. The publication stresses that this has become a habitual tactic of provoking enemies, and that a couple more such cases will cause the world to explode.
Guancha readers openly mocked Washington for the botched spying mission in the Black Sea, pointing to the US’s incompetence, whose drone crashed into the water. They praised Russia for “teaching a lesson” to America, self-assured in its permissiveness, without even opening fire, causing the MQ-9 to fall into the water in fear of the Russian Su-27.
As the Global Times correctly points out, the White House clearly requires such incidents in order to complicate the global situation and fight “against the unwanted.” How else can the provocative flight of the American MQ-9 Reaper drone near the Russian state border and the incident in the Black Sea be explained? Since the Cold War’s end, Washington has routinely staged such incidents, frequently targeting countries that the US publicly refers to as enemies.
The Austrian media, which is aghast at the prospect of the United States starting World War III, also points out that America recently staged a provocation with a B-52 bomber, and now the MQ-9 Reaper drone incident. The Austrian journalists wonder what Washington hopes to accomplish by conducting such dangerous “tests” of Russia’s defense capabilities. After all, today, it is clear to everyone that provocations like the ones on March 14 in the Black Sea and the day before with the B-52 bomber near St. Petersburg could be used as a pretext for war.
The opinions of the readers of the French Le Figaro are also quite revealing. Some of them believe that the USA was very “unprofessional” trying to spy on Russia and got what it deserved, while others admit that it was a “flawless operation” by Moscow. The video of the MQ-9 downing in the Black Sea, released by the US, caused no distress among French media readers. They called it “just another batch of oil the Americans poured on the fire.”
Readers of the German magazine Der Spiegel support Russia and are perplexed as to why the West is outraged by its actions. They suggest we look at the map to see for ourselves that American drones have no business over the Black Sea.
Australia’s The Sydney Morning Herald does not rule out that the US drone incident in the Black Sea could trigger a new round of tensions, becoming the first very dangerous incident of its kind since the Cold War. The majority of the publication’s readers blame Washington, specifically asking: what was that drone doing there?
According to some political analysts, the March 14 MQ-9 incident is unlikely to cause any serious consequences in relations between Russia and the US or result in a military clash between the two countries. After all, Washington’s remaining “cool heads” only need to take the necessary steps.
Following the MQ-9 Reaper drone incident over the Black Sea, the US has already begun analyzing the costs and benefits of such missions, weighing the potential value of intelligence obtained in this manner against the risk of escalation in relations with Russia, according to recent information. The US military is specifically instructed to “carefully study” UAV routes and assess ways to reduce the risk of conflict with Moscow, especially considering Russian aviation operations in the Crimea.
However, similar risks exist not only in the Black Sea region, but also in the Baltic Sea, as evidenced by an incident 200 kilometers away from St. Petersburg the day before the MQ-9 events. Then, as you may know, B-52 Stratofortress US strategic bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons and accompanied by Polish fighters, flew over Lithuanian airspace, approached the Russian border at the greatest possible distance, and went into position, simulating bombing readiness. Similar incidents may occur in the Arctic, near Russia’s borders in the Asia-Pacific region, if Washington makes new anti-Russian or anti-Chinese provocations there.
In any case, the US must temper its aggressive cowboy zeal, lest its provocative actions push the world dangerously close to the outbreak of World War III. Especially since there is still no clarity in identifying those responsible for the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение USA criticized globally over MQ-9 drone incident появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Legally, ties between Russia and Mongolia currently stand at a level of Comprehensive and Strategic Partnership, which they did so following the signing of an indefinite treaty of friendship and comprehensive strategic partnership in 2019 by the leaders of the two nations.
Therefore, their continued expansion should be maintained not just by expanding already-existing spheres of cooperation but also by looking for radically fresh “points of interaction.” The global political and economic processes such as growing hostility between Russia and the United States, as well as between the United States and the PRC, the Ukrainian crises, and the worldwide “post-coronavirus” recession, are not the best ways to affect Mongolian-Russian relations.
Notwithstanding these challenges and dangers, bilateral ties nevertheless have room for productive collaboration in a number of areas. This article tries to classify prospective initiatives in Russian-Mongolian relations in this regard.
1- Transport highway to the ports of Primorsky Krai to create an alternative route for Mongolia’s exports to third countries.
Currently, Mongolia has a transit route to the Chinese port of Tianjin, where China and Mongolia are currently constructing a new cargo terminal. Many Mongolian experts, however, have expressed skepticism regarding the political viability of this export route because the Chinese side is allegedly still able to restrict the entire flow of mining exports from Mongolia to third parties if it deems doing so to be inappropriate and hazardous to itself.
Due to the ability to enter into more dependable and stable export agreements, the development of a different channel for the marketing of Mongolian commodities is considered as enhancing Mongolia’s national security. In turn, recent agreements between Kazakhstan and Mongolia to build a network of suppliers for rare earth metals can provide this project practical content.
However, the development of the Russian Far East and its transportation and infrastructure system is a problem that must be properly addressed in order to carry out the project on the alternate transit route. The second obstacle is the worsening of ties between Russia and countries that might acquire raw materials from Mongolia, such as Japan and the Republic of Korea.
2- Perspective of the oil pipeline: transit advantages and new channels for Russian hydrocarbon exports.
The new Soyuz-Vostok gas pipeline, which will transport gas from Russia to China via Mongolia, is now being coordinated by Russia and Mongolia. With the construction of the pipeline and an agreement to expand oil supplies with the Chinese side, the People’s Republic of China could be reached by the quickest export route possible from fields in Western Siberia, the Urals, Bashkiria, and Tatarstan. As a result of such a project, Mongolia would gain financial and material bonuses in the form of transit payments and cheaper oil prices.
3- Development of bilateral tourism.
Known as ’Visit Mongolia’ year, the Mongolian government has authorized a strategy for the growth of the country’s tourist sector for the years 2023–2024. The Mongolian side has great expectations for the influx of Russian tourists.
The two sides’ potential for cooperation in this area has not been fully implemented. Citizens from Russia’s border regions can help increase tourist traffic from Russia to Mongolia. A number of Russian republics (Buryatia, Kalmykia, Altai, and Tuva) may be interested in the development of cultural and religious tourism and exchange between the two countries.
At the same time, an abundance of cultural, religious, and historical ties, as well as the significant cultural and historical heritage of nomadic culture, as well as the two countries’ immediate geographical proximity, can increase the flow of tourists from Mongolia to Russia.
To summarize, the prospects of bilateral relations include the enhancement of cross-border and national tourism. The expansion of cooperation in this industry is a critical prerequisite for the development of Russia’s south and east of Siberia.
4- Exploration and mining partnerships.
During Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh’s visit to Moscow in 2022, Russia was invited to participate in the exploration and development of potential Mongolian deposits, the most prominent of which are rare earth metal deposits. Russia has a substantial scientific and technological foundation in this field (for example, mining technologies have been tested for many years at a deposit in the Murmansk region, and an SPA in Korolev manufactures high-tech products using rare-earth raw materials).
As a result, Russia can contribute to the growth of a crucial and promising area of the Mongolian economy, where it may gain access to rich resources and exert political and economic control over potential customers for its rare earth raw material.
5- Compact nuclear power plants as a potential alternative to the construction of hydroelectric power plants that harm the ecology of Lake Baikal.
The Russian Federation is concerned about Mongolia’s intentions to construct many hydroelectric power stations on Selenga River tributaries because they could endanger the environment of the Baikal region. Currently, the challenge is getting a building permit from the Russian-Mongolian environmental review. The Baikal region faces an unacceptable external environmental threat, according to Russia’s stance, which has not changed.
Russia can offer Mongolia several initiatives in exchange for its rejection of potentially dangerous construction projects: first, Mongolia’s inclusion in the Northeast Asia Power System interconnection. (In this case, the effectiveness of the proposal will depend on negotiations with other potential participants). Furthermore, prices for Russian electricity imports are being reduced. (The Mongolian side may reject this due to its desire to provide the country with domestic sources of electricity). The third alternative is to construct small stationary (or possibly mobile, depending on the quantity and size) nuclear power plants in Mongolia using Russia’s expertise in developing compact nuclear reactors. Implementing such a project would serve as a model for other developing countries, encouraging them to collaborate with Rosatom in a completely new industry.
6- Prospects for joint ventures in the food industry.
Mongolian nomadic cattle breeding can provide high-quality, low-cost raw materials to Russian food companies. As a result, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Mongolia’s cost of producing one ton of mutton is half that of Russia’s ($889 vs. $1,563), and the price of horse meat is one and a half times. The greatest potential for exporting these two categories of food raw materials to Russia for further processing or sale in frozen form. So, there is a chance that new global value chains or joint ventures will be established.
Conclusions
Consequently, there are still many opportunities for Mongolia and the Russian Federation to work together in productive manners beneficial to both parties. Yet, in this regard, it should not be overlooked that the extent of this potential’s fulfillment depends more on the two countries’ respective national development concerns as well as the worsening global political landscape.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Russia and Mongolia: potential economic projects появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Perhaps the author’s articles focus too heavily on South Korean domestic politics, but even so, when he describes the lengthy planning for an event, he should at least briefly summarize how it went. Recently, there have been two such events that are crucial to the country’s future. Each would have merited a full-length film, but there are also a lot of intriguing things taking place in other parts of the world. Shall we?
Parliamentary voting on the Arrest of Democratic Party Chairman
The NEO has written extensively about how the prosecutor’s office is (in the author’s opinion, quite justifiably) getting close to the leader of the opposition Democratic Party, Lee Jae-myung, and the fact that the investigation eventually sought a warrant for his arrest on February 16, 2023 was not surprising. However, an MP’s arrest should be sanctioned by Parliament, so it was equally clear that the Democrats, who have 169 votes out of 300, would vote against it and Chairman Lee would remain free.
And so it happened, but there was no unanimous support among the democratic forces. First of all, the left-wing Justice Party did not go along with the Democrats and spoke out in favor of Lee’s arrest, and for two reasons. The first is very simple: the law should be the same for everyone, and Lee Jae-myung has shown himself to be a master of double standards in this story. When Lee ran for president, he promised to abolish parliamentary immunity. But when the situation changed not in his favor, on February 24, he blatantly retracted his previous promises.
Another reason is that although Lee Jae-myung says in his press conferences that Prosecutor-turned-President Yoon Suk-yeol dreams of putting him in chains, as “judicial hunting under the mask of the rule of law has become part of everyday life. Politics has disappeared, and an era of barbarism where only domination reigns has started”, the charges against him are criminal, not political. They refer not to Lee’s activities as a Democrat leader, but to the old days, when he was still a city mayor and then a province governor. At the same time, the accusations are rather well-funded, more so than those once made against Park Geun-hye.
Second, within the Democratic Party itself there were enough opponents of Lee who said that the double standard had already caused the party to fail in the local elections of June 2022. And if the party constantly broke its promises, it would lose the trust of the people and become a “rescue club for Chairman Lee.” The fact that the vote was to be anonymous gave them courage.
And here was the result: Lee Jae-myung was saved only miraculously, as there were 138 votes in favor of the arrest and 139 against. This means that at least 30 Democratic Party members voted for the arrest, and some spoiled ballots that were then declared invalid.
Of course, the Democratic Party responded with a witch hunt, publishing lists of alleged traitors and harassing them on the Internet. This could lead to a situation where dissatisfied people would simply quit the party and, if there were enough of them, the Democrats could lose their parliamentary majority.
Moreover, even if Lee can avoid incarceration, he would still have to go to court and be interrogated, which would have a negative impact on the already low rating of the Democratic Party. And if another criminal case is opened against Lee (e.g., in the context of money transfers to North Korea), the prosecutor’s office could file another arrest warrant, which would be voted on in a very different political environment.
Elections of the chairman of the ruling party
As a reminder, those elections were held in an environment of fierce factional struggle and the four remaining candidates on the final list represented four factions: the traditional conservatives who led the party until 2020 (former Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn), the center-right and supporters of ousted ex-chairman Lee Jun-seok (lawyer Chun Ha-ram), supporters of Ahn Cheol-soo, former head of the People’s Party, and supporters of Yoon Suk-yeol led by MP and former Ulsan mayor Kim Gi-hyeon.
Initially, Ahn had the advantage over Kim, but by February 23, Kim Gi-hyeon had already widened his lead over Ahn Cheol-soo, garnering 44% of the support against Ahn’s 22.6%, Chun Ha-ram’s 15.6%, and Hwang Kyo-ahn’s 14.6%. In a hypothetical two-way contest between Kim and Ahn, Kim earned 50.1% versus Ahn’s 37.6%.
Experts believe that Kim Gi-hyeon was supported by those in favor of inner-party stability. The likely support of the president, with whom the conservatives place their hopes for a return to prestige, also played a role. As political analyst Bae Jong-chan noted in an interview with The Korea Times, “In the early stages of the election race, Kim’s approval rating was about 3%. His 53% vote, after all, should be interpreted as a vote for president.”
The party also elected five members to its High Council. MP Lee Chul-gyu was appointed the new general secretary of the ruling party on March 13. This is a key position that oversees the party’s budget and organizational affairs. As general secretary, Lee will also serve as vice chairman of the party committee responsible for nominating candidates for the 2024 parliamentary elections. Like his deputies Park Seong-min and Bae Hyun-jin, Lee Chul-gyu is from Yoon supporters.
At a meeting with the new leaders of the ruling party, Yoon Suk-yeol stressed the need for the People’s Power and the government to unite to work for the good of the people. After expressing his confidence in them, Yoon said, “From now on, I can concentrate on running the country.”
Now for two years, the chairman of the People’s Power will be Yoon Suk-yeol’s man (unless, of course, he repeats Lee Jun-seok’s fate and gets embroiled in another corruption or sex scandal).
But Kim Gi-hyeon faces a series of important tasks.
The first task is to strengthen the unity of the party. Winning with barely more than 50% on 55% turnout means that the majority of party members more likely do not support Kim, while the 15% for Chun Ha-ram indicates both that Lee Jun-seok’s support group is still intact and that they want change in general. Bae Jong-chan reminds us that this is the first time Yoon Suk-yeol has secured a party leadership that largely shares his political vision, and “a devastating factor in terms of the president’s approval rating is criticism from his own party.” He has been attacked by both traditional conservatives and supporters of Lee Jun-seok. Now that the situation is under control, Yoon’s popularity is expected to grow.
However, Kim must walk a fine line. On the one hand, he has to clamp down or negotiate with other factions so that they don’t stall the government’s course, and on the other hand, he has to avoid overtightening the screws by turning the party into a puppet of presidential power. Judging by Kim’s words, “I will run the system so that the president can concentrate on state affairs and not worry about parliamentary or party affairs,” there is a danger of bias in the second direction.
The second task is to ensure a Conservative victory in the 2024 parliamentary elections: it is vital for the ruling party to regain control of the majority in the National Assembly. So far, the Democrats have declined most of the president’s initiatives regardless of their usefulness – simply because they can. At the same time, the head of the party is responsible for handing out the rights of a party member to run for office. And it is clear that those who are in the same faction with the leader have a better chance of being nominated.
The third task is to “restore dialogue and cooperation with the Democratic Party to overcome the economic crisis and improve people’s lives” in the current parliament.
In light of this, many believe that the Conservative Party will soon experience a significant change in its elites and overall composition, leading to the emergence of more and more securocrats within the party. Only time will tell, but let’s for now record the outcomes of two significant occasions and stand still in anticipation of “future episodes.”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение On the outcome of the ROK’s Conservative Party congress and the parliamentary vote against the arrest of Lee Jae-myung. появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Today, almost every country in the world considers China to be an important foreign economic partner. And it’s only natural, given China’s level of scientific, technological, and industrial breakthrough at the turn of the century. In this regard, Turkish-Chinese foreign economic relations are understandable and consistent with Beijing’s target aspirations as part of the “One Belt, One Road” geoeconomic strategy.
China, with its trade turnover of $6.3 trillion in 2022, has used its “One Belt, One Road” strategy not only as a major geo-economic project, the essence of which is to form new alternative communications for exporting goods produced in the Middle Kingdom to foreign markets (primarily to the markets of financially prosperous ASEAN countries, EU and USA), but also to implement a large-scale geopolitical goal of establishing ample control over several regions and weak countries through economic linkage to its goods and investments. China, given the sad experience of the USSR, instead of exporting communist ideology and Soviet arms, has so far been using the export of Chinese goods and loans to its own advantage.
In addition, Beijing’s policy of forming alternative land communications in Eurasia to ensure the effective access of Chinese goods to the European market is hardly compatible with the name “One Belt, One Road.” For the PRC prefers to establish control over a number of transport communication routes with the historical name of “Silk Road,” as well as with new addressees.
Thus, because of the harsh and large-scale anti-Russian economic sanctions from the collective West due to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, China is forced to look for alternative routes to EU countries instead of routes through the territory of the Russian Federation that are beneficial to Beijing. In this regard, China is focused on the neighboring republics of Central Asia, the Caspian Basin, the South Caucasus countries and Turkey as the most preferable route circumventing Russia. Accordingly, there is no subject of “one route,” for there are “several”…
The advantageous economic and geographic position of modern Turkey (and in the past the Ottoman Empire) at the junction of three continents (Asia, Europe and Africa) traditionally increases the importance of that country in the world trade system and in matters of military strategy. The historical “Silk Road” also passed through the territory of the Ottoman state. At the same time, the section of the route from China to Europe through Turkey passes through a number of economically and militarily weaker countries, which creates an opportunity for Beijing to establish long-term control over local regimes.
However, the relationship between Turkey and China, despite the large distance that separates these countries, is defined not only by economic and trade issues. Historically, the “Turkic ebb and flow” has caused considerable problems for China, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in the northwest of the PRC is its legacy, with a population of over 26 million people, where the Uyghurs comprise slightly less than 50 percent of the total (and together with the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz, the Mongols and the Tatars, exceed the Turkic population from all the rest).
XUAR is the largest (1,664,897 km²) administrative-territorial unit of modern China; it makes one sixth of the PRC. In addition, this Turkic autonomy borders Turkic countries such as Mongolia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, as well as the Indian territory of Ladakh, controlled by pro-Turkish Pakistan. Accordingly, Beijing in the 1990s noted attempts by various Turkish radical centers of pan-Turkic (Panturan) and Islamic orientation, controlled by the MIT (the state intelligence agency of Turkey), to exert ideological and political (actually separatist) influence on the Uyghur population of XUAR.
Such a prospect creates serious domestic political problems of extremism and separatism for China, diverting forces and funds to their severe suppression, which undermines China’s credibility in the international arena.
Xinjiang was conquered by the Chinese in the 1st century and was annexed to the Han Empire, and from the 6th century with the participation of the Turkic Khaganate the active Turkization of the region began. In ancient times, the Great Silk Road also passed through this territory. At different periods of history, Xinjiang was a part of Chinese empires (in particular, Han, Tang and Qing), seceding from them from time to time. In modern times (in particular, in 1928-1942), the territory of Xinjiang corresponded to the Turkic-Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan (TIRET), which actively cooperated with the USSR starting from 1933 under the leadership of Sheng Shicai. In fact, regime change in the TIRET occurred due to the Soviet Union’s assistance in suppressing the White Guards’ revolt. However, the local ruler defected to Nazi Germany in 1942, which determined Moscow’s subsequent attitude toward Ürümqi. Particularly, thanks to the Soviet Union, after the Chinese Communist Party defeated the Kuomintang regime in 1949, Xinjiang became part of the PRC and on October 1, 1955, the XUAR was formed as part of the PRC.
In the 1990s, almost all Turkish governments supported Uyghur separatism, and frequently Turkish special services used Uyghur radicals in local conflicts reflecting Turkish interests (including those in the Russian territory of the North Caucasus region). In July 2009 the Ürümqi riots resulted in yet another violent crackdown on local protests by Beijing, which drew emotional criticism from Recep Erdoğan’s government. The latter even described the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uyghurs as genocide, which prompted a strong reaction from Beijing, demanding an apology.
As for the Uyghur population of XUAR, since 2014 Beijing has pursued an active restrictive policy (in particular, including the creation of special camps and the installation of GPS sensors on vehicles). Under the guise of intense construction, Beijing began to massively relocate Han Chinese from other regions of the PRC to the XUAR in order to change the ethnography of the region. In March 2021, the European Parliament imposed sanctions on the PRC for the first time because of the persecution of local Uyghurs.
This policy of the CCP was a response to attempts by external forces, fueled by pan-Turkist and pan-Islamic forces in Turkey, to export ideas of Turkic-Islamic unity and the revival of the Turan Project to the XUAR. Naturally, such harsh practices of Beijing could not but arouse political criticism from the government of Recep Erdoğan, who advocates the interests of the unity of the Turkic world, as well as a number of Western countries (the USA and Europe)—supposedly “defenders of democracy and human rights principles”. However, Ankara soon changed its tactics of relations with Beijing and refused in the public space to interfere in the internal affairs of China.
Assessing the growing economic and military-political power of China, Turkish President Recep Erdoğan decided to establish an active trade and economic partnership with the PRC, and to transfer all issues concerning the XUAR to the sphere of ethno-cultural relations and economic assistance in improving the social situation of the Turkic population of China.
As a result, if in the early 2000s the volume of Sino-Turkish trade was about $1 billion, by 2018 it had already grown to $23 billion. Subsequently, the pandemic and various lockdowns made adjustments to Sino-Turkish trade and economic relations, but now the situation has begun to change towards new activity. In 2021, China, with a share of 11.8% ($32 billion), became Turkey’s largest trade partner in terms of imports of goods.
A third of Turkey’s foreign trade deficit is accounted for by China (more than $55 billion). Beijing began to support major Turkish infrastructure projects. For example, Chinese companies own 65% of the Kumport container terminal in Istanbul, 51% of the Sultan Selim’in Yavuz Bridge over the Bosporus, the China-based Huawei controls over 30% of technology systems on the Turkish market, and in 2016 ZTE acquired 48% of the Turkish company Netaş’s telecommunications facilities. In 2015, Ankara joined China’s New Silk Road project, the Iron Silk Road / Middle Corridor (that is, the route from China to Europe via Turkey). During the implementation of this project, Turkey has already received $5 billion as a profitable investment from the PRC. Since 2016, Beijing and Ankara have been negotiating the construction of a new nuclear power plant in the European part of Turkey.
China lends mainly to energy and transport projects in Turkey, exports production equipment, and invests in the construction market (due to which the cost of square meters in Turkey is growing). All this is a kind of “lifeline” for the Turkish economy (especially during the financial crisis and devaluation of the Turkish lira). Thanks largely to Chinese imports and investments, Turkey’s exports in 2022 reached a historical maximum of $254.2 billion. According to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s plans, Turkey should become one of the world’s top ten exporters of goods. Most of Turkey’s exports of manufacturing equipment are destined to financially prosperous Germany, while Turkish imports from China form the basis of these exports.
All this brings us to the conclusion that China occupies a key place in the structure of Turkey’s trade turnover, allows the Turkish economy to maintain its capacity, creates new prospects for the growth of re-export of goods to EU countries, including the transit of Chinese goods through the Turkmen port of Turkmenbashi, the Caspian Basin and the Baku – Tbilisi – Kars railroad. New projects of Turkish-Chinese transit-communication cooperation include the prospect of reopening the Meghri transport corridor in Armenia, which will significantly reduce the time of traffic of goods from China to Turkey and Europe.
In terms of smoothing out “sharp corners” in China-Turkey relations, the Turkish parliament ratified an extradition agreement in May 2019, allowing Ankara to receive a lucrative loan from Beijing in June of that year amounting to $1 billion. Chinese investments actually help strengthen Turkey’s independent position from Western diktat, as well as keep Recep Erdoğan in power with the concept of reviving a “strong Turkey” in a multipolar world order.
Thus, in its relations with Turkey, China strengthens its status as a major investor and creditor, which allows it to increase its economic expansion and exert political influence over Ankara. Turkey has to reckon with the realities of China’s economic leadership; in Central Asia, the geographical proximity of China with the Turkic republics and the foreign economic dependence of the latter on Beijing should not be discounted (for example, the foreign debt of these countries to China varies from 10 to 60%). Turkey’s transit cooperation with China as part of the Great Silk Road project allows Ankara to integrate the post-Soviet countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus into a single system of trade and economic relations and communication links.
Despite Turkey’s zealous attitude to the fact of active Iranian-Chinese cooperation (in particular, Beijing’s 25-year agreement with Tehran on investing over $400 billion in energy and infrastructure projects in Iran), Ankara realizes its geographical significance in the Chinese “One Belt, One Road” strategy with a view of spatial access to Europe and the four seas. All this creates the peculiarities of the Turkish-Chinese economic partnership.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Peculiarities of the Turkish-Chinese economic cooperation появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The United States’ use of terrorist methods to eliminate Russian gas competition by undermining the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea on September 26 and numerous well-founded suspicions about Washington’s possible use of tectonic weapons in the February earthquake in Turkey are among the most widely discussed topics in many nations today.
Seymour Hersh, who is well known for his high-profile investigative journalism and who wrote a piece about the terrorist attacks on the North Stream pipelines, successfully demonstrated that the explosives were planted by experts from the US Navy’s dive and rescue department. The American journalist thereby demonstrated to the world how Washington has long since crossed the “border of decency,” under the guise of meaningless platitudes about “American democracy,” and armed itself with terrorist techniques, demonstrating that the foundation of such “democracy” is terrorism. It is now clear to everyone that the US is to blame and that this is its true nature, regardless of the propaganda or fabrications Washington tries to use to deny its involvement in the attack, even to the point of trying to blame “a certain Ukrainian group” or to pressure the Baltic Sea states to delay and divert the investigation into the bombing.
Another example of this is the fact that Tulsi Gabbard, a former candidate for the US presidency, emphasized on Fox News that Joe Biden had always lied about the US’s non-participation in igniting the Ukraine issue and about terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. And now that he has been exposed, the American President is attempting to feed the world an absurd story.
In any case, the truth will triumph, and the United States will be forced to shamefully admit its guilt in this terrorist attack, accepting not only legal responsibility for it, as well as the energy and economic crisis it has caused, but also compensating everyone who has suffered losses.
Against the backdrop of the current American authorities’ boundless lies, ever louder accusations are starting to appear against Washington and for the natural disaster that erupted in February, killing 48 thousand people in Turkey alone and causing more than $100 billion in damage to this country. The version of the artificial nature of the recent earthquake in the region, previously voiced in Turkish society and in an article in Sözcü by the head of the Turkish space agency, Serdar Hussein Yildrim, is becoming stronger by the day. And experts in many countries support it. Also, the fact that several Western embassies, including the US Embassy in Turkey, abruptly closed just a few days prior to the earthquake may be evidence that Washington may have forewarned some of its friends about the potential impending use of tectonic weapons. Especially given that similar “preventive” actions have previously been made, most notably when the US was preparing to “punish” the Erdoğan administration by using the Turkish military to attempt a violent coup in this country by destabilizing the situation in Turkey in 2016.
The American military facility HAARP, or High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, which is situated in Alaska, has already been mentioned in connection with the earthquake in Turkey as a tool of tectonic warfare, in particular, when studying the causes of the unexpected earthquake in Colombia in January 1999. At the time it was stated that subduction, a shift of the Nazca tectonic plate, could be the cause of tremors, although in fact no vertical movements were detected on the fault line, unlike earthquakes on the San Andreas fault in California. In this regard, back then the topic of the possible use of tectonic weapons by the United States was also discussed. Especially since the most affected Colombian cities of Armenia and Pereira had long ben considered oases of peace and prosperity until the civil war broke out in this country and they turned into drug trafficking centers that caused many problems for the United States.
As a significant number of scientists in different countries suggest, a tectonic weapon can really cause such catastrophic earthquakes, for which it is enough to use the so-called magnetohydrodynamic generator, which sends strong electromagnetic pulses deep into the crust. It was such installations that already appeared in the United States in the 1970s and have been tested for many years since. It is known that it is especially easy to artificially provoke an earthquake using such a generator in those regions where there are stresses in the earth’s crust. Yet, strangely enough, the country that is most suited for this situation is Turkey (and Colombia in 1999).
In this regard, it will not be superfluous to recall that the disaster in Turkey occurred after the demand of Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu to the United States to remove “its dirty hands” from the Turkish Republic. Such an unambiguous attack by Ankara could, of course, “hurt” Washington, which takes offense at such attacks, especially from representatives of the “freedom-loving Erdoğan administration.” Consequently, couldn’t the White House approve the necessary “punishment of Turkey,” including employing “tectonic weapons”? And, at the same time, resolve its long-standing commitment to remove Erdoğan from his position of power?
Everyone is familiar with HAARP, an American scientific initiative that investigates how intense electromagnetic radiation interacts with the ionosphere, particularly, controlling the human brain, creating a nuclear explosion without radiation release, moving and melting polar ice, interfering with the ozone layer, causing earthquakes and tsunamis, and controlling ocean waves.
The American Embassy in Turkey issued a warning that “security is under threat here” after the Turkish newspaper dikGAZETE published an article regarding mysterious bluish outbreaks in the sky of Turkey right before the powerful earthquake. This article and several others in this field sought to make a connection between this extremely bizarre atmospheric phenomenon and the ensuing catastrophic earthquake, a sign of potential HAARP activity. And in this regard, it is unavoidably brought to mind as the media reported that on November 12, 2012, when HAARP was used to send strong high-frequency electromagnetic radiation to the upper atmosphere, the ionosphere at an altitude of 170 kilometers was literally lit up, creating a stable plasma cloud there that lasted for about an hour.
All of this suggests that the current US administration is willing to go to any length to reign supreme and maintain world dominance. And the international community should take every opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective investigation into these facts, punish the perpetrators, and prevent this from happening again in the future.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение US Terrorist Attack on Nord Stream Pipelines and Tectonic Weapons in Turkey появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Although, unlike the last war of 1812 with France, Russia and Britain were never openly at war with each other, the scale of the geopolitical confrontation between these two European states and Moscow has long existed and is constantly growing. Especially against the background of the current leaders of these two countries’ servile submission to the Russophobic policies of the White House. And one of the hottest points of clash of interests has been Central Asia (CA).
Britain’s aggressive attitude towards Russia was clearly manifested in the 16th century, when the British tried to bring the Moscow kingdom under their economic interests and find a mainland route to the riches of India through it. This, however, did not work out for London, and so they had to build a sea route to India. Having established itself in Central Asia before Russia, Britain quickly enough began to extract rich dividends from its Asian colonies, covering, in particular, the deficit resulting from export-import operations with American and European companies through trade with India and China.
Initiated by London, the Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 was an attempt to slow down Russia’s advance to the south, but the defeat of Persia only helped consolidate Russia in the Middle East, undermining Britain’s position there.
The first Afghan war which ended ingloriously for the British crown, in which it lost more than 5 thousand soldiers and about 25 million pounds, as well as the Russian conquest of Central Asia, accelerated since the 1850s, allowed Moscow through successful campaigns to subdue the Kokand, Bukhara and Khiva khanates to the great indignation of London.
The beginning of the twentieth century once again pitted British and Russian interests against each other. Britain, however, having ceded its status as the world’s leading power to the United States, and after becoming the latter’s chief viceroy in Europe, continued its confrontation with Russia. Although today it is not the same country it was 200 years ago, and it now has neither India nor an official reason to get involved in Asia, still, London’s Asian aspirations haven’t faded.
Today it’s no secret that Britain’s intelligence has a serious influence on Turkey and is trying to oust Russia from Asia, which was proved by the visit of Richard Moore, head of MI6, to Ankara right after the end of the second Karabakh war. keep in mind that London provoked Turkey against Russia and openly supported it by entering the Crimean War in 1853-1856, and then in the war of 1877-1878 by giving it money, weapons and instructors.
It is clear that Britain is unlikely to engage Russia openly today, since the current British army is not what it was when Britain “ruled the waves” and could afford to “fight Russia.” Nevertheless, London’s unsuccessful desire since the 19th century to “tame,” especially through the hands of others, Russia, whose actions in Central Asia seem to threaten the countries of the “British imperial dominion” in the Near and Middle East, has long literally become an obsession in Britain. At every opportunity, official London tries to demonstrate its anti-Russian démarches, foments hostile hysteria and propaganda clamor in the media, and meanwhile, under their cover, carries out a large-scale intervention in Central Asia. In particular, it is trying to prevent the spread of not only Russian but also Chinese influence in the region, to cut off access of their goods to traditional markets, and to take control of transit trade of Moscow and Beijing with countries of the Near and Middle East through the Caspian and Aral Sea region.
For Britain, Central Asia has long been an area of strategic interest, not only because of the region’s significant mineral reserves, but also because of its geostrategic position as a bridge between Europe and Southeast Asia. Besides, it is necessary to remember that in autumn of 2005 the American and British intelligence gathered the forces of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU, banned in Russia) in the province of Kunduz with the purpose of staging an attack on the southern regions of Kyrgyzstan but the action never took place.
Since Richard Moore became the chief of British intelligence, there has already been a notable activation of British intelligence services in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, along with a strengthening of pan-Turkic organizations and controlled Islamist groups to conduct subversive operations. Moreover, London actively seeks to use Turkey as a battering ram in this campaign in the region in order to cut a path for British interests and squeeze Russia out of Central Asia.
London began to coordinate its anti-Russian activities in Central Asia with the United States and American intelligence services. There is an explanation for this, as at the moment both Britain and the US benefit from the geopolitical instability in Central Asia, which allows them to keep Russia and China on their toes.
But in addition to this “strategic alliance” between Britain and the United States in Central Asia, London’s desire to involve France “in these actions” has recently become increasingly clear. At the beginning of February, a round table was held in Paris under the aegis of the French parliament to discuss and call for an increased role not only of the “Collective West” but also of France in Central Asia in order to weaken Russia’s influence in the region. “Dancing” around the leaders of Central Asian republics actively took place in Paris, for example, in November of last year around two leaders of this region – Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who were invited to Paris for an official visit. They engaged in active negotiations with members of French political and business circles, who promised billions of dollars of investment in these Central Asian countries, and numerous “memoranda of intent” were concluded.
One of the participants of Paris negotiations was the largest French nuclear company Orano, which concluded a strategic partnership agreement with Uzbek uranium producer Navoiyuran that envisaged joint prospecting and development of deposits.
It is noteworthy that another active participant in the negotiations was the French Development Agency (AFD), which has expressed willingness to invest in projects in these countries. However, this fact is remarkable because it goes beyond “regular business” since the AFD is an analogue of the American USAID, i.e. the structure that performs the functions of an agent of influence and carries out secret missions of the US intelligence services. The “specific interest” of Paris in Central Asia is largely due to uranium deposits required for nuclear power plants, and, after all France is the European leader in nuclear power generation. On the other hand – Kazakhstan is the world leader in manufacture of natural uranium, having 26 % of all of the world’s explored uranium resources in a low price category (about $80 for 1 kg) and provides more than 40 % of all world deliveries. The French-Kazakhstan Joint Venture KATCO already processes 15% of uranium mined in the country, but France obviously wants more, and in pursuing the West’s anti-Russian policy Paris has lately more and more actively joined any action harming Russia in one way or another. Therefore the desire to push Russia away from Central Asia, and Kazakhstan in particular, is now great in Paris, for which it plans to double joint uranium production with this country by 2030, pushing Moscow out. And not only by taking in more uranium, but also by earning money from the construction of nuclear power plants, including in this Russia-centric region.
In early November, the executive director of Électricité de France traveled to Kyrgyzstan, where he met with President Sadyr Japarov, clearly demonstrating Paris’ interest in investing in the Kyrgyz hydropower sector.
In Paris’s demonstrative attempts to strengthen its presence in Central Asia, a traditional zone of Russian influence, one can clearly see more than just the desire to squeeze Rosatom, France’s eternal competitor, in the region and to get its hands on the local uranium. No, there is also an important geopolitical component: Macron obviously wants to get back at Russia for his own failures in Africa, where Russia has been driving France out, taking its place in the process.
However, as for France and Britain’s aspirations regarding Central Asia, and their attempts to oust Russia from this region, they can only be advised not to waste time and money, but to deal with their numerous domestic problems, as mass protests against the ongoing social policy, including at the expense of incredible financial and military aid to support the criminal regime in Kyiv, continue to grow.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Britain and France unsuccessfully attempt to force Russia out of Central Asia появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
There are very few issues in the US politics, both domestic and foreign, that can draw the Republicans and the Democrats into a bi-partisan consensus. Russia has been one of them in the wake of the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. More recently, China has also made it to the list of issues. This is evident from the recently formed House Committee on Strategic Competition with China. The committee – which includes both the Democrats and the Republicans – has been formed at a time when tensions with China across a range of issues are running high. The US is not happy with “Chinese Spy Balloons” flying over the US. Many in the US ‘fear’ that Beijing’s attack on Taiwan is imminent. And, finally, many US policy makers are not happy at all with China’s position on the conflict in Ukraine, as Beijing continues to blame the US for the crisis. Against this ‘mounting’ China threat, a ‘national effort’ against Beijing becomes necessary. To tackle this threat most effectively, the US needs ‘new’ ways of tackling China. Doing that also requires moving beyond the narrow mentality of Cold War competition with the Soviet Union to frame – and respond to – the competition with China as ‘total’ rather than just military or ideological.
Indeed, this is how a Republican member of the committee Dusty Johnson described the US-China competition. According to him, it is wrong to compare the US-China competition with the US-USSR competition of the Cold War era. “It’s a very different environment,” Johnson said in a media interview, adding that “We didn’t need to in a targeted way decouple our economy from that of the Soviet Union’s. The Soviet Union was a one-dimensional threat. It was a military threat. The Chinese Communist Party is a threat in a much more comprehensive way.”
An even better explanation came from the chairman of the committee Michael McCaul, who said in his opening speech that “There is no doubt that the growing aggression of the Chinese Communist Party poses a generational threat to the United States”, adding that the current administration’s various efforts at curtailing China and maintaining the balance of power in favour of the US in this “struggle for the global balance of power” have not been enough. Therefore, Michael added the struggle needs to expand, including in the “ideological battlefield.”
Therefore, various US officials are on record to have reiterated multiple times that they aren’t looking to start a ‘war’ with China, the mindset of this committee and the goals it is seeking to achieve tell an entirely different policy position, a position that syncs perfectly well with Joe Biden’s own position, who sees competition with China as an epic struggle between “democracies [and] autocracies.”
This epic struggle has now become a “comprehensive” threat, which is also multi-dimensional i.e., including military, economic, political, geo-political and strategic dimensions. Responding to such a “big” threat requires resources both from within the US and alliances with other countries, especially China’s adversaries.
Within the US, the political elites are already passing laws that target China from various angels, aiming to restrict its political and economic space. Following the logic of “comprehensive” threat, the US House of Representative recently passed 7 bills targeting China and/or Taiwan. For instance, the “Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2023” will activate sanctions against Chinese leaders and their families if Beijing attacks Taiwan. The “Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act of 2023” will require the US governments to advocate for Taiwan’s membership of the International Monetary Fund. The “China exchange Rate Transparency Act of 2023” requires the US Director at the IMF to advocate for a “transparent disclosure” of China’s exchange rate policies. And finally, the “China Financial Threat Mitigation Act of 2023” requires the Treasury Secretary to report on global economic risks from China.
While most of these acts aim to “protect” Taiwan and/or the world from China, there is little denying that their underlying purpose is to punish China in any and all possible ways. For instance, the Act to force China to make its exchange rate policies “transparent” has nothing to do with Chinese currency but mainly with the imperative of crafting ways to maintain the hegemony of the US dollar, which is coming under increasing pressure from the concerted effort of China and Russia to trade in alternative currencies.
With the protection of US hegemony being the overarching objective, the House Committee sees the Communist Party of China (CCP) as its true rival; therefore, it is also following a regime-change agenda as well by ideationally pitting the people of China against the CCP. To quote Dusty Johnson again, “the Chinese people are the primary victims of the pattern of aggression from the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese people are not an adversary.” Since the CCP is an adversary of both the US and Chinese people, it might be useful for both to struggle against it, and eventually defeat it.
What else could be made of the politics of ‘total war’ on China? The US is targeting China in the economic, technological, political and geo-political field. It sees the CCP as a rival and is beginning to do excessive public diplomacy by addressing the people of China with malicious intents.
What is quite clear here is the increasing level of anxiety in Washington about China’s rise as a powerful competitor of the US quite capable of displacing its hegemony. The US is making anxious moves to protect its hegemony, but the fact that the various steps it has taken over the past few years have failed to stem the tide of Chinese power might indicate the bleak future of the recent most steps the US has taken or will take in the future as well.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение ‘New’ Bipartisan Consensus in the US Against China Aims Total War появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Given the high dependence of today’s energy-intensive economy on gas supplies, it can be argued that any proposals to optimize the transit and sale of the blue fuel are of high interest in world markets.
Before the aggravation of Russian-Ukrainian relations, the European Union was the main buyer of Russian gas, with export volumes reaching as high as 174.3 billion cubic meters in 2021. However, with the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, due to anti-Russian sanctions from the collective West, the establishment of a ceiling on Russian gas prices, the refusal of several EU countries to pay in rubles for Russian gas and, finally, the undermining of of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines on September 26, 2022 in the waters of Denmark and Sweden, gas supplies from Russia to Europe have almost halved. This had an overall negative impact, primarily on the economies of the European states themselves.
Unfortunately, the leaders of most EU countries have become a “blind tool” in the hands of the American-British consortium and have led to the disorganization of the gas market. At the same time, Gazprom LLC was forced to record an increase in its gas supplies to China and other Asian countries. Russian gas continues to be delivered to Europe via one pipeline through Ukraine to Poland and through the Turkish Stream pipeline to Serbia and Hungary.
Due to the politicization of the topic of Russian gas and the subversive actions of Western intelligence services on the Nord Stream pipeline, on the one hand, and given the reliability of Turkey as a partner for the purchase and transit of gas from Russia, on the other, Russian President Vladimir Putin in October 2022 proposed a major energy project to create a gas hub in Turkey to depoliticize the topic of Russian gas exports and optimize global gas trade.
This mutually beneficial proposal of the Russian side was welcomed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who gave operative instructions to the relevant agencies and organizations to work out the details of creating a “gas hub.” Through this hub the supplies of Russian gas from the damaged Nord Stream in the Baltics will be moved south to Turkey. According to Alexander Novak, Russian Deputy Prime Minister, new trading platforms (in fact, a gas exchange) will be created in Turkey to re-export incoming gas as well as to develop the gas storage infrastructure and increase the volume of gas supplies via the southern route. Other gas exporters (in particular, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Iran and Qatar) may take part in the project along with Russia.
Turkish Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Fatih Dönmez proposed the geographical location of the gas hub – the Turkish territory of Eastern Thrace, bordering with Europe. This Russian project is now at the stage of detailed elaboration, legal registration and discussion of financial issues. The gas hub issue will be included in the agenda of a meeting of the Turkish parliament for amendments to the legislation and formation of the legal framework of the project. The conference scheduled for March 14 and then rescheduled for March 22 this year for a Russian-Turkish discussion of the entire complex of issues on the gas hub project is currently postponed for objective reasons linked to the tragic consequences of the large-scale earthquake in southeastern Turkey and the country’s transition to the election process.
Moscow’s interest in the gas hub in Turkey is determined by the fact that implementation of this project may depoliticize gas relations between Russia and the European Union and, at the same time, it allows to develop Swap-operations with Azerbaijan, Qatar, and Iran.
In fact, the Turkish gas hub in the foreseeable future can become an effective gas distribution center mainly for pipeline gas supplies to Southern and Southeastern Europe. A new electronic trading platform can also be created here, which will require the introduction of a global digital software. Real and potential gas suppliers to the Turkish hub, in addition to Russia, may be Azerbaijan, Iran and Turkmenistan, and in terms of Liquefied natural gas (LNG) also Algeria, Qatar.
Given the high potential of Russian gas export volumes to increase supplies through the Turkish hub, the construction of new maritime infrastructure from Russia to Turkey, the expansion of the Trans-Balkan pipeline and the construction of interconnectors in Europe itself will be required one way or another.
Various opinions have appeared in the media from detractors of this project about the alleged financial problems that could postpone the implementation of the Russian proposal for an indefinite period. In this connection, financial difficulties in Turkey caused by the consequences of the economic crisis and the devastating earthquake were cited as an argument (apparently, billions if not tens of billions of US dollars would be needed to implement the project).
In particular, on March 6 this year, Çağrı Erhan, a member of the Security and Foreign Policy Council under the President of Turkey, made a statement that Ankara would need Russian investment to build the hub because Turkey currently has no money to build it after the devastating earthquake.
However, no one has discussed the financial costs of creating a gas hub in Turkey. Accordingly, there is no clear idea of the volume of necessary expenses. Naturally, the earthquake tragedy has altered many of Turkey’s economic projects because of the shift in financial priorities. Nevertheless, the Turkish leadership and expert community remain aware of the economic and geopolitical importance of this project for the country’s interests.
Given the fact that, in total, potential suppliers of gas to the Turkish hub own more than 60% of the world’s gas reserves, Turkey could become an important regulator of gas exports to the EU countries. Accordingly, Ankara will have both economic and political impact on the fate of Europe.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is known for his policy of extending the independent course of Turkey, which is largely rooted in the economic power of the state. This project complements the political course of the Turkish leader.
Moreover, Erdoğan is a well-known supporter of strengthening the unity of Turkic states and the implementation of the geopolitical project Great Turan. In this regard, his pragmatic policy is aimed at the formation of a new energy communication to export gas from the Turkic countries of Central Asia (primarily, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan) through Turkey to Europe. Accordingly, the gas hub project, in which Russia is also interested for the purpose of depoliticizing the topic of gas supplies, creates an opportunity for Turkey to gain access to Turkmen gas. The latter concern will also be motivated by the idea of the necessity to increase gas supplies through the Turkish hub. And in these circumstances, it will be difficult for Russia to deny Erdoğan the opportunity to build a new gas pipeline from the Turkmen shelf of the Caspian basin to Turkey via Azerbaijan.
Given the fact that the gas hub is internationalized and meets the interests not only of Russia but also Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Qatar, Algeria and possibly Iran, it is quite fair to solve the issues of financing infrastructure facilities in Turkey not only with the participation of Russia but also other direct and potential participants. In this case, the fate of the Turkish gas hub will become a near-term reality.
Iran, despite its interest in exporting gas to the European market, will obviously not consider “Turkish transit” as the only communication with the EU, and will try to implement alternative routes. Tehran fears the strengthening of NATO’s pan-Turkic strategy in the post-Soviet southeast, which could block Iran in the northern and north-eastern directions. That is why the struggle over the geography of Turkmen gas transit to the West could lead to a clash of Turkish interests on the one hand and the interests of Iran and Russia on the other. Nevertheless, the implementation of the Russian gas project in Turkey represents a real benefit for a group of supplying and buying countries.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Russian gas hub in Turkey, a profitable reality появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Today, it is becoming increasingly clear to everyone that the very effective diplomacy of Moscow and Beijing is radically changing the face of the Middle East. In particular, the unexpected breakthrough in Syrian-Turkish relations after Moscow’s proposal last December to Ankara and Damascus to resume dialogue and return to cooperation is indicative of this. On March 10, China managed to significantly consolidate the shifts in the Middle East by using its close economic ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran to bring them closer together to establish peace and stability. These events essentially finalize a 40-year era during which the United States actively deepened regional tensions, particularly between Riyadh and Tehran, fomenting conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
The changes taking place in the Middle East are particularly remarkable not only because of the absence of any significant US involvement in them, but also because of the apparent decline of Washington’s hegemony in the region. While the Biden administration tried to expand the depth and scope of the “Abraham Accords” and create a new security architecture in the Middle East to “contain Tehran,” not only Russia but also China have noticeably strengthened their position and ties with countries in the region, while Washington’s influence has begun to diminish noticeably. Ultimately, the United States is no longer in a position to revive projects like the “Greater Middle East,” and is only trying to prevent the situation from becoming worse for itself. The recent visits to the Middle East by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Army General Mark Milley, who first came to Israel and then secretly to northeast Syria, do not help to improve the image of the United States in the region. Nor did the subsequent visits of the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Iraq (particularly Baghdad and Erbil).
After entering the battlefield in Syria in 2015, Russia has managed to prevent Washington’s insidious plan in that Arab country and split the Atlantic front. Together with Turkey and Iran, Russia has built the Astana platform and is now going to turn it into the Astana Quartet by including Syria in it.
Beijing, actively involved in the Middle East region besides Moscow and operating within the Belt and Road project, has joined in forcing the US to leave Syria and has developed successful cooperation with America’s traditional allies, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
With tangible support from Russia and China, Iran has not only withstood US sanctions, but has continued to build influence in the region despite the various intrigues of Washington and Tel Aviv. Among the Persian Gulf countries, Qatar and the UAE are successfully developing relations with Iran, and energy cooperation between Riyadh and Moscow is growing stronger.
As a result, the countries of the region now have, for the first time, a unique opportunity to arrange their lives without Western dictate and interference, developing cooperation with Russia and China that is truly beneficial to the region. And although the February 6 earthquake to a certain extent slowed down the negotiation process between Syria and Turkey with the participation of Russia and Iran, which joined in the mediation effort, nevertheless the recovery of the situation is evident. And this, in particular, is confirmed by the sincere deep response in the Arab world to the natural disaster that befell Syria. Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, the United Arab Emirates and a number of other states have urgently organized the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Syrian airports of Aleppo, Damascus and Latakia. Most Arab leaders have started to openly advocate the lifting of harsh anti-Syrian sanctions imposed by the West 12 years ago.
Given that political processes in the region have recently gained new momentum, especially in light of the new prospects in the Middle East region offered by the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived in Moscow on March 14 to work out a joint strategy with Russia. In addition to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the meeting was attended by Russia’s Foreign and Defense Ministers, Sergey Lavrov and Sergei Shoigu respectively. The Russian side was also represented by Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov, Minister of Construction Irek Faizullin, and Yuri Ushakov, presidential aide on international affairs, which by itself may indicate the list of topics discussed, in which the parties showed a particular interest. Namely, further development of Russian-Syrian cooperation in political, trade and economic and humanitarian spheres, and the prospects for a comprehensive settlement of the situation in and around Syria. The talks between the two leaders lasted for three hours and were complemented by meetings of bilateral business groups, which allowed for detailed discussions on the continuation of the Syrian settlement, the Syrian-Turkish relations and many other relevant issues.
As Bashar al-Assad noted at the conclusion of the meetings, “this visit will open a new phase of relations between the countries.” The Syrian leader does not hide his gratitude to Moscow for helping to bring the SAR out of isolation, including in the Arab world, in particular in restoring relations with Saudi Arabia, which many in Syria, including the opposition forces, have traditionally blamed for starting the bloody war. The Syrian president, during a meeting with Russian head of state Vladimir Putin, reiterated that Damascus supports Russia in the fight against “old and new Nazis.” At the same time, Assad stressed that Syria’s position is based on the fact that the world really needs to be stabilized.
The joint efforts of Russia and Syria have contributed greatly to the international fight against terrorism, Russian President Vladimir Putin said. He also stressed that Moscow, as a true friend of Damascus, is trying to support the country after the devastating earthquake.
The fact of the Syrian leader’s visit to Moscow taking place exactly on the same day as the start of the Russia-Iran-Syria-Turkey quadrilateral talks at the level of deputy foreign ministers was obviously not a coincidence. After all, the main purpose of these talks is to help Ankara and Damascus to overcome their political differences and, in the long term, restore relations completely. Although Assad, as usual, is counting on Russia’s help, Moscow clearly wanted the assurances of his readiness to begin normalizing relations with Turkey. Several experts said before the meeting that the Syrian president made no secret of the fact that he was putting forward different conditions in return for the acceptance of Russian offers of peace with Ankara because he did not want to give Turkish President Erdoğan political points before the elections. In addition, the Syrian president clearly wanted to make it clear by his high-level visit that Damascus is not ready to sign any agreements with Turkey unless Ankara meets a number of conditions. In particular, until it guarantees unconditional and rapid withdrawal of Turkish troops from Syrian territory, whose presence there Damascus considers illegal. It is also very important for the Syrian side that Ankara stops supporting Damascus’ opposition groups in Idlib in the north of Syria.
Although not all the t’s were crossed and i’s dotted regarding the establishment of peaceful life in Syria, nevertheless, this meeting in Moscow was undoubtedly an important step towards it and in terms of marking significant changes in the situation in the Middle East.
Taking into account the fact that these negotiations with Assad in Moscow, as well as the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran are taking place on the eve of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (this year it begins on March 23), one could hope that the search for a peaceful solution to the existing problems, very much needed in the Middle East, will continue. And also that Moscow and Beijing’s diplomacy to fundamentally renew the face of the Middle East will succeed.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow and the changing face of the Middle East появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
According to a joint statement issued following talks in Beijing, Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to resume diplomatic relations and reopen embassies. It also confirmed the two parties’ agreement to mutual sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s affairs. According to the statement, the two countries agreed to reopen their embassies within two months, while the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Iran will also meet to implement the agreement, exchange ambassadors and discuss ways to strengthen relations.
The agreement was signed by Saudi Security Minister Musaid Al Aiban, the head of Iran’s National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, in the presence of Wang Yi, China’s chief diplomat. It may be recalled that diplomatic relations were severed in 2016 following the execution by Saudi Arabia of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric and the subsequent attack on Saudi diplomatic facilities in Tehran. The agreement also provides for mutual respect for the sovereignty of both countries and allows for renewed security, trade and cultural ties.
The agreement is significant because it was signed by the two largest powers in the Middle East after endless disputes and seven years of a diplomatic freeze. The talks, which began under former Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, focused on ways to ease tensions between the two countries, resume diplomatic relations and resolve disputes arising from Iran’s role in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. Thus, all previous rounds of discussions were mainly security-related. However, the recent agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the joint statement issued by the two countries, together with China, mark a shift from security issues to diplomatic dialogue. This is another significant step forward in the recovery of the international situation in the turbulent Gulf region.
The reasons for this breakthrough are varied, but the underlying factor is that the new world, which Russia and its President Vladimir Putin are actively promoting, is gradually gaining strength and more states are supporting it. Russia has pursued a foreign policy approach based primarily on easing tensions, ending disputes and restoring stability. This foreign policy approach is part of Russia’s larger vision of establishing a new multipolar world, in which the Persian Gulf states are vested. The new vision prioritizes peace over war, dialogue over severing ties, and directs the vast resources of the entire world toward prosperity and development, rather than funding bloated military budgets and weapons production, the way the West, particularly the United States, does.
The question is, why did China emerge at the end, and what role does it play? The answer is straightforward: Beijing is a close ally of both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Despite US global economic sanctions against Tehran, China is each country’s main trading partner as well as the largest consumer of Iranian goods. That is why China will be the guarantor of both sides of the agreement, and if either cheats and refuses to implement the agreements clearly and accurately, Beijing will find ways and means to punish the “renegade.” China has played the role of a great mediator, demonstrating that Beijing’s constructive presence in the Middle East is a stabilizing alternative to the US, which has stood behind the region’s crises for decades. In other words, China is trying to define a leading role for itself in the region by developing its relations with Middle Eastern countries and taking the place of the US in the region.
Many political analysts believe, and apparently rightly so, that the implementation of the agreement will largely depend on how both sides manage the situation in Yemen, where Riyadh and Tehran supported the conflicting sides in the civil war that broke out immediately after former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh was overthrown in 2011. According to Khaled Okasha, head of the Egyptian Center for Strategic Studies, Yemen is almost the ultimate test of this recent diplomatic shift that the Iranians and Saudis have decided to make. And, as he puts it, “the Saudis are eager to end the war in Yemen because it has proved rather difficult for them and has not achieved its key objectives.” If Iran plays fair in Yemen and decides to encourage its Shiite allies, the Houthis, to move toward an agreement with the Saudi-backed Yemeni presidential council, then “things could go the right way,” he added. Egyptian political scientist Karim Ahmed argues that at this point it is in the interests of both the Saudis and Iranians to work toward an agreement on Yemen, because neither country is interested in continuing this endless war, which has cost the Yemeni people dearly.
The international reaction to the thaw between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been mostly positive, depending on each country’s own interests. China, for example, welcomed the agreement and called it a victory for peace. Almost all countries in the West Asian and North African region welcomed the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian received a significant number of calls from foreign officials congratulating him on the development. In addition, countries in the region issued statements welcoming the Iranian-Saudi thaw. Furthermore, many groups in the region expressed satisfaction with the deal. Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah called the deal beneficial for the region. The Yemeni leader of the Ansarullah group also said that Tehran and Riyadh need diplomatic relations. Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Turkey are among the countries that have welcomed the restoration of ties between Tehran and Riyadh. This broad welcome stems from the fact that most countries and groups in the region benefit from improved Iranian-Saudi relations. In addition to the three parties to the deal, all of the aforementioned countries and groups are considered winners.
However, the deal has its losers, the biggest of which is Israel. This was evident as soon as the trilateral deal was announced. Avigdor Lieberman, a former Israeli minister, called on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resign over the Iran-Saudi deal because it was his personal fiasco. Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid called the deal a dangerous development that deprives Israel of its regional trump cards against Iran. “The agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran reflects a complete and dangerous failure of the Israeli government’s foreign policy,” Yair Lapid said, according to Israeli media. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said the resumption of ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia was a “serious and dangerous development for Israel” and “a political victory for Iran.” “It is a death blow to the effort to build a regional coalition against Iran,” Bennett said. He then lamented: “The countries of the world and the region are watching Israel in turmoil over a dysfunctional government that is engaged in systematic self-destruction.”
But Israel was not the only loser. The US position in the West Asian region also took a hit. The trilateral deal was negotiated exclusively by Asian powers, marking a significant shift in the geopolitics of the region. Gone are the days when the US was the master of the region, as, because of its clumsy, ill-conceived policies, the current administration of Joe Biden has lost all its trump cards and all its prestige. As you know, this agreement was signed in Beijing, not in the city on the hill that has lost its luster, Washington, D.C. An article published at the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies by senior fellow John Alterman argues that the US, after recent events, must be beginning to see China as a competitor with a powerful and growing presence in the Persian Gulf. China’s presence in the region will only expand – “albeit slowly but surely,” argued Mohammed Fayez, a senior expert on Asian affairs at the Al-Ahram Center for Policy and Strategic Studies. Nevertheless, he added that it is hard to think that “China today has the military or security capabilities to replace the US military and security role in the region.”
The signed agreement, however, leaves several important issues out of the equation. These certainly include the tacit agreements the two countries will reach in other areas of contested influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia, especially regarding Iraq and Lebanon. It is really hard to think that Tehran or Riyadh would give up their influence in any of the countries of the region. The problem will be the implicit lines of power that Riyadh and Tehran agree on, whether in Yemen or elsewhere in the territories of conflicting interests in the region. This is why it would be a mistake to qualify the recent announcement as a Saudi-Iranian reconciliation pact – it is too premature and requires a lot of work. It is difficult to assume that a tentative agreement on non-interference, which mainly concerns Iranian influence over the Shiites of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain or indirect Saudi influence over the Sunnis of Iran, and on a de-escalation scheme in Yemen could dispel longstanding animosities and deep rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение A positive new milestone in Saudi-Iranian relations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In hopes of further spinning its geopolitical project of establishing a “belt of instability” around Russia, the Biden administration has recently started to place a special emphasis on working with the countries of Central Asia, seeking to turn these “five” into puppet states wholly dependent on the United States. For this purpose, since the end of last year, Washington has urgently been changing personnel in the American diplomatic corps, its controlled commercial enterprises, non-governmental organizations, and among media representatives. It is noteworthy that mostly controversial, fringe personalities with distinct military skills have been sent to work in the five Central Asian countries.
Speaking of the latest emergency reshuffle of some US ambassadors, what comes to mind is the recent replacement by the White House of US Ambassador John Mark Pommersheim, who had worked in Tajikistan for less than three years and was one of the “best experts” on Russia in 2019, an intellectual father of a large family and a Pushkinist. In his stead, on February 14, the “new energetic” Manuel P. Micaller, Jr. arrived in Dushanbe, not as a diplomat, but as a military/intelligence officer with experience in conducting offensive economic operations in the interests of the United States, particularly opposing and discouraging economic cooperation between Central Asian nations and Russia and China.
In December, the newly appointed US ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Lesslie C. Viguerie, presented copies of his credentials to the Kyrgyz authorities. Washington’s “special interest” in the country became quite apparent after the Pentagon, at the initiative of the Kyrgyz authorities, lost control of the transit center at Manas airport in 2014 and over Afghanistan in 2021. After that, the White House adopted an unconcealed policy of actively separating Kyrgyzstan from Russia and preventing the country’s participation in regional associations such as the EAEU and the SCO, both of which Washington particularly hates. Representatives of various administrations and US ambassadors have repeatedly acknowledged this before.
The new US ambassador Lesslie C. Viguerie makes no secret of such a sentiment, who, relying on the Russophobic fifth column of US-funded media and NGOs already established in Kyrgyzstan, started organizing another “color revolution” in the country and inciting anti-Russian sentiment among the local populace. This was in particular confirmed by another information war unleashed on March 6 against Russia and Russian Ambassador to Kazakhstan, Nikolay Udovichenko, in Vecherniy Bishkek newspaper closely connected to the US Embassy through the US Agency for International Development (USAID). It is not for nothing that this newspaper has recently received American awards “for promotion of democratic values.” In fact, Lesslie C. Viguerie did not even try to hide his anti-Russian attitude, as he said in his first post-appointment interview to the local newspaper 24.kg that his main task was to stir up Russophobia in the country.
However, as residents of Kyrgyzstan note, it cannot be ruled out that such zealous anti-Russian activity by Viguerie could lead him to repeating the fate of his predecessor, American Ambassador Donald Lu, who was forced to leave Bishkek without a replacement in 2021. The activity of Mr. Lu, which was quite distant from diplomatic methods of work in the sovereign state and his “strange” ties with the American intelligence community, are well remembered in this republic. WikiLeaks made public nearly 200 dispatches which were disclosed by unknown hackers stating that while Lu was in different diplomatic posts he sent classified dispatches to such organizations as CIA, DIA, National Security Council and other similar agencies.
As for the new ambassador, Lesslie C. Viguerie, local news sources mention his connections with the American secret services specializing in drug trafficking and political affairs. Therefore, it is not surprising that Viguerie is especially active in Kyrgyzstan to protect Western-funded NGOs and media in the country, clearly in order to create conditions for a repeat of the Ukrainian Maidan, recent events in Georgia and the anti-Russian movement.
Not much different from the aforementioned new US ambassadors to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan is Jonathan Henick, who began a similar role in Uzbekistan in November. Previously at the State Department’s Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA), he was responsible for conducting US public diplomacy in 13 countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. While working at the Global Engagement Center (GEC), he was actively involved in “coordinating US government efforts to counter Russia, China, and Iran.”
As one of his active areas of advocacy for US interests in Muslim Uzbekistan, Henick decided to advance the protection of the rights of LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex), religious minorities and women. As Henick stated, “I will be an LGBT advocate in the host country. We have to teach the local population about free relationships. The people of Uzbekistan must accept our ideas.” — A truly “progressive way” to implement the White House’s Russophobic policies.
The information-psychological war was also started by Henick’s predecessor, Daniel Rosenblum, who now heads the American diplomatic mission in Kazakhstan. Daniel Rosenblum makes no secret of his objectives in his “new residence,” declaring the necessity to not only eliminate the pro-Russian media which allegedly “forms a distorted perception of the world,” but also to find alternative ways of transportation of oil products from Kazakhstan bypassing Russia. At the same time, Rosenblum demonstrated his determination to defend the interests of the US-funded Central Reference Laboratory in Almaty, which is associated with bioweapons. In recent period alone, in Kazakhstan, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) implemented 28 American biological programs with a total budget not less than 20 million dollars, and spent more than 100 million dollars for construction and equipping of the Central Reference Laboratory (CRL). Of particular interest to NATO countries for secret research here are Central Asia-specific diseases that are dangerous to humans, as well as methods of their transmission by animals or other routes. The US, British and German defense agencies need such information in case they are preparing a war with the CSTO or SCO countries, in order to start in advance developing biological weapons corresponding to regional peculiarities. And this data can only be obtained through field research, for which the CRL provides capabilities. In addition, the CRL can perform for the Pentagon the same functions as the Guantánamo Bay prison, as it is a place where one can do things that cannot be done on US territory because of legal restrictions. During the period when the infectious disease laboratory was located in Kazakhstan, it came under the de facto control of the US Army and Navy, despite the formal subordination to the Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan. Thus, in fact, the CRL with all of its related structures turned into an unregistered military base of the United States and NATO in Kazakhstan, and this is the best explanation of Rosenblum’s zeal in protecting the interests of the American CRL in this country.
In light of all this, it is noteworthy that President Biden appointed Elizabeth Rood as the United States’ ambassador to Turkmenistan in late 2022. Rood combined her training at the Noble Maidens’ Boarding School with close ties to the American military. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Randolph-Macon College for Women. In particular, she has served as a faculty advisor to the US Army War College and as head of the US Department of State’s Office of Export Control Cooperation in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.
This bouquet of US diplomacy in Central Asia speaks volumes about the upcoming focus in the region. The only thing left to do is to monitor closely the reaction of the local population to these “doodles” of the White House, which can hardly promise a successful policy of “American-style democracy promotion.” Even despite Secretary Blinken’s recently demonstrated attempt to support the new appointees during his February 28 meeting in Astana with his Central Asian counterparts.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Why is the White House urgently changing US ambassadors to Central Asia? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On February 27, 2023, the US State Department released a report in which the US left North Korea on the 2021 list of countries sponsoring terrorism. The other two were Iran and Syria.
As noted in the report, North Korea has repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism. In particular, Pyongyang harbors four members of the Japanese Red Army wanted for their involvement in the 1970 hijacking of a Japan Airlines plane. It also fails to inform official Tokyo of the fate of numerous Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korean secret services in the 1970s and 1980s.
Recall that North Korea was listed in 1987 after a South Korean plane on its way from Abu Dhabi to Bangkok exploded in mid-air. In October 2008, the US administration removed the North from the list in response to Pyongyang’s agreement to begin talks on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. In 2017, however, North Korea was re-listed after Pyongyang agents had killed Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of the country’s leader Kim Jong-un, in Malaysia, and generally “the secretary of state determined the DPRK had repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism since its State Sponsor of Terrorism designation was rescinded.”
Of course, it would have been strange if the Biden administration had heard the voice of reason, remembered what criteria are used to define a “state sponsor of terrorism,” and crossed North Korea off that list again, but that has not happened and we have a few things to remember in response.
First, the two key events that put North Korea on the list both times actually turn out to be stories in which the “Pyongyang footprint” may not at all be Pyongyang.
We know that North Korea was involved in the destruction of the South Korean plane according to a single witness, whose fate is not at all similar to that of a convicted terrorist. Kim Hyon-Hui was actually acquitted and placed under state protection, and her widely publicized “confession” not only left an indelible stain on North Korea’s reputation, but also came just in time for the presidential election in South Korea. It has raised questions among security professionals, and even the declassification of a series of US documents related to the incident has not cleared up anything. The author wrote about this story on another resource, and believes that only a person who perceives North Korea as a cartoon state doing evil for evil’s sake can believe in the Pyongyang trail. That is why there is a version of a US-South Korean provocation, but from the author’s perspective it is more likely that an ethnic Korean woman, member a Japanese terrorist organization realized what could be in store for her and decided to be extradited to South Korea, trading freedom for an ideologically aligned version.
The high-profile assassination case against Kim Jong-nam, which, it should be recalled, fell apart in court, is no less dubious. While the “progressive public” “understands everything,” from a legal standpoint, the North Korean involvement has never been proven, despite the fact that at the start of the investigation, South Korean intelligence agencies actively interfered, planting information from unverified sources. Charges against the two North Korean diplomats whom the police were able to question were eventually dropped, and the North Korean chemist, dubbed in the media as the “chief poisoner,” was deported for lack of any real evidence and, upon his return home, claimed that he had been pressured. More details on this topic are also in another article by the author, but here we will only note that for each alleged “fact confirming the intrigues of the DPRK” one or two interpretations are permitted.
Secondly, such methods of including in, and deleting from, various lists depending on the political conjuncture well demonstrate the “flexible conscience” of the United States. The harboring of international terrorists who hijacked a plane to Pyongyang is cited as “repeated support for acts of international terrorism.” However, they were and are still harboring them in the North, and there had been no change in this policy either in 2008 or in 2017. The same goes for the “problem of abducted Japanese citizens,” which, let’s note, has no direct connection to terrorism or its sponsoring. The North claims that all abducted citizens are dead by now, but Japan does not believe this evidence. While not all evidence to the contrary is valid, Tokyo prefers to assume even more arbitrarily that those persons are still alive, and in addition to the original eight abductees that Pyongyang has confessed about, there is a list of a couple hundred more missing at about the same place and time, and until North Korea has proven otherwise, Japan will consider them stolen as well…
What the State Department meant by “other acts of international terrorism” the author doesn’t understand at all, but that brings us to the third point in our story.
It is clear that the divided world of the new world order is a place of legalized double standards, where the phrase “you don’t understand, this is different” is not a cause for irony, but a guide to action. And if we take “support for terrorism” in the broad sense in which it is imputed to North Korea, then the question arises – why was Ukraine not included in this list of countries? Kiev has been supporting associated terrorists from the so-called “Russian Volunteer Corps”, which consists of outright fascist nationalists and is banned in the Russian Federation. They are already known for killing and taking civilians hostage, captured on video of their own making. There are also known (albeit unsuccessful) attempts to disperse amateurishly produced chemical weapons, i.e. WMDs, from civilian drones.
If this were done in, say, the Syrian conflict by groups associated with the governments of Iran, Lebanon or Syria, it would cause a media uproar and demands for punishment. But the US is silent about this, though the analogy would be appropriate with regime of the Ichkeria Republic (a terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation) which was losing war and tried to reverse its course with a series of radical terrorist acts, one of the most brutal being the Beslan school seizure. Neither then nor now have such “freedom fighters” been called terrorists and publicly repudiated.
Finally, it should be noted that although the United States is trying to present the list of countries sponsoring terrorism as something that has international affiliation, in reality it is a purely American list for domestic consumption, allowing Washington to impose the necessary sanctions and labels.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Is the DPRK still a sponsor of terrorism? Well… появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The Southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand is slated to hold general elections in May of this year. Thailand, with the second largest economy in ASEAN and with a population of nearly 70 million people, has grown far too close to China for Washington’s liking. Because of this, Washington sees the elections as an opportunity to remove the current circles of power and replace them with opposition parties they have supported for years and how have openly pledged to “rebalance” away from China, and toward the US.
The US government has invested millions of dollars over decades in Thailand to create media networks, lobbying groups, “rights” organizations, and even protest movements meant to aid Washington’s proxies of choice into power, or otherwise contest their defeat and reverse electoral outcomes in the streets.
Why is the US Meddling in Thailand?
The US is involved in political interference all along China’s periphery. This is done in a bid to encircle and contain China itself through the creation of US client regimes hostile toward Beijing. The US has already maneuvered a pro-Washington government into power in neighboring Malaysia to the south and is backing violent terrorism in Myanmar to the west after the military there ousted Washington’s government of choice in 2021.
Cambodia to Thailand’s east has embarked on an extensive campaign to uproot US-sponsored media organizations and opposition parties culminating in the recent jailing of Cambodian opposition leader, Kem Sokha, who openly admitted in a video that the US government was aiding him in a Serbia-style color revolution.
Thailand is being targeted because, despite the common misconception that Thailand is a major non-NATO ally of the US, over the last decade or more, Thailand has cultivated a strong and still-growing relationship with China.
China represents Thailand’s largest trade partner, its largest investor, and its largest infrastructure development partner. Notable in terms of infrastructure is a high-speed rail network already under construction that will connect Thailand to China via the high-speed rail line already completed and operating in Laos to Thailand’s north.
China is also Thailand’s largest source of tourism. Before COVID-19 closed the borders of many nations around the world to tourism, more tourists were arriving in Thailand from China than from all Western nations combined.
Thailand has also begun cooperating with China in terms of defense in recent years. Thailand is replacing a large amount of its aging US military hardware with Chinese alternatives. Thailand has purchased a variety of systems big and small from China including VT4 main battle tanks, a large variety of armored fighting vehicles, naval vessels including the Kingdom’s first modern submarines, and mobile air defense systems.
Thailand has also worked with China on jointly-developed weapon systems like the DTI-1 guided multiple launch rocket system and has conducted military exercises exclusively with China.
Thailand does still buy arms from the US, but in dwindling numbers. And while Thailand still hosts the annual Cobra Gold military exercises with the US (which China also participates in), it is clear Thailand seeks a balanced relationship that reflects Thai interests rather than being used as a proxy by any other nation, including the US. Because of China’s rise and America’s visible decline, Thai relations with both nations has adjusted accordingly.
Time is clearly on China’s side. Each year that goes by, China has more to offer the region economically and even militarily, while the US finds itself relying more and more on “security cooperation” which translates into enlisting in Washington’s proxy war with China. Nations, including Thailand, hesitant to play America’s proxy at the expense of their own people and economy, are targeted by US political interference.
Who is the US Backing in Thailand’s Upcoming Elections?
Among the opposition groups the US favors in Thailand is Pheu Thai, the latest rebranding of billionaire and fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra’s political party. Thaksin had served as prime minister from 2001-2006 before being ousted in a military coup. He had privatized Thai oil interests, committed Thai troops to the US occupation of Iraq, allowed the US to use Thai territory as part of its “extraordinary rendition” program, and attempted to sign off on a lopsided US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval.
In 2009 and 2010 in a bid to retake power, Thaksin and his political networks organized violent protests in the capital of Bangkok. In 2010 this included over 300 heavily armed militants leading to city-wide arson and the death of nearly 100 people including soldiers and police. Western media organizations including Reuters, the BBC, and CNN worked in concert with the violent protests to cover up provocations and exaggerate police and military responses in what is now recognized as a well-oiled propaganda method used amid US-sponsored color revolutions worldwide.
The US also favors Move Forward, the latest iteration of billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangki’s political party. Move Forward, and its previous iteration, Future Forward, have worked in parallel with Thaksin’s Pheu Thai Party both at the ballot box and in the streets.
Thanathorn’s Relationship to Washington
Before Thailand’s general elections in 2019, Thanathorn actually traveled to the US. Because Thanathorn secured the services of a US-based lobbying firm to arrange his visit, the US Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) required the paperwork be filed publicly. The papers reveal who he was there to meet. On page 26 of the digital document, it lists members of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, representatives of the US State Department, USAID, various US media organizations including Bloomberg, the New York Times, and NBC, as well as Freedom House, a subsidiary of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
During his visit, Thanathorn also took a tour of Virgin’s Hyperloop One testing facility in Nevada.
Upon returning to Thailand, his newfound connections immediately translated into action.
He would organize a press event explaining why Thailand should cancel the Thai-Chinese high-speed rail project and replace it with so-far unproven “hyperloop” technology. During the event, he would claim:
I think over the past five years we have been giving too much importance to China. We want to reduce that and rebalance our relationship with Europe, with Japan, [and] with the US more.
Bloomberg in its article, “Thailand Needs Hyperloop, Not China-Built High-Speed Rail, Junta Critic Says,” would report:
A tycoon turned politician who opposes Thailand’s military government has criticized its $5.6 billion high-speed rail project with China because hyperloop technology offers a more modern alternative.
An option such as Richard Branson’s Virgin Hyperloop One — which is working on building networks of pods traveling at airplane-like speeds — is better for Thailand as it would help the nation to be a technological leader, according to Future Forward Party head Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.
In reality, China’s high-speed rail technology safely moves billions of passengers every year, while hyperloop technology has not moved a single passenger anywhere and likely will not for years to come. Thanathorn’s proposal, if taken seriously, would have led to the cancellation of a viable infrastructure project already paying dividends in China and Laos, and left Thailand with no alternative, setting back Thai development by years, if not decades, just to “rebalance” away from China.
It is a pattern that has repeated itself around the globe where US-backed client regimes, everywhere from Ukraine to Taiwan, make decisions to spite Washington’s adversaries at the expense of the people living under these respective administrations. Thailand appears poised to join them if opposition parties favored by the US take office later in 2023.
Ongoing Protests Leading up to 2023 Election Point to Political Instability
Thanathorn, after losing the elections in 2019, then having his political party dissolved for violating election laws, began leading street protests himself. Thai PBS would report in a 2019 article titled, “Thanathorn vows to bring people onto streets after rally in downtown Bangkok,” that:
Thousands of supporters of Future Forward Party turned out for an anti-military rally called by its leader Thanathorn Jungroongruangkit on the Skywalk at Pathumwan Intersection in downtown Bangkok Saturday evening.
The demonstrators chanted “Prayut get out” in probably the biggest political rally since the general election in March.
Addressing the demonstrators, Thanathorn said the rally was just a harbinger of more political activities against the Prayut government. He threatened to “bring people to the streets” next month.
He quickly handed the protests over to NED-funded organizations and took up a more background role as the protests turned violent. The protests not only seek to oust the current government, but also regularly target and attempt to undermine support for Thailand’s armed forces and the Kingdom’s revered constitutional monarchy. Both institutions have defended and united Thai people for generations, leaving Thailand as the only nation in Southeast Asia never colonized by European powers.
It is through the NED and its various subsidiaries including the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Freedom House, and adjacent organizations like USAID and even private sector foundations like Open Society, that the US conducts its political interference in Thailand.
Many of these interests are involved in annual confabs like the Oslo Freedom Forum which even the BBC has reported trains opposition groups from around the world to then return home and oust their respective governments. This includes opposition groups backed by the US protesting in Hong Kong,China until 2020.
Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit has been invited as a speaker to the Oslo Freedom Forum and has repeatedly attended the forum including the most recent one in 2022. While still serving as a member of the Thai parliament, he met with the leader of the US-sponsored Hong Kong protests, Joshua Wong, creating a diplomatic row between Thailand and China at the time, the South China Morning Post would report.
The Oslo Freedom Forum, according to its own website (archived), is funded by the Norwegian government, US corporations including Amazon and Jigsaw (Google), as well as The Freedom Fund which is in turn funded by the US State Department.
Thaksin Shinawatra and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, both billionaires, are in no need of NED money. Instead, the US through the NED supports their collective political networks by mobilizing organizations that are receiving US government money. The NED targets all aspects of Thai society, from media and politics, to education and culture, overwriting centuries of Thai tradition with Western-style “values” aimed at multiplying the number and magnitude of fault lines society can be divided along.
The NED on its own official website admits that it is “funded largely by the U.S. Congress,” and that it is overseen by both the US Congress and the US State Department, meaning the organizations in Thailand receiving NED money are in fact funded by the US government itself through the NED.
The NED’s webpage for programs it is funding in Thailand omits many of the names of groups receiving money, specifically to obfuscate Washington’s role in sponsoring opposition groups ahead of upcoming elections involved in violent protests that have been ongoing since the last Thai general election in 2019.
Media organizations promoting ongoing anti-government protests in Thailand include Prachatai, Benar News (funded via the US Agency for Global Media), and Isaan Record.
Organizations involved directly in the protests themselves include Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) whose lawyer Anon Nampha actually leads protests. TLHR founder Sirikan Charoensiri traveled to Washington D.C. to receive the 2018 “International Women of Courage Award” from US First Lady Melania Trump.
There is also iLaw, which organized a petition to rewrite Thailand’s constitution and was present at protest sites collecting signatures.
The Nation in 2020 in an article titled, “iLaw launches petition for charter rewrite,” would report:
The Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), a human rights NGO, has launched a campaign seeking signatures from 50,000 voters to sponsor a motion for a Constitution rewrite. The petition to redraft the charter will open for signatures from 1pm to 4pm on Friday (August 7) at Thammasat University’s Tha Phra Chan Campus. Activities on the day will include a lecture on the importance of amending the Constitution by the director of iLaw Jon Ungphakorn, former senator.
No mention was made of iLaw’s US government funding or the implications of a US government-funded organization attempting to rewrite the constitution of another sovereign nation.
Both TLHR and iLaw, along with dedicated media organizations like Prachatai, Benar News, and Isaan Record funded by the US government, as well as the Western media operating in Thailand, use their substantial social media presence to promote protest events and disseminate anti-government narratives online.
As elections approach, these same organizations and platforms will use their US and European government funding to influence the Thai public in favor of parties backed by the West.
What Comes Next?
Regardless of how the Thai elections play out, the political crisis is almost certain to continue.
If US-backed parties do not get into power, US-funded organizations will once again take to the streets and attempt to overturn the election results through violent coercion. If the US cannot co-opt Thailand by installing a client regime into power, it will settle for simply destabilizing Thailand politically and economically to minimize its ability to serve as a constructive partner of China and the rest of the region.
If US-backed opposition groups come to power, they will immediately begin attempting to run Thailand into the ground politically and economically, making good on promises to “rebalance” away from China, Thailand’s largest trade partner, and transform Thailand into a proxy of Washington used as a battering ram against China. Just as Ukraine did from 2014 onward, isolating itself from Russia, its most important economic and industrial partner, or Taiwan from 2016 onward isolating itself from the rest of China at the expensive of economic development and growth, there will be real and long-lasting impacts of irrationally turning away from China, toward the US which has no alternatives on offer.
Joint Thai-Chinese infrastructure projects will face cancellation, not only setting back Thailand’s development by years, but negatively impacting the entire region. China’s high-speed rail network when completed will allow more businesses region wide to send larger volumes and a greater variety of goods to and from China while bringing in larger numbers of Chinese tourists than ever.
If US proxies take office in Thailand, the US will be better able to pressure ASEAN as a whole to decisively side with Washington on its efforts to transform maritime disputes in the South China Sea into a regional confrontation, implement regime change in Myanmar, and even move the region closer to US-led militarization ahead of a US conflict with China itself.
As was the case from 2011-2014 when Thaksin Shinawatra’s political party finally retook power with his own sister serving in his place as prime minister, protests to oust the US client regime in the form of a “counter-color revolution” will not likely take to the streets until considerable damage has been done to the country over the course of a year or more.
By 2014, while ultimately the Shinawatras’ government was removed from power, crucial reforms including laws addressing extensive US and European interference in Thailand’s internal political affairs failed to materialize, setting the stage for a repeat performance this year.
Only time will tell if Thailand can wait out Washington’s fading influence in the region as China rises, weather the damage done if US-backed opposition groups come to power, and then over the course of several years finally finish reforms that truly and fully secure Thailand’s political independence. Then and only then can Thailand and other nations in Asia serve as stable foundations to build Asia’s collective future upon. Until then, Thailand and the region as a whole still face the prospect of instability, economic ruin, and even violence.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение US Meddling in Thai Elections: Seeking to Create an Anti-China Proxy появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Many countries’ official institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been actively recruiting foreign students to their universities for various internships and “advanced training” in recent years.
In this day and age of globalization, it is objectively difficult for higher education to develop further without a mix of foreign and local students. Foreign students already have some knowledge; they are familiar with the peculiarities of the technology used in their country, as well as many areas of national science in which they wish to specialize abroad. In the course of their internship or study abroad, they tell their teachers and students in their host country about it. The foreigners share their knowledge as well, there is mutual enrichment. When there are foreigners in the group, there is a completely different atmosphere and a different attitude to work.
Of course, young people not only study abroad, they also soak up the spirit of the host country like a sponge, get to know it, live its problems, culture, and often find their destiny there and create families. At various times, up to 60 percent of the leadership of Asia, Africa, and Latin America were educated in the USSR.
Explaining the reason for an internship or study abroad, many foreigners point to the financial benefit, since in some countries education is very expensive. For example, in the US, the average cost of education per year is about $40,000, plus spending on housing and more. In a number of countries, such as Russia, China, and Israel, training is much cheaper. In addition, in many countries you can find academic schools that are very popular and have a high international ranking.
As for the countries that host foreign students, many do so because of the current demographic problem and the reduction in the number of school graduates that occurs every year. In order not to reduce the number of teachers, it is logical to invite foreigners to the vacated places…
It is now quite natural for young people to come to study in another country. If at the beginning of this century there were about 2.5 million people studying abroad, now there are more than 5 million people getting higher education outside their countries. And the Chinese are leading the way: more than 300,000 Chinese citizens are studying in the United States alone.
Today, the US, the UK, France, Israel and a number of other developed nations have a purposeful policy of attracting foreign students. Such countries have a system of adaptation of university graduates, according to which the best ones are not sent home but they try and make them stay in the host country and give them time to find a job.
This policy, among other things, is certainly a manifestation of the “hunt for brains,” which is now even more popular in the world than the hunt for technological secrets… The US, for example, earns over $40 billion a year from foreign students, which is much more than the profits from arms sales. All in all, this market is estimated at many dozens of billions of dollars. And this includes not only studies, but also internship programs and teacher exchanges. Therefore, it is not surprising that according to American experts, training foreign specialists is the most stable direction in the US economy in this century. There are people and departments in the US National Security Council, the Department of State and the US intelligence agencies that are engaged in educational programs for foreigners. There is even an assistant to the US president who is responsible for these activities. They develop a strategy for many years to come. In Japan, for example, almost all leading companies have funds to pay for the education of foreigners they invite.
The program of inviting foreign students/interns with a bachelor’s degree and above as part of their Master’s, Ph.D. or doctoral studies and subsequent academic work also exists in Israel. Information about it can be found at the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there are links to the websites of a number of Israeli universities and official institutions, in particular at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, the Israeli Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, and on the personal page of A. Kushnir—head of the International Liaison Department at Ben-Gurion University, on the social networking page of Israel’s Foreign Students.
ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) is a universal system for measuring a student’s academic workload while mastering an educational program or a separate course. As indicated by Israeli sources, in programs at universities in that country the number of ECTS points may differ from European standards. This to some extent complicates the evaluation of the Israeli degree certificates in the West, however, the Israeli certificates are recognized in the EU, the CIS countries, the US, Australia and some countries in Asia and Africa. Israeli mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers and specialists in computer science and natural sciences are especially valued. But this does not mean that a graduate of an Israeli university can easily find a job in any country, in some regions the profession may not be in demand. Nevertheless, the flow of foreign students/interns in Israel is very significant, especially from Asia and Africa, where in recent years Tel Aviv has been active.
However, in recent years, the criminal use of this program by some educational institutions in Israel for an open exploitation of foreign students as a cheap labor force on slave conditions has been uncovered repeatedly.
This, in particular, was pointed out back in 2016 by Haaretz, which published a complaint by foreign students who claimed that Israeli agricultural training courses exploited them as cheap labor. Their lawsuit alleged that programs bringing students from developing countries to Israel for hands-on training were a tool for hiring field workers and, in fact, a form of slave labor.
Another scandal on this issue erupted in Israel in 2019, when Haaretz brought up again the ongoing slavery policy of certain Israeli educational institutions’ use of foreign students. In particular, the newspaper published a complaint of African and Asian students at Tel Aviv University who were sent to work 12 hours each on agricultural farms “to earn a degree,” which in no way contributed to their professional knowledge. And only one month was devoted to university studies.
However, this situation has not changed today. And the same renowned newspaper Haatetz stated this at the end of the previous year, illustrating the situation with concrete facts at Kinneret College and exposing the training programs in Israel for foreign students who, upon arrival, are mercilessly exploited as cheap labor. This program is not new or unique to Kinneret College; it goes back to 1994, and since then thousands of trainees from developing countries have come to Israel. A particular increase in the number of foreign students from developing countries in Israel occurred after 2013, when the number of first-year students rose from a few hundred to several thousand and they began to speak out, say members of the human rights organization Kav LaOved. As the newspaper points out, it is clear that previous lessons and miscalculations in the program have not been fully addressed, and certainly not at Kinneret College, one of the five Israeli centers where the program is still in operation. The criminal compulsion to slave labor and inhumane treatment of foreign students continues, with African and Asian students at Tel Aviv University being forcibly sent to work on farms for their diploma…
However, as it turns out, this kind of blatantly exploitive policy towards foreign students is not only characteristic of Israel. In Canada, the “model country of Western democracy,” such scandals do not cease either. Some foreign students openly accuse the Canadian government of using them, as in Israel, as a cheap source of labor and abandoning them when they are no longer needed.
So it is not surprising that not only Israel, but also many Western countries, which are now trying to continue the past imperial slave policy towards countries and citizens of Africa and Asia, are noticeably losing ground to Russia and China.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Why does Israel seek out international students for internships? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On March 1-5, French President Macron visited a number of African countries, leaving observers with a bitter taste in their mouths. Conceived with great fanfare as a presentation of Paris ostensibly new course aimed at “equal cooperation” with the African continent, it was remembered only for scandals, public spats with African presidents, and taunts from them that reflected the obvious disadvantage in bilateral relations.
Overall, the visit did not boost Paris’ credibility or strengthen its ties with Africa. Following the significant losses that France has suffered in Africa in recent years, the Elysée Palace should focus on preserving the African diamonds that remain in its crown rather than expanding its influence. And there aren’t many of them anymore. After Mali and Burkina Faso defected from Paris, Morocco is now gradually but steadily shifting from the French to the American camp, further narrowing the maneuvering field for Paris, which must look around and consider how to save what is left. What does it have in its piggy bank?
The richest “chest” in which the French keep the wealth looted from Africans is … the French treasury itself. The scheme of collecting money through the sub-regional economic cooperation organization of West Africa, ECOWAS (almost all its 15 members are former French colonies) is well established and allows almost half their economic potential to be at the service of the French economy.
ECOWAS itself was founded in 1975 on the basis of the Lagos Treaty and initially included 16 countries, but later the only Arab country in its composition, Mauritania, withdrew from it, remaining an associate member. When the organization was founded, the most noble goals were declared – the economic integration of the region, its self-sufficiency with the subsequent transition to a federation, a single citizenship and a single currency. But somehow it so happened that the most advanced element of integration was the creation of its own single currency – the West African CFA franc, which combines the currencies of the eight countries of this association, members of the West African Economic and Monetary Union, formed in 1994 (a number of other countries also use this currency). And “quite by chance” this currency is pegged to the euro, and 50% of foreign exchange reserves of these countries are stored in the French Central Bank, which completely deprives these countries of economic independence. Moreover, attempts by some of these countries to transfer their gold reserves to other jurisdictions are repeatedly unsuccessful, which naturally causes discontent among member countries.
Paris is forced to respond to this and in 2020 proposed a bill to this effect in the French National Assembly, according to which the CFA franc should be replaced by the “eco” already without being tied to the mandatory deposit in France. The draft was approved and ratified. However, it turned out that the pandemic buried it for a long time. In June 2021, ECOWAS revisited it, and a summit of member countries agreed on a five-year “currency convergence” pact, as well as a road map to launch a new monetary unit, now a region-wide one, by 2027.
More recently, on 24 January 2023, the President of Guinea-Bissau, who as of June 2022 is the current President of ECOWAS, pledged to revive the project, while also strengthening internal trade among ECOWAS countries, which currently represents less than 10% of total trade. To what extent this will work is not yet clear. Many suspect Paris that the reform of the CFA franc will be cosmetic and will not change the essence of economic relations between the member countries of the association and France, which actively uses the West African currency in the interests of French and multinational corporations based in its territory, which hold the markets of these states under their control and pump them for profit, including natural resources. Paris’s “Trojan horse” in ECOWAS is Côte d’Ivoire and the puppet regime put there by Paris, which implements French interests in the organization under the guise of African interests.
Whether or not Paris can pull off another trick with currency “reform” is not yet clear. Again, at the instigation of Paris, the membership of ECOWAS member countries where there have been recent coups, such as Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso, is suspended, and important reforms that affect their core national interests can be carried out by regional organizations without their participation and taking their position into account by allies or, rather, satellites of France, such as Côte d’Ivoire. We can hardly believe that the Elysée Palace will not take advantage of these opportunities.
The other two countries where Paris will try by all means to maintain its influence are Chad and Niger, where strategic reserves of uranium, gold and other minerals are concentrated. In addition, Chad occupies an important strategic position, bordering Libya in the north and Sudan in the east, which makes it an important transit zone involved in both arms and migrant traffic. Chad, too, has a leadership that is questionable in terms of Western democracy—the son of President Idriss Déby, killed two years ago, Mahamat Déby, who heads the Transitional Military Council. But Paris, so sensitive to the issue in Mali and Burkina Faso, pays little attention in this case, because it is “our son of a bitch.”
Even more important for Paris is Niger, where uranium reserves, critical for the French nuclear industry, are being actively exploited. Paris is covered there by Washington, which has a chain of military bases, airfields and reconnaissance centers with UAVs. Of course, Paris will fight for this strategic region of Africa to the end, which, however, does not guarantee success.
In fact, Paris now has only one direction to go in Africa – to further lose its weight and influence. There are more and more reasons for this. France is increasingly uninterested in African states. Its military capabilities are shrinking, the effectiveness of its participation in solving the security problems of the continent is extremely low, which leads more and more states to refuse its assistance. France’s socio-political model is also losing its attractiveness against the background of increasing economic problems of the country, and with them the protests against the internal political and economic line of the Rothschild-appointed Macron. Constant arrogant lectures about the need to comply with democratic norms on the background of the suppression of citizens’ rights and the increasingly police nature of the French state, hits the eyes of Africans, as well as the growing propaganda of LGBT values. In this light, the storage of West African reserves in the Paris treasury looks increasingly anachronistic.
In Africa, they cannot fail to see Paris’s almost complete loss of sovereignty in European affairs, where it has demonstrated its absolute servility and dependence on the course of Washington, in particular with regard to the conflict in Ukraine. In this context, the attempts of Paris to fix the situation by loud slogans about “change of course”, belated repentance for the sins of the times of colonialism, as well as blaming the Wagner PMC for its problems look rather pathetic. The day is not far when France, like other colonialists, will be kicked off the continent as unable to cope with the challenges of the new era. In their place will come other forces that advocate real equal cooperation and its mutually beneficial nature based on the principles of a multipolar world, as well as unambiguously interpreted norms of international law.
Pogos Anastasov, Political Expert and Orientalist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Is France going to be able to maintain its position in Africa? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Many in the West have been predicting a downturn in the China-Russia alliance in the wake of the ongoing Russian Special Military Operations in Ukraine. A recent article in the Foreign Affairs magazine pointed out ‘key’ points of disagreement between Beijing and Moscow to highlight the obvious ‘limits’ of the otherwise ‘no limits’ friendship. According to such projections, we should have seen conflict between both countries. But what we are actually seeing is the exact opposite of this prediction: China and Russia recently reaffirmed their ’no limits’ friendship, an alliance that originally started almost a year ago (‘no-limits 1.0’) and is now growing to the next level as ‘no-limits’ 2.0. This reaffirmation has caused some trouble in the Western world, as the latter has already started to scramble allies to ‘punish’ China for its persistent support for Russia against the combined strength of NATO.
As reports in the mainstream media show, the US is already consulting with its G7 allies to impose new sanctions on China if the latter extends any support to Russia over Ukraine. While the official projections point out the possibility of China’s military support for Russia, in reality, this politics of sanction applies to any type of Chinese support. More importantly, the fact that the US is considering imposing new sanctions on China for the latter’s support for Russia once again reinforces the need to fundamentally change the global political order, an order that allows some states (NATO countries) to extend support to their ally (Ukraine) but punishes those (China) who dare take a different position and extend support to the other party (Russia).
In this context, China’s decision to extend its friendship with Russia is dangerous and alarming for the US and its NATO allies precisely because it will make it a lot harder for them to defeat Russia, a country that has shown remarkable resilience against the combined military and economic onslaught of the entire West for over a year and achieved many of its objectives in Ukraine.
What, however, is really worrying for the West is how this friendship is not merely bilateral but is following an agenda of global change. In fact, this is the linchpin of ‘no-limits 2.0’ as reinforced by China’s Wang Yi in his latest meeting with President Putin in Moscow on February 22. As the Chinese readout of the meeting pointed out, the China-Russia partnership is “for a new era”, adding that “a multi-polar world and greater democracy in international relations, which China and Russia jointly support, are in line with the trend of the times and meet the aspirations of most countries. China is ready to work with Russia to maintain strategic resolve, deepen political mutual trust, strengthen strategic coordination, expand practical cooperation and defend the legitimate interests of both countries, to play a constructive role in promoting world peace and development.”
Wang’s meeting with Putin was followed by China’s official statement highlighting its ‘political position’ on Ukraine. The statement, using unambiguous words, reinforced Russia’s core position on the underlying cause of the conflict i.e., a US-led effort to expand NATO. The statement very clearly said that “The security of a region [Europe] should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs [NATO to include Ukraine]. Such a step amounts to what the statement describes as the policy of achieving a country’s security “at the expense of others.”
Why would such a reaffirmation of Russia’s position not cause a stir in the West, after all its direct target is the US and its hegemony and the imperative is to defeat the US? The Chinese made it clear within days after their essential reaffirmation of the ‘no-limits friendship 2.0.’ They did so via a document titled “US Hegemony and Its Perils.”
The document, pointing the US as a country that “interfere[s] in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue[s], maintain[s] and abuse[s] hegemony, advance[s] subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage[s] wars”, asserts that “the hegemony of U.S. dollar is the main source of instability and uncertainty in the world economy.”
The question is: why is China taking an unusually bold position on the current global scenario? The underlying reason is its own survival. Its policy and position vis-à-vis both Russia and the US stem from the fact that were the US to succeed in ultimately defeating Russia in Ukraine, China will be the next target of a war in the Indo-Pacific that it may not be able to win on its own i.e., without strong allies e.g., Russia, on its side. We already know that the US considers both China and Russia as two “revisionist” powers and that it wants to defeat them both to maintain its own hegemony.
But achieving this objective is a lot harder than it looks. Contrary to Washington’s hopes, many countries in the world do not agree with the imperative of fighting a war with Russia and/or China. Russia is not “isolated”, as its ties with China show. But apart from China, the extent of the support that Russia has around the world is immense. The world’s most populous country, India, recently said that its trade with Russia has grown by 400 per cent since the start of the conflict last year. In just the past six weeks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been welcomed in nine countries in Africa and the Middle East — including South Africa, whose foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, hailed their meeting as “wonderful” and called South Africa and Russia “friends.”
This is nothing short of a major boost to China’s confidence in Russia’s ability to confront – and defeat – the West despite the latter’s massive economic and financial sanctions and military support to Ukraine worth billions of dollars. Only 33 countries in the whole world have imposed sanctions on Russia, while the world’s two-thirds population lives in countries that have refrained from opposing/condemning Russia. This is not a good sign for Washington insofar as it defeats Joe Biden’s self-proclaimed success in having developed a “global coalition” against Russia and “isolating” it into a corner.
For China, Russia’s continuing acceptability across the world is nothing short of a reaffirmation of their joint plan – and resolve – to push for a new world order, a system that is as essential for Russia and China to survive as for the rest of the world – in particular in the Global South – under constant repression of Western neo-imperialism.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Сообщение The China and Russia ‘no limits friendship’ 2.0 появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The closer the next general presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey get, the more obvious the peculiarities of the internal political conflict between the opposition and the government become.
Last week, one of the members of the Alliance of Six (in particular, the leader of the Good Party, Meral Akşener) refused to support Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, head of the People’s Republican Party (CHP), as the opposition’s single candidate. The public and the media started to discuss the possibility of an emerging split in the opposition coalition, which would create favorable conditions for the success of incumbent President Recep Erdoğan in the first round.
However, the opposition’s hesitation did not last long. Maral Akşiner, who favored the candidacy of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu or Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavaş (whom the Good Party had supported in the 2019 municipal elections against the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) candidates, which enabled the former to win), met and negotiated with CHP leader Kılıçdaroğlu at the request of these favorites for the upcoming election. As a result, she agreed with the opinion of all the members of the Alliance of Six and supported the single candidacy of 74-year-old Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu in the upcoming presidential election, which eliminated the “split” in the opposition.
Meanwhile, Maral Akşiner put forward a proposal as a condition of her agreement to Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s candidacy: if the opposition leader wins, Ekrem İmamoğlu and Mansur Yavaş will be appointed vice-presidents. This idea was supported and developed. In particular, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu promised to appoint all the leaders of the five parties of the “opposition alliance” bloc as vice-presidents in addition to the mayors of Istanbul and Ankara in case of his victory.
Of course, today Kılıçdaroğlu can promise anything to anyone. In order to fulfill these promises he needs, at the very least, to succeed in the presidential election. The reason we have drawn attention to this issue is that Mrs. Meral Akşener has repeatedly advocated strengthening the role of parliament in governing Turkey and almost a return to the previous system of government, i.e., the Prime Minister’s rule. If the leader of the Good Party now accepts the appointment of seven vice presidents after Kılıçdaroğlu’s victory, this change in the institution of presidential rule is unlikely to indicate a weakening of this system of government.
According to the 2017 constitutional amendments, once the president is elected, he or she can appoint one or more vice presidents at his or her discretion. Currently, President Erdoğan has only one first vice president, Fuat Oktay, who is the highest official in the country after the president. The vice-president is appointed from among those who have the right to be a member of parliament, takes the oath to parliament, and is a member of the Cabinet of Ministers, the National Security Council and the Supreme Military Council.
In other words, Recep Erdoğan, whom the opposition criticizes for the transition to a presidential republic, is content with one vice-president, while the opposition, which allegedly advocates the strengthening of parliamentary power, proposes seven vice-presidents at once. This is a bit strange, and probably even not the topic of the agreement between Meral and Kılıçdaroğlu.
It is known that the leader of the center-right Good Party had previously enjoyed the support of Turkish nationalists from the National Unity Party (the UBP, now an ally of the ruling regime headed by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). Accordingly, Akşener opposed any alliance with Kurdish political forces, accusing them of links with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been declared a terrorist organization in Turkey. However, the other opposition parties of the Alliance of Six (especially the CHP) have to reckon with the objective reality and consider cooperation with the local Kurds inevitable. In particular, the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) led by Salahaddin Demirtaş, which showed very good results in the previous elections.
As you know, at the parliamentary elections in June 2015, the HDP won 13.12% of the votes and was part of the GNAT, had two ministers in the government of Ahmet Davutoğlu (Ali Konca, Minister of European Union Affairs and Muslim Dogon, Minister of Development), controlled 48 municipalities mainly in the south-eastern provinces of the country with a predominantly Kurdish population. After the July 2016 coup attempt, the Turkish authorities also subjected members of the HDP to mass repression, accusing them of allegedly collaborating with the PKK and Muhammed Fethullah Gülen (including party leaders Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu).
However, given the current circumstances (particularly in light of the devastating earthquake that also struck the southeastern Kurdish-populated provinces), the need to count the votes of Kurdish voters in the upcoming general elections is becoming more pressing. For the opposition, the Kurdish issue is more relevant also because of the Kurds’ growing dissatisfaction with President Recep Erdoğan (which is rather explicable, because no power in Turkey, regardless of its promises during the pre-election period, can satisfy the Kurdish movement’s political demands).
The Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) is seriously offended by the ruling regime and Erdoğan personally for the anti-Kurdish repression after the July 2016 events (according to various estimates, the number ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 people, including the arrest of pro-Kurdish party leaders) and the tightening of the Turkish Armed Forces’ external intervention against the Kurdish movement in neighboring Iraq and Syria. In addition, the Kurds now have high hopes for the United States and its policy in the Middle East. In turn, Washington is criticizing the policy of Recep Erdoğan. It is true that the Kurds should remember the sad history of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and not forget that it was under President Recep Erdoğan’s rule that their political party managed to make its way into the Turkish parliament and government.
Accordingly, the Turkish opposition represented by the CHP and the rest of the members of the Alliance of Six harshly castigate President Erdoğan’s foreign policy of weakening relations with the main ally, the United States. In this situation, the CHP and its allies cannot ignore Washington’s attitude towards the Kurds (at least during the upcoming general elections). Therefore, it can be assumed that the main topic of negotiations between Akşiner and Kılıçdaroğlu was the Kurdish issue in the elections, while the agreement was formalized by the idea of a broad list of vice-presidents.
Many experts believe that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the CHP, has no specific program that could help him overcome the authority and charisma of R. Erdoğan in the upcoming elections. At the same time, the same experts believe that 74-year-old Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu significantly loses in the ratings to his own fellow party members, represented by the Mayor of Istanbul Ekrem Imamoglu and the Mayor of Ankara Mansur Yavaş.
What can be said in this connection? Naturally, the elderly Kılıçdaroğlu obviously lags behind his two younger colleagues in terms of energy, attractiveness and other personal qualities. However, one can hardly assume that the program of one member of the CHP can be strikingly different from that of the CHP leader (moreover, as we could see, neither of them – Imamoglu and Yavas – challenged intraparty discipline and opposed the single opposition candidate Kılıçdaroğlu).
The fact is that the upcoming general elections come at a momentous time for the Turks. And it is connected not only with the consequences of the devastating earthquake disaster, but also the year of the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic founded by Kemal Pasha (Atatürk) – the founder of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the first president of Turkey. In the East, and in Turkey in particular, political symbolism has a special meaning.
100 years later, Atatürk’s party again claims power in the Republic. One Kemal in 1923 founded the Republic of Turkey with an orientation toward a strong West (at that time toward the Anglo-Saxon leader, England), another Kemal in 2023 would continue the pro-Western policy of preserving the Republic (now under the aegis of the United States) rather than reviving the Turan Empire (as Recep Erdoğan did not rule out). “From Kemal to Kemal” could be an attractive slogan for Kılıçdaroğlu’s election program.
The leader of the ruling AKP, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has repeatedly criticized and revised the foundations of the Kemalist doctrine during his two decades in power with a bias toward the rebirth of a strong and independent Turkey.
In his election program on the domestic policy, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, of course, will sharply criticize the policies of the AKP and Erdoğan for: the crisis in the economy, the devaluation of the lira, rising unemployment, the scale of corruption in the construction business which caused huge destruction in the earthquake zone, the costs of democracy, violations of citizens’ rights and freedoms, mass repression after the events of 2016. As for foreign policy, the leader of the CHP will harshly castigate his main opponent for: the weakening of the strategic alliance with the United States and NATO in general, the passion for partnership with Russia and China, the conflict with the Kurdish movement outside Turkey, the slowdown of the integration process with the EU. Regardless of these problems, the pre-election criticism will come mostly from propaganda. The fact is that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, who has made a career as a civil servant and politician in the ranks of the CHP under the US supervision, will be in favor of restoring the Kemalist strategy in domestic politics, on the one hand, and, on the other, will be strongly oriented toward the United States, NATO and the EU in foreign policy.
Kılıçdaroğlu, being a statesman, is unlikely to give up everything that benefits Turkey’s national interests in relations with Russia or China. Although we remember that the leader of the CHP criticized Erdoğan for agreeing to Russia’s Akkuyu nuclear project and excluding Western partners (such as the United States, France or Canada). The Turks seem to support President Vladimir Putin’s idea of creating a gas hub in Eastern Thrace, which could depoliticize the issue of Russian gas in Europe. However, the Turks claim they do not have the necessary finances to build the required infrastructure (reservoirs) and the Russians will have to invest in the construction of this project on the territory of Turkey themselves. Besides, the meeting (Russian-Turkish conference) scheduled for February 14 and then for March 22, 2023 in Turkey to discuss a range of issues on the “gas hub” project is still being postponed by the Turkish side sine die. The reasons cited are the consequences of the earthquake and, in reality, perhaps waiting for the results of the upcoming elections.
One thing is clear, the Turks, and their leaders, are trying never to refuse proposals and programs that are interesting and profitable for them. The only thing left to do is to be patient in waiting for the elections and the formation of a new government.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Turkish opposition has settled on a single candidate появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
During his recent four-day African tour, French President Emmanuel Macron was forced to admit that the era of the “Françafrique” is over in Gabon. It existed for more than six decades, realizing Paris’ desire to imprison its former colonies in Africa in the “arms” of enslaving economic agreements and informal arrangements with the local elites that came to power, whom Paris managed to corrupt and persuade to work not for the development of their countries, but for the purse of France and its own interests. It is no secret that billions of euros have been added to France’s explicit and hidden budgets over the years, financing intelligence operations, mercenary expeditions, and the maintenance of the French military contingent in African countries, which turned out to be a sham. Paris will now only act as a “neutral interlocutor,” according to the current French president.
Speaking about Paris’ new policy towards African countries, President Macron said at the end of February that the number of French troops in Africa will be significantly reduced “in the coming months.” As you know, last summer the Elysée Palace announced the end of the withdrawal of troops from Mali after nine years of presence there, due to the position of the new government in the country, which is very critical of France’s actions in the Sahara-Sahel region and its outright inaction to curb radical militants, the continued policy of neocolonialism. France announced its withdrawal from Burkina Faso at the end of January, following the African country’s new authorities’ denunciation of the 2018 agreement on the status of French troops.
Under these circumstances, the main concentration of French troops on the African continent now remains at the French base in Côte d’Ivoire near Abidjan, where 900 troops are stationed, with 350 troops each stationed in Senegal and Gabon. More than 2,500 more are dispersed in Chad and Niger after the withdrawal of French troops from Mali and Burkina Faso.
Having announced the beginning of a new “era of balanced partnership,” Macron is well aware that the situation today for Paris in Africa is such that it is not to expand its influence, building on the past relationship, but to preserve at least what remains.
The current attitude of African countries to the policy of Paris is vividly demonstrated by the scandal with the head of this country Félix Antoine Tshisekedi during Macron’s visit to Congo because of France’s involvement in the genocide in Rwanda. According to the joint press conference of March 5, Macron was reminded what role was played by France during the genocide in Rwanda, and especially during the operation of the Forces démocratiques de libération in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a humanitarian corridor was passing through. Then, armed militants entered the territory of the DRC despite the resistance of the Congolese authorities, resulting in more than 10 million deaths!
Despite the fact that the UN experts in their reports have noted the aggression of Rwanda by the M-23 rebel group, France, as a member of the UN Security Council, has not condemned Rwanda and has not imposed sanctions against it, although it does so today in a very aggressive manner against Russia from its openly Russophobic position.
And, after Paris allocated $20 million to Rwanda, the country that attacked the DRC, residents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) questioned whether France could still be considered a friendly country. At the same time, the question was put to the President of France:after the Congolese people had become victims of France’s solidarity, how did Paris plan to solve the security issue in the eastern provinces where it had sent its military and compensate the Congolese people for the damage they had suffered? — However, President Macron did not provide a clear response, confirming the failure not only of the current French leader’s visit to the Congo, but also of Paris’ policy in general in the “Dark Continent.”
But it is not only in politics that the role of Paris is falling here, but also in economic terms, France’s share of African exports has halved since 2000, falling from 11% to 5.5%, and this decline applies to all sectors except aerospace.
As rightly noted by Boulevard Voltaire, in this situation of general failure, Paris has only one strategy – to pretend that nothing bad happened, to play the pioneer and propose a transition “from donation aid to investment.” Which is what Macron tried to do during his African tour.
But these are in fact empty words which reveal absolutely nothing, except one thing – the impotence of clearly not the best French president.
Moreover, even before this African tour of the French president began it was clear to everyone that it would in no way improve relations between Paris and its African partners, just as sixteen other trips to the African continent since the beginning of Macron’s first presidential term. And it was not only in France that it was clear that this former metropolis was catastrophically losing any influence on the continent with which it was historically linked.
Today, other players are active and very successful in Africa: China, Russia, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. And often much more successfully than Paris did before. But these countries are also much more successful in other regions of the world, where Paris has tried, as in Africa, to establish itself as a “leading player”. And Africa has become for Paris what Afghanistan was for the United States, turning the “Gallic cock” into a “lame duck.”
The loss of today’s France of its own independent face did not begin today and is actively taking place, at the initiative of Macron, with the increasing subordination of Paris to the dictates of Washington and the Anglo-Saxons in general. And this, in particular, is confirmed by Paris’ recognition of its failure and France’s recent demonstration to “bury the hatchet” with Britain in order to send a signal to Washington’s suzerain about the supposed unity of the West, at least by demonstrating a joint Russophobic position.
In fact, another failure in Paris’ actions was hardly to be expected when even the French media openly write that the representatives of the current authorities of the Fifth Republic are not at all concerned with affairs of state…
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение The “French era” is coming to an end, and not just in Africa появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
At the beginning of March this year, the regular annual meetings of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (NC CPPCC) and the National People’s Congress (NPC) was held in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In the mediasphere, this event is referred to as the “Two Sessions”.
As for the role and status of each of these institutions in the state structure of the PRC, according to one view, the NPC can be considered a unicameral parliament that simultaneously serves as a representative and legislative body of the country. While the NC CPPCC is a platform for the preliminary coordination of positions on important state issues between the ruling CCP, several small parties, the business community, the special administrative districts of Hong Kong and Macao, Taiwan, and foreign diasporas.
However, analogies are also possible (again, very tentative), for example, with the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. In this case, the analogy of the State Duma would be the National People’s Congress, and the Federal Assembly – NC CPPCC. Similar functions are also performed, one of the main of which is to assess at the plenary sessions (which are the “Two sessions”) the economic activities over the past year and adopt a legislative act (in the form of approval of the government budget project), in accordance with which the country will live in the new year.
The important specifics of the functioning of these institutions of the PRC is due to the factor of the determining role of the Communist Party of China (CCP) in all major spheres of life of the country. That is, the nature of the legislative acts adopted during the current “Two Sessions” was predetermined by the last milestone event in the life of the PRC, which was the decision of the 20 th CCP Congress held six months earlier.
As for the most notable results of the overall plan of the last “Two Sessions”, the main one is to launch the process of China’s return to the position of one of the two (along with India) main locomotives, which should lead the global economic organism from the depression of recent years. The slowdown in its development has been due to both objective and quite man-made and subjective reasons. The latter primarily include the use for political purposes of the tool of sanctions by one group of participants in the current stage of the “Great World Game” against the other. The negative impact of this fact on the world economy was also mentioned during the discussions of the “Two Sessions”.
From the specific decisions of the past meetings, both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the planned recovery process of the Chinese economy, the growth rate of which for a number of reasons in the previous two years has been sharply reduced, draw attention. Foreign experts believe that in addition to external factors (i.e. beyond the PRC’s ability to influence them), a significant role in this was played by the “zero tolerance” strategy regarding the spread of the Covid 19 pandemic on Chinese territory itself. China, while acknowledging the presence of this factor, denies its importance in the decline in economic growth.
In 2023, the volume of GDP should increase by 5% (in the previous year it increased by 3%). As Chairman Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang emphasized in their speeches, this will mainly happen by improving the quality of the production cycles of end products and primarily in the sphere of high technology, but not by opening the “budget floodgates”.
Among other things, such a strategy of economic development is designed to form a sense of verification of measures taken by potential foreign investors and, consequently, the stability of the growth of the Chinese economy. In other words, during the last “Two Sessions” it was by no means about the course of closing the Chinese economic space. Although they once again talked about increasing the role of the domestic market for manufactured products and reducing dependence on external markets. The words “openness,” “improving conditions for private business,” and “attracting foreign investment,” which have been popular in recent years, were still among the main themes of the speeches.
Equally noticeable was the presence of the word “security” in its various interpretations. It referred to both the economy (e.g., in connection with the US attempts to exclude China from the global microelectronics manufacturing system) and defense. Spending on this second will increase this year by 7.2% and reach a solid amount of about $225 billion. Which would still be 3.5 times less than the world leader in this area and the main foreign policy opponent in the face of the United States.
In connection with the latter, let us reiterate the main feature of China’s positioning in the foreign policy arena. It is based on the key concept of “Building a Community of One Destiny”, which is implemented through the Belt and Road Initiative political and economic project. The course for further development of BRI was outlined and during the discussed “Two Sessions”. That is, the key to China’s success in foreign policy is not military bases, but the joint construction of industrial and transport infrastructure and assistance to developing countries in education and healthcare. For example, during the “battle for Africa,” which is becoming increasingly important. China’s military presence is growing, especially in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The same concept also determines China’s obvious interest not only in maintaining, but also in developing relations with geopolitical opponents, i.e. the US, Japan, EU and leading European countries. The same factor explains a kind of ambivalence in China’s position on the Ukrainian conflict, which was clearly expressed during a meeting with journalists on the sidelines of the “Two Sessions” with Foreign Minister Qin Gang. He confirmed the political support of Russia, denied rumors about the supply of Chinese weapons to the “parties to the conflict” and spoke in favor of an early and peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Let us add to this that in China, laying the responsibility for “maintaining the fire” under the Ukrainian conflict on the US (which is also designated as the main beneficiary of it, share the view that it itself has a negative impact on all aspects of the functioning of the world community.
Let us emphasize again that the above positioning of the second world power (both in general and in particular) is conditioned by quite understandable pragmatism of Realpolitik (to which the above key principle corresponds quite well), that is, it does not contain any “going back in time” specific “Chineseness”.
The same pragmatism can also be seen in what foreign experts have identified as a certain change in rhetoric regarding the prospects for resolving the Taiwan problem. Such a shift was seen in the part of Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s report which was devoted to this very problem. The reason for such assessments, in particular, were the words: “We will adhere to the peaceful way of resolving the problems between the banks of the Taiwan Strait and the peaceful reunification of China.”
Let us make a few remarks in this regard. Firstly, the preference for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem is declared more or less constantly in the PRC. In particular, this was noted in Xi Jinping’s speech at the 20th CCP Congress. Secondly, however, these words of the current (for now) Prime Minister may indeed reflect a certain shift in emphasis in the way China manages its main, let us repeat, foreign policy problem.
One of the grounds for that could be the generally unfavorable outcome of the noisy incident concerning former US House Speaker Pelos’s visit to Taiwan in August last year. Which was obviously a well-planned provocation aimed at provoking the geopolitical rival to inadequate reaction on rather minor occasion. It was just in the days of that visit that the State Department confirmed the official US adherence to the “One China” principle in its relations with China.
A much more appropriate response to the emerging situation in and around Taiwan is to focus on transforming the domestic political field on the island. The fact and content of the recent visit to the PRC by a representative delegation of the Kuomintang Party is evidence that this strategy is now being favored. The Democratic Progressive Party, which has so far ruled the island, is also observing with a certain wariness the signs of the increasing use by Mainland for the above-mentioned purposes of what is commonly referred to as “soft power”.
In turn, we wish success in this to the closest partners of the Russian Federation in the currently unfolding “Great World Game”.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение China held yet another meeting of the “Two Sessions”; the Taiwan issue was also discussed появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
It was late in the afternoon, the day before International Women’s Day, and Der Spiegel editor Solveig Grothe could not come up with a way to degenerate Russia. Then it hit her like a Hugo Boss bag full of swastikas! “Russian women are the cause of all the world’s calamities,” she thought. So, she sat down and pecked out on her laptop “Die Frauen hinter Putin” (The women behind Putin) just to celebrate a traditionally wholesome and reverent day celebrating womanhood.
Grothe’s tone comes off more like that of an angry, Russophobic transvestite, than a contemporary history expert.
Not since her piercing article conjured from the era of the Third Reich, “Wehrmacht soldiers in women’s clothes,” has Grothe dived so deeply into the cesspool of propaganda journalism. In fact, the report you are reading is based, in part, on a response from one of “Putin’s women,” Maria Zacharova, who’s the spokes lady for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Zacharova, who never minces words, calls the German newspaper what it is, the German intelligence service’s bullhorn.
Reading from Grothe’s piece about cross-dressing Wehrmacht soldiers, a clear message from the bowels of the liberal world order emerges. At the end of the article, the Spiegel editor points out that all of Hitler’s heterosexual, homosexual, and transsexual heroes died together at the front. The article reads like a recruitment brochure aimed at Germany’s new society of “dress up” aficionados.
Frau Zacharova (Sorry Maria) points out that Grothe spewed out a mouth full of “hideous sexist cliches” in her opinion piece about female Russian politicians, public officials, journalists, scholars, and members of civil society. And reading her response to the piece, I was appalled at the depth of hatred some Germans must feel for Russia. The names Grothe attaches to people like Zacharova who are part of Russian institutions are hideous not only by journalistic standards but on a human level. And on Mother’s Day around the world!
Calling the women “repressive scaremongers, a troll, or an iron doll,” Goethe tips her hand and reflects the face of the cliche heartless Hitler fraus who help fire up Auschwitz’s gas chambers. I imagine the face and countenance of Gothe ushering little Jewish children into cattle cars, or running some agency of Joseph Goebbels. Short version. Grothe and the people behind her are the worst Russophobes on Earth. Here are a few more examples from her story that show this.
The Der Spiegel editor cites French-Russian ‘historian’ Galia Ackerman, who has said that “There are women among Putin’s supporters who you would never expect to see there, like mothers whose sons were sent to serve in the special military operation.”
Ackerman goes on the say that “many are completely brainwashed by the propaganda.” He even goes so far as to say that the “patriotic ones do not even mourn their loved ones because see their deaths as necessary.” No, really, I am not joking. This is the German way of saying “Happy International Mother’s Day” to Russian women. And as Zacharova points out, the Germans, Americans, French, and others in the NATO alliance sent the weapons that killed all those Russian mothers’ sons. The concept of patriotism and family pride in serving their country seems to escape Ackerman and all the Putin haters like her. It’s ironic that American families in high places seldom have sons or daughters anywhere near the front lines of our wars. Maybe this explains why Grothe and Ackerman are so confused in seeing a ranking Russian woman proud of her son’s contribution. And, maybe this is a good reason for Europe to leave Russia alone and secure.
In a subheading of the Mother’s Day report, the German editor professes, “Russian women as the cornerstone of the regime: The Stalinist women behind Vladimir Putin.” You understand the picture here, I know. Grothe, who lives in Hamburg, seems to have the same ideals as EU President Ursula von der Leyen and the other liberal order warmongers bent on total war with Russia. On her Facebook profile, she says things like “The Federal Republic is helpless in the face of the inner-German misunderstanding as the current state of war.”
Apparently, the New Master Race slinks back into whatever perversive and egocentric lifestyle they prefer, while their proxy warriors in Ukraine deal death to those pesky Russians and their traditionalism. Crossdressers in Hamburg or Berlin, had just as soon enjoy their frivolous lives at home, and just send some weapons as a show of solidarity with other people who their race has hated for eons of time. Sisters in Ukraine, rise up and stop Zelensky from killing your kids. Or, risk being too much like your Slavic sisters across the border in Russia.
Zacharova was right, it’s shocking to realize how low western journalists will stoop to do their benefactors’ bidding.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение Putin’s Women Run the Show – But Germany’s Touted Wehrmacht Wear Dresses Too появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Two bloody events have enraged the entire country, raising the painful question of whether the negative effects of the brazen, unjustified invasion of Iraq by hordes of US troops 20 years ago are still wreaking havoc on all Iraqis today.
When Jassim al-Assadi, a leading campaigner for the preservation of Iraq’s famous southern marshes, was kidnapped by unknown gunmen last month, many Iraqis were taken aback by the drama that unfolded on their streets. Al-Assadi, 65, is the executive director of Nature Iraq, a nongovernmental organization dedicated to “protecting, restoring, and preserving Iraq’s natural environment and the rich cultural heritage it nurtures.” On February 21, rival Shiite tribesmen attacked a Sunni family in Diyala, a troubled ethnically and religiously mixed province east of Baghdad, in a gruesome reminder of the forces shaping the political and security situation.
The two incidents have reignited the fear of violence that has become a way of life in Iraq. Since the brutal 2003 US invasion, which resulted in years of sectarian conflict and the emergence of the terrorist group Daesh (banned in Russia), Shiite armed groups, power struggles, and tribal clashes, this horror has become the norm.
This month marks the 20th anniversary of the United States-led barbaric coalition mobilizing and sending 160,000 troops into Iraq, launching a full-scale, brutal invasion that destroyed Iraqi statehood and began a long, brutal, unjustifiable occupation. To this day, the United States has been unable to provide basic evidence of Baghdad’s violation of international law. Although Iraq has miraculously survived, it continues to suffer from dysfunctional state institutions as a result of the United States’ placement of collaborators in key positions, enrichment of its henchmen, and corruption, paving the way for what appears to be an endless tragedy with no end in sight.
There are no celebrations planned in Baghdad or Washington to mark what former US President George W. Bush’s administration called its invasion a “war of liberation” that allegedly brought “democracy” to Iraq. Since the barbaric invasion in 2003, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed or injured, burying not only the achievements that existed prior to the occupation, but also the promise of a “good governance” country free of corruption and responsive to the needs of its people. Instead, an inept political system, factional divisions, and unaccountable state institutions under Washington’s tight control, as well as successive governments, resulted in an endless cycle of conflict and chaos. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, we see true American democracy in action.
Many analysts predicted that the invasion, from planning to occupation, would fail. However, turning into a fiasco on this scale seemed unthinkable to most; Washington’s “valiant strategies” exceeded these expectations. Nonetheless, it became abundantly clear, even to ardent war hawks and supporters of the former regime, that the invasion was deeply flawed, and that the consequences would be disastrous. Iraq did not experience democracy, nor did it experience the stability and reconstruction of a still-war-torn country in which statehood, industry and agriculture, and the social achievements of the former regime had been destroyed.
The US-led occupation authorities demolished key state institutions, appointed mercenaries, often criminals, to key positions, and enriched their henchmen by forming a small circle of proxies who later became Iraq’s ruling oligarchs. The culmination of this American atrocity paved the way for the destruction of the Iraqi state’s foundations, and then for the country’s tragedy. Long after the invasion, Iraq’s political system remains dysfunctional, and tensions remain high because all of the former regime’s crises remain unresolved.
As the 20th anniversary of the invasion approaches, Iran’s influence in Iraq is growing, one of the most serious consequences of the occupation, threatening the dominance of pro-Tehran groups in Iraqi politics. Since the disputed 2021 elections, Tehran-backed parties have succeeded in consolidating their power in the political system, becoming key partners in Iraq’s ruling Shiite coordination structure. The Badr organization, Kata’ib Hezbollah or Hezbollah Brigades, and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq are among the Iranian-backed groups that have joined Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-government, Sudani’s while their military units have maintained their participation in the Popular Mobilization Force (PMF), designated part of the Iraqi army. Since al-election Sudani’s last October, the leaders of the Coordination Framework (CF) alliance have played a key role in managing national politics, and its pro-Iranian factions have been re-instated in key positions in the government and security organs.
The CF introduced a new electoral law to increase the number of seats in the next parliament in order to improve its chances in the next elections. The draft, which deals with provincial elections and was approved by parliament in its first reading last month, has galvanized opposition from independent parties and is expected to spark further debate. Meanwhile, obstinate Shia factions in the government and judiciary are pushing for tougher controls on the Internet in Iraq. They are working on a new cybersecurity law, which critics say will restrict free expression and benefit the current al-Sudani government.
Earlier, the Ministry of Interior set up a committee to monitor social media for “violations of public morals, negative and obscene content, and undermining social stability.” Several bloggers were charged with publishing “obscene content” and were immediately arrested. Many Iraqis believe that CS empowerment and draconian measures, such as the alcohol ban, are aimed at transforming the country into an Iranian-style Islamic republic.
History has already passed judgment on the “democratic” US invasion, which will be remembered as a tragedy for the people of Iraq and a disaster for the entire Middle East. Many facts and evidence could be cited about the disasters caused by the senseless and foolish invasion of Iraq. If the occupation’s stupidity is not obvious, the failure to restore a fair and stable political system after the invasion is unquestionably America’s greatest sin in Iraq.
The biggest question now is what will happen in Iraq and whether the Biden administration can chart a new course to right the terrible wrongs of its predecessors, who squandered every opportunity to re-establish Iraq. There are growing indications that the Biden administration is pursuing an active new policy of targeting Iran and its local proxies, employing a carrot-and-stick approach with al-Sudani to limit Iranian activities in Iraq. This strategy was outlined in part in a joint statement issued by the US-Iraq Higher Coordinating Committee last month in Washington. In exchange for closer cooperation in several areas, the Biden administration offered the al-Sudani government a partnership. Economic cooperation, the energy sector, water management, fighting corruption, dealing with the climate crisis, and assisting with government reforms are among them. “First, let the US root out corruption at home,” the Iraqi news agency Shafaq News opined caustically, before announcing a fight against corruption here.
More importantly, the United States is tightening controls on the flow of hard currency from Iraq, which is a lifeline for the cash-strapped Islamic Republic. However, this control is reinforced by measures at the US Federal Reserve that limit Iraq’s access to its own dollars in order to halt the flow of dollars into Iran. So far, the mechanism appears to be ineffective in stopping the financial flow. Simultaneously, it has had a negative impact on the value of the Iraqi currency, which has fallen significantly in international markets, raising the cost of living and prices in Iraq. To be sure, this is of little concern to the Biden administration’s officials and politicians, who have so far promised to bring some kind of prosperity to Iraq.
After becoming a key interlocutor on Iran-related deals, the Biden administration appointed Amos Hochstein, a senior US diplomat, as its special coordinator to the president for global infrastructure and energy security in Iraq. Following previous decisions to blacklist pro-Iranian leaders such as PMF leader Falih al-Fayyadh, the US Embassy in Baghdad is now keeping tabs on Iraqi government ministers and militia officials. US Ambassador to Baghdad Alina L. Romanowski told a local satellite television station February 18 that al-Sudani should take “responsibility for ensuring full control over Iraqi sovereignty,” increasing pressure on him to take concerted steps to contain Iranian activities in Iraq. True, she failed to mention that it was the “democratic” United States that deprived Iraqis of sovereignty over their country.
Some two decades after the invasion, it is clear that the United States has no clear strategy in Iraq, instead relying on harsh pressure diplomacy and the constant threat of sanctions, as well as arrogance and intimidation. And what else can Joe Biden’s administration officials offer as they fail one after the other in every part of the world every day? The entire world is now attempting to break free from the proverbial American noose and become a full member of the new community of equal states being actively created by Russia and China.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Iraq: Twenty Years of Lost History появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Georgian Legislative Showdown Reveals Murky Waters of Foreign Agents, NGOs and Media Outlets
What is now attracting all the media hype these days in Georgia is a proposed law most people should care less about, at least at first impression? However, when you dive deeper into the murky waters you realise much more is involved than meets the eye.
The ones complaining about it the most are the exact same ones who have received the most from the US government in terms of their budgets and targeted media activities. Thus, any claims of media independence are quickly diminished, and are closer to the Scarlet Letter of “fake news” in reality.
The ones howling the loudest are like sheep killing dogs with wool stuck between their teeth.
An array of purported media outlets are quick to claim that the Russian-style foreign agent law currently being pushed through the Georgian Parliament could spell the beginning of the end for Georgia’s experiment with democracy. They loudly proclaim that only decisive action, in Georgia and from abroad, can prevent Georgia’s descent into authoritarianism.
What they are actually afraid of is that Potemkin Democracy, which best describes what has existed in Georgia since the end of the USSR, is being exposed for what it really is. Any domestic, homegrown effort at legislation, such the foreign agent law which is to be submitted to the Georgian Parliament, which is intended to support real independence is labelled by the Western paid media, in many instances, as some insidious Russian ploy.
White vs. Black Spies Amongst us!
It is almost amusing to read the comments of those weighing in on the discussion, albeit also really sad. Supposedly quoting one of the staunchest opponents of the draft law, OC Media maintains that it would affect any broadcaster, newspaper or Georgian-language online media platform operating in the country, and any entity registered in Georgia as a non-governmental organisation.
As I wrote to one colleague, “I might take a crack at what nasty bastards fund these so-called media sites. If only the populace knew what the NED and various media support organisations were, and for what purpose they have funded the media and the NGO community”.
It is claimed by the same OC Media that the foreign agent law would be a threat to Georgia’s EU aspirations, which is hard to fathom, as the EU wants to believe all its members are fully independent states. It also maintains that just because the draft law has been widely condemned in Georgian civil society, as well as abroad, it must be bad, in a country where the founder of the majority religion couldn’t even get a seconder for a proposal to save his own life.
Andrius Kubilius, a member of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee and former Prime Minister of Lithuania, warned the proposal would ‘negatively affect [Georgia’s] prospects of starting the EU membership negotiations soon’. It should be remembered that in the 1990s Lithuania, like the other Baltic States which are now EU members, adopted some of the most restrictive nationality laws on earth precisely to show they were independent states, and thus worthy of EU membership.
The titles of the articles written against the law, such as ‘Fall of democracy’: Georgia’s foreign agent law widely condemned provide forgone conclusions. The tone and substance of these articles make you question the legitimacy of what is written, who paid for them, and whether most of the gobbledygook is part of some large media spin echo chamber.
How wide is widely? As those who are shouting the loudest against the law are the same media entities that benefit the most from foreign “soft power” funding, it is not difficult to see where this width can actually be found.
The language is basically the same, as if fledgling journalists still wet behind the ears are rewriting some press release. All the articles basically say: “A proposed ‘foreign agent’ law in Georgia has been widely condemned by civil society, the media and EU member states, who have compared it to similar legislation imposed by The Kremlin in Russia.
The new law, currently being pushed through parliament in Tbilisi, would make all non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media outlets that receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad register as ‘agents of foreign influence’ and report their revenue”.
It is interesting how so many, in Georgia, the US and the EU, are closing ranks on this law. Take for instance the statement by the Diplomatic Service of the EU on the draft law on “transparency of foreign influence”.
It is proffered that the proposed draft law on “transparency of foreign influence” raises serious concerns. The EU is one of the first organisations to call for transparency, but is now fighting the same by saying that the proposed law will “creating and maintain a less than enabling environment for civil society organisations and for ensuring media freedom is at the core of democracy”.
Furthermore, the press release of the EU, which appears intentionally ambiguous, describes how “the draft law’s adoption would be inconsistent with these aspirations and with EU norms and values”. Hence “We encourage the political leaders in Georgia to adopt and implement reforms that are in line with the stated objective of joining the European Union, as supported by a large majority of Georgia’s citizens.”
Many of these sites make claims about their approach to media coverage with such terms as fierce, independent journalism, etc. As the OC Media mission statement reads, “Let’s be honest, the media situation in the Caucasus is grim. Every day we are accused of ‘serving the enemy’ whoever that enemy may be. Our journalists have been harassed, arrested, beaten, and exiled. But nevertheless, we persevere. For us this is a labour of love. Unfortunately, we cannot run OC Media on love alone, journalism is expensive and funding is scarce.”
In reality, the problem is not that their funding is scarce but that it is tainted by the agendas of US and EU organisations, with an obviously large portion of this funding coming from entities which are self-serving and directed from abroad, even in their human resource decisions, let alone what gets published.
Role of Medieval Serfs
Many media outlets play the role of medieval serfs, who will take any position for money. Meanwhile Georgians are being crushed between the grindstone of an inequitable system, and being run out of the country through the need for economic survival,
I am sure they would be motivated to know of the vast sums being spent on media and NGOs that are budgeted as being for their benefit. However, in reality they mostly benefit only the outlets themselves and their patrons.
The final word goes to Radio Free Europe, which reports that “The US State Department has expressed “deep concern” over the draft, saying its adoption could “potentially undermine Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic integration”. Speaking to reporters in Washington on February 15, State Department spokesman Ned Price said the proposed legislation “would stigmatise and silence independent voices and citizens of Georgia who are dedicated to building a better future for their own communities.”
The US has basically the same law, known as FARA, as do many Western countries. FARA is the Foreign Agents Registration Act, enacted in 1938, which requires certain agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities or other activities specified under the statute to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.
In an attempt to address this question, the US Embassy website states, “These statements that the Georgian draft law is based on FARA are patently false. In fact, this draft legislation appears to be based on similar Russian and Hungarian legislation, not on FARA or any other American legislation.” However, perhaps in the interests of transparency, examples of these similarities and differences are not given.
So does this mean that Georgia has only one friend left in Europe, Hungary?
I hope I will not experience the plight of others subject to the terms of FARA for writing this article. For instance, in 2018, Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, a Russian national, was charged by criminal complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia for her alleged role in a Russian conspiracy to interfere in the US political system, including the 2018 midterm election. The complaint alleges that Khusyaynova conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the US Department of Justice to administer and enforce FARA, among other offences.
I am unable to find where the case ended up, as the charges were likely motivated by a reward scheme. If the Georgian government did the same when foreign entities and others interfered in its elections and it fledgling democracy, it would break the National Budget.
Double and Triple Standards
Freedom of expression only applies if you say what the Free World wants. Ask others with both Georgian and Ukrainian connections who have had close encounters with the wrath of Samuel Patten, who was an advisor to both the United National Movement and the Georgian Dream, as well as various Ukrainian politicians.
According to public information, back in 2018 this Samuel Patten, an American citizen and graduate of Georgetown University, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to violating FARA by engaging in lobbying and political consulting in the United States on behalf of the Opposition Bloc, a Ukrainian political party, without registering under FARA.
Patten contacted members of Congress, the executive branch, and the news media, drafted talking points for a Ukraine oligarch for meetings with members of Congress and congressional staff and helped the oligarch draft articles targeted at the US press. However he then cooperated with and provided substantial assistance to the government, and was thus sentenced merely to 36 months of probation, the proverbial slap on the wrist.
The purpose of Georgia’s draft legislation, as with FARA and its many equivalents in the West, is not to restrict speech, but rather to identify it as the speech of a foreign principal (when fairly attributed) or those who benefit from foreign aid or influence. This would enable both Georgian and American audiences to consider the source when evaluating the message or determining the intention of the project.
The same law would also apply to foreign principals who are Russian. It is rational to assume that the US and EU would welcome such an initiative for exactly this reason, as it would help provide a final break with the Soviet past. However they seem to feel, without prompting, that they would be more affected by this law than Russia, when the justification for their presence in Georgia is to keep Russia out.
FARA does not require registration simply because a person expresses views that are favourable to, or coincide with, the interests of a foreign country or a foreign individual. It only applies if that person is paid to express such opinions publicly, and those opinions can therefore be attributed to their source, in the same way people distinguish between a news report about a holiday destination and a paid advertisement for that same destination.
When Billy Carter, brother of President Jimmy Carter, received $220,000 from Libya to serve its interests he crossed the line that separates independent conduct from conduct as an agent. Consequently ‘Brother Jimmy’ had no further dealings with him whilst he was president. However The Clinton Foundation does much worse, and gets away with it, so if FARA is being held up as an alternative to the Georgian draft law, it is not a very good one.
I earnestly hope that the Georgian Parliament passes this law on foreign agents, and will model it on the American one, as just too much money is being squandered in the Georgian media, and people are being manipulated into thinking pro-Western is the same as impartial, in the same way pro-Soviet was expressed as rational. The so-called English free media in Georgia is a hired gun, as are the “top-down”, foreign agenda-driven NGOs, whose main objective is to eat money and move on to the next project.
There is always the hope that nobody will ever hold them accountable for their lack of success, their meddling in the internal affairs of developing countries and why their much-touted projects usually lack any semblance of sustainability. If the public could see by reference to the law who was a foreign agent and who was not, there would be someone who could do that.
Of course Ned Price, Samantha Power, USAID, NED and CIA don’t like this draft about “Foreign Agents”, although the Russiaphobe USA set the course with such laws in the first place.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Georgian Media and NGO Activity on the Level of Potemkin Democracy! появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
After mentioning the daughter of the DPRK leader at a military parade and other events marking the 75th anniversary of the Korean People’s Army on February 8, 2023, the author was asked to explain whether the reasoning of some experts that the girl had already been appointed Kim Jong-un’s successor was correct.
Recall that on February 8, before the start of the parade, Kim Jong-un and his daughter walked side by side: the father held his daughter’s hand, while the girl’s mother kept a few steps behind. On the podium, the daughter publicly stroked the head of state on the cheek and spoke to him in whispers. The “first daughter” was dressed maturely with strict makeup in all of the photos, and she was frequently in the center of the composition. The media referred to her as a “beloved” and “respected” child, with the latter term previously applied to Kim Jong-un, who received this “title-appeal” a few days after the death of his father Kim Jong-il in 2011.
It was later revealed that the DPRK had issued a series of postage stamps depicting the head of state’s daughter. Four of the five stamps depict her with her father in front of the Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile, which they watched launch together on November 18, 2022. Understandably, the stamps were not about the daughter but about the rocket launch, however the girl on the stamps raised the temperature of the discussion considerably.
On February 18, as part of his late father’s birthday celebration, Kim Jong-un attended a soccer game – and again with his daughter. It was Kim’s daughter’s sixth public appearance and her first participation in a non-military event, according to the ROK media.
On February 26, Kim Jong-un attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a new street in Pyongyang, and his “beloved daughter” again accompanied him.
Her name, however, was not mentioned, but in South Korean and Western media the ten-year-old girl allegedly appears under the name Kim Ju-ae, although the DPRK itself has not confirmed the name. Kim Jong-un allegedly disclosed that name to Denis Rodman when the latter visited the North. It is widely believed that Ju-ae is the North Korean leader’s second child – the ROK claims he has an older son (allegedly named Kim Ju-un, born 2010) and a younger child whose gender is unknown.
And so it began… “Secrets of the Pyongyang Court” is a favorite pastime of non-profile or low-quality experts on the DPRK, who try to look for different political factions there or play a game of “guess the successor.” Of course, the closed nature of the country leaves little room for this kind of analysis, but for this reason any conjecture on this topic should be considered speculation. However, with the appearance in the media space of Kim Ju-ae (we will call her that for now), the game of “guess the successor” entered a new turn, especially when anonymous sources” from anti-Pyongyang pro-American NGOs began to report that DPRK residents who bear Ju-ae’s name have been ordered to change their names.
According to Cheong Seong-chang, a senior analyst on North Korea at the Sejong Institute, in South Korea, all this should leave no doubt as to who is next in line of succession. “In a country where every photo and message in the media is choreographed and inspected, the images showing Kim Ju-ae in the middle apparently signal that she is not just one of his children,” Cheong told the Korea Times. Similarly, the people of the DPRK are gradually beginning to accustom themselves to her presence alongside the leader, similar to the way the younger Kims accompanied the older ones.
However, the National Intelligence Service (NIS) of the ROK estimates that the likelihood that Kim Jong-un’s daughter Kim Ju-ae is seen as his successor is very low. As for the reasons why she is accompanying her father, three possibilities have been named: the girl symbolizes the security of the next generation of North Koreans achieved through nuclear weapons; the DPRK leader appears accompanied by his family in order to show the status of the DPRK as a normal state; Kim Ju-ae is simply the closest to her father among all his children, and he cherishes her.
The Unification Ministry is also cautious: as its head Kwon Young-se said on February 15, Pyongyang is preparing in advance for the process of political power transfer between the 3rd and 4th generations of the Kim family, for which it is strengthening the unity and cohesion of the system around the “Paektusan bloodline,” and a certain trend for the elevation of Kim Ju-ae can be seen. But it is too early to draw conclusions; we must wait and see how the situation develops.
On February 27, Kwon again noted that it is “too early to determine whether the North Korean leader’s daughter is his heir.” Kim Jong-un just turned 40, and the North Korean regime is much more patriarchal than in the South. Such a possibility is certainly not out of the question, but “even if North Korea begins grooming her as the next leader, questions remain as to whether she will be able to lead the military-oriented North Korean system,” Kwon said during a radio interview with CBS.
Now we, too, will break down the main arguments for and against the “ten-year heirship” thesis:
Argument 1. Kim Jong-il first introduced his son Kim Jong-un to the nation in 1992, when he was 8 years old. However, he was not officially declared successor until 2008, when Kim Jong-il suffered a life-threatening stroke. And in 2011, after his father’s death, then 27-year-old Kim Jong-un became the leader of the country. Kim Ju-ae is now 10 years old.
Counterargument 1. The version of an eight-year-old successor is promoted by Jang Song Chang, who claims to have interviewed Kim Jong-un’s aunt Ko Yong-suk and her husband, who once fled to the United States, in 2021. According to them, Kim Jong-il began expressing his will to designate Kim Jong-un as his successor around his eighth birthday in 1992, when a propaganda song called “Steps” was sung in front of father and son and their close associates, referring to the “young general.” Allegedly it was on that day that Kim Jong-il said: “Jong-un will be my successor,” and when Ko’s husband pointed out that it might be too early to make such a decision, Kim Jong-il replied, “he took after me”.
Witness testimony of this kind should be treated with caution. Moreover, Ko Yong-suk is known to maintain a deep regime of secrecy, giving no interviews and barely speaking to the press. It is hardly possible to verify whether her words are correctly rendered.
Argument number 2. The child’s appearance can’t be “without a reason,” especially since the girl is being dragged to such specific events.
Counterargument 2. Kim Jong-un was quite seriously into technical modeling as a child. The sources of this information are not entirely valid, but we do know that North Korea has a tradition of training gifted children, which leads us to believe that a girl who grew up in such a family might just be interested in the military and her father might indulge in it.
Argument 3. The daughter is called “beloved” and “precious,” which are adjectives that were used for Kim Jong-un while he was “crown prince.”
Counterargument 3. So far, these epithets are not permanent and the daughter is only mentioned along with her father. If, in the future, schoolchildren are called upon to learn diligence from the “beloved daughter” or she gets a special title like “the new starlet of the great country,” that would be a more serious argument.
Argument 4. The leader’s daughter was depicted on postage stamps and this should be understood as a sign.
Counterargument 4. If we look closely at the content of the stamps that are dedicated to the visit to the military facility, these stamps are not about the daughter after all, but about Kim and his daughter.
And most importantly: the successor must be well prepared. Even if Kim Jong-un decided that this girl has the best qualities of all his descendants, she will have a lot to learn. Kim Jong-un himself graduated from the military academy and has a military technical background in artillery reconnaissance. Kim Jong-il had been a leader for quite a long time, first in culture and then in economics and domestic politics. Kim Jong-un stayed in this status, constantly accompanying his father for about a year and a half. It is clear that Kim Jong-un has reworked the system to suit himself and it is not clear how much the old patterns of successor training can apply to the present times, but ten years is still an insufficient age. It remains to thank those in charge of PR for Kim Jong-un for such a nice move.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение “First Daughter” or a new trend of DPRK propaganda? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In the first days of March India was the center of international politics. The formal occasion for the appearance on its territory of the forty foreign ministers was one of the calendar events of the Forum G20, that is the twenty leading economies in the world which together account for 85% of world GDP. Another 20 ministers arrived in New Delhi at the invitation of the leadership of the country hosting all events of the forum, which this year is exactly India.
Recall that the G20 was originally created to develop measures to counteract the crisis phenomena in the global economy. One could argue that a tribute to this “specificity” of the G20 was held a week earlier in Bangalore, the first meeting of the heads of both government agencies responsible for financial-economic activity and central banks (Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting, FMCBG ) of the G20 members. All the more so that for a number of reasons the existence of those very crisis phenomena today does not cause doubts.
However, the member countries of another configuration, namely G7, and first of all its leader, the USA, have recently been using the calendar of all international organizations and forums for political attacks against both main geopolitical opponents, i.e. “Russia, which committed an act of unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, as well as its supporter China.” Washington and its allies are trying to focus the attention of the UN on this topic, which also dominated the last Munich Security Conference, on the sidelines of which a meeting of foreign ministers of the G7 member countries and then the (online) summit of this configuration were held. The latter event was organized by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on the occasion of the anniversary of the beginning of the mentioned “aggression”.
With all the already accumulated stock of bile, the leaders of the G7 Foreign Ministry went to New Delhi, with an obvious intention to continue the production of this product, and record this process in the final documents. Their counterparts in the financial and economic sector were doing the same in Bangalore. But since the participants in both the latter events were no longer just adherents of “free-democratic values,” the events in question did not go as smoothly as in the G7 format.
For example, the document, adopted following the FMCBG in Bangalore, says that not all participants of the event agreed with the points 3 and 4 (devoted to the very “aggression” as well as to the “unacceptability of the threat of use of nuclear weapons”). In other words, there was no unanimity on one of the key theses of the current “well-wishers” of Russia and China that almost all the current troubles in the world are caused by the Ukrainian conflict. As for the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting, there was no final document at all at the end of it.
The operation to isolate Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which was supposed to continue the general course of reducing to a minimum the format of Russia’s participation in all international platforms, also failed at this last event. On the sidelines of this forum there were meetings of the Russian Foreign Minister with a number of colleagues from other countries. Of particular importance were the talks with the Foreign Ministers of India and China, which ended quite positively. Moreover, Lavrov had “foot contact” with the representative of the country that initiated the whole “isolationist” showdown, that is, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And it was the latter’s initiative.
It seems that for all sorts of cheap puppets of the “post-Soviet space” who peddle their dislike for Russia (although outwardly and most often for the “Putin regime”) at the global political fair, there are unhappy times on the horizon. These will become even more tangible once the fountain of a kitchen-level propaganda with its “voyages to Warsaw and Berlin” and quasi-religious hysterics is finally shut up.
For no less definite are the global problems (outlined, by the way, in the final document of the FMCBG) of unprecedented proportions. Compared with which any disagreements (often very significant) between the main players seem rather minute. Under these conditions, the intrigues of petty political circles hanging around the table at which the “Great Global Game” is being played now may end very sadly. Naturally, for the intriguers, who will be seen as a hindrance in the organization of much-needed interaction between the leading players today.
Meanwhile, nuances in the behavior of various components of the “Collective West” regarding both Russia and China in general and the Ukrainian conflict in particular are becoming more and more noticeable. They were manifested not only during the recent G20 events, but also at the three-day so-called Raisina Dialogue (Raisina Dialogue) that began immediately afterwards. It was created in 2016 by Indian Foreign Ministry as some kind of competitor to the famous “Shangri-La Dialogue,” which operates annually in Singapore under the auspices of the London-based IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies).
Many of the ministers who had just participated in the G20 moved to the site of the Raisina Dialogue. Here, their speeches appeared much more relaxed than had been the case at the former venue. Apparently, this is related to the remark made by Josep Borrell, not a friend of Russia, that he was not against India buying Russian oil at a price favorable to it. It is hard to believe, but that is exactly what he said. For the weight of India’s presence at the global gaming table today is too great for the West to try and brutally pressure it over the same Ukrainian conflict.
That is what Washington was doing until recently, for which in the process of aggravating confrontation with its main geopolitical opponent (the PRC) the factor of India’s involvement in the US’s (rather loose, but nevertheless) anti-Chinese camp is gaining in importance. Among the various tools used for this purpose a notable place is occupied by pumping (“to the brim”) the current American administration with ethnic Indians. There are also reports of Washington’s lobbying for an American-Indian to be placed in the vacated position of head of the World Bank.
As for New Delhi, the initial positive interest on the subject is replaced by a skeptical smile. Especially after a year ago a senior US administration official of Indian origin, while in the ancestral homeland, campaigned in a very frankly clumsy way for the formation of an anti-Chinese alliance with Washington.
Incidentally, the fact that the UK’s government has been headed by a Hindu by birth for almost half a year hardly affects the nature of India’s relations with the former metropolis in any meaningful way. Because the process of their development (due to quite objective reasons) was started by his predecessor Boris Johnson. Meanwhile, the fact of preparation and launching by BBC of a film (shortly before the discussed events), whose main topic was the alleged participation of the current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the “Gujarat pogrom” of 2002, turned out to be very unfortunate for the current British government. In the course of the events under discussion, British foreign secretary had to accept a demarche on the matter from his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.
Nevertheless one of the few positive aspects of all the aforementioned political venues in India was the aforementioned talks of the Indian Foreign Minister with his Russian and Chinese colleagues. Perhaps, first of all it concerns Subrahmanyam Jaishankar – Qin Gang negotiations, because the state of Sino-Indian relations (as well as Sino-Japanese relations) considerably affects the development of situation in the Indo-Pacific Region in general.
Meanwhile, there are serious problems in them and during the Raisina Dialogue one of the main ones was pointed out by Sergey Lavrov.
Finally, a few words about the very subject of all the recent turmoil in the “Collective West,” that is, the contemporary (apparently, the final) stage of the Ukraine project evolution. Only if you close your eyes you cannot notice its transformation from an instrument of struggle against one of the two main geopolitical opponents into a parasitic boil on the body of the “West” itself.
Therefore, by way of at least some compensation of (quite considerable) costs connected with the mentioned works, it would be advisable to direct that money stream, which is pumped into Ukraine for some reason, to Moscow.
As the wise Kaa used to say (however, more likely it was his certain relative): “Strange people! They don’t understand their own benefits.”
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Foreign ministers from the world’s leading countries met in India at various locations появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
Only two months have passed since the beginning of the new year 2023, and it has already turned out to be eventful in the ongoing latent conflict between Israel and Iran, ready to break out at any minute through the fault of Tel Aviv, which is incessantly preparing to attack Iranian territory without concealing it.
An Israeli airstrike has just killed five people and damaged several buildings in the Syrian capital Damascus. Two Western intelligence agents, cited by the Reuters news agency, said that the target of the attack had been a logistics center run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) of Iran.
The strike in the center of the Syrian capital followed two “remarkable” incidents in January. On January 28, at night, a drone struck a military facility in the central Iranian city of Isfahan. This was quickly followed by another air attack the next night against a convoy of Iranian trucks that had entered Syria from Iraq. Experts believe that Israel most likely stood behind all these covert operations.
Over the past decade, Israel has regularly conducted an air campaign to prevent the IRGC from transferring modern weapons to its regional militias, in particular to the Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also tried to deprive the IRGC of a military foothold in Syria. In fact, the Al-Qaim border crossing between Iraq and Syria, the site of the January 29 attack, is an area frequently hit by such strikes. Israel is also believed to be behind a series of covert strikes and acts of sabotage against drone and missile production facilities in Iran and the country’s nuclear program. In addition, it is the main suspect in the murder of high-ranking Iranian nuclear scientists, primarily Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was killed in November 2020 in a road ambush near Tehran. A flurry of strikes in 2023 may signal that Israel is accelerating and intensifying these parallel campaigns at a time of changing geopolitical priorities.
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which aimed to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, is virtually dead, despite Tehran’s best efforts. According to Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, after the United States defiantly withdrew from this deal Tehran not only did not limit its nuclear program, but it even increased uranium enrichment to such an extent that, if desired, it could create “several” pieces of nuclear weapons. Mr. Grossi also noted that the level of enrichment “has long passed” the level that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had warned about back in 2012. Back then, Netanyahu famously artistically displayed a poster depicting a cartoon bomb at the UN to illustrate how much highly enriched uranium Iran needs before it can build a bomb. He threatened the UN members that Iran would create nuclear weapons and destroy Israel tomorrow if not today. Eleven years have passed since then, but Iran, faithful to the fatwa of its Supreme Leader, has not created a nuclear weapon. And if anyone is provoking a war in the Middle East, it is, first of all, Israel, which almost daily bombs Syrian territory, inflicts unprovoked secret strikes on Iranian territory, literally destroys the Arab people of Palestine every day.
Given this context and Netanyahu’s return to power at the head of a shaky new coalition that has the far-right electorate, further Israeli strikes across Iran and the wider region are likely in the coming weeks and months. “To me, both attacks are the continuation of Israel’s long-range interdiction campaign to prevent Iran from (fully) weaponizing Syria and Hezbollah and achieving a nuclear weapons capability,” Farzin Nadimi, a defense and security analyst and associate fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Saudi media Arab News in an interview. “The timing may have been selected by accident. This was the policy of previous Israeli administrations and will continue to be the priority of current and future Israeli governments.”
Nadimi predicts that these attacks will likely increase “in size and numbers” since “the Iranian regime is expected to accelerate all its offensive deterrent programs in the future.” Despite an “ever-existing risk of escalation at any moment,” he is unsure whether there could be an all-out war between Israel and Iran in 2023.
Nicholas Heras, senior director of strategy and innovation at the Washington, D. C.-based New Lines Institute, believes a military confrontation is inevitable if Iran moves to produce a nuclear weapon: “We are approaching midnight before a region-wide war between Iran and Israel and the US breaks out.” Israel, with the support of the United States, many political analysts say, sends a clear signal to Iran that there is a military option on the negotiating table to start a war on Iranian soil if Iran decides to create nuclear weapons. “With ongoing uncertainty in the West Bank, and Netanyahu’s coalition partners pushing for the annexation of Palestinian land, Netanyahu is trying to refocus his political allies in Israel on Iran,” Heras said. He also noted that Netanyahu views Iran and Iran’s weapons programs, especially artificial intelligence and modern missiles, as a strategic threat to Israel. In other words, Tel Aviv seeks to limit even scientific developments and slow down scientific progress in Iran.
In this context, it can be said that it is Israel, not the UN, that now determines who can and cannot have nuclear weapons. However, the Israelis are somehow forgetting that it was they who secretly, with the help of the West and without the permission of the UN, created nuclear weapons and are now swinging a nuclear baton in the region.
Kyle Orton, an independent Middle East analyst, views the latest strikes as part of the “new normal” of low-level warfare between Israel and Iran and an extension of the Syria air campaign. “The Israeli operation in Isfahan looks to have been mostly symbolic, a statement from Israel’s new government, primarily to its domestic audience,” he told Arab News. Orton also questions whether the Israeli campaign has inflicted any serious or lasting damage on Iran and its proxies, pointing out that Israel has struck many of the same targets in Syria multiple times to negligible effect. “The focus on physical infrastructure with the Israeli strikes, and only occasionally on IRGC officials and scientific staff in the nuclear program, means Iran’s regime can easily regenerate what is lost,” he said. Meanwhile Israel has extensively infiltrated the Iranian intelligence apparatus, to the extent that it has neutralized the foreign operations of the IRGC and established a broad reach inside Iran. Orton says that it nevertheless continues to lose ground “at a strategic level.”
Strengthening Iran’s position in Syria is not the only area in which it challenges Israel. On February 10, a supposedly Iranian drone attacked an Israeli-linked tanker for commercial shipping in the Arabian Sea. The attack on the Liberian-flagged oil tanker linked to Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer, which caused minor damage, was viewed by observers of the “shadow war” as a salvo from the Iranian side. Iran, according to many political analysts, also continues to dominate in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen, with threatening and growing outposts of the Islamic Revolution in Bahrain, Afghanistan and West Africa.
In Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, the IRGC is also increasing the quantity and quality of weapons systems that it supplies to its proxies. For example, as part of its precision munitions program, the IRGC is upgrading a large arsenal of Hezbollah missiles in Lebanon so that the group can accurately hit specific Israeli targets. As a result, according to Orton, these groups could potentially “inflict catastrophic damage” on Israel in retaliation for airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program. “At some point, this might well be a sufficient deterrent to prevent Israel even contemplating such an attack,” he said.
Admittedly, the moment when Israel could militarily prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb has probably already passed. It is more for political reasons than for technical ones that the Iranians did not formally cross the nuclear threshold, that is, they did not conduct a test explosion.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Iran-Israel “shadow war” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
It is no coincidence that as Washington wages proxy war against Russia in Ukraine that familiar trouble spots elsewhere along Russia’s periphery have ignited again. In the Caucasus region nation of Georgia, protests have begun, targeting the current government and attempting to obstruct a transparency bill aimed at exposing and managing the very sort of US and European interference driving the protests.
The BBC in its article, “Georgia protests: Police push protesters back from parliament,” would claim:
Police have used water cannon and tear gas against protesters in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, for a second night. The crowds are angry at a controversial Russian-style law, which would class non-government and media groups as “foreign agents” if they receive more than 20% of their funds from abroad.
The article also said:
A similar law in Russia has been used to severely limit press freedom and supress civil society. “We think that our government is under Russian influence and it’s very bad for our future,” said Lizzie, one of many students taking part in the protests.
However, it is quite clear that by “civil society,” the BBC is referring to Western-sponsored opposition groups active in Georgia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Beyond the irony of Western-sponsored opposition groups complaining about “Russian influence” when they themselves are products of US-European influence, the protests seek specifically to obstruct attempts by Georgia to protect its sovereignty from Washington, London, and Brussels’ unwarranted influence.
The BBC attempts to cast doubts on the Georgian government’s motivations for passing laws meant to expose foreign funding within Georgia’s media and political space.
The article claims:
Georgian Dream chairman Irakli Kobakhidze said criticism of the draft law as similar to Russia’s own repressive legislation was misleading. “In the end, the stir will die out and the public will have transparency in the funding of NGOs,” he said.
However, Eka Gigauri of Transparency International told the BBC that NGOs were already subject to 10 different laws and the finance ministry already had full access to accounts, funding and other information.
While at first it might seem odd that an organization called “Transparency International” would be arguing against more transparency especially in regards to something as sensitive as foreign funding, a look at Transparency International’s own funding which includes the US State Department, the EU Commission, and the UK Foreign Office, it becomes clear that the organization exists to advance Western foreign policy objectives, specifically at the cost of actual transparency.
The BBC attempts to reinforce its narrative by claiming protesters are fighting for their “future” in the European Union, however, what the BBC is actually describing is not only a repeat performance of US-sponsored regime change efforts that targeted Ukraine in 2014 triggering the ongoing conflict Russia has since intervened in, but also a repeat performance of US interference within Georgia itself.
History Repeating Itself
As early as 2003, the United States government sponsored regime change in Georgia.
In a 2004 article by the London Guardian titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” the Guardian not only talks about US interference in Ukraine amid the so-called Orange Revolution, but also in both Serbia and Georgia.
The article admits:
…the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.
From 2003 onward, the US would pour in weapons and provide training to Georgia’s military. By 2008, Georgia would attack Russia in an ill-fated and short proxy war that in many ways justifies Moscow’s national security concerns regarding Ukraine from 2014 onward.
While many across both Western governments and the media attempt to portray the 2008 conflict as a “Russian invasion,” Reuters in a 2009 article titled, “Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report,” would report:
“In the Mission’s view, it was Georgia which triggered off the war when it attacked Tskhinvali (in South Ossetia) with heavy artillery on the night of 7 to 8 August 2008,” said Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, who led the investigation.
The article would also note:
…the findings were particularly critical of U.S. ally Georgia’s conduct under President Mikheil Saakashvili and are likely to further damage his political standing.
It was Mikheil Saakashvili who the Guardian, in its 2004 article, admitted came to power following political interference “organized by the US government.”
Georgia a Proxy Again: Washington Seeks New Front vs. Russia
Despite what many protesters in Tbilisi may think they’re protesting for, the reality is Washington seeks to open a second front against Russia to improve its odds regarding its flagging proxy war in Ukraine.
Far from speculation, the use of Georgia for exactly this purpose was articulated in detail in a 2019 RAND Corporation paper titled, “Extending Russia.”
Among other measures meant to extend and exhaust Russia including “Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine,” was “Exploit Tensions in the South Caucasus.”
The paper elaborates:
…the United States could push for a closer NATO relationship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely leading Russia to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia.
Russia being forced to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia would, Washington hopes, divert resources away from Ukraine.
The paper explains further:
Georgia has long sought NATO membership; it joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1992 shortly after becoming independent and joined the Partnership for Peace program in 1994. In theory, the Allies put Georgia on a path to membership, but the 2008 Russo-Georgia war put this effort on indefinite hold. Georgia, however, has never given up on its NATO ambitions, participating in NATO operations in the Mediterranean, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. If European opposition prevents Georgia’s accession into the Alliance, the United States could establish bilateral security ties.
Of course, this is all dependent on Georgia being run by an obedient US client regime, necessitating the current protests which also in and of themselves creates instability along Russia’s borders and serves the same purpose of adding pressure onto Russia overall.
While the BBC’s recent article suggests protesters in Georgia are fighting for their best interests, the RAND Corporation reveals just how devastating Georgia’s use by the United States against Russia has been.
The paper notes:
In August 2008, after peace agreements with separatists broke down, Georgia fought a brief war over the South Ossetia and Abkhazia enclaves, two semi-independent pro-Russia provinces of Georgia. The war proved disastrous for Georgia. Russia quickly intervened and eventually occupied both regions and, briefly, other parts of Georgia as well. Georgia signed a cease-fire agreement on August 14, 2008, only eight days after the Russian intervention. However, Russian forces remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which have since declared their independence.
The paper also warns that if Tbilisi were to pursue NATO membership, “Russia might well intervene again.”
Just as in Ukraine where US foreign policy has hijacked the nation, its people, its government, and military, putting it on the path toward complete self-destruction, the US seeks to light on fire and burn to the ground other nations along Russia’s periphery in an attempt to “extend Russia” as US policy papers literally say in their titles. This includes Georgia.
Added to this, the fact that US-sponsored protesters are complaining about “Russian influence” but are eagerly fighting against legislation meant to make foreign funding more transparent once again illustrates how supposed “Western values” are mere smokescreens behind which the US and its allies advance their foreign policy objectives in contravention of international law, not in support of it.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Сообщение US Sparks Turmoil in Georgia to Open New Front Against Russia появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
President Joe Biden’s benefactors have lost the world, whether Russia wins or loses in Ukraine. This was a poignant message delivered by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson the other day. Forcing the Russians to act, and pushing them into unbreakable alliances with China, India, and Iran, Biden and Co. have almost overnight turned the United States into one great big meaningless banana republic.
I know, these are strong words, a dramatic revelation. But I and Tucker Carlson are not the only people on Earth who recognize what’s happening. The New Yorker just featured a piece entitled. “Russia and China Unveil a Pact Against America and the West.” February 7th, Moscow and Beijing declare their opposition to the further enlargement of NATO and the formation of other regional security alliances.
It’s America’s worst nightmare. Biden’s blundering, blustery policy toward Putin and Russia is a disaster for the dinosaurs clinging to their Cold War ideologies, and for the average US citizen who will end up devastated when our country has nowhere left to grow or go. Carlson quotes former President Donald Trump saying that “We will never be Russia’s close ally, but if Russia and China ally, we America will be in deep trouble.” And, so we are. The Fox commentator went on to point out that preventing such an alliance against the west, was former President Richard Nixon’s reason for going to China in 1972.
I know a little about this personally since my father was an advisor to the Nixon administration suggesting he create a closer relationship with the Chinese, rather than constantly insulting and being adversarial with them. One thing I remember was my Dad suggesting Nixon stop the longstanding tradition of calling the Chinese “Red.” He told Nixon and Kissinger this was considered an insult, and the derogatory nature of such terms creates wedges. And look at us today, with wedges pounded into virtually every country on the planet by what passes for American statesmen.
Here we are with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina suggesting killing Putin is the only road to peace in Ukraine. His sentiments, our position, and US detente in the early 21st century are not playing out well east or south of Kyiv, Ukraine. And as of this writing, hundreds of thousands are protesting to disband NATO all across Europe. Carlson, and most of the rest of the sane people in America, see it all coming apart. Still, the hubris in Washington rises to the constellations.
This leaves us with only two possible answers as to “why” our leadership has burst out with godlike omnipotence. Either they are crazy as hell, as Tucker Carlson suggested, or the plan is to destroy what is left of the American dream for a cause! But, what could that cause be? Could it have anything to do with Hunter Biden and the “Big Guy?” Do the Chinese and the Ukrainians have that much dirt on America’s 1st family? Or, is the profit for the western elites so immense if America fails, they consider destroying us a safe bet? Lunacy or Machiavellian scheming, at the end of the day we are already done.
We cannot nuke the world and win. We cannot engage in a conventional war with both China and Russia at once. And our 100 trillion dollars in debt economy cannot be pitted against Russia, the BRICS, Asia, and African business people sick unto death with our nasty omnipotence. If Biden does not back out of Ukraine now, it will be he and Justin Trudeau versus just about everybody on the planet pretty soon. Let’s face it, Biden blew up Germany’s and Europe’s last cubic foot of camaraderie when the US Navy Seals set off explosives to end German industrialization.
Yep. We lost. It’s only the 9th inning, and the game’s not technically over, but Biden and Co. have two outs, and two strikes on the batter in the bottom of the inning in what will certainly be a stunning loss. This is pitiful, but maybe my countrymen could use a big dose of reality and humility.
“For it’s 1, 2, 3 strikes you’re out in the old, ball, game.”
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение Biden’s Genius Detente Has Cost America the Old Ballgame появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
It is rather obvious that uniting the opposition in the elections of the head of state usually ends in failure. This fact is due to the contradictions in the programs of the opposition candidates and, of course, the maximalist approach of each of them in their desire to get into the office.
This may explain the split in the opposition bloc of six parties in the pre-election period in Turkey. Turkish media recently reported that the leader of the center-right Good Party Meral Akşener refused to support 74-year-old leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu as a single opposition candidate at the forthcoming May 14 presidential elections. However, Meral Akşener has not yet withdrawn from the six-party bloc, but has only stated her negative attitude towards the main opposition CHP candidate, because her withdrawal will not guarantee the Good Party’s success in the parliamentary elections either.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took the news very calmly, since this is what the opposition would inevitably have come to, given their focus on their own ambitions rather than on the interests of the people. As the reader may be aware, Erdoğan has resolutely rejected the initiatives of political forces (including the Justice and Development Party – AKP, which he heads) to postpone the date of the general presidential and parliamentary elections to a later date due to the tragic consequences of the earthquake in the southeast of the country.
Naturally, the charismatic Erdoğan understands that postponing the elections would be detrimental to the ruling party as well, since in the situation of a devastating earthquake and increased mass discontent with the authorities due to poor construction, the opposition would be able to exploit public opinion to their advantage.
At the same time, President Erdoğan had an opportunity to evaluate the approaches of key countries (primarily, the US) to the topic of the presidential elections in Turkey, as well as to demonstrate his political flexibility to maintain relations of strategic alliance with the NATO bloc. Turkey, in a situation of acute financial crisis and, moreover, the consequences of the devastating earthquake, is naturally in need of serious external investment aid and favorable loans. Hence, it follows that Erdoğan may go for the restoration of full-fledged relations with the same US in the hope of success in the next elections and the subsequent assistance of the West in solving the acute internal problems of the Turkish economy.
In case such a shadowy agreement between Turkey and the US authorities took place through diplomacy or intelligence, the split of the Turkish opposition would hardly surprise the expert community. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, running for the Turkish presidency, dooms the opposition to failure in advance because of a number of his personal qualities: firstly, the CHP leader is quite old, even though his party has much more successful and energetic young figures (including the mayors of Istanbul – Ekrem İmamoğlu and Ankara – Mansur Yavaş); secondly, he does not have a sufficient approval rating among the voters (just over 29%).
Meanwhile, the opposition alliance is known to include six parties: the center-right Good Party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the Islamist Happiness Party (SP), the pro-Kurdish Democratic Party (DP), the Future Party (GP) of former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and the Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA) of former Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan.
This list shows that in addition to the well-known opposition favorites in the presidential race represented by the mayors of Istanbul and Ankara, the bloc retains no less strong candidates from among former associates of Erdoğan himself, Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan.
Nevertheless, internal party discipline in the CHP prompted Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu to withdraw from the presidential election and support the candidacy of party leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. İmamoğlu criticized Akşener’s stance, which could lead to a split in the opposition, and reminded her that it was the alliance of the two parties that enabled him to win the Istanbul mayoral election against the ruling AKP candidate Binali Yildirim in a tough fight. This decision by Ekrem İmamoğlu is evidently motivated not only by internal party discipline, but also by the fact that a court decision was issued against him due to insults directed at CEC (obviously not without the intervention of the ruling AKP).
For his part, Ankara Mayor Mansur Yavaş also decided to support the candidacy of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the CHP. To this end, he convened a convention of opposition municipal heads. The latter indicates a certain unity of approach of the HDP and localization of the opponents, uncomfortable for Erdoğan in the May 14 elections.
If one were to bear in mind the political biography, education and connections of the former foreign minister and ex-prime minister of Turkey Ahmet Davutoğlu, the developer of the neo-Ottomanism strategy, this candidate should be taken very seriously by both external observers and participants in the process. In fact, Ahmet Davutoğlu was the author of the idea of nominating a single candidate from the opposition.
The fact that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu sees no other alternatives but himself testifies to the obvious failure of the united opposition in the upcoming presidential elections. Meral Akşener in this case is rather a supporter of the five-party alliance against the leader of the CHP, which can change the tactics of the opposition candidate’s nomination for the presidential election. In other words, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Ali Babacan, Temel Karamollaoğlu and Meral Akşener are able to negotiate a “third alliance” and a single candidate with Süleyman Demirtaş, the leader of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Party. In this case, the three candidates (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and a representative of the five parties) will determine the fate of the elections according to the results of the first round of voting. If the candidates do not receive more than 50% of votes in the first round, the two remaining candidates with the largest numbers of votes will fight in the second round.
Why does much depend on the position of DP leader Süleyman Demirtaş? The fact is that of the 15 million citizens affected by the tragedy of the earthquake in the southeastern provinces, a large part of the population is Kurdish. It is clear that Erdoğan, who has an alliance with Devlet Bahçeli’s radical right-wing Pan-Turkist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), is hardly a favorite of the Kurdish voters, whose number exceeds 20 million according to various estimates. That is why there are still the tactics of reshuffle in the opposition bloc. Even before the six-party bloc was formed there were discussions in the Turkish opposition (e.g. Temel Karamollaoğlu) about the possibility of forming a “third force.”
Otherwise, the impression is that the Turkish opposition got harsh signals from outside (most likely from its main ally, the US) not to create problems in the elections to the AKP leader, who demonstrated unique flexibility in the pre-election period. In either case, the presidential election in May 2023 will be difficult for Erdoğan, even in the absence of a serious challenge from a single opposition candidate. The parliamentary elections may change the balance of political forces in the country not in favor of the AKP-MHP alliance. The latter will create tension between the parliament (Grand National Assembly of Turkey, or TBMM) and President Erdoğan (of course, if he prevails).
That is why this author cannot claim or deny that instead of a “split” in the ranks of the Turkish opposition, there could be a forced “reshuffle.”
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Is there a division in the ranks of Turkey’s opposition? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
French President Emmanuel Macron began his 18th visit to Africa since the year 2017 on March 1st. He chose to visit three French-speaking countries (Gabon, the Republic of the Congo, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and one Portuguese-speaking country, Angola.
A valid question arises: Why the farewell? Indeed, the French president still has plenty of time to visit Africa. Yes, he does, but this appears to be his final visit to Africa in the status of a power which, since the early 1960s, has acted as “trustee” of its former colonies and has had special rights, privileges and influence there in this capacity.
Delivering another “historic” speech two days before his trip, on February 27, the French head of state declared that this is the era of “a new responsible French policy on the continent,” which will break with the traditions of the so-called “African postcolonial” French line, known internationally as “Françafrique” or the system of formal and informal links of the French political class and big business with African business and political elites. He also announced the reduction of the French military contingent on African territory.
According to Macron, France will now act as a “neutral interlocutor” in order to avoid “strategic competition” imposed on it by other powers such as Russia and China, both of which are increasing their influence on the continent. The French president was even bold enough to criticize himself, stating that “assessing the level of our influence through the number of military operations, privileged and exclusive ties with leaders, or the perception that economic markets are ours because we were in them before or because we were at the center of the game is outdated.” The French President also acknowledged that Africa is no longer France’s “backyard,” and that Paris must make a decision to shift “from the logic of aid to the logic of investment.”
Well, not bad and fairly honest words. But behind them is not so much a new Paris policy as it is a declaration of the failure of its previous one. Former French colonies are severing ties with Paris one by one, tearing up previous agreements, including the military partnership, and openly withdrawing from the sphere of French influence. And this is not so much the work of “strategic competitors” or sinister, as they are painted in Paris, Private Military Companies (PMCs) like Wagner, as it is the policy of Paris itself, which has caused a rejection reaction among the new generation of African elites, well-educated and unwilling to listen to a broken record of lectures from Paris and to meekly accept the conditions of cooperation imposed on them.
The decline of French influence in Africa did not start yesterday, and what we are witnessing now is more of a sigh of relief than a new stage in the Elysée Palace’s African policy. Strategically weakening under the weight of internal problems (migration from Islamic countries, the transfer of sovereign functions to Brussels, competition from China), France began to lose ground on the continent at the end of the 20th century. Then it tried to reformat its course, focusing on its most important points, such as Morocco, Egypt, Djibouti (where a French military base is stationed), South Africa, the Central African Republic. And in some countries of West Africa, mainly in the Sahara-Sahel zone, where Paris has long-term interests in the form of access to uranium reserves, without which France cannot hold out, since its industry and industry rely on nuclear power.
However, that line, largely adventurous, has not achieved its goals, although Paris has managed to strengthen relations with Egypt to some extent. But it failed to gain a long-term foothold in a part of Africa where it was not historically present, like South Africa. In recent years, Paris has been rapidly losing ground in the Central African Republic, Mali, and Burkina Faso. In fact, only Côte d’Ivoire remains its bastion, which is also important as the headquarters of the French-controlled ECOWAS regional economic association.
Forced by the system of established economic ties, Guinea, Gabon and the Republic of the Congo also remain in the French zone of influence, although even there they are increasingly beginning to look in the direction of Beijing and Moscow.
Of course, the weakening of France’s position on the continent is not only the result of the decrepitude of France itself, but also of many years of action by Paris. Over the past decades, it has ruthlessly exploited Africa’s wealth by sending in mercenaries, including the famous Bob Denard (Gilbert Bourget), one of the architects of Françafrique. He staged military coups, supported separatist movements in the same DRC, where Macron sent his foot and where he was accused of instigating the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and now the events in the DRC, due to Kigali’s support of the M-23 movement. By the way, he actually rejected in Kinshasa a proposal by DRC President F. Tshisekedi to impose sanctions against Rwanda
It was Paris that spread corruption in Africa by replicating the practice of “white elephants,” that is, projects for which enormous funds were allocated from the French treasury and then eaten up by large French corporations, while the plans remained on paper and brought nothing but damage to Africans. The upper circles of the French leadership were in on it, which led to the need to merge Elf Aquitaine with a private company, Total, in the late nineties. One had to hide the ends in water somehow!
The Arab analyst, Brigadier General Khalid Hamadeh has rightly drawn attention to the role of private companies operating in Africa. Constantly blaming the Wagner PMC for his troubles, Macron ignores the fact that other private security companies have long been operating in Africa. Among them is the consulting group Dike from South Africa, which was used by the Mozambican government to combat the Islamic radicals, Al-Shabab in the province of Cabo Delgado, the American companies CASI and Akademi, British Aegis, the Danish-based company GFOR, the German Exelis, which operates through the agency Asgard, and the French SECOPEX. The turnover of these companies as a whole is $3 billion a year. Against this backdrop Wagner looks if not a midget, then certainly not a giant. And blaming it for all the woes of France in Africa is, at the very least, incorrect.
So does Paris have a future in Africa? — Probably not. Because the process has gone too far, and France has not developed other methods of communication with the continent. Macron’s repentance looks like the vow of an alcoholic who promises not to drink anymore after another binge. Reiterating at every turn that France will now abandon its mentor-like tone and trademark arrogance, he spent only a few hours during his current tour of the Congo, where President Sassou Nguesso let him know that he would get to know the country better if he visited its most memorable places and stayed longer.
France will continue to rely on its old methods, combining promises with threats and trying to keep influence where it still remains—Côte d’Ivoire, Benin, Chad, Niger… But the list is getting shorter.
Oleg Pavlov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение France in Africa: Emmanuel Macron’s farewell visit появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
When the scenario is all mapped out, with different and various levels of conflict between the West and Russia, it is easy to conclude that lots of preparation and game theory has gone into the proffered reports by various think tanks, RAND, Atlantic Council, NATO, EU, etc. But include that with the level of diligence, it is highly ironic to see them getting caught by an investigative journalist blowing up Nord Stream, a strategic pipeline for European Energy Security, and then for them to outright deny it.
It is both sad and amusing How America “Took Out” The Nord Stream Pipeline, and got caught red-handed in the act by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. The New York Times called the action a “mystery,” but in fact the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now—was never that plausible.
Seymour Subterfuge on the Horizon
All of what is unfolding is known US policy, and there is yet more to come. Let us not forget the first Rand Study last year, which got some press, in which the authors investigated how the United States might use its military posture in Europe (specifically, ground forces) as part of a strategy to deter so-called “malign Russian activities”. That report was basically a roadmap which brought us to where we are now in Ukraine and the world, and it is not hard to predict what comes next.
Was it not Daniel Ellsberg who worked for the Rand Corporation during the Vietnam War who gave us, The Pentagon Papers, officially titled, “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force”, and which was the final straw that helped to end that lost war for the US and its erstwhile allies. It was a lost cause, even from the beginning where the French were defeated and warned the US not to get involved, and it would only result in quagmire and eventual defeat.
In short, current circumstances are no accident: it is as if the US military has postured itself in such a way as to provoke Russia to escalate, as has been planned since at least 2014, and perhaps even earlier, at the NATO powwow in 2008 that first opened Pandora’s box by trying to expand NATO and encroach directly on Russia’s national security.
Now we have a new understanding of Deterrence and Escalation in Competition with Russia, a document of 295 pages which went into chilling detail that can be best described as How-to-isolate-and “Provoke” Russia with a joke bag of dirty tricks. Nothing new here, as this has been the policy before and after the Cold War and only better packaged now.
There was also a RAND “study” on the ESCALATION of conflict with RUSSIA up to “nuclear strikes” options – which included something about a “Ukraine” fighting for our “freedom” … (??) Now they don’t know what to do with the situation, as things are not going as planned. It has therefore been decided that it is better to promote fear tactics than seek ways to undo the mess inflicted on Europe and the World by the US.
The West really needs to back down. It won’t though—it will bring us to the edge of total extinction, e.g. the ticking doomsday clock, more akin to a ticking time bomb, and not too far in the future. It is not as if we don’t know the role the US Empire has in “provoking, prolonging and benefiting” from the conflict. It may not only be from a Dr. Strangelove-like event, but it is time to look closer at bio weapons, gains of function, directed evolution, and to revisit the origins and spread of AIDS.
It should be apparent, not only to The Kremlin, that more Western arms for Ukraine will only lead to escalation, and increase the risks of death and destruction for all. In the meantime, we start again with the PR spin, and more Ghost of Kiev-like stories—likely a diversion from the reality on the ground, and how things are not falling into place according to the US and NATO war gamers.
Shifting the Blame
It is so easy to cut loose with recriminations, finger pointing and shifting the blame, as
Caitlin Johnston writes:
“The most common response I get is something along the lines of, “Well if there is a nuclear war it will be Putin’s fault,” as though whose “fault” it is will matter to us while we’re watching the world end, along with the related “Well Russia shouldn’t have invaded then” and “Well Russia should stop threatening to use nukes then.”
People genuinely don’t seem to understand that in the event of a full-scale nuclear war, it will really be the end of everyone—as in the Day After Movie, (1983). The hawks in the US still kind of imagine everyone still being there and shaking their fists at Russia afterward, as they like to sit there “feeling self-righteous and vindicated for correctly saying what a bad, bad man Vladimir Putin is.”
But all that may be the perfect Red Herring, compared to the real threat to humanity, the issue of Pfizer’s reckless research, and bio research under the guise of bio threat reduction, DARPA, undertaken by the US and its strategic partners. “The key to understanding the Pfizer threat is that that there have been no international standards for either the security of such efforts or moral or scientific restriction – nuclear weapons are a joke in comparison.”
Mission Impossible or Mission Accomplished?
Getting back to the blueprints for destabilisation and the distracting attention from the root causes, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the exit from Afghanistan was treated by the US and NATO as part of the plan to redeploy. Afghanistan was Mission Accomplished, coined by JW Bush Jr, first with Iraq, and then with the latest victim left in worse shape after 20 years of Mission Creep by the allies than when the war started. In other worlds, destroy a country, walk away and declare victory—and the same can happen in Ukraine.
Fast track to now with all the rhetoric of modern battle tanks for Ukraine coming from Germany, the UK and even the US, and German-made tanks being supplied from other NATO countries, suggests they are looking for a PR quick fix, “out of desperation” as the delivery schedule is a day-late-and logistical-dollars short” in support—a nightmare with no end in sight.
Nonetheless, this will prove more a symbolic and token gesture, as if the West was really interested in winning in Ukraine the tanks would have been in place long ago, when they could have balanced the odds on the battlefield a bit more in favour of Kiev. However, they are unlikely to be a game changer.
Not that that would have made any difference, especially considering how US warmongers have protracted the conflict into a slugfest. The refusal to negotiate on the part of Ukraine is based more on the political realities in those countries that pushed Ukraine into this predicament in the first place than any principle of Ukraine’s.
The current doubling-down is only too obvious, with US presidential elections coming up in 2024, with too many political careers and the survival of some parties on the line. It is now wait and see, and let the conflict run its course based on how the votes will be counted, and as the body count increases.
The Real Firefight
The real firefight is in terms of energy policy, and what will be the new world reserve currency – which is related who is holding much of the world’s gold, and whether US hegemony is on its last legs. The unintended blowback from failed intervention is coming from all directions, even Brazil, aside from the places readers of NEO know only too well.
It is not hard to understand that with so many balls in the air, and with too many distractions, they can all crash to the ground at once. But it is likely this one will end like so many other conflicts the US has started and walked away from, leaving a mess in its wake
Now even the British Press is predicting the same scenario, and how others will be left holding the baby, or having to finish the job. It seems that the US really does not have the intention of protecting Europe, or defending it from itself – the mess that the US has made is part of the greater ploys so clearly outlined in various Rand reports.
You can be sure one is likely being commissioned now about how to exit this “proxy war” and save face with honour, and not get slapped with too much mud. The exit strategy is as clear as was it in Afghanistan – get out when things go bad, exit to another part of the world, and start again, Asia.
Asia is looking like greener pastures now. Europe will have to clean up the mess, as predicated in the above linked article: “we simply do not have the military capability to remain so heavily engaged in Europe while ensuring effective defence in Asia. Whatever pleasant reassurances are offered up by American diplomats, the fact is that there will sooner or later be a hard pivot to the Pacific.”
Donald Trump will get the wish he expressed during his term in office, as Europeans will have to shoulder a much greater share of the burden of defending against the potential for Russian attack. This takes us back to Dad’s Army, and the need for an independent European Defence force, as NATO is a paper tiger for all practical purposes, disorganised and not combat ready, especially after sending everything to Ukraine.
Without Turkey, or any hope of American boots on the ground, the paper tiger does not have a very thick skin – more like rice paper, the pun intended. Soon American politicians will be able to sell an honourable defeat by claiming that their departure, and cutting back on the never-ending supply of weapons and materials, has more to do with getting Europe to carry its fair share of the weight—or in addressing the endemic corruption that puts Ukraine on the map.
Let us not forget how the European economy has been subsidised at the expense of American taxpayers, as they were free to direct their funds to their own GDP whilst simultaneously expecting the US to foot their security bill. Meanwhile, they also got cheap energy from Russia, so the free ride is now coming to an abrupt end. As one pundit so well stated, “they can no longer content themselves with getting fat and lazy while the US carries the load.”
Self-inflicted Wound
What is happening in Europe and Ukraine is a self-inflicted wound, a self-made product. Europe should have been more focused on collective regional security and not been so greedy. With a bit of self-interest in mind, this war may never have happened. But now they are going to have to pick up the check, and deal with some very upset voters who want to tack their skins to the barn door.
Europe should go back to what it does best, as Europeans “would rather spend their tax money on welfare/free education/housing migrants/and other fringe benefits” rather than on the military. It should see the brighter side of things, as they are now getting immigrants, albeit costly in the short term, of the right hue, and a religion closer to the dominant European.
This influx will help make up for the demographic crisis Europe is facing, as with any war and refugee flow there can be a silver lining. However the cost is a reverse energy dependence on the US and no return to how it was in the “good old days.”
Fortunately most Europeans are safe, and things are not as bad as in Turkey, and that is now like Ukraine, destruction. The same can be said of the collective West which cannot see or admit openly that their policies are not working, but having just the opposite effect.
Peace with Dishonour
The West would rather attack musicians such as Roger Waters, who gave some interviews and spoke to the UN, much to the dismay of Ukraine and fellow travellers on the proverbial road. The former Pink Floyd band member, like some radical German political parties, is starting to sound as if he has solid feet on the ground in terms of policy and what the future holds.
Former Pink Floyd guys Roger Waters and David Gilmour have taken to fighting over social media. David Gilmour has a Ukrainian daughter-in-law. Last year he released a version of the Ukrainian national anthem under the Pink Floyd name. Roger Waters has been fighting for Palestinian rights, after hearing stories of Zionists raiding and throwing people out of their homes. He claims the Ukrainian civil war started in 2014 when they were ethnically cleansing Ukraine of Russians (plus having Nazis as soldiers, The Azov Battalion).
Waters comes across as anti-Jewish, anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian to Gilmour. As Dagmar Henn concluded, when The AfD, Alternative for Deutschland, the Hawk, presented a motion for the German government to launch a peace (Dove) initiative, the majority in the chamber declared it to represent The Kremlin in the Bundestag for doing so.
As the RAND papers prove, they have long since reached the point where victory in Ukraine is impossible, and the West must somehow withdraw and save face with honour, which will be hard, even for gullible and vested politicians to swallow.
It is time to study the Vietnam War, the Quiet American, and what hard lessons from there can be applied to Ukraine and to the conflagration in Europe as a whole. Few Americans want to remember Richard Nixon when he spoke of seeking a “victorious peace” in Vietnam, and coined the term “honorable peace” for the first time.
Crucial to Nixon’s plan was the concept of linkage—using the Soviet Union to get the North Vietnamese to negotiate seriously. In this case, perhaps we can use the EU to get the US to do the right thing and negotiate with honourable intentions.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Сообщение New Rand Report: “How NOT 2-Isolate & “Provoke” Russia with a Bag of Dirty Tricks?” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
In December 2022, media reports surfaced that Pakistan was supplying Ukraine with grenades for Soviet military equipment. Confirmation was provided by data on several flights of British military transport aircraft based in Romania that made frequent flights to and from Pakistan. And already in February 2023, Islamabad started to shamelessly supply its ammunition to Kyiv.
Today, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is in a rather difficult position. The country borders Afghanistan to the north, where the Taliban (banned in the Russian Federation) came to power in 2021, which spreads the ideas of radical Islamism in the northern part of a country of 242 million people; and to the east lies India, with which Pakistan has had hostile relations since its independence in 1947 because of the Kashmir conflict.
Pakistan’s economy lacks a developed industrial sector and is highly dependent on high-tech equipment from other countries. China, Pakistan’s key partner, is increasing its economic presence in the country every year. Islamabad is not in a position to abandon its overly close trade cooperation with Beijing because other important trading partners, such as the US, the EU and the Gulf states, are too far away, and dialogue with India, with which Pakistan could have excellent relations, is suspended because of the long-standing territorial dispute mentioned earlier.
In order not to become completely dependent on China in the foreseeable future, Pakistan’s leadership is seeking friendly relations with Western countries. Since 2004, Pakistan has enjoyed the status of an important ally of the United States outside NATO. This is largely due to Islamabad’s recognition that Washington is an important external force that can help Pakistan counter possible aggression by the Afghan Taliban (banned in the Russian Federation). China, eager to sign comprehensive trade partnership agreements with other countries, is in no hurry to place its military facilities on their territory: Pakistan is no exception. It is very important to note that the US Army has extensive and successful combat experience, while the Chinese Army, despite its impressive size and efficient military industry, has not participated in any major armed conflict since the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War and is therefore still inferior to the US Army in combat efficiency. Therefore, Islamabad is interested in continued military cooperation with Washington.
Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal and a fairly large army. Pakistan’s military equipment, however, is not homogeneous. During the Cold War, Pakistan purchased weapons from Western bloc countries as a supporter of the United States. In the 1990s, Pakistan bought weapons from the former Soviet Union, which got rid of Soviet military equipment of fairly good quality and up to date at very low prices. For example, according to previously published information, Murat Nyýazow (son of former Turkmen President Saparmyrat Nyýazow, who was in office from 1991 to 2006) arranged the sale of 300 T-72 tanks to the Pakistani Army in the mid-1990s, which belonged to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). Today, China is the main supplier of military equipment to Pakistan, since its military products are quite cheap and not much inferior in quality to their American counterparts.
Pakistan’s military-industrial complex is not very efficient because there is no fixed supplier of military equipment. Equipment supplied by the West before 1991 is badly outdated and is gradually being scrapped. Equipment produced in the Soviet Union and sold to Pakistan after its collapse is also beginning to deteriorate. Nonetheless, Pakistan continues to manufacture shells for these assault vehicles, which are proving increasingly difficult for Islamabad to employ with each passing year.
Pakistani Prime Minister since April 2022, Shehbaz Sharif, in his pro-American stance contrasts from his predecessor, Imran Khan. Relations between Russia and Pakistan soured when Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine. First and foremost, this is because there have been certain changes in the international oil market. As Western countries curtailed their energy interactions with Russia, Moscow began to sell oil at a discount to China and India. Pakistan has stated its willingness to purchase Russian oil at a lower price than China and India. Russia, predictably, refused, causing Pakistan’s displeasure.
The corrupt Kyiv dictatorship, which has been fighting Russia since February 24, 2022, has nearly depleted its inventory of Soviet weapon munitions. Western countries, which supply the Ukrainian army with NATO-grade weapons and ammunition, are unable to deliver Soviet weapon shells to Ukraine since NATO member states’ military-industrial complexes do not make them.
Western countries frequently inject political undertones into purely economic matters. The United States and its allies attempt to avoid interactions with countries that disagree with their foreign policies. Pakistan agreed to give Ukraine weapons that were progressively becoming obsolete in order to obtain fresh loans from Western bloc governments.
Islamabad’s actions can be justified by the fact that Pakistan was severely flooded in June 2022 and requires as much foreign investment as possible to rebuild its economy. In addition, Islamabad wants to immediately eradicate the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak and the subsequent series of lockdowns that have severely harmed the country’s economy.
Islamabad is not concerned about retaliation from China or Russia over munitions shipments to the AFU. Pakistan is not reliant on Russian energy resources, while China deals with other nations based on its own economic advantage and rarely considers their stance on the Ukrainian war. In 2022, for example, pro-American South Korea was China’s third most important trading partner, while Washington ally Japan was fourth. Even Taiwan, which is not officially recognized as a sovereign state by the Chinese government and has recently been actively establishing connections with the US (including military ones, to the disadvantage of China), emerged as China’s fifth most important commercial partner.
Clearly, Pakistan follows the trend of helping Ukraine in order to keep good relations with the US and its allies. Without a doubt, Islamabad will benefit from its choice to sell munitions to the AFU, but it will be tough for Pakistan to reestablish its prior partnership with Russia afterwards.
Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Why is Pakistan assisting Ukraine? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
On February 15, 2023, at a meeting of the ROK National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, Unification Minister Kwon Young-se stated that the DPRK’s food situation was deteriorating, and that Pyongyang had requested assistance from the UN World Food Program. At the same time, the minister acknowledged that “the situation in the North does not seem to have reached the point where people are dying of starvation, something similar to what was observed during the Arduous March” of the mid-to-late 1990s, when the death toll from food shortages and disease reached 600,000 people. In later reports, the ministry described the food shortage situation in the DPRK as “serious,” noting that there have been reports of deaths from starvation in some parts of the country. However, these deaths are not widespread.
How true is this, and what is the basis for these concerns?
On February 16, the Unification Ministry reported that North Korea has been cracking down on grain trading in markets since it had adopted a new policy last October to tighten government control over grain distribution. According to the ministry, the crackdown disrupted distribution amid a serious food crisis: the North allegedly “raised the purchase price of grain for stocks and sold it at below-market prices by opening state-run grain-selling stations. But the move led to disruptions in food supplies as farmers apparently refrained from selling rice for fear of business losses.” Where the ministry’s sources found DPRK farmers capable of refraining from selling rice, rather than farmers surrendering most grain to the government at firm purchase prices, is a great mystery! Although in October 2022, the North did adopt a new policy to tighten government control over the distribution of rice and other grains.
The situation with the ministry’s sources is also unclear. When asked if there are any deaths from starvation in major cities, a ministry spokesman did not go into detail, saying that North Koreans are dying of starvation in some regions, and such deaths have occurred “recently.” Looks like another anonymous source, whose very existence is in question.
Then, although talks between Kwon Young-se and David Beasley, executive director of the UN World Food Program (WFP), revealed that Pyongyang had asked the WFP for help, according to a representative of the WFP Asia-Pacific branch, no official request from the North has been received there. This seems strange because in the past, Pyongyang has not been shy about stating this in case of a food crisis.
A number of media outlets, including the Tong-a Ilbo newspaper, citing unnamed sources in the DPRK, reported that the North Korean military has cut its daily cereal ration from 620 grams to 580 grams, the first reduction since the 2000s. However, research by the Seoul-based Asia Risk Group shows otherwise. In the first half of February, 1 kg of rice sold for 5,200 won in Pyongyang (previously 5,480 won), and in Sinuiju and Hyesan for 5,400 and 5,700 won, respectively (late January 5,470 and 5,800 won). Corn prices, which were on the rise in January, also declined. In Pyongyang, a kilogram of corn can be purchased for 2,900 KPW (instead of 2,800 KPW).
According to a report by South Korea’s Rural Development Administration, crop production in the DPRK in 2022 is estimated to have reached 4.51 million tons, down 3.8 percent from the previous year. And according to the ROK Statistical Office, the area of rice fields in the North was 539,569 hectares in 2022, down from 544,006 hectares recorded in 2021. There is a reduction, but it is not so critical as to cause starvation.
According to separate estimates, the main “proof” of the food crisis is the fact that from February 26 to March 1, the seventh plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the DPRK held a meeting with an agenda focused mainly on “urgent agricultural issues and long-term agricultural development goals.” Allegedly, “The North’s rare move to convene such a key party meeting for the second time in about two months points to the urgency of solving the country’s food crisis.” And it was no coincidence that officials from the agriculture sector were seen at the podium in the front row.
However, there is no alarmist tone in the plenum materials. And in addition to agriculture, the plenum discussed “the establishment of executive discipline with regard to the plan of the national economy” and “improvement of the financial sphere.”
As for the main topic, at the plenum held at the end of 2022, the increase of grain production was named as the first of twelve key tasks of the economy for 2023. In this regard, speaking at the plenum on February 28, 2013, Kim Jong-un called for radical changes in agricultural production within a few years, stressing the need to find ways for stable and progressive development of agriculture.
But Kim Jong-un outlined a number of specific measures to increase yields, including improving the country’s irrigation system to cope with abnormal climatic events, upgrading agricultural equipment, and expanding arable land. The North Korean leader pointed to the unconditional need to meet the set targets for agricultural production this year and identified the agricultural issue as “strategic,” noting the importance of increasing yields on all farms. It is stated that the targets defined in the plan “can in no way be bargained for.
Specific measures to increase productivity in the agricultural industry included actively promoting the construction of irrigation systems, supplying “new and high-performance” machinery and equipment, reclaiming tidal flats and expanding the area under crops. Kim Jong-un noted the necessity of timely identification and elimination of factors negatively affecting agricultural development. At the same time, no specific measures by which it is expected to achieve the desired goal were named.
As noted by Oleg Kiryanov, an expert on Korea and reporter, agricultural development is defined as one of the priority areas; however, major opportunities for developing it and increasing food production have been used before (in fact, nothing new was suggested); the emphasis is on “tightening the screws” in ideological terms and tightening discipline in meeting targets; the role of rural governing bodies and party structures is increasing.
Thus, the food situation in the country is quite difficult, but not critical, and we should not talk about hunger. In fact, we are dealing with peculiar cognitive distortions. First, the regime is “denied” its ability to take preventive measures to solve this or that problem, because the “evil state” in the mass consciousness is supposed to be a model of incompetence. Second, if we take it as axiomatic that North Korea is on the brink of a crisis and is about to collapse (a mantra that some have been repeating for 10+ years), then any facts will fit into this framework.
It is no coincidence that almost any publication on the topic at hand in the English-language media of the ROK necessarily ends with the following passage: “The North is known for chronic food shortages that appear to have worsened in recent years amid global sanctions for its nuclear and missile programs, adverse weather and quarantine at the borders caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.“
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение Is there a famine in North Korea in 2023? появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
The current events in Ukraine and around Taiwan, as well as the US’s incessant pumping of new significant quantities of weapons into these regions, make it increasingly clear that the White House is on track to unleash World War III. The militarization of the national and global economies by the United States, combined with the strengthening of Russophobic and Sinophobic sentiments in American society as well as in countries under Washington’s control in Asia and Europe, is further confirmation of this, following the example of similar actions by Nazi Germany in 1934.
Such actions by the US confirm the eternal desire of the world’s financial elites to enrich themselves using big wars, and to further unleash them away from their own borders and to draw in, through the same financial levers, “cannon fodder” from disadvantaged and poorer countries. This is how it happened in World Wars I and II, and it is the same way it is happening now.
And using the nationalist radical sentiments in Taiwan and Ukraine, which the White House turned into a reincarnation of Nazism, is nothing new. After all, it was not in vain that the same financial circles of the USA, together with the victors of the First World War – France and Great Britain, first humiliated the then losing Germany and its people and then promoted the revival of the spirit of revenge, militarism, and Nazism in the German nation with the active support of the financial and industrial circles of the Anglo-Saxons. By the way, it is not superfluous to remind in this connection, under whose “umbrella” after the Second World War many escaped Nazis found a refuge …
And now, “thanks to the efforts of Washington” Nazism has once again taken root in Europe. Therefore, it is not surprising that it was the family of the current US president, whose secret ties with the openly neo-fascist regime in Kyiv were exposed. Since 2014, that regime has been pursuing with impunity and with the obvious support of the United States a policy of genocide of the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, killing more than a thousand civilians there, with no proper response from international institutions regarding Kyiv’s violations of fundamental international human rights norms.
And if on the eve of the Second World War Hitler’s regime was considered in Washington and London as a “savior from communism,” now instead of the bogeyman of “communism,” the Anglo-Saxons through the actions of the Kyiv authorities promote Russophobic policy and the thirst for the destruction of Russia and its people, not even disguised anymore in the statements and actions of the current so-called “elite” of the West. To this end, in particular, through multinational military-industrial enterprises in Europe, the militarization of industry is promoted with increased production and supplies of weapons and shells to Ukraine. With the training of not only fighters of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but also subversive groups to carry out terrorist actions in Russia, to undermine the Russian gas pipelines Nord Stream, to prepare new terrorist sabotage on other Russian energy facilities. Including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, southern oil and gas pipelines, and peaceful Russian cities.
In order to destroy the unity of the public anti-Nazi position in Europe and to cause discord among Russia’s allies, the United States is carrying out multiple anti-Russian information operations. One example of this is the recent dissemination through the US-controlled media (New York Times, a number of British newspapers) of information about the alleged supply of arms and ammunition to the Kyiv regime by one of Russia’s allies at the present stage – Serbia. And this latest United States political fake news has been fully exposed by the Serbian authorities and their company Krušik Holding Corporation, who have provided documentary evidence that not a single Serbian-made mine or missile has been provided to any party to the Ukrainian conflict since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, and the latest “documents” published by the US propagandists are falsified.
At the same time, the USA itself, with its intrigues and political pressure, is forcing the European countries and military-industrial circles of the EU to increase, for the sake of even greater profits of the USA, military loans and arms production for Ukraine, increasingly dragging these countries into a global armed conflict with Russia and the outbreak of World War III.
While using other countries to further its interests in the Ukrainian conflict, the US itself has incomparably less to spend on the criminal Kyiv regime, and ranks only 12th, forcing countries like Slovakia, Bulgaria, Malta, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Romania, and Cyprus, among others, to spend more and more at the cost of the welfare of their own citizens. The fact that the American lobbyists are getting millions of corrupt dollars for “helping Ukraine” is not hidden even by the western mainstream media. According to The Guardian, US defense spending has continued to rise since the conflict began, with arms and defense contractors receiving nearly half of the $858 billion defense budget for 2023.
At the same time, despite the thesis promoted by the White House propagandists about alleged “selfless assistance of the West to Ukraine,” the US, unlike Europe, does not hesitate to “specify,” in particular through the mouth of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Ann Wallander, that Kyiv must pay for the supplied weapons itself. And this is not surprising, as public criticism of the exorbitant billions of dollars of Western “aid to Ukraine” is growing in the US and in Europe, demanding an audit and naming those responsible for this criminal policy that is impoverishing the population of Western countries.
However, despite public discontent, Washington’s harmful actions continue, not only aggravating the Ukrainian conflict, but also increasing the threat of World War III. Therefore, the growing protests in the US and many EU countries in response to the recent announcement by the Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the National Security Council, John Kirby, about the allocation of a new $400 million military aid package to Ukraine are understandable. According to The Hill, since the beginning of Russia’s special operation to denazify the Kyiv regime, the US has already allocated $75.5 billion to Ukraine, of which $29.3 billion has gone for military aid.
Realizing that even with the current great chaos in the world, it will not be possible to write off the gigantic debts amassed by the US as well as the incredible spending on “aid to Ukraine,” and Ukraine itself will never be able to compensate the US and NATO countries for their latest “armed subsidies,” Washington began to think about possible options for returning their funds, developing plans for the final subjugation of the inhabitants of Ukraine. There are active preparations for the absorption of resources and Washington-controlled territory of Ukraine by the American capital. This work did not start today but a while back, through the machinations of Hunter Biden, already known to the whole world, aimed at selling the country by the Ukrainian government according to the “Argentine” scenario, and at building up the external and state-guaranteed debt. With the active participation of emissaries from the US of different ranks, who regularly come to Ukraine, the appropriate laws are being adopted to ensure “legal” transfer of ownership of strategic infrastructure facilities and territory of Ukraine to foreign corporations so that after the announcement of bankruptcy it would be possible to easily and legally sell state blocks of shares in state corporations for the created public debts.
However, such steps by Washington, as well as its arms pressure, will not pass painlessly, including for the US and the West as a whole. The protest wave against such aggressive policy of Washington is already growing everywhere and demonstrations of dissatisfied people, who do not want the outbreak of World War III, can be seen today in many European cities. Even many American media outlets are saying that the days of the criminal Kyiv regime are numbered. Moreover, the so-called “Kyiv leader” Zelensky is aware of this, who, afraid of popular anger in his country and following Hitler’s footsteps, has already surrounded himself with doubles, hoping to hide from retribution.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Сообщение With its arms pressure, the United States is fueling World War III появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.
While Tajikistan, one of the five Central Asian (CA) states, is not a significant trade and investment partner for the US due to the size of its economy and its geographical isolation, it remains nonetheless a unique and crucial springboard for Washington to counter Russia and China.
American interest in Tajikistan stems primarily from the country’s proximity to Afghanistan and the fact that Tajikistan has the longest border with Afghanistan in the post-Soviet space, 1,300 kilometers. Furthermore, Tajiks are Afghanistan’s second-largest ethnic group. After the shameful withdrawal of the US military from Afghanistan in August 2021, including the loss of control over the flow of illegal drugs from which not only the American army enriched itself in the US, this “Afghan factor” has become of great importance for Washington.
Another important factor in Washington’s growing hostility toward Russia in that country is the presence of Russia’s largest foreign military facility, the 201st Military Base, which clearly contradicts the US own interest in increasing its military presence not only in Tajikistan but throughout the Central Asian region. Under the guise of providing security against the Taliban (a group banned in the Russian Federation), the US started to advocate for the establishment of military bases in Afghanistan’s neighboring nations over the past year, particularly in Tajikistan, despite the opposition of the Central Asian leaders to such a move.
Aside from the military aspect, Washington has recently been actively seeking to expand a network of pro-Western NGOs, so-called “independent media,” and activists in Central Asia, particularly through the American agency USAID (the agency is banned in Russia), promoting projects in education, health, and agriculture. The US hopes that by doing so, it will not only gain a foothold in Tajikistan, but will also establish a stable pro-American lobby there. The NGOs drew “qualified Western personnel” with experience, among other things, in implementing “color revolutions,” as well as local organizations ranging from news agencies to law firms.
Thousands of such NGOs existed in Tajikistan until recently, interfering in internal processes and primarily promoting US foreign policy interests. With their help, Washington, as well as a number of other countries, attempted to implement the Pentagon’s “coercive power” (coercive power) strategy in Tajikistan, which included a comprehensive application of financial sanctions and aggressive online operations against the “target country,” as well as support for the political opposition and the threat of military force. Attempts were made, in particular, to combine social protests with “revolutionary” jihad and even the involvement of insurgent criminal elements. Washington clearly expected Muhiddin Kabiri, the leader of Tajikistan’s Islamic Renaissance Party (banned in the Russian Federation), to attend such events and even to lead the political opposition. And it was planned to involve the “Pamiri leaders,” as some American media outlets referred to drug dealers in Gorno-Badakhshan, in the implementation of a criminal insurgency to support the militants of fugitive Tajik Special Forces Commander Gulmurod Khalimov and the terrorist group DAESH, which is prohibited in Russia.
Being well aware of the real threat to national security posed by the US policy of mass implantation of NGOs, which has been confirmed in particular by a series of “color revolutions,” the Tajik government has recently significantly tightened legislation concerning NGOs and is now consistently strengthening state control over this sphere and taking measures to prevent them from destabilizing the situation within the state. As a result, the Ministry of Justice of Tajikistan closed down approximately 500 pro-Western non-governmental social organizations in 2022 alone, and another 138 NGOs a year earlier.
A very important tool and organizer of subversive activities for Washington has always been the careful selection of US ambassadors, who should have above all the necessary training in military-strategic activities and the conduct of covert operations of US intelligence agencies. John Mark Pommersheim, who arrived in Tajikistan in March 2019 as the new US ambassador and who was at the time among the State Department’s “top specialists” not only on Russia, but who also received a US Defense Department fellowship and had worked for the United States Information Agency (USIA) in the 1980s, became just that. In this regard, he was given a task to control the processes in Dushanbe and use Tajikistan as a springboard to have a destructive influence on both Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which are strategic adversaries of Washington. In particular, by controlling or destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, Washington planned to destroy the whole concept of the Chinese New Silk Road, which provides for reorientation of trade of the Celestial Empire and Europe from sea routes to land routes, reduce to a minimum the export of Central Asian energy resources to China, influence the situation in the Muslim-populated Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China. The destabilization and radicalization of Central Asia using the “groundwork” in Afghanistan was clearly seen as a way to create an immediate threat to Russia.
However, the overly decent and cultured father of a large family and Pushkin scholar, Ambassador John Mark Pommersheim, clearly failed to cope with the tasks previously outlined to him by Washington to undermine the situation in the country and prepare the conditions for a “color revolution”. So the White House decided to quickly replace him on February 14 with the “new energetic” Manuel P. Micaller Jr., who looked more like a military or intelligence officer than a diplomat. He holds a master’s degree from the National Defense University, in keeping with the now-established tradition of US military ambassadors. According to the announcement of the US Embassy about his visit to Dushanbe, Micaller “has deep experience in working in Central Asia, is competent enough in the direction and strengthening of the American-Tajik relations” and knows Russian and Tajik languages. He previously tried to impose his business projects on Tajikistan in his previous work as economic advisor to the US ambassador, so it is possible that one of his tasks will be all kinds of obstacles to the integration processes within the EAEC. In his foreign service, Micaller has already demonstrated his “specific interest” to the RF and the PRC, in particular, when he worked in Nepal, Mongolia and India, trying to use their sometimes-critical sentiments towards the PRC. So it is not surprising that a similar “dirty work” to oppose and restrain the economic cooperation of Central Asian countries with Russia and China in Tajikistan will be done by Micaller here as well, but more aggressively than by the previous US ambassador Pommersheim who failed to do.
It is noteworthy that such an urgent “rotation of US ambassadors” has been conducted by Washington in recent months not only in Tajikistan but also in several other countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. And this clearly indicates the intention of the United States to give additional “impetus” to subversive actions against Russia and China in these regions in the very near future.
However, this is already a separate topic, which will be touched upon in the nearest publications.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The current situation in Israel is so complex and tense that the local media is increasingly focusing on whether and when a civil war is about to start. Even the mere mention of such a turn of events would have been dismissed in the blink of an eye not long ago. But, as the sages of old used to say, everything flows-everything changes…
Of course, political violence has occurred at various levels throughout the country’s brief history, and even before its founding. Nonetheless, despite anger mixed with deep sadness over the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish militant in the midst of crucial peace talks with the Palestinians in 1995, the assassination did not spark a fratricidal conflict between factions of Israeli society. However, times have changed, and the term “civil war” is now widely used in popular discourse. While Israel’s political right has used violent tactics for years, progressive forces are also discussing the use of arms and possible bloodshed in the name of preserving Israeli democracy. Some argue that such words are only used figuratively, but the transition from “so to speak” to actual violence may be shorter than many believe.
Israel’s democratic governance system has always been built on shakier ground. This is largely due to the absence of a written liberal-democratic constitution, as well as the country’s history of frequent conflicts with its neighbors and a lack of social cohesion. In nearly 75 years of independence, the belief that there would be enough cohesion to hold the country together, despite divisions within the Jewish majority, not to mention the large Arab Palestinian minority, has proven to be a pipe dream. The current constitutional crisis, the country’s worst since its inception, is not a passing fad. Rather, it is the result of a failure in nation-building, a failure that has created an environment favorable for divisive, populist political leaders who cynically exploit disagreements to gain power. And no one in the country’s history has done so more deceitfully and successfully than the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. For the first time, there is widespread concern that Israel’s democratic system is under serious threat of extinction.
So far, two pillars of hope and fear have held Israeli society together. After two millennia, there was hope for a safe and democratic independent Jewish homeland. The fear pillar had two components: first, the fear of returning to the Diaspora, where Jews would face new threats and persecution. Second, they are terrified of decades of conflict with their near and far neighbors. What has changed is that the line between forces determined to undermine the democratic system beyond recognition and progressive forces protesting in the streets after years of apathy is now clearer than ever. In retrospect, one could argue that this clash was unavoidable due to diametrically opposed views of what it means to be a Jewish democratic state in the first place. However, it has the potential to deprive millions of Palestinians of their democratic rights.
For far too long, Israel’s unresolved internal contradictions have been silenced and exacerbated, providing fertile ground for anti-democratic fundamentalist factions to consolidate power, while the majority, rather than resolving the contradictions, has shown unreasonable tolerance for right-wing violence. It is not only a question of punishing those who have committed actual acts of violence, but also of suppressing and expelling those who have created such an environment for such actions from public life. It is also about the educational system’s failure to teach students from a young age that peaceful, healthy dissent and debate are signs of a strong society, and to warn them that resorting to violence is a slippery slope that leads to social disintegration.
Likud Party prime ministers’ policies incite their supporters to violence against their opponents and Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line, creating a toxic environment that has resulted in brutal actions against Arabs and peace activists, as well as Rabin’s assassination. And it was all done by Jewish terrorists. While such acts of political violence have been more sporadic in Israel, they are now on the rise, with Jewish settlers committing them to varying degrees against their Palestinian neighbors in the occupied West Bank almost daily.
However, it is Prime Minister Netanyahu who has turned manipulating Israel’s incredibly fragile social and political structure into the darkest of arts by driving wedges between different groups of society. Although he is always one step behind those who commit violence, he is always in command and control. And, in his current government, he has brought some of these activists into the center of Israeli decision-making. As if inspired by an organized crime script he has surrounded himself with political allies and advisors who reduce the level of debate to the lowest common denominator and, above all, incite violence against those who do not share their views. Simultaneously, by deliberately exacerbating divisions and tensions between progressives and conservatives, religious and secular, Jews and Arabs, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, he attempts to elicit the most primal emotional responses of fear, envy, and hatred.
For the first time, however, there is a strong feeling among those who fear that Israel’s democratic system is under threat of extinction. People are increasingly realizing that this is a battle that their society cannot afford to lose. Voices using the terminology of armed resistance and civil war are becoming increasingly alarming among them. So far, pro-democracy demonstrations have been mostly peaceful, with right-wing activists attacking protesters in an attempt to deliberately fan the flames. Nonetheless, some prominent figures in the pro-democracy movement, which has so far largely been a spontaneous mass phenomenon, use military terminology that raises the possibility of firearms being used at some point.
The schism between those who regard the Supreme Court as the country’s adversary and those who regard it as the last bastion of individual liberties, human rights, and the overall protection of the democratic system is now defined in terms that leave little room for compromise.
In a heavily militarized country with a large military population, and given the toxicity of the current debate, the possibility of civil war is no longer remote. On the eve of its 75th anniversary of independence, Israel may require a crisis to rethink what it means to be Jewish and democratic in a highly complex political and social environment. However, this must be done in a civilized and democratic manner.
The question is, has this Jewish train left Israel’s station?
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In early February 2023, Washington unveiled the US Indo-Pacific strategy. The document repeatedly emphasized the importance of the informal group “Partners in the Blue Pacific” (PBP), established in September 2022 and composed of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the United Kingdom. The purpose of the PBP is to strengthen relations with the 12 small island states located in the South Pacific region “for their prosperity and maritime security.” In this regard, the appointment of Frankie Annette Reed (US Consul General in Melbourne, Australia) as the first American envoy to the Pacific Islands Forum, an important regional intergovernmental organization founded in 1971 where the heads of South Pacific nations meet annually, was highlighted. The United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy includes the possibility of recognizing two New Zealand possessions, the Cook Islands (population 15 thousand) and Niue (population just under 2 thousand people), as sovereign states after appropriate consultations.
Such unprecedented American interest in the lives of small island states remote from the world centers of civilization can be explained by the fact that in the 2020s the issue of growing Chinese influence in the South Pacific region, which violates the geopolitical interests of the dominant regional players – Australia and the United States. And who will be favored by the South Pacific small island nations will determine who will be the master of the Pacific in the coming years: The US or China.
China’s Belt and Road trade and economic initiative, in which New Zealand and eight small island states, all of which are located close to Australian shores, have signed participation agreements since 2017, is aimed at more than just improving maritime logistics. However, the placement of Chinese military bases and intelligence equipment in countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative over time will pose a serious threat to regional security. So decided Washington, Canberra and London, creating in September 2021 the Anglo-Saxon defense alliance AUKUS for “friendship against” China in the Pacific.
As part of AUKUS, the US committed to assisting Australia in improving its defense capabilities by providing nuclear-powered boats to the Australian Navy beginning in 2023. Australia then breached a contract with France to build non-nuclear submarines, prompting Paris to threaten to sever diplomatic relations with Canberra. When Australia’s new Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, took office in May 2022 and paid an official visit to Paris, the conflict was resolved.
Important events in the world occurred shortly after the establishment of AUKUS. Russian SMO began in Ukraine in February 2022, the Solomon Islands signed a 5-year framework security agreement with China in April (a blow to Australian defense), and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi toured the eight South Pacific “Belt and Road” island countries in May and June to sign a comprehensive security communiqué with them (which Australian diplomacy did not allow). Given the new circumstances, Washington announced the formation of a new association, the aforementioned informal PBP group, on June 24, 2022, with the goal of strengthening ties with small island states in the South Pacific. It was tacitly intended to make the pro-Western PBP an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road, and thus reduce China’s influence in the South Pacific region.
In addition to the US, Australia and Britain (members of the close Anglo-Saxon clique AUKUS), the PBP included two other members – New Zealand, as Australia’s trusted ally on regional issues, and pro-American Japan, which has an active regional policy to secure its maritime borders. France and the EU have been invited to participate as dialogue partners in the PBP. India was granted observer status in the PBP as a member of the QUAD alliance (along with the United States, Australia, and Japan), despite the fact that it has little interest in the fate of the South Pacific small island states and does not take firm positions on global issues.
However, critical events continued to accumulate: in July 2022, the South Pacific small island states barred the US, China, and nearly all of the 21 dialogue partners from participating in the 51st Pacific Islands Forum; in August, the Taiwan crisis became extremely acute; and in October-November, North Korean military rhetoric became significantly more aggressive. This compelled PBP participants to reconsider the new challenges and offer observer status to pro-American partners who accepted the invitation, including South Korea, Canada, and Germany.
In order to increase American influence in the South Pacific, the White House sent high-level representatives on tours of small island nations throughout 2022, and in September 2022, President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken attended the first-ever US-Oceania Summit in Washington, D.C. “The Pacific Islands are critical in shaping the future,” said President Joe Biden at the event. — “America’s, and indeed the world’s, security is dependent on the security of the Pacific Islands,” he said. However, no strategic documents were signed with South Pacific small island states following the summit.
Telecommunications cables carrying sensitive information run along the Pacific Ocean’s bottom, and the nuclear fleets of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States sail in this area. One of the reasons the US seeks to control the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean between the shores of Latin America and Australia is that the logistics routes here provide the world’s largest drug trafficking (for example, Fiji is the largest drug hub in the Southern Hemisphere), illegal trafficking in weapons, people, rare animals, and so on. The task of pro-Western states is to keep legal and illegal Pacific trade logistics under their control, while excluding China as much as possible.
Beijing, for its part, has described the PBP as a “expanded AUKUS alliance” whose primary goal is to counter the expansion of Chinese influence in the South Pacific, rather than the prosperity of small island states.
As a result of the PBP’s activities, the South Pacific’s small island states will now conduct their regional affairs within the Pacific Islands Forum, free of the distractions of big politics. While the large and economically powerful PBP member states – the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Japan, their dialogue partners – France and the EU, and observers – South Korea, Canada, and Germany will be able to fully immerse themselves in the ocean of world politics, defense, and logistics, allocating $US2.1 billion annually in development assistance for its Pacific strategic maneuvers to small island states willing to reconsider their relationship.
Sofia Pale, PhD in History, researcher with the Center for Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In a bid to expand the global alliance against Russia to defeat the latter in Ukraine and eventually bring a regime change in Moscow, the US is proactively seeking to enlist Israel’s support. Apparently, Washington has met some recent – although fragile – success. On February 23, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution demanding from Russia to end its military operation in Ukraine and withdraw its forces. Israel, which previously abstained from voting against Russia, joined its Western allies to vote for the resolution. Some people in Washington felt overjoyed, as Ukraine’s foreign minister also said the vote showed that the world doesn’t stand with Russia.
How did Israel’s support come about? In exchange for securing Israel’s support, Washington has been relentlessly trying to pre-emptively defeat an upcoming UN resolution against Israel’s plans to annex additional parts of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank for the past few weeks.
On February 18, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas to thwart a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate halt to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. On the same day, Blinken called Netanyahu in Israel to ‘update’ him on his diplomacy.
On February 20, reinforcing the Israeli ‘right’ to unilaterally annex Palestinian territories, the Palestinian Authority withdrew the resolution. The decision to drop the resolution and the vote came after the Biden administration resorted to its usual ‘carrot and stick’ policy i.e., offering incentives for dropping the resolution and threatening to block aid in case of going ahead with the vote. Israel reciprocated the US by voting against Russia in the UNGA.
Should we draw the conclusion that Israel now stands unquestionably with the US against Russia? Indeed, the answer to this question is much more complex than meets the eye. To begin with, why would Israel want to destabilise its ties with Russia when it understands that confronting Russia could lead the latter to arm Iran and/or prevent the Israeli ability to carry out strikes in Syria? Russian intervention in both of these cases can directly hurt Israel’s core security interests, as it will help its arch-rival in the region (e.g. Iran) to ultimately gain power vis-à-vis Jerusalem. Israel does not want that. There are, therefore, strong reasons for Israel not to expand its alliance with the US explicitly against Russia.
Russia, anticipating and responding to Israel’s anti-Russia move, has already sent a powerful message that would limit the extent to which Jerusalem can actually move against Russia. Moscow, in short, is expanding its military ties with Iran to help the latter maintain the balance of power in the post-Abraham Accords Middle East. There are reports that show new depths of military cooperation between Tehran and Moscow, with the latter expected to provide the former with fighter jets, radars, and even attack helicopters.
At the same time, Russia is also directly communicating with Israel. The Russian ambassador in Tel Aviv said, on February 18, that Russia has been appreciating Israel’s “balanced stance” ever since the start of the Ukraine crisis and that Moscow hopes that this position “will remain unchanged and there will be no weapon components provided by the Israeli authorities to Ukraine.” The ambassador added that “We make it clear to all the countries, including Israel, that any supply of weapons would be considered as an unfriendly move toward Russia.”
Part of what Israel is doing is also motivated by Tel Aviv’s hopes to use an American willingness to counter Iran’s power – which is receiving a direct boost from Moscow. But the question is: can the US help Israel against Iran? What is the realistic scenario?
Despite years of US geopolitical repression of Iran, the latter’s power and the ability to hit back at Israel is increasing. Its ‘Look East’ policy is deepening its ties not only with Russia but China as well, even as Tehran is already eyeing membership in the BRICS to reinforce the politics of a new, alternative global order away from the US unilateral influence.
Iran’s expansion in the East also means a fast-decreasing US ability to punish the former, as the latter’s economy will be integrated with a region that lies beyond the reach of US sanctions. How reasonable it would be for Israel to pin its hopes on Washington to cut Iran down to size, that is if it can at all?
For Israel, the best – and the most optimal – scenario would be to limit Iran’s power and influence with help from countries that actually can do this. Most certainly, neither the US nor the EU has that ability, as the history of the past few years shows quite clearly. On the contrary, Russia and China do have the ability to shape Iran’s policy vis-à-vis Israel in ways to minimise chances of an actual, or a wide-scale proxy, war between both countries.
To be able to use Russia’s ability to influence Iran, what sort of a policy Israel should adopt towards Ukraine? Certainly, a policy that does not involve the supply of arms to Ukraine to be used against Russia. Israeli support for Ukraine limited to humanitarian aid is unlikely to upset Moscow. In addition, an Israeli diplomatic effort to mediate between Ukraine and Russia and Russia and the US to end the crisis might help Tel Aviv much more than a decision to send weapons to Kyiv will do. Even if the effort fails, Israel will still be able to maintain a balance between its ties with Washington and Moscow. This, for Israel, is a win-win scenario; hence, the most optimal policy option too.
Israel is known as a country that aggressively – and almost exclusively – pursues its national interests. The best way for it to materialise its biggest national interest i.e., security against Iran, is possible via an alliance with Russia rather than an alliance against Russia. Were Tel Aviv to make this calculation – which is in line with its past behaviour vis-à-vis Russia throughout the Syrian crisis – Washington’s efforts to ‘get’ Russia are quite unlikely to succeed beyond securing Israeli support for non-binding UN resolutions.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
This year, the tragic events that had begun on February 28, 1947 and then lasted several days, were commemorated on an unprecedented large scale with the participation of Taiwan’s highest officials. There is still no consensus on the number of casualties in what later became known as “Incident (Massacre) 228” (in the 2nd month, on the 28th day). But it is quite possible that it runs into the tens of thousands.
It was a de facto uprising of the local population against the government apparatus, which comprised officials of the Chiang Kai-shek regime established in China at the end of World War II and that ruled the country until 1949. That is, the said bureaucracy consisted mainly of members of the Kuomintang party who came to the island from the territory of the “mainland”.
The relations of “native Taiwanese” with the new authorities, as they say, did not get on well, and the former recalled with obvious nostalgia the times of the Japanese colonialists. It should be noted, by the way, that the nostalgia is still there today, which makes it much easier for contemporary Japan to solve the problem of certain restoration of its presence in Taiwan.
The prevailing view today is that “Incident 228” was a chaotic outburst (for a subsidiary reason) of dissatisfaction accumulated among the Taiwanese during the year and a half of the new government’s rule. It cannot be ruled out, however, that there was also a factor in the ensuing struggle between the CCP and the Kuomintang in the country, which was already worsening. In the end, the former triumphed in the mainland and the latter’s power space was narrowed down to Taiwan.
It is noteworthy that one of the most revered politicians in Taiwan today, Lee Teng-hui, who served as president from 1988-2000 and who passed away (at age 97) on June 30, 2020, participated in the said uprising. His turbulent life underwent a remarkable metamorphosis. He served as a lieutenant in the Japanese Imperial Army at the end of World War II, and he took part in the rebellion against the Kuomintang as a member of the Communist Party. He only admitted this when he stepped down as president of Taiwan. He said that he left the CCP immediately after Incident 228 (“for ideological reasons”) which he had joined “out of hatred for the Kuomintang.”
After the war, Lee spent many stays in universities in the U.S., where he developed a reputation as a scientist specializing in modern agricultural practices. Upon his return to Taiwan, he joined the “hated” Kuomintang in the early 1970s, clearly aiming for higher administrative positions.
However, the current commemoration of what happened 76 years ago does not include Lee Teng-hui, but mainly Chiang Kai-shek (in the most negative terms), who ruled the island with what they call an iron hand until the day he died in 1975. If one can speak of a dictatorial form of power in parts of the divided territory of China, it refers primarily to the rule of the Kuomintang in Taiwan during the period when the party was led by Chiang Kai-shek. His memory is treated without any piety and rather sharply negatively by the current opponent of the Kuomintang, the Democratic Progressive Party, and the current president, Tsai Ing-wen, who represents the latter. One of the DPP’s founders, incidentally, was Lee Teng-hui, who left the Kuomintang immediately after leaving office as president of Taiwan.
Acts of some form of vandalism against the numerous sculptures of Chiang Kai-shek had occurred both during the DPP’s previous period (2000-2008) in power and since its return in early 2016. Each time refusing to acknowledge any involvement in any such actions, the party leadership has persistently pursued the Taiwanese version of “debunking the cult of personality.” In this case, that of Chiang Kai-shek.
As part of the ongoing events during the commemoration of yet another anniversary (let us emphasize, not a particularly remarkable one at all) of “Incident 228”, which, we repeat, have taken place on an unprecedented scale, various (including “spontaneous” street) manifestations of the mentioned “debunking” have occupied a prominent place. On the eve of another march held on the streets of Taipei that day by a number of civic organizations, the daughter of a certain “democracy fighter” who in 1989 self-immolated to protest against the “tyranny of the Kuomintang” appealed to the mayor of the capital Chang Wang-an to pay due attention to the “dark past” as a prerequisite for winning popularity with the Taiwanese.
However, the addressee himself does not mind this “appeal,” but evidently does it, as opponents believe, not sincerely enough, as he is the great-grandson of Chiang Kai-shek. Therefore, this time he was banned from participating in the mentioned general procession and was forced to separately express the feelings of “love, peace and justice” in very uncomfortable conditions.
Let us note, however, that even with the current level of this very “sincerity,” Chan Wan-an is already quite popular. At least among the capital’s residents. The recent local elections, in which the Kuomintang achieved an almost triumphant victory over the DPP, provided ample evidence of this. That success could well be the prologue to the Kuomintang’s victory in next year’s general election. In turn, it is hard to overestimate the significance of the results of the latter not only from a domestic political point of view, but also from the standpoint of the current stage of the “Great World Game”. And since the mayor of the capital is seen as one of the Kuomintang candidates for the next president, it is a good time to remind him of his “objectionable” kinship.
So it is not so much the tragic history as the actual (however, also quite dramatic) present and near future that has determined the scale of events on the occasion of the events of 76 years ago. As for the upcoming elections, the situation for the DPP is exacerbated by the inability of the current president, Tsai Ing-wen, who is no less bright and charismatic politician than the late Lee Teng-hui, to stand for a third time. And her successor as leader of the DPP (after Tsai Ing-wen, who took full responsibility for the party’s heavy defeat in the election, stepped down), William Lai has little time left to gain the political clout that the current president still has in the eyes of voters.
Meanwhile, the latter is not leaving the field of the de facto electoral struggle that has already begun and is doing everything in her power for the future victory of her party. And of course she and her administration have not missed such a good opportunity to throw shade on her main rival, the Kuomintang, which the anniversary of “Incident 228” has provided. First, analytical articles on the culprit of the then uprising and its tragic consequences appeared using archival documents. These articles reject the current Kuomintang’s attempts, as they say, to shift the blame from its predecessors to some allegedly surviving Japanese agents and communists. Second, Mrs. President herself laid a wreath at the Incident 228 memorial and briefly referred to the “authoritarian regime” as the main culprit for everything that happened back then.
It should also be noted that the current Kuomintang party bears little resemblance to its Chiang Kai-shek period predecessor, with which it is perhaps only linked by its declarative adherence to the so-called “Three People’s Principles” of Party (and contemporary China) founder Sun Yat-sen. On the basis of these principles, the prospect of ever having “two Chinas” in the international arena is implicitly unacceptable to the Kuomintang.
Again, this does not imply that if the Kuomintang returns to power in a year, the process of administrative and political annexation of the island to the Mainland will begin. Because the party has its own (not very publicized) idea of what a “united China” should look like.
But there is no doubt that the prospect of removing the current “separatists” and “traitors of the interests of the Chinese people” as represented by the DPP from the levers of power on the island looks much more preferable to Beijing. With the help of the Kuomintang, at least. And this preference was once again quite clearly expressed during the recent long trip through the territory of China by a delegation of the Kuomintang led by the Vice Chairman of the Party.
Finally, we again note the presence in real life of facts of amazing metamorphosis. In comparison to which all the most sophisticated products of art-culture pale into insignificance. A few decades ago, it was hard to imagine Beijing condemning acts of vandalism against the memory of its worst enemy, Chiang Kai-shek.
But it is perfectly understandable why this is happening today.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In an attempt to maintain its waning global influence the United States does not lessen its desire to strengthen itself in Central Asia (CA), which remains one of the most important arenas of conflict with Russia and China. And this was amply confirmed by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s actions in Astana on February 28, where, during the C5+1 meeting with the foreign ministers of five former Soviet Union countries – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan – he unsuccessfully tried to turn them against Russia and China, and thus isolate Moscow. Blinken’s outspoken anti-Russian stance during the Astana meeting on the eve of the C5+1 was also highlighted by US media. The New York Times, in particular, warned that the US chief diplomat would meet with Central Asian leaders and urge them not to assist Russia in circumventing Western sanctions.
The Central Asian countries, which serve as a bridge between Russia and China, maintain a reserved stance on the US’s aggressive actions. This was demonstrated by the reaction of Central Asian politicians to Antony Blinken’s attempts at the Astana meeting to focus on inducing the region’s states to fully support the US anti-Russian position in the Ukrainian issue, rather than on the traditional topics of regional cooperation on security, economy, and ecology. In response to Antony Blinken’s scaremongering in Astana about Russia and China’s allegedly aggressive policy in Central Asia, the Kazakh Foreign Minister emphasized that at the moment, the countries of the region do not see or feel any threats from Russia, and relations with Moscow are viewed as an alliance that operates within the existing joint multilateral structures with Russia.
This aversion to US initiatives to limit ties with Russia and China, including through the C5+1, a communication and influence instrument created specifically by Washington, is explained not only by the region’s traditionally friendly ties with Moscow and Beijing. These cooperative ties are numerous, as evidenced by the interstate associations in which the Central Asian republics participate: The SCO, BRICS, “the Belt and Road” Initiative, and the RATS Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, which is part of the SCO.
Nonetheless, Washington’s anti-Russian cavalry attack on Central Asian countries has not abated; in fact, a special emphasis has recently been placed on the region’s leading countries, such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. At the same time, the US is actively seeking to limit any ties between Central Asian countries and Russia. One example of the West’s aspirations is the intensive promotion of such transport routes in Eurasian space that would bypass Russian Federation territory. The so-called “Middle Corridor,” which circles Russia via Caspian ports in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, is being investigated. To promote and popularize this route, the US Institute for Foreign Policy Studies even prepared a special report in February, from which it follows that the main goal of pushing the project “Midway Corridor” is to cause trade and economic damage to Russia through Central Asian and Transcaucasian states. The active implementation of this venture began in 2014 with the opening of the Trans-Kazakhstan railroad, and then continued in 2017 with the construction of the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railroad under the external supervision of the United States.
The West linked certain hopes for the implementation of this “Middle Corridor” to the completion of Turkey’s Marmaray railroad near the Bosporus, which could increase the project’s throughput capacity to 10 million tons. However, the recent natural disasters in Turkey and a number of Central Asian countries have significantly hampered the implementation of the West’s plan.
However, a major impediment to this project is the extremely underdeveloped transport and logistics infrastructure in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia’s Caspian and Black Sea ports. Of course, Western investments could have avoided this if Washington and its Western allies had not previously chosen to invest their funds primarily in fueling the armed conflict in Ukraine.
However, a large part of the West’s investment restrictions in the “Middle Corridor” are due to Washington’s apparent desire to cut off the “Middle Corridor” in the east by Kazakhstan, preventing it from continuing to China. According to Washington’s new plans, the mentioned project can only remain a regional one, covering only the republics of Central Asia, Transcaucasia, and the EU, with a predominant load of only energy resources and refined oil products, while reducing the transportation of other nomenclature, which the Central Asian countries do not want to agree to. As a result, it is not surprising that not only the West, but also Beijing, has yet to invest in this project, particularly in its Black Sea-Caspian Sea segment, preferring to export goods to the EU via Russian territory. And, despite the West’s reliance on it in pursuit of its policy of harming Russia, the “Middle Corridor” itself is not developing noticeably.
In these circumstances, Central Asian states prefer to focus on transport routes through Russian territory rather than the “Middle Corridor,” as infrastructure is already in place in Russia and there is no blatant Western-induced politicization. This is confirmed by the volume of freight traffic, which, for example, shows that dozens of times more cargo is transported via the Trans-Siberian Railway than via the “Middle Corridor.”
According to information published in regional media, the West has begun to actively consider options for disrupting transport routes that compete with the “Middle Corridor” in this situation. The United States and its Western allies have already shown their willingness to use terrorist forms of counteracting Russia by undermining the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. As a result, one cannot rule out the possibility that the West will take similar actions on infrastructure routes such as the “Northern Corridor” and “Southern Corridor” that pass through Central Asian countries, affecting Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan in particular. In this regard, Secretary Blinken’s February visit to Central Asian states and openly anti-Russian activities there, as well as Israel’s terrorist aspirations and air missile attacks on Iranian-controlled territory, were clearly no coincidence.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
The US government, Western media, and supposed “human rights” organizations are condemning Cambodia for recently sentencing Kem Sokha, the former leader of the opposition party “Cambodia National Rescue Party” (CNRP), to 27 years in prison. While the arguments being made publicly revolve superficially around upholding “human rights” and “democracy,” the actual reason for the West’s condemnation is Kem Sokha’s role as a long-time US government proxy Washington invested heavily in over many years.
The Guardian in its article, “US condemns ‘fabricated’ case as Cambodian opposition leader is jailed for 27 years,” would report:
The former leader of the dissolved opposition party the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) was arrested in 2017 and accused of conspiring with the US to oust Cambodia’s authoritarian leader, Hun Sen, who has ruled for almost four decades.
US ambassador W Patrick Murphy said the allegations, which Kem Sokha denied, were “fabricated conspiracy theories”.
The Guardian also reported:
Judge Koy Sao told the court in Phnom Penh on Friday: “Kem Sokha … is sentenced to 27 years in prison on the charge of collusion with foreigners committed in Cambodia and other places.” Kem Sokha, who has now been placed under house arrest, was also banned from running for office and from voting in elections.
While the Guardian, other Western media outlets, as well as “human rights” organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are condemning the charges as “fabricated,” no mention is made of the actual evidence presented by Cambodia itself which includes a video where Kem Sokha himself openly admits to planning a Serbia-style color revolution entirely sponsored by the US government.
Kem Sokha’s Admitted Collusion with US-Sponsored Color Revolution
The Phnom Penh Post in 2017 while still an enthusiastically pro-Western media outlet, would report in its article, “Sokha video producer closes Phnom Penh office in fear,” that:
Sokha says he has visited the US at the government’s request every year since 1993 to learn about the “democratisation process” and that “they decided” he should step aside from politics to create change in Cambodia.
“They said if we want to change the leadership, we cannot fight the top. Before changing the top level, we need to uproot the lower one. We need to change the lower level first. It is a political strategy in a democratic country,” he said.
“And, the USA that has assisted me, they asked me to take the model from Yugoslavia, Serbia, where they can change the dictator [Slobodan] Milosevic,” he continues, referring to the former Serbian and Yugoslavian leader who resigned amid popular protests following disputed elections, and died while on trial for war crimes.
“You know Milosevic had a huge number of tanks. But they changed things by using this strategy, and they take this experience for me to implement in Cambodia. But no one knew about this.”
The article also reported:
“I do not do anything at my own will. There experts, professors at universities in Washington, DC, Montreal, Canada, hired by the Americans in order to advise me on the strategy to change the dictator leader in Cambodia.”
It should be noted that the author of the article, Erin Handley, currently works for Australian state media, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and the article itself attempted to excuse Kem Sokha’s collusion with the US government as still somehow congruent with legitimate democratic processes.
Based on Kem Sokha’s own words, the Cambodian opposition leader was clearly engaged in what any nation around the world would define as treason and foreign-sponsored sedition.
Kem Sokha’s reference to Serbia, and the nature of regime change there being US-sponsored, is a fact admitted by even the Western media including in a 2000 article by the New York Times titled, “Who Really Brought Down Milosevic?,” which admits:
The United States Agency for International Development says that $25 million was appropriated just this year. Several hundred thousand dollars were given directly to Otpor for ”demonstration-support material, like T-shirts and stickers,” says Donald L. Pressley, the assistant administrator. Otpor leaders intimate they also received a lot of covert aid — a subject on which there is no comment in Washington.
At the International Republican Institute, another nongovernmental Washington group financed partly by A.I.D., an official named Daniel Calingaert says he met Otpor leaders ”7 to 10 times” in Hungary and Montenegro, beginning in October 1999. Some of the $1.8 million the institute spent in Serbia in the last year was ”provided direct to Otpor,” he says. By this fall, Otpor was no ramshackle students’ group; it was a well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States.
But other American help was as important as money. Calingaert’s organization arranged for a seminar at the luxurious Budapest Hilton from March 31 to April 3. There a retired United States Army colonel, Robert Helvey, instructed more than 20 Otpor leaders in techniques of nonviolent resistance. This session appears to have been significant. It also suggests a link between the American-influenced opposition base in Budapest and the events in Vladicin Han.
It should be pointed out that in addition to Kem Sokha’s own admissions, publicly available documentation reveals that many supposedly “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) aiding the Cambodian opposition are funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (as was the case in Serbia) as well as a myriad of other Western governments and Western corporation-funded foundations.
This includes “Licadho” which describes itself as a “Cambodian human rights organization.” Listed as donors on its own website are the embassies of Australia, Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, as well as the US government through USAID. Licadho also lists “Amnesty International” as a donor. Amnesty International is currently attempting to cover up foreign interference in Cambodia and Kem Sokha’s leading role in executing it while the organization itself is instrumental in this foreign interference.
There is also the Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM) whose website lists its donors which include, “the International Republican Institute (IRI), Delegation of European Union in Cambodia, British Embassy, Australian Embassy, Deusche Welle Academie, Transparency International, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), IFEX International, Reporters Without Borders, Action Aid Cambodia, Freedom House, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Canada Fund.”
It should be noted that IRI and Freedom House are both subsidiaries of the US government-funded NED.
Both Licadho and CCIM are regularly cited across Western media to buttress Washington’s narratives regarding Cambodia and to help support the US-sponsored opposition, primarily Kem Sokha and the CNRP.
Fake Rights Groups Cover Up US Meddling in Cambodia
The aforementioned Guardian article cites both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in an effort to depict Cambodia’s imprisonment of Kem Sokha as unjustified and the charges as “fabricated.”
Of Amnesty International, the article claims:
Amnesty International described the charges as “fabricated”, adding that the Cambodian justice system had “once again shown its jaw-dropping lack of independence”, while Human Rights Watch said Kem Sokha should be “immediately and unconditionally” released.
Regarding Human Rights Watch, the article reports:
Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said the case against Kem Sokha had been a ploy by Hun Sen “to sideline Cambodia’s major opposition leader and eliminate the country’s democratic system”. “Sending Kem Sokha to prison isn’t just about destroying his political party, but about squashing any hope that there can be a genuine general election in July,” Robertson said.
Yet the evidence of Kem Sokha’s US-sponsored sedition is overwhelmingly damning, even irrefutable. Surely both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch examined the evidence presented in the court case and are aware of the conclusive nature of Kem Sokha’s own admissions of working with the US government to overthrow Cambodia’s current government.
What this reveals then is that supposed “human rights” organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch merely operate behind the smokescreen of human rights advocacy while in reality play a key role in advancing US foreign policy objectives, even if it means covering up Washington’s interference in Cambodia’s internal political affairs in contravention of international law as explicitly laid out in the United Nations Charter.
All About China
Cambodia is one of China’s closest allies in Southeast Asia, a region already generally friendly with its neighbor to the north. US government media outlets like Radio Free Asia regularly complain about Cambodia’s close relationship with Beijing.
In one February 2023 article titled, “Cambodia and China shore up ties with new agreements,” it claims:
For China, tight ties with Cambodia ensure that Beijing has a supporter in the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Time and again, Cambodia has undermined ASEAN unity on the South China Sea over which Beijing has made sweeping claims of sovereignty, angering competing claimants.
Cambodia’s undermining of Washington’s attempts to transform relatively minor maritime disputes in the South China Sea into a regional or international confrontation with China is just one of many aspects of Cambodian-Chinese relations the US seeks to undermine and roll back through regime change.
The article also notes that Cambodia sees its partnership with China as important to counterbalance Western pressure regarding Cambodia’s “crackdown on political opponents.” No mention is made about the documented foreign-backing of these “political opponents.”
Another point of contention is Cambodia’s growing military cooperation with China, ruling it out as a willing battering ram of Washington’s in a potential future conflict with China.
In the 2022 Diplomat article, “Cambodia Has Little to Gain From Hosting a Chinese Military Presence,” pro-Western commentators complain that:
…allowing a Chinese military base or presence in Cambodia could lead to a deterioration of its relations with both Thailand, a U.S. ally in Southeast Asia that still relies on U.S. military technology, and Vietnam, which has conflict with China over the South China Sea issue. Chinese military personnel in Cambodia would only mean one thing, which is that Cambodia was aiming directly to confront Vietnam.
The argument is incoherent. It erroneously claims Thailand “still relies on U.S. military technology” when in fact Thailand has steadily replaced its aging US military hardware specifically with Chinese alternatives including everything from main battle tanks and other types of armored fighting vehicles, to naval vessels and anti-aircraft systems.
As is the case with so much regarding Western policy analysis, the conclusion that a Chinese military presence in Cambodia equates to plans to wield military power against other nations in the region is pure projection of what Washington itself is doing across Asia, and would like to do with Cambodia specifically.
Washington openly seeks to place military bases across the region, having already signed agreements with the Philippines to do so and already having tens of thousands of US troops stationed in South Korea and Japan. There is also the semi-covert and growing US military presence on the rogue Chinese island province of Taiwan. This military presence is openly being expanded for the purpose of encircling, containing, and even directly confronting and fighting China militarily.
US political interference in Cambodia seeks to remove the current China-friendly government and replace it with a client regime that would cut all political, economic, and military ties with China and in its place, create a nation that would serve as a belligerent US proxy against China.
The US is targeting the whole of Southeast Asia in a very similar way, with US-funded opposition groups, media organizations, and supposed “human rights” groups undermining and attempting to overthrow China-friendly governments across the region, and replacing them with US client regimes that will irrationally cut ties with China.
It is important to mention that China represents Southeast Asia’s largest and most important partner in terms of investment, trade, infrastructure development, tourism, and increasingly military technology.
Just as the US has done in Eastern Europe versus Russia, these nations would forgo sociopolitical stability and economic prospects in exchange for a self-destructive role in Washington’s proxy war with China.
Highlighting the true reason for Cambodia’s sentencing of opposition leader Kem Sokha brings public attention to wider US political interference across Southeast Asia. With more public awareness of this threat to regional sovereignty, governments in the region may have a freer hand in dealing with it as effectively as Cambodia is right now.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The so-called Abraham Accords are a series of agreements between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco that have been closely mediated and supervised by the US. The Israelis claim that relations with Sudan, which Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen recently visited, will be normalized later this year.
Under former US President Donald Trump, the two original Arab parties formally signed an agreement on the White House lawn on September 15, 2020, to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. A similar agreement was concluded on December 10, 2020, between Morocco and Israel.
Despite Israel’s high expectations, the scope and ideas of the Abraham Accords failed to attract new Arab participants after the so-called “deal of the century” hyped by the US. At the same time, these normalization agreements were met with dissatisfaction, particularly among members of the so-called Arab Resistance Front.
The leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, stated that “some governments have unfortunately made great mistakes and sinned in normalizing [their relations] with the usurper and oppressive Zionist regime.” According to a representative of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, some Arab states have invented religious pretexts to justify Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. Iraq, for its part, approved a law forbidding any form of normalization of relations with the “Zionist enemy.” Yemen declared that the “losers” who sought normalization “will soon regret their actions.” Naturally, the Palestinians condemned the three Arab states’ actions, calling them a stab in the back to their Arab brothers.
When we examine these normalization agreements, we find five issues that are ostensibly in the interests of both parties, but only Israel benefits from them. The issue is primarily water and the distribution of water resources in the Middle Eastern region, and as we all know, water scarcity remains the most pressing issue in West Asia. Countries rely on water for survival, and water scarcity has a negative impact on economic stability and agricultural and industrial growth. Water cooperation is expected to be centered on the startup ecosystem under the normalization agreements.
The agreement between Israel, Jordan, and the UAE, for example, called for Israel to supply Jordan with water in exchange for Jordan to export solar energy. However, Jordanians are still waiting for the promised water, while solar energy has been flowing into Israeli territory for quite some time. Because climate change is causing water scarcity, one option under these agreements is to establish a fund to support water-related projects.
Last October, the Abraham Accords signatories met in the southern Israeli city of Eilat to discuss food shortages. Participants in the Israeli Negev Forum also discussed cooperation in the fields of energy, regional security, tourism, food security, water supply, and health. A planned meeting at this year’s Negev Forum, however, was reportedly canceled due to an increase in Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians in the occupied territories.
According to Israeli officials, Israel and Bahrain signed an agreement on agricultural cooperation in October. The Israeli regime signed agreements with both Morocco and Bahrain after a Bahraini delegation had visited the occupied Palestinian territories. The signing occurred at an international conference in the Israeli city of Eilat, which focused on “aquaculture innovations as part of global efforts for food security.” Officials from the UAE were also present. During a recent trip to the UAE as part of Washington’s rather futile efforts to develop the Abraham Accords, Jose Fernandez, US Undersecretary of State, stated that he had discussed specific projects, but no progress had been made.
According to their representatives, Israel and the United States want to promote the Abraham Accords through various activities such as sports, economic, social, educational, and cultural events. The Abraham Accords, the Western media bragged, allegedly created a plethora of educational and cultural opportunities for the member parties. Indeed, the most important aspect of cooperation under the Abraham Accords is education in a region where nearly 65% of the population is under 30. This opens the door to educational collaboration and efforts to expand academic exchange programs.
But it begs the question: Why are the United States and Israel so eager to provide these abundant opportunities to the Arab youth? Various polls show that young people in Arab countries that have normalized relations with Israel have a rather negative view of the latter. As the Palestinian newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida pointed out, the Israelis hope to change the perception of their country among the new Arab generation through such exchange programs “at the cost of Palestinian blood.”
Tel Aviv hopes that these exchange programs will instill in Arab youth distorted, hand-picked, false facts about Israel. Academic exchange programs are already in place. A delegation of Moroccan students studied at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University last summer. Several Emirati students have already been accepted to universities in Israel. What will the Israeli rabbis teach them?
According to Israeli leadership statements, another aspect of the Abraham Accords is such “political measures” as security and social ones, which have not yet been implemented as quickly as Tel Aviv would like. At the same time, the UAE and Israel are gradually expanding their military cooperation. According to reports, US-Israeli integrated military radar systems have been or may be deployed in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Israel is said to have “purchased an island” from Bahrain, which has sparked outrage not only among activists but also among many Bahrainis who oppose the ongoing normalization.
The Abraham Accord Peace Institute, or AAPI, is one of the most important institutions working in the areas of water, food, agriculture, education, and cultural cooperation. According to reports, AAPI is the main institution actively setting the US agenda for encouraging other Arab countries to join. Total trade between Israel and Abraham Accord signatory countries increased from $593 million in 2019 to $3.47 billion in 2022, according to AAPI. Last year, Israel imported $2.57 billion in goods and services from these countries, up from $378.3 million three years earlier, and exported $903.9 million, up from $224.8 million.
The Atlantic Council’s think tank is actively advocating for the expansion of the Abraham Accords to include new Arab members. To that end, it has launched a program known as the N7 Initiative Project, which now develops ideas and recommendations for governments acting as a clearinghouse for relations normalization. In March, Abu Dhabi will host a conference on agriculture, water, and food security to “help build personal relationships between government officials and opinion leaders.”
According to Draft Initiative No. 7, a top leadership conference will be held in the occupied Palestinian territories in the spring to discuss “energy, tourism, health, and regional security.” A third meeting, focusing on trade, will also be held in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
According to the newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jared Kushner, the former US president’s son-in-law, “A prominent Zionist was instrumental in the Abraham Accords.” According to the Arab press, other figures actively advocating for the agreement’s expansion include Robert Greenaway, president of the AAPI and self-proclaimed chief architect of the historic Abraham Accords. The Hudson Institute indicates that Greenaway served as a senior US intelligence officer and is a veteran of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was a high-ranking US government official responsible for developing, coordinating and implementing US policy toward West Asia and North Africa. He is actively pushing Israel to create an intelligence unit in the Ministry of Tourism to “specifically deal with the Abraham Accord countries, encourage investment in the hotel business and create reciprocal e-visa schemes with these countries.”
The same newspaper wrote that “another American Zionist,” Avi Berkowitz, is an active actor in the Abraham Accords. He worked closely with Kushner before serving in the White House under Trump. In June 2020, Berkowitz suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sign a kind of Abraham Accords with the Palestinians as an alternative to the annexation of the West Bank.
Asher Fredman, director for Israel at AAPI, acknowledged that “part of the Israeli population has the feeling that these agreements have not directly benefited them.” To change this, he added, Israel and its allies in the US should promote projects that bring “mutual benefits to Israelis and Arabs in the Agreement countries, and we should report on the impact of these benefits.”
Bahraini royal family member Sheikha Jawaher Al Khalifa was over the moon to visit Israel on a business trip, saying: “I had the honor and pleasure of having a wonderful dinner with some of my colleagues. I was there [in Israel]. I loved it. And I’m very proud of it.” I wonder if she is also proud of the Israeli massacres last year and this year, or of the fact that Palestinians (unlike her) cannot even travel in their own homeland.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
“The West is Playing with Fire in Ukraine,” “The Russian-Ukrainian Conflict and the Achilles’ Heel,” “Why Europe is Splitting over Ukraine Arms Deliveries.” These and similar headlines in the Middle Eastern publications reflect the response of local media and political circles to the West’s recent increase in arms deliveries to Kyiv.
According to local analysts, the West has thrown all the forces of its information conglomerate against Russia and President Vladimir Putin personally. In order to get to the truth, analysts have to break through the thick veil of lies and disinformation created around Ukraine.
Zelensky, notes the Iraqi newspaper, has painted Ukraine as “a bulwark on the way of the Russian offensive.” Presumably, if Kyiv loses, then Europe’s next on Putin’s menu. The head of the Kyiv regime, in his rousing reports about the victories of his army, sang along with the West, hoping for new deliveries of equipment. He particularly pinned his hopes on successes in the battle for Soledar. His disinformation was aimed at Western media, who seized upon it to create a picture of “unwavering” NATO support for Kyiv.
Soledar has fallen, the city has become Russia’s key to Bakhmut and from there to all of Donbass. Some believe that there has been a shift in the special military operation in Ukraine in favor of Moscow, which has shaken the political designs of the West. The latter placed a bet on the Ukrainian army like a horse in a race, but lost, as the world saw.
Moscow’s recent successes on the battlefield have caused confusion in the West’s decision-making centers. Clearly, its sanctions have not worked as planned. Most of the non-Western world did not joined these sanctions, and the supply of modern defensive weapons to Kyiv did not change the turn of the fighting.
At the same time, a Middle East analyst says, US expenditures on the war in Ukraine have surpassed their expenses on the adventure in Afghanistan. The present government in Kyiv, which is financed from overseas, has become more corrupt than the Kabul regime that was created, fed and then abandoned by Washington. This is evidenced by the failures of the Zelensky administration, which was recently forced to carry out purges and firings of senior personnel, including in the military.
The West’s ineptitude in the Ukrainian issue has pushed the authorities in these countries to a decision to supply offensive weapons, up to and including tanks and aircraft.
This obsession with pumping weapons into Ukraine, according to a number of Arab authors, creates problems for Western communities. This has revealed problems with their battle formations, power and military technology, a Libyan newspaper believes. This power, while still looking huge and intimidating, has exposed a number of the West’s “Achilles’ heels”.
First, according to a number of experts, the fate of European and US weapons is questionable if they get out of the Ukrainian army’s control. The second is how to protect this equipment so that it does not become the target of Russian missiles and bombs on the territory of Ukraine. The use of Leopard 2 tanks on the battlefield without effective air cover and with Russian air superiority makes them vulnerable to attack.
The destruction of Western weapons in Ukraine means material and financial losses for their manufacturers, as well as undermines confidence among those interested in buying this equipment in world markets….
The propaganda hype raised about the superiority of Leopards, Challengers, and other weapons and their ability to miraculously change the balance of power and the course of combat is causing skepticism among military experts in the region. A number of them are realistic and unbiased in their assessment of the level and combat quality of Western weapons, comparing them with their Russian counterparts. An Egyptian publication praises the characteristics of the new Russian Armata tank and reminds its readers that Russia has the largest tank fleet on the planet, accounting for 18% of the world’s total.
The newspaper Al Khaleej (UAE), in its commentary on the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, stresses that for Russians this battle is “an epic of the century” and a source of national pride, a reminder of the patriotism of the people and their resistance to Nazism, which is now being restored before our eyes in Ukraine. Here, Russia indirectly opposes the war of the NATO bloc countries.
More and more observers fear that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is turning into a Russian-NATO geopolitical confrontation, where Ukraine is just an obedient tool of foreign sponsors.
According to the authors, there is a real battle between Russia and the West. The West is ready to throw in the carnage and sacrifice all the Ukrainian people to achieve its main goal – not to allow Russia to change the international balance of power and end global unipolar hegemony.
“What awaits Ukraine?” asks an Algerian commentator. Domestic political swings in the United States between Republicans and Democrats risk affecting the aid for Kyiv. There have already been examples of this when the Americans betrayed the Iraqi Kurds and then abandoned the Afghan authorities in Kabul to their fate before the Taliban invaded.
Hanging its (former) allies out to dry is one of the behavioral traits of the American establishment, unless its own interests are threatened. In the case of Ukraine, only time will tell.
Yury Zinin, senior researcher at the Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In search of more and more tricks to cover its global expansion and pursue an aggressive policy, the West has recently begun to heavily rely on supposedly “innocent” Folly expressed in the behavior of its political elite. This is especially visible in the words and deeds of strong independent women put in charge of international policies of their respective countries.
“Here present before you, in all its glory, is Folly, that true and only giver of wealth whom the Greeks call Moria, and the Latins Stultitia,” Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote in 1511. But he could never have imagined that his Praise of Folly would be taken up by the West today, and that his words about it would prove more relevant than ever. Especially now that the world has seen the “stunning and brave Valkyries of the West,” Liz Truss in the United Kingdom, Annalena Baerbock in Germany, and, a little earlier, Jen Psaki in the United States, displaying their intellectual prowess. And, rather than exuding the traditionally inherent female traits such as seeking peace, these representatives of the modern Western political establishment, under the canopy of their innate Folly, actively strive towards pushing the West’s phobias into international politics, further escalating the already explosive current situation in the world.
Liz Truss, the UK’s Prime Minister in 2021-22 and previously the Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, is well known to all for her loud and contradictory statements, as well as egregious blunders in public speeches. For example, in February 2022 Liz Truss said during talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that she “has no intention of recognizing the sovereignty of the Rostov and Voronezh regions.” At the same time, she nonchalantly admitted that as Prime Minister and, before that, as Foreign Secretary, she considered these regions to be part of Ukraine, which did not stop her from talking nonsense from a high rostrum about both Russia and Ukraine, and escalating the conflict between them. Meanwhile, Truss has been “noted” for making ridiculous statements highlighting her “knowledge” of history and geography. For example, she stated in January 2022 that Ukraine had survived many invasions “from Mongols to Tatars,” and in early February of the same year she promised additional support for the Baltic allies on the Black Sea.
As a result, it is not surprising that, in response to Liz Truss’s loud and “highly knowledgeable” statements on international arena, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, wryly wondered which educational establishment issued Liz Truss a diploma and whether such a high representative of the British political elite even has such a document.
Or can it be that, by putting Liz Truss on the world political podium, the United Kingdom in its Russophobe frenzy so deeply ingrained itself in the Soviet reality that even after the USSR ceased to exist, it decided to implement the slogan of Lenin’s publication entitled “Will the Bolsheviks Hold State Power?” in the magazine Enlightenment in 1917, which stated that “even a kitchen maid can run a state”? Apparently, the United Kingdom is no exception! Liz Truss served as Prime Minister of what was once Great Britain for 45 days… And she could have “done” so much more…
Liz Truss’s appearance on British Olympus is not accidental. As a mirror image of the US political scene, Britain clearly wanted to “keep up” with Jennifer Psaki, the American representative of the Stultitias, who also went down in history of international relations with her absurd political statements. There’s even a term for it, “Psaking,” describing the fact that Americans are allowed to talk nonsense and even outright lie from a big rostrum in the name of promoting American hegemony. After all, in 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell used this tactic to show to the UN Security Council a test tube containing alleged anthrax spores, assuring the world that Iraq had biological weapons. And it worked! Washington even succeeded in starting a war in the Middle East in this manner.
Granted, Jennifer Psaki’s ignorance did not cause a world war, but it did discredit the United States and the White House. This White House “mouthpiece,” who delivered orders to the rest of the world, did not show herself particularly well-educated, confusing countries, continents, and politicians. For example, the brilliant Psaki once called NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg several times in the same briefing the UN Secretary General, clearly referring to the propaganda she had once seen in American schoolbooks that NATO is a “humanitarian organization.”
And her consummate “simplicity,” similar to the long-standing otherworldly dreaminess of her boss Joe Biden – isn’t it the perfect cloak for the failed policies of Democrats trying to cover up their deeds with Folly?
This Folly pandemic, which replaced the Covid-19 pandemic in 2022, did not spare Germany, shining a spotlight on another Stultitia – Annalena Baerbock. As Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote: “… as soon as I stepped up to speak to this full assembly all your faces put on a kind of new and unwonted pleasantness. So suddenly have you cleared your brows, and with so frolic and hearty a laughter given me your applause… .”
Two years ago, when Annalena Baerbock was running for Chancellor of Germany, she furiously embellished her biography in terms of education. Admittedly, even now, she has not abandoned her ambition to ascend to power. According to the French Le Journal du Dimanche, citing a diplomatic source, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock plans to run for chancellor in case the Bundestag is dissolved due to the situation in Ukraine. However, after her recent proposal to Russian President Vladimir Putin to “change his course by 360 degrees, and thus make the whole world happy,” there are hardly enough fools in Germany who are that illiterate in STEM disciplines and would want to promote her even higher to the German state Olympus… And this assessment is confirmed by Exxpress, which pointed out the frank concern of Germans that “Europe is ruled by an uneducated militant mediocrity.” Especially since this demonstration of Folly by the German Foreign Minister in Munich was not the first publicity stunt in the history of the new German government in the name of promoting Western phobias. It suffices to remember how at the end of January, when speaking at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Baerbock actually declared the war against Russia on behalf of Germany and the whole European Union, and her statements are getting more and more absurd with each passing month. It’s only natural that German commentators demanded that the war-mongering Baerbock be removed from office, comparing the Green Party minister to the authorities of the Third Reich 90 years after the horrific events.
Under these circumstances, to evaluate today’s failed Western policies, one cannot help but recall the words of that same Erasmus of Rotterdam: “And who is more than Folly poised to blow her own trumpet?”
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Any conflict and fighting will eventually end in peace, on conditions which will depend on the outcome and the balance of forces on the battlefield. From the very beginning of the Russian SMO in Ukraine, Turkey began to assume the role of an active mediator in the peaceful settlement of the conflict, the cessation of human casualties and destruction.
In fact, on February 27, 2022, Turkey has been initiating Russian-Ukrainian negotiations to resolve the conflict, Istanbul has become a meeting place for diplomacy and discussions on various topics related to the SMO and its consequences (including the issue of prisoner exchange, unblocking sea communications for the export of Ukrainian grain, defining the boundaries of compromises, etc.). The intensity of the negotiation process continued until May 2022, and then there was a decline due to the disposition on the battlefield and changes in the approaches of the aforementioned Ukraine.
It must be admitted that, thanks to the position of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on maintaining friendly relations with the authorities of both Russia and Ukraine, refusing total participation in anti-Russian sanctions, as well as the personal experience of the negotiator, Turkey has taken the place of the main mediator in the Russian-Ukrainian dialogue. At the same time, Ankara managed to overtake countries such as Israel and Belarus in this sphere.
An important achievement of the Turkish side on the negotiating platform was the signing in July 2022 of an agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the UN on the export of grain from the remaining Ukrainian ports via the Black Sea to foreign markets, as well as repeated POW exchanges.
It is clear that the diplomatic way of resolving the Russian-Ukrainian contradictions has lost its relevance at this stage due to the radical attitude of the Kiev regime, which relies on military-technical and political assistance from the United States and NATO countries. During a briefing on February 24 this year, timed to the anniversary of the conflict, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky defined for himself the “formula of peace” by returning to the Russian-Ukrainian border in 1991 and withdrawing Russian troops from the liberated territories. The Russian side, represented by its President Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly noted that “there is no way to return to the previous system.”
The world has changed after February 24, 2022, and Russia agrees to a peaceful settlement of the conflict only on the condition that Ukraine and the West cease hostilities, guarantee the safety of residents of Donbass and localize the threat to the security of the Russian Federation.
It seems that all these approaches of Moscow and Kiev are well-known, there have been no special changes in the position of the parties, positional and offensive fighting continues along the entire front line. Nevertheless, a new element in the resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation was China’s statement on the need for a political settlement of the present conflict and the establishment of a fair peace while preserving the sovereignty of the two countries. This declaration was followed by a visit to Moscow by the head of the Commission on Foreign Affairs of the CPC Central Committee Wang Yi, and subsequent negotiations of this Chinese high-ranking official with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As a result, Beijing presented a 12-point Chinese plan for the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. There is no need to annotate this Chinese declaration, which contains both constructive and contradictory approaches to the parties to the conflict. In particular, what Beijing means by preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as of February 2023, or how the “termination of unilateral sanctions” should be understood (if sanctions on the same military supplies should be imposed on Ukraine, then this is one approach; if we are talking about the cessation of hostilities and the peace process, what is the point of sanctions against Russia at all then?).
Naturally, the Chinese peace plan is still being discussed as a kind of project or declaration of intent. However, the fact that China has started talking about a peaceful solution to the crisis, taking into account its weight on the world stage, already makes almost all world actors think and understand the importance of ending collective pressure on Russia with the return of the “cold War mentality.” China in its plan has clearly defined the need to exclude: a) the security of one country at the expense of the security of other countries; b) the expansion of military blocs (in this case, NATO); and c) the formation of camp-on-camp confrontations.
Such diplomatic activity of China cannot leave aside Turkey. In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in February this year, Turkey was forced to temporarily suspend its activity in the foreign sphere. Nevertheless, President Erdoğan does not intend to abandon active diplomacy on the Russian-Ukrainian track, which was expressed in the recent telephone talks between the Turkish leader and the heads of Ukraine and Russia after the visit of the Chinese guest to Moscow.
However, Turkey has not yet presented its detailed plan for establishing a “fair peace” between Russia and Ukraine. Unlike the Chinese 12-point project, there has as yet not been a Turkish counterpart. The whole problem is that in Moscow and Kiev, the parties perceive the theses of a “fair peace” differently, in fact, “red lines” have already formed, which the leaders cannot bypass. As a result, the fighting continues, and the losses and destruction keep piling up.
Turkey cannot, as a member of NATO, declare the cessation of NATO’s advance to the East. Turkey has repeatedly stated its commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine (including the Crimea). Turkey, one way or another, supplies the Armed Forces of Ukraine with its Bayraktar UAVs, Karpi APCs and other means. All these factors cannot sit well with Russia. Meanwhile, Erdoğan keeps his distance from participating in all anti-Russian sanctions, approves trade with Russia, offers to respect and not isolate Russia, accepts new profitable energy projects from Russia (for example, the gas hub). The latter does not sit well with Ukraine and its Western allies led by the United States.
The Russian-Ukrainian negotiation process has already passed several stages, starting in 2014 with the Minsk format. Alas, the negotiations in Minsk were not crowned with success because of the position of Kiev and the United States, which led to the SMO. In the spring of 2022, in the midst of hostilities, thanks to the initiatives of President Erdoğan, the Istanbul format of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations was outlined, but after May of the same year, this process, having not formed in the logic of formal diplomacy, lost some momentum and initiative. Today, the 4th point of the Chinese settlement plan invites the parties to start peace talks, naturally, in China. Beijing, following the recommendations of the father of Chinese reforms Deng Xiaoping (“stay in the shadows and do not stand out”), rarely comes up with such high-profile political initiatives in the international arena. In fact, the PRC offers the Beijing format of negotiations instead of the discredited Minsk format, which was used by the West as a time of peaceful respite before a new war.
Russia does not choose the former or the latter mediator, but Moscow has the right to assess the potential of partners in the peaceful resolution of the ongoing conflict with respect for the interests and security of the Russian side based on the actual proposals and positions of world players. Russia develops pragmatic diplomacy, accepts compromises where and when they are justified and meet national and universal interests (including the export of Ukrainian grain, the exchange of prisoners of war, humanitarian assistance to civilians in the conflict zone). At the same time, Russia cannot make concessions in matters of national security and protection of the rights of the Russian population to please anyone’s interests.
Since the Chinese plan has so far been rejected (or not accepted) by Washington and Kiev, Ankara still has chances to develop diplomatic activity in the Russian-Ukrainian negotiation processes. Recep Erdoğan is well versed in the intricacies of international diplomacy, and the traditional flexibility of Turkish politics creates conditions for increasing Turkey’s role in such situations. And yet, the outcome of the peace continues to depend on the developments on the battlefield.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Indonesia, a country of 275 million people, and Malaysia, a country of 33 million, are neighbors with many similarities. Malaysia and Indonesia have a shared history, culture, and religion, Islam. Their national languages belong to the same language family, making communication between their citizens simple. Furthermore, both Southeast Asian states are founding members of major regional organizations such as ASEAN and APEC, where they actively collaborate.
Malaysia and Indonesia now trade in equal shares with China and the Western bloc. However, China’s participation in these countries’ economies grows year after year. This is largely due to Chinese authorities’ efforts to simplify the exchange of goods, while Western countries bureaucratize many aspects, jeopardizing relations with trading partners. The sanctions imposed on Russia in 2022 have weakened Western economies, forcing them to take actions that have strained relations with other countries.
Representatives of the European Union announced in December 2022 that imports of palm oil into the EU would be restricted unless the products were certified as free of deforestation during the manufacturing process. Experts believe that this decision was made to artificially reduce competition from non-EU countries and to lobby producers from EU member states. It should be noted that palm oil is the world’s cheapest oil, and Malaysia and Indonesia are the world’s largest producers of this product.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar bin Ibrahim and Indonesian President Joko Widodo met in Bogor, Indonesia, on January 9, 2023. During the meeting, the two leaders condemned the EU decision, which they saw as a form of protectionism. A. Ibrahim and J. Widodo also signed eight interstate memorandums affecting shipping, industry, and green energy development.
Malaysia’s Minister of Commodities, Fadillah Yusof, stated on January 12, 2023 that the EU decision is a trade barrier to protect their own products, and that the World Trade Organization should take control of the situation. According to a Malaysian official, Malaysia and Indonesia are negotiating a total halt to palm oil shipments to the EU in protest of trade restrictions. If the two countries take this step, they will almost certainly have to export more palm oil to China and its neighboring countries. In any case, this unfortunate event can be regarded as a factor that contributed to the strengthening of Indonesian-Malaysian relations, as it pushed the governments of both countries to act collaboratively.
It is also worth noting that the construction of Indonesia’s new capital, Nusantara, which began in 2021, is one of the factors contributing to the rapprochement between Indonesia and Malaysia. Malaysian politicians and officials frequently issue statements endorsing the decision of the Indonesian authorities. According to Malaysian officials, the capital being relocated from Jakarta on Java to Nusantara on Kalimantan, which is shared by Indonesia and Malaysia, it will accelerate the dialogue between both states. Many major Malaysian corporations intend to invest in the construction of this new Indonesian capital city.
Nonetheless, despite the relatively high level of diplomatic relations, some differences prevent the Indonesian-Malaysian partnership from being strengthened.
The two states that gained independence as part of decolonization following World War II continue to have disagreements over ownership of certain border islands. For instance, politicians in both nations are currently making broad claims about the Ambalat Islands, which are rich in oil.
The issue of labor migration has been a stumbling block in Indonesian-Malaysian relations for nearly 30 years. Indonesian labor migrants contribute significantly to Malaysia’s economy and frequently cause diplomatic tensions between the two countries. Since 1980s, Malaysia’s standard of living has surpassed that of Indonesia, prompting many Indonesians to come to Malaysia to earn money in order to help their families back home and, if possible, to stay in the country.
Employers frequently treat Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia poorly, with low wages and harsh working conditions. Migrants often work up to 18 hours per day, seven days a week, for an average monthly wage of $150, while giving almost all of their earnings to Indonesian labor agencies for the first six to seven months to pay off the relatively high fees for employment in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, Malaysian employers regularly physically abuse foreign workers from Indonesia. Human trafficking occasionally affects Indonesian migrant workers. It is important to note that Malaysian society tends to treat Indonesian workers with great disdain.
Indonesian authorities are dissatisfied with Malaysia’s disrespectful treatment of their citizens. In 2009, Indonesian leaders stopped sending migrant workers to Malaysia, citing the Malaysian government’s failure to provide decent working conditions. Dispatching Indonesian migrant workers was reinstated in 2011 following the signing of a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding to protect workers, but that agreement expired in 2016. In 2022, a new Memorandum of Understanding on Worker Protection was signed following additional negotiations. The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in part because the 2020-2021 crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic had shaken Malaysia’s economy, forcing its leadership to make some concessions.
For their part, Indonesian news agencies frequently make provocative statements about Malaysia, whereas Malaysian media generally try and stay moderate while covering events in Indonesia. The Malaysian side’s tact comes from the fact that Indonesia ranks fifth on Malaysia’s list of trading partners, representing a significant market for Malaysian products. As a result, a hypothetical cooling of relations between both countries would harm Malaysia more than Indonesia.
Despite the rough edges in relations, cooperation between Indonesia and Malaysia is growing. However, in order to build the closest bilateral dialogue possible, the two countries must improve their citizens’ perceptions of each other and resolve existing territorial disputes as soon as possible.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Before I begin, let me say that we are all tired of rehashing the extent and character of western propaganda via corporate or elite-controlled media and channels. But we must be vigilant in calling them out, and in forcing through the dissenting view on Russia and other key subjects. With that, I give you another case of manufactured reality.
“Anything is better than lies and deceit!” – Leo Tolstoy
Divorced from reality is the kindest term I can use to describe the “experts” America’s elites have lined up to testify against the Russians. Bold-faced liars, the other term that comes to mind for prefacing the battalion of tired colonels, spec-ops mercenaries, and soldiers, turn corporate spokesmen running game on the American public. Get this, the latest Russophobia yarn.
Foreign Policy Magazine. Hmm. There’s our first hint that some deadly BS is about to flow out of somebody’s keyboard. This version claims the U.S. deterrence strategy against the Russians is the cause for Vladimir Putin still being in power. Well, this is between the lines, anyway. But what Liam Collins and Frank Sobchak, retired U.S. Special Forces colonels say is that America “did little to thwart” the invasion of Ukraine. As we all know now, the U.S.’s role was to ensure that Vladimir Putin had to roll tanks into the neighboring country. Read about the Minsk agreements and the confessions of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel here.
The latest Russophobic propaganda from FP also includes plenty of links to a flock of similar goose stories and includes a segment where FP editor-in-chief Ravi Agrawal chats with big thinkers at Brookings and a spook professor working with none other than the Center for Naval Analyses. For longtime NEO readers, what would you expect these policy/strategic geniuses to say? One look at Colonel Sobchak’s swansong from his uniform days, a 1,500-page two-volume set, “The U.S. Army in the Iraq War,” tells any grunt, jarhead, or squid reading here, that FP solicited some more BS against those pesky Ruskies, from a bonafide special forces butt kisser.
Let’s just be real, shall we? He’s working with the MirYam Institute, which is the new version of Our Officers Speak (OSS), and Israeli propaganda dispersion and coercion operation. As for Colonel Collins, from 2016-2018, Collins served as a defense advisor to Ukraine, one of the people assigned to help Kyiv build a NATO stronghold in the country. He’s a senior fellow at New America now, but he spills his scripted war-mongering opinions for CNN, Fox, BBC, and the rest now. He was around to help spin the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia, and conflict in South America, and the Horn of Africa. Storytellers with special forces badges and eagles attached for show.
As colorful, and funny as these experts and their Foreign Policy mind-numbing are, the Atlantic Council’s Adrian Karatnycky puts the icing on the Alice in Wonderland cake. His is, for all intents and purposes, the genius “exit plan” that nobody in their right mind seems to be able to figure out. Are you ready for this Colonel Douglas MacGregor, heroic truthteller, advise, and authentic American warfighter? Karatnychky says “a defeat by Ukraine could trigger Russians to reexamine their national identity.” No, Doug, I am not joking.
Karatnycky, and the other lunatics who supported the continuance of Boris Yeltsin’s dismemberment of Russia’s legacy via the Democratic Russia Movement (DRM), were crushed and ostracized once Putin began taking back pirated Russian assets for the people of Russia. The former executive director of Freedom House, from 1993 to 2004, was and is one of the henchmen of people like the now deceased Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, and the likes of Tim Draper, and other business pirates who are still extant. Karatnycky founded the so-called Orange Circle, which was an is affiliated with the worst Russophobes on the planet.
“Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don’t have brains enough to be honest.” – Benjamin Franklin
Finally, while is wearying to continually analyze and break down western mainstream media, propaganda, and elitist control, it’s a necessary thing so that we realize the balance. The truth of current world matters is out of balance so far, that the people of the world operate under a kind of hypnosis. It is clear who the perpetrators of these endless crises and wars are. Their vested interests are with the US and British military-industrial complex, western energy Titans, and western investment firms with gnashing teeth ready to bite into Russia and the rest of Eurasia. All these people are being paid, one way or another, to present a fictional reality to further the goals of their benefactors.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The Lee Jae-myung’s saga continues, however, today we’ll not focus on the developments in his main case, which has resulted in an arrest warrant, but on the fact that after one accusation a second, potentially much more devastating, looms.
We are talking about a lingerie company, Ssang bang wool and its manager, Kim Seong-tae. He is a rather intriguing person. The media claim that he was a representative of organized crime in North Jeolla province and has been repeatedly tried for running illegal gambling dens, selling illegal casino software, and unlicensed Crowdlending (peer-to-peer): areas typical of South Korean organized crime groups. In 2010, Kim turned into a classic businessman and headed a firm, but received a suspended prison sentence on charges of manipulating stock prices in the process of acquiring the group.
In May 2019, when Lee Jae-myung was governor of Gyeonggi Province, Kim obtained business licenses from North Korea in six areas, including mineral development. To do so, he met with North Korean officials in China with the help of Lee Hwa-young, who was provincial Vice Governor at the time, and Ahn Bu-soo, president of the Seoul-based Asia-Pacific Peace Exchange Association.
Kim stepped down as chairman of the group in 2021, but allegedly remained a key decision maker.
According to the prosecution, Kim Sung-tae was one of Lee Jae-myung’s wallets. Ssang bang wool is suspected of paying fees to a lawyer who defended Lee in a trial to appeal a conviction for election law violations. The firm gave the lawyer 2.3 billion won ($1.85 million) in cash and Ssangbangwool convertible bonds. The same lawyer also led a legal support team for Lee Jae-myung’s presidential campaign in 2022.
According to prosecutors, in 2018 and 2019, Kim ordered dozens of Ssang bang wool employees to smuggle a total of $6.4 million into China, which was then transferred to North Korea in exchange for mining rights and other business licenses. When trusted persons in the investigative agencies told Kim that they were coming for him soon, he fled to Thailand, where he hid for nearly eight months before being arrested on January 10, 2023.
Kim’s extradition was expected to take a long time, but contrary to expectations, Kim told authorities that he would return to South Korea voluntarily because of fears of poor conditions in a Thai prison.
On January 17, 2023 Kim Seong-tae returned home and was immediately taken to the prosecutor’s office. On the same day, during a corruption trial involving former Gyeonggi Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young (arrested in September on charges of accepting bribes from Ssang bang wool), the former “lingerie magnate” (as he is referred to in the ROK media) admitted that Kim Seong-tae, Lee Jae-myung, and Lee Hwa-young were in a close relationship.
On January 20, Kim was arrested on a variety of charges including bribery, embezzlement, breach of trust, and violations of the Foreign Exchange Law and the Political Funds Law. In addition, Kim is accused of providing 330 million won ($265,437) in illegal political funds to Lee Hwa-young in the form of a corporate credit card and luxury cars between 2018 and 2022.
On January 31, the media, citing “informed officials,” reported that during questioning, Kim Seong-tae allegedly said he had delivered $5 million to North Korea in 2019 to help promote the Smart Farm project and another $3 million to arrange Lee Jae-myung’s trip to the North. Kim then allegedly admitted that on January 17, 2019 he had spoken with Lee over the phone of Vice Governor Lee Hwa-young, who informed his boss of all his deals with the North. According to the investigation, this means that Lee Jae-myung knew about the illegal transfer of dollars to North Korea, and Lee Hwa-young facilitated contacts between Kim Seong Tae and the North Korean authorities. He was allegedly paid a bribe of $170,000 for this intermediary role.
New details emerged on February 2, 2023. In addition to the $8 million mentioned above, it turned out that Kim Seong-tae had sent the North Koreans another $500,000, whose purpose the prosecutors are now trying to determine. The prosecutors charged Kim Seong-tae with illegally bringing millions of dollars to North Korea.
Lee Jae-myung, for his part, categorically denied the accusations, once again denying that he knew the man.
Lee Jae-myung’s supporters also claim that Kim was bought and that everything he says after his return is a secret deal with justice in which he shifts responsibility from himself to Lee Jae-myung and his team. But Ssang bang wool employees have admitted to smuggling dollars in cash into China, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that is consistent with Kim’s statement.
The author has questions about the aforementioned projects in North Korea. Kim, as we can see, admits to transferring money, but it was “in the spirit of the times,” when there were high hopes for inter-Korean cooperation and friendship. In addition, in his version, the $5 million was payment for his company to obtain exclusive rights to develop rare earth metals in North Korea.
Today, however, any effective inter-Korean cooperation capable of bringing real benefits to the North is blocked by sanctions resolutions. Smart farms, and even more so the mining of rare earth elements, were impossible, even during the years of the “Olympic warming.”
In fact, even before sanctions, the role of such projects was specific. Even the lauded Kaesong Industrial Complex was not a major currency purse for the North and an act of altruism for the South. Although the North Korean citizens who worked there for South Korean small and medium-sized businesses were paid much higher wages than the North’s average, their remunerations were still much lower than the South’s average, even if they had been replaced by guest workers from South or Southeast Asia.
The governor’s visit, too, would have been purely ceremonial, making Lee the chief promoter of inter-Korean dialogue. The approval for cooperation was given by someone else entirely, so all these projects must be perceived either as a kind of “rainbow-chasing”, very strange for such seasoned politicians and businessmen, or as corrupt schemes that would provide political PR for Lee Jae-myung and personal benefit for Kim Seong-tae, or (of course, conservatives love this version) simply as transfers of millions of dollars to North Korea for reasons of political affinities.
Either way, the transfer of large sums of money to North Korea violates both the international sanctions regime and South Korean law, which is why Kim Seong-tae’s case is of interest not only to South Korean justice, but also to the U.S. State Department and international agencies that monitor violations of anti-North Korean sanctions.
Formally, the investigation is looking for evidence that Lee Jae-myung knew about the cash transfers to the North and/or the transactions took place according to his instructions. In this context, prosecutors investigating Ssang bang wool raided the Gyeonggi provincial administration secretariat on February 22 to seize documents and materials allegedly related to the former Vice Governor, Lee Hwa-young. In fact, commonplace in the media were sentences like “it is hard to believe that the Vice Governor promoted the North Korean provincial project and the Governor’s visit to North Korea on his own.” Almost the same wording was used against Park Geun-hye to accuse her of everything her aides had done.
To summarize: the transfer of funds to North Korea is a serious accusation, distinct from the current leader of the democratic opposition’s other incriminations. Since corruption is one thing, while material aid to the enemy is a direct violation of the National Security Act. Accusations of pro-North Korean activities continue to have a massive “destructive effect,” and if officially filed, the Democratic leader will suffer for his political views as well.
The situation is on the verge of a major political escalation. The Democrats’ only option is to spark a large-scale political crisis, in which either the government will fall into their hands or the authorities will be forced to drop such charges. On the other hand, Lee Jae-myung has already been served with an arrest warrant in connection with corruption cases – but more on that in the following story.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In NEO’s recent comments on the visit to a number of European nations by Wang Yi, Director of the Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Chinese Communist Party, which took place between 15 and 23 February this year, the author focused on the certain topical aspects of the relations between China, the US the EU and the leading European nations, including Russia. Most of Wang Yi’s meetings with his counterparts from other countries took place under the auspices of the most recent Munich Security conference, which was primarily devoted to the conflict in Ukraine.
One event that was not covered in the previous discussion was the remarkable meeting on the sidelines of that conference, between Wang Yi and Yoshimasa Hayashi, the Japanese Foreign Minister. That meeting was particularly significant for a number of reasons, and to explore these it is necessary to review certain key developments in the current phase of the “Great Game” of global politics.
This overview will, of necessity, be subjective and somewhat intuitive in character, and will, to a significant extent, reflect the present author’s impressions, which are the fruit of years spent observing any key events in international politics. The first, and most fundamental conclusion to be drawn from these observations (and the one that is most closely linked to the subject of this article) is that one can expect to see a shift in the make-up of the political elite in the US (still the leading nation player as far as global politics are concerned), which will become increasingly dominated by individuals who favor (relatively) neo-isolationist principles similar to those espoused by the nation’s founding fathers.
The early 2000s saw heated disputes between adherents of these principles, and their neo-Conservative opponents (or even enemies), who insisted that the US should not only maintain, but actually extend its involvement in conflicts around the world. The actual course followed by the US ship of state is still being determined by these two opposing political currents.
The first of these currents – non-interventionism – was evident in the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, a process which began under Barak Obama and was completed under the current president, and also in the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Donald Trump focused primarily on resolving his country’s internal problems and criticized its allies for “free riding” at its expense. Although he is often wrongly accused of favoring involvement in foreign conflicts.
As various different recent events within the US have demonstrated, its internal problems are becoming increasingly urgent, and as a result the neo-cons’ interventionist foreign policies are no longer viable.
It is important not to dismiss the USA’s official denials of its involvement in the Crime of the Century, namely the blowing up of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea. It is still very unclear what long-term implications this act of sabotage may have, especially in terms of the “Great Game” of global politics.
In any event, those attacks eclipse all the negative factors that have been accumulating since the beginning of the century. Including the highly dramatic death-throes of the Ukraine project, which appears to have outlived its “usefulness.” It is possible that the international outrage regularly expressed at this or that incident, and which has accompanied the final act of this drama (for example the recent discussions in the UN General Assembly) may be aimed at distracting global attention from the important event referred to above.
As for who devised, planned and implemented this attack, there are certain “crafty” candidates in Europe that have, over the centuries, become skilled in organizing provocations on a global scale. Although it is entirely possible that these countries would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence that they acted, if not under duress, then at least with Washington’s approval.
In any event, the inevitable reduction (again, this is merely the present author’s view) in the USA’s presence in the international arena will, just as inevitably, be accompanied by a sharp increase in the role played by other significant players, which are currently emerging. There then arises the far from straightforward question of whether the reduction in the USA’s global presence will have a positive or negative impact on the overall situation in the world. It should be borne in mind that questions of this type are always highly complex in nature.
In the past, mathematical modelling has been used to try and compare the resilience to “small shocks” of two versions of the present world political order, one unipolar and the other multipolar.
However, from a practical perspective, the most important point to note is that “multipolarity” is the most likely outcome, and a number of potential “poles” can already be clearly identified. And while there can now no longer be any doubt concerning China’s and India’s claims to this status, there is some dispute about Japan and Germany, the two main nations on the losing side in the Second World War. Although this question has little to do with arguments and personal opinions, and much more to do with the actual position and influence of these two countries in the international arena.
The claim that they are vassal states, owing allegiance to Washington, is in fact greatly exaggerated. If the former German Chancellor failed to react to the revelations of wiretapping by her current main ally, then this was only because she considered this matter of little importance when compared with the overall relations between the two countries (“those idiots have too much time on their hands”). And if the current German leadership has maintained absolute silence concerning the terrorist attacks on the Baltic Sea pipelines, that does not mean that Washington has silenced Berlin, but simply that Berlin itself sees this as the best policy in the circumstances. Although, in political intrigues, a “best policy” is a highly relative concept.
If Japan has decided to buy Tomahawk missiles from the US, then at least two highly significant circumstances apply. Firstly, Japan decided it had to do at least something to counter its key ally’s angry allegations (particularly under the Trump administration) that bilateral trade with Japan was a one-way street. And, apart from arms, Japan had no real interest in anything that the US market had to offer. Secondly, in its relations with China, the age-old problems have resurfaced, along with some relatively new ones. In such circumstances, as a “deterrent,” it is normal for a country to upgrade its arsenal with the latest military hardware.
That, then is the (uneasy) international background to the meeting between Wang Yi and Yoshimasa Hayashi in Munich, the most important aspect of which is the fact that it took place. After all, the Japanese Foreign Minister’s long-planned trip had been postponed a number of times for various reasons (most commonly in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic). At the end of last year it was agreed that it would take place “in the first few months” of 2023. It is still unclear exactly what form the promised trip was intended to take – does the meeting in Munich count, or will Yoshimasa Hayashi make a separate trip to China?
The author can say, very cautiously, that there has been some continuation of the rapprochement between two of the three great Asian powers (it is important not to forget about India, which has its own disagreements with China). In particular, on February 22 delegations from both countries, headed by their respective deputy Foreign Ministers, held talks in Tokyo. The talks focused primarily on security, both in the most general sense, and also in relation to specific issues of concern to both parties. Among other issues, the Chinese delegation obtained clarifications from their Japanese counterparts concerning Japan’s recently adopted new National Security Strategy. The parties agreed to set up a telephone hotline in order to prevent “accidental military incidents” in contested regions by this spring.
According to reports, staff in the two countries’ ministries responsible for various aspects of the economy have also taken part in talks by video conference.
Finally, there has been another significant event with positive implications for relations between China and Japan, and it has to do with Xiang Xiang, the Chinese giant panda whose 5-year stay in Tokyo zoo is now coming to an end, in accordance with an agreement between the two countries. In the current uncertain times the opportunity to watch this gentle creature as she munches on bamboo shoots has been a great consolation to Japanese adults and children alike. But contracts are binding, and February 19 was the last day of Xiang Xiang’s time in Japan.
Many Japanese children, and not a few adults, shed tears as they said goodbye to her. And one Tokyo resident, no longer in her first youth, admitted to journalists that she did not know how she would be able to carry on living without Xiang Xiang. It appears that China has some sympathy for the feelings of its rival’s citizens. Since, according to some reports, China is ready to “consider ways to resolve the problem.”
It is possible that the solution to the “problem” referred to could serve as an important symbol of the new relationship between these two Asian powers. And, as already noted, the international situation in the Indo-Pacific region – the focal point of the current phase in the “Great Game” of global politics – will increasingly depend on that relationship. If Xiang Xiang returns to Tokyo Zoo, or China sends another panda there to take her place, then that will be a sure indication that relations between these two great Asian powers are not as hopeless as they once appeared.
The author will continue to follow the latest developments.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Given the dynamics of international processes and the earthquake disaster, Turkey remains at the forefront of the US and NATO bloc’s attention. Washington strongly opposes President Erdoğan’s policy of independence from American strategy, both in terms of reviving Turkey’s imperial status through reliance on the Turkic world and in maintaining its independence in relations with Russia.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and US Department of State Secretary of State Anthony Blinken both visited Ankara in response to the tragedy in southeastern Turkey. Although each of the named guests had a different agenda for their meetings with the Turkish side, two issues remained common (namely, earthquake relief and, more importantly, NATO enlargement and Ankara’s position on Finland and Sweden’s membership).
It is obvious that the devastating effects of the earthquake (over 42 thousand deaths and 210 thousand destroyed buildings) will have an impact on Turkey’s morale and economy. Given the country’s high inflation and economic crisis, Turkey requires substantial material and financial assistance (and it is hundreds of billions, if not trillion US dollars). Who else but the world financial institutions ruled by the United States can assist Turkey in this impasse?
Similarly, the revealed causes of massive destruction due to the use of unstable materials by builders created an atmosphere of distrust toward the ruling regime in terms of insufficient counteraction to the scales of corruption. The latter is actively being used by the six-party The latter is actively being used by the six-party non-consolidated opposition to undermine President R. Erdoğan’s authority and defeat him in the upcoming general presidential and parliamentary elections. All of these factors are considered by the United States in its diplomacy.
Jens Stoltenberg attempted to persuade his Turkish colleagues to support NATO’s collective course on the simultaneous admission of Finland and Sweden into the alliance, which allegedly stemmed from the peculiarities of the current military and political situation, as well as threats posed by Russia’s “aggressive policy” in Ukraine and with regard to European countries in general. Ankara has so far rejected Sweden, but has offered to seriously consider admitting Finland (which has apparently satisfied the Turkish side on the localization of KWP activities on its territory).
Antony Blinken supplemented this topic with bargaining diplomacy. In exchange for Turkey’s consent to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO, the US is willing to consider delivering 40 F-16 fighters with spare parts worth more than $20 billion, as Ankara has requested in principle. In particular, following the purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system, the US refused to include Turkey in the supply program for new generation fighters F-35 and did not return the $1.4 billion paid by Turkey for this deal. However, a positive solution to the issue of supplying F-16 fighters to Turkey would necessitate the approval of the United States Congress, which has so far expressed conflicting views (especially by the Greek and Armenian lobbies).
Pragmatic President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will have to consider the American proposals because, first and foremost, he needs to retain power after the next elections; second, he needs to receive large investments for reconstruction work; and third, he needs to modernize the army in accordance with the General Staff’s preliminary plans.
In fact, Erdoğan’s agreement to Finland’s NATO membership is a positive reaction to US and NATO conditions. Some US politicians believe Turkey is acting in accordance with a deal struck with Russia on this issue, but this is not the case. In fact, Moscow has previously publicly expressed its concerns about NATO enlargement in general, and the admission of Finland and Sweden in particular, because Russia poses no threat to these countries’ military security or territorial integrity. However, taking into consideration the length of the Finnish-Russian border at 1,325.8 km (including 1,091.7 km of land border and 234.1 km of water border) and historical features of interstate relations, the Finnish joining NATO will in the foreseeable future create much more problems and difficulties for Russia connected with strengthening of border protection and deployment of strategic reaction forces. That is why Erdoğan’s agreement is in no way connected with the opinion and interests of Russia.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry is well aware of the ethno-political situation in Sweden and Finland, where the Kurdish population is growing rapidly. In Sweden, KWP has strong quantitative and qualitative indicators, because there are already about 100 thousand Kurds and there are organizational cells of Kurdish movement (including radical ones). In Finland, there are considerably fewer Kurds (up to 20,000 people). Accordingly, Stockholm, in the interests of its own security, is unlikely to meet all the demands of the Turkish side in the near future.
Anthony Blinken announced a philanthropic donation of $184 million to provide humanitarian aid to Turkish citizens affected by the earthquake. Accordingly, Washington will expand its assistance to Turkish partners in this matter too, depending on Ankara’s foreign policy course. Taking into account the aggravation of US-Russian relations amid the military-political crisis in Ukraine and the unequivocal US support for the Kyiv regime, Washington requires Ankara to strictly comply with anti-Russian sanctions and explain the reason for the growth of Turkish trade with Russia, which increased by more than $200 million over the past year. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu was forced to explain to his US counterpart that the increase in trade was mainly due to the rise in the price of Russian gas on world markets due to sanctions and the “grain deal,” rather than issues of circumventing Western sanctions.
Unfortunately, Turkey’s neutrality in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis is unlikely to take place because Ankara provides Kyiv with considerable military-technical and other support (including deliveries of Bayraktar UCAVs, Kirpi BMCs, equipment, technical information, instructors, etc.). Politically, Turkey still supports Ukraine’s sovereignty, opposes Russian rights to Crimea and does not recognize the annexation of other territories to Russia (including the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions). However, this difference in approach does not prevent the parties from finding common ground on other issues (e.g., Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh) and developing mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy, energy and communications.
Turkey does not join the whole package of anti-Russian sanctions, but only adheres to the UN decisions in this matter. The Turkish authorities consider it advisable to continue mediation efforts in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis in order to peacefully resolve the disputed issues and stop the hostilities, which cause great loss of life and considerable material damage.
The calls from the opposition and a part of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to postpone the date of the general elections due to the difficult situation caused by the earthquake, which affected 10 provinces of Turkey with a population of almost 15 million people (it complicates the work of the CEC and the publication of ballots) have not been accepted by President Recep Erdoğan. Perhaps Erdoğan’s position will change after he and the head of the National Unity Party (NUP) Devlet Bahçeli made a joint visit to the earthquake area (the NUP is the traditional ally of the AKP in the elections).
However, being an experienced and pragmatic politician, Recep Erdoğan understands that postponing (postponing) elections could give his opponents time to consolidate widely and gain likely external support. Rather, Erdoğan himself might agree to some kind of agreement with the United States in exchange for another presidential term, more investments, military aid, and Turkey’s neutrality in Russia’s affairs.
One way or another, the SMO in Ukraine will come to an end at some point. Russia will emerge from this crisis with a qualitatively different force, while maintaining a policy of firmly defending its interests. Russia and Turkey have agreed on the construction of a gas hub, which will naturally take some time to implement and promises considerable financial, economic and political dividends for an independent Turkey, rather than the verbal promises of the US.
Moscow is interested in developing a strategic partnership with Ankara and views the changes in bilateral relations as a historic chance to change the stereotypes of past confrontation into the imperatives of future partnership. Such twists and turns in history do not happen often and require a responsible approach on the part of the leaders of the two countries and their societies.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Few nowadays remember how the fall of the Eastern Bloc actually played out in real time. In the West, the perception was that the system was so tightly controlled that it was impregnable. As long as Westerners heard the old slogans, it convinced them Communism was alive and well, and as evil as ever, as they saw it.
In the actual Communist countries the perception was different. No matter how all-pervasive The Party was, the more people heard the slogans the less they believed in them. Even active Communists didn’t believe much of what they were saying, and knew it was all about gaining and keeping power rather than helping the people, who they were not in the same universe as, let alone on the same planet.
Remember Mikhail Gorbachev? In his day he was seen as a statesman on a par with Roosevelt or Bismarck, who had already carved his name amongst the immortals with his liberalisation of the Soviet system to make it more responsive to the real world. Now we think differently, and understand he was naïve or working for the other side—or both.
However he is largely overlooked today, forgotten, because the opposite was true – he was reacting slowly to a threatening situation on the ground he could not ignore, which eventually swept him away with the rest because he couldn’t adapt to it without cutting his own throat.
The Opposite is True
For several years this author has been stating in this journal that the Soviet Union actually won the Cold War, because the US now behaves like the Soviet Union used to do. US allies have often tried to resist this tendency, but like the ordinary Alexandra Ivanova, a common Russian name, who didn’t see the point of the Soviet Union: they have to eat, they have to coexist, they have to pretend this is good to get the things they want.
You always hope that when you make a statement like that one, which goes so much against received wisdom, events will prove you right. The US does so every day, so no problem there
But if you want to see what the old Soviet states were like just before they were consigned to history, you have to look this side of the Atlantic. When people grew weary of US claims to be the sole guardian of democracy and truth, they often looked to the older democracies as better examples of civilized values – and amongst these, one country in particular.
Whatever their politics, there is not one person on this earth who ever thought they would see the day when the United Kingdom, home of cricket, a parliament and monarchy the envy of the world and a Constitution so effective they don’t need to write it down, became the modern equivalent of the Soviet Union. All the same elements are there – the purges of the ruling party, voter restriction to stamp out undesirables and slogans, slogans, slogans.
But those elements defined the whole Communist experience, not just the last days. What makes the UK the reflection of those last days is that everyone can see what is real, and that the reality is bad, but the leaders bang on regardless, just waiting for the earth to swallow them up before history and the courts get there first.
Action and Reaction
The present UK government was elected on one simple promise: to get Brexit done. To those who voted for that, what this meant was taking the country away from politicians, whether foreign or native, and giving it back to the people.
Just as in 1917, the excluded would now rule through real representatives, who listened to them and did their bidding. No longer would they be told they were bad people because they didn’t agree with the latest trendy idea from a foreign conspiracy sustained by corrupted elite.
Everyone who wanted one would have a job. They would be able to afford their own homes, like they used to, have cheaper food and utilities and brighter futures, with their newly emancipated nation flexing its independent muscle and not having to bail out all those foreigners invading it and sucking the honest citizen dry.
That’s all very well, but the two things have to go together. When you are there to uphold the noble idea, and the promised benefits don’t exist, the slogans sound very different than they did when people were attracted to them.
Exactly as in the Soviet Union, the same words are given a different meaning. When ministers speak, the first thought of most Brexit voters, let alone everyone else, is no longer “we are taking control” but “you just want to stay in power at any cost”.
But the rulers are only there because they uphold the idea, regardless of the carnage they see around them. Like the homeless man who sits in the same few inches of pavement for years on end, not daring to move, they run away from everything that have done by repeating the lies no one listens to any more, simply because there is no other way they can justify their continued existence.
Comrades in Harms
A key argument of Brexit was that the UK was economically self-sufficient, and stronger than most EU countries. Therefore if it could do what it wanted, without being held back by EU bureaucracy and bailouts to its weaker members, everyone would be better off than they had been since 1972.
The UK does indeed have one of the world’s major economies, larger than that of most EU nations. So its people expect First World standards, not Third World ones, the very things it accuses those nasty foreigners, within and without its borders, of imposing on it.
Now the UK is experiencing food rationing of a sort – its supermarkets are limiting the amount of fresh produce any person can buy at one time. This is bad enough in itself, when it becoming increasingly difficult to afford food and fuel. Many are faced with stark choices between food and fuel.
But the problem is the symbolism. In a country already riven by food banks, supposedly what happens when the EU takes away all your jobs and gives them to foreigners who then come to the UK and avoid work at the same time they are stealing those jobs, you can’t impose on the public the same things they assume Third World countries have, but theirs doesn’t.
Everything is being blamed for the fresh produce shortage, such as bad weather in Southern Europe and rising energy prices due to the Ukraine conflict. But other countries with much weaker economies aren’t rationing food. They did for a bit, but they got over it, though the weather is still bad and the war is still going on.
The UK is in this mess, and every other it can see every day, because of Brexit. It doesn’t have supplies because those who carry them have to go through customs, and that takes a lot longer so they don’t bother. It can’t grow its own supplies because the crops rot in the fields, because only foreigners wanted to pick them, and they have been driven away.
There is no longer any incentive to export to the UK rather than the EU. There is no reason to help the UK deal with its share of the energy crisis when no one will be getting anything back they can’t get elsewhere for a fraction of the cost.
But no one in government will admit that the idea they were elected to serve is responsible. The public know, no matter how much the politicians pretend they don’t. Ministers also know that when they blame everything and everyone else, the public hear the opposite, but they keep saying it anyway because they have nothing else to say.
Just like the poor, frightened men who were forced out of their failed states in 1989 by angry mobs, they can argue the benefits of their system forever but can’t avoid the fact that people want reality. This is what it took seventy years for the Soviets to be reduced to, forty-five years for their allies to be reduced to, and six years for the United Kingdom, once the antidote to all that, to be reduced to.
Feels So Right It Can’t Be Wrong
In the Soviet Union they always had a fall back when they knew people didn’t believe the lies any more. They would attack the enemy, real or imagined, because everything was their fault, and if you objected to the glorious system you would end up like them.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt, subject of jokes that his surname is a spelling mistake, has had the audacity to claim that the UK’s economic problems are the fault of Vladimir Putin. Apparently the UK is suffering from a “Recession Made in Russia”, although the problems he admits are global are affecting the UK more than anywhere else due to UK government decisions—not what is going on in Russia.
The Party’s solution? To send planes to Ukraine in the name of Brexit and Peace, as if it couldn’t have done this before, and ratchet up the economic oppression of the people by raising taxes, cutting spending and telling everyone to save energy to stop Putin, as if it affects him one iota whether the UK uses Russian energy.
If it isn’t Putin, it is the hated EU that is the cause of all problems. What’s the problem with this? It is a rich man’s club which exploits the workers by giving them opportunities to earn money and democratic, human and legal rights. It is inherently corrupt for these very reasons, and spreads this corruption by sending its people to the UK to work or scrounge and impose its decadent ideas on right thinking British people.
Sound familiar? You may not hear it now, but you can read it in anything official about the hated West which came out of Eastern Europe in Soviet times.
Western reference libraries still have those enormous old books called Information Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Hungary or wherever, which painted the whole of their country’s history, and its difference from Western nations, in this way. Westerners has a paranoid fear of “reds under the bed” in countries which would never accept Communism, but this was nothing compared to the rants about Western attempts to destroy socialism from within.
These were louder and longer precisely because people wanted the reality of the Western alternative, with all its faults for those guaranteed a job and used to being told what to do. They remain loud and long in the UK because there is a big difference between the concept of decadent foreigners, which is readily embraced, and the benefits and protections the EU has brought to the UK, the very things British voters didn’t realised they loved so much until they lost them.
Rotten as the Fruit
Blaming tomato rationing on Putin and foreigners can only get as far as it does because the British have been brought up to believe that their country is the standard, and every other has got something wrong with it. No matter how tolerant, liberal and partnership-willing an individual or politician may be, that is the basis on which interactions with others have been conducted since the Empire became grand under Queen Victoria.
Brexit merely tapped into that presumption by telling the disadvantaged and venal what they wanted to hear – that everything wrong in their lives was the fault of their inferiors, who by definition they shouldn’t have to listen to. Just like Eastern Bloc citizens were always told that their system was morally, ethically and intellectually superior, so if something wasn’t good it was the fault of Westerners who had nothing against them personally, and never set foot in their countries.
If the system is superior, and you live under it and are prepared to continue doing so, you are likewise superior. The problem the UK now faces is exactly this – that all these superior people expect to see that manifested in practical ways, but see little more than humiliation, which they are less ready to accept than they would have been had they lost a war, or been ravaged by another devastation the people they thought were their friends said was good for them.
Eastern Europeans of the late 1980s and early 1990s understood that politicians promising the same old things, and erecting the same old enemies, wasn’t going to change the reality those promises had created. Their politicians knew it too, but could only survive by pretending true was false, an essential skill of politicians everywhere.
Now the winners who think they destroyed Communism by being better are doing exactly the same, before our very eyes. It may seem far-fetched to assume this will destroy the UK as well as its present rulers – but that is what was said until right before Communism fell, and is less far-fetched than believing we would ever see a Western country follow the same path.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
On February 15, Wang Yi began a week-long tour of several European countries, his first trip abroad since assuming the post of head of the Office of the CPC Central Committee Commission on January 1 of this year. This office oversees all foreign policy activities, and its head is directly accountable to the country’s leader. Wang Yi has also become a member of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee as a result of the just ended 20th Congress.
Wang Yi was Minister of Foreign Affairs for the past ten years and had made many similar trips to Europe before. But now he has gone on tour to this continent, occupying a much higher level in the hierarchy of China’s governance system.
And here one cannot ignore the context of Beijing’s increasingly complex relations with Washington. The NEO has repeatedly discussed the multifaceted presence of the United States in the PRC’s controversial system of relations both with individual leading European countries and with inter-European structures, primarily the EU. Recently, there have been persistent attempts by Washington to involve the Europeans in the emerging configurations in the Indo-Pacific region that are blatantly anti-Chinese. To illustrate the distribution of roles between the participants of the transatlantic alliance in the course of “expansion in East Asia,” the Chinese use vivid graphic images referring to the history of the Crusades.
The Global Times’ thesis on the independence of the development process of Sino-European relations from the current state of relations between Beijing and Washington, “despite the fact that the latter has always worked exactly in this direction,” should be considered as China’s own vision of the desired format of China’s relations with Europe.
Let us note that not only did it “work,” but also achieved considerable success in doing so. Suffice it to refer to the increasingly more pronounced military presence of France (the first country visited during this tour) in the IPR. Which presence is quite closely connected with those very “configurations.” No less frequent are the various forms of Paris’s involvement in the Taiwan issue, with the original position on the need to maintain the status quo. Which, again, is completely unacceptable for Beijing.
A similar position on the said problem is held in Italy, which was the second country on Wang Yi’s tour. Taiwan gladly took note of the statement by Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani made on the eve of the Chinese guest’s arrival in Rome that his country “stands in solidarity” with the EU and NATO about the unacceptability of changing the status quo in the Strait of Taiwan.
However, in both of these countries, as well as in the various subsequent meetings with participants at the Munich Security Conference, Wang Yi focused his interlocutors’ attention on those aspects of cooperation with partners that contribute to its positive development. For example, during his conversation with Josep Borrell, who is responsible for the EU’s foreign policy, Wang Yi noted that the PRC views this organization as a partner, not a rival. He believes that both sides have more points of agreement than disagreement. The guest also mentioned his country’s successful exit from a period of various types of severe restrictions related to the Covid-19 pandemic, and how China is now ready to restore economic relations with Europe to “pre-pandemic” levels.
Wang Yi’s meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Munich demonstrated that the “US factor” should not be overlooked when developing relations with Washington’s allies. Due to the infamous “Chinese balloons in the US sky” situation, Blinken’s planned trip to China was canceled.
Nevertheless, apparently, his meeting with the representative of China, which is now in the inner circle of the very top of the country’s leadership, took place. It should be added that it simply can’t be otherwise if the parties do not want a catastrophic scenario of bilateral relations. And they clearly do not want that, and probing insinuations on the subject of creating at least some kind of more or less stable system of relations have been pouring in from both sides.
The final and perhaps the most important stage of the whole discussed tour was Wang Yi’s visit to Moscow, where he had talks with the top Russian leadership. However, his intermediary stop in Hungary is also noteworthy, as its policy towards Russia is among the (positive) exceptions to everything Moscow has dealt with in recent years in building relations with those who are lumped together in the “Collective West.”
One of the main topics of talks held by Wang Yi during the entire tour under discussion was the Ukrainian issue. It was definitely also at the center of the Munich Security Conference he attended. And if the resolution of the latter on this subject does not deserve even an official mention in Russia (let alone any reaction to it), the position of Beijing on the same subject should be given the closest attention. It cannot contradict China’s positioning in the international arena as a whole, which is based on the key concept of “Building a Community of One Destiny.” Beijing does not seem to rule out the possibility of participation in the implementation of this concept by the same Europeans and even Americans. Despite all the problems in relations, above all, with the latter.
And the content of the entire tour under discussion confirms the importance for China of the factor of preserving relations not only with Washington’s European allies, but also with Washington itself. Which, again, Russia should perceive adequately and not expect China to take steps that would put these relations under serious threat. Despite all of Beijing’s obvious support for Russia in the conflict in Ukraine, which manifests itself mainly in the political aspects that are extremely important today. Although some “material” points are being made.
However, it is necessary to take into account the underdevelopment of the transport infrastructure linking Russia and China. This factor is undoubtedly one of the main obstacles to the rapid expansion of bilateral ties, and not only in the economy. The only railroad bridge across the Amur with alternating traffic, which only recently came into operation after almost 15 years of construction, illustrates the situation, which should urgently be dealt with. In this case, from a broader context, which should include first of all the factor of the “European project” that has played an extremely essential role in the fate of the country over the last half century.
Nevertheless, pro-Russian trends in China’s global positioning are becoming more and more visible. In an accessible graphical form they are manifested in the assessments of the nature and the main “stoker” of the Ukrainian conflict, as well as its main beneficiary and methods of extraction of income.
China intends to promote the continuation and improvement of life, rather than turning places of residence into “rubble” because a few dozen or hundreds of notorious “leopards” might come running to Ukraine. And, of course, Beijing will not pay attention to what signs will be painted on the sides of the latter: the crosses that were present on German airplanes during World War I, or the Polish white eagles. Nor will the mediocre and pathetic efforts of Ukraine’s local Third Reich hoaxers receive serious attention.
The “pro-Russian” stance of Beijing’s current positioning in the international arena is also evident in its calls for a thorough investigation of all that accompanies the “Terrorist Act of the Century” in the Baltic Sea. Which sound at least as insistent as from Moscow, not to mention Berlin (i.e. from those who were primarily affected by this act).
Finally, all of the above is quite consistent with the current kind of “dualism” in China’s approach to relations with Russia in general and to the Ukrainian conflict in particular. During the European tour of one of China’s top leaders, on the one hand, the thesis of the “rock-solid” state of Russian-Chinese relations was once again reproduced. At the same time these relations are “not directed” against third countries.
Therefore, it would be highly desirable not to check the level of the mentioned “solidity.” Not to mention the other (extremely important) aspects of the modern positioning in the foreign policy arena of the second world power, partially outlined above.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Mongolian Prime Minister Luvsannamsrain Oyun- Erdene’s visit to South Korea was marked by a number of important bilateral meetings and agreements. Especially notable among them is the memorandum of understanding signed on February 15, 2023, on the establishment of a network for supply of rare earth metals from Mongolia to Korea. The agreement calls for South Korea to actively participate in training, exploration, and infrastructure development for the further extraction of rare earth metals in Mongolia and their export to the Republic of Korea (ROK).
For an objective understanding of the prospects of cooperation between the two countries in this industry, as well as its possible macro political implications, it is necessary to recall that the rare-earth metals include 17 chemical elements from the Mendeleev Table – scandium, yttrium and 15 so-called lanthanoides. Their extraction and transportation have the following advantages:
-A large proportion of the elements are generally found together in a single deposit.
-Their insignificant extraction in comparison with other minerals simplifies the task of their transportation.
-The need for rare earth metals in the world economy is growing rapidly.
The possibility of organizing their extraction by a relatively cheap open-pit method.
Projecting these advantages on the Mongolian situation, we can talk about the demand for this resource for Mongolia’s trading partners, the rapid payback of its development, as well as the possibility of its export bypassing the territory of China. An important advantage is the ability of Mongolian rare-earth exports to provide raw materials for a wide range of industrial sectors of the potential importing country.
Currently, the following deposits of rare earth metals in Mongolia are known to be suitable for industrial development: Khalzan Buregtei (Khovd aimak), and Shar Tolgoi (Ubsunur aimak). The peculiarity of these deposits is their remoteness from transport routes – they are both located in the least developed western regions of Mongolia. According to geological expertise, the extraction of rare-earth metals can provide the largest increase in GRP of these areas of the country (growth up to 67%). Consequently, the task of economic development of the western regions of Mongolia will largely lie in the development of deposits of this resource. However, most of the country remains unexplored for deposits of these elements. In particular, there has been little exploration in the Mongolian Gobi, which some experts believe could prove to be the most significant storehouse of the valuable resource.
Supplies of rare earth metals from Mongolia could be the key to diversifying Mongolia’s mining exports: it is currently entirely dominated by coal from the Tavan Tolgoi deposit, the vast majority of which is shipped to China. The advantageous ratio of the value of rare earth powders to their mass opens up broad prospects for their export to other countries. And the first country that was interested in such an opportunity at the state level was the Republic of Korea.
The Mongolian side expressed its interest in the participation of South Korea in the development of deposits of rare earth metals in August 2022 during a meeting of foreign ministers of the two countries in Ulaanbaatar. In January 2023, Korea Telecom expressed its desire to cooperate with the Mongolian government on their exports. And now, a month later, namely on February 15, 2023, it became known about the signing of a memorandum of understanding to explore imports of rare earth metals. Another agreement is likely to see the light of day in the coming months: Oyun-Erdene gave South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol an invitation from the Mongolian president to an official meeting in Ulaanbaatar, which was received with great approval.
South Korea also has an interest in developing this area of cooperation. Moreover, it is not limited to the economic dimension alone. It is well known that China accounts for more than 90% of the world’s production of rare earth metals. The Chinese authorities have repeatedly taken advantage of this position in the world market: for example, China imposed restrictions on exports of rare earth metals to the US in 2019. The problematic “issues” in its relations with South Korea are growing: therefore, reducing dependence on Chinese supplies of rare earth metals is among the industry priorities of the Koreans. Moreover, China has already imposed economic sanctions against South Korea in 2016 in response to the placement of US missile defense elements on its territory. Consequently, investing in the mining of rare earth metals in Mongolia is a good and fairly cheap opportunity to reduce dependence on Chinese supplies.
Nevertheless, bilateral cooperation between Mongolia and the Republic of Korea in this industry has its own limitations. In particular, in 2022 Russia put the ROK on the list of unfriendly countries. Further political degradation in Russian-South Korean relations, as well as the latter’s alignment with American Indo-Pacific initiatives, could lead to Russia creating obstacles to Mongolia’s supply of rare earth metals to the “Land of Morning Frost.” That possibility is even stronger if they are re-exported from South Korea to other countries that have further damaged their relations with China and Russia: Especially the United States, which has a serious deficit in this important raw material for its high-tech and military-industrial complex. Incidentally, in an interview with Reuters about his visit to Seoul, Oyun-Erdene mentioned the role of South Korea as a “gateway” for Mongolian mining exports to other major economies of the world. It is likely that by such a lengthy formulation he could filibuster just such intentions.
In case of constraining actions on the part of Russia, Mongolia will be forced to switch to cooperation with Russia in this direction. Incidentally, the political groundwork for the Russian-Mongolian partnership had already been laid last year: during his state visit to Russia, Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh invited Russia to participate in the exploration and development of deposits of rare earth metals. Russia, in turn, has such potential interest – the country has enterprises that need these metals, as well as a good scientific base for exploration and organization of their mining.
Regardless of the final outcome, the Mongolian-South Korean agreement was a notable event in the struggle of the world powers for access to rare earth metals. This bold move by the Mongolian leadership has the potential to improve Mongolia’s economic environment and diversify the geography of its commodity exports. However, it also has the potential to complicate the Mongols’ relationship with their two immediate neighbors. And it is the tectonic shifts at the global level of international relations that will determine the balance between these two most likely consequences.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On February 8, 2023 a plane belonging to the Indonesian airline Susi Air landed in the mountainous province of Papua Pegunungan, which is located in the Indonesian part of the New Guinea island. Soon, the six passengers of the plane and its pilot, New Zealander Philip Mertens, were taken hostage by members of the militant organization “West Papua National Liberation Army”, which advocates the independence of West Papua from Indonesia. Then the rebels burned the aircraft. Soon all the hostage passengers were released, but the pilot of the plane was left in captivity. The rebels stated that F. Mertens would be released only after the Indonesian authorities grant independence to the whole of West Papua, i. e. the entire Indonesian part of the island of New Guinea.
To show that everything is fine with the pilot of the plane, a citizen of New Zealand, on February 15, 2023, Papuan rebels provided the media with several joint photos with F. Mertens unharmed. The actions of the rebels have found approval among the residents of West Papua, a significant part of whom are in favor of independence from Indonesia.
The day after the incident, on February 9, 2023 Benny Wenda, the chairman of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, which was created in 2014, expressed sympathy to the family of F. Mertens and stated that the organization he heads has nothing to do with the activities of the West Papua National Liberation Army. Mr. Wenda also stated that he stood for a peaceful way of obtaining sovereignty for West Papua. It should be noted that Mr. Venda enjoys less authority among the Papuans, the indigenous inhabitants of West Papua, than the rebels of the West Papua National Liberation Army. This is due to the presence in Papuan society of a traditional cult of force and militancy, because of which many Papuans are more impressed by the decisive actions of armed rebels than organizations aimed at long peace talks.
Although the movement for the independence of West Papua from Indonesia has existed since 1963, to date its supporters have not been able to create a united organization whose representatives could speak to the world community with a full-fledged political program. International media try to avoid covering the activities of supporters of a peaceful way to gain independence since in Indonesia the issue of granting sovereignty to West Papua is too acute. In turn, adherents of the forceful path of independence discredit themselves with their aggressive actions and uncompromising attitude during negotiations.
Before the era of colonialism, Papuans lived on the New Guinea island without any contact with other civilizations and led a traditional way of life. Indonesia, which gained independence in 1945 as part of decolonization, inherited the western part of the New Guinea island from the Netherlands. Historically, Papuans and Indonesians have never been united by anything, and for this reason, quite chilly relations have developed between the two ethnicities. A considerable part of Indonesian society is skeptical of Papuans, while many indigenous inhabitants of West Papua consider Indonesians invaders and occupiers. It should also be noted that West Papua is still technologically far behind the rest of Indonesia.
As a result, at the moment the relations between the two peoples are tense, and the interaction of Indonesians and Papuans is complicated.
Despite the strong discontent among the local population of West Papua with the rule of Indonesia, Jakarta has no plans to withdraw from this region as its subsoil is rich in minerals. The plans of the Indonesian leadership include the extraction of natural resources of West Papua. However, Indonesian energy companies are unable to start developing Papuan deposits, as the indigenous people of West Papua are hostile to foreigners and are ready to take any most cruel step to leave their resources untouched.
Being a multiethnic and multireligious state, Indonesia is forced to resort to a variety of measures to preserve its territorial integrity. Indonesian is the only official language in the country. Ethnic minority languages may be the second official languages in individual provinces, but all legally relevant documentation should still be kept only in Indonesian. Jakarta has also divided a number of regions where representatives of the same ethnicity live compactly into several provinces in order to weaken the influence of local governors and politicians, thus minimizing the risk of losing these territories. In particular, the part of New Guinea belonging to Indonesia, which has the generalized name “West Papua”, is actually divided into as many as 5 provinces.
Representatives of major world powers, such as the United States and China, try not to make strong statements about the status of West Papua and advocate for the territorial integrity of Indonesia. First of all, this is due to the fact that Indonesia is a state with a population of 275 million and a fairly large economy. Washington and Beijing are striving to build a friendly dialogue with Jakarta, as they see the Indonesian side as a favorable trading partner. In the case of hypothetical support for granting independence to West Papua, Indonesia is highly likely to minimize dialogue with the country that supports the separatists. In turn, the provinces of the Indonesian part of New Guinea are the poorest components of Indonesia. Therefore, if West Papua gains sovereignty, it will need a large number of subsidies and investments from outside to ensure the effective functioning of the state apparatus and a decent standard of living for its citizens, as well as to start extracting natural resources with the involvement of foreign capital.
It is worth noting that the independent Papua New Guinea located on the eastern half of the island does not support its fellow Papuans from the neighboring West Papua in their quest to create their own state. This can be explained by the fact that a hypothetical new country could most likely show a high crime rate and an uncertain foreign policy vector. It is more profitable for the authorities of Papua New Guinea to have a common border with relatively prosperous Indonesia than with unstable independent West Papua.
Based on the above, it can be assumed that the emergence of a new state in the Asia-Pacific region is rather improbable in the foreseeable future. Firstly, the world community is not interested in a confrontation with Indonesia over the secession of its resource-rich provinces. And secondly, there is currently no proper level of political unity among the leaders of the West Papua independence movement.
Nevertheless, if Indonesia ever faces a serious internal political crisis, the armed rebels of West Papua will theoretically be able to try and take power by force. However, without foreign political and material support, rebel groups are unlikely to be capable of defending their independence opposing regular units of the fairly well-armed and well-trained Indonesian army.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Those who closely follow the events on the Korean peninsula know that military exercises of the United States and the Republic of Korea take place every spring. The DPRK traditionally perceives them as a rehearsal for an invasion and responds with demonstration of force. Each side declares however that in response to the provocations of the other, it has the right to strengthen its defense capability thus getting trapped in a vicious circle. But although the actions of Washington and Seoul aggravate the situation no less, they do not make the front pages, unlike the news about launches or statements by the North, and this creates a picture in the public mind that Pyongyang is the culprit of tension.
On February 17, the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Korea announced that in March South Korea and the United States would hold a joint 11-day Freedom Shield exercise. In response, the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement, in which it threatened to take “unprecedented tough and decisive measures” for “disturbing military demonstrations that seriously violate the security interests of the DPRK.”
On February 18, North Korea resumed missile launches. An ICBM was launched towards the East Sea (Sea of Japan).
The reaction of Washington and Seoul was quite acute: if you recalculate the missile trajectory from a high-altitude to a more typical one, its range turns out to be 14,000 km. So it can reach the continental territory of the United States by a wide margin.
South Korean experts also noted that the launch had been managed by the Main Missile Directorate, and it was carried out by the same unit as the Hwasong-17 launch on November 18, and it took almost nine and a half hours to prepare the liquid-fuel ICBM for being started. In addition, they traditionally doubted that the missile had successfully entered the atmosphere: allegedly, a video of a descending missile filmed by a Japanese fighter shows that its warhead had been broken into pieces and disappeared from view after it caught fire. After the previous failure in November. On September 3, North Korea released an improved Hwasong-15 ICBM with a lighter warhead. But this time the missile seems to have failed again to re-enter the atmosphere.
On February 19, the deputy department head of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), Kim Yo-jong published a press statement in which she castigated Washington’s desire to turn the UN Security Council into an tool for implementing a hostile policy against the DPRK. And although Kim Jong-un’s sister noted that “our ICBMs will never take aim at Seoul,” this phrase is not identical to “DPRK missiles are not aimed at Seoul” – the DPRK has enough other types of missiles and barrel artillery capable of reaching the capital of the Republic of Korea.
On the same day, February 19, South Korea and the United States conducted joint air exercises with the participation of American B-1B strategic bombers. For understanding: taking off from Guam, the B-1B can reach Pyongyang in two hours.
February 20 became an eventful day. First, Kim Yo-jong responded to critical statements about the February 18 launch in the style of “your experts are idiots.” In particular, the fighter did not film the disintegration of the warhead, but the separation of the so-called hypersonic glider from the missile head. The “first sister” summed up by saying that “in case of any direct and indirect alarm,” we will take appropriate response measures and “the frequency of using the Pacific Ocean as our training ground depends on the nature of the actions of American troops“.
Second, at about 7 a.m., the North launched eastwards two medium-range ballistic missiles from Sukchon, South Pyongan Province. It is noteworthy that the North Korean media covered the launch a mere hour after the fact.
In the context of the above, the experts of the Republic of Korea believe that the DPRK military might have simulated strikes on the Cheongju and Osan air bases (North Chuncheon Province) and Gunsan (North Jeolla Province), which are located at a 340 and 390 km distance from the missile launch site. It was from them that the planes of the US and South Korean Air Forces took off for joint exercises the day before.
Third, the ROK has imposed new unilateral sanctions against the DPRK. More precisely, in relation to four individuals and five organizations for their assistance to the nuclear and missile development of the North, as well as for evading the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. This measure is being applied for the fourth time in the reign of Yoon Suk-yeol: new sanctions were introduced just ten days after the decision had been made to restrict Pyongyang’s illegal activities in cyberspace. Previously, these same individuals and organizations had been included in the US sanctions lists, so the step was purely formal.
Fourth, the “Korean” meeting of the UN Security Council eventually took place. In 2022, the UN Security Council held 10 meetings specifically devoted to discussing North Korea’s missile threats, but all of them ended without any results due to the opposition of China and Russia, who are permanent members of the Security Council with veto power.
In 2023, the scenario was resumed. The United States has called on the UN Security Council to hold North Korea accountable “for its recent missile provocations.” Nevertheless, China once again opposed taking any action against Pyongyang, accusing the United States of escalating tensions and provoking North Korea. Its representative reminded the world that the United States had announced joint military exercises at a higher level and on a larger scale, as well as the timely deployment of strategic assets on the Korean peninsula. Russia’s permanent representative to the UN also accused the United States of provoking North Korea. According to the Russian diplomat, the DPRK is simply responding with missile tests to unprecedented US military maneuvers, which are clearly anti-Pyongyang in nature.
On February 22, the military of South Korea, the United States and Japan conducted joint missile defense exercises in the waters of the Sea of Japan. It involved destroyers equipped with the system, which worked out actions for the exchange of information about ballistic missiles, procedures for their detection, tracking and interception. On the same day, a meeting of the Naval commanders of the three countries took place in Yokosuka.
On the same day, on February 22, the 8th U.S-ROK Deterrence Strategy Committee Table-Top Exercise (DSC TTX) was held at the Pentagon. The parties were represented by Heo Tae-keun, ROK Deputy Minister for National Defense Policy (DEPMIN), Siddharth Mohandas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia, and Richard Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy (N-CWMD). The military reviewed measures to strengthen combat readiness in case of the real use of nuclear weapons by the North, and they studied a variety of possible scenarios.
Also on February 22, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK for International Organizations Kim Song Kyung criticized the “unfair and unbalanced” policy of the UN Secretary General, who “from year to year repeats illogical and deplorable nonsense, no different from the chatter of US State Department officials.” And if, because of this stance, “an undesirable situation arises”, he “will not get rid of the heavy responsibility for it.”
At dawn on February 23, North Korea responded to previous day’s exercise by conducting a launch of Hwasal-4 “strategic cruise missiles” capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
In an interview with the Korea Times, senior researcher at the Korean Defense and Security Forum, Shin Jung-woo said that the range of the missiles was 200 kilometers longer than by those tested on January 25, 2022. However, in general, the description of the launch was assessed skeptically. According to a representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on February 24, the data obtained by ROK and US observation means do not correspond to the information voiced by the North and may be exaggerated. The military did not provide other details, referring to the fact that this could reveal the capabilities of the allies in the field of surveillance.
On February 24, the head of the DPRK Foreign Ministry Department for US Affairs, Kwon Jong-geun, chastised the UN Security Council meeting, at which, according to the North Korean diplomat, the United States “again found fault with our use of the right to self-defense.” But in addition to the customary rhetoric, there was something new. “The United States should bear in mind that the further continuation of their hostile and provocative acts against the DPRK, despite our repeated protests and warnings, can be considered a declaration of war against our Republic.” This is quite serious, given the new regulations for the use of North Korean nuclear weapons. In response, the US warned that North Korea’s use of nuclear weapons would lead to the end of the DPRK regime, and announced that it would continue to deploy specialized nuclear forces.
What will happen next? In February, the ROK and US military intend to conduct additional Air Force exercise, and then in March the large-scale Freedom Shield exercise will take place, which will last 11 days, including its field component. The main trigger of the “spring exacerbation”. Moreover, negotiations are underway on the arrival at the port of Busan of an American nuclear aircraft carrier (presumably the Nimitz), which will take part in the exercise. Similarly, in 2022, the United States sent the Ronald Reagan to the peninsula. The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Korea, however, refused to confirm this fact but stated that “the deployment of key US military assets took place in close consultation between South Korea and the United States“.
So, both sides do not intend to retreat, and it is highly likely that 2023 will equal 2022 in terms of the number of missile launches from the North, and even surpass it. However, seasonal exacerbation is seasonal for a reason: it happens within certain limits. And although non-core experts react to this saber rattling every time as if a war were on the threshold, one should rather be afraid of the probability of an irrational factor when, against the background of tension, someone may lose their nerves.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On February 23, the UN General Assembly voted on another anti-Russian resolution on Ukraine, which was pathetically titled “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.” Russia, as in the spring of last year, was condemned by 141 states.
However, 24 African countries out of 54 refused to condemn Russia, and 30 voted for this anti–Russian project. Moreover, the backbone of the states voting against Russia has remained almost unchanged since the first such resolution was voted on in March 2022. However, now Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Morocco, Sao Tome and Principe, South Sudan have demonstrated further drift towards the West. Gabon moved away from the pro-Western line, and Mali for the first time solidified with Eritrea and voted against.
Without any doubt, these results indicate the most severe Western pressure on African states, first of all small and dependent on foreign aid, such as Lesotho, Sao Tome and Principe, South Sudan, and the Comoros.
Shortly before the vote, from February 16 to 19, the 42nd session of the AU Executive Council and the 36th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of African States took place in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa in the luxurious complex of the African Union, where the issue of the situation in Ukraine was not included in the agenda, but was invisibly present and discussed on the sidelines.
In principle, there is nothing unusual about this. Such events are held regularly by the African Union, which unites 55 States of the continent. The official agenda of the current meeting included largely routine issues of the development of regional integration, in this case, the African Free Trade Area (ACFTA), climate change, issues of peace and security on the African continent, ensuring food security and a number of others that are hardly new. As per tradition, the issue of the transition of the current chairmanship of the African Union was resolved. This time, Senegalese President Macky Sall, who spent a very successful year in this capacity, handed over the chair to the President of the Comoros Azali Assoumani.
There was some intra-African intrigue: for a long time several countries fought for the post of chairman, but Kenya was especially energetic, where elections were held last year and the president was replaced. It traditionally follows London and votes in the UN accordingly. However, in the end, tradition won and the Comoros received its hour of glory at the last session of the African Union, taking the post of chairman of the AU.
Until the end, however, the issue of the composition of the pan-African “troika,” usually consisting of the AU chair country of the past, current and next year, was not resolved. If two members of the “troika” are well known – Senegal and the Comoros, then the third place has not yet been determined: Algeria and Morocco are fighting for the post of AU chairman in 2024, which have come together in a serious geopolitical battle over the fate of Western Sahara, which Morocco seeks to absorb with the support of the United States, and Algeria traditionally supports the POLISARIO Front, which is fighting for the liberation of this territory. There is a split in the African Union over this: the state itself – the Western Sahara Republic – is not recognized by the UN, but is recognized by the African Union and is its member supported by some other powerful countries od the continent, such as South Africa. Russia has taken a “legalist” position in this conflict: maintaining contacts with the POLISARIO Front, but not recognizing the Western Sahara Republic.
The meetings themselves were overshadowed by an incident with an Israeli representative who entered the Nelson Mandela meeting room without accreditation. He was rather rudely taken out of there – although Israel has an observer status, many in the African Union dispute this decision taken by the AU Commission, since it was not coordinated according to due procedure with other countries. In principle, this year the African Union has largely returned to its traditional line of critical perception of Israel’s policy and its actions towards the Palestinians and very definitely speaks in favor of a two-State solution and allowing the Arab people of Palestine to exercise their legitimate right to self-determination.
In general, this topic of self-determination of peoples sounded quite loudly in the African Union this year, although much was happening behind the scenes and discussed on the sidelines. The truth is that the Western powers, primarily the US, the UK and the European Union countries, after February 24, 2022, began to exert the strongest pressure on the African states and on the structures of the African Union, to make them not only condemn the “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, but also cut all their contacts with Moscow. At the summit of African states in Addis Ababa, both the US and the EU landed a powerful diplomatic force to rein in the Africans.
The West used a well-known narrative: imperialist and authoritarian Russia, wishing to absorb neighboring countries, attacked poor democratic Ukraine and decided to tear it apart. Admittedly, this narrative, based entirely on the presumption of Moscow’s guilt, its alleged unwillingness to comply with the principle of territorial integrity of states, partly worked. According to a number of UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia, about half of the African states supported the discourse of Americans and Europeans, although the other half took a neutral position, which was shown by the vote on February 23.
However, it should be noted that, as the special military operation progressed, the opinion of African countries began to change, although this still has little effect on the voting results. Firstly, they were tired of the brazen pressure from the Western bloc, frontal attacks by ambassadors on the offices of heads of state and their foreign policy departments, which began to go beyond all bounds of decency. The frankly stupid statements of the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who in a completely racist way compared Europe to a blooming garden surrounded by a jungle, clearly added insult to injury. Africans were also influenced by the actions of the Ukrainian authorities themselves, who gave priority to white-skinned Europeans when evacuating foreign students from the country, which caused a sharp reaction from the African Union itself.
Africans did not like the persistent attempts of the United States to get African states to support illegal unilateral sanctions imposed by the West against Russia. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen openly threatened African states during her January trip to a number of capitals of the continent that if they disobey, they themselves would fall under sanctions.
Finally, Africa appreciated the balanced approach of Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin, who quickly responded to the concerns of African states regarding a possible shortage of food and received in Sochi on June 3 last year the chairman of the African Union (at that time Macky Sall), accompanied by the chairman of the Afro-Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat. As a result, a so-called grain deal was concluded, which allowed Ukraine to export millions of tons of grain to world markets. However, they almost did not get to Africa, despite the active propaganda both from Kiev and the EU on the “assistance to the poorest countries of Africa.” At the same time, Russian grain remained blocked, despite the sworn assurances of UN Secretary General António Guterres that he would do everything possible to create conditions for the export of Russian grain and supply it to the African countries.
All this fuss, when Africa gets 0.5% of the grain from the grain deal, opened the eyes of many in Africa. So Jeje Odongo, Uganda’s foreign minister, said on February 22: “We were colonized and we forgave those who colonized us. Now the colonialists demand from us that we become enemies of Russia, which has never colonized us. Is that fair? We don’t think so: enemies remained enemies, and friends remained friends.”
This is just one evidence out of many that Africa is not ready to mindlessly follow in the wake of the West. They understand that by advocating for the right to self-determination of Russians in the Crimea, in the Donbas and in other regions of the former USSR, Russia continues its principled line to support the freedom and independence of peoples, as was the case in the 1950s and 1960s in relation to Africa. African countries and peoples should ask themselves the question: would their states have existed if Russia had supported the principle of territorial integrity of states, and not the right of African peoples to self-determination? Russia is not against those who live in Ukraine, but against the Kiev regime oppressing Russian people, preventing them from speaking their native language, destroying their history, monuments and culture. This is what the Western colonialists were doing in Africa and now actively support those whom they put in charge in Kiev.
This truth, thickly flooded with tons of Western Russophobic propaganda, is beginning to come through to the surface of the information ocean, and the peoples of Africa will soon figure out who their real friend is, and who is only pretending to be one.
Oleg Pavlov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
It is “Globalization 2.0.” Indeed, this is how US officials led by Katharine Tai, the US Trade Representative, define the ‘new’ US Economic and Trade policy. “Globalization 1.0.” is said to have its limitations and that “Globalization 2.0” will overcome these limitations for Washington. In a testimony to the US Senate in March 2022, Tai described “Globalization 2.0” as a “worker-centered Trade Policy” – a policy that supposedly puts workers at the center of trade and seeks to enhance labour standards. In reality, the so-called “Globalization 2.0” involves a concerted US effort to rewrite the rulers of the way trade happens across the world. This politics of rewriting trade patterns was given an official articulation in the National Security Strategy published in October 2022. As the document highlights, notwithstanding the umpteen benefits that globalization has offered to the United States, it does need some “adjustment.”
The underlying reason, according to the document, is the emergence of China “as both our most consequential competitor and one of our largest trading partners.” The so-called “adjustment” thus has an anti-China bias, as it also prefers to tie target countries to the US in ways that gives the latter an undue leverage and puts it in a position to protect its own national and global interests at the expense of its so-called allies.
To do this, the US wants to end the era of traditional free trade agreements and begin a new era of trade via new sorts of “economic arrangements” that also include “universal rights of all individuals – political, civil, economic, social and cultural.”
The document advances this vision as a progressive one in opposition to the “less free” one adopted by other countries. But the fact that this new economic model includes an array of vaguely defined set of rights means that the new US economic policy is less related to economics and more to the way polities work around the globe. More than economics, this ‘new’ economic framework is just another means to justify long term US interventions in the target countries to be able to cast them in its own image – something that “Globalization 1.0” seems to have failed to do, as countries like China not only continue to rise and challenge the US hegemony but they are able to do that by sticking to their own styles of politics.
But while the US wants to impose a new paradigm on the world, a closer look at its major manifestation i.e., the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), reveals that this is only an ad hoc arrangement that lacks seriousness, commitment, constancy, and credibility.
The IPEF is not a treaty. Not sure of the Republican support, the Biden administration is offering the IPEFs only as Executive agreements with partner countries. In addition, these agreements will not be legally enforceable without a Congressional approval. What this simply means is that these agreements – the so-called ‘new’ globalization paradigm – is nothing more than an experiment that can be reversed in the future by any president.
For the nations Washington seems to be targeting in the Indo-Pacific to tackle China’s massive rise, this is stark reminder of the way the Trump administration simply pulled Washington out of the Transpacific agreement. Could a post-Biden Democratic and Republican president do the same? This is also reminder of how inconsistent the US been. Starting from the Obama administration’s “Asia Pivot”, the Biden administration’s ad hocism seems to be continuation of discontinuities that are seriously short of anything substantial and long-term.
Indo-Pacific nations are, therefore, skeptical to the extent that the newly appointed Australian ambassador to the US described the US “grand strategy” for the Indo-Pacific lacking a clearly defined economic component. Rudd further argued that current U.S. trade and economic policy was detrimental to curbing Chinese influence in the region because Washington is “happy to throw some of its allies under a bus.” This must have as a rude shock from an otherwise friendly country tied to the US security paradigm via the AUKUS treaty. This must have also come as reminder that a US policy that falls short of substantial – and mutually beneficial – trade pact is unlikely to pay the dividends the US might be seeking.
What is wrong with this ‘new’ paradigm that has made US allies so uncomfortable? Apart from the fact that the ‘new’ agreements are not legally enforceable and do not have longevity, they do not provide the Indo-Pacific nations market access [to the US] as well. For these states, therefore, IPEFS are nothing more than a new form of protectionism the US is implanting. For them, the US’ Indo-Pacific not only does not have a viable economic policy, but what it offers actually seems to be a misfit.
Consider this: the Indo-Pacific region of today is perhaps one of the most integrated regions in the world. The recently concluded Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the under negotiation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are two of the biggest free trade agreements shaping trade and economic in the region. The US thus is selling non-traditional agreements in a region that does not have many buyers.
And since there are no serious buyers of what the US is offering, the US presence in the region is likely to remain limited, falling seriously short of cutting across the dense network of multilateral free trade agreements that define the region’s geography of trade.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
According to the Turkish authorities, the latest earthquake has become the largest natural disaster in the country since 1939. Even so, whereas back then 32,968 people died during the natural disaster in Erzincan and about 100,000 more were injured, today the death toll already exceeds 43.5 thousand people. And every day this sad statistics only increases…
The Turkish authorities, together with volunteer helpers from almost all over the world, are trying to rescue as many people as possible from the rubble and from the continuing tremors. There are already more than 114 thousand people rescued in the southeast of the country. According to the examination conducted by Turkish experts, in order to avoid the destruction of buildings that have been built in recent years without observing proper earthquake safety measures, more than 118 thousand buildings will be demolished, and those guilty of violations of construction standards and the catastrophic destruction of such constructed buildings that followed are arrested. The government has already allocated 100 billion lira ($5.3 billion) for the initial response, but rescue efforts are hampered by harsh winter conditions in areas that are also home to millions of Syrian refugees.
Based on the analysis of the consequences of the İzmit earthquake of 1999, the Confederation of Entrepreneurs and Business Representatives of Turkey has prepared a report on the economic damage to the Turkish economy, estimating it at $84.1 billion. At the same time, Turkey is well aware that this is only a preliminary estimate, and the final figure of economic losses will be more than $ 100 billion.
At the same time, some positive forecasts are coming from Turkish analysts. In particular, with regard to the Russian project to create an international gas hub in Turkey, all the necessary infrastructure for which is located in the north-west of the country, not subjected to the latest devastating earthquake. Also, as reported, the main tourist areas were not affected by the earthquake. In this connection, Turkey’s authorities hope that in the current difficult conditions tourism will greatly support the country’s economy.
Nevertheless, JP Morgan analysts have already indicated that direct damage from earthquakes in Turkey could reach 25% of the country’s GDP. And the World Bank’s regional vice President for the Middle East and North Africa, Ferid Belhaj, bluntly stated in an interview with CNBC that many billions of dollars will be needed for the reconstruction of Turkey and Syria after the devastating earthquake.
Against this background, there is nothing surprising for the current Turkish authorities that the difficulties created by the natural disaster for the country will be actively used by their opponents. And, first of all, the United States, which, manipulating the opposition forces, are stepping up its pressure not only on the government, but also on the position of the Turkish population on the eve of the upcoming elections, and thus shaking Turkey perhaps more than the recent natural cataclysm.
So, through various fake news and information attacks, Washington is actively trying to convey to the population of the country the alleged desirability of postponing the date of the elections currently scheduled for May 14. It is obviously trying to to gain additional time it needs to strengthen the protest movement against Erdoğan, an enemy of the US at this point. At the same time, US and British propaganda sources emphasize that the logistical problems of holding elections in the affected areas are huge. About 13 million people live in the earthquake-hit region, and hundreds of thousands need shelter after their buildings have been destroyed or become unsafe.
And so, apparently following a tip from Washington, a group of lawyers filed a lawsuit against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and senior government officials for their “irresponsibility” regarding the February 6 earthquakes in the southeast of the country. This statement consists of 11 charges of separate crimes, including “premeditated murder and wounding of more than one person,” or “intentional negligence.”
At the same time, Erdoğan’s opponents, who had previously fled the country, became noticeably more active abroad (primarily in the United States). An example of this are, in particular, the statements of Turkish journalist Can Dündar, who lives abroad and was sentenced in absentia to 27 years in prison on charges of espionage and aiding the Gülenist terrorist group, that “Erdoğan came to power after the earthquake of 1999 and will be expelled by the current earthquake.” It is no coincidence that these hot takes, clearly prepared by Anglo-Saxon propagandists to discredit Erdoğan, are completely repeated by the British publication The Telegraph in an article by journalist Mark Almond entitled “This earthquake may be the end of Erdoğan.”
In these circumstances, one should not ignore the demonstratively unexpected closure of embassies of a number of Western countries and the United States at the same time just a few days before the earthquake, allegedly due to fears of terrorist attacks. Especially considering that similar actions were noted before the US attempt to use the Turkish military in 2016 to forcibly change power in the country. Such manipulations by the United States and the West clearly indicate that they are preparing mass riots or a coup even now.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the version of the artificial factor that caused the last earthquake in the region is becoming more and more entrenched in Turkish society. In particular, the head of the Turkish space agency Serdar Hüseyin Yıldırım discusses this topic in detail in his article in Sözcü, telling about weapons that are launched from space and can cause strong earthquakes of magnitude seven to eight. Moreover, no one can detect this attack or repel it.
In order to put pressure on the leadership of the republic, beneficial to the United States and NATO, after the catastrophic earthquake, Western emissaries started coming to Turkey to arrange undisguised bargaining and pressure on the possibility of providing Ankara with American fighters and material assistance in exchange for the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO, as well as for refusing to cooperate with Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who arrived in the earthquake-hit country on February 16, was the first in the caravan of these Washington emissaries, hoping to take advantage of the difficult situation and persuade the Turkish leadership to a decision desirable by Washington. Shortly before that, US aircraft carriers cruised off the coast of Turkey under the guise of “providing assistance,” but in a clear attempt to demonstrate strength before the visit of the Secretary General of the alliance, and then the American Secretary of State, to have a “sobering” effect on Erdoğan and the ruling forces of the country, which, according to Washington, “went too far in defending their interests.”
However, even in today’s difficult conditions for Turkey, on February 20, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu openly complained about Washington’s double standards, including in relations with Turkey, and refused to follow Washington’s lead. Recognizing that the military relations between Turkey and the United States are an important aspect of the bilateral strategic partnership, the Turkish Foreign Minister stressed that Ankara has difficulties due to unilateral sanctions that Washington needs to lift as soon as possible. In particular, with regard to restrictions imposed in 2020 against the Turkish defense industry in connection with Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems.
Valery Kulikov, an expert political scientist, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
A decade ago, discovering every significant media outlet in the western world as tabloid news would have been inconceivable. Well, the unbelievable is all around us pounding pure lies into our brains on behalf of people eviler than Emperor Caligula. Just Google Putin, Russia, or even China, and with some effort, you’ll see what I mean.
In the mainstream, your average American gets, President Joe Biden is some kind of Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman figure. A man who cannot find his way off a stage or navigate the White House lawn is somehow a fit chess competitor for Vladimir Putin. The latest snafu is about his visit with Ukraine’s Zelensky a day before Putin spoke about a new phase of Russian policy. The CNN headline read “Biden’s Ukraine visit upstages Putin and leaves Moscow’s military pundits raging.” As an American who served his country in the military and other capacities, it’s sickening. Get this.
These media outlets and the Neocons have Americans believing a Chinese weather balloon that blew off course was gathering vital US nuclear missile silo intel. And Joe Biden waited until it flew all the way across the country before launching a multi-million-dollar F-22 strike to kill the spy machine. Days later, US fighter pilots shot down UFOs over Alaska. The only positive note after that was the Internet memes poking fun and the senile President and our goofball policies. Oh, but there’s more, oh so much more.
The New York Times and the rest are providing pushback on the Biden-authorized Nord Stream sabotage reported by one of the world’s most respected investigative journalists, Seymour Hersh. The guy who uncovered the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, key facts on Watergate, CIA domestic spy, and a lot more busted the Biden administration for using Navy Seals to detonate undersea charges dooming a Russia to Germany gas pipeline. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist’s revelations should have caused a media frenzy, a UN summit, and a NATO emergency meeting. But the people in charge can’t have that. The story of the decade so far is being slid under the rug. The reason why is explained in something Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said recently:
“In many cases, ruling elites in unfriendly countries do not act of their free will, but only because they must show solidarity within their block. NATO and the EU enforce heavy-handed discipline on their members at the initiative of an aggressive minority.”
“How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline” should be a reason for Biden’s impeachment hearings to be planned. The Germans should be banning US military personnel from their borders. And the Russians should probably go ahead and declare war when it all pans out true. We have this from Hersh’s sources and research:
“Last June, the Navy divers, operating under cover of the highly publicized NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with knowledge of the operational planning.”
The pipelines, which supplied Germany and much of Europe with cheap gas to run industry and fueled the lives of millions, were sabotaged without so much as a mention of the plan to America’s lawmakers. Hersh went on to describe how Biden, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, and Anthony Blinken were key conspirators in the illegal plan to undermine a NATO ally just to get to Putin and Russia. Biden had announced months before, after a meeting with Germany’s Scholz, that if Russia invaded Ukraine, “there would be no pipeline.”
Of course, Biden and his scandalous minions knew Russia had to act to prevent further NATO shenanigans in Ukraine, as we learned from the revelations of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel about the Minsk accords being a ruse. Talk about world-class liars and thugs. America’s leadership makes the worst Israeli mafioso seem harmless as Mickey Mouse. These people will get our world blown up.
Now Biden, Zelensky, all the EU criminals, and even exiled Putin enemy and Russian mafioso Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky have been seen at the Munich Security Council predicting Putin’s demise—some more. Once we’d have thought US presidents, New York Times publishers, and killer thugs kicked from Russia like bullying kids from the schoolyard would be strange bedfellows. But this Biden administration has to be the most corrupt bunch since the days of Al Capone and Lucky Luciano.
Get this, one of the men involved in the Hunter Biden laptop affair, Prof. Gal Luft, is now in leg irons in a Cyprus jail awaiting extradition to the US for, you won’t believe it, being an arms dealer. Luft had helped the FBI and other agencies with highly incriminating facts about Hunter Biden, and now he’s on a path like Jeffrey Epstein or Julian Assange. Hanged by the neck, or something like that. Oh, and congressional investigators are asking who paid millions of dollars for Hunter Biden’s art? The lunacy goes on, and on, and on.
I’ll leave off with the European Parliament bosses blocking public scrutiny of Ursula von der Leyen over a Pfizer contract she clearly benefitted from. And Pfizer gate is not the EU President’s only worry. She’s now pledged another €1 billion for Ukraine’s fast recovery. That is, if there is a Ukraine to rebuild once western weapons and mercenaries force the Russians to obliterate the country just to keep NATO and bio-weapons labs out. For me, it now seems obvious why the liberal world order has gone all in with this proxy war against Russia. If the citizens of our countries ever find out what their leaders have really done, there will be public hangings Mussolini style across the NATO cabal.
So, forget the tabloids except to use reverse psychology for understanding the news. If the White House says we did not blow up Nord Stream, you can bet your last dollar we did. Think about our track record, America’s I mean. Our leaders operate like very drunken Roman senators, and our military operates as if Hannibal were commanding the armed forces of every third-world country. We even have officials swearing that Putin does not have any nuclear weapons. No really. This is where we are with detente in the 21st century, on the verge of a new Dark Ages.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
According to the Sudanese Foreign Ministry, Khartoum is bolstering its lines of communication with Tel Aviv in order to fully normalize relations. After meeting with the head of the Sovereignty Council and other Sudanese officials in February, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen made the announcement.
The goal of the talks, according to a spokesman for Sudan’s supreme court, the Sovereignty Council, was to forge “fruitful relations with Israel” and advance cooperation in a number of areas, including security and military affairs. According to the council statement, Sudanese leaders also discussed the necessity of achieving “stability between Israel and the Palestinian people,” but they omitted any mention of full diplomatic ties or the establishment of embassies in each nation. However, according to three military officials from Sudan, Eli Cohen’s visit “marked progress on the issue of normalization,” according to the Associated Press.
Eli Cohen, the first Israeli foreign minister to visit Sudan on official business, also had a meeting with Ali al-Sadiq, the Sudanese foreign minister. Cohen announced, upon his arrival at the Tel Aviv airport after visiting Khartoum, that Israel and Sudan had decided to work toward a “peace agreement.” I’m happy to report that during the visit, we decided to sign a peace treaty between Sudan and Israel after Khartoum has a civilian government in place.
It will be recalled that in 2020 Sudan joined Morocco, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates in ratifying the “Abrahamic Accords,” which were mediated by the United States and established full diplomatic relations. However, in Sudan, the procedure came to a standstill as a result of strong public opposition. Then, in October 2021, a military coup overthrew the previous Sudanese government, upsetting the country’s precarious democratic transition to new political structures. Nevertheless, as the Associated Press reported, citing one of the three military officials without providing any additional information, “behind the scenes talks” between Israeli and Sudanese military and intelligence officials continue. Early in 2022, Sudanese Army Chief of Staff Abdel Fattah al-Burhan defended previous encounters between Israeli and Sudanese officials in public, claiming that the intelligence sharing allegedly assisted in the detention of alleged militants in Sudan.
Israeli authorities made no immediate comments. Before taking off for France, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did, however, imply that something was being prepared. He noted that earlier in the day, Chad, which borders Sudan, opened its embassy in Israel and added, “We continue to expand the circle of peace.” Netanyahu, who took back office in December, continued, “We will continue to broaden and deepen the circle of peace with additional countries, both nearby and far.” Building relationships with African and Arab nations that had previously been hostile to Israel was a top priority for his government during his previous 12-year term as prime minister.
Even though Sudan is embroiled in a severe political and economic crisis, a deal with an African nation would be very valuable to Israel, even though it lacks the influence and wealth of the Gulf Arab nations. Sudan used to be one of the Arab world’s most vocal opponents of Israel, and the United States even designated Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993. In order to aid Sudan’s struggling economy, end its pariah status, and act as a motivator to normalize relations with Israel, the Trump administration removed Sudan from that list in 2020.
But at the same time, even Khartoum’s gradual move toward normalizing relations with Tel Aviv has caused “widespread resentment and anger” in Sudan. A series of statements by a wide range of Sudanese politicians, local resistance committees, and Sudanese and Arab activists stressed that no step by the Sovereignty Council toward normalizing relations with Israel was “binding on the Sudanese people.”
“The ruling power in Sudan is struggling to get foreign support, even if it comes from the devil. But it does not express the will and desire of the Sudanese people,” said al-Walid Ali of the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA). The resistance committees denounced the “normalization agreement” with Israel as a “humiliation,” adding: “It is completely divorced from the values and history of the Sudanese people as opposed to attempts to legitimize the [Israeli] occupation and its terrorist practices.” In addition, 28 political parties, blocs, and organizations signed a charter for the creation of the Popular Forces of Resistance to Normalization. The signatories include the Popular Congress Party, the Reform Now movement, the Just Peace Forum party, the Independent Youth Assembly, and the Sudanese Ulema Organization.
Despite so much opposition, there has been notable progress toward normalization. The rapprochement between Khartoum and Tel Aviv began about three years ago. The first milestone was a meeting between General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, chairman of the Sovereignty Council, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Entebbe, Uganda, in February 2020. Almost a year later, in January 2021, the Justice Minister in Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s government signed the so-called “Abraham Accords” with the visiting US Treasury Secretary. The document was largely symbolic and indicated Sudan’s intentions to move forward with normalization. In April 2021 the government, under pressure from the Sovereignty Council, passed a law repealing the 1958 law calling for a boycott of Israel. The law prohibits all political, commercial and other forms of contact with the Israeli state, and violations are punishable by up to ten years in prison, a fine and confiscation of assets.
If official negotiations were able to overcome the “freeze” in relations between Khartoum and Tel Aviv a few years ago, they have not achieved a breakthrough in Sudanese public opinion or a positive perception of Israel. In fact, for that matter, Sudanese public attitudes toward Israel have even hardened in response to the practices of the Israeli occupation. With the recent killing of ten Palestinian civilians by the occupation forces in Jenin, the racist anti-Palestinian statements of Israeli Interior Minister Ben-Gvir, the storming of the Al-Aqsa mosque by Israeli settlers, and other acts of brutality and provocation, outrage in Sudan, as elsewhere in the world, is growing. As if to perpetuate the cycle of violence that begets violence, Israel has intensified and expanded its attacks on Palestinians in retaliation for the recent Palestinian suicide bombings.
In seeking closer relations with Israel, the Sudanese authorities hope to achieve a number of goals. First of all, they understand that the revival and development of the crisis plaguing the Sudanese economy depends to some extent on improved relations with Israel. They believe it has the international clout to help lift UN sanctions, allocate development aid, and encourage foreign direct investment. They also believe that establishing relations with Israel would ease US pressure in certain contentious areas. Tel Aviv could help convince Washington to support the lifting of international sanctions, as well as lifting the sanctions the US itself imposed on Khartoum, and reviving the US-Sudanese partnership in development, investment and trade.
During his recent visit to Israel in January, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced that Sudan would soon join the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco in signing the Abrahamic Accords. He said that his government hopes to further expand the normalization of relations between Israel and other countries in the region if Sudanese-Israeli relations are eventually resolved. The Sudanese authorities hope and try to take advantage of this desire of Washington. On the African continent, Khartoum believes that Israel could help solve problems with some regional powers. For example, the Israelis have considerable influence in Addis Ababa and could play a role in reducing tensions between Sudan and Ethiopia over border disputes.
Israel, for its part, seeks to increase its influence in Africa, and Sudan can serve as an important gateway to this goal. Tehran has recently taken advantage of France’s withdrawal from a number of West African countries to expand its influence there. Tel Aviv perceives this as a threat to its interests and intends to counter it. Normalization of relations with Arab and Islamic countries will help to achieve this goal, and there could be further successes in expanding the scope of the process, which, according to Israel, will reduce the intensity of criticism of Israeli actions against the Palestinians and, possibly, improve Israel’s image in the region.
Apparently, the Sudanese authorities, especially the Sovereignty Council, believe that they can weather the storm of popular anger if they continue to sign the Abrahamic Accords. Of course, they must believe that pragmatic considerations must prevail amidst unstable domestic, regional, and international circumstances and at a time when the Sudanese economy is getting worse and worse. It remains to be seen whether Khartoum will be able to use improved relations with Israel to its advantage against Sudan’s regional and international adversaries.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The People’s Republic of Bangladesh seeks to maintain a special status in the global geopolitical arena by refusing to join any defense alliances and attempting to remain neutral. This trend can be explained by the fact that China and India account for approximately 35% of all Bangladeshi imports, primarily machinery and energy resources, while the West accounts for approximately 60% of Bangladeshi exports, primarily textiles. A deterioration in relations with Beijing, Washington, or New Delhi could completely destabilize the economy of this relatively poor country of 171 million people, resulting in a serious domestic political crisis.
The Russian embassy in Bangladesh reported on February 16, 2023, that 69 Russian tankers and cargo ships had lost their right to call at Bangladeshi ports. These ships are owned by seven Russian companies that have been sanctioned unilaterally by Western countries. Bangladesh has thus demonstrated its adherence to US sanctions policy.
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, Dhaka’s decision will not halt trade between Russia and Bangladesh because only specific ships have been sanctioned. Russia will continue to receive Bangladeshi textiles. Russian wheat exports to Bangladesh will not be halted.
As of today, sanctioned Russian vessels are not only prohibited from calling at Bangladeshi ports, but also from remaining in Bangladeshi territorial waters for additional refueling.
According to many analysts, Bangladesh’s aggressive actions against Russia are due to Dhaka’s economic dependence on Washington, which can severely harm the developing country’s well-being by refusing to buy textile products. For example, many NATO armies’ uniforms are manufactured in Bangladeshi factories.
The United States is not interested in Bangladesh starting operation of the Ruppur nuclear power plant (NPP), which is under construction from 2021 according to the Russian project. It is scheduled to begin operations in 2024. The US government recognizes that launching the plant will significantly boost Russia’s credibility and influence in Bangladesh.
Under US pressure, the Bangladeshi government stripped the Russian vessel Ursa Major of its previously granted right to enter the port in December 2022. The ship was transporting equipment for the nuclear power plant’s construction.
According to the Russian side, the Ruppur NPP will be built, but it will take more time and resources to complete because the necessary equipment must now be delivered by ships from other countries.
In any case, Russia’s position in Bangladesh has weakened, and the likelihood that Bangladesh will abandon its anti-Russian sanctions policy is, unfortunately, quite low, because, as previously stated, Dhaka’s exports are almost entirely linked to the United States and its allies.
In addition to the United States, Bangladesh places a high value on improving relations with China, as Beijing is Dhaka’s primary import partner. In 2017, Dhaka joined China’s Belt and Road infrastructure project, which allows Beijing to market its goods to Africa through the Indian Ocean. On November 29, 2022, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian congratulated Bangladesh on the completion of South Asia’s first underwater tunnel and stated that the Belt and Road Initiative will continue to be developed. The Chinese diplomat also stated that the Belt and Road Initiative is critical to improving transportation connectivity between Bangladesh and its neighbors.
The Bangladeshi political elite’s public speeches frequently demonstrate their interest in developing relations with China and keeping up with developments in that country. On December 31, 2022, Mohammad Abdur Razzaque, one of Bangladesh’s leading economists and the head of the local think tank Integration of Research and Policy for Development, told the Chinese news agency Xinhua that he expects China’s economy to grow faster in 2023. M. Razzaque also stated that, based on his observations, there will be a noticeable decline in inflation in many countries in 2023, which will help increase demand for Chinese goods and services. At the same time, the Bangladeshi economist stated that China’s recent support for international infrastructure projects has become critical to the entire region of Eurasia.
Bangladesh attempts to remain diplomatically neutral in the geopolitical conflict between China and India. Dhaka and New Delhi have numerous important trade agreements, and almost all of Bangladesh’s territory is surrounded by Indian territory.
It is worth noting that relations between Bangladesh and India have always been excellent. This is largely due to the fact that many Bangladeshis remember their country gaining independence from Pakistan in 1971 as a result of the Indian army’s actions. The two countries share a cultural affinity: approximately 8% of Bangladeshis practice Hinduism, India’s most common religion, and the Indian states of West Bengal and Tripura are home to approximately 70 million Bengalis, Bangladesh’s titular nation.
Bangladesh’s leadership will not reduce its partnership with India in order to expand the dialogue with China, because such a move would be perceived negatively by a large portion of the country’s population.
To summarize, Bangladesh seeks to maintain good relations with the two global hegemons, China and the United States, as well as friendship with its closest neighbor, India, through its neutrality. Bangladesh’s leadership is unlikely to reconsider its foreign policy because a hypothetical refusal of Dhaka to cooperate with the West is difficult because China and India do not require as many textile products. In turn, the Western bloc is unable to supply Dhaka with machinery at the price that Beijing does. Furthermore, the United States and its allies lack the resources that China has to implement its own international infrastructure projects, such as the Belt and Road Initiative in Eurasia, which includes Bangladesh. As a result, Dhaka’s balancing act between Beijing, Washington, and New Delhi will be maintained.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
For a long time, the world has been gripped by a rivalry between the two major superpowers, the People’s Republic of China and the United States, which is primarily economic in nature but inevitably affects science and technology. Any significant technological advancement becomes a field of Sino-American competition.
Lithium-ion batteries (LIB), for example, are now extensively used as a source of energy in a wide range of devices that surround modern man. To get an idea of the gigantic scale of LIB production and the size of their market, consider that they are most commonly used as a power element in cell phones, laptops, and drones.
In recent years, as the ideology of fighting for the environment has spread in developed countries, industries such as the electric vehicle industry have gained traction. According to some projections, electric vehicle sales could account for up to 28% of total automobile sales by 2030. Despite their dubious economic and environmental impact, electric vehicles are a highly fashionable and rapidly developing industry that is attracting massive investments. Because electric cars use LIBs, it is only natural to assume that whoever controls the majority of the LIB market for electric vehicles will enjoy enormous profits and influence.
Of course, the resource base serves as the foundation for production. The metal lithium is used in the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries. There are an estimated 86 million tons of this metal in the world.
In descending order, Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile have the world’s largest lithium reserves, and their borders meet in the so-called “lithium triangle” – the world’s largest deposit of this mineral. The United States is in the fourth place, followed by Australia, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Canada, Germany, and Mexico. Australia is currently the largest producer of lithium among these countries. However, in order to begin full-scale production, additional resources, as well as the necessary scientific and technical foundation and industrial infrastructure, are required. As a result, it is not surprising that mainland China, which has both, is the world’s leading producer of LIB.
China is the world’s third-largest lithium producer. However, almost all of the lithium mined in Australia is processed there. 51% of Greenbushes, Australia’s largest lithium miner, are owned by Tianqi Lithium, a Chinese company. SQM, one of the world’s largest lithium mining companies, operates in the aforementioned Latin American “lithium triangle,” and 23% of its shares belong to the same Tianqi Lithium.
At the same time, China is expanding the development of its own lithium deposits. Large new lithium deposits, for example, were discovered in 2020 in the southwest of China, near the city of Yuxi, where it was decided to establish a full LIB production cycle – from material extraction to finished batteries. In Yuxi, a special lithium battery team was formed to attract investment in the development of an industrial chain for mining, processing, and marketing finished products. At the site, a new plant for producing anode material for LIB has already been constructed. This plant is expected to have a capacity of up to 200,000 tons by the end of 2024. Yuxi city government intends to make its city one of the most important centers of LIB production, with a $100 billion turnover by 2025.
China has produced more than 75% of the LIBs entering the global market in recent years. According to data for the first quarter of 2022, the leading producer of LIBs for electric vehicles is the Chinese company CATL, which captured 35% of the global market, ahead of South Korean competitor LG Energy. BYD, another Chinese company, came in third place. In the coming years, all three companies intend to increase production and competition.
Germany, which, as previously stated, is one of the ten countries with the largest natural lithium reserves, is preparing to compete for the global lithium-ion market. Large investments are planned in German LIB production in the near future, with the goal of making Germany the second-largest producer of Li-ion batteries in the world by 2025. But it is clear that China is the undisputed leader, and it has no intention of relinquishing its position.
However, given the modern world’s continuous growth in LIB consumption and production, one can confidently predict that humanity will face a lithium shortage and competition for its deposits sooner or later, just as it is now with hydrocarbon fuels. If the “green” ideology’s predicted complete switchover to electric cars is the near future of humanity, then the state or corporation with the most control over lithium supplies will be one of the most powerful forces on the global stage. As a result, the most ambitious and powerful states may be concerned about controlling lithium deposits in less developed and less independent countries even now. This assumption may add new hues to the current geopolitical clash between the superpowers China and the United States.
This article has already mentioned Chinese companies’ involvement in lithium production in Australia and Latin America (the “lithium triangle” of Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile). It should be noted that both Australia and Latin America are accustomed to viewing the United States as their sphere of influence. It appears that Washington will take steps in the near future to reduce Chinese influence in the Australian and Latin American lithium industries. Given how easily it forced Canberra to cancel its largest defense contract with France in 2021, the US is likely to succeed without much difficulty in Anglo-Saxon Australia. Latin America could prove more difficult: China seeks to establish itself as firmly as possible in this “US backyard,” working bilaterally and collectively with each Latin American country in the China-Latin America and Caribbean Forum, as well as the Belt and Road global transport and economic initiative. Reports of a Chinese electronic reconnaissance base recently discovered in Cuba attest to Beijing’s successes and serious intentions in the Western Hemisphere.
As previously stated, Canada has significant lithium reserves. Canada, like Australia and Latin America, is in the American sphere of influence, so its allegiance to the White House is understandable.
Germany, which is known to have US military bases, is also unlikely to abandon Washington.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo has some of the world’s largest lithium reserves. There is a chance that China and the United States will engage in a fierce competition for the DRC’s lithium resources in the coming years.
As lithium’s role in the global industry grows, we can expect increased competition between the US and China for lithium resources, primarily in Africa and Latin America. This could become an important new component of the already-existing global Sino-American rivalry.
Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
A few days after the recent wave of earthquakes hit Turkey and Syria a close contact, a friend with a Turkish wife, wrote to me: “Luckily we’re all safe, but some of our friends’ relatives are still buried under the rubble. Many of the rescue problems can be attributed to the terrible performance of the AFAD, the ruling Turkish political party, personally directed by the dictator, which has concentrated rescue efforts only in the areas where his party gets votes. He sent cranes and machines without operators to the Hatay region, so they are perfectly useless.”
As my contact predicted, aside from his political disdain for the Turkish leadership, “A tragedy is taking place, unfortunately, because many people were still alive under the collapsed buildings.” This is history that we should know, even Jack London wrote about being an eyewitness to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, and how not in history has a modern city been so completely destroyed
The mainstream media is now showing all, as more and more bodies are pulled from the rubble. This is to be expected in Turkey and Syria, as most of their buildings do not meet safety standards, as can be seen in the aftermath of the recent quakes. Could the quake’s aftermath have turned out differently—a happier ending, a totally different outcome?
The scale of this tragedy would not have been so significant if houses and other buildings had been constructed differently, but there are corruption and poverty all around and a war in Syria. Apparently no one pays close attention to the seismic integrity of buildings and rescue contingency plans, disaster relief, even for anticipated events, Turkey having had a long history of deadly earthquakes.
As the dust settles, questions are being asked about construction scams and the politics that allowed unsafe structures to be built. The earthquake, which also hit northern Syria, has “so far” claimed more than 35,000 lives in Turkey and 6,000 in Syria.
Many lives could have been saved, even though Turkey and the region sit on top of major fault lines. Turkey is often shaken by earthquakes, so they knew sooner or later that history could repeat itself. Many factors are involved, especially human one when it comes to the impact.
It is well known amongst engineers that the amount of death and destruction depends on the distance from the centre of the earthquake, depth, what kind of soils and bedrock foundations are based upon, and the quality of building materials and structural design.
Disaster waiting to happen
So now to focus on another disaster waiting to happen: this region, including the Caucasus, knows a bit about earthquakes from bitter memories, especially Armenia, whose last BIG one in 1988 had similar results, nearly 50,000 dead, creating economic aftershocks still felt today. Even now there have been some smaller quakes, in Armenia and elsewhere in the region, as this was going to press.
In Georgia, especially Batumi and Tbilisi, many are now waking up to the realisation that the same could happen, and even worse. It is claimed by various sources that 80 percent of residential buildings in Tbilisi do not meet seismic resistance requirements.
“An earthquake with a magnitude of more than 7 points would wipe off the face of the earth more than 70% of Tbilisi, we may face a catastrophe,” said Irakli Rostomashvili, head of the Association of Builders.
According to him, the percentage of modern houses in the capital that could withstand an 8 magnitude earthquake is small; however, most of the buildings are of older construction. A separate threat is posed by unauthorised superstructures, changes in layouts and demolitions of load-bearing walls in residential buildings.
It is debatable if only older buildings pose a risk. Many of the buildings built during Soviet times were over-constructed, and over-engineered, at least in my opinion. Georgia is not Japan, as in Japan they have special foundations that move and act like shock absorbers to mitigate the energy of a quake.
It is worth noting that Japan is a leader in engineering earthquake-proof structures, helping to limit damage and save lives. We might also note that the first earthquake-proof building in the world was constructed in Italy back in 1570, and the centre of Lisbon contains a large number of such buildings, erected after the 1755 earthquake, so the relevant knowledge and expertise have been around for a long time.
However, this knowledge is now limited, so it appears, to the high earthquake risk regions of the world. Georgy Boychenko, head of the geology department of the Georgian National Centre for Seismic Monitoring, says that Georgia is still guided by an outdated seismic risk map developed in 1999. “In 2020, the centre, together with foreign experts, compiled a new map, but it has not yet to be approved.”
Flaws in Construction Methods and Materials
As in Turkey, the common Georgian construction method of using a concrete skeleton with cinder block infill walls is a disaster waiting to happen. The cinder blocks (hollow concrete blocks) are used without steel reinforcing and concrete in the voids, which are supposed to be there. There is also a tendency to cheat on the reinforcing bars in the structural members, using smaller diameter bars, and fewer than is necessary to meet new standards.
Hence old-fashioned corruption and greed, cutting corners and reducing costs, are the main reasons this potential calamity exists. Corruption can happen in any country, Georgia or the UK.
It is also worth noting that concrete is often not properly vibrated, resulting in separation between cement and aggregate, which further reduces the structural strength. Often the reinforcing, re-bars, are exposed to water because of insufficient concrete cover, which causes rust damage etc.
Often builders let concrete dry before it cures too, but this is not what concrete needs, as a chemical reaction is taking place. By not controlling the curing process during hot weather and low humidity, and also pouring in cold water without special additives or heating the mix, the mix loses strength and is subject to structural failure, especially when combined with other requirements for structural concrete as noted above.
I have been discussing this topic with foreigners, including new Russian residents in Georgia, and one responded:
“But about the integrity, yes, you are right, the old-timers were not idiots to build like this— but the state of the building is critical.”
Wakeup Call
Half of the historic architecture in Tbilisi already has cracks in the walls. It won’t need an earthquake to make it fall down in the next decades. Much “renovated” historical architecture might have been brought up to “euro-standard,” at least to outward appearances, by using the cheapest cement and cinder blocks on the market. So there will be a lot of variability.
Also, even under the best constructed building the foundations may have shifted slightly over time, given Tbilisi’s underlying geological and seismic structure. The older the building, the more time there is for a shift to occur, although once again the specific context of what underlies each dwelling will play a role.
These days you see skyscrapers being built directly within landslide zones. Engineers just add a few more hopes and prayers to the foundation!
Many of the Soviet era buildings in Georgia were only designed to withstand earthquakes of 6 on the seismic scale. No one wanted to admit an 8 was possible unless the anti-earthquake structures were in more glamorous locations. In Georgia, “if it used to be 6 bali, now it has become 8.”
Therefore, most of the buildings built during the Soviet Union cannot withstand the magnitude of earthquake now occurring in the region, at least in theory. Nevertheless, many buildings built during the Soviet Union are of better construction and quality than those we see today.
The King David Complex in Tbilisi, an Israeli investment, appears to have a very solid foundation, at least to those who are not engineers. To them it is structurally very solid, built on a rock, but as for the rest of the building, it is hard to tell.
Let us hope it does not go the way of the original King David, which gave us the definition of terrorism when the Zionists blew up that building, the British Headquarters in Jerusalem. Particularly as the King David in Tbilisi may be built on rock, but that rock is quite fragile and very fragmented—like shale rock.
One lady who has peer reviewed some of these comments asked me, “has Georgia experienced an earthquake above 6 since Soviet times?” I responded, not to my personal knowledge, perhaps this has happened elsewhere in Georgia but the epicentre was not in close proximity to Tbilisi or any regional towns.
About 10 years ago there was a quake and some old buildings lost walls and became so damaged that people could not continue to live in them. Though not many of those in business and government would agree, it is clear to many others that if an earthquake stronger than a 6 on the seismic scale hits Tbilisi, most buildings, old and new, won’t hold up.
Rumours Run Deep
Nonetheless, rumours are spreading on social networks about an alleged strong earthquake possibility in Tbilisi. It all started with WhatsApp and Viber chats. It is not known who served as the personal source. The National Earth Institute was even forced to issue a statement that although Georgia is a seismically active zone, short-term forecasts are not possible here. “I also urge you to use only trusted sources”, said a spokesperson, which raises the usual question of what constitutes a trusted source, and who it is that trusts it.
Knowing the history, based on local sources, there is a basis for concern over the structural and financial integrity of the Georgian and regional construction industry. An equal concern is that we are never likely to know the facts, as too many significant financial interests are involved in creating fictions to generate more income rather than solving problems others will inevitably inherit.
Case Study
One British engineer who worked for 15 years in the construction industry in Georgia, now deceased, conducted a project risk analysis for the city which looked at threats to the continuation of projects. This did not only make a connection to the construction industry but several other aspects, including relations to EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the status of various ongoing projects and “possible” money laundering schemes.
A current case in point is the project for the redevelopment of 7 Freedom Square, opposite the Marriott Courtyard Hotel. They’re just receiving tenders for the construction management of that job, but it is likely to run into problems, much the same as Cinema City, once touted as a major project but now on the back burner until later.
These are both amongst a number of projects run by GRDC, the Georgian Reconstruction and Development Company. These are managed by a British guy with Middle Eastern connections, who follows in a long line of others of similar descriptions involved in money laundering building projects for players such as RAK, the development agency for one of the United Arab Emirates.
For a “Project Delivery Director”, this man doesn’t seem to deliver very much. He does however appear to have a stake in both the Freedom Square project and Cinema City. All of the GRDC funding comes from the EBRD, so it has to be reasonably clean, if not squeaky clean, as the EBRD has strict rules about how and whom it lends money to. But how that money is then divvied up is a secondary consideration.
Another project run by the same team, in collaboration with TBC Bank at the time, was to redevelop Tbilisi Railway Station. As with many others, this has design problems, which although solvable mean that the original design will not survive an earthquake.
Confidential list of construction companies working with TBC bank, provided by employees:
Meridaian Reality, Gia Guruili; 7Sky, Konstantian Didzidzishvili/Jeffrey-Geoffrey Keys, Reality Group, Jeam Shamugia; Ltd Nike, Jemal Shamugia; Ltd Nike; Eldar Kobakhadze; Company New Styple, Nika Papidze; Axis Construction, Merab Akubar
Often developers are just too ambitious with what they want to do, and hopefully the new generation of builders is more responsible, and they think of the long-term consequences. But in reality they too will also take any amount of risk for the sake of money, and the connections it brings, as this makes them more attractive to those who want such a building against their name before it collapses during someone else’s tenure.
It was pointed out at the time that a mag 6 earthquake might shift the columns supporting the floors above. Once it became necessary to deconstruct entire buildings to fix them, or start over from scratch, GRDC started to lose interest, looking forward to the next big project and payday.
The financial system and political stability of Georgia could come crashing down if some things are proved to be lacking in structural integrity, especially in the newer and “elite” construction projects. So many people are staking their own credibility on construction, despite the half-builds abandoned after the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict, that the country as a whole will be caught with its pants down should something go wrong.
No one wants to learn the lessons of the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria because they want to be seen to be better than those countries to get more construction funds. So the cycle begins again, with the ordinary population as ever bottom of the list.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Recently, reports that Pakistan, which previously attempted to portray itself as a supporter of Russia, started to provide assistance to Ukraine, including weapons, against the backdrop of the special operation carried out by Moscow against the neo-fascist regime of Kyiv, have been increasingly published by media outlets other than Ukrainian and Indian media.
Islamabad’s “political swing” has previously been noted. Consider the early 1970s, when Pakistan was in the grip of an economic crisis, and to get out of it, then-Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto decided to “interest” the socialist camp by announcing a course to build Islamic socialism and turned to Moscow for assistance. During his state visit to the Soviet Union in 1974, Bhutto requested financial assistance, which Moscow granted to Pakistan at the time, financing the construction of metallurgical plants, modernization of the energy sector, and agricultural development. However, when the time came to repay the loans received, Pakistan, after the coup d’état, by the decision of the army general Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, who headed the country, declared all the agreements concluded by his predecessor with the USSR “corrupt” and refused to honor previous agreements with Moscow.
Furthermore, influenced by Washington, Zia-ul-Haq engaged in military action with the USSR in Afghanistan and provided military assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen. Pakistani soldiers engaged in direct armed clashes with Soviet troops during the process, and camps for Soviet prisoners of war were established on Pakistani territory, where they were subjected to the most heinous tortures.
When it came time to repay the American loans, Islamabad remembered Moscow yet again. As a result of the terrorist attack, Zia-ul-Haq was killed and Pakistan announced its desire for “rapprochement” with Russia and China. The result was Pakistan’s accession to the SCO in 2017. The PRC became Pakistan’s largest investor, and it was one of the main participating countries in China’s One Belt, One Road project.
After Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine, Islamabad experienced another (this time a parliamentary) coup, as a result of which the new authorities of this country announced a policy of rapprochement with the West and began, at the request of Washington, to cooperate with the neo-fascist Kyiv, supplying it with weapons and ammunition.
Though, the close military cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine did not start today but since 1991 within the framework of bilateral arms contracts. Under these contracts, Pakistan used Kyiv’s assistance to repair its fleet of over 320 T-80 tanks purchased from Ukraine.
In May 2022, Ukrainian singer Kamaliya Zahoor, who is married to Pakistani citizen businessman Mohammad Zahoor, announced to Ukrainian media that Pakistan had handed over two fighter planes to Ukraine just in the first three months of Moscow’s special operation against the Kyiv regime.
In 2022, Pakistan became an important link in the transfer of British weapons to Ukraine. It became known that in August 2022, military aircraft delivered weapons to Romania from Pakistan’s Nur Khan Air Base in Rawalpindi, bypassing the airspace of Iran and Afghanistan, via the British airbase on the Mediterranean Sea. The British Air Force C-17A Globemaster III made at least five flights between August 6 and 14. And, taking into account the loading capacity of the C-17, it was able to transport about 400 tons of Pakistani ammunition for the needs of the AFU. Although there was no official communication from either the United Kingdom or Pakistan about the nature of the cargo transported, videos of Ukrainian artillerymen unpacking artillery shells produced by the Pakistani military-industrial complex spread in social networks.
In addition to the air bridge, the media reported that container shipping was used to transport weapons from Pakistan to Ukraine. Thus, the Pakistani shipping company Project Shipping delivered 146 containers from Pakistani artillery factories from Karachi. This included 50,000 artillery shells, which were transported through the Polish port of Gdansk. Also involved in the transport of Pakistani weapons is Islamabad-based supplier DMI Associates, which has recently been working closely with defense firms in Eastern Europe to supply the Ukrainian army.
According to The Economic Times, On February 11 this year, a shipment of over 10,000 rockets intended for use in Grad MLRS was shipped from the port of Karachi to the German port of Emden for later use by the AFU in the Western-inspired armed conflict with Russia.
According to unconfirmed information, Washington and London have recently been persistently persuading the current Pakistani authorities to re-export to the Kyiv regime some of the Ukrainian T-80 tanks previously purchased from Kyiv as part of their plans to replenish the Ukrainian army with combat tanks to counter Russia.
It should be noted that during the previous Islamabad regime, Pakistani-Ukrainian relations were governed by the precise policy of previous Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, who avoided conflict with Russia and criticized the US. However, the Pakistani army, which openly despised him and played a role in his dismissal, did not share his criticism of US policies or desire for constructive cooperation with Russia. Furthermore, Islamabad’s current and former ambassadors to Ukraine, who have military backgrounds, have had a significant impact on the development and intensification of military cooperation with Kyiv.
In this regard, during Imran Khan’s presidency, Pakistan’s policy in Ukraine was not overtly anti-Russian. However, after Moscow launched the special operation in Ukraine and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif took office, not only the rhetoric but also the policy of Islamabad changed dramatically. In order to solve its financial and economic problems and support the national military-industrial circles, Pakistan has emphasized its support for the Ukrainian army’s requests in a climate of secrecy, in contrast to the United States and Britain, on which it has recently become oriented.
The desire of Islamabad not to publicize its support for the Ukrainian army and to conduct such affairs in secrecy is clearly due to the fact that if it officially recognizes such actions, Moscow may make significant changes to the plans for Russia’s participation in bilateral cooperation in the energy sector, which were recently discussed with Pakistan. Furthermore, given Beijing’s very different position from Islamabad on the operation in Ukraine, Sino-Pakistani relations, which are very important for the Pakistani economy here, may be subject to revision.
And, given the obvious interest of ordinary Pakistanis in the expansion and deepening of economic cooperation with China and Russia, the Sharif administration’s decision to engage in the Ukrainian conflict in order to appease Washington and London is unlikely to strengthen its position in the country…
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The United Kingdom is one of Mongolia’s main “third neighbors,” according to Mongolia’s current foreign policy concept. Neither its limited participation in global political and economic processes, nor its extreme geographical distance from Mongolia in comparison to Japan and South Korea, removes it from the list of Mongolia’s key “third neighbor” partners. The United Kingdom is one of Mongolia’s top ten trading partners and a significant investor in its economy. During the pre-Pandemic period, 80-90% of Mongolia’s exports to European countries were sent to the United Kingdom, and trade turnover reached 700 million dollars.
In 2023, the countries will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of official diplomatic relations. In 1963, the United Kingdom became the first “capitalist country” to establish relations with Mongolia, thereby greatly expanding its “geography of international recognition.” Nonetheless, the 60th anniversary celebrations are not being used to disguise Mongolian foreign policy: all related activities are limited to cultural and scientific exchanges. The sides held several art and postal exhibitions and awarded special medals to citizens who contributed the most to the development of bilateral relations. At the same time, no significant political or economic documents were issued to commemorate this significant anniversary. Is it, however, worth downplaying its significance in this context? And, if not, what makes Mongolia’s relations with the United Kingdom so “unique”?
First of all, the experience of Mongolian-British relations shows the ability of European states to build cooperation with Mongolia on their own without the mediation of European supranational institutions. Since the mid-2000s, there has been a duty-free trade agreement between the European Union and Mongolia, which is part of the economic support program for developing democracies. After Great Britain’s exit from the EU, the bilateral treaties of the European Union became invalid, but were soon restored as a purely Mongolian-British treaty. This shows that some European countries have a real economic interest in Mongolia, which is not limited to purely political and ideological partnerships.
The specifics of the Mongolian-British educational partnership are also noteworthy. A sizable proportion of Mongolian students studying in the United Kingdom as part of various programs receive technical rather than liberal arts education. In general, Western counterparts in developing Eastern countries are primarily concerned with spreading their sociocultural and political agendas, and such programs are used to meet these needs. Nonetheless, Britain is assisting Mongolia in making up for the country’s acute shortage of technical personnel, which is exacerbated by the country’s growing industrial enterprises. This could imply that London has long-term interests in Mongolia’s mining industry and the products it produces. Furthermore, the United Kingdom funds several English-language training programs for Mongolian peacekeepers serving in UN missions. This cooperation helps to advance an important Mongolian foreign policy priority, such as active participation in international processes and collaboration with international organizations.
Economic relations with the United Kingdom are also extremely promising for Mongolia because of the dominance of Mongolian exports over imports and the high degree of processing of Mongolian exports. Mongolian clothing, gold, treated leather, cashmere and wool, and jewelry, in particular, have found a place in a market that is not the most accessible in the world, but has significant foreign relations, both with the EU and with North American countries. This situation appears especially favorable in light of Mongolia’s current foreign trade policy, which seeks to reduce raw material exports at the expense of developing the manufacturing industry. This is especially true for Mongolian wool, leather, and cashmere, all of which are important exports to the United Kingdom.
The mining industry demonstrates the UK’s willingness to embrace technological innovation in bilateral economic ties. Rio Tinto, for example, has signed an agreement with the Mongolian government to invest in Oyu Tolgoi, one of Mongolia’s most promising but technically challenging deposits. It is the country’s largest copper and gold deposit, and it has remained undeveloped for many years due to its deep bedding. Its development, carried out by the technological base of the British mining giant, will be a one-of-a-kind experience in creating the country’s largest deposit, which will be mined by the mine method rather than the open pit method.
To summarize, the British-Mongolian experience can serve as a signal for the development of Mongolia’s relations with individual European states, which can only strengthen Mongolia’s foreign policy’s “third neighbor” component. For example, Mongolia’s negotiations with the Federal Republic of Germany to establish a comprehensive strategic partnership could benefit from this experience. That country is at the top of Mongolia’s list of potential new strategic partners.
Examining the specifics of Britain’s bilateral cooperation with Mongolia leads to the conclusion that the “third neighbor” is more than just a balancing tool between Russia and China and an ideological paradigm for expanding Western influence in the country; it is also a significant force for the development of Mongolia’s economy, capable of offering many mutually beneficial initiatives that the immediate neighbors may be silent on.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The leaders of the “generalized West” have recently demonstrated their cavalier behavior, even with their own key allies. It is sufficient to refer to everything that surrounds one of the most significant terrorist attacks of this century, which occurred in the Baltic Sea.
Against this backdrop, US Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel stated at a press conference on February 15 that he expects the Japanese parliament to pass “clear and unambiguous” legislation to protect the rights of sexual minorities.
It had a multifaceted backstory, which can be summarized briefly. But first, let’s get to the point. The fact is that traditionalism can still be found in contemporary Japanese society. However, on a rapidly diminishing scale since the “new normal” could not, of course, bypass one of the G7’s main members. On whose behalf (and behind the backs of its officials) “new norms” of human socio-cultural behavior are spread on a global scale. Furthermore, these new rules directly contradict the centuries-old norms of views on the nature of the world order and man’s place in it that are inherent in all world systems.
The start of the global campaign for the introduction of the “new normal” was marked by another exacerbation of women’s equality issues in the form of the worldwide Me too movement. It now appears that its inception was only the first act in a planned long-term action. For the issue of equal rights now extends to several dozen “gender variations”.
At the same time, the ever-increasing aggressiveness with which this topic is maintained in public information space causes a natural reaction of rejection in the vast majority of the population, many of whose representatives continue to identify as one of the two traditional genders. Some of them lose their nerve and, as a result, make mistakes in the form of expressing their dissatisfaction with the unfolding process of violence over the very space in which they are immersed in order to extract information of interest to them.
Such was the case with a Japanese government official who stated on February 3, 2023 that he did not want to live next to members of sexual minorities. He was commenting on Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s own statement two days earlier about his doubts concerning the advisability of same-sex marriages when he publicly expressed such harshness (during a meeting with journalists).
They were the words of “not a young man, but a (very experienced) statesman” concerned about his country’s steeply declining birth rate. The already visible consequences of this disaster could be compared to what potential participants in the next global massacre are portraying today.
This type of propaganda significantly contributes to the creation of an anxious atmosphere in the assessment of future prospects, which is in no way conducive to the realization of young people’s natural desire to reproduce. Another similar factor is the equally dubious prospect of material security for the newly formed families.
Furthermore, in Japan’s case, measures to “counter Sino-Korean-Russian aggressive aspirations” are in direct conflict with the problem of finding resources to (at the very least) mitigate the effectiveness of the second factor. For an insoluble dichotomy is becoming more and more apparent: either we buy Tomahawks (in the U.S., for example) and design our own missiles for the same purpose, or we provide all kinds of material support to young people.
The third factor in the same series is the development of the aforementioned process of introducing the “new normal” into public life (so far and mostly in the same “free-democratic world”). On February 1, the country’s current Prime Minister only very cautiously questioned its usefulness. His words that a legislated right to same-sex marriage “could change attitudes to family, values and society” came a week after his own policy speech in parliament, when the topic of declining birth rate was first included in the list of the country’s main problems.
It was this very statement that the aforementioned official from the government servicing department commented on (in an unfortunate form, we agree). In this connection, an unimaginable media uproar immediately arose. It was roughly on the same scale as former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s “sexist” remark two years ago who led the preparations for the next Summer Olympics. The author of the quoted verbal gaffe was fired the very next day, and the head of the Government Secretariat apologized publicly for the incident.
Of course, the form in which the mentioned official expressed his disagreement with the “global trend” raises questions. But it was the form that became the starting point for a series of subsequent events, including the US ambassador’s statement partially quoted above. Among others, it was the latter’s assessment of the head of the host country’s government that drew attention. Namely, the “confidence in the leadership qualities” of F. Kishida was expressed with regard to the prospects of the adoption of the law which is still under discussion. What a way to go about it, though!
We note the extreme untimeliness of the scandal that broke out for the current Japanese Prime Minister. For a variety of reasons, all of which contribute to the falling popularity of the incumbent government. And this could have negative consequences for the ruling party coalition on the eve of the upcoming parliamentary elections. Which F. Kishida may initiate early, in order to gain support for the new National Security Strategy, which is subjected to serious criticism. Among other reasons, due to problems with financing its implementation.
In addition, the information uproar has sharply complicated the situation of those factions of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party who oppose the legislative approval of the right to same-sex marriages. Kishida, who has so far tried to balance on this issue, has now received a recommendation from a representative of the “big brother” on how to behave.
I can’t envy the present Japanese Prime Minister, who has taken urgent measures to protect the rights of sexual minorities. Quite a prudent move since Japan will host the next G7 summit in May. Kishida obviously wants to avoid possible accusations from his colleagues that his country is lagging behind in the implementation of the “global trends”.
However, the fate of his distant predecessor as Prime Minister, the aforementioned Yoshiro Mori, is also beginning to cause concern. The process of searching for traces of corruption during the preparation for the Olympics 2021, which has been going on for months, is probably getting closer to the first arrests. On February 7, former Japan Olympic Committee functionary Yasuo Mori was apprehended. He seems to be just the namesake of the former prime minister. But it looks like the shells of the country’s judicial and legal system are already falling somewhere near the trench of this latter as well.
So you don’t want to encroach on the sacred in the form of the “new normal.” Even inadvertently and, as they say, “under stress”.
The fact of the above-mentioned, barely covert rebuke from a plenipotentiary representative of the current world leader to the Prime Minister of the host country, which is the closest regional ally, is yet another confirmation of this.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
According to a World Bank report, with proper policies to slow population growth, Egypt could have 141 million by 2050 instead of the expected 160 million. Egypt’s current population is nearly 105 million.
A report published in Cairo, “Achieving the Demographic Dividend in the Arab Republic of Egypt: Choice, Not Destiny,” argues that slowing population growth can be used to strengthen the economy.” It states, “economic benefit to a country that can happen within a window of 15 to 20 years when it undergoes a demographic transition due to a rapid decline in mortality followed by a rapid decline in fertility.” It is emphasized that this will lead to “to smaller, healthier families, and a youth cohort that can be educated and empowered to enter the labor market and match a dynamic labor demand.”
Under this scenario, Egypt could see very large savings in public expenditure by 2030, namely in housing, education, and healthcare, which can be channeled into other areas of the national budget. Analyzing different scenarios for declining birth rates, the World Bank estimates Egypt’s potential cumulative GDP growth between 2020 and 2030 at between £284.9 billion and £569 billion. However, it warns that the economy could lose up to £103.5 trillion in GDP between 2020 and 2050 if appropriate measures are not taken to accelerate the declining birth rate scenario.
Financial experts believe “Egypt has missed large economic gains by narrowing its demographic dividend opportunity”: “The country was on a path of declining fertility and an increasing share of its working-age population… But it came off that path and hurt its economy—by an estimated LE 150 billion in 2019 GDP—because of a high dependency ratio.” Between 1988 and 2008, policies to promote family planning and empower women led to a decline in the number of births per woman from 4.5 in 1988 to 3.0 in 2008. But the downward trend reversed, and by 2014 the number of births per woman had increased again to 3.5. This change is not only alarming, but is observed in only a few countries in the world, experts say.
After 2005, the number of children in the families of educated urban and wealthier women increased. This is in contrast to global trends, where the declining birth rate is led by the families of the wealthier classes. The increase in the number of children in families is probably the main reason for the change in the birth rate, which should also be an important input in setting demographic policy priorities. In 2014, the resulting increase in the birth rate led to a so-called “youth boom” in which 33.2% of the population was under 14 years old. Meanwhile, 5.1% of the population was 60 and older, leading to an increase in the dependency ratio from 59.6% to 61.8% between 2010 and 2014.
To change this situation, the Egyptian authorities are recommended to increase contraceptive distribution, increase female labor force participation, delay the onset of the age of marriage, strengthen social protection programs, and improve the management of the population program. Among the factors influencing Egypt’s rise in birth rate growth is undoubtedly a decrease in media attention to messages about family planning and reproductive health, as well as reduced availability of information and advice on family planning and reproductive health; a limited range of contraceptive methods and changing methods of choice for women. There is also a trend toward earlier marriages, even among educated women in cities, which results in babies born to younger mothers and with shorter birth intervals.
In this context, it is suggested that social protection initiatives such as the Takaful and Karama cash transfer programs be used to promote girls’ education and women’s access to healthcare, particularly family planning services. Positive mention is also made of the Decent Life Initiative, launched in January 2019, and the National Project for the Development of the Egyptian Family, launched in February 2022, as useful tools to “implement many of the proposed policies and strategies.” In recent years, the country has launched several parallel campaigns and programs to curb rapid population growth. In addition, annual spending amounted to more than 100 million Egyptian pounds (about $5.2 million) on providing family planning methods free or at reduced cost.
Last August, the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) reported that Egypt’s birth rate per woman had dropped by 20% from 3.5 births per woman in 2014 to 2.8 in 2021. Egypt aims to further reduce the birth rate to 1.6 births per woman, according to CAPMAS Chairman Advisor Hussein Abdel-Aziz. However, the United Nations Population Division defines any rate below 2.1 births per woman as below replacement level.
Promoting women’s employment is also considered crucial to lowering the birth rate. In this regard, there are studies that show that the lack of employment opportunities in the formal sector, unfavorable working conditions for women (e.g., maternity policies, lack of flexible work schedules), and the disproportionate burden of domestic responsibilities are among the factors that contribute to women withdrawing from the labor market to instead invest their time and energy in marriage and childbearing.
Better management of the population program is seen as key to the success of birth reduction efforts. The Egypt National Population Strategy (ENPS) 2015-2030 and the Egypt Population Implementation Plan (EPIP) (2015-2020), while comprehensive, have several weaknesses.
Shortcomings include fragmented management and weak accountability, lack of funding resulting in a 50% funding gap, inability to expand geographic coverage of services due in part to lack of budget allocations, inadequate attention to new sources of rising fertility (including among urban dwellers, the rich, and the poor educated), and a focus on the poorest villages, among other shortcomings. Experts also point to the failure to include men as partners in reproductive health and fertility decisions.
To take full advantage of the demographic dividend, experts stress to Egyptian authorities the need to create jobs and shift the labor force to more productive sectors, create an enabling environment for the private sector and entrepreneurship, and maintain macroeconomic stability and policy predictability.
A survey conducted by the Information and Decision Support Center of the Cabinet of Ministers (IDSC) shows that 75.6% of citizens are aware of the “overpopulation problem” in Egypt. The IDSC survey also found that 52.5% of respondents believe that each family should have no more than two children given the current circumstances, while 29.1% believe that each family should have three children.
Overpopulation in Egypt has been a problem for decades, hindering the provision of a decent standard of living. The government predicts that Egypt will have to double its spending on infrastructure projects and development over the next 30 years to achieve the expected growth.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
A year has passed since the West instigated the start of Moscow’s special military operation (SOF) to denazify the criminal Ukrainian regime. It has been a year of difficult confrontation between Russia and the West, united in its Russophobic desire to “inflict a crushing strategic defeat on Moscow,” as stated by the US, European, and NATO politicians in charge.
It is no secret today that the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine, as well as the use of the resurgence of neo-Nazism there, was chosen by the West back in 2014 to unleash an indirect war against Russia at the expense of the lives of the Ukrainian population. And Moscow’s attempts to find a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict, including through the “Minsk agreements,” were not only ignored by the West, but were used to pump more weapons into Ukraine, increase its military potential to deepen the armed conflict and the possibility of seizing Russian territories. And all this has already been publicly confirmed by the so-called “guarantors of peace in Ukraine” in Germany, France, the USA, and NATO.
In all this “history” that preceded the beginning of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, the West showed not only Moscow, but also the whole world its openly aggressive face, a complete lack of agreement, which raises doubts about the possibility of any agreement on the peaceful conclusion of the current Ukrainian conflict with the West in these conditions.
Although it has long been clear to everyone that the West is incapable of making an agreement. Suffice it to recall the results of World War II, when, after peace was achieved, the same Western “signatories” unleashed an ideological war against Moscow, a recent ally. This same incapacity was demonstrated most recently by the behavior of the “leader of the Western world” when, in a single morning caprice, American President Trump destroyed a carefully and hard-won multilateral international agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, which had also been signed by the American side. — But has there been any shouting of displeasure from Washington’s Western allies since then? And who among today’s Western leaders and leading EU politicians would dare criticize Washington when they are all feeding from its plates and saying only what the White House will let them?
Similarly, none of the Westerners reacted, without Washington’s “approval,” to Moscow’s peace initiatives in late 2021, which could have prevented the current hostilities on Ukrainian soil and new human casualties. Meanwhile, according to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, more than 3,000 civilians were killed during the years of armed conflict in Donbass before Moscow’s special operation in eastern Ukraine. In 2014 alone, according to the UN observation mission, 2,082 people were killed and more than 4,000 civilians, adults and children, were wounded in the territories that declared independence from the criminal Kyiv regime.
And how did the West’s recklessness in refusing to discuss peace initiatives with Moscow in 2021 turn out? — A continuation of the unpunished murder by Ukrainian neo-Nazis of hundreds of civilians in eastern Ukraine, including a significant number of Russian citizens, whose safety and prevention of armed aggression against them is the responsibility of the Russian authorities under Russian law. By the way, as well as with regard to security and armed aggression against American or, for example, Israeli citizens on the territory of foreign countries, which the US and Israel, as everyone knows, have already repeatedly used “to punish the aggressor and release their citizens” in many countries of the world!
However, to Moscow’s natural reaction of inaction and deliberate silence of the international public under Washington’s onslaught for eight years since 2014 on the criminal activity of the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv, the West responded not with logic, but only with a Russophobic position. The United States has united the West in attacking Russia and pursuing illegal sanctions.
According to Bloomberg, the estimated cost of European states’ confrontation with Moscow is one trillion dollars. There are thousands of sanctions measures in place. Only in 2022 did the European Union issue nine sanctions packages, and how many of them were adopted by the West after 2014 is difficult to say even for the most ardent opponents of Russia. It is not Russia’s economy that has been predicted to collapse by American so-called analysts, but the economies of the United Kingdom and Germany that have proven to be the weakest among the developed economies in this conflict. According to the German Finance Ministry, Uniper’s losses alone exceeded $50 billion. The energy crisis imposed by Washington in order to seize Russia’s gas market in Europe, followed by the economic crisis, bankrupted thousands of European manufacturers and drove millions into poverty…
The Ukrainian conflict, as acknowledged by numerous American and Western analysts and media, enriches only the United States on a daily basis. Particularly in American military-industrial circles. Washington’s decision to send more military equipment and ammunition to Ukraine forces European “exporters” of such weapons to increase spending on additional weapons from the same US at the expense of the national budget and cuts in European social programs. And in this regard, EU European officials, particularly US protégés Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell Fontelles, have become active “promoters” of the US policy.
Apart from the insatiable enrichment at the expense of Europe, the White House’s policy of militarization of events exacerbates the Ukrainian crisis, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and Ukrainian soldiers. Even today, no one can deny that the conflict in Ukraine is the largest military conflict on the European continent since World War II. However, determining the magnitude of the disaster in terms of the number of people killed and injured in the fighting remains difficult. According to the Pentagon, over 100,000 AFU soldiers were killed or injured during Russia’s special operation in Ukraine. These losses, which exceed all predictions by American analysts, are causing concern even among NATO Allied Forces in Europe commander-in-chief Christopher Gerard Cavoli.
For 2022, the West has already spent an estimated $150 billion on military aid to Ukraine. Despite all of these human, financial, and economic losses, the West, in Washington’s relentlessly Russophobic frenzy, continues to support the criminal Kyiv regime, supplying it with more weapons and ammunition. Involving more than just European countries in this process and the actual armed conflict with Russia. As a result, the threat of World War III is becoming more real.
Until recently, Russia’s response to the aggressive Western sanctions policy was limited to retaliatory sanctions against unfriendly countries. However, the situation has recently shifted, and it is now objectively necessary for Russia to impose initiative sanctions on the instigators of the Ukrainian conflict, as well as other states that do not want the West to resurrect neo-Nazism in Ukraine, against which Moscow is conducting a special operation in Ukraine.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In recent weeks, the United States and its NATO allies have begun discussions about providing Ukraine with a wider array of weaponry ranging from Western main battle tanks and longer-range munitions, to even Western warplanes.
The “doubling down” by the West comes at a time when NATO’s stockpiles of Soviet-era equipment runs dry and even inventories of Western artillery pieces and the ammunition they require dwindle or disappear.
The prospect of sending Ukraine Western warplanes, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 fighter jet in particular, stems from the fact that likewise, there are no longer any Soviet-era warplanes available to transfer to Ukraine. Worse still, there is growing impetus to do so specifically as a substitute for the West’s inability to send basic weapons like artillery Ukraine actually needs.
Warplanes: The Latest Bluff
Rather than warplanes being the next logical step in a winning strategy of support by the West for Ukraine, talk about sending Western warplanes to Ukraine is a part of growing desperation from a West running out of the practical means to continue its proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.
This discussion is fueled by article like Reuters’ “Ukraine says pilots would need six months for F-16 combat training,” which claims:
Ukraine said on Friday it would take its pilots about half a year to train for combat in Western fighter jets such as U.S. F-16s, as Kyiv steps up its campaign to secure fourth-generation warplanes in the wake of Russia’s invasion last February.
Ukraine got a huge boost this week when Germany and the United States announced plans to provide heavy tanks to Kyiv, which is now hoping the West will also provide long-range missiles and fighter jets.
Indeed, inflated claims regarding Western main battle tanks helped encourage equally inflated talk about next supplying Ukraine with Western warplanes. The Western media talked for weeks about the supposed “game-changing” nature of the collective pledges of Western main battle tanks from across NATO to Ukraine.
But this notion that Western main battle tanks would arrive in the quantities and represent a quality required to outfight Russian forces on the battlefield quickly evaporated as even Western analysts pointed out the steep learning curve Ukrainian tank crews faced in operating them, the fact that such tanks require combined arms capabilities including military aviation to be used to their full potential, and have maintenance and logistic requirements Ukraine is unable to meet.
Articles like Bloomberg’s, “Ukraine to Receive Fewer Battle Tanks From Allies Than Promised,” would dampen expectations regarding even the quantity of tanks originally pledged.
Now, a similar cycle of hope and despair has begun surrounding the issue of sending Western warplanes.
Shattered Dreams
First, the UK on its official government website in an announcement titled, “PM extends Ukraine military training to pilots and marines as President Zelenskyy makes first visit to the UK since Russian invasion,” would claim:
As part of today’s talks, the Prime Minister will offer to bolster the UK’s training offer for Ukrainian troops, including expanding it to fighter jet pilots to ensure Ukraine can defend its skies well into the future.
The training will ensure pilots are able to fly sophisticated NATO-standard fighter jets in the future. As part of that long-term capability investment, the UK will work with Ukraine and international allies to coordinate collective support to meet Ukraine’s defensive needs.
While this gave hope to Kiev that Western warplanes were on the table, further UK government announcements would clarify just what “in the future” meant. It meant many years from now, and only after the conflict concluded.
Reuters in its article, “’No magic wand’ in Ukraine war, says UK’s Wallace on question of supplying jets,” would admit that it would take at least 35 months (nearly 3 years) to train pilots to fly British warplanes, not “six months.”
A recent article by Air & Space Forces Magazine titled, “Romania Is a Model for Training Ukraine’s Pilots to Fly F-16s,” would further elaborate on how complex the process of adopting new warplanes was for any particular nation, implying just how impractical talk is of supplying Ukraine with Western warplanes anytime in the near future.
The article would point out:
Romania joined the NATO Partnership for Peace in 1994 shortly after independence and became a full NATO member 10 years later. Each step was a shift to the Western way of warfare.
From trained pilots and maintainers to required infrastructure to a boneyard of spare aircraft, Romania has been working on its transition to the F-16 for nearly a decade.
The article would also quote a Romanian Air Force pilot, who claimed:
Even we struggle at this point, and we started enhancing and getting the F-16 like seven or eight years ago, and we’re still not yet there.
It is clear that while announcing the sending of Western tanks and warplanes to Ukraine boosted morale and gave the general public the impression that Western foreign policy operated from a position of strength, those familiar with military matters realized just how weak the West’s hand actually is.
If NATO warplanes do appear over Ukraine any time soon, it can be assumed they are flown by NATO pilots, since according to even NATO itself there is no practical way Ukrainian pilots could.
Big Promises, Empty Hands
US President Joe Biden recently visited Kiev, Ukraine. In an article by the BBC titled, “Biden visits Zelensky in Kyiv and says Putin ‘dead wrong’ on Ukraine war,” it’s claimed:
The US will back Ukraine in its fight against Russia for “as long as it takes”, US President Joe Biden has said on an unannounced visit to Kyiv.
“We have every confidence you’re going to continue to prevail,” he said.
Mr Biden’s first trip to Ukraine as president came days before the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion.
He said that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had been “dead wrong” to think Russia could outlast Ukraine and its Western allies.
Yet, what did President Biden bring with him besides mere rhetoric suggesting Russia couldn’t outlast the West? In fact, just as President Biden was visiting Kiev the US Department of Defense released a list of its most recent military assistance package to Ukraine.
It was notable not for the large amount of equipment in terms of variety and quantity, but specifically because the assistance was so meager. Many items on the list omitted any mention of quantity where in the past the Pentagon had provided such numbers.
Munitions like guided-rockets for HIMARS, 155mm artillery shells for Western artillery pieces, and even mortars and anti-tank weapons are all admittedly facing critical shortages.
If the US and its allies cannot announce further packages featuring weapons Ukraine can actually use on the battlefield, in the absence of a better alternative, it may seem like an attractive option to begin announcing the transfer of weapons Ukraine has no practical way of using effectively on the battlefield, such as Western main battle tanks and even NATO warplanes. Many across Western audiences may perceive this as an escalation or an increasingly strengthening hand the West is dealing Ukraine, but military experts on both sides of the frontline are well aware of how weak this hand actually is.
The announcement of tank deliveries being slashed both in terms of quantity and in terms of immediacy along with talk of “F-16s” Ukraine has no way to fly until the conflict ends, illustrates just how effective Russia’s strategy of attrition has been and how, contrary to what the US president declared recently in Kiev, Russia does seem quite capable of outlasting the West.
Condemned by the West for its “slow” progress in terms of territorial gains, Russia has instead succeeded in emptying both Ukraine’s and its Western sponsors’ arsenals in ways that will take years to restore.
Meanwhile the West admits that Russian military aviation is largely intact, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine’s article, “Russian Air Force ‘Has Lot of Capability Left’ One Year On From Ukraine Invasion.”
The Western media also admits that Russia has the ability to produce up to 850 tanks either modernized or made brand-new. Evident by frequent missile and drone strikes, Russia possesses a large capacity to build precision-guided weapons at rates higher than the West can provide Ukraine with the means to intercept.
Thus, when the West discusses weapons like F-16 fighter jets, it is most certainly not the strong hand the West hopes it comes across as being, but instead the best indicator yet of just how desperate matters have become in Washington, London, and Brussels and how empty their collective hands actually are.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The recent visit of Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi to China is significant for many reasons. But the most important reason is the way China sees this relationship going in terms of its push for an emerging alliance for an alternative global order led by China (and Russia). At one level, China’s deepening ties with Iran reflect the former’s growing engagement with the Middle East overall. China is already the Arab world’s largest trading partner since 2020, surpassing US$330 billion in bilateral trade in 2021. In 2021, China signed a comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran, but ever since then, Beijing has signed similar agreements with twelve other countries in the Middle East/North Africa region.
In this context, China’s ties with Iran should not be seen as any more significant than China’s general ties with Iran’s neighbours in the region. But, as it stands, China’s ties with Iran are indeed unusual insofar as they sit at the centre of the alliance for an alternative world order. In other words, China-Iran ties are more than simply bilateral. Indeed, this is how Beijing sees these ties.
Commenting on Raisi’s visit, Global Times, the mouthpiece of China’s Communist Party, said that Iran’s “Look East policy” is a reflection of Iran’s decisive turn away from the west “to building alliances with non-western world powers that have similar political structures to Iran, such as Russia and China.”
This comment is crucial insofar as it signifies a coming together of non-western political systems against the West’s domination of global politics since particularly the end of the Cold War.
This coming together is not limited to China and Iran. In fact, Iran’s engagement with Russia has already transitioned to the realm of the politics of new, alternative world order. In January 2023, Moscow and Tehran connected their banking/financial systems, a move that defies US sanctions on Iran and Russia that forced both countries out of the Belgium-based SWIFT financial messaging service.
This cooperation is not limited to the banking sector. Apart from this alliance growing in military terms, official data from Iran shows that Russia is also one of the largest foreign investors in Iran. Like China, Russia’s engagement with Iran stems from an understanding that Iran has a vital role to play in consolidating a non-western bloc in the world. Xi seemed in full agreement with Russia when he stressed in the statement he gave on the occasion of Raisi’s visit. He said that China,
“supports Iran in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national dignity as well as resisting unilateralism and hegemony, and opposes attempts by external forces to interfere in Iran’s domestic affairs and undermine its security and stability.”
If we unpack this statement, a few things become crystal clear. For instance, it identifies that “external forces” are those that exercise “hegemony” and “unilateralism”- two classic expressions that describe US geopolitics post-Cold War. Secondly, the statement keeps resistance against “hegemony” and “unilateralism” as the hallmark of Iran’s geopolitics.
In one way, the fact that Iran has been resisting the US for decades makes a lot of sense for both Moscow and Beijing. With Russia confronting the US and NATO forces in Ukraine and China facing the US in the Indo-Pacific, Iran’s active resistance to the US completes the triangle. It would not be wrong to say that both Russia and China today find themselves on the same ground Iran has been standing in for several years now. It is, therefore, logical for both Russia and China to shape their ties with Iran in a way that has the potential to change the rules of the game to their advantage.
Therefore, with an eye on consolidating an alliance for a new, alternative world order, both China and Iran are keen to steer their ties in ways that avoid points of contention. One of the key points is China’s ties with the Gulf states, Iran’s regional rivals.
Both Xi and the commentary in Global Times avoided any reference to the Gulf, showing how both Iran and China, realising the crucial importance of their ties that has implications far and beyond the region itself, have learnt to navigate the complex world. The emphasis accordingly remains on the global, rather than regional, side of their ties. As a separate editorial in Global Times said,
“Both China and Iran uphold independent foreign policies, firmly defend the principle of non-interference in internal affairs on international occasions, and safeguard the common interests of developing countries. This is conducive to promoting the multi-polarization and diversified development of the world, and conforms to the general trend of the times.”
As is evident, China sees itself facing the threat – and the same sorts of challenges – that Iran is facing. There is, therefore, a lot of room for both countries to focus on the minimum common ground rather than any points of contention and disagreement. Both understand that their alliance, tied to Russia both separately and collectively, is vital for their survival in a world that, as the said editorial correctly pointed out, “under Washington’s moves” undergoing division and restructuring.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Perhaps the most significant step in the recent changes within the G20 was the move to include the African Union as a permanent member of this global association.
This step is significant because the G20 is inherently different from the G7, which has become a “club of selected supporters of the United States” thanks to Washington’s efforts. Members of the latter organization are attempting to develop and impose on the rest of the world policies and dictates that benefit only the West, and devise, in a “narrow circle of associates,” sanctions and other measures of restraint in regard to members of the global community who demonstrate their independence. And a striking confirmation of this is the fact that the G7, declared as the union of the world’s largest economies today, excludes China, the world’s already-recognized second economy.
The African continent is one largely composed of poor, developing countries that are actively working to unite their states into a single power, similar to the European Union. Africa owns 90% of the world’s platinum reserves, 50% of gold and diamond reserves, 33% of the world’s uranium reserves, and enormous reserves of oil, gas, manganese, chromite, and bauxite, all of which are essential to every country’s industry and economy. Africa has a high population growth rate, with an average of 28 births per 1000 people, and the population of the continent is projected to reach 2.4 billion in 30 years! If Africa can solve, with the help of the international community, many of its problems as soon as possible, including hunger and health care, which is far behind the global level of development, the continent will transform from a problematic region into one of rapid economic growth.
It is not surprising then that academics and African economies have long called for the African Union to play a more active role not only in the activities of the UN Security Council, but also in international groups such as the G20. Its members are governments and the heads of their central banks from countries with developed or developing economies.
The European Union is the only regional organization that has received full membership in the G20 so far. However, this does not imply that it should be the sole representative of all regional organizations in the global economy. Furthermore, the African Union has made significant progress in regional economic integration in recent years and can represent the Global South as a regional forum in the G20. In fact, the EU can serve as the Global North’s regional representative.
Especially since developing member countries can best resolve the G20 group’s representation issue. Speaking of which, the three BRICS countries will preside over the G20 in the next three years: India in 2023, South Africa in 2024, and Brazil in 2025. As a result, a platform for regional integration agreements, regional development banks, and regional financial mechanisms, of which the G20 countries are members, can be created, which will unite regional association of the G20 members states, thus broadening the range of countries participating in anti-crisis efforts and other coordination initiatives. This may in the very near future become a very important step, quality-wise, not only for the final eradication – a process that began in the middle of the last century – of colonialism, which took the heaviest toll on the African continent through the fault of the West, but also, for the international community’s fair recognition of Africa as both the cradle of humanity, and also a significant player in international politics and economics.
However, while the US president and the European Union have publicly welcomed and supported the African Union’s inclusion in the G20 in recent days, there are very understandable reasons for this. The truth is, the United States and its Western allies are more concerned with China and Russia’s growing influence on the continent than with Africa itself. This was made abundantly clear by Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin’s speech at the US-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington in December, in which he publicly acknowledged US concerns that Moscow and Beijing are expanding their presence in Africa.
This has not been the first time that US officials have unfairly criticized Russia’s and China’s activities in Africa. For example, on the eve of the African Summit in Washington, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs Chidi Blyden told reporters that Moscow and Beijing’s policies allegedly endanger the security and welfare of African countries.
Previously, in August 2022, the Biden administration released a document titled “The US Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa,” which included unjustified attacks on Russia and China. It was specifically stated that Beijing “ sees the region as an important arena to challenge the rules-based international order, advance its own narrow commercial and geopolitical interests, undermine transparency and openness, and weaken US relations with African peoples and governments.” At the same time, Washington is deliberately silent on the fact that, unlike the US, Russia and China have been actively assisting African states in ending Western colonial oppression, creating the economy and social infrastructure in many African states, and training African scientific personnel in their educational establishments since the middle of the 20th century. All the while the West continued to incite armed conflicts on this continent in order to remove unwanted African leaders from the political arena. A fate that befell Muammar Gaddafi, with whose overthrow Libya was plunged into protracted chaos and statelessness. Meanwhile, it was under Gaddafi’s leadership that the African Union came the closest to political and economic unification in the 2000s. For the longest time, this Libyan leader funded the African Union and actively promoted the creation of the United States of Africa.
However, despite the obvious intentions of the US and the West to tame and bring the African Union closer to itself by involving it in a joint association in the G20, these hopes will remain intangible and unfulfilled. After all, the current generation of African leaders cannot be bought for a handful of beads, which President Joe Biden “generously promised” to allocate to them in the form of $55 billion over three years at the US-Africa Leaders Summit in December. Instead, he and the “Collective West” should have apologized to the African people for the era of slavery, and paid financial reparations to Africa. — But anyway, how can Washington today find trillions of dollars to cover the true losses of African states from slavery and centuries of robbery, if it has long been in debt, paying off its partners with the Federal Reserve System-printed green candy wrappers that have long lost all value…
However, Africans, like many others, have a long memory. And therefore, by joining the world community through the G20, the African Union will certainly take not only its due place in the world, but also pursue a policy independent of Western dictate.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Russia’s special military operation to denazify the criminal Kiev regime allowed it to collect and receive more than 20 thousand documents on the US bioweapon program at the captured Ukrainian military facilities. This program, as it turns out, does not only include Ukraine. Relevant reference and analytical materials on this aspect of US criminal activity on foreign soil were obtained, eyewitnesses and participants in American bioweapon research were interviewed. This was stated by the head of the radiation, chemical and biological protection (RCBP) troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Igor Kirillov, who pointed out, in particular, that these materials document the Pentagon’s focus on creating bioweapons components and testing them on the population of Ukraine and other states along the borders of the Russian Federation.
Since the spring of 2022, Russia has been speaking about the existence of US bioweapon programs on various international platforms. Although Washington is trying to reject this, nevertheless, it has not provided any documentary evidence in its defense, further closing from international control its bioweapon programs and the activities of more than 400 secret US biolabs located in various countries. The Russian Ministry of Defense has also published documents confirming the US’s attempts to establish control over pathogens through the activities of its secret biolabs in Ukraine.
On October 27, 2022, Moscow sent an official complaint to the President of the UN Security Council for initiating an international investigation into US bioweapon activities, and Russia submitted the corresponding draft resolution to the UN Security Council for a vote. However, the United States, through its Western allies, some of which themselves actively participate in the work of the Pentagon’s secret biolabs in the post-Soviet space, blocked the consideration of this resolution.
The steps taken by Russia with the support of China to organize an international investigation of the activities of secret US biolabs and restrict their functioning do not stop Washington from fulfilling its aspirations to create bioweapons and use such overseas military installations in its own interests. Especially gene regional studies in the “possible theaters of military operations” scattered across multiple countries, which Washington undoubtedly expects to use in securing victory in new armed conflicts.
One of the directions of Washington’s expansion of the activities of secret biolabs in recent years has been its efforts to deploy three new such Pentagon installations in Kyrgyzstan: in Bishkek, south Osh and in the Naryn region in the north. The United States has been working on obtaining permission from the Kyrgyz authorities to create these labs for many years now. This activity involves not only the US Embassy, but also USAID, the American Peace Corps (banned in Russia), and many of Washington’s Western allies.
The United States has previously tried to build a closed biolab in Kyrgyzstan by involving Canada in this process. To this end, in 2008, the Governments of Kyrgyzstan and Canada even signed a corresponding agreement, on which basis it was planned to build a biosafety class III biolab in Bishkek on the territory of the Botanical Garden surrounded by densely populated neighborhoods. $60 million was allocated for these purposes. However, in 2011, Kyrgyzstan, after the protests of local population, refused the Canadians to implement this project, where the US company Smith Carter was the contractor. Although the construction was suspended, nevertheless, an office of this company with close ties with the US Department of State has remained in Kyrgyzstan to this day.
Nevertheless, Washington has strenuously continued to push the issue of the construction of American biolabs in this country in its communication with Kyrgyz authorities. In 2022, in particular, the issue was raised by Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asian Affairs, who was visiting the Central Asian region.
So far, Kyrgyzstan is the only country in Central Asia and the post-Soviet space where the Pentagon has not yet deployed a single secret biolab. Therefore, Washington’s interest in this country in this regard is not surprising. And so is the special interest of American military strategists (especially given Bishkek’s close multifaceted friendly ties with Russia and China), counting on the possibility of Kyrgyzstan’s involvement in the Pentagon’s military plans in Central Asia, including Afghanistan and Iran. That is why the United States is trying to place here its secret biolabs dealing with particularly dangerous pathogens, so as to have the opportunity to spread any particular virus to Russia, China and other territories.
However, in order to implement such a project, the United States needs to conclude an intergovernmental agreement with Kyrgyzstan, including on biological safety issues, which is what Washington has been trying to work out behind closed doors lately.
To support its aspirations and create an American lobby inside Kyrgyzstan, the United States used a wide network of Western NGOs that it had previously created in that country, as well as media resources such as Azattyq Media, the websites Radio Azattyq, “Kloop.kg,” Cactus Media, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (recognized in Russia as a foreign agent) and others. Realizing the threat from such aggressive actions of the United States, the Kyrgyz authorities restricted the activities of many of these “soft power” tools of the West, a significant portion was closed, and a number of pro-Western activists were arrested.
Kyrgyz specialists believe that it will not be possible to avoid the construction of a biolab in the country, since the republic is not able to develop this area of science independently and will be forced to use the developments of other countries. However, there is reason to doubt that the participation of the West in such developments will be useful for the country and, in general, for the security in the region. In this regard, and also in order to take more effective control of the aspirations of the United States and its Western allies in secret biological research in this country, Russia, in coordination with the MPs of the Kyrgyz parliament, decided to build a Russian biolab in Kyrgyzstan. On February 7, a draft agreement between the Cabinet of Ministers of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Government of the Russian Federation on the establishment of a scientific center for the study of infectious diseases in Bishkek was presented at a meeting of the parliamentary committee on Budget, Economic and Fiscal Policy by Deputy Minister of Health of Kyrgyzstan Bubuzhan Arykbaeva. The plan is to build such a facility on the basis of the Republican Center for Quarantine and Especially Dangerous Infections, which has been operating in Kyrgyzstan since 1937. However, due to the need for major repairs of this building erected back in 1964, the Russian side showed readiness to build a new one for the scientific center, provide it with the necessary equipment and transfer it to the republic, in addition to training specialists.
Unlike the American project, which was promoted by the Pentagon and in which control by the Kyrgyz authorities was impossible, Russia does not intend to close all the research that will be conducted at the scientific center from the local population and authorities.
At the same time, Russia continues its efforts to involve the international community in a thorough investigation of the activities of secret US biolabs located in many countries all over the world and violating the provisions of Articles I and IV of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Members of Russia’s State Duma and Federation Council recently made a joint appeal to their foreign colleagues, in which they urged the latter to demand information from the US Congress on the work of American biolabs in other countries.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In every mainstream media outlet from Berlin to Los Angeles, Vladimir Putin and Russia are losing in the conflict with Ukraine. The NATO proxy warriors and western think tank experts are endlessly reassuring citizens of the U.S. and other allied countries that Russia is on the ropes and ready for the knockout punch from the coalition led by U.S. President Joe Biden. There is, however, one huge problem. None of these assertions are true.
CNN says “Putin needs to know he’s whipped in Ukraine.” At The Hill, the experts say Biden and NATO should “do what it takes to stop Putin.” But wait. If Putin is already defeated, then what is left for NATO and the hairbrained U.S. president to do? Mixed messages, this is the latest sign telling us the dilapidated North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the one on the ropes. When the Russians finally launch their multi pronged offensive against what’s left of Zelensky’s troops, NATO will be revealed as the biggest, most useless Humpty Dumpty the world has ever seen. Check this from more reliable sources.
Back in November of 2022, retired Colonel Douglas MacGreggor wrote a lucid analysis of the real situation in Ukraine at that point. The man his U.S. Army colleagues called “America’s Greatest Warfighter,” the master strategist encapsulated the situation while revealing that the U.S. and allies never really had a strategy in Ukraine or against Russia. Here is part of what he said then:
“American senior military leaders and their political bosses viewed Russia through a narrowly focused lens that magnified U.S. and Ukrainian strengths but ignored Russia’s strategic advantages—geographic depth, almost limitless natural resources, high social cohesion, and the military-industrial capacity to rapidly scale up its military power.”
The former military advisor to the Trump administration outlined the array of forces poised to strike what’s left of Ukraine’s decimated military at any moment. In November, MacGregor’s network informed him that some 540,000 additional Russian combat troops, supported by over 1,000 rocket artillery systems, 1,500 tanks, 5,000 armored fighting vehicles, hundreds of fixed fighters, helicopters, and bombers, and thousands of tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones had assembled in striking distance of Ukraine’s last reserves.
That was November. Ukraine has since bled it’s forces white attacking Russian defensive networks and defending key transport hubs like Bakhmut, where Wagner Group is currently dislodging the last of Zelensky’s defenders. Ukraine is all but done! The Pentagon knows it, Zelensky knows it, NATO command knows it, but no one in western leadership has the gumption to just spit it out. Ukraine has suffered 157,000 dead, and 234,000 wounded. Almost 20,000 have been taken prisoner, and the arms is not only out of aircraft and tanks, but ammunition to continue the fight as it exists on the ground today. When Russia launches the new offensive, it will be a bloodbath the likes of which have not been seen since the Soviets ran the Nazis back into Berlin. According to MacGreggor and other experts, the Russians will only stop once they’ve reached the banks of the Dnieper River, which divides Ukraine into west and east.
Former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins MacGregor and other key military experts in pointing out that the death tolls from Ukraine reveal Russia is actually fighting NATO and Ukraine. In fact, NATO and the US have been training and building Ukraine’s Nazi spearheaded military since 2014. In the combat figures thousands of mercenaries, NATO operators out of uniform, and NATO trainers from the US and the UK have also perished in the fighting. Given historical US setbacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in Syria, this is nothing new. America’s “special” operators have been in virtually every conflict on the planet since World War 2. But Ukraine is different.
Colonel MacGregor was interviewed the other day saying that his contact visiting Russia told him that “the Russians are preparing for a 30 month war with the US and NATO.” The former tank regiment commander highlighted the fact that the US and NATO do not currently have a quick response mobilization capability in place, while Russia has already ramped up weapons production dramatically.
On Telegram and other back channels, we see Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dimitry Medvedev inspecting tank, missile, and other weapons manufacturing facilities across Russia that have stepped up production rapidly. Medvedev, who is now deputy head of the powerful Security Council and heads a government commission on arms production, told reporters recently that the new supplies will “help Russia inflict a “crushing defeat” over Ukraine on the battlefield.”
Medvedev has also warned that Russia could join with other countries opposed to U.S. hegemony and create a military coalition aimed at weakening its dominance in global politics. Western news consumers hear nothing of these facts, even though the choices left to those outside the NATO alliance seem pretty clear these days. From India to Brazil, the fear and uncertainty over the US hegemony grows day by day.
As Colonel MacGregor and others have insisted, the US and NATO leadership fails totally in understanding Russia and Russian tactics and policies. This is evidenced by reading or watching western news. The Hill just sourced a retired US Major John Spence, claiming Russia cannot conduct a coordinated offensive. Get this, Major Spence works with Madison Policy Forum, which is led by retired Colonel Liam Collins, who advised Ukraine with regard to the military buildup in the country in the wake of the “fake” Minsk accords.
So, what can we expect? Within days, perhaps even before this is published, Russia will launch a massive multi-pronged attack to flyswatter a defeated Ukraine military. All the Leopard and Abrams tanks in Europe will not be able to slow it down, even if the Ukrainians knew how to operate them. NATO does not have the juice. The best that can be achieved will be a partitioning of Ukraine, as I suggested before. And if some crazy multinational force is inserted into the conflict, then I expect the name “Ukraine” to enter the history books as a “once was” nation.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Following the collapse of the USSR, the United States is considering its role in the status of a global world leader. In relations with its NATO allies, Washington, moreover, continues the previous course of the flagship, which does not tolerate any deviations of its satellites from the strategy of the White House.
And during the Cold War, the United States ruled out any easing of the ruling regimes in NATO countries in favor of the left movement and pro-Soviet sentiments. To do this, the CIA acted as an important tool for monitoring and controlling the political situation in Europe and Turkey, and any (direct and indirect) signs of change were punished within the framework of the same Gladio operations.
In the modern period, the United States, recognizing the strategic importance of Turkey’s geographical location and its membership in NATO, nevertheless, maintains a high tense reaction to the independent course of President R. Erdogan. The problematic nature of US-Turkish relations over the past two decades of the rule of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) is associated with two contradictions:
1) President Erdogan’s focus on the revival of the imperial status of Turkey within the doctrines of neo-Ottomanism and Neopan-turkism;
2) effective Turkish-Russian multi-vector cooperation (including such areas as economics, politics, nuclear energy, military security, communications).
Taking into account the military-political aggravation of Russian-Ukrainian relations and the US sanctions war against Russia, America is extremely jealous of President Erdogan’s continued independence in terms of maintaining partnership ties with Moscow, active mediation of Turkish diplomacy in the settlement of Russian-Ukrainian relations, and Turkey’s truncated participation in Western sanctions pressure on Russia.
Since October 2022, a new “headache” has appeared for the Joseph Biden administration related to President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to create a gas hub in Turkey. The implementation of this project will create a new platform for the formation of natural gas prices without the influence of political factors and risks (including for supplies to EU countries if they are interested).
This initiative of Russia became possible after the West undermined the Russian Nord Stream gas pipeline, as well as due to Turkey’s high reliability as a transit of Russian gas to Europe (the latter is a consequence of President Erdogan’s firm position on the construction of the same Turkish Stream gas pipeline)
American journalist Seymour Hersh conducted an independent investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. In his interview with the Berliner Zeitung, he claims that the United States was dissatisfied with Germany’s policy of cooperation with Russia in the field of energy and commissioning of the Nord Stream–1 and Nord Stream–2 gas pipelines. That is why President J. Biden gave the command to his special services to carry out sabotage on these communications on the eve of the likely start of the Russian SMO in Ukraine.
It seemed to America that in this way it would be able to exclude any option of exporting Russian gas to Europe. However, there remains the southern (Turkish) transportation route and the independent pragmatic policy of Mr. Erdogan. Accordingly, the Russian-Turkish gas hub project has become a new object of increased attention of the United States, because it can compensate for the volume of gas traffic through the Nord Stream (in any case, this is initially assumed).
In the autumn of 2022, responsible representatives of the American administration began to come to Turkey in order to put pressure on Ankara in terms of compliance with the sanctions regime against Russia. The visit of the American delegation headed by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for the Control of the Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes Elizabeth Rosenberg stands out in this list. Then Washington actually banned large Turkish banks from cooperating with the Russian payment system MIR and threatened them with sanctions. As a result, all five Turkish banks (in particular, “Ziraat Bank”, “Vakifbank”, “Halkbank”, “Isbank” and “Denizbank”), who agreed in August 2022 to use the “MIR” system, had to refuse to service the Russian card a month later.
The United States now opposes the creation of a gas hub, because it encourages its allies (especially in the NATO bloc) to reduce energy dependence on Russia and, as the representative of the US State Department V. Patel, exclude any possibility of the emergence of a “safe haven for illegal Russian property and transactions.” Such a course, according to the United States, will supposedly have a beneficial effect on changing Russia’s position in the conflict situation with Ukraine.
However, President R. Erdogan, objectively assessing the benefits of developing economic (including energy) cooperation with Russia, regardless of the anger of the United States, approved the Russian gas hub construction project. Turkey is becoming an increasingly important partner of Russia, because Western sanctions are closing the way for trade, investment and travel to the same Europe. Russia can provide Turkey with serious dividends from the sale of gas, appropriate discounts for the Turkish market, and an increase in the transit of goods to third countries. Moreover, Turkey, receiving a Russian gas hub and taking part in the re-export of gas, becomes an important connecting energy region and acquires a key influence on the economy of Europe itself.
In the situation with a severe earthquake in the southeastern provinces of Turkey, some foreign experts began to note that the gas hub in Eastern Thrace could be postponed due to obvious financial problems for the Turkish economy and even allegedly there was an explosion of part of the pipeline communication along the bottom of the Black Sea. It should be noted that the construction of a gas pipeline and related infrastructure in Turkey for the same gas hub is mainly carried out at Russian expense, so the Turkish financial and economic crisis will not be an obstacle here. It is unlikely that an earthquake in the south-east and the Mediterranean coast is capable of undermining pipeline communications in the north-west in the Black Sea basin. However, no one can guarantee the exclusion of a recurrence of the history of the undermining of the Russian Nord Stream gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea in the Turkish part of the gas pipelines in the Black Sea.
Judging by the way the Turkish ministers (in particular, Süleyman Soylu and Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu) negatively assessed the actions of the United States and a number of EU countries (France, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, etc.) to suspend the activities of their diplomatic missions in Turkey on the eve of the earthquake (allegedly due to threats of a major terrorist act), we can assume about the next convulsions of American diplomacy in order to undermine the productive growth of Turkish-Russian relations.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
China, which continues to step up its military and economic power year after year, is becoming increasingly concerning and alarming for the United States and its allies, who are aware that Beijing may soon surpass Washington in terms of the volume of its geopolitical influence. Western leaders are taking a variety of steps to limit China’s sphere of influence, but their schemes are rarely successful because Western bloc states lack the same resources as the People’s Republic of China.
The formation of the AUKUS alliance in September 2021, which included Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, was intended to weaken China’s position in the Pacific. In the end, the United States’ actions were only moderately successful. As part of AUKUS, Washington shared military technology with Australia, which improved the military capabilities of the Australian army. Britain, for its part, has begun to prioritize the training of its soldiers stationed in the Pacific.
AUKUS member states decided to strengthen their relationships with the South Pacific’s 12 small island nations in addition to improving their own defense capabilities. This decision comes from the fact that the United States has tasked itself with preventing Chinese military facilities from appearing on the territory of other countries. The signing of a security agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Solomon Islands in April 2022 demonstrated to the AUKUS the importance of pursuing a more active policy in the region. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese paid a state visit to Papua New Guinea in mid-January 2023 to discuss the timing of the security agreement, which is scheduled for June 2023. Canberra sincerely believes that by displaying force, it can slow the rise of Chinese influence in the South Pacific region, which it regards as critical to the country’s defense.
Equally important are AUKUS members’ strong relationships with Pacific ASEAN countries such as the Philippines. For example, relations between the United States and the Philippines were largely based on the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, which established U.S. military bases on the territory of the island nation of 114 million people. As international tensions began to ease at the end of the twentieth century, the United States’ military presence in the Philippines was gradually reduced, and the Treaty effectively expired in 2020. Rodrigo Duterte, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Chinese views, served as President of the Philippines from 2016 to 2022 and advocated for the complete withdrawal of US troops from Philippine soil. However, in 2022, Bongbong Marcos became the new president of the Philippines and resumed talks with the US.
Currently, the US Armed Forces have the right to station their troops on only eight Philippine military bases, but US officials have recently expressed their desire to station their troops on more local military bases and conduct more joint exercises with the Philippine army.
Carlito Galvez Jr. and Lloyd J. Austin III, the military leaders of the Philippines and the United States, met in the Philippine capital of Manila on February 2, 2023. The purpose of this meeting, according to both sides’ statements, was to strengthen the bilateral partnership in order to improve the defense capabilities of the two countries’ armies.
The true purpose of Lloyd J. Austin III’s visit to the Philippines was to negotiate access for the US military to four additional Philippine military bases. Lloyd Austin accomplished his goal: The Philippines agreed to give the US Army access to four of its military bases.
The reason for Manila’s concession in favor of Washington is simple. The United States and China account for roughly equal shares of Philippine exports and imports. Because the developing country does not want to lose US investment, it has expanded its military partnership with the US side. According to Philippine officials, the likelihood of armed conflict between the PRC and the US is low because both countries are each other’s largest trading partners and have sizable nuclear arsenals. It’s worth noting that the increased US military presence in the Philippines has more political overtones than military ones. The number of US troops in the Philippines does not correspond to the size of a full-fledged offensive or defensive military force.
The defense ministers of the two countries held a joint news conference, during which they stated that the united efforts of both sides of the dialogue create effective conditions for dealing with natural disasters and climate change, and that the increased number of US troops in the Philippines will have a positive impact on the country’s defense capabilities.
It is important to note that the United States is not the only AUKUS member seeking to maintain its presence in the Pacific by fortifying ties with Manila. Australia is also working hard to maintain its credibility in the Philippines. In October 2022, a joint Philippine-Australian naval exercise was held to increase the two countries’ capacity to counter smuggling, terrorism, drug trafficking and the effects of natural disasters. The exercise involved approximately 400 navy personnel and officers from both countries. The exercise, according to the Philippine Navy, has helped to improve the capabilities of the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard.
It should be noted that this was not the first joint Australia-Philippines exercise held on Philippine territory in 2022. An exercise took place on May 12, the same year, at the Fort Ramon-Magsaysay range in Nueva Ecija. This demonstrates Australia’s desire to maintain its presence in the Philippines while also exhibiting its military might to its neighbors.
The rationality of AUKUS participants’ actions can be called into question. As previously stated, US military units stationed in countries such as the Philippines are insufficient to constitute a serious military force. Nonetheless, the maintenance of the United States military contingent on foreign countries’ soils consumes significant budget funds that could be used more wisely. One factor explaining Washington’s desire to send troops to as many countries as possible is an aspiration to increase its geopolitical weight in the Pacific.
The People’s Republic of China does not station military facilities in other countries, but includes them in its sphere of influence through trade agreements. Beijing recognizes how inefficient and pointless it is to keep small groups of military personnel abroad, and it is also aware that doing so seriously harms international relations. Many states’ representatives sign comprehensive partnership agreements with China, largely because Beijing offers better terms for trade and economic cooperation than the US.
Petr Konovalov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Unfortunately, the death toll from the devastating earthquake that struck southwest Turkey and northwest Syria continues to rise. According to the latest figures, the number of those killed in both regions has reached a staggering 36,000, more than 100,000 inhabitants were injured. An unknown number of victims are still under the rubble. The evacuation will take time and effort. The disaster has affected millions of people and hundreds of thousands of survivors are now in desperate need of shelter, food and medical supplies. This is a humanitarian catastrophe, and it will take many years to fully understand its extent, as both countries are moving from rescue operations to reconstruction.
While nearly 100 countries helped Turkey cope with the disaster by sending search and rescue teams, medicines, and advanced sensor equipment, only about 20 states, the majority of which were Arab, responded to the tragedy in Syria. The situation there remains uncertain, complicated by years of civil war, economic sanctions against the Syrian government, and logistical hurdles. Five days had elapsed before humanitarian aid convoys began to cross the border between southern Turkey and the Idlib Governorate besieged by rebels. No one knows how many lives were lost there due to delays caused by political calculations and internal disagreements.
Of course, more lives would have been saved were if not for the sanctions imposed by the West against Damascus and the difficult situation in rebel-held areas. Martin Griffiths, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, wrote on social media after visiting the Turkish-Syrian border: “So far we have let people down in northwest Syria. They rightly feel abandoned because of the international aid that never arrived.” In reality, his wording is somewhat unfair and incorrect, since it was not international aid that was not delivered to these areas, but only the aid of those states which definitely subordinated themselves to the US dictate. As for Moscow, from the very first days of the tragedy, it not only began to supply large-scale assistance to the Syrian people but also sent its very experienced specialists there. It is no coincidence that it was Russian specialists who made a significant contribution and saved many Syrians, whom we consider as ordinary victims of a natural disaster.
It took the US Embassy in Damascus a few days to demagogically mutter through clenched teeth that “Our sanctions programs are not aimed at humanitarian aid and allow activities in support of humanitarian aid, including in areas controlled by the regime. The US is committed to providing the immediate humanitarian assistance required to save lives and assist all affected communities in their recovery.” But all this is an outright lie, and Washington, as the American media themselves write, is very pleased that another natural blow has been inflicted on the legitimately elected government of Bashar al-Assad. The inability of the international community to provide vital assistance to the Syrian people, and above all by the so-called “democratic USA”, has revealed serious shortcomings of sanctions as an economic weapon used to achieve the dirty political goals of the West.
Political differences impede the delivery of humanitarian aid convoys to areas held by militants actively supported by the United States. The Syrian government is hesitant to allow the delivery of aid from its territory to the territory of the opposition. Similarly, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (a terrorist group banned in the Russian Federation), which controls most of Idlib, said that allowing aid to flow from government-controlled areas would be tantamount to recognizing the regime’s legitimacy. According to the militants and the Western forces behind them, let people die, but they will not accept help from Damascus. The militants agree to accept only aid moving across the border, but this has also raised objections from outside parties.
Moscow and Damascus want aid from Turkey to pass through one recognized border checkpoint, while the United States, as enfant terrible, for some unknown reason demanded that other border crossings between southern Turkey and northern Syria be opened for convoys with humanitarian aid. In this regard, Griffiths announced that some of these objections of the United States had been nevertheless removed under pressure from public opinion. The UN Security Council met to discuss the situation in northwestern Syria, and EU officials slowly, while earthquake victims were dying, discussed ways to lift some sanctions for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Damascus. Moreover, it had been agreed in advance that this would only happen in case of “Washington’s consent”.
Debates have resumed around the world about the effectiveness of sanctions and whether they bring results. Sanctions almost never help in achieving their goals, whether it is changing the behavior of the regime or bringing about regime change. They have never worked in Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Iran.
They have never been efficient in Iraq, although the then US ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, cynically said in 1996 that “the price is worth it” when asked about the deaths of half a million Iraqi children as a result of her country’s sanctions. You just marvel at the malice of this woman, whose parents suffered during the Holocaust from the Nazi regime.
Sanctions never harm the leaders of the target country. But they damage the civilian population and undermine civilian infrastructure, as in the case of Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. The catastrophic earthquake showed that the Syrian government was ill-prepared to deal with the humanitarian crisis because of the civil war unleashed by the West. The US Caesar Act of 2019, ironically called the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act”, damaged the Syrian people and did nothing to advance the political process to end the civil war or rid the country of foreign interference and intervention by the very same American troops.
Last January, geopolitics expert Anchal Vohra wrote in an article for Foreign Policy: “Western sanctions that have banned reconstruction of any kind, including power plants and destroyed cities, have certainly exacerbated the suffering of Syrians and eliminated any chance of recovery.” This is the essence of the inhuman policy of the United States and its rulers: he who is not with us must die.
The catastrophic event that struck the population of Syria should provide an opportunity and the need to reconsider sanctions as a blind instrument that harms the very people it allegedly supports. And the US leads this shameful sanctions process; it is ready to destroy 8 billion people so that only one “golden” billion led by the United States could prosper. By the way, the same barbaric policy was applied to the destruction of the indigenous population – native Americans, whose remnants are driven to, and slowly dying in reservations. I have to agree with the statement of Saudi Arab News, which wrote that “The shameful reaction of the international community to the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria is a stain on the history of mankind.” True, there are as many such shameful spots in the history of the United States as there are stars on their flag.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In Tbilisi, as in any other European capital, you will see Turkish restaurants. There has always been a Turkish community in Georgia, and neighbouring Azerbaijan is a Turkic state, speaking a similar language. So there is nothing unusual about Georgia being like everywhere else in this regard.
However Georgia is a very nationalistic country, regardless of what its politicians wish to label themselves. There is a strong distinction between what “Georgian” is and what is not and Georgia has its own native version of everything, as you would expect considering the venerableness of its culture and its long struggles for independence and distinctiveness under foreign domination.
As everyone knows, one area where Georgia has a distinctive local tradition is cuisine. You aren’t a proper Georgian if you don’t eat your khachapuri, ajapsandali or khinkali.
So the reaction of many Georgians to Turkish restaurants is, “Why do I want to eat someone else’s food when I can eat Georgian food?” This may sound chauvinistic, but with all due respect to Turkey, most outsiders, confronted with the two, share that opinion.
Turkish restaurants have two main purposes in Georgia. Firstly; they provide a cultural locale for the local Muslim minorities, which feel more at ease if they can relate themselves to their presumed identity. Secondly, they are a projection of power – just as McDonalds represents the values of Uncle Sam, so these restaurants remind everyone that the big neighbour is around.
Turkish restaurants are not high street kebab houses, manned by immigrants on a minimum wage, as you see in many Western countries. They are meeting places of the well employed, well connected and well known.
In Georgia a Turkish businessman is a managing director, not a sweatshop owner, and he lives in one of the better parts of town. His children go to the best schools and universities, and he expects to be consulted about things pertaining to his business by the national government, not try and survive under whatever regulations it makes.
Thus are the relations between Georgia and Turkey. There is no doubt who is the senior partner. If a Georgian invests in Turkey in the same way Turks do in Georgia he will be a small player in the local economy, no matter how large his concern. Turks expect to run things in Georgia, because it is Georgia.
However the relationship is not all one way. Turkey needs Georgia more than it cares to admit. It has its own agendas like every other country, and these are not those of Georgia. But Turkey needs Georgia to show the world it can be the nice guy, not the tolerated monster, when it wants to be.
Puppet Diplomacy
We would all like to think that international relations are based on politics, pragmatism and mutual respect. In fact they are based on confirming stereotypes, and hiding behind these when things go wrong.
In the early 1980s a British government minister, Nicholas Scott, got in trouble due to the behaviour of his secretary. After a minor traffic incident, the secretary had started hurling abuse at the other party involved, who was not British, telling him he should go back to where he came from, or words to that effect.
The media reported this story with the tagline “the person concerned was Swiss”. The implication was that it was stupid to behave that way towards a Swiss person. Such abuse is reserved for Pakistanis and West Indians, where it may be officially condemned but also tacitly accepted as something people from those communities have to put up with.
There are various African countries with significant mineral resources much desired in the West. If a Western country signed a major trade deal with another Western country to obtain more of these resources, this would be regarded as a victory, and a way of ensuring success at the next election.
But how often do we see the fancy podiums wheeled out for big trade deals with African countries, even when they include these resources? This isn’t just because dealing with African countries direct would mean having to pay them fair prices for their goods.
It is because Africans don’t matter in international relations, except as people to exploit and blame. No one cares if you have good relations, economic or political, with a dirty African country. You have to be at the top table, walking the walk and talking the talk, to have any credibility with other countries or with domestic electorates.
Turkey thinks of itself as being at that top table. Most other countries know it is, but either won’t admit it or think that is a bad thing. So it needs friends of a particular type, and this is a category Georgia happens to fall into.
From Pope and Turk Defend Us, Lord
Turkey is surrounded by countries which owe their existence to kicking out the Turks. No matter how good relations are in the practice, in public these countries can only go so far towards accepting Turkey, and then from a position of supposed superiority rather than partnership.
A large chunk of Eastern Europe was liberated from the Ottoman Empire by Russia, amongst others. The states created by these wars of liberation were long under a Russian and Soviet sphere of influence, and are seeking to escape that, rightly or wrongly, as an expression of their post-Cold War independence.
But still Turkey, which can represent an alternative pole of influence nearer home, is the partner few want. Turkey would be mad to try and reconquer one inch of Ottoman territory, regardless of what Erdogan says, not least because the modern Turkish state was itself created as an antidote to that Empire and what it stood for.
For most in the extensive former Ottoman territories in either Europe or Asia, Turkey still has to be the enemy for them to be the heroes. Further West, forget it – Turks are dangerous because both Eastern and Muslim, and if they have money that only makes it worse, as it must have been stolen from the good people on the opposite side.
However crude such stereotypes appear, we have all seen them played out, dressed in different words, time and again. So Turkey has great need of a country where it can parade around as a bigwig, but still be considered more a friend than a threat.
Georgia doesn’t feel threatened by Turkey because it knows Turkey won’t dare try anything. Turkey has also been neutral on the big issues in Georgia: it wasn’t pro-Soviet but it didn’t support the independence movements either, and it has worked with every Georgian government on broadly similar terms, whatever the nature of the Turkish government, despite the internal polarisation created by the very different Georgian regimes.
Georgia and Turkey really can do business. Only Turkey can meddle in Georgia, not the other way round, but the limits of that are set by the stereotypes of others, without imposition by either party.
Grey Trade Agreement
The most controversial aspect of the relations between Georgia and Turkey is the Turkish control of the port of Batumi, and therefore in effect that of Poti, established in the Treaty of Kars of 1921. This has created a Passport to Pimlico scenario, in which neither side claims to be responsible, and therefore both can break laws with impunity.
The premise of the 1949 film Passport to Pimlico was that under a just-discovered medieval treaty the district of Pimlico in London was actually part of the Duchy of Burgundy, not the UK. Therefore post-war rationing could no longer be imposed, but this also made the area a haven for smugglers and the like.
After attempts to isolate and starve the natives out failed, and alienated the British public, the British government negotiated and the area returned to the UK because its existence was harming the UK as much as Pimlico itself. The film may be fiction, but it neatly demonstrates what happens in a world of on-book and off-book accounting, where everything is technically legal but no one is actually responsible.
The status of the Adjaran ports in also guaranteed by the fact that the surrounding district of Adjara remains politically autonomous by virtue of the same treaty. The reason for this autonomy was the Muslim majority in the area. Therefore any attempt to subvert that autonomy would be declared an attack on Turkey and a human rights breach, whatever the consequences of it.
It has been well documented that the controversial regime of former Adjaran ruler Aslan Abashidze would not have been possible without this autonomy. His main crime in the eyes of the Georgian government may have been doing better criminal deals than it was doing itself, but it was the autonomy of the region which gave Abashidze the opportunity to control its dubious activities himself, rather than working through middlemen in Tbilisi or Ankara.
However crime also has governments to answer to. There is little suggestion that the cargoes passing through Batumi or Poti are bringing great wealth to Turkey. They ultimately benefit those who want to operate legally for public consumption but illegally to pursue their interests, of which the United States is the prime example amongst international level players.
When the US wants to, for example, transport arms to terrorists, it pretends they are going to legal governments but actually sends them direct to the terrorists, which is illegal, or uses the legal recipients as a conduit for distributing them, also illegal. The best places through which to do this are ports which are sort of in one country and sort of in another, but neither side is able to exercise complete control.
Oil, drugs and other illegal commodities pass freely through the Georgian Black Sea ports no matter who is in power in either Georgia or Turkey, and much of this contraband is sourced from facilities operated by terrorist groups funded and protected by the same US which claims to be waging a war against them. This happens because all the parties concerned are getting something out of it, and changing the situation would have negative practical impacts which would outweigh any social benefits, or are perceived to.
Abashidze was accused, rightly, or being a crime boss. But you can’t be a boss without a structure, and every structure has its own inbuilt defaults, the very same ones which are good news for the relations between Turkey and Georgia.
Long Live The System
The US was founded by refugees as the ultimate liberal state. Its Constitution is full of checks and balances which give every branch of government, and every individual, enough power to operate but not so much that they can inflict harm on others, or disrupt the proper working of others.
As in all liberal states, this has resulted in some being more equal than others, and the less equal getting the blame for their failure to profit from the system. But the principles behind the US Constitution still form the backbone of the “right” side in international relations – the more you are perceived to be upholding them, the better you are.
The relations between Turkey and Georgia, whatever their faults, present an example of the very thing countries which criticise both aspire to. Turkey is the more important player, Georgia knows that, and so Turkey behaves as such and expects to be treated as such.
But there is only so far it can go, due to the historical, cultural and political differences between the two countries and their perceptions by the rest of the world. If Turkey wants to interfere directly in the operation of another country, those differences prevent it doing so in Georgia when there are many better candidates, as we have seen in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict .
Those same differences provide Georgia with a guarantee of its independence. No matter who you are, if you come to Georgia you are expected to behave like Turkey: so far but no further. The bigger you are, the bigger Georgia is if it can ensure that expectation is met, and that if anything nefarious is going on, both sides stand to gain from it.
King George II of England was once subject of a rhyme: “You may strut, dapper George, but ‘twill all be in vain, We know ‘tis Queen Caroline, not you, who reign”.
Turks in Georgia do strut, but know they have to let the locals reign, and let Georgians in Turkey be partners, not colonials. This may not be an ideal partnership, but it is better than most countries have, and the prejudices of everyone else have made it fall into their laps.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In their assessments of Iran’s foreign policy after the 1979 February Revolution, experts often tend to have a one-sided and biased perception of Tehran’s diplomacy. In particular, a certain stereotype has emerged, according to which Iran, as the main Shiite Islamic state by religion, is the flagship of world Shiism, strives for absolute hegemony in the Islamic (primarily Shiite) world and preaches the ideology of pan-Islamism with a Shiite tinge.
Of course, the religious factor does play a major role in Iran’s politics and diplomacy (otherwise the state would not be called the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the ruling regime would not be determined by the supremacy of the Ayatollah). In fact, the overthrow of the Shah’s regime in February 1979 under the slogans of the Islamic revolution in Iran pursued two key goals:
1) external – to exclude the external (Western – Anglo-Saxon) dominance from the life of Iran, the corrupting influence of Western immoral anti-values and the exploitation by Western companies of Iran’s strategic natural resources of oil and gas;
2) internal – through Islamic consolidation to preserve the territorial integrity and internal political unity of the Iranian state and multi-ethnic society (in particular, to localize the basis of ethnic separatism of a part of the Muslim, but not the Persian population of the country – Azeri, Kurds, Baluchis, Pashtuns, Arabs).
It is only natural that Iran, historically and traditionally occupying a key place in the Middle East, considers the idea of consolidating the Shiite world in this space as a priority strategy. Accordingly, countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan (where Shiite Muslims live in various proportions) are objects of increased interest for Iran. At the same time, Tehran proceeds in its diplomacy not only from the standpoint of religious preferences, but also tries to take a comprehensive approach to the topic of bilateral relations (in particular, to take into account the totality of historical, geographical, economic, military-political and other features).
Unlike neighboring Turkey and the Arab monarchies (KSA, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait), Iran does not have such significant ethno-religious external relations (as, say, the Turkic peoples and countries for Turkey, the Arab and Sunni world for Saudi Arabia).
Perhaps if the democratic regime of electing a national government had been preserved in Iran based on the experience of the first half of the 1950s (in particular, the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh of 1951-1953), then the political fate of the Iranian state would have gone a different route. However, the United Kingdom and the United States, proceeding from colonial goals and imperial ambitions, did not agree with the nationalization of the oil industry (fields) of Iran and organized a coup (a secret CIA operation Ajax). The overthrow of Mosaddegh led to the fact that General Fazlollah Zahedi, who came to power, returned oil concessions to the United States and Great Britain. Under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the West continued to exploit Iranian resources and introduced laws incompatible with local moral values.
More than 40 years of Iran’s stay under severe economic sanctions by Western countries and their satellites have not broken the will of the Iranian people and political leadership to independence. The Islamic Republic had to adapt to new realities and build a new course of survival and development. Over the past decades, Iran has been able to create and develop a national industry, education, science, and defense complex. In today’s conditions, Tehran continues to oppose the global hegemony of the United States, positively perceives the course towards a multipolar world proclaimed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2007, increases its foreign policy and foreign economic ties with key countries (primarily China, India and Russia) and respects the interests of small (including neighboring) countries.
In this regard, attention is drawn to Iran’s independent course in a situation of aggravation of Russian-Ukrainian relations, where Iranian diplomacy, on the one hand, recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, on the other hand, condemns the expansionist policy of NATO led by the United States, the aggressive aspirations of the North Atlantic Bloc in the post–Soviet space and the anti-Russian militarism of the West on the Ukrainian soil.
Iran, regardless of the opinion of Kyiv and its Western allies, is developing independent diplomacy and a pragmatic policy of strategic partnership with Russia (including in the field of military-technical and high-tech cooperation). Tehran appreciates Russia’s role in the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Moscow’s policy of preserving regional peace and security in the Transcaucasian and Central Asian regions bordering Iran. A positive Russian-Iranian partnership has also developed in Syria, in the joint confrontation with the forces of international terrorism (for example, ISIS, an international terrorist organization banned in Russia), on the Astana platform of diplomatic cooperation.
The spectrum of Russian-Iranian economic relations will soon be enriched through the growth of tourist demand and the interest of Russians in Iran (in particular, this will be facilitated by the signing of a visa-free exchange agreement between our countries), the prospect of cooperation in the field of mechanical engineering (especially automotive after confirming the certification of Iranian cars).
Iran and Russia remain the largest owners of natural gas (respectively, they control 17% and 24% of the world’s gas reserves). More than 40% of the world’s gas reserves are able to exert a key influence on the pricing process in foreign gas markets.
In an effort to overcome the artificial isolation imposed by Western sanctions, Iran began to show an active interest in mutually beneficial cooperation with the EAEU, to increase trade turnover with the countries of Eurasian integration, joined the key international organization of Asian cooperation SCO.
China and India are important areas of Iran’s multi-vector economic cooperation in the fields of investment, energy, high technology, industry, agriculture, logistics and transport communications. Iran has received large investments of $450 billion from China for the development of infrastructure, energy and tourism, which in the foreseeable future can change the face of Iran in favor of an industrially developed state.
Beijing and New Delhi are also actively developing military and military-technical cooperation with Tehran at the bilateral level (including through the special services). As Chinese President Xi Jinping stated, “China supports Iran in protecting its national sovereignty and countering unilateral actions and intimidation.” Accordingly, Beijing warns the NATO countries and Israel about the inadmissibility of aggressive actions against Iran.
The official visit of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to China, which took place from February 14 to 16 this year, was evidence of a new stage of the Iranian-Chinese strategic partnership. The parties signed 20 agreements on cooperation in the field of information technology, healthcare, agriculture, trade, tourism, sports and other spheres.
Tehran is trying to revive the historical traditions of trade relations between Persia and Asian centers, because in ancient times one of the key routes of the “Silk Road” from China and India passed through Persia. Everything is returning to normal, because Iran is not only a country with traditions of the past, but also a key subject of the modern Middle East and an equally promising pole of the future multipolar world.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In the rapidly changing situation around Russia’s successful special operation to denazify the criminal Ukrainian regime, the Biden administration decided to urgently replace its “overseer” in Ukraine – Ambassador Kelly Degnan. After all, against the background of the outright failure of the Russophobic adventure of the White House using the revival of neo-Nazism in opposition to the Kremlin, Washington faced the urgent task of “saving” at least some islands of its former influence in the post-Soviet space.
But, as you know, it was Georgia that, in the post-Soviet space, until recently was considered by the United States to be some kind of an “island of American democracy,” to strengthen which the US threw not only Mikhail Saakashvili, who was nurtured in Langley and now finds himself in a prison in Rustavi for his crimes against the Georgian people. Another such point of influence was supposed to be Kelly Degnan specifically selected as ambassador, who can boast a rich cavalry experience and previously worked as a Political Advisor to the four-star Commander of US Naval Forces Europe and US Naval Forces Africa, Political Counselor at the the US Mission to NATO in Brussels, Senior Civilian Representative to Brigade Combat Team Salerno in Khost, Afghanistan.
Having arrived in Tbilisi in January 2020, from the very first days Degnan tried to promote in this country her favorite idea of moving NATO further to the East through “soft power.” In 2020, Degnan, a wiry lady with preference for military uniforms rather than diplomatic attire, seemed to the White House the most acceptable candidate for strengthening the militant positions of the United States in Georgia and Transcaucasia as a whole. Hence she received the appropriate instructions: to delve deeper into the geopolitical problems of the region and to develop scenarios for a possible strengthening of the military presence of the United States here. In particular, she was tasked with intensifying the construction of the port in Anaklia in order to place an American naval base there, and to increase the efforts of secret US biolabs in developing effective, region-specific biological weapons. In addition, on account of the signing of the bilateral agreement on security cooperation, Kelly Degnan became responsible for implementing Pentagon’s plans to create Cooperative Security Locations (CSLs) in Georgia, i.e. facilities with little or no permanent US personnel presence, which may contain pre-positioned equipment. At the same time, Washington hoped that such a variant of “military cooperation,” without focusing on the creation of a US military base in Georgia, would make it possible to install a de facto US military presence in the Caucasus and, if necessary, immediately deploy US army combat and logistical support bases not only “in the Russian theater of military operations,” but also in the greater Caucasus and Central Asian region. Along with this, Degnan was tasked with strengthening pro-American positions in the political and military establishment of Georgia with the possibility of expanding this “island of American democracy” not only to Ukraine, but also to the entire post-Soviet space.
However, due to a change in Washington’s concept of using as the spearhead of the confrontation with Russia in the post-Soviet space not Georgia (as was the case in 2008 with the failed adventure of Saakashvili’s Five-Day War), but Ukraine and the preparation of the Kiev Maidan, a neo-Nazi coup d’etat, the White House’s “oversight” over the cavalry attacks by Degnan in Tbilisi weakened. In addition, Washington’s dwindling attention to “courting” of Georgia was largely due to the desire shown by official Tbilisi to join the European Union and NATO, and the signing of a new framework agreement on defense cooperation between the United States and Georgia in November 2019. All of this led to complacency on the part of the United States regarding the control of Tbilisi’s policy and the actions of the “overseer” Degnan, as most of these concerns were delegated to the EU and NATO.
However, the infamously limited thinking of the war-dogs from NATO and the EU (for example, those of Josep Borrel, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, as a member of the Commission headed by Ursula von der Leyen, a “specialist in women’s ailments”) and their nonsensical actions against Georgia led to the fact that a pro-Russian, and not pro-American, bias has intensified in this Caucasian country. A fact that today not only the US, but also the UK is forced to admit.
In addition, Georgia’s desire to reestablish relations with Russia is undoubtedly facilitated by historical mutual sympathies of the peoples of both countries, nurtured for centuries, and the fact that about 100 thousand Russians reside in this Caucasian Republic and hundreds of thousands of Georgians live in Russia. And the United States and its Western “allies” have so far failed to destroy the traditional ties between Moscow and Tbilisi, no matter how hard they and Ambassador Degnan tried. Moreover, despite the information attacks on Russia and the policy of Western restrictions intensified by the West in 2022 due to Moscow’s special operation in Ukraine, ties between the two countries are only growing. Contacts between residents of the two countries are actively developing, and Georgian GDP growth by 10% last year was largely due to ties with Russia. According to the National Bank of Georgia, in 2022 there was a noticeable increase in the receipts of transfers to this country from Russia, which exceeded $2 billion. Levan Davitashvili, Georgia’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, acknowledged in December 2022 that out of some 900,000 companies registered in the country there are 10 thousand successful companies with Russian participation. Moreover, Russian citizens register their businesses in Georgia “on absolutely legal terms,” and this relocation is “an unequivocally positive trend as it helps galvanize the Georgian economy.”
Georgia’s Education Minister Mikheil Chkhenkeli reports that 11 Russian-language schools and 45 Russian-language sectors are currently functioning in Georgia, despite the West’s strenuous policy of infringing on the dissemination and use of the Russian language and Russian schools in its controlled states in recent years. And if last year there were 14,222 students enrolled in these schools, now there are more than 16,000.
Georgia and Russia are actively discussing a possible return to direct air communications suspended four years ago. And this despite an openly negative Russophobic position on this issue on the part of European officials from Brussels and the US Ambassador Degnan.
Amidst the recent intensification of provocative calls from Kiev and certain Western countries for Georgia to open a “second front” against Russia, these attempts to destabilize the situation in the Caucasus and relations between Tbilisi and Moscow remain futile. There are a significant number of politicians and public organizations in Georgia who understand the direct benefit for this country in maintaining smooth, good-neighborly relations with Russia and not slipping back to another anti-Russian provocation from Washington.
Against this background, Georgia has recently intensified its critical attitude towards the inflammatory anti-Russian policy pursued by the United States and its Western allies. For instance, former Georgian State Minister for Conflict Resolution, film director Giorgi Khaindrava commented with irony and undisguised criticism on the recent statement by MEP Anna Fotyga that Georgia “belongs to the collective West.” “Ms. Fotyga mistakenly believes that we Georgians no longer belong to ourselves,” he said. Member of the Georgian Parliament from the “Power of the People” movement Sozar Subari also commented on Fotyga’s plans to hold a conference on Georgia in the European Parliament at the end of November. “Those external forces that want to involve Georgia in military actions (between Russia and Ukraine) and bring their agents to power are raising a new wave. They will fail. They have no support in Georgian society,” the MP said.
Giorgi Khaindrava also told Imedi TV that Tbilisi is ready to be Washington’s partner, but not a slave.
Under these conditions, the White House decided to blame all its mistakes in the unsuccessful “Americanization of Georgia” on the unqualified actions of Ambassador Kelly Degnan, who, after only two years of work in Tbilisi, was urgently replaced. At the same time, the White House intends to take away from the EU the “so far unsuccessful supervision over the Westernization of this Caucasian republic” and send a new, more qualified American ambassador to Tbilisi in the near future. As American media outlets report, the US President has even submitted a candidate for the post of ambassador to Georgia – Robin Dunnigan, currently a Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for Central and Eastern Europe who previously served as head of the American diplomatic mission in Vienna. A detailed analysis of this candidate for the role of a new US “overseer” in Georgia will be made after its official approval.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
On several occasions in his recent articles dealing with the political consequences of the disaster in Itaewon on October 29, 2022, the author has referred to the attempts of the Together Democratic Party (the Democrats) to secure the “dismissal” of Lee Sang-min, Minister of the Interior and Safety (a post that is the equivalent of Minister of Interior Affairs). Now they have finally succeeded, but at what cost?
On December 11 last year South Korea’s National Assembly voted for the impeachment of Lee Sang-min (MPs from the ruling People Power Party abstained from the vote) but on December 12 the Presidential Administration postponed making a final decision until the end of the police investigation into the disaster.
Back then, as readers will remember, the special police investigative group decided not to bring charges against the Minister or any other officials in the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. The investigators reached the conclusion that the prevention of disasters and emergency response operations are the responsibility of local, and not national government. But the Democrats still had the option of calling for a Parliamentary investigation – and they, although in opposition, still have a majority in the National Assembly!
On January 30 a group of opposition parties presented to the National Assembly a report on the investigation into the Itaewon disaster, drawn up by a specially formed Parliamentary committee and accepted despite the Conservatives’ boycott. That report accuses Lee Sang-min of failing to take the necessary measures and thus prevent the disaster, and also of failing to establish a central disaster response authority, which he, as the Minister of the Interior and Safety, was legally bound to do.
“Despite the fact that a major disaster has occurred, and that 159 innocent people have lost their lives, nobody in the government has apologized, and no-one has behaved in a responsible way and resigned,” claimed Park Hong-keun, leader of the Democratic Party group in the National Assembly, conveniently forgetting that in the first few days after the disaster some key figures in the government had offered their apologies. These included President Yoon Suk-yeol Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the Minister of the Interior and Safety, Lee Sang-min, the head of the National Police Agency, Yoon Hee-keun, and Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon. Or perhaps, as the Democrats are wont to claim, “those apologies were not sincere enough.”
On February 6, 2023, the Democratic Party group in the National Assembly decided to initiate the impeachment of Lee Sang-min and lay the blame for the October 29 disaster at his feet. As Park Hong-keun claimed, “holding the Minister responsible for the disaster will enable us to protect the values enshrined in the Constitution and put into effect the will of the people.”
On February 8, 2023 the National Assembly voted to impeach Lee Sang-min for “showing no regret and taking no responsibility even after the deaths of 159 precious lives.” The Democrats’ initiative was supported by 179 out of 300 deputies, with 109 voting against it and 5 votes being ruled invalid. Seven deputies abstained from the vote.
President Yoon Suk-yeol’s government condemned the impeachment as a “rejection of parliamentary principles” which would “go down as a shameful episode in the history of our Parliament”, and Lee Sang-min has announced that he will cooperate with the impeachment proceedings in good faith.
The Conservatives accuse the Democratic party of using the impeachment process for political ends at a time when the Democrats’ leader, Lee Jae-myung is being questioned in connection with a number of corruption scandals, in which he is likely to be charged.
As a result, Lee Sang-min has been suspended from the performance of his duties until the Constitutional Court decides whether to uphold or overrule the decision of the Assembly. The court has 180 days to make a decision, and if 6 out of the 9 justices of the Court vote in favor of the impeachment, it will enter into effect. This is the third impeachment in South Korea’s history and the first time when the procedure has been used against a senior civil servant rather than a president. The question is, how successful will the impeachment be?
Let us begin by considering it from a strictly procedural point of view. Firstly, in an impeachment the person responsible for bringing the charges is the chairman of the parliamentary legislative and judicial committee, a position currently held by the Conservative lawmaker Kim Doe-up. The Democrats have thus already expressed “concern that he may not carry out his role actively, due to his affiliation with the ruling party”.
Secondly, in the Constitutional Court the panel of justices hearing the challenge to the impeachment will be presided by Lee Jong-seok. The choice of presiding judge, while apparently random (the choice is made by a “digital algorithm”) is a problem for the Democrats, since Lee Jong-seok is seen as Conservative-leaning, and, what is more, he was a classmate of President Yoon Suk-yeol at the Law faculty of Seoul National University.
Thirdly, the court has half a year to issue its decision, and a lot can happen in that time. For example, during the impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun, back in 2004, in the period between the vote on the impeachment in the National Assembly and the ruling of the Constitutional Court, there was a general election, which was won by Roh Moo-hyun. In the circumstances, not surprisingly, the Court chose to reverse the Assembly’s decision.
Fourthly, unlike a motion for an official to be dismissed, an impeachment requires more concrete proof – specifically that the accused person has violated the Constitution or national law while performing his duties. And, in the view of the present author, the charges that have been brought against the Minister are very flimsy.
As the Korea Herald, a Conservative daily, points out, experts in constitutional law consider that the chances of the Court’s upholding Lee Sang-min’s impeachment are fairly small.
But, more significantly, Lee Sang-min’s impeachment has clearly demonstrated that the Democrats have undermined a fundamental element in the working of a democratic state. After all, impeachment is a measure of last resort, and should only be used in extreme cases – when a president has broken the Constitution or behaved in an unacceptable manner.
During the 2004 impeachment the then president was openly supported by the party which he had founded, and the situation was exacerbated by the death of Nam Sang-guk, which made it clear to everyone that poisoning his political opponents (or other people selected to serve as an example to others), or driving them to commit suicide formed an inherent part of Roh Moo-hyun’s approach to politics. In the case of the 2016 impeachment, there was no violation of the Constitution (as it subsequently emerged) but the voting was accompanied by large-scale demonstrations by protestors who were, at that stage, unaware that the allegations of “unprecedented corruption” were false.
As for the impeachment of Lee Sang-min, this is clearly NOT a case of a minister exceeding his authority after learning about a disaster. The investigation has not revealed any evidence that Lee Sang-min acted illegally. There has been no corruption or abuse of power. Nor were there any direct orders that contributed to the disaster.
In effect Lee Sang-min has been impeached because he refused to don sackcloth and ashes and, instead of resigning, continued to work in order to mitigate the consequences of the disaster. The sole reason for the impeachment is the fact that the Democrats have 50%+1 vote, which gives them the ability to force through any proposal that does not require a supermajority of two thirds. As noted in the conservative press, “the Democratic Party processed the unconvincing and unjustifiable motion on the back of its large majority in the Assembly. It was an act of tyranny by the majority party.”
And there is little doubt as to the reasons for the behavior of the Democratic opposition. Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party leader, has been questioned by investigators, and prosecutors are currently considering whether or not to have him arrested, or at least to press charges against him. The Democrats are therefore doing everything they can to deflect attention from their own woes, and have chosen, not for the first time, to make use of a tragedy to achieve their ends.
But if the Democrats think that impeaching the minister will provide Lee Jae-myung with immunity from the charges brought against him, they are wrong. Of course the Conservatives and Democrats both have low popularity ratings, and in recent polls the difference between their ratings is statistically insignificant, and it is safe to say that even if Lee Jae-myung is not yet in the fire, he is definitely in the frying pan.
There is one more question of concern to the present author, and, almost certainly the Democrats themselves: if the Constitutional Court overrules the impeachment, do they have a Plan B? Because if that happens the party’s reputation will be seriously dented and possibly may have to face accusations of slander in run up to the 2024 parliamentary elections.
However many of the present author’s respondents believe that by the time the court considers the case, everyone will have lost interest. The impeachment of the minister is a rehearsal for a possible impeachment of the president, and if the democrats are able to scrape together two thirds of the votes they will certainly find a pretext, which may be just as risible as the present one.
So, let us sum up. It is difficult to deny that Lee Sang-min bears a moral and symbolic responsibility, but whether he should be legally responsible is a very different matter. The impeachment of the Minister of the Interior and Safety should therefore be seen not as an instance of democratic institutions in action, or as a genuine response to the Itaewon disaster, but as a desperate attempt by the Democratic Party to rock the boat and save their party leader. It looks as if the next six months are going to be a turbulent time in South Korean domestic politics.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In the period from February 8 to 12 this year, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the son of one of the country’s most prominent politicians of the second half of the last century (and also President) Ferdinand Marcos Sr., was on an official visit to Japan. What was the third event of regional significance in just one month to focus on the Philippines. Recall that from January 3 to January 5, the same F. Marcos, Jr. was in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at the invitation of Chinese leader Xi Jinping. And in early February, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was on a visit to the Philippines.
And all these three events are closely related to each other, which is a factor of the escalating struggle between the leading regional powers for influence on the development of the situation in the sub-region of Southeast Asia. Control over Southeast Asia can significantly (if not decisively) affect the nature of development, as well as the outcome of the strategic game unfolding before our eyes in the Indo-Pacific region as a whole.
It is not the first time, and every time, the factor of the struggle for control over the Philippines had a significant character. This is mainly due to the specifics of the geographical location of this country. With the success of the military invasion of its territory, the initial, successful for Japan, period of the War in the Pacific 80 years ago began. The military defeat in the Philippines predetermined its disastrous outcome for Tokyo.
However, the winner of that war, the United States, today has a new source of challenges to strategic positions in the Indo-Pacific Region, which is China, which was an ally 80 years ago. The deadly enemy of that period now turns out to be a key ally. In this amazing metamorphosis, one thing remains unchanged: the strategic importance of controlling the territory of the Philippines.
This country (as well as a number of others forming the Southeast Asia region) has territorial claims intersecting with the PRC in the South China Sea, which manifest themselves in its waters in the form of various kinds of incidents. Of these, the last one happened just during the visit under discussion (as discussed below). Therefore, Manila’s positive response to a very clear signal from the US-Japanese tandem to provide various (including military) support to the Philippines is understandable. In particular, in the territorial dispute with the PRC.
At the same time, the country’s leadership is attempting to avoid the fate of all those who happened to be in the epicentre of the “Great World Game” of the third or fourth level of significance. And even during a period of sharp escalation of the struggle between the main players.
The leadership of each of the former behaves differently in this difficult situation. Particularly “cunning-wise”, such as the current Kiev regime, are even trying to extract material benefits from it by putting up for sale the controlled territory together with the population living on it. This act of purchase and sale is framed under idiotic but still popular memes: “struggle with Putin”, “defending the free-democratic world.”
However, unlike such political “players”, the Southeast Asian countries are led by experienced (and, most importantly, responsible to their own peoples) politicians. Without exception, all ten Southeast Asian countries (forming the ASEAN Regional Association) are balancing in the field of forces created by the main players here. They get it in different ways. Each of the ASEAN member countries can be seen to have a certain “bias of preferences” towards one or the other of the latter.
As for the Philippines, despite the complicated and contradictory history of this country’s relations with the United States, as well as (and especially) with Japan, the sum of the current objective factors (of which the one indicated above remains the main one) pushes the former towards both the latter. In this respect, the public anti-Americanism of the Philippines’penultimate president, Rodrigo Duterte, during the first six months after his accession to power in 2016, was no more than a short-term blip from this general and long-term trend.
However, even under these conditions, both the previous and current presidents of the Philippines at least indicate attempts of the aforementioned balancing in order to avoid the unenviable fate of a bargaining chip in the same “Big World Game”. From these positions, the trip of the Philippine president to China should be considered. The fact of which cannot, of course, cancel the effectiveness of the above trend.
Which fully corresponds to both the duration of the discussed (official, we repeat) visit to Japan of the President of the Philippines F. Marcos Jr. , and the impressive in terms of volume, as well as the content of the final Joint Statement, adopted following the talks held in Tokyo with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
It should be noted that this document ends with an invitation from the guest to the host to visit the Philippines “during 2023 and by mutual agreement” of a specific date. Which the second agreed to.
The general mood of the adopted Joint Statement is reflected by the definition of the current state of bilateral relations as “strong and sincere friendship” recorded in the preamble of the emotional plan. As well as the reproduction of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) word turnover, which is used as almost a password in the circle of regional allies and friends of the United States. In a hidden form, it rejects the PRC’s claims to disputed territories in the South China Sea. At the same time, references are made to the known solution. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in the summer of 2016, which, in turn, is not recognized by Beijing.
In the section on economic cooperation, attention was drawn to the commitment of the Japanese government to allocate 600 billion yen (about $4.5 billion) over the next five years (from public and private sources) in order to support the course of the current leadership of the Philippines to ensure the status of an “Upper Middle Income Country” by 2025 Income Country).
Nevertheless, the comments to this document unanimously emphasize the special importance of those sections devoted to the problems of ensuring defense and security. Moreover,and this is important to emphasize,in the formats of both bilateral and multilateral relations. Commentators put everything that is somehow connected with the “Chinese factor” into the focus of the regional context of this issue.
In the Philippines, it was considered that this “factor” manifested itself quite specifically the day before the visit discussed here. However, it was only the day after its completion that it was deemed possible to report some regular incident that happened in one of the disputed zones of the South China Sea.
In the retelling of the Japanese Mainichi Shimbun, we are allegedly talking about pointing a laser fire control system of onboard weapons from a Chinese patrol vessel to a Filipino one. That the command of the Philippine Maritime Border Service was regarded as an “act of blatant disregard and clear violation” of sovereign rights in this part of the South China Sea. In this connection, the Chinese ambassador in Manila was summoned to the country’s Foreign Ministry for a conversation. The article in the above-mentioned newspaper is accompanied by a photo of “green laser light” from a certain vessel.
And, of course, the US State Department (which, by the way, are mentioned in complimentary and positive tones more than once in this Japan-Philippines Joint Statement) did not miss such an appropriate opportunity to declare the American presence in the affairs of the subregion. Note, however, that the words about the concerns about all sorts of “threats in South China Sea (SCS)” (including FOIP) coming from the PRC and that “the US stands with our Philippine allies” came from an official of a country 15,000 km away from the “scene.” To which you can safely add another 4 thousand km on the territory of the USA itself, where, in fact, this respected institution is located.
In China , they reacted to all this raised noise (without much, however, clarification of details) in the sense that the Chinese border ship behaved “restrained-professionally” in relation to the Philippine vessel, which “without permission” turned out to be in the territorial waters of the country.
But no sooner did a certain “green laser light” aggravate the already bad situation in the South China Sea, than it alarmed the American public in Hawaii a week later. Although this time it was not the ships of the PRC that came under suspicion, but the notorious “Chinese cylinders”.
All these and other signs of the spreading insanity in the world (in particular, regularly shown on state television) give an occasion to read (however, rather sing) the famous line in a new way today: “Everything turned blue and green around.” And not only in the South China Sea and Hawaii.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
A series of large earthquakes that devastated a vast area in southeastern Turkey and part of Syria have so far claimed the lives of about 30,000 people in Turkey and 5,000 in Syria, and injured dozens of thousands of victims. All these events, which at first glance do not concern politics, completely overturned the election plans of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. For the first time in 20 years, the Turkish leader’s political future is truly at stake. Now he must prove that he is a leader who can achieve his goals and effectively mobilize the state to help those affected, help them rebuild their homes and their lives.
Many Turks are unhappy with the government, because after the devastating earthquake of 1999 (which killed about 17,000 people), a law was passed stipulating that all new buildings must comply with strict seismic building codes. Nevertheless, local authorities proved to be rather slack when it came to complying with the legislation, and many contractors used substandard materials and kept on building dangerous buildings, ignoring the relevant rules and specifications. Moreover, the government introduced a special tax, presumably aimed at strengthening existing buildings from earthquakes. Although more than $17 billion was raised, some people claim that only a small portion of this money was actually used for the stated purpose of ensuring seismic protection, while most of it was spent for unknown purposes. Turkey’s leading Justice and Development Party (AKP) also granted a controversial amnesty for illegal construction, which brought a lot of money to the state budget, while construction companies, which Erdoğan has always preferred, saved billions yet failed to protect residents from earthquakes.
The Turkish president tried to calm the anger of the earthquake victims by saying that “such things have always happened. It’s part of destiny’s plan.” He promised immediate assistance in the amount of about $530 to each homeless family, indicating that within a year the Ministry of Housing will try to build new homes for everyone who became homeless following the earthquake. However, this will require trillions of Turkish lira and will not be completed in a short time Erdoğan acknowledged that the response of the rescue services to the victims of the earthquake was far from perfect, and promised that “those responsible for the failures will be held accountable.” He also said that the government will take measures against individuals who engaged in looting and other criminal activities in the region affected by earthquakes. Victims of the earthquake, who were left without food and shelter for several days, booed Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ in the Yenisehir district in Diyarbakir province when he visited the site of the destruction.
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), sharply criticized Erdoğan’s government and his AKP party for the huge destruction caused by the earthquakes. In particular, he stated that this was the result of government corruption in the construction sector and the fact that the authorities deliberately avoided supervision of contractors, forcing them to apply low construction standards. Kılıçdaroğlu said that Erdoğan’s government has not “prepared the country for earthquakes,” despite being in power for more than 20 years, and added, “That’s why I never thought about meeting with Erdoğan. I have never considered this problem (destruction caused by an earthquake) as something beyond politics. We came to this because of his politics. People have been paying earthquake taxes to the state all their lives, but they could not see this state when they needed it. Everything exists for the presidential palace. But whenever he destroys this country, he calls for people’s support. I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with him and I never will.”
To give Erdoğan credit where it’s due, he quickly and decisively ordered those responsible to be punished. According to press reports, 113 arrest warrants have been issued in relation to the substandard construction of collapsed buildings, including for contractors and architects, and 12 people are already in custody. But the damage has already been done. And many Turks view these actions as a desperate attempt by the AKP government, which at one time actively encouraged the mass construction of substandard buildings in earthquake-prone areas and turned a blind eye to violations of building codes, to shift the blame to contractors and architects.
The earthquakes have put President Erdoğan in a difficult position. A while ago, he moved the elections forward from June to May. But now he will probably be forced to move the elections further back several months, hoping that over time the anger of the people will subside, and he will be able to once again present himself as a capable leader who can successfully cope with any difficult situation. But to achieve this, he must show tangible and real results, and not just empty words. Only time will tell whether he can cope with the consequences of the natural disaster, calm the people and appear as an all-Turkey leader.
Meanwhile, he declared a state of emergency in 10 earthquake-affected provinces, presumably to help the government fight against a sharply increased wave of looting. But the real goal, as the oppositionists note, may be completely different. Erdoğan wants to control the distribution of aid in order to present the foreign aid sent to Turkey as aid coming from his government, and to prevent unfavorable reports about the terrible situation in an area where people are still deprived of food and shelter, complaining about the painfully slow response of rescue teams.
As hopes of finding people alive under the rubble disappear virtually a week after the earthquake, attention has shifted to providing food and shelter to a huge number of survivors. According to the Turkish government, about 1.2 million people have been accommodated in student dormitories, more than 206,000 tents were set up, and 400,000 victims were evacuated from the destroyed areas.
Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay said 574 children recovered from collapsed buildings were found without surviving parents. Only 76 people were returned to other family members. One volunteer psychologist working at a child support center in the hard-hit province of Hatay said many parents are desperately searching for missing children. “We are receiving a flurry of calls about missing children,” Hatice Goz said by phone. “But if the child still can’t speak, the family can’t find them.”
In the destroyed Turkish city of Antakya, cleaning teams are clearing the rubble. The city was patrolled by police and soldiers deployed to prevent looting after several incidents over the weekend. “Send everything you can, because there are millions of people here, and they all need to be fed,” Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu ordered. The economic costs of the disaster could amount to up to $84.1 billion, of which almost $71 billion was spent on housing, according to a report by the Turkish employers’ Association Turconfed.
The Russian rescuers who participated in the search for earthquake victims and the dismantling of rubble in Turkey and Syria were highly praised by the authorities of these countries. The press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov said, “Our rescuers, as always, worked professionally, heroically and effectively. They hold the flag of our Ministry of Emergency Situations high. This rescue service has long been showing its prowess, selflessness, and heroism. And our rescuers carry this flag high. We are all proud of them.” Earlier, the head of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, Alexander Kurenkov, announced the completion of the work of Russian rescuers in the emergency zone. Following this, President Vladimir Putin decided to withdraw the EMERCOM group from Turkey. In total, more than 200 people were sent to the scene, including psychologists and rescue dog teams. A group of Russian rescuers provided medical assistance to 900 victims, cleared 8.4 thousand cubic meters of rubble in Turkey, the Il-76 Emergency Situations Ministry aircraft delivered 70 tons of humanitarian cargo to Syria and 36 tons to Turkey.
As noted Zvi Bar’el, a Middle East expert for Haaretz, noted, “From now on, great efforts will be made not only to pull out the dead and save the wounded, but also to create a favorable atmosphere for the ruling regime. The earthquake became an unexpected political player with the potential to significantly change the structure of the regime, or vice versa, further strengthen the power of Erdoğan and his party.”
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Following the launch of Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, India’s senior authorities did not openly denounce Moscow and adopted a more measured approach to the situation.
The neutrality of New Delhi is primarily attributable to the fact that Russian-Indian ties have long been cordial. Russia and India are BRICS members; the two nations effectively undertake collaborative educational and cultural initiatives; India purchases huge quantities of Russian energy resources; and Russia is a major supplier of weaponry to the Indian army. A deterioration in the Russian-Indian conversation might leave the Indian army, which relies on Russian and Soviet-made military hardware for 70% of its arsenal, without spare components. Because of its undeveloped military-industrial complex and fragile relations with Pakistan and China, New Delhi must assume responsibility for maintaining appropriate military capabilities.
With a population of 1.4 billion people and one of the world’s largest economies, India is much too powerful to remain entirely dependent on the geopolitical vectors of world powers such as China and the United States. As a result, Indian diplomats voted against Washington’s proposed anti-Russian resolutions at the United Nations. New Delhi recognizes that the US will not accomplish the intended result because the US leadership lacks the essential leverage on the Indian side. The Indian leadership’s approach towards Moscow is constantly criticized in the US media, but US officials attempt to keep their comments to a minimum in order not to lose a steady trade and possible strategic partner.
There is a sizable segment of the Indian populace who supports Russia. Many Indians recall the Soviet Union as one of India’s primary geopolitical and economic friends, and they recognize that Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, continues its predecessor state’s strategy. India also has historical grievances towards Western countries for the lengthy and humiliating period of colonialism, which hampered the country’s continued growth. Indian public figures routinely criticize the US government, claiming that it disregards international law and frequently breaches the sovereignty of other countries. For example, many Indians perceive a comparison between the Donbass’ yearning for independence from Ukraine and India’s battle for independence in the first half of the 20th century. Governors of certain Indian states are members of communist parties who publicly support Russia’s SMO in Ukraine.
Many Indian politicians are unhappy that Washington participates in joint exercises with India as part of the QUAD defence alliance, which was formed to counter the growing influence of the PRC and includes the US, Japan, Australia, and India, while also conducting active trade with the PRC, indirectly sponsoring the strengthening of Chinese positions.
It should be mentioned that India is far from having a stable domestic political scenario. Mass popular unrest on religious and ethnic lines is common in the state. Sharp remarks by high-ranking politicians have the potential to upset an already fragile social equilibrium in a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state.
At the moment, Indian officials are attempting to avoid discussing the Ukrainian war. This is partly because New Delhi does not want to jeopardize relations with Moscow and wishes to avoid a bad public reaction in its own nation. India refused to join the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies, instead attempting to fill a portion of the Russian market abandoned by Western firms. Direct military or diplomatic aid to Ukraine would not only derail the nascent discussion with Russia, but would also stymie the development of alliances with nations like as Iran and China, both of which criticize countries that back Kiev.
Arindam Bagchi, Official Spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, stated on January 5, 2023, that Ukraine was not on the list of nations invited to the G20 summit in New Delhi, which is slated to take place in September 2023. However, according to the Spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, the list of countries participating in the summit is not final, and there is a possibility that it may be changed. Nonetheless, Bagchi’s remarks might be seen as diplomatic caution. India is unlikely to reverse its decision and invite the Ukrainian team to the G20 conference.
The Indian government’s decision may be supported by the fact that, first, Ukraine is not a large participant in world commerce, and second, the Ukrainian situation has produced disagreement among many nations; thus, inviting Ukrainian leaders would exacerbate global tension. For example, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s online address at the Bali summit in November 2022 drew a lot of criticism from diplomats from several nations, and officials from some countries even opted not to be present in the hall where Zelensky’s speech was aired.
It should also be emphasized that New Delhi’s political attitude hastens the worldwide de-dollarization movement. The United States’ sanctions on Russia have compelled India to deal with Russia in particular areas using foreign currency.
For example, in the summer of 2022, the media reported that Indian firms finalizing coal agreements with Russia began refusing to pay for raw materials in dollars in order to reduce the possibility of breaking international sanctions. The Indian side began to expand imports of Russian coal since Moscow’s rates are significantly cheaper than those given for US and Australian coal.
It should be noted that instead of dollars, India typically pays for Russian coal in UAE dirhams, yuan, euros, and Hong Kong dollars. Some statistics claim that Asian currencies account for almost 60% of all non-dollar transfers. However, the dollar remains crucial for Russian raw material imports.
We should not anticipate India to modify its posture on Russia or its SMO operations in Ukraine. For the time being, New Delhi’s strategy is a positive example of how to act in the interests of one’s own country without being led by the US and its allies.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
There is hardly any doubt that the African continent holds immense political and economic significance for the people of the continent and for extra-regional states. It is rich in natural resources and will have one quarter of the world’s population by 2050. But within a global context marked by extremely heightened tensions, including threats of major military conflicts in Europe and Asia between superpowers, Africa’s fate hangs in the balance. A lot of the trouble the world is facing today has to do with the fact that the global political system created post Second World War and unilaterally dominated by the US since the end of the Cold War is in sharp decline. On the one hand, China’s massive economic rise is threatening the US dominance, and on the other hand, the blow Western military supremacy has received in Ukraine has exposed the limits of its power, leaving open the question of Washington’s reliability as Africa’s partner.
Africa, therefore, is skeptical of the extent of its engagement with the US for so many reasons. First of all, it is skeptical because its entire engagement with Africa is driven, first and foremost, by the imperative of countering the rising influence of China and Russia. Indeed, the US made its intentions pretty clear when it declared in its August-2022 Africa strategy document that its purpose is to respond to “foreign activity” – specifically, Russian and Chinese presence – in Africa. If all that Washington is seeking to achieve is pushback Russia and China, it means that its whole narrative of engagement with Africa is only a secondary purpose. In other words, Africa happens to be important for Washington not because Africa is an important continent in its own sense but because Washington sees it as a region that must be under its control so that it can shape it in its image.
This China-Russia centric importance of Africa for Washington was/is evident in the latest visit of Janet Yellen, the US Treasury Secretary. The visit, as irony would have it, came only days after the official visits of Russia and Chinese officials. Not only that, Yellen also warned Africa of the threat that “shiny deals” with China pose to the continent. But the visit, as usual, seemed to offer too little and too late in terms of pushing Russia and China back. During Lavrov’s visit, South Africa – which happens to be among countries that abstained from voting against Russia in the UN after Moscow began its special military operations in Ukraine in February 2022 – announced to host a joint naval exercise with Russia and China between February 17 and 27.
For many in the US, there are three troubles in this announcement. First is the fact that South Africa is deepening its ties with both of the US’ biggest global rivals. It leaves minimum space for Washington to maneuver to achieve the objectives it outlined in the August-2022 policy document.
Secondly, the timing of this naval exercise is also crucial. That it coincides with the 1st anniversary of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine means that the Russian narrative on Ukraine i.e., the crisis is driven by the US-sponsored expansion of NATO targeted at Russia, remains valid. Its validity means that Washington’s portrayal of Russia as a country that views the “views the [Africa] region as a permissive environment for parastatals and private military companies, often fomenting instability for strategic and financial benefit” has so far failed to make any impact whatsoever.
One may argue that South Africa is a member of the BRICS and has kind of ties with Russia that other countries may not have. In this context, its extensive military engagement with and diplomatic support for Russia make sense. But Russia’s presence in Africa goes well beyond South Africa only.
For instance, Russian supplies of energy to Africa have increased and are likely to continue to rise in the wake of EU sanctions. As reports in the western media show, Russia could supply 370,000 tons of diesel only this month to Africa. Since the start of January, diesel and gasoil supplies from the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk to Senegal have ramped up to 140,000 tons versus 35,000 tons in the previous month. None of this certainly bodes well for Washington’s policy of ‘containing’ Russia. Most importantly, the fact that Africa is buying energy from Russia means that the continent is openly defying the US policy of strangulating the Russian economy via sanctions.
As far as China is concerned, its trade with Africa, despite Washington’s characterization of Beijing as harmful for Africa, stood at US$254 billion in 2021, exceeding by a factor of four U.S.-Africa trade. There is, therefore, no match.
Thirdly, the fact that Africa continues to develop ties with Russia (and China) shows that Washington’s promise to “commit” US$55 billion to Africa in the next three years has failed to extract the kind of response it was hoping for i.e., a willingness from the African countries to review their ties with Russia and China in ways to make for room for the US.
When the US announced this so-called commitment, Biden’s national security advisor explained the rationale saying that they will give this money to Africa, and they will “make the case with passion and persistence to every country in the world [including Africa] that they should speak out against” Russia. Clearly, this has not happened.
On the contrary, when asked about the Ukraine question, the South Africa foreign minister criticized the (western) approach to try and limit the extent to which African nations can establish ties with Russia and China. What it means is that the US policy is beginning to backfire and is quite likely to end in yet another failure.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
On February 7, 2023 a very significant event occurred, in the author’s opinion. The Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of Nguyen Thi Thanh, a Vietnamese woman seeking compensation from the ROK government. Nguyen claimed that she lost five family members and suffered gunshot wounds herself when members of the Republic of Korea’s 2nd Marine Brigade, also known as the Blue Dragon Division, killed 74 civilians in Phong Nyi village in Vietnam’s Quang Nam Province in February 1968.
According to Nguyen Thi Thanh’s testimony, she witnessed a unit of South Korean Marines open fire on civilians, including her, and their home was burned down. “The Korean soldiers shouted and threatened the families with grenades to go outside,” and when the people came out, they shot them and threw grenades at them. Eight-year-old Nguyen miraculously escaped and was later brought to a nearby hospital with a bullet wound in her abdomen. Her 14-year-old brother was also seriously wounded. Her uncle, 83-year-old Nguyen Duc Choi, also testified that the attackers on the village were Koreans. He saw the scene through binoculars on his way to the village and later discovered the bodies, along with American soldiers and surviving residents.
Nguyen’s account is corroborated by U.S. Army data showing that more than 70 people were killed and about 20 wounded in Phong Nyi and Phong Nyat villages.
Moreover, based on the testimony of soldiers involved in the operation, statements by village self-defense officials, and the plaintiff’s testimony, the court rejected claims by government lawyers that the killing was “collateral damage” from the guerrilla war or that the involvement of South Korean soldiers in the killings was not clearly proven.
In addition, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that she had immunity to a claim for damages by a Vietnamese national under an agreement signed between Vietnam, South Korea and the United States, stating that an agreement signed by military authorities and government agencies did not, in itself, deprive Vietnamese civilians of the right to seek compensation from the Korean government. “It is difficult to imagine that such an agreement has the legal effect of preventing a Vietnamese individual from suing the South Korean government.”
The court also rejected arguments about the statute of limitations, acknowledging that the plaintiff had to file her complaint decades later.
This was the first time that the South Korean judiciary recognized the state’s responsibility to compensate civilians who had suffered massacres during the Vietnam War. And, in fact, the first legal recognition of massacres of civilians during the Vietnam War.
The author has written about the South Korean trail of the Vietnam War, but that was quite a long time ago and the audience should be reminded that from 1965 to 1973 the ROK took part in this conflict. Relations between Washington and Seoul under Park Chung-hee were uneasy, but as a bargaining chip, South Korean troops (about 350,000 soldiers) went to fight in Vietnam, where they were mostly used in the anti-guerrilla war or, let’s be honest, in the security sweeps aimed at the “potentially disloyal population.” Seoul received modernization of its own army, American military orders, and the opportunity to enter the Vietnamese market in exchange for sending troops, which was one of the components of the Miracle on the Han River.
The South Korean military considered the fight against the Viet Cong as a second act against global communism, and the enemy was not spared. While the entire world is aware of the American destruction of the village of Songmi, South Korean troops destroyed four or five villages in a similar manner, including the aforementioned Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất. In addition, there was a network of entertainment facilities for the South Korean troops, very similar to the notorious “comfort stations.”
“The Vietnam War has been a thorn in Korea’s side for a long time,” The Korea Times writes. Despite the evidence, the Korean government has yet to admit to any mass murder of Vietnamese civilians by its troops. The government has claimed that the massacres had been “committed by Viet Cong rebels disguised as Korean soldiers,” or that the soldiers might have mistaken civilians for guerrillas.
Even under “democratic presidents” unpleasant facts were swept under the rug. While Kim Dae-jung, a true pacifist and Christian, called the events a disgrace, his successor, Roh Moo-hyun, despite his ostentatious anti-Americanism, did everything he could to keep the South Korean Marines’ “Vietnamese exploits” a thing of the past. Rather, the emphasis was on the fact that many Korean soldiers had been killed and injured as a result of government policies, and that some are still suffering the consequences, including Agent Orange defoliant side effects.
The “restoration of historical truth” did not happen under Moon Jae-in either, who struggled to find the right words even during his state visit to Vietnam.
Understandably, after winning its civil war, Vietnam’s leadership did not engage in the same licking of wounds as the Korean leadership did with regard to Japan. The few victims of the ROK army’s actions, on the other hand, sought justice, and some were able to do so in a South Korean court.
On April 22, 2018 the Republic of Korea held a mock trial to determine South Korean troops’ responsibility for killing civilians during the Vietnam War. It was about a series of massacres, such as those in Hami, where 130 Vietnamese were killed, and Phong Nhị, where 70 people were killed. Two Vietnamese survivors of the Hami and Phong Nhị incidents arrived in the Republic of Korea to testify. But at that time the defendant represented by the ROK government pointed out that there was no absolute certainty that the South Korean military was responsible for the aforementioned crimes and, in general, the specifics of guerilla war must be taken into account: “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” Nonetheless, the “court” held the ROK responsible for civilian murders and ordered Seoul to compensate victims in accordance with applicable law.
Based on the materials of this process, Nguyễn Thị Thanh decided to file a claim for compensation in a regular court, which resulted in a lengthy and meticulously delayed process.
In April 2019, 103 Vietnamese who claimed to be victims or family members of victims filed a joint petition to the Korean government demanding an apology and an investigation into the circumstances, but the Defense Ministry responded with a rejection five months later.
Nguyễn Thị Thanh filed a claim for damages against the South Korean government in 2020, seeking approximately 30 million won ($23,894) in compensation. And now, after much deliberation, the court rules that, “recognizing that the plaintiff’s family members were killed on the spot and that the plaintiff herself was seriously injured as a result,” the state must pay Nguyen the amount indicated, plus interest.
What is intriguing is the impact this story has had on the media. South Korea’s conservative media do not dismiss the verdict as Democratic machinations, and rather fear that if the plaintiffs receive compensation, the country will be inundated with similar lawsuits.
According to some writers, the change in power had no effect on the verdict. Either it was done despite Yoon, or the president-prosecutor and supporter of the rule of law had the opportunity to dismiss this unfavorable verdict but chose not to. In any case, no one writes about any pressure on the court over this verdict.
An editorial in the center-right Korea Times seems characteristic to the author. According to reports, the Defense Ministry intends to appeal the case, and the government is looking for ways to reduce similar claims by Vietnamese citizens in the future. However, “we hope that they will not do so,” because killing unarmed civilians, including women and children, is a war crime that can never be justified.
Furthermore, by admitting skeletons in its closet, Seoul gains moral authority to make similar claims to Tokyo about “comfort women” and forced laborers, as well as to Washington about American troop actions during the Korean War (the No Gun Ri massacre, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed, and other incidents). “Korea can go one step further only when it is willing to look directly at its own past.”
In this context, the newspaper advises the authorities not only to apologize and make amends, but also to pass a temporary special law to compensate Vietnamese victims of massacres, thereby avoiding the need to deal with future lawsuits.
This thesis is shared by the author. If Seoul acknowledges what happened in Vietnam, it will avoid the very unpleasant position that the Japanese atrocities and violence in Korea are a horror and a reason to demand compensation, while the South Korean atrocities and violence in Vietnam are “something very different.”
In any case, in the author’s opinion, Seoul made a critical decision, perhaps not tactically beneficial, but crucial in terms of historical policy trends. And the author hopes that this is not an isolated incident, but rather the beginning of a new trend.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
After Mikhail Ulyanov, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to international organizations in Vienna, pointed out the creation of a new triangle in international diplomacy by China, Iran and Russia at the end of 2022, special attention was paid everywhere to this political formation. Interest in this circumstance has further increased following the productive trilateral consultations held in Vienna in December by the Permanent Missions of China, Iran and Russia “on issues of mutual interest.”
In principle, this unification process is very logical and irreversible against the background of the world’s already realized need to move away from Washington’s attempts to strengthen its hegemony and universal dictate by imposing its “rules”, from which countries are actively moving to a multipolar world today. In addition, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran have long maintained close relations with each other on most issues, starting with opposing American hegemony in the world and resisting attempts by the United States to dominate the world through illegal sanctions against independent states and ending with the need to restore order in Afghanistan. Moreover, this cooperation takes place not only in words, but also in deeds. And this format of cooperation can easily expand since many States advocate a multilateral world.
More than 5 billion people (over 70% of the world’s population) live on the Eurasian continent, of which ca. 4 billion are in Asia. It is therefore quite clear that the future of mankind largely depends on the situation in Eurasia, and it explains why Iran, Russia and China have decided to unite for the joint development of the huge continent.
Large-scale projects implemented in recent years in Eurasia clearly show the active participation of China, Russia and Iran. In particular, the Silk Road routes, the creation of the West – East and North-South transport corridors, the expansion of their backbone infrastructure for the transportation of goods and the development of the Eurasian economies. The development of these land transport routes in Eurasia becomes especially relevant after the West has tried to cut off the previously familiar external Western trade routes from Russia and Iran. In this regard, the need to create a new Eurasian trade route outside of the NATO control has become obvious. The peculiar uniqueness of these projects also lies in their mutual benefit, the extreme interest declared by the parties, the availability of the necessary resources held by the project participants. So, in the last few years, these corridors have become for Central Asia, in fact, projects of the “last hope” for real and tight integration into the world production and trade systems.
Iran, which has fully tasted the long-term “international sanctions”, was one of the first to realize that sooner or later Eurasia would need a land transport route since maritime trade requires a developed navy. And if for China the threat to maritime navigation from the “Western partners” has mainly become real in recent years, then Iran has been living in these conditions for decades. Therefore, the development of these transport routes is a direct response of Russia, Iran and China to the aggressive policy of the United States and the West and their threats, especially against the background of Western hysteria triggered by Moscow special military operation to denazify the criminal Kiev regime.
However, the attempts made by Washington and its Western allies to exert external pressure and pursue a policy of illegal sanctions do not interfere with the cooperation of the three countries. On the contrary, they contribute to strengthening trilateral relations and building mutually beneficial cooperation. This is clearly confirmed by the trade growth within the specified three states. Thus, the trade turnover between Russia and Iran increased by more than 20% by the end of 2022, reaching almost $5 billion. Entrepreneurs of the three countries hold profitable commodity and production niches, they are honing logistics and settlement and payment infrastructure.
In addition to trade, economic and political integration, Russia, China and Iran are joining efforts to consolidate peace in the troubled regions of Eurasia, primarily the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The emphasis is on eradicating terrorism, preventing the emergence of conflicts in the Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. Taking into account the population of Eurasia, its demographic and economic growth, it is quite obvious that in a few years the world economy will actively rotate here. And the land and sea trade routes being created will contribute to the establishment of Eurasia as a word leader not only in production, but also in trade and consumption.
China, Russia and Iran, in addition to the successful development of trilateral cooperation, are making the necessary efforts to accelerate the process of global cooperation, provide an opportunity for players outside Eurasia to participate in their projects, which is especially relevant today. This association represents the foundation of a multipolar world, which Western Europe will inevitably be forced to join, despite Washington’s attempts to prevent this process.
Not only American politicians of the “hawk wing”, but also representatives of the military openly declare their concern about the development of cooperation between China, Iran and Russia. So, Celest Wallander, the US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, directly stated this on February 10, calling on the states of the Middle East to counteract. Lieutenant General Alexus G. Grynkewich, commander of Air Forces Central (AFCENT), also stated his “concern” about strengthening military cooperation between Russia and Iran, as well as China, on February 13, speaking at the US Air & Space Forces Association, and emphasizing the US fears of seeing greater “cohesion between the parties” in Syria and in the Middle East in general.
However, Washington’s attempts to stop the rapprochement between Moscow, Tehran and Beijing and limit the manifestations of appreciation in the world for this new triangle in international diplomacy are completely futile. And this is confirmed, in particular, by the fact that even the openly Russophobic and pro-American Polish authorities, unlike most EU countries, recently sent their ambassador to Tehran, Maciej Falkowski to an official reception given by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi on the occasion of the celebration of the 44th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. And the Iranian media published photos showing the Polish ambassador sitting behind Iranian President Raisi and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian at an official ceremony, shaking Raisi’s hand with a bow.
As evidenced by the events of recent months, the existence of the unipolar world is coming to an end. It is being replaced by a multipolar world, where cooperation between Iran, Russia and China is steadily growing and getting stronger. A vivid confirmation of this is the official state visit to China of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and a large representative Iranian delegation at the invitation of Chinese Leader Xi Jinping.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In recent years, Mongolia’s repeated rejection of SCO membership has been used by a number of political experts as an argument in favor of that country’s priority orientation toward Western conceptual and organizational structures. Some analysts trace in such a decision of the Mongolian authorities the desire to distance themselves from their immediate neighbors – Russia and China, especially against the background of the growing contradictions in US-Russian and US-Chinese relations. Mongolia has had SCO observer status since 2004, since the early years of the organization’s development and institutionalization, which cannot but illustrate the presence of a certain interest. But is that interest so big at the moment that it is enough to become a member of the organization?
Let us try to understand this issue not from the perspective of Mongolia’s “selection” of key allies and partners, but from the perspective of the rational choice of a small country with numerous political, social and geographical features.
The author considers Mongolia’s refusal to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to be nothing more than an optimal solution for Mongolia in the medium term, which is not of any ideological nature. The following arguments will be given in support of this opinion unpopular in the media space.
1 – There is no need for Mongolia to be directly involved in the SCO security structures
The fact is that the country is geographically sandwiched between Russia and China, two members of the organization and the “locomotives of the Shanghai Five.” Consequently, such threat factors to Mongolia’s national security as terrorism or drug trafficking, the fight against which has long been the most important focus of the SCO, can hypothetically penetrate the territory of this country only through these two countries. As such, the participation of Russia and China in the SCO already ensures Mongolia’s security from most external threats without requiring direct membership in the organization.
2 – Mongolia’s internal security threats are very low – it will almost certainly not need external assistance
There are no religious fundamentalist organizations or separatist movements, and the state has relatively effective control over most of the socio-political processes taking place in the country. A mixed republic with a high role of parliament is also quite well guarded against a crisis of governance: in such a political system, political power is based on a consensus of political and economic elites, rather than on their struggle to usurp power, which could lead to armed confrontation. Thus, the likelihood of an internal political crisis in Mongolia requiring external intervention to resolve is extremely low, at least in the medium term. Consequently, the country also does not need external tools to maintain a stable political and social environment.
3 – In the current realities of global politics, it is not advantageous for Mongolia to make a decisive choice between the West and its two neighbors
In today’s world, the “axis of confrontation” between the various powers is clearly emerging. Nevertheless, they are of a competitive rather than open enmity nature (as far as the confrontation between the PRC and the US/EC is concerned). Under such conditions, it is much more advantageous for “third countries” to remain neutral with respect to emerging blocs until the conflict reaches the point of no return, and the world finally splits into several opposing camps (if this is indeed the case). It is for such reasons that Mongolia refrains from participating in any international initiatives that would be perceived as a threat to the security of either its immediate neighbors or its “democratic partners.” Mongolia is currently benefiting from developing relations with all the major powers of the world. Evasion in such a situation would not be considered a strong choice, as opposed to applying for membership.
4 – Mongolia does not need the SCO as a negotiating forum or an instrument for deepening cooperation with Russia and China
The Mongolian-Russian and Sino-Mongolian relations from the very beginning have formed their own formats for maintaining bilateral dialogue, ranging from fairly frequent mutual visits by heads of state to a number of regular platforms and projects, such as meetings of the Russian-Mongolian Intergovernmental Commission, the Russia-Mongolia-China Economic Corridor, and the Mongolian-Chinese Path of Development project (aka Steppe Route). Moreover, Mongolia’s current observer status with the SCO gives it full access to the organization’s negotiating resources – it is not the first time that a Russia-China-Mongolia summit will be held on the margins of an SCO summit.
5 – Participation in SCO economic initiatives as a member does not look beneficial for Mongolia in the presence of a separate system of “Belt and Road” initiatives
At the moment, the volume of infrastructure and industrial projects within the framework of the latter organization is much wider than within the framework of the SCO. Moreover, participation in them does not require Mongolia to have any formalized membership. Thus, the situation can change only when the PRC finally determines the ratio of the SCO and the Belt and Road. If the latter becomes the economic dimension of the former, SCO membership will become more attractive to Mongolia. However, the question of the degree of involvement of the territory of Mongolia in the implementation of transport infrastructure and technological projects of this Chinese economic megaproject remains open.
6 -Membership in the SCO could deprive Mongolia of a “third neighbor”
The evidentiary basis of this thesis includes a proof by contradiction. Thus, Mongolia’s accession to the SCO could aggravate the country’s relations with “third” countries, namely the states of Europe, the United States, Japan and South Korea. The political elites of these countries see the SCO as a pillar of China’s system of “alliances” aimed at limiting Western influence in the Asian regions bordering it.
By the way, Mongolia needs Western partners not only because of the relative proximity of abstract political guidelines. “Third neighbor” for Mongolia is a tool for maintaining the balance between Russia and China, which creates space for this small state for minimal political maneuvering between large neighbors.
In part, this argument has lost some of its relevance after the accession to the SCO of a state like India, which combines its membership in this organization with active participation in QUAD, which has a rather specific anti-Chinese orientation. Many foreign experts have spoken of Mongolia’s imminent membership in the SCO if India’s bid is granted. However, Mongolia did not become a member after India, precisely because of the factors outlined at the beginning of this article. In addition, credit must be given to the context of India’s acceptance into the SCO, which was coupled with the acceptance of its regional “opponent” in Pakistan. Also, because of the significant political, demographic and economic potential of this South Asian giant, as well as its significant role in the notorious “Indo-Pacific,” Western partners are much more inclined to forgive such a move to it than to Mongolia.
Conclusions and perspectives
Summarizing the above, the following general conclusion can be made. Mongolia refuses to participate in the SCO structure as a member not for political and ideological reasons, but out of sheer pragmatism. The current level of Mongolia’s participation in the SCO under the current realities of regional and global politics more than ensures the interests of this country, making the benefits of potential membership minimal. Nevertheless, one cannot say that this decision of the Mongolian leadership is not subject to change in the future: thus, in the event of a final split between the major world powers, Mongolia will probably be forced to join the SCO. However, this will only happen if Russia and China deem it necessary to put Mongolia before the choice between them or a “third neighbor.” In such a situation, Mongolia will have to make a decision on the principle of minimizing political losses.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Lots of things are going on now in the nexus between Georgia and Ukraine. Different camps are being organised, as if sides are lining up for a tug-of-war over Georgia having friendly relations with both Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
The US government and some opposition parties don’t want Georgia and Russia to resume flights, and the US State Department is applying pressure. The resumption of flights between Georgia and Russia would come with the threat of sanctions for companies that serve Russian companies at Georgian airports.
The State Department has used the “Voice of America” information service to share its “concerns” about this possibility.
“Many Western countries, including the United States, prohibit Russian aircraft from entering their airspace. If flights between Russia and Georgia resume, given that companies at Georgian airports may be targeted for sanctions, we would be concerned if they serve aircraft subject to additional import and export controls.”
According to certain Georgian political parties, especially those with close links to the former ruling United National Movement, any friendly relations constitute collaboration with Russia across the board.
It is becoming clear, as the book by Stuart Kaufmann (Kaufman, S.J. (2015). Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press) describes so well, Modern Hatreds are determined by elites and the masses are manipulated.
These Modern Hatreds are currently being updated. Already many political parties, NGOs and their Embassy backers have closed ranks by organising a large-scale rally in support of Ukraine, to be held in Tbilisi on February 24. The PR for the rally, as seen in some English language outlets, says that its goals, are to start “a new national liberation movement to end “collaborationism” in Georgia.”
Everyone in Georgia is aware that a pro-Ukrainian rally actually means an anti-Russian one. Some are predicting it might turn violent, and I am one of those.
But little is actually being reported in the West about the real things happening in this region, as in what the United States, Georgia’s sponsor, is doing there. This is not because current events, and present dangers, are not newsworthy but because there is a hidden agenda.
Take for example, one contradiction in the Georgian position. Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili has reacted to the possibility of resuming flights with Russia by saying that “she does not welcome this initiative.”
“I do not welcome the resumption of flights with Russia! At a time when all our partner countries, in word or deed, express their maximum solidarity with Ukraine’s self-sacrificing struggle, for me and I’m sure for the majority of the society, the position of the government and the ruling party is, to say the least, incomprehensible,” the president said.
In Georgia the president is now only a figurehead, with limited political powers. The official government is saying the opposite of the French spy imposed upon the electorate as the candidate of the ruling party she had never previously supported, as one of the quid pro quos for reining back some of the worst CIA abuses of the Saakashvili era.
Irakli Kobakhidze, Chairman of the ruling Georgian Dream coalition legally elected to office since 2012, made the possibility of restoring direct flights to Russia on January 19 look brighter, one day after the Russian Foreign Minister said he was looking forward to such a possibility. Kobakhidze told the Georgian based Imedi TV station that he had spoken to Russia about the restoration of direct flights, and how this would be important for the citizens of Georgia.
Not so friendly skies!
There is lots going on in the clouds, and under the clouds, concerning the relations between these countries, and between the Georgian Dream Party and the majority of society, with the former keen on improving relations with Russia, Ukraine, etc.
It is clear that Georgia does not want to be caught in the middle of a proxy war between the US and Russia, or let others use its territory or citizens in their own hostilities and sideshows. Many of the problems Georgia is facing are being inflicted upon it by outsiders who keen on their own interests and not Georgian ones.
There are complications in road transport too. Opposition parties are taking exception, likely taking their instructions from the usual suspects, to discussions to improve road connections between Russia, Georgia and Armenia, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Grigory Karasin, chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, and Zurab Abashidze, the Georgian Prime Minister’s Special Representative for Russia, have discussed the construction of a new road linking Russia and Georgia. Abashidze has confirmed the authenticity of a voice recording indicating this, according to English language outlets in Georgia.
In the recording Karasin tells Abashidze that representatives of the Russian Transport Ministry are satisfied with a communication in which the sides expressed interest in solving the Zemo Larsi issue and other problems, describing them as productive.
He also noted that the Russian side wants to make this communication regular, hinting at a plan to construct a new corridor from the Krasnodar District to the west of the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia.
So much more not getting discussed
Some other stories which have clouded relations but are not being reported include illicit bio labs and support facilities, the impact of the “migration” of laboratories from Ukraine and Georgia and how these are now being redistributed to other parts of the world to reduce the risk of compromising bio materials, some with the potential to be weaponised, falling into the hands of the Russian army and its allied forces.
It is well-established that the United States is actively moving bio materials and researchers out of Ukraine, transporting them from country to country under the guise of civilian research. Some are allegedly being relocated to the Baltic States and Poland, where there are already functional bio research facilities. However these allegations may be a Red Herring, as their actual destination may be US-funded and operated labs in Asia, Africa, Georgia, etc.
Matters of Public Health and National Security
With disease outbreaks occurring in neighbouring countries, such activities are worth paying closer attention to, as these may be related to the activities of modern laboratories. But the most pressing issue for now is what the Georgian Legion is doing in Ukraine, and how this can potentially impact the Georgian government. There is even talk of the possibility of a coup d’etat, as some of those fighting in Ukraine, including foreign mercenaries, may be also related to Georgia for this insidious purpose.
One matter still clouding any discussion about Georgia is the plight of its former president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is on hunger strike awaiting legal proceedings in Georgia over the many crimes committed during his watch. Any inhumane treatment during his captivity would be a black mark against Georgian dignity and rule of law.
Many Westerners on Georgia social media sites are assuming the worst case scenario, “It’s pretty clear they have been poisoning him slowly. What right does the Georgian government have to kill him?”
No one will let him die, and make a martyr out of him, just do enough for him to exist in decrepitude. But the conventional thinking in Georgia is that the West is the villain of the piece, as he committed these crimes under their collective watch, thinking he had a get-out-of-jail card.
Well, it did not work!!!
Saakashvili is more valuable for everybody alive than dead. This is why some are predicting something BIG happening on 24 February.
Former students and other contacts tell me that the United National Movement (UNM) and some pseudo-opposition parties will try to use the plight of Saakashvili and the BIG political protest on the 24th to try to get back into power, illegally if necessary.
Already money is being distributed to the regions by the bagmen of the UNM, Saakashvili’s party. It comes from crowd funding, the CIA, and other sources of dark money, and is designed to bring protestors into the capital.
However it is also funding the Georgian Legion—and much of it is likely proceeds from drugs and weapons. Such information, including war crimes committed by the UNM, is slowly being exposed.
But perhaps the most noteworthy is how the degree of perception of information that does not coincide with the officially accepted version in the West has changed. People are now beginning to wake up to the fact that most of the media they have been consuming has not their interests in mind.
Having been lied to by the West on many topics, it is becoming a problem for Georgians to know who to trust, especially in terms of international media sources—the very ones which claim to provide accurate and unbiased news. Therefore they will believe whatever gives them the greatest feeling of independence, which doesn’t mean freedom from collaboration, but freedom from being accused of it.
Tug of War
The crisis in Georgia could become a much greater threat to the world than the crisis in Ukraine, according to Jeffrey Silverman, a journalist and former adviser to Mikheil Saakashvili. In a February 2 interview with Russian TV Station Izvestia, he claims that some of the weapons Western countries supplied to Kyiv have found their way to Georgia and Turkey.
“Weapons which had gone missing in Ukraine have made their way to Turkey, to Georgia. They are located in different parts of the country. These Georgian fighters, who returned from illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including members of the Georgian Legion operating in Ukraine, will return in search of money.”
He clarifies that the nationalists of the Georgian Legion who returned from those wars will be ready to do anything to earn money again because they are professional killers. It is possible, in his opinion, and how it is possible for those same nationalists of the Legion to return to Georgia for the purpose of overthrowing the current government.
“The crisis in Georgia can be a much greater threat to the world than the crisis in Ukraine. Everyone has forgotten about Georgia, but Georgia is a button, it is a hot spot. And very soon something very bad should happen there,” Silverman is convinced. He described how the situation has been heating up lately, but no one is in a hurry to talk about it.
“The situation is heating up; something will happen on February 24, I really hope I’m wrong.”
The Georgian Legion is not a Georgian organisation. It was founded by the US intelligence services. Its members are trying to present it as a patriotic organisation, but they are terrorists and nationalists like the Mkhedrioni of old.
“This is an al-Qaeda (banned in Russia) type organisation that teaches people not to fight in Ukraine, does not try to provide Ukraine with fighters to fight for democracy, but teaches people to return to Georgia to overthrow the legally-elected Georgian government,” Silverman said.
“Because the West, especially the US, knows that this war is lost, and all these fighters, all this equipment must be returned, but where should they go? Europe does not need these people; America does not need them either. Let them go back to Georgia, they will be accepted there with open arms, and then the problems will begin.”
The Georgian Legion has been working as mercenaries, taking part in the hostilities in Ukraine on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. According to various media outlets, from 500 to 800 nationalists of the Georgian Legion are fighting on the side of Kiev. In fact the Legion was officially made part of the Ukrainian army in 2016, according to its official Facebook page.
That page is very interesting, especially since it is not banned, and its members involved in admitted war crimes. There you will find some good pictures of Boris Johnson meeting its members. This should leave no doubt as to its roots, the insidious purpose for which it was formed, or its methods.
It is also interesting what great PR the Georgian Legion is receiving in the West, paid for by the US taxpayer, some of it highlighted (page 8) in Stars and Stripes, a US Military Newspaper; that is taking too many down a rabbit hole, or better said, along a proverbial road – and we know where that leads.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
In its first 100 days in power, the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani has already left the first, and not very positive, signs of what may await the country in the near future. To say the least, the government’s heavy-handed actions have largely deviated from the promises al-Sudani made before taking office, resulting in unwanted disruptions and significant losses in the economic, security, sovereignty, and human rights sectors.
The appointment of al-Sudani last October completed the takeover of Iraq by the Iranian-backed alliance of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Fatah coalition, which is supported by militant forces. In the October 2021 elections, the two factions won 51 parliamentary seats and only 15% of the 329 seats in the legislature. They were joined by politicians who also achieved disastrous results in the elections, such as Ammar al-Hakim and Haider al-Abadi, as well as the Shiite Coordination Structure (CF), which together thwarted the efforts of the election winners, the Sadrists, to form a government. majority.
As the political and legal maneuvering of CF unfolded throughout 2022, the militias that form the backbone of the group shelled and intimidated their main rivals among the Sunnis and Kurds who had originally allied with Muqtada al-Sadr. To protect their interests, Speaker Mohammed al-Khalbusi and the Kurdistan Democratic Party eventually agreed to the CF ’s demand to participate in the government, in which the “coordination structure” now has an undeniable advantage. The result is an untenable agreement that is already in jeopardy as CF seeks to establish its full dominance while cutting funding to the Kurdish region.
It is well known that a government that imposes its policies through coercion is neither normal nor acceptable and should be treated accordingly. To be clear, an al-Sadr-dominated government would also be very problematic for Iraq, but it has not come to that. And apparently such an orientation will be implemented in the future, because the current government will be forced to resign sooner or later under the pressure of circumstances. The fact is that the US aggression, carried out under far-fetched and fictitious pretexts, has completely destroyed the state mechanism and disrupted the natural course of the centuries-old way of life in Iraq.
Since the new prime minister took office last October, political analysts have noted that it made sense to give his government time to prove itself before making judgments. Unfortunately, al-Sudani has consistently put the interests of his patrons ahead of the interests of society in his first 100 days.
To get Iraq’s democratic process back on track after the tumultuous aftermath of the October 2021 elections, the new prime minister has pledged to review and update electoral laws within three months. The government was formed on the premise that this was another temporary measure whose main task was to overcome the anomalous legislative and political situation created by the departure of 73 sadistic MPs from parliament. After a few weeks, however, it became clear that al-Sudani’s main supporters-Maliki and the Fatah coalition-were not interested in early elections and were determined to stay in power and keep their president and prime minister in power for a full four-year term.
Economically, the al-Sudani government continues what Shafaq called “ruinous business.” It relies on record oil revenues to maintain patronage networks and officials in a bloated public sector. There is no sign of reforms deemed necessary to reduce costs and diversify the oil-dependent economy to create new jobs for the hundreds of thousands of people who add to the country’s labor force each year. Instead, the new government plans to increase unacceptable spending on public sector wages by 20 trillion Iraqi dinars ($13.71 billion) by 2023. These funds will be used to hire some 66,000 new college graduates and convert another 360,000 temporary workers into full-time positions. In the service sector, al-Sudani and his team have focused on cosmetic improvements at a few sites, linking these measures to the prime minister’s personal commitment. For a country of 42 million, such scattered efforts are distracting and do nothing to build the nonpartisan, autonomous bureaucracy needed to make real progress.
Upon taking office, al-Sudani, like his predecessors, vowed to fight corruption vigorously, but so far there is no sign of progress. His first task was to respond to the “heist of the century,” in which shell companies with powerful connections stole $2.5 billion from government accounts. But in late November, al-Sudani released one of the main suspects in the theft, saying the government had reached an agreement with him to return all stolen funds within two weeks. In the more than two months since the suspect’s release, barely 8% of the money has been returned. The full map of the criminal network has yet to be revealed, but it appears to include a wide range of political figures, including those close to the former prime minister. The stalled investigation into the fraud makes it fairly clear that the stolen money, according to Shafaq, is protected by “significant coercive means and political cover” that the prime minister cannot handle.
In terms of security and protecting Iraq’s sovereignty, the government’s performance is also very weak. As in recent years, Iran and Turkey continue to violate the country’s sovereignty, except that these violations have occurred since al-Sudani took office without any objection from the new commander-in-chief. After Iran sent drones and missiles into the Kurdistan region in mid-November, al-Sudani was unable to respond to the attacks. This marked a departure from his predecessors’ usual verbal defense of the country’s sovereignty, which was undoubtedly ineffective but still officially indicative of violations. And when al-Sudani met with Iranian leaders a few days after the latest attack, he gave a public speech in which he did not contradict them, but thanked them and offered to support the Islamic Republic’s efforts to secure the Iraqi border.
On the human rights front, violations have not stopped, and militias continue to use coercion, dubious trials, and prison sentences against government critics to silence them. Opposition figures who dare to remind the public of the militias’ role in extrajudicial executions and other gross violations are not immune from legal harassment and threats. When Iraqis protested this injustice in December, three demonstrators were killed by government forces. The subsequent investigation into the killings uncovered an abundance of lawlessness reminiscent of the bloody crackdown on protests in 2019, when hundreds of young Iraqis died at the hands of militias and government forces. Iraqis have seen and documented such injustices and lament on social media the bitter irony that in their country, those who steal billions walk free while innocent suspects languish in prison when they cannot afford to pay bribes.
In the very first week of this government, it became clear that the militias would continue to expand their power. These militias accuse former Prime Minister Mustafa al-Qadimi and the Iraqi Intelligence Service (INIS) of complicity in the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis by the Americans. After taking office, al-Sudani initiated sweeping changes in the leadership of the intelligence agency. The head of INIS was dismissed, and he and other senior officers were indicted for corruption, apparently initiated at the behest of the militias. The trail appears to lead to Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, who have a vendetta to punish al-Qasimi and “his spy team” Al-Sudani also appointed a journalist who previously worked as news director for al-Ahad TV, a news channel owned by supporters of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, as director of his Voice of Administration press office.
During its time in office, the current government has failed to prove that its mission is in Iraq’s best interests. Like former prime minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, al-Sudani was nominated for the position because he would be a weak politician, dependent on the political support of others, and his own party won just one seat in parliament. Failing to recognize who is really in control of this government, continuing to recognize and support the hypocritical façade further enhances the power and influence of the CF. A good start to increase pressure would be to threaten sanctions to block the transfer of billions of dollars from Iraq’s annual budget to the PMF.
There should also be continued pressure to remind the government that its credibility both in Iraq and abroad depends on genuine investigations (and prosecutions) of corruption and human rights violations. These and other pressures must be balanced, without losing sight of what else can be done to support the aspirations of the 42 million people who want to live in dignity, get a good education, be part of a functioning economy, drink clean water and govern themselves. The international community must continue to pressure Baghdad to hold free and fair elections as planned and block attempts to reverse the post-2019 electoral reforms for which many Iraqis have paid with their blood.
Twice in recent times Iraq has experienced avoidable tragedies. During Maliki’s years in power from 2006 to 2014, international ambivalence about failures in democracy development, exemplified by Maliki’s manipulation with Iran of the rules for forming a government after the 2010 elections in order to stay in power, and expectations that Iraq would fail, led to bad leadership. Which almost ruined the country, having handed over a third of its territory to the terrorist Daesh (banned on the territory of the Russian Federation). A few years later, when Adil Abdul-Mahdi took the helm, unfounded optimism about the ability of individual leaders to bring about radical change gave Iran’s allies the opportunity to increase their power to unprecedented levels. And when they were challenged by the Iraqi people’s desire for reform during the 2019 protests, they killed hundreds of people to defend that power. In the interests of international security and out of respect for Iraq’s popular sovereignty, these mistakes must not be repeated.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The ten-day visit to China by a delegation of the Kuomintang, Taiwan’s main opposition party, which has been in power more than once, began on February 8 and it is the most remarkable event since the NEO last reviewed the situation around what is perhaps the most dangerous problem of the “Global Great Game” current stage.
The unusual length of stay of Taiwanese guests on the “Mainland,” accompanied by various types of occurrences, attests to the event’s rarity. The fact that on February 10, Wang Hongning (one of the seven members of the current Standing Committee of the CPC Central Committee Politburo) received Andrew Xia, Vice Chairman of the Kuomintang, who led the visiting delegation, demonstrates the hosts’ special attention to it.
And, if this was a ceremonial and symbolic meeting, then the day before, Xia’s talks with the head of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, Song Tao, were quite businesslike. As a result, it seems appropriate to discuss the personalities of both participants briefly.
Xia is an experienced diplomat who studied (among other things) at prestigious British universities. He served as deputy foreign minister, among other things, during the last years of the Kuomintang’s rule (2009-2016). According to the information available, Xia’s views on the key issue of Taiwan’s current position in the international relations system only differ from those of the Democratic Progressive Party, which has been in power since 2016, by public rhetoric rather than by actual content.
Song Tao, Xia’s recent negotiating partner, is also a seasoned diplomat. Until his previous appointment as head of the CPC Central Committee’s international department in 2015, he served in the Foreign Ministry in prominent positions, most notably as ambassador to the Philippines. That country’s significance is growing in the complex game that is now unfolding in the Indo-Pacific region, with the determining participation of both of the world’s leading powers.
Song Tao’s appointment as head of the Taiwan Affairs Office came at the end of last year as part of a broader process of radical change in the country’s leadership. Which was one of the main outcomes of the CPC’s 20th Congress two months before.
That is, on February 9, not minor functionaries of the ruling Communist Party of China, as well as the Kuomintang, which expects to return to power in Taiwan in a year time, met at the negotiating table in Beijing. The participants in both meetings in Beijing had one thing in common: they wanted to achieve this goal.
But for the Kuomintang, it was the fact that they did take place that could be “sold” to Taiwanese voters during the inter-party battle over the outcome of the general elections in a year time. The latter are not interested in a “non-peaceful” resolution of a key foreign policy issue for China on their territory.
However, it appears that the average Taiwanese do not want it resolved in the format implied by China’s leadership. The former would be perfectly content to maintain the status quo (established during the Kuomintang period, it should be noted), in which one can enjoy all of the significant advantages of maintaining trade, economic, tourism, and other relations with the Mainland without being subject to its administrative management. The fact that Taiwan is not a full-fledged subject-object of international relations is apparently regarded as an insignificant abstraction, which can be quite neglected in the name of continuing the current comfortable existence.
It is these sentiments that the Kuomintang takes into account when it pursues a “pull-push” strategy with regard to Mainland claims. Ma Ying-jeou, Taiwan’s president during the aforementioned period, while publicly declaring respect for the One China principle (confirmed during this visit as well), stubbornly failed to notice Beijing’s transparent hints about the need to move from words to deeds: “Let’s further develop our excellent trade and economic ties, and politics can wait.
Just as back then, the Kuomintang advocates today a comprehensive development of relations with Washington, as well as major US allies. Both European and Asian. Last year, at least twice, a delegation of the Kuomintang visited the United States. Both with and separately from representatives of other parties. During a June 2022 visit to the US, current party leader Eric Chu assured listeners at a public event that he maintained “the pro-American position of the Kuomintang, which has never changed since the party’s founding.”
However, the motivation for this positioning of the Kuomintang was justified by the party leader as “the need to maintain peace in the region.” But in the US the most radical advocates of developing comprehensive (including defense) relations with Taiwan mention the same need.
On February 6 this year, a delegation of Taiwanese parliamentarians led by a representative of the Kuomintang came to London to seek the UK’s support for plans to make the island part of the regional CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) alliance established in 2019. This Agreement was signed by 11 parties a year earlier. The UK itself is in the final stage of joining this association.
Note, however, that an application was sent on behalf of China in the fall of 2021 to join the CPTPP. That means that so far Beijing has not been able to create any formal obstacles for Taiwan to join this association either.
There would be no reason for them at all, were it not for the defiant policy of the DPP, which currently rules the island. President Tsai Ing-wen, who represents the party, routinely receives visitors from the United States, who in the past held high government offices. Recent visitors have included former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (who is defined as “hawk” in the United States) and former heads of the Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Philip Davis and Admiral Harry Harris. It is clear what they all talked about in their meetings with the Taiwanese president. We can only note that the content of their speeches in no way contributes to solving the problem of “pacification” of the situation in the Taiwan Strait. The latter, incidentally, was one of the stated goals of the Kuomintang delegation’s visit to China.
But the abovementioned people are “retired”; that is to say everything they say is formally irrelevant to official policy of Washington in general and to the Taiwan issue in particular. However should the new Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy reproduce the “effect” of his predecessor, Nancy Pelosi it will be viewed very differently by Beijing. He himself has recently spoken of such intentions more than once. Their implementation would only increase the degree of deviation from a certain equilibrium in the US-China relations as a whole which are the main factor in the transformation of the Taiwan problem.
Meanwhile, the notorious “China Balloon Incident” has greatly contributed to this deviation. It served as a pretext in Washington for canceling Secretary of State Blinken’s visit to China. The shooting down of that object by the US Air Force (“weather balloon” in the PRC’s interpretation) predetermined Beijing’s cancellation of the scheduled meeting of defense ministers.
At the same time, China reacted positively to the plans (stated, however, in general terms) of Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen to visit Beijing, apparently in order to continue negotiations with Deputy Prime Minister Liu He, which took place on January 18 in Switzerland.
Note, finally, that the DPP does not want to completely surrender to the Kuomintang a very promising (in terms of all the same electoral struggle) position as a proponent of détente in relations with the Mainland. To this end, firstly, all sorts of bad words are used in characterizing the rival party in general and its positioning in relation to the CCP in particular (such as “clientelism”)
Secondly, attempts are being made to get rid of the image of a political force that only makes things worse in relations with the Mainland. In particular, in Tsai Ing-wen’s New Year’s speech there were some words about the desire for a certain adjustment. The island welcomed the resumption of bilateral air service (previously interrupted under the pretext of restrictions due to Covid19), as well as ferry service to islands directly adjacent to the PRC coast, but controlled by Taipei.
It remains to be seen how the battle for the image of “the supporter of improved relations with the mainland” that is unfolding between Taiwan’s main parties in the election race that has already begun, will affect its outcome.
In the meantime, the latter could be crucial to the development of the Taiwan issue.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The Solomon Islands, located east of Papua New Guinea and northeast of Australia, has become a battleground for Washington and its desire to maintain primacy over the Asia-Pacific region.
Recent developments in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, indicate that Washington’s influence faces serious challenges. These developments also expose the true nature of Washington’s influence in the Solomon Islands and go far in explaining Honiara’s actions to limit and roll back that influence.
Washington’s Oceania Chess Piece
Prior to 2019, the Solomon Islands was among the small and ever-shrinking number of nations that recognized the Republic of China in Taipei, Taiwan as the sole legitimate government of all of China.
In 2019 when Honiara changed its position, recognizing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing in an interview with New China TV, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare would explain:
We believe this is the right decision, it’s the correct decision to make and we’re just moving forward seeing China as a very, very important economic power in the world and all sensible leaders in the world must acknowledge the existence of China and relate to it in a meaningful way like we do now.
Prior to 2019, it was very clear that the United States used a combination of bribery and coercion to steer nations like the Solomon Islands away from adopting a “One China” policy, thus preventing these nations from engaging constructively with China itself.
This bribery and coercion began to surface even across the Western media.
The Diplomat in a 2020 article titled, “US Aid Pledge to Pro-Taiwan Solomon Islands Province Raises Eyebrows,” would point out:
The United States has pledged $25 million in aid to the Solomon Islands province of Malaita, which has in recent weeks made calls for secession from the national government over its relationship with China.
Malaita, the largest province in the Solomon Islands, announced its plan to hold a referendum on independence last month, citing the central government’s switch in diplomatic relations with Taiwan to China last year. The decision has put Malaita at odds with the rest of the country, as Malaita preferred to continue relations with Taiwan.
The article also pointed out:
Some observers viewed the announcement as the United States supporting an anti-China movement in the Solomon Islands, as part of a wider resistance to growing Chinese influence in the Pacific region.
The anti-China rhetoric emanating from Malaita originated from the province’s premier, Daniel Suidani who was directly involved in receiving the USAID money and was even photographed wearing a red USAID polo shirt on occasion. Both Suidani and an organization called “Malaita for Democracy” (M4D) actively protested against Honiara’s decision to recognize the PRC.
Just as Suidani was working with USAID to transform Malaita into a bastion of US interests, M4D was working with the US government via National Endowment for Democracy (NED) subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI) as early as 2020.
A January 2020 article in the Solomon Star titled, “US-based institute consults with M4D,” would report:
Malaita for Democracy (M4D) movement on behalf of the Malaita people on Wednesday met a team from the International Republican Institute (IRI) based in Washington DC in Auki, Malaita Province. The IRI team is visiting Auki as part of a consultation to gather the views of the provincial government, churches and other civil society groups within the province. The purpose of the visit and consultation is to pave a way forward in engagement with the US government and its partners. Some of the areas covered during this discussion are; engagements of IRI within Malaita, how IRI can contribute in the development of the structures of the province, governance and leadership.
The US government’s IRI interfering in the internal political affairs of both Malaita specifically and the Solomon Islands in a broader sense constitutes the sort of foreign meddling in reality that Washington and its allies accuse Beijing of in fiction.
The true nature of the IRI-M4D meeting was to prepare the group to advocate for pro-Washington policies including continued support for the ROC in Taiwan versus the PRC in Beijing. Just as the US has sponsored groups to stir up violence across the Arab World from 2011 onward or Kiev from 2014 onward, the US-supported M4D would actually attempt to coerce the Solomon Islands’ national government into shifting its policy toward China through the use of organized violence.
This culminated in targeted violence in the capital of Honiara itself in 2021. Reuters in its November 2021 article, “Explainer: -What is behind unrest in the Solomon Islands?,” would explain:
The violence began after protesters from a group called Malaita for Democracy travelled to Honiara, the Solomon Islands’ capital in Guadalcanal province, and gathered outside parliament. They called for Sogavare to address them on Nov. 24.
Witnesses said rioting erupted after Sogavare failed to meet them. Much of Honiara’s Chinatown area was destroyed during the unrest that followed, involving young men from Honiara’s outskirt settlements which have no running water.
Following the deadly and destructive violence, Suidani reiterated his intentions to pursue separatism for Malaita.
The next month following the violence, Suidani would address M4D directly. In a December 2021 Solomon Times article, “Premier Suidani Calls for Self-Autonomy for Malaita,” it was reported that:
Premier of Malaita Province Daniel Suidani has made a public call for self-autonomy.
Premier Suidani spoke to a crowd that gathered in Auki to listen to the motion of no confidence being debated in Parlaiment today.
The Premier said regardless of the outcome the provincial government has consulted with the Malaita for Democracy and Development (M4D) and have agreed that they will call for self-autonomy following an assessment by the UN Security Council.
Just as the US had done elsewhere, it was clear that in the Solomon Islands Washington was cultivating an opposition politician, Suidani, and supporting a violent street movement, M4D, to either coerce the central government to pursue US interests, or overthrow it and replace it with a government that would.
The Solomon Islands Fights Back
Following deadly violence in the capital of Honiara carried out by US-sponsored M4D on behalf of US proxy Daniel Suidani, the premier of Malaita, the Solomon Islands requested security assistance from China.
This included a security agreement with China as well as training and equipment for the Solomon Islands’ police force.
The Guardian in a June 2022 article titled, “We needed China deal to protect ‘domestic security’, says key Solomon Islands official,” would report:
The controversial security deal struck between Solomon Islands and China that caught the western world off guard was needed to maintain internal security and help fight climate change, a leading Solomon Islands official has said, defending his country’s right to choose its allies.
Speaking to the Guardian in his first interview since the deal between China and Solomon Islands was leaked, Collin Beck, the permanent secretary of foreign affairs and a senior figure in the Solomons government, also said Australia should question whether it had been “fair” to Solomon Islands in its intense scrutiny of the deal.
Indeed, both the United States and Australia had not been fair to the Solomon Islands. The greatest security threats the Solomon Islands faced then and still faces today are the product of Western meddling as illustrated by the US government’s support of M4D which carried out violence in Honiara in 2021.
The Solomon Islands has also begun uprooting foreign interference from within its information space including its national broadcaster now under stricter control of Honiara.
The Guardian in an August 2022 article, “Outrage as Solomon Islands government orders vetting of stories on national broadcaster,” would complain:
The Solomon Islands’ government has prompted outrage by ordering the censorship of the national broadcaster, forbidding it from publishing material critical of the government, which will vet all stories before broadcast.
The Guardian also noted:
The restrictions follow what the prime minister, Manasseh Sogavare, has called biased reporting and news causing disunity.
Just as the US has done elsewhere, in addition to compromising opposition politicians and organizing violent street movements, the US also invests huge sums of money in manipulating public sentiment through control of local media. The Guardian and Western “rights groups” are merely complaining about the Solomon Islands uprooting this foreign influence from within its information space.
More recently, the Solomon Islands has finally removed Daniel Suidani from power. The Daily Caller in a February 2023 article titled,” Solomon Islands Ousts Provincial Governor Who Objected To Chinese Encroachment,” would report:
A provincial governor in the Solomon Islands has been ousted by his legislature for criticizing the country’s growing relationship with China.
The legislature removed [Daniel] Suidani, premier of Solomon Islands’ Malaita province, in an unanimous no-confidence vote Tuesday, Reuters reported. Suidani banned Chinese companies from operating in Malaita and fostered a close relationship with Taiwan, a former ally of the Solomon Islands.
The article also noted:
Protests broke out after the no-confidence vote and led to protesters throwing stones at police officers. Police responded with tear gas and one officer was injured. The protests fizzled out and were not widespread, The Guardian reported.
This was almost certainly referring to members of M4D whose violence was pushed off the streets thanks to a police force benefiting from training and equipment made available through the nation’s new and growing relationship with China.
Progress But with Great Danger
The Solomon Islands has undertaken the difficult and dangerous process of reasserting its sovereignty over its own territory, political system, and information space. This has been made possible through its growing relationship with China which, according to Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity, is the Solomon Islands’ largest trade partner by far in terms of both imports and exports.
The Solomon Islands is providing an example and setting a precedent for the rest of Asia-Pacific to follow in regaining sovereignty over US meddling socio-politically, economically, and even militarily. Washington is well aware of regional discontent far outside the halls of power in Honiara and realizes that the Solomon Islands’ success will encourage other nations across Asia-Pacific to likewise challenge, uproot, and oust completely unwanted interference from the US and its allies.
Because of this, the US is likely prepared to make an example out of Honiara and the Solomon Islands as a whole. It is a chess piece for Washington that may seem “small” at face value, but its loss will be indicative of American weakness on a much larger scale.
Thus, as the Solomon Islands is correcting generations of injustice and infringement on its sovereignty, this success aided by growing ties with China represents Washington’s failure, and is failure the US will seek to either reverse or failure the US will seek to punish Honiara and China for.
The endurance of Western hegemony’s remission in the Solomon Islands will indicate the overall “health” of Asia-Pacific and its own ability to resist Washington’s attempts to use the region as a proxy against China, serving Washington’s interests at the expense of the entire region including both its proxies and China.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, has already visited Africa twice in the last three weeks. The first tour, which began on January 23, included stops in diverse countries such as South Africa, Eswatini, Angola, and Eritrea. The second, from February 6 to 9, covered Mauritania, Mali, Sudan, and one Middle Eastern country, Iraq. Moreover, the Russian minister paid his first visits to two African countries, Eswatini and Mauritania, in the history of our bilateral relations.
One must admit that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Africa lost the attention of the Russian leadership. Visits there were more of an exception than the rule. This was due to a variety of ideological and pragmatic reasons. Because Russia has chosen to integrate into Western civilization, Yeltsin’s leadership believed that the Soviet Union pursued an “ideologized” policy in Africa and promoted its socioeconomic and political model, and thus Russia should stay away from Africa. In 1992, a well-known person in the country, Vladimir Filippov, the future Rector of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, managed to have the name of the famous African politician Patrice Lumumba removed from the RUDN name!
The second, more mundane reason was that Russia was having a bad time back then; industry, science, education, and agriculture were collapsing because the planned mechanisms of economic management had failed, while the new, market mechanisms were just getting started, often in the most destructive way. Only a few Russian companies found the strength and resources, as well as the courage, to operate in the extremely difficult and risky African market. No more than thirty large companies, mostly involved in mining, were able to establish a foothold there.
Some of Moscow’s African friends felt betrayed and abandoned in these circumstances. The financing of a large number of major projects came to an end in the blink of an eye (and the Soviet Union was building 385 major industrial and infrastructure projects in 35 African countries at the start of “perestroika” and had trained some 600,000 people in industry, science, agriculture and other fields by that time). If Aeroflot’s planes were flying to most African countries by 1991, after that their number quickly declined until it was nil.
Many cultural centers were closed (there are only 8 of them); trade missions disappeared (there are only 4 left on the entire continent); and 10 embassies were closed by then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, known as “Mr. Yes,” as part of the “optimization” of foreign policy, despite the fact that they existed in almost all African countries before that.
It has not been easy to recover from these losses. The restoration of Russia’s position on the continent, where the Soviet Union had invested billions of dollars over the previous thirty years and where it had undeniable moral authority due to its consistent support for the struggle of African peoples for national liberation, against racism and apartheid, began only after Vladimir Putin took power. And not just during his first years in power, but especially since 2006, when Russian business began to pay attention to Africa and our trade turnover began to grow, which reached a record high though fairly modest $20 billion in 2018.
The decisive turning point in the new Russia’s relations with the African continent occurred in 2019, when the Russian president invited the heads of all African states recognized by Russia to Sochi, and the majority of them (45 heads of state and government) arrived in this southern Russian city.
Following this significant symbolic event, intensive delegation exchanges began, as did efforts to establish long-term economic cooperation, which were slowed by the coronavirus pandemic and the strict quarantine measures imposed.
And now that the pandemic has passed, trips by Russian statesmen, public figures, and parliamentarians have been revived, with Lavrov’s visits to African countries becoming, while not mundane, but more of a business as usual for Russian diplomacy.
They are in high demand. Russia and African states share similar views on democratizing international relations, ending the dictate of the United States and its European satellites in both political and economic fields, establishing equality and respect for sovereignty of states, and strengthening their independence.
Furthermore, the year 2022 demonstrated that, if not in their majority, then more than half of African states oppose Washington and Brussels’ illegal unilateral sanctions against Russia. Those who vote for anti-Russian resolutions with the West do so under enormous pressure from Westerners and seek contacts with Moscow at the first opportunity, as evidenced by visits by African foreign ministers to Moscow and Sergey Lavrov’s visits to a number of African capitals.
To say that this irritates Washington and Brussels is an understatement. They are well aware that closing the ring of isolation around Russia will be impossible without the support of African states, which hold 25% of seats in the UN and its specialized agencies.
That is why Western politicians continue to visit Africa indefinitely. The most notable of these has recently been a visit by US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, who traveled to three African countries between January 18 and 27: Senegal, Zambia, and South Africa. Her rhetoric suggests that following the December US-Africa summit (13-15.12.2022), Washington began to actively seek to dissuade Africa from any cooperation with Russia, combining threats and promises, as well as all manner of speculation about how to use the current situation in the interests of only the United States, not African states.
Yellen stated bluntly after her trip that she discussed sanctions against Russia in every country she visited on her African tour. “If African countries violate anti-Russia sanctions, Washington will respond quickly and decisively,” she said. Simultaneously, she dangled an illusory “carrot” in front of Africans, claiming that they could take advantage of the West’s “price ceiling” on Russian oil products to obtain significant discounts from Russia.
To summarize all of the actions taken by Americans on the African continent against Russia (which included not only ministers of the American administration, but also military and congressmen), their essence can be reduced to the following: achieving not just Russia’s political isolation, but also its expulsion from the markets it occupies, both in military and civilian products. In short, the United States, as always, while screaming murder about violation of international law and moralizing on “condemning Russia’s aggression,” will work to the benefit of its corporations, primarily military, and strengthen the United States’ wavering hegemony.
European diplomacy policies and actions differ little from those of the United States: the same impudence, bordering on rudeness, attacks on Russia for PMC Wagner’s activities (given that dozens of Western private military companies operate on the continent), attempts to discredit Moscow through an incessant propaganda campaign, blocking of Russian food and fertilizer supplies to the African continent, in parallel with supporting Kyiv in building relations with African leaders for the establishment of Ukrainian “grain havens” on the continent.
Despite the US and EU’s comprehensive and coordinated actions to isolate and oust Russia from the African continent, they have the opposite effect, as evidenced, in particular, by Sudanese authorities’ decision to ratify the agreement on the establishment of a logistical support point following Sergey Lavrov’s aforementioned visit to Khartoum. Also telling is the trade turnover between Moscow and African countries, particularly Egypt, which has increased to $6 billion.
Today, no one doubts that the United States’ further brazen and aggressive anti-Russian actions will cause even more allergy among African states than before, but will not impede the development of Russia’s multidimensional relations with the African continent and the second Russia-Africa summit scheduled for July 26-29 this year in St. Petersburg.
Oleg Pavlov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
A military parade commemorating the 75th anniversary of the formation of the Korean People’s Army was staged in Pyongyang, Kim Il-sung Square, on the night of February 8 to 9. It was a large colorful celebration with fireworks and an air display, attended by specialists from across the world in anticipation of new weaponry and pronouncements by the country’s leader on military strategic matters.
Since Kim Jong-un had taken power in late 2011, the government has hosted 13 military parades, the most recent being in April 2022 to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the foundation of the Korean People’s Revolutionary Army.
Pre-parade activities
The day before the parade, the 8th WPK Central Military Committee held its 4th enlarged meeting, chaired by Kim Jong-un, where they discussed “the main military and political tasks for 2023 and prospective issues on the direction in building the armed forces.” Also included were “a number of business tasks to achieve a radical turnaround in military-political work, including the issues of taking structural and personnel measures to radically improve and strengthen military affairs, steadily expanding and strengthening the People’s Army’s operational and combat training, further strictly improving war readiness in response to the current situation, and further revising some points of the Army internal service regulations in accordance with the current situation.” The necessary decrees were passed. Unfortunately, the specifics were not made public.
Kim Jong-un and his daughter and wife went to the “People’s Army generals’ housing area” the next day. Kim stressed the KPA’s duty as the Workers’ Party of Korea’s army and stated, as the ROK media reported, that there were no parts in the address intended at South Korea or the US.
How was the parade?
There were numerous intriguing things this time for “Pyongyangologists” who pay attention to little nuances. First, Kim Jong-un was referred to as a “invincible steel commander”: this is one of Kim Il-sung’s titles that was previously used only infrequently.
Second, the procession was without Choi Ryong-hae, head of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly. He is currently in control of the legislative, yet he is a vice marshal in the military. As a result, Pyongyangologists worried whether this was a sign of dishonor, and if so, why. They also noticed two men on the rostrum who oversee the defence industry: Lee Byung-chul, a member of the WPK Politburo’s Central Committee, deputy chairman of the Party Central Military Committee, and secretary of the Party Central Committee, who is considered a representative of the MIC, and second deputy chairman and former defence minister Lee Yong-gill, who was appointed to replace his successor Park Chung-cheon.
Third, it was not the first time Kim had brought not only his wife, but also his beloved daughter to such an event, with “beloved” and even “respected” (an epithet used with the names of leaders in the North being epithets used in connection with her name in an official CTAC report. Kim first revealed his daughter to the outside world in November 2022, when they attended the Hwasong-17 ICBM test launch and she sat between her father and mother during the conference with the generals being in the center of the photo shoot.
All of this has fueled conjecture that ten- or eleven-year-old Kim Ju-ae (the name is presumed by ROK intelligence) is already being groomed to be the heir. Chung Song Chang, a senior fellow at the Sejong Institute think tank, for example, stated that such epithets would be improper if she were not the next in line to inherit.
The author, on the other hand, believes that the girl represents future generations whose pleasure and security must be protected by the nuclear missile shield. Besides, Kim was already interested in military equipment and modelling at her age, and the daughter may follow in her father’s footsteps.
What was displayed at the parade?
Aside from the rockets, which we’ll discuss later, the parade had a new feature that was evocative of Russia’s “Immortal Regiment” – “photographs displaying the glorious image of anti-Japanese revolutionary soldiers gleamed in the first row of the parade forces beside the military banner.” They depicted both of Kim Il-sung’s fellow rebels and Korean War heroes.
In addition to the familiar troops and military college representatives, “columns of the Sixth Department of the Party Central Committee, the Commandant’s Office of the State Council, the Guard Service, and the Guard Troops Command,” as well as those of the General Intelligence Department, Special Forces, and service troops, including the 191st Command and Information Brigade, marched in the mighty procession. This is significant to the author because of Kim Jong-un’s stance on various sorts of military groups. As a graduate of a military university, he understands all of the components of victory and does not only accolade parade troops.
The march of the 1st Mobile Hospital convoy elicited a flood of happy sentiments. The spectators sent “warm congratulations and thunderous applause” to the military doctors who “displayed the fullness of noble spirit of the Party and Revolutionary Army in the great era of Kim Jong-un in the emergency and anti-emergency struggle for overcoming the health crisis in the capital and performed brilliant feats of arms”.
As for military equipment, especially missiles, the key word was “columns”: as we noted earlier, the Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile does not exist in a single instance, and this is very important for assessing the North’s nuclear missile capabilities. According to Carnegie Endowment security specialist Ankit Panda, “This is cumulatively more ICBM launchers than we’ve ever seen before at a North Korean parade.” “North Korea has demonstrated enough ICBMs to overwhelm US ballistic missile defenses.”
Such convoys included:
- The Hwasong-17 proper, which demonstrated the state’s “supreme nuclear strike capability.”
- The new ICBM on an 18-wheeler that is likely a long-range solid-propellant missile, which Pyongyang announced the completion of late last year. It is several meters longer than the one demonstrated in 2017 but shorter than the Hwasong-17, a senior fellow at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, a think tank, told The Korea Times
- KN-23 tactical missiles modeled after the Russian Iskander ballistic missile and long-range cruise missiles capable of “covering” most of the ROK.
- Ultra-large MLRSs and 152-mm self-propelled howitzers – the main means for a possible attack on Seoul and its environs.
What to expect now?
The Office of the ROK President said the government is watching developments closely. On speculation that Kim’s appearance with his daughter is a sign of his intention to prepare her as his successor, the official declined to comment, saying that this is the purview of intelligence.
On February 9, State Department spokesman Ned Price stated that the US is open to conversation with North Korea, but will not remove sanctions just to get Pyongyang back to the bargaining table, and will not cut joint military drills with allies. When asked about the military parade, Price declined to comment, saying, “This is a propaganda exercise carried out by the DPRK… What I will say is that our aim has not changed. The Korean Peninsula must be completely de-nuclearized”.
Experts, on the other hand, are anticipating the testing of a new solid-propellant missile, pointing out that “The missile has not yet been tested in flight.” The DPRK, on the other hand, has already learned how to build large diameter solid rocket engines, lightweight composite fiber rocket bodies by winding, multistage solid rockets, high-strength assemblies, transport and launch containers, and very high thrust solid propellant engines, among other things. That is, the DPRK possesses all of the required components. It should also be remembered that if Pyongyang displays anything that has not yet flown, it usually signifies that it will fly in the near future“. According to Russian analyst Vladimir Khrustalyov who shared his opinion with RIA Novosti, the liquid and heavy Hwasong-17 ICBMs and the new solid-fuel missiles complement each other, making direct military conflict “unacceptable” to Washington.
In a crisis situation, the Hwasong 17 is perfectly suited for a first strike. It may transport a big payload, such as several warheads and/or decoys or superpowered weapons called “City Killers”. The mere presence of such missiles in place can impose pressure on the opponent, but their deployment involves extensive prelaunch procedures. Thus, the mobility of North Korean military personnel working with liquid fuel serves as a warning to South Korea and the United States, implying the possibility of a successful preventative assault.
Since 2017, the North has tested all ICBMs with liquid fuel. However, because it takes less preparation time than liquid fuel, the new system has a good chance of surviving a first hit. Solid propellant is more dependable and less expensive, and it also allows better missile mobility and a quicker launch preparation time, making this form of missile strike more immediate. This is what Khrustalyov refers to as “second-strike missiles,” and while such an ICBM “delivers” 30-50 kilotons to a conditional target rather than a megaton, this is more than enough to inflict damage that negates the enemy’s victory on the peninsula. As a result, “by complementing each other at intercontinental distances, these two types of ICBMs can create that very “corridor of predetermination” for Washington, making its strategy of overly tough crisis diplomacy, and even more so, direct military confrontation, deliberately unacceptable,” the expert explains.
To summarise, the people of the DPRK put on a colorful display, and the leadership demonstrated actual commitment to the course “To nuclear weapons – with nuclear weapons, to head-on conflict – with head-on confrontation!”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
After the collapse of the USSR and the weakening of Russia, Israel started to believe in its own exclusivity as the US’s main ally in the Middle East. In the interests of national security and unity in the face of an external enemy, the Israeli leadership (particularly under the right-wing Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu) permits audacious acts of sabotage against military facilities of countries in the region designated as the “enemy” (in particular, in Syria and Iran). Tel Aviv expects international organizations (including the United Nations) and key global actors (mainly those with a pro-Israeli agenda) to ignore its actions.
There is no denying that the threat of external aggression (including nuclear aggression) by Iran is a source of concern for Israeli society. In previous years, Israeli military aircraft bombed Syrian nuclear research facilities. The Anglo-Saxon coalition of US and British forces carried out a swift military operation in Iraq to suppress and eliminate dictator Saddam Hussein, creating new opportunities for Israel in the region. As a result, the participation of Arab monarchies backed by the United States (including Saudi Arabia) in the petrodollar policy reduces the threat posed by the Arab coalition against Israel.
In these circumstances, the Israeli leadership frequently uses the theme of the “Iranian threat” to deprive Iran of its key role in the Middle East, despite its wealth of energy resources and historical traditions of imperial statehood. The Iranian nuclear project is primarily intended to ensure the Iranian state’s internal and external security (including against the threats of ethnic separatism and foreign intervention). For the past 45 years, the Anglo-Saxons and their Israeli ally have sought to isolate Iran following the victory of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979 due to the loss of control of Iran’s oil and gas resources by the same US and Britain.
And, whereas the East-West dichotomy (USA-USSR) created a certain balance of power in the Middle East during the Cold War years, the USA began to act as a hegemon after 1991, regardless of the region’s peculiarities or Russia’s interests.
In 2015, the Russian air force began a peacekeeping mission in Syria. Moscow made it clear to all regional and extra-regional actors that it was re-establishing its presence and influence in the Middle East. That is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a recent interview with the French TV channel La Chaîne Info, noted that he was then forced to recognize the Russian factor in the region and suggested to President Vladimir Putin to “find common ground” in reaching a compromise on the principle that “we do not interfere in your actions in Syria and you leave us alone.” However, Russia will not threaten Israel or anyone else except radical forces involved in destabilizing the Middle East, specifically ISIS (recognized as an international terrorist organization in the Russian Federation).
For some reason, Netanyahu told the French about this after the air strikes on Iranian military facilities on January 29, 2023. Israel understands that Iran will not let their strikes go unpunished, regardless of UN or outside force decisions. Tehran has already stated its intention to punish the perpetrator accurately and proportionately in accordance with “international law and the UN Charter” (as reported by Iran’s permanent representative to the UN, Saeid Iravani, in a letter to the UN Security Council Chairman on February 2). What form, when, and where this will take place remains a question for the Israeli side to consider and resolve as soon as possible.
Benjamin Netanyahu has already demanded that his own special services and law enforcement take all necessary precautions to prevent his assassination. The Israeli prime minister’s security appears to have been increased as well.
Given that some Ukrainian forces have attempted to link the drone-kamikaze attacks on Iran’s western provinces to Russia’s Special Military Operation and alleged Iranian-Russian military-technical cooperation, Israel has been actively exploiting the “Ukrainian theme” in its geopolitics recently.
In particular, in the aforementioned interview with a French television channel, Netanyahu confirmed Tel Aviv’s intention to transfer the Israeli missile defense system Iron Dome to Kyiv, as well as the volume of American ammunition (150,000 shells) exported from Israel to Ukraine. Simultaneously with the statement of the government’s head, a number of Israeli experts (including the editor-in-chief of “The Best Radio,” Zvi Zilber), mentioned various closed forms of Israeli military and humanitarian assistance to the Kyiv regime (including training the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) to repel Iranian UAVs and through electronic warfare, providing intelligence and information, and technical assistance). In turn, Israel Defense Forces officer Grigoriy Tamar proposed that Tel Aviv invest in a joint Israeli-Polish-Ukrainian military-industrial company to manufacture weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also weighed in on the “Ukrainian agenda,” reminding President Vladimir Putin that he had personally promised not to have the Ukrainian president killed. The negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, mediated by Tel Aviv, produced approximately 17 versions (drafts) of a possible agreement between Kyiv and Moscow, but were cut short due to the West’s insistence (apparently, the United States).
In other words, Israel is indirectly addressing Russia and offering possible participation in the localization of the Ukrainian crisis in exchange for Russian diplomacy intervening to prevent Iran from taking drastic anti-Israeli steps. It is no coincidence that Israeli sources have begun to speculate on the possibility of increased military-technical cooperation between Russia and Iran (including, allegedly, the construction in Russia of a joint factory to produce high-speed UAVs based on Iranian technology). However, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Moscow has its own plans in this area that are unrelated to external partners.
Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned about reports that Iran intends to form an “army” and station it along the Syrian-Israeli border. As a result, Tel Aviv is threatened not only by Tehran’s nuclear project, but also by the presence of pro-Iranian proxy forces on Israel’s border. As a result, the Jewish state’s leader began to publicly acknowledge the possibility of providing direct military assistance to the Kyiv regime against the Russian Armed Forces.
It turns out that Tehran, after previously accusing some neighboring countries of allegedly assisting Zionist forces and providing their own territory to Israeli structures opposing the IRI, has moved to use this methodology against Israel via border Syria and local Shiite forces. The original concept belonged to IRGC general Qassem Soleimani, who was instrumental in strengthening pro-Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria. According to media reports, Iran intends to establish a private army and base near the Israeli border in Syria.
Today, PMCs are becoming a means of fierce geopolitical competition between powerful outside forces in various parts of the world. Iran, in fact, used this methodology much earlier than the rest of the world. For example, in Lebanon, a political party and paramilitary Shiite organization known as Hezbollah has effectively become a “state within a state” and a reliable military and political ally of Tehran. For the Persians, the private army is less about money and more about Shiism’s ideology. Given Iran’s influence in crisis-torn Syria and its role in preserving Syrian statehood under Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the Persians could easily establish such a proxy force on the Syrian-Israeli border. As a result, the Iranians want to eliminate the Israeli threat to their interests in the borderlands.
Given the current situation, Israel suggests that Moscow, through its partnership with Tehran, may contribute to resolving the current outbreak of Israel-Iran contradictions in order to establish a balance of power and maintain Middle Eastern peace.
Russia, for its part, has always been (and continues to be) willing to contribute to regional peace and security. Although Moscow’s peacemaking value necessitates respect for its interests in other “hot regions,” to the exclusion of Western propaganda and speculation about Russia. One indirect indication of Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intention to use Russian mediation in Israel-Iran relations may be Tel Aviv’s agreement to provide humanitarian aid to Syria in response to the earthquake that struck the country on February 6 this year, at Moscow’s request. That is why one can assume that without Russia, Israeli-Iranian tensions will escalate, because Moscow maintains trusting relations with both Tehran and Tel Aviv, which other actors do not (including the United States, Britain, France, Turkey, etc.).
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On February 4, a US fighter jet “safely” shot down a Chinese “surveillance balloon” off the coast of South Carolina. The balloon, according to US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, was being used by China for the purpose of spying on “strategic sites in the continental United States.” Lloyd also emphasised that the decision to shoot down the Chinese balloon reinforced President Biden’s resolve to “always put the safety and security of the American people first while responding effectively to the PRC’s unacceptable violation of our sovereignty.” Strangely enough, the US officials refused to accept the Chinese explanation that the concerned balloon was a runaway weather balloon. Most importantly, officials in Washington were not seen as bothered by the fact that the use of balloons for espionage is now outdated, especially when there are other, more sophisticated means – such as satellites – available today.
So, what purpose could the shooting down of a balloon serve for Washington? The fact that Washington shot it down meant as a political taunt to China, a provocation that Washington could use to create a scenario full of tensions. This is most evident from how both the US and China reacted to the incident.
Whereas China urged the US to avoid “misjudgement” and manage “differences in the face of a chance occurrence”, Blinken – who was due to visit China very soon – chose to project the incident differently even after speaking directly with Wang Yi of the CCP Central Foreign Affairs Office. Blinken called off his visit in view of what he called “an irresponsible act and a clear violation of US sovereignty and international law” [whatever that means].
This was an aggressive response. But, most importantly, Washington’s decision to shoot down a Chinese balloon has now added a direct military dimension to the US-China bilateral ties. Could the Chinese extend the same treatment to the US espionage efforts?
The US decision to shoot down a Chinese balloon to protect the US from a ‘Chinese attack’ on US sovereignty is directly feeding into the already existing narrative of a coming war with China.
In 2021, testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Phil Davidson, who was leading the US Indo-Pacific Command, said that China could take Taiwan in the next decade. This, Davidson further said, was part of Chinese ambitions to “supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order.”
In this context, it is hardly surprising to see many geopolitical analysts in the West seeing this Chinese balloon as Beijing’s attempt to test the waters, a step that PRC decided to take to see how the US would react. But why China would feed the narrative of war in the US remains to be explained. Why would China need to start a war to overtake the global system when it is already on its way to dominating the global system without fighting any war? Chinese aggression against the US, therefore, does not make any sense.
Aggression, however, does make sense for the US, a country obsessed with the prospect of losing its unilateral hegemony. Therefore, it is the US bringing the war to China rather than China bringing the war to the US. This is most evident from the US attempts to bring NATO to the Indo-Pacific.
On January 31, 2023 – when the US was already aware of the Chinese balloon – the Secretary General of NATO met Kishida Fumio, Japan’s Prime Minister. The visit followed Kishida’s participation in the 2022 NATO summit, as NATO Secretary General “reaffirmed their commitment to deepen cooperation between Japan and NATO.” The purpose was to reaffirm the US position vis-à-vis China in the Indo-Pacific, as both leaders targeted “China’s rapid strengthening of its military capabilities and expansion of military services.”
By militarizing its ties with China and making Japan a de facto partner of NATO, the US is encircling China. This military encirclement is region wide.
In the Philippines, the Biden administration aims to “deter” China with a greater military presence. On February 1, 2023, the US and the Philippines announced four new military sites to be established in the Philippines. The US Defence department said that the new sites will make the US-Philippines alliance “stronger and more resilient, and will accelerate modernization of our combined military capabilities.”
These alliances are part of the global alliance the US has been trying to build against China for the past few years now. What is driving this recent acceleration is the way the US is using the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) military conflict to convince the world that the Chinese intend to militarily attack Taiwan and there will soon be a war between the two countries very soon.
Interestingly enough, a four-start US general recently revealed that he had a “gut” feeling that the US and China will go to war in 2025. What is even more important is the fact that the memo in which the military official expressed his “gut” feeling was leaked on social media in what appears to be an attempt by some hawks to popularise the idea of war with China.
That the memo was leaked only a few days before the US shot down the Chinese balloon yet again reinforces the American idea of an imminent military conflict with China, a country, as many US officials have repeatedly pointed out, is supposedly bent upon undoing the US-dominated (so-called) rule-based system, although we are yet to find out what those rulers mean, why they do not happen to serve countries other than the US and its allies, and why these rules cannot be changed.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Most food products around the world are now significantly more expensive. The Food and Agriculture Organization, which tracks changes in the prices of the most popular food commodities around the world, predicts that the Food Price Index will rise an average of 143.7 points in 2022, up 14.3% from 2021 and the highest since 1990. Keep in mind that the pandemic’s effects caused the index to increase by 28% from the prior year in 2021.
Due to concerns about the Black Sea trade disruption, food prices spiked after the US and NATO started an armed conflict in Ukraine against Russia last February. The benchmark index dropped to 132.4 points in December 2022 from a revised 135.00 points in November, marking the ninth consecutive month of decline. According to FAO, the index fell in December as a result of falling global vegetable oil prices, as well as some drops in grain and meat prices. However, these drops were somewhat offset by slight increases in sugar and dairy prices. The West has actually purchased all of Ukraine’s exports of these goods on a discount, while Russia has made enormous efforts to export its food products to the poorest and most affected countries. Here is yet another blatant example of the criminal objectives of the US and NATO in starting a war in Ukraine.
The sharp rise in food prices has in turn triggered a severe economic crisis in a number of Arab nations. The crisis has increased inflation and put pressure on national currencies, decreasing the purchasing power of Arabs in general and the poorer sections in particular. However, as even the middle class in some nations starts to struggle, an increasing number of families are struggling simply to put food on the table.
The devaluation imposed on Cairo as part of a $3 billion International Monetary Fund loan agreement has caused the Egyptian pound to lose half of its value against the dollar since last March. In December, the official annual inflation rate for the nation was 21.9 percent, and food costs increased by 37.9 percent. The COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult for the Egyptian economy to recover. However, it was the terrorist conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which the West had started against the former, that has caused the latest crisis as both countries are major producers of wheat for Egypt and major sources of mass tourism. Nearly a third of Egypt’s 104 million people now live below the poverty line, and a similar number are considered “vulnerable to poverty,” according to the World Bank.
The year 2023 is already dogged by gloomy economic predictions, with economists predicting a worsening global recession that will cause further currency depreciation, soaring prices, increased unemployment, and poverty. The past year has seen a number of setbacks for the world economy. With the start of the war in Ukraine against Russia, nations and industries that had only recently started to recover from quarantine, restrictions, and other COVID-19 pandemic-related effects suffered a new blow from the West. Food and fuel prices increased as a result of the conflict’s disruption of global supply chains, adding to inflationary pressures. This threatened jobs and stifled economic growth, while also putting additional pressure on national currencies and business confidence.
The most vulnerable nations are particularly concerned about the decline in the value of Arab currencies relative to the dollar because households that had built up savings prior to the economic downturn have seen the value of their financial reserves plummet and social safety nets jeopardized. The value of the Lebanese pound has now decreased by about 95% since the start of the nation’s financial crisis in late 2019. The cost of food, fuel, and other necessities is also rising dramatically in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, while the population’s purchasing power is continuing to decline. As a result, there have been protests and sporadic waves of violent unrest in these countries.
Around 130 million people in the region live in poverty, and the unemployment rate in the Arab region is 12% (the highest in the world), according to the Economic and Social Survey of the Arab Region, which was published in December by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. Except for Libya and the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, it was discovered that 35.3% of the population of the region currently lives in poverty. Over the next two years, this number is anticipated to increase, reaching 36% by 2024. All of this reflects the effects of government austerity measures, general economic stagnation, and pressure on businesses.
However, not all areas of the region are equally affected by inflation. Lead author of the Survey Ahmed Mummi predicts that the GCC nations and other oil-exporting nations will continue to profit from higher energy prices, while oil-importing nations will experience a variety of socioeconomic difficulties. Saudi Arabia is anticipated to have the G20 group of developed nations’ fastest-growing economy this year. Lebanon’s economy shrank last year as a result of political gridlock and delays in its recovery strategy.
Arab nations, which rely on imports for food and other essentials, have been disproportionately affected by recent inflation, according to economists. The number of hungry families rose last year in the Arab world, which was already among the nations with the worst food shortages.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that, prior to the Western-instigated war in Ukraine, Russia was the largest and Ukraine the fifth-largest exporters of wheat in the world, accounting for roughly 20% and 10% of global exports, respectively. They were also significant exporters of other crucial goods. This resulted in a sharp increase in market prices for grain, vegetable oil, and fertilizer last year as a result of the blockade of Black Sea ports. Due to this, the cost of necessities like bread significantly increased throughout the Arab world.
Although fears of a supply shortage were allayed by a UN-mediated agreement last summer that allowed grain supplies to resume, poorly thought-out Western sanctions on Russian goods, including hydrocarbon products, have increased fuel prices, which have in turn increased import and export costs. “As the cost of the food basket rises, food security is at risk in a number of nations, particularly those that are experiencing conflict and unrest (whether political or economic),” said Majed Skaini, regional manager for UNESCWA’s International Comparison Program, in an interview with Arab News.
In the meantime, lower living standards across many nations and escalating social unrest are being caused by wages that are not keeping up with rising costs of living due to increased pressure on governments and businesses.
Arab News quoted An Hodgson, global head of consumer research at Euromonitor, as saying that people in the region “are probably more affected by the rising cost of living for two reasons.” “First, the region’s consumers have a low savings ratio. This indicates that they lack a sizable financial safety net to help them get through the current cost-of-living crisis.” In comparison to the global average of 17.6% in 2022, the Middle East and North Africa’s savings ratio was 10% of disposable income. For comparison, the Asia-Pacific region’s savings ratio for the same year was 26.7% of disposable income.
“The region’s heavy reliance on food imports is the second justification. The average cost of food imports in the Middle East and North Africa in 2021 (the most recent year for which Euromonitor has data) was $105 per capita, compared to $44 in Asia-Pacific and $67 in Latin America. As a result of disruptions in the global supply chain and food production, consumers in the region are more susceptible to increases in food prices. The middle class, which is typically the largest and most economically active segment of society, is particularly affected by the rising cost of living. Due to slow income growth, skyrocketing inflation, and a crisis in the cost of living, the middle class is struggling to maintain both their socioeconomic status and standard of living,” said Hodgson. “In actuality, the middle class in developed nations, particularly in Western Europe, never fully recovered from the economic crisis they faced during the 2008–2009 global financial crisis.”
Widespread changes in consumer behavior have resulted from this contraction, including a decrease in conspicuous consumption, more cautious spending, and general tightening of the purse strings.
The vast majority of households will prioritize saving over the course of the upcoming year, according to Euromonitor’s most recent findings on global consumer trends. According to the study, 43% of consumers have cut their energy consumption, and about 75% of consumers do not intend to increase their overall spending. 92% of respondents, according to a recent survey by the World Economic Forum, are “adjusting their budgets to pay for food, and some are even doing without it.” The report added: “When asked how rising prices have impacted consumers, 68% of consumers said that household debt had increased and 59% said that access to healthcare had been hampered.”
Many predict that 2023 will be another difficult year for some Arab countries as the gap between the wealthier oil economies and the unstable, heavily dependent on imports Levant and North African nations continues to widen.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Given that the story about “arms supplies to Russia from the DPRK” has been gaining ground, the author has repeatedly stated that Seoul is the main target of this hysteria that serves as another justification for the ROK’s increased involvement in the plans of the US and its allies against Russia’s national interests. This strategy included two significant visits at the end of January 2023.
ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol met with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Seoul on January 30, 2023. They talked about the ROK’s relationship with NATO, South Korea’s strategy for developing relations with Indo-Pacific countries, and Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile issues. Yoon Suk-yeol praised NATO’s level of cooperation and expressed hope that South Korea’s mission to the organization would contribute to the expansion of bilateral ties. He urged Stoltenberg to help the ROK and NATO successfully implement joint projects to expand cooperation in new technologies and defense industries.
Yoon asked Stoltenberg and NATO to play an “active role” in deterring North Korea’s “reckless provocations” during the meeting.
Stoltenberg promised to strengthen South Korea-NATO cooperation and praised the two sides’ expanding defense industry cooperation. The NATO chief invited Yoon to attend the NATO summit in Lithuania in July, and Yoon said he would think about it.
According to the author, the most important aspect of the talks was that the NATO chief urged the South Korean leadership to decide to provide expanded military assistance to Ukraine, citing countries that had changed their positions on the issue (Germany, Sweden, Norway) as examples. However, Seoul reportedly only confirmed its readiness to support the people of Ukraine in collaboration with the international community, withholding direct deliveries of weapons and military equipment.
North Korea criticized Stoltenberg’s visit, calling it a prelude to war and an attempt to create an Asian version of NATO. An article by Kim Dong-myung of the International Policy Research Society notes that in April and June 2022, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee visited South Korea and Japan, where he agreed to further close partnership and military cooperation, and in late June, NATO invited South Korea and Japan to their first-ever joint summit in Madrid. In addition, last May, South Korea was accepted as a full member of the Cyber Defense Cooperation Center, a subordinate body of NATO, and sent a delegation from the NATO Parliamentary Union to South Korea in October to discuss strengthening bilateral cooperation. The North Korean researcher added that after the US decision to supply tanks to Kyiv, the war in Ukraine is entering a new crisis, and it is clear that, speaking of Chinese threats, the NATO chief will force South Korea and Japan to create an Asian version of NATO, pressuring them to provide weapons to Ukraine.
As we recall, Yoon Suk-yeol began to strengthen ties with this organization during his visit to the NATO summit in Madrid, but there it was mostly about general statements and publicity for South Korean weapons. Meanwhile, Washington is determined to create an Asian NATO, or an Asian branch of NATO, and Stoltenberg was clearly trying to get Yoon to do so.
The next day, Yoon Suk-yeol met with US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who had arrived in Seoul the day before for talks “on deterring North Korean nuclear and missile threats and other security issues“.
Yoon Suk-yeol and Lloyd Austin agreed that defense ties between Seoul, Washington and Tokyo must be stronger to deter North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats. The South Korean leader noted the importance of joint military exercises between the ROK and US forces to maintain preparedness for the changing security situation on the Korean Peninsula. The Pentagon chief recalled that “the South Korean-US alliance is the foundation of security in Northeast Asia, and it is stronger than ever.”
During the visit, Lloyd Austin made a special statement to the Yonhap news agency, the main points of which were as follows:
- I am also here to reiterate that at a time of “heightened tensions and provocations,” the extended US commitment to the ROK is unbreakable. An attack on one of the two countries is an attack on the US alliance and the ROK as a whole. This is the first time a US defense chief has described his security assurances to South Korea in a way similar to NATO Article 5.
- The absence of war on the Korean Peninsula for the past 70 years has been attributed to “the direct efforts of the South Korean and American peoples, as well as the outstanding armed forces of the two democracies, which have proudly forged an unbreakable bond over decades of shared sacrifice.”
- However, “as President Biden has stated, our common problems can only be solved when countries that share the universal values of liberal democracy and human rights join forces.” As a result, the United States and the Republic of Korea “are taking concrete steps to modernize and strengthen the alliance. These steps will help to prevent conflict on the peninsula and protect the international order based on rules.”
- The United States and the Republic of Korea are determined to confront the challenge of the DPRK, which in 2022 “has conducted an unprecedented number of missile launches – dangerous and destabilizing actions that violate international law and defy numerous UN Security Council resolutions. So we are expanding the scope of our joint exercises, including live firing and other readiness measures, and deepening trilateral cooperation with Japan, including trilateral missile defense and anti-submarine warfare exercises.
- As for the dialogue on extended deterrence, we have completed several high-level discussions in 2022, and we intend to do even more, including increasingly sophisticated exercises.
In terms of the outcome of the ministerial talks, an agreement was reached to strengthen the concept instruments for extended deterrence of North Korea by US forces: the allies will increase the volume of American strategic forces on the Korean Peninsula (advanced F-22 and F-35 fighters, strategic bombers, aircraft carrier strike groups, nuclear submarines, etc.). The United States and the ROK will exchange information about the DPRK in real time, carry out joint planning and exercises involving the use of the above strategic forces (and in general, the scale of joint exercises will be expanded). Finally, in February 2023, there will be a command post exercise, and then the US, the ROK, and Japan will hold a working meeting to discuss the issue and how to establish a mechanism for real-time intelligence sharing on North Korean missiles.
It was stated that Lee Jong-sup and Lloyd Austin “strongly condemned Pyongyang’s repeated violations of UN Security Council resolutions, including missile launches and drone incursions into South Korean airspace.” Nevertheless, Austin refrained from mentioning the possibility of South Korea developing its own nuclear weapons or placing US nuclear weapons in the South, an issue that has received a lot of attention lately and about which we will write separately.
Pyongyang’s response to the outcome of the visit was predictable. On February 2, the DPRK Foreign Ministry said that if the United States continued to deploy strategic assets on and around the Korean Peninsula, North Korea would respond according to the principle of “nuclear weapons for nuclear weapons and total confrontation for total confrontation.” It was also stressed that “the DPRK is not interested in any contact or dialogue with the United States as long as they pursue their hostile policy and confrontational line“.
How do these two visits fit into the big picture? It is clear that Seoul is still trying to maneuver, but the space for this maneuvering is constantly shrinking against the background of increasing confrontation between Russia and China on the one hand and the collective West on the other. The possibility of provocations is not excluded either, as Seoul has no possibilities to effectively control that the weapons and military equipment it has sent to Canada or Poland will not end up in Ukraine, causing a natural response from Moscow.
The US is actively playing on Yoon Suk-yeol’s ambitions to raise the ROK’s importance in the world. This is done both by encouraging arms trade (Seoul plans to rise from eighth to fifth place) and by the concept of “Global Korea,” in which Korea begins to intervene in a number of world problems far away from the peninsula and its surroundings. As noted by prominent Russian expert on Korean studies, Alexander Zhebin, this essentially means that issues of real importance to the ROK, such as unification or peace and security on the peninsula, are giving way to issues more in line with the interests of the US and the collective West as a whole.
In Washington’s plans, South Korea is partly pulling chestnuts out of the fire, partly acting as a starter for initiatives that the US wanted to position as an “international community proposal.” The extent to which these plans will materialize will become clear later. But judging by the way Washington is actively pushing Seoul, there will be a lot of interesting things to come in 2023.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
It is a mystery for “educated Americans” as to why a “liberal” president would risk nuclear war.
Biden’s domestic policies certainly oppose tyranny and Naziism, brought to America by Trump and his army of hillbilly miscreants. He has cut taxes to workers and middle class and worked to undo some of Trump’s insane policies regarding police violence, racism and persecution of the vulnerable.
But then why did he do this? If you don’t know, Biden purposefully and systematically engineered what is now a world war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian conscripts and now threatens to kill us all.
Worse still, Biden and NATO and whoever is pulling his strings is losing that war. How humiliating!
Darkening things even more, Seymour Hersh, in a New York Times article, put full responsibility for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline on Biden.
This is a horrific public humiliation.
To those of us still living in the US it seems as though Biden is being blackmailed. Could his idiot son Hunter be the cause? Most think so but no one reports this or investigates.
The only investigations come from the GOP and they are worse, most back the war and 100% back Nazi control of the US and a life of tyranny and impoverishment for America’s working classes.
No one who can read and write doubts this and this story is told and told quite properly.
Breaking Up Russia
It was always about breaking up Russia. Keeping this secret, keeping it out of the news, erased from history, is one of the major goals of fake news.
As for how long this has been going on, that’s something else. History books that are never used can still tell us that key founder of Zionism, the world’s first oligarch, Jacob Schiff, started the Russo-Japanese war to break up Imperial Russia.
The names, Schiff, Warburg, Loeb, Rothschild, so many more, always targeting Russia through building Hitler’s Reich, despite his negative opinions about Jews, and, seemingly, engineering more than a century of permanent war.
Hard Questions
Hard questions need to be asked from time to time but few ask hard questions. It is so much easier to point fingers at the targets given, the low hanging fruit like Alex Jones or John Bolton and ignore real evil.
We begin
Washington’s childishness and ignorance may well kill us all. As someone who has briefed select congressional groups and agencies, particularly on Russia or the Middle East, it is difficult to explain exactly how utterly dense and clueless public figures in America are.
Does anyone in Europe realize that American foreign policy is now being formulated by a failed waitress from a backwoods diner? It was bad enough when Washington was run by crooked lobbyists, but has that really stopped?
Why Did Hillary Open the Door?
In order to choose a point of departure from any known reality, one must look at how Obama brought Hillary Clinton in as Secretary of State.
Hillary first came to public attention as First Lady, when she was put in charge of America’s healthcare system. Here she made a laudable attempt to address the total control big pharma and the exceedingly corrupt medical industry has on congress.
Behind the removal of Clinton was a cabal, the Israel Lobby, big pharma, the defense industry but most of all the neocons.
Problem here, the neocons were led by John Kagan, Victoria Nuland and company, all Israeli citizens, all tied to right wing extremism in the US and at war with the Clintons.
But it was Hillary Clinton who let them in and let them take Ukraine, setting up a Nazi dictatorship spearheading a drive to destroy Russia.
Was that an “American” drive or, with the neocons, did America become something else, a corrupt bully whose vast power could be exercised by any criminal gang that could terrorize the world though turning America into puppet state.
We look at Hillary because she brought Victoria Nudleman/Nuland, a known agent for certain extremist groups inside the US, into the State Department with control over US actions in Europe.
Did Hillary hand America’s foreign policy over to organized crime, be it the Khazarian Mafia or Trump’s “Deep State?”
It began with undermining President Clinton through blackmail and later a failed impeachment attempt. We can safely assume it is always a form of blackmail, sex, money, uncontrolled family members or just plain idiocy.
Lewinsky Affair About Russia, not Israel
What isn’t reported is that the Lewinsky affair was staged through a partnership between Army Intelligence (Linda Tripp) and the Mossad to prevent President Clinton from his stated goal of a full-scale alliance with Russia. This was Clinton’s dream, peace and plenty at home and an end to militarism worldwide.
Planning was done by Scaife attorneys Ken Starr and Brett Kavanaugh.
NATO would be gone, essentially and Russia and the US would move forward, together, in full partnership in a disarmed world.
This had to be stopped.
Behind stopping world peace was a coalition of billionaires led by Richard Mellon Scaife.
From Steve Kangas, activist, former US Army Intelligence Officer who many, including this author, believe was murdered at the orders of Scaife. A report from that period:
On February 8, 1999, Kangas was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a restroom on the 39th floor of the One Oxford Center, Pittsburgh, home to the offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. Kangas’ blood alcohol was 0.14 and his backpack contained 47 rounds of ammunition and a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.[6][7]
Kangas, of course didn’t drink, owned no weapons and was an avid anti-Fascist. Let’s call it murder.
From Steve Kangas:
“The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.”
The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface – and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.)
But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principal creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine’s creators had CIA backgrounds.
During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism.
The CIA’s expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent – the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.
How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General “Wild Bill” Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that “OSS” stood for “Oh, so social!”
Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels.
He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His commercial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from society’s elite…
Although many people think that the CIA’s primary mission during the Cold War was to “deter communism,” Noam Chomksy correctly points out that its real mission was “deterring democracy.”
From corrupting elections to overthrowing democratic governments, from assassinating elected leaders to installing murderous dictators, the CIA has virtually always replaced democracy with dictatorship.
It didn’t help that the CIA was run by businessmen, whose hostility towards democracy is legendary. The reason they overthrew so many democracies is because the people usually voted for policies that multi-national corporations didn’t like: land reform, strong labor unions, nationalization of their industries, and greater regulation protecting workers, consumers and the environment.”
Another view of that era tells us that Donovan and the Dulles Brothers were, themselves, Nazis, who during the late 20s and 1930s worked hand and mouth with Frankfurt bankers under Rothschilds to bring Hitler to power and to grow German military might.
This was what the OSS really was, hardly fighting against Germany and that the CIA itself is just a rehash of Nazi Germany’s Abwehr.
Few, only at the highest levels in intelligence talk openly of this or the mysterious postwar German DVD or the centuries old Khazarian Mafia and its roots in Freemasonry, a story for another time.
Fake Democracy
The last vestiges of democracy in America are dissolving under bankster financed fascism. Some choose to call evil “special interest” but there is nothing “special” about nuclear war.
Special interests, under the 2005 SCOTUS decision called ‘Citizens United’ were suddenly freed of all bribery constraints. This new and radical decision passed by a mob controlled Supreme Court legalized unlimited bribery of any American politician by powerful individuals and corporations around the world.
Theoretically, North Korea could set up a Delaware Corporation with a local agent and post office box and use this platform for pouring billions into bribes for American politicians at every level from dog catcher to president.
But it isn’t North Korea doing this, not even China. This kind of power resides in the shadows, secret oligarchs, long inherited wealth, occult organizations and religious extremists.
America Bought
America never got free of Britain but Britain wasn’t Britain. Britain was the paid bully of the continental banksters that built England and its navy as enforcers for corporate colonialism.
Victorian England was a land if disparities, poverty, slavery, human suffering and the soaring achievements of the elites who ground humanity under the wheel to make their bread
This was the Britain that held onto control of America even after the revolution, through the Federalists and the banks. ‘Federalist’ means ‘Rothschild agent.’
The result was a permanent marriage between the oldline bankster elites that took control of America, first step the weak and confusing Constitution of 1787, then the Robber Baron Era of the late 19th century and culminating in the surrender of currency control in 1913 under the ‘Federal Reserve Act.’
One thing alone to consider is how, at the end of the 19th century and the early 20th century, new states were created, no people, states controlled by banks, big cattle, big ‘rail’ and mining, all centred from London and Frankfurt and run through front banks in New York.
Each new state gave 2 senators, overpowering any real political movements toward democracy or workers rights by creating a US Senate filled with employees of European banks under Rothschild control.
Thus, California, today with 50 million people, has the same power in Washington as Wyoming with 250,000 people and millions of cows.
The Senate is permanently corrupt as is anything touched by the senate, which includes the power hungry Nazi controlled Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS)
Now the Supreme Court controls all elections and has shown no law, no theory, nothing can keep them from their mischief.
If no one gets a majority of ‘electors,’ not votes but something else, and this happened with both Bush 43 and Donald Trump, the election could go to the House of Representatives. There each state gets one vote. Problem here is that most states that don’t have any people are controlled by big business who always chooses a right wing extremist from the GOP or Republican Party.
There, 10 GOP states with 5 million people can override Democratic states like California, Pennsylvania or New York whose population rivals Europe.
Thus, when Al Gore needed to object to an obviously illegal seizure of power by Bush through a corrupt and overreaching Supreme Court, that door was closed, a totally rigged game no history class teaches and no newspaper ever reports.
Always Israel but Why?
Behind this move against Russia was big oil, the arms lobby and AIPAC, the Israel Lobby.
Thus, Israel was an integral part in keeping the US focused on an aggressive stance against a Russia that not only could have been removed forever as a nuclear threat but toward, as we will see, pushing US policy toward not only containment of Russia but aggressive destabilization.
What experts see is Israel seeking to expand as a world power.
Toward this end, Israel set the US against Erdogan in 2016 with a CIA backed coup attempt using traitors within Turkey’s military, all in the shadow of the Israeli instigated Maidan Coup against Ukraine in 2014.
Conclusion
During the 19th century, the British navy ruled the world on behalf of the world’s central banks and the secret cabal that long ago turned currency in a weapon of enslavement.
After 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act, that mantle officially passed to the United States, a process that would find culmination with the destruction of Europe carefully engineered under the guise of a world war.
There are still unasked questions. Who benefits? Que bono had always been a useful methodology for seeking culpability but no longer. Even the term “Deep State” was itself killed as “too descriptive” to be allowed.
Who gains when a million Ukrainian Christian men of age to raise families die fighting Russia?
We will be seeing this number in coming months. That’s a million families with millions of orphaned children, lessons the world supposedly learned way back in 1919.
Then there is the other problem, no one but a total fool can justify backing Naziism in any form. Naziism in Ukraine under Zelensky, a Jew mind you, is far more virulent than anything Hitler was involved in, at least from a domestic standpoint.
Hitler killed Germany based on clearly outlined policies set forth in Mein Kampf, perhaps unjust and overreaching but discernible. Biden and Zelensky, obviously taking orders from somewhere, are grinding Ukraine into dust to “bruise” Russia.
Behind Biden and Zelensky are the mavens of chaos theory and, behind them, a force feeding on human suffering and hopelessness.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
The US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s visit to the Philippines in early February further demonstrates the growing importance of the country in Washington’s escalating struggle with Beijing for influence in the Southeast Asian subregion.
This isn’t the first time The New Eastern Outlook is examining the reasons for the special attention of both actors to Southeast Asia in general and the Philippines in particular. In this case, we will just briefly focus on one notable incident that occurred back in 2017. Its outcome (nearly) restored the decades-old status quo in the positioning of the Philippines in the field of power being shaped in Southeast Asia by the world’s leading players. It was the US Department of Defense that played a decisive role in the episode’s favorable outcome for Washington.
The fact is that after the convincing victory of the political group headed by Rodrigo Duterte in the general elections held a year earlier in the Philippines, the foreign policy course of the country sharply swung in the direction of China. In this regard, almost immediately the new president became the object of a massive propaganda attack by the “international human rights movement.” The reason for this was Rodrigo Duterte’s unusual strategies to combating the drug trade, one of the nation’s biggest problems.
When propaganda attacks failed to have the “right” effect on the aforementioned shift in Manila’s foreign policy, it appears that it was decided to resort to more “straightforward” arguments. One of these was the “test shot” that began in the spring of 2017 with the armed uprising of some unknown Islamist groups that seized Marawi, the provincial capital of southern Mindanao. The Duterte administration initially underestimated the scope of the “incident,” believing that it could be handled quickly and by its own forces. However, the fighting lasted five months, during which time Marawi and its surroundings were destroyed and 300,000 local residents were forced to flee to other parts of the country.
Most importantly, the government had to resort to US military assistance. Although quite shortly before that it had publicly declared its intention to completely stop any relations with Washington in the field of defense, formalized in the early 1950’s. After the US intervention the mentioned “international terrorists” dissolved into the political space of the Philippines. Just as imperceptibly as they had emerged from it. Various US military units, especially those designated to conduct so-called “special operations” gradually began to return to their usual bases in that country. Not on the same scale as before, of course, but still.
So, by the time of Lloyd Austin’s previous visit to the Philippines, held in late July 2021, the ground for his satisfactory assessment of the bilateral relations in the field of defense was well prepared. In particular, by that time the intention to break the Visiting Forces Agreement, VFA of 1999, which R. Duterte had earlier publicly declared more than once, was officially disavowed.
This document established a new format of bilateral defense relations after the completion of the operation of the two largest US military bases, Clark Field and Subic Bay. However, the fact of such completion was declared only by the US side and, apparently, was not checked by the Philippine side.
During Austin’s visit to the Philippines a year and a half ago, the sides expressed their intention to strengthen the above-mentioned Treaty of Mutual Defense of 1951. That is, it has not disappeared, despite all the initial loud statements of R. Duterte about the intention to terminate this document.
Another indication of the growing importance of the Philippines for American policy in Southeast Asia was the August 2021 visit to Manila, that is, almost immediately after the departure of Austin, first of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and then Vice President Kamala Harris.
So the current voyage of Austin took place in the context of further development of the aforementioned process of bilateral relations restoration to the level characteristic not only of the period that immediately preceded the accession of R. Duterte to power in 2016. Perhaps we will see something similar to what happened during the Cold War, when the Philippines played the role of one of the most important outposts in the US policy aimed at “containing the spread of communism” in Asia.
Some of the outcomes of the US defense secretary’s recent visit to the country point to just such a shift in the Philippines’ positioning in the game unfolding in Southeast Asia. In this regard, the visit three weeks earlier of the current President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. to China for talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping should be seen as an attempt to avoid the (increasingly real) prospect of once again becoming a card in the games being played in Southeast Asia by Beijing’s main geopolitical opponents.
Given the fact that China is now the second world power, such a prospect is fraught with all sorts of trouble for the Philippines, to put it mildly.
But the logic of the global political game increasingly dictates the format of behavior even for its leading participants. What to say about the countries whose importance is comparable to that of the Philippines. And the results of Austin’s recent visit to that country confirm the inexorable power of this logic. Suffice it to mention the rhetoric of the official message of the Pentagon in connection with the talks held in Manila. For example, this one: “US security commitments to the Philippines are ironclad,” “The (above mentioned 1951) Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the armed forces, civilian vessels and aircraft of the Philippines throughout the South China Sea.”
The last remark is noteworthy because it touches on the almost key problem in the PRC’s relations not only with the Philippines but also with several other Southeast Asian countries. It boils down to overlapping territorial claims in the SCS. For two decades now, China and the ASEAN regional association (of which the Philippines is a member) have been negotiating a so-called “Code of Conduct” (CoC) to prevent incidents during their various activities in the SCS.
The recent ministerial meeting of ASEAN member states (which deserves a separate comment) recorded significant progress towards the conclusion of the CoC. This may reduce the political space for US anti-Chinese maneuvers (including military ones) in the SCS.
The main practical result of L. Austin’s discussed visit was the agreement of the Philippine side to allocate four “locations” on its territory for the placement of certain US military facilities. The implementation of this measure will be carried out under the so-called “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement” (EDCA). Being a supplement to the VFA, it was concluded in 2014, when US-Chinese rivalry in the Southeast Asian subregion was already quite clear. As it turns out, the EDCA also maintains its effectiveness, despite, again, all the initial anti-American filibusters of R. Duterte who came to power two years later.
The reaction in China to the fact and the main results of the visit to the Philippines of the defense minister of the main geopolitical opponent can be defined as cautiously negative. Naturally, the first thing that draws attention is that the Pentagon is getting the four above mentioned “locations” at its disposal.
The visit of L. Austin was also watched from Japan. But in Tokyo, the results of the negotiations in Manila are perceived quite positively. That once again testifies to the ever-closer coordination of Washington and Tokyo policy in the crucially important Southeast Asian subregion with its obviously anti-Chinese orientation.
There is no doubt that Tokyo’s stance in the upcoming talks with the President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. during his five-day (“working”) visit to Japan, which began on February 8, will be based on the same goals.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The economic situation in Mali is now undesirable: food prices have roughly doubled in a year – for example, if in 2022 one of the staple foods, “Tuo Zaafi (Tuo)” (African millet), cost 4,000 CFA francs per kilogram (which is also a lot, about the same as 400 RUB), it is now double that price. Petrol is very expensive: in Bamako, in terms of rubles, it is approximately 200 RUB per liter, and even more in the provinces. The initial reason was security problems. Constant terrorist attacks on villages, when cattle were stolen and crops were burned, led to the fact that peasants simply stopped cultivating many fields far from the villages. In 2022, a poor rainy season in the central part of the country added to this, leading to an even greater reduction in the harvest.
Malians firmly believe that France is to blame for all of their catastrophes. It should be noted that little is now left of the legacy of the former metropolis, and that what remains has been revised. This applies, for example, to the maniacal imposition of democracy: according to the French model, the smallest administrative-territorial unit is the commune. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Mali, “the regions are freely governed through elected councils, according to the conditions prescribed by law ” (La Constitution du Mali. TITRE XI: DES TERRITORIALES, Article 97, 98). Accordingly, most municipalities have elected councils in which local power is concentrated. But they are nothing more than traditional village councils, headed by chiefs who have held local power for centuries. In other words, little has changed since the 13th century, when the medieval power of Mali was founded.
Strictly speaking, the crisis began in 2012 and was associated with the Tuareg rebellion in northern Mali. But its further development and harmful consequences are confidently attributed by Malians to France – during eight years of de facto French occupation, the security situation in the country has only steadily worsened. Therefore, both military coups (2019 and 2020) were predominantly anti-French. The anti-Russian sanctions, in which France is very much involved, have also contributed to the rapid deterioration of the economic situation in the country. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mali, Abdoulaye Diop, noted in an interview with RIA Novosti on May 23, 2022, they paralyzed the economic system: “Now we have just begun to assess the whole situation (after the imposition of sanctions against Russia). But we can already note that the prices of all products have gone up… There are a lot of difficulties, a lot of problems. Banking operations may also be affected. This has created difficulties, paralyzed the economic system. And, of course, it hits poor countries first and foremost, which are already facing big problems in supplying the population.” The minister noted that Mali faced a shortage of wheat in the market, because the largest producers are Russia and Ukraine, and the consumers are poor Third World countries. “That is, poor citizens who did not have enough money to buy these products cannot even find them on the market.”
And until 2021, Russia was hugely popular in Mali: they had not forgotten the USSR’s assistance to that country. At St. Petersburg State University, they tell such an anecdote (actually, it’s a true story): one colleague asked another how public transport works in Bamako. The latter replied that transportation would not be necessary: “It’s enough to go out in the street and say loudly that you are Russian. You will be carried in your arms to where you need to go.” This, of course, is an exaggeration, but there is a great deal of truth in it. Since Russian military advisors arrived in the country in 2022, the number of attacks on villages has dropped dramatically. In 2019-2020, for example, there were three to four attacks per week in the Mopti region in Bankass, Kalabancoro, Bandiagara, and Nyanza counties; in 2022, there was already only one attack every three to four months. Thus, the Russian military advisers did in a couple of months what the French army could not do in eight years. Of course, after that the popularity of Russia increased even more.
But there are certain nuances. In the opinion of the author, it is not only a special love for Russia (about which most Malians have very vague and sometimes completely mythical ideas). The primary reason here is the hatred of France. Russia is perceived as its antipode, but in a very peculiar way.
Malians perceive historical events quite differently from ours. The originality of Malian “historical and political picture of the world” can be proved by the following fact: in the village of Tabou (Koulikoro region), about 40 km to the west from Bamako, in the well-known to the whole West Africa House of Hunters, there is a poster “Warriors of the planet.” It shows Lenin, Stalin and… Vladimir Putin, Che Guevara, Rosa Luxembourg, Muammar Gaddafi, Patrice Lumumba, Mao Zedong, and… Osama bin Laden and Hitler. Not a single Frenchman – not even the famous warrior Napoleon Bonaparte – is on the poster. And this is no coincidence: a few years ago, in a Dogon village, one of the author’s interlocutors said that “it was a pity that Rommel did not make it to French West Africa.” To the remark that they were actually Nazis and, therefore, blasted racists, he replied: “Either you Russians or Americans would have chased the Germans away eventually. But they would have got rid of the French first.”
The specificity of the attitude towards Russia in Mali lies in the fact that it is mythological: in the traditional puppet theater of Sogolon, which still has a ritual meaning, there is even a “militaire Russe” or “irisi kɛlɛcɛ” (Bamanankan), “Russian military man,” and in some cases dressed in Malian clothes – bouba, but with a blue paratrooper beret and gloves. The pictograms on the clothes mean “together we will conquer the whole world” – as explained to the author, they do not mean Russia and Mali, but simply all, with the “exception of France.”
Petr Kutsenkov, PhD in Cultural Studies, leading researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Soon after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared at his annual closing press conference in January that the West had completely forgotten about the Palestinian problem and the Libyan settlement due to its increased support for Kyiv’s criminal regime, the US and EU began to show an unexpected surge of interest in the North African country.
Unfortunately, this Western activity was not motivated by a desire to aid in the resolution of Libya’s internal political situation, where statehood and social infrastructure have been completely destroyed as a result of Western armed intervention. Rather, this activity was a continuation and result of Washington and Brussels’ openly Russophobic policy, which left Europe facing an economic and energy crisis as a result of the US’s unleashed gas war and sanctions against Moscow.
And the fact that without Russian gas Europe will have difficulty replenishing these supplies for next winter, making the situation in the world unpredictable, is recognized not only by European analysts but even by the Japanese (that is, far-away from the EU) publication Nihon Keizai. But the Japanese, Chinese and European media now write not only that the EU does not have enough gas. They also point out the fact that while the US is getting richer, Europe will not be able to pay for expensive American gas for long and it makes Europeans desperately count their remaining money before they are all spent for them by Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell to support the neo-fascists in Kyiv.
And here we have new Russophobic sanctions, prepared by the same Borrell and Von der Leyen by order of Washington, concerning the introduction of the price limit of Russian energy carriers… And these new sanctions, according to opinions of not only European analysts, will result in deficit of energy resources for Europe
Against this background, the West did not miss the fact that the major energy producing countries of North Africa demonstrated sympathy to Russia and its foreign policy despite the pressure and reprimands of Washington and Brussels. In particular, the January 31 phone conversation between Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Abdelmadjid Tebboune of Algeria, in a friendly atmosphere confirmed the readiness to work together on global energy markets, on OPEC + and the Forum of Gas Exporters. And also a call from the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GoNU) to the Russian companies Tatneft and Gazprom to return to negotiations on cooperation with the National Oil Corporation of Libya (NOC).
All this caused a noticeable “revival” of Russophobic spiders in the US and the EU jars, trying to somehow cause more annoyance to Moscow, while at the same to reduce the burden of the energy crisis at the expense of North Africa. The same West, repeating its recent blatantly terrorist operation to undermine the Russian gas pipeline “Nord Stream 1 and 2” in the Baltic Sea, with the use of missiles and shells supplied to Kyiv’s neo-Nazi regime and with the direct participation of the Ukrainian armed forces carried out an attempt to shell Novozybkov oil pumping station in the Bryansk region and the Druzhba oil pipeline, which provides oil supplies to the Belarusian refineries and its transit to Europe on January 31.
Meanwhile, not coincidentally, CIA chief William Burns paid a surprise visit to Libya in mid-January, making it perhaps the most important visit to the former Jamahiriya by an American official since Joseph Biden became President of the United States in January 2021. There he met with the chief of the Libyan National Army (LNA), Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, and then with one of Libya’s two prime ministers, Abdel Hamid Dbeibah, foreign minister Najla Mangoush, and general intelligence chief Hussein al-Ayeb. Unsurprisingly, Burns discussed with the Libyans issues related to oil and gas production as well as limiting relations with Russia, including the activities of the Russian PMC Wagner in Libya, according to the American publication Politico. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, this interest of the main American intelligence officer to the Libyan energy resources and the Wagner PMC is not accidental and is largely due to US concerns that the PMC will get access to Libyan oil and gas.
At the same time, the current Italian political elites have urgently stepped up their Russophobic agony, clearly having forgotten how just a couple of years ago, it was Russia that saved millions of Italians from the deadly epidemic of Covid-19, when Washington and Brussels simply abandoned the Italian citizens to their fate. However, having risen under the Russophobic banners of the West, Italy’s current political establishment became increasingly “irritated by the active cooperation of African states with Russia” and decided to maintain its important control over the “gateway to Africa” – Libya, which from 1911 to 1942 was an Italian colony, and before that was part of the Ottoman Empire.
In this regard, Rome decided to place additional emphasis on maintaining the vector of expanding cooperation with North African countries on gas supplies to replace Russian gas. Although Algeria is the key partner of the Italian oil and gas company Eni in Africa, Rome made an additional bet on Libya. There Eni and the local National Oil Corporation (NOC) tried to conclude a contract on offshore production of up to 8.7 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni even attended the signing ceremony in Tripoli on January 28. According to the agreement signed by the parties, gas production in the Mediterranean Sea was to start in 2026.
However, according to media reports, the Libyan Oil Ministry rejected this gas deal with Eni because it violates national legislation. Along with this, the Supreme Council of Libyan tribes also threatened to close oil fields, ports and gas pipelines to Italy in protest against the signing of the agreement with the Italian company Eni by the Government of National Unity. The deputy head of the Supreme Council pointed out that Libyan tribes in the east intend to greatly aggravate the situation, and the closure of the Mellitah oil and gas complex, the main point of the gas pipeline linking Libya and Italy, is the first step.
Libya’s cancellation of the gas agreement with Italy was not the only one. As CNN’s Greek version reported in mid-January, a court in Libya also suspended a joint natural resources development agreement with Turkey, signed last year that included the possibility of oil and gas production in waters Ankara and Tripoli had declared their own, but which are also claimed by Egypt and Greece.
Meanwhile, in Libya, the political crisis continues, with two governments. However, the election of a single authority in the country is hindered by problems with the formation of a new parliament, whose election date has not yet been set…
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
Any catastrophic event has an undeniable impact on a country’s and region’s economic and social situation. It is obvious therefore that the devastating earthquake that struck Turkey will have ramifications in a country, which was preparing to hold presidential and parliamentary elections in May.
According to Turkish experts, Turkey will require at least $4 billions to repair the damage, which will be a significant financial burden for the country, which is already experiencing a severe economic crisis with annual inflation rates exceeding 57%. Turkey’s economy has been in disarray for several years, with high inflation, budget and current account deficits, and a lira depreciation. Turkey expected a significant economic recovery in 2023, and some experts even predicted a higher growth rate of Turkish GDP, which is now becoming unrealistic…
Yes, unlike neighboring Syria, which has also been severely impacted by this natural disaster, Turkey can expect significant assistance from the West and international financial institutions. However, this assistance would not cover all of Ankara’s financial losses. And the Turkish authorities cannot rule out the arrival of not only Russia, but also China, which would necessitate a shift in Ankara’s political course. That, of course, would not be tolerated in the United States or NATO, where quite critical remarks about the Turkish president have recently been made for his Russian sympathies. There have even been overt attempts by Washington to change the country’s leadership and prevent the re-election of “Erdoğan, who seeks independence from the US.”
As a result, the coming days should already show an escalation of the political struggle in Turkey and around it, which Erdoğan’s opponents can exploit.
At the very least, it is clear that Turkey’s “six-headed opposition dragon” will seek to implement its election program, with one of the points indicating actions against Russia: an audit of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in search of some “rights and obligations outside the agreement,” i.e. the promise of revision of the signed agreements. However, the possibility of new conditions arising in this case in which the construction of the nuclear power plant would be halted because it would be unfavorable to the Russian side is unlikely to be supported by the Turks themselves, because this project is aimed at Turkey’s energy security and is especially beneficial today for the country, which is in an even worse situation following the earthquake. In general, the Turkish opposition’s program gave observers the impression of ideological helplessness even before the recent disasters. The opposition ignored existing realities and was fragmented, which is why it never posed a serious threat to Erdoğan and his party before.
Concerning the possible activation of anti-Erdoğan forces in the West, they will undoubtedly carry out their plans, but their chances are dwindling by the day. And this is understandable, because in times of adversity in any country, people rally around the current government, not only supporting it, but also relying on it as the main effective protection from the calamity that has befallen them.
And Turkey’s problems are only getting worse. The number of victims grows with each official news report, which mentions nearly 20,000 dead and more than 80,000 injured. Cities, residential areas, and infrastructure have been destroyed in many areas. Against this backdrop, Turkey’s leader and government are demonstrating proper focus, utilizing not only internal forces and reserves to reduce losses from the impending disaster, but also exploring all opportunities from the recent years of good neighborly relations and the expansion of multi-vector foreign policy.
Thousands of people, particularly in the earthquake-affected eastern parts of the country, who previously showed no sympathy for Erdoğan, are now appreciating and thanking the Turkish leader for his efforts to deal with the disaster’s consequences, clearly adding to his camp of allies on the eve of the election. At the same time, the number of those sharing the critical stance towards Erdoğan by the US and its Western allies is objectively dwindling, while anti-American sentiments are increasing. The recent hysteria and criticism from the US and the West over the alleged inaction of the current Turkish authorities in the face of the country’s growing terrorism threat, as well as the demonstrative closure of some Western consulates in Istanbul, have undoubtedly contributed to this. In addition to the wave of Islamophobia that has been unleashed in the West in recent weeks with the burning of the Koran, the US Treasury’s deputy for terrorism and financial intelligence, Brian Nelson, has warned Turkey of the risk of sanctions for trade cooperation with Russia.
Against this backdrop, Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu’s demand that the US Ambassador in Ankara “keep his dirty hands off the country” received widespread public support. According to Soylu, the US diplomat is attempting to “stir up” Turkey by gathering other ambassadors and advising them on how to conduct hostile actions and propaganda against the current Turkish government. As a result, it is not surprising that there is speculation in Turkey that “foreign” geophysical weapons may have been involved in the disaster that struck the country and several other states, especially given that the disaster occurred in areas with ethnic or military conflicts. It should be remembered that tectonic weapons were researched in the United States during the Cold War. For example, the infamous HAARP project developed a program of research on ionospheric scattering of high frequency radio waves and created a powerful transmitter. The latter was capable of launching high-powered ion beams into the ionosphere, which, when reflected from stratospheric layers, hit the right spot on Earth’s surface, causing it to overheat. Despite the difficulties in proving the involvement of the US military in these earthquakes, they appear more credible than US Secretary of State Powell’s shaking of an obscure test tube at the United Nations.
The upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey must take place no later than June, according to Turkish law. They could be postponed due to the extremely difficult situation in Turkey following the earthquake, but only if the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is able to reach an agreement with the opposition and amend the Turkish constitution accordingly. However, the country’s leadership remains of the opinion that it is not worth doing, and following the declaration of a three-month state of emergency in ten provinces of the country, elections could be held on May 14, as previously announced. And, despite the efforts of the West and the opposition controlled by it, the incumbent president of Turkey, together with the AKP, have every chance of winning them.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
The idea of a multipolar world, promoted and actively supported by the President of Russia, is increasingly making its way, and many countries around the world are striving for this future. The countries of the Arab world, which want to diversify their foreign policy ties and find new partners and allies, are not lagging behind in this process.
The visits of one of the leaders of the Arab world, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, to India, Azerbaijan and Armenia from January 24 to 29 are a striking example of this new policy. Although Al-Sisi’s visit to India was his third since taking power in 2014, his visits to Azerbaijan and Armenia were the first for an Egyptian president since those two countries had gained independence.
Of particular note, Al-Sisi’s visits to these three countries were welcomed in Cairo’s political and economic circles as historic and reflective of the need for Egypt to shift its international relations to move more eastward in order to strengthen relations with Asian countries rather than confining them to the framework of “decaying Western Europe and the deteriorating United States.”
In New Delhi, the capital of India, President Al-Sisi began his six-day tour of Asia. He spoke about politics, security, defense, economic cooperation, investment and food security with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “The two leaders have decided to elevate the bilateral relationship to a strategic partnership that will create a long-term framework for political, economic, scientific and security cooperation,” Modi said, also announcing that opportunities for defense cooperation with Egypt would be “unlimited.”
During the three-day visit to India, officials from the two countries signed five memorandums of understanding related to culture, youth cooperation, cybersecurity, information and technology, and public broadcasting. “I asked Prime Minister Modi to create permanent channels to improve digital connections between small and medium-sized enterprises in the two countries because it will help improve the lives of many young people in the two countries,” Al-Sisi said, adding that defense cooperation was part of his discussion with Modi and an example of such cooperation was the joint Egyptian-Indian military exercises. The Hindu, the Indian daily reported that Modi approved sending military personnel to work on the Egyptian warplane project in the Helwan area of south Cairo and praised the fact that a contingent of Egyptian troops had taken part in the January 26 Republic Day parade in New Delhi. It was also announced that Egypt has been invited to participate in Aero-India 2023 at Yelahanka Air Base, in India’s Bangalore District, next month.
On the business side, President Al-Sisi also announced that his government would consider creating an economic zone for Indian companies in the Suez Canal Economic Zone. “The two countries hope to increase bilateral trade to $12 billion in the next five years, up from $7.3 billion in fiscal 2021-22,” the official statement said. Al-Sisi also met with representatives of the Indian renewable energy company ReNew Power to discuss investments in renewable energy infrastructure.
Gautam Adani, the Indian billionaire and Asia’s richest man, was among those who also met with Al-Sisi. Adani said there are opportunities for cooperation with Egypt regarding ports, logistics, energy, digital transformation and clean hydrogen plants. Former Egyptian ambassador to India Jailan Allam said in a January 28 television interview that Egypt had long hoped to restore the strategic partnership that existed with India in the 1950s and 1960s under former President Gamal Abdel-Nasser. “Egypt wants to build new relationships with new partners in Asia, especially with India, instead of limiting its strategic partnerships with Western Europe and with the United States,” Allam said, pointing out that “India has the fifth largest economy and the fifth strongest army in the world, and that means a lot to Egypt.”
Hisham Halabi, former commander of the Egyptian Air Force, commented on the visit: “Egypt sees that there is a broad potential for cooperation with India in the area of joint military production, and President Al-Sisi’s visit to India is a big step on that path.” He explained that India has come a long way in the military industry, especially in the production of fighter jets, drones, missiles and submarines.
According to Al-Ahram political analyst Hassan Abu Taleb, Al-Sisi’s visits to two former Soviet republics, Azerbaijan and Armenia, were particularly significant. This is the first time an Egyptian president is visiting these two countries, and it reflects the need to pursue economic, commercial and investment opportunities with them and with other countries in the Caucasus, Abu Taleb noted. In particular, he pointed out that India and the former republics of the Soviet Union have made significant economic progress in recent years and that Egypt should “capitalize on its experiments,” especially in terms of how to boost information technology and exports and double the flow of tourists.
From New Delhi, Al-Sisi traveled to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, where he held a tête-à-tête meeting with President Aliyev on January 28. On the same day they had an extended meeting, after which the contracts were signed. Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri and his Azerbaijani counterpart Jeyhun Bayramov signed a Memorandum of Understanding on water security and culture, while Planning and Economic Development Minister Hala el-Said and Azerbaijani Economy Minister Mikayil Jabbarov signed another Memorandum of Understanding on trade. Aliyev said that since independence in 1991, Azerbaijan has sought to develop strong economic and political relations with Egypt, as well as with a number of other new countries, embodying the idea of a multipolar world. “Of course, the joint activities of business circles in our two countries will further strengthen our relations, and I am sure that in the near future there will be more mutual investments and an increase in trade turnover,” Aliyev said.
Al-Sisi, in turn, noted that Egypt and Azerbaijan have agreed to take urgent measures to increase joint investments and establish joint ventures, especially in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, trade and information technology. Statistics show that trade between Egypt and Azerbaijan has increased sharply to $1 billion in 2021, up from $2 million in 2008.
At a press conference, Al-Sisi and Aliyev agreed to create a joint business council for private businessmen and investors. “The two countries have great potential and many opportunities for cooperation, especially in the fields of new and renewable energy and natural gas, given that Egypt is positioning itself as a regional energy hub,” the statement said, adding that “the two presidents also agreed on the need to intensify cooperation in other areas.” These include construction, infrastructure, transportation, pharmaceuticals, tourism, and culture.
Al-Sisi then paid a one-day visit to Armenia. In the Armenian capital Yerevan, he discussed trade and investment issues with his colleague Khachaturyan. After an extended meeting on January 29, the two leaders witnessed the signing of a series of memorandums of understanding on science, technology, culture, youth and institutional cooperation in the area of investment. In addition, Enterprise Armenia (Investment Support Center) signed a memorandum with the Egyptian General Authority for Investment and Free Zones (GAFI). El-Said signed the deal on behalf of Egypt. The two presidents also discussed expanding trade, opening regular direct flights between Cairo and Yerevan, and cooperation in energy, infrastructure, agriculture, information technology, food and pharmaceutical industries, according to the joint statement.
Al-Sisi also held a separate meeting with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to discuss mutual investments and agreed to intensify coordination and consultation on the US-NATO war unleased in Ukraine, and its consequences. At the January 29 press conference, Al-Sisi said he and his Armenian counterpart had agreed to intensify economic and industrial cooperation in the coming phase, especially in the production of environmentally friendly hydrogen and the intensification of trade exchanges. According to Al-Sisi, a joint committee on economic, scientific and technical cooperation will be formed, as well as a joint council of entrepreneurs to translate the goals into facts on the ground.
At the end of his visit, President Al-Sisi stated that Egypt is ready to play a mediating role between Azerbaijan and Armenia to resolve the political crisis between them. It is understandable that the role of peacemaker will enhance Cairo’s role in international affairs and will show that Washington and London are not alone in handling international affairs for their own benefit.
The results of these visits were discussed during talks between Sergei Lavrov and his Egyptian counterpart Sameh Shoukri in Moscow on January 31 this year. They also analyzed “the interaction in the UN, which, like the rest of the world, is going through difficult times due to attempts to impose on the international community, instead of the principles of the UN Charter, some ‘rules’ that no one has seen, but which the West wants everyone to be guided by.”
Cairo’s Al-Ahram noted that Al-Sisi’s visits Undoubtedly showed Egypt’s pivot to the East and the search for new equal partners to create a new multipolar world. This new course towards a multipolar world, the paper pointed out, has elicited a very positive response from our good old friends in Russia.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The words “act of terrorism”, alas, invariably appear in nearly every publication of the New Eastern Outlook on developments in the extremely important (we emphasize, nuclear) country that is modern Pakistan. These acts are a regular occurrence on its territory, and the motive behind each can be traced back to some internal or external aspect of its operations. Although even years later, the fog of varied densities that initially shrouds the “noisy” terrorist strikes (not only in Pakistan, but around the world) does not, as a rule, completely dissipate.
However, the most “horrific” of them all—the attack on January 30 in Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which left over 100 people dead and over 200 injured—is the one that most closely embodies the precise definition of the word “terror.” It also applies to the density of the above mentioned fog, because no one has taken responsibility for its completion as of this writing. The initial doubtful information about the involvement of the “Pakistani” Taliban (not to be confused with the “Afghan” Taliban, but both are banned in Russia) in what happened in Peshawar was immediately refuted by its leadership.
There are several “fault lines” of various nature running across Pakistani land, to which we can trace the motives of specific terrorist attacks. Two factors stand out in relation to the “Peshawar” attack. First, it occurred at the so-called Durand Line, which is the de facto (but not de jure) border separating Pakistan and Afghanistan. The “Pakistani” Taliban are fighting (including with weapons) to remove any barriers to communication between Pashtuns living on both sides of the Line. It is opposed by various security agencies in Pakistan, including the police. The explosion occurred in a mosque in the heavily guarded area of a police station in Peshawar. But again, the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban (banned in the Russian Federation) refused to take responsibility.
Another equally important reason remains: the mosque in question belongs to the Shiite minority, which makes up about 5 percent of the entire Muslim community in Pakistan. This is not insignificant, given the combined population of more than 220 million and long-standing (to say the least) sectarian tensions that have often manifested themselves in bombings and shootings at Shiite mosques.
However, in this situation, various “accompanying” points draw notice. First, we reiterate that this attack took place in a heavily guarded area. According to the investigating police, this suggests that the attack was well-planned and that some mosque workers and even the local police may have been involved in its planning and execution. That can be seen in the power of the blast, which is unlikely to have been carried out by a lone suicide bomber. In any case, the police have already arrested more than twenty local suspects.
With all of the above, the question inevitably arises: Who has the “power” to plan and execute an action of this magnitude? And the suspicion that there is an “external” factor in this attack, as in all previous actions seems very appropriate.
The first thing to note comes down to the fact that Sunni (mostly, let’s repeat) Pakistan and Shiite Iran are neighbors. Which so far has not brought any noticeable problems to the relations between them. Moreover, the foreign policy of the current Pakistani government headed by Shehbaz Sharif has recently indicated a general desire to improve the level of existing relations (for example, with Iran and Russia), as well as to restore damaged relations with India and Afghanistan.
Note that with the coming to power in Kabul of “Afghan” Taliban nothing has changed in the long-standing trend of rapprochement of these two countries for reasons which have also been repeatedly discussed in the New Eastern Outlook. In this context, we should consider the above-mentioned initiatives of the Sharif government. In response to which New Delhi, while generally welcoming such an aspiration of the neighbor, says that it would be good to resolve some problems first, for example, those related to “support of terrorism in Kashmir.”
But even amid this kind of turmoil in relations between the two nuclear powers, on January 26 there was a news leak that the current foreign minister of Pakistan Bilawal Zardari (son of Benazir Bhutto, very revered not only by Pakistanis) had received an invitation to visit India. Under the official pretext that the latter will preside over the SCO summit this year.
Just four days later, a huge terrorist incident occurred in a Pakistani city near Afghanistan, which was immediately condemned in India. Which didn’t stop Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, who the very next day accused India (though it was done in very general terms and without linking it to this attack) of preparing terrorists to conduct hostile acts “on the territory of Pakistan.” Previously, similar accusations were leveled in relation to the situation in Baluchistan, Pakistan.
It is still unclear to what extent the consequences of the terrorist attack in Peshawar can impair the urgently needed (by almost everyone) establishment and expansion of relations in the India-Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan structure. Among other things, this would make an important contribution to the long-formulated (but still unrealized) project of creating the North-South infrastructure corridor that would connect Russia and India. The importance of the planned “sea” section from the Iranian port of Chabahar to the Indian coast would be greatly reduced. And so would the overall cost of the project as a whole. Incidentally, the Afghan Taliban (banned in Russia) recently offered to provide security for a large section of the (future) corridor.
But it is safe to assume that the prospect of such a project does not please the current world leader. The latter is still in transition from its positioning in the international arena (which is absolutely counterproductive to its own interests) to the status of “one of several” leading world players. Its participation in international affairs could be very constructive in this case, and projects like the one mentioned above would even be useful for it from the point of view of its national interests.
But now things being what they are, it seems the version that the essential elements of the current phase of the “Great World Game” are present in the motivation of the terrorist act in Peshawar has its raison d’être.
Under the guise of the neologism “terrorism,” which was born in the depths of the American special services in the late 1990s and even then was subject to the scathing criticism of the American political community, the United States plunged into the Afghan adventure in 2001. The futility of this endeavor was already clear to Barack Obama, who did most (80%) of the United States’ withdrawal from that country. The current President Joe Biden has done only the last part. Which, however, required a lot of resoluteness…
International actors have used terror as a means of struggle for centuries. It has never been (and is not today) a specific phenomenon in international relations. It is very likely that the attack in Peshawar played an instrumental role.
Both the motives and the direct perpetrator of the “terrorist attack of the century” in the Baltic Sea are more or less clear, which (for some reason) is not at the forefront of current information warfare issues. Although, it definitely merits discussion in the UN Security Council and possibly the establishment of a special international tribunal.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
US politics is something I have tried to keep a safe distance from, with all its “ins and outs” – considering how deep the political swamp is in the US, and its undulating waves. I consider the political elite as being cut from the same material, whether Democrats or Republicans or most of those on the fringes, and it is a shitty design at that. However, there are a few rare exceptions.
As Geoff Young, a candidate for Kentucky Governor writes: “President Joe Biden should be impeached immediately for war crimes in Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and other countries, also for continuing the illegal proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. All US presidents since 1945 have been imperialists, aggressors, mass murderers, and war criminals, including Donald Trump.”
Young is an antiwar candidate who goes deeply into the politics of the US, and is concerned with what a peace in the future might look like. He opposes both political parties in the belief that they are much the same, both being totally pro-war, destructive and evil.
Young’s perspective is refreshing, considering that most “purported representatives” of the two parties have been bought and sold so many times, much like a cheap street sex worker who is more worried about getting beaten up by her pimp than anything else, so ensures a big turnover of clients. This is well-demonstrated in the lobbyist-driven spending and sky-high Federal deficit. Buttressed with the war in Ukraine, tax money has been disappearing into some dark hole so it can keep circulating without actually leaving anyone’s hands.
Brass Check
The situation resembles a modern-day version of The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism by Upton Sinclair, which made comparisons between journalism and how sex workers are prepaid with a purchased Brass Token. However here the pimp, the proverbial “dandyman,” as goes the term once used to describe the chain of command in the sex trade, represents “special interests”, the military-industrial complex and their go-between “bagman” lobbyists, etc. Geoff Young describes this as the “military-industrial-intelligence-media complex!
Now that Kevin MacCarthy has won the House Speaker position, I should have ample material to write about every week or two, especially when it comes to funding Ukraine and the damage control.” According to NPR, the California Republican McCarthy eked out a victory after an historic 15 rounds of voting and a dramatic series of events in the House of Representatives, which have left him beholden to the loudest and least representative of elements in his party, those with the greatest desire to manipulate office holders because they have no actual base.
Never Ending Story
With Trump gone, we were told scandal went with him. Now it appears that with Biden’s Trump-like problems with classified presidential papers being scattered all over Washington, with new troves being discovered daily and having gone through the hands of son Hunter and possible Chinese operatives, we are only scratching the surface of what is to come.
The establishment political elites have now decided that Biden, their moderate, empathetic standard bearer, is more of a liability and has outlived his usefulness for any Democrat trying to get into the White House in 2024. Joe Biden has actually been a deadweight his whole adult/professional life, only elevated to statesman because anyone else sounded too like Trump.
Nonetheless, it appears the powers-that-be are throwing Biden under the bus not over his presidential papers and side deals in Ukraine and China, but because the father cannot win in 2024. His son is involved in too many compromising and politically embarrassing deals—especially in terms of Ukraine and China – but that was always the failsafe they could use when it suited them to pull the plug.
I guess they are looking for a replacement, and one who can win in face of all the destruction and hardship inflicted on the world and the American people during Biden’s sordid tenure, especially in terms of energy policy and runaway inflation.
It should come as no surprise that headlines are reading that Biden should be ’embarrassed’ by the classified documents case, as senior Democrats say – but what is really going on here, can we try to connect the crop circles?
Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, appears to be unofficially at the top of the shortlist of who will replace Biden in the bid for president in 2024. He is already getting lots of press, and being allowed to come forth with justified recriminations against a sitting president, saying how Joe Biden should have a lot of regrets, even over his reaction to the serious allegations:
“… You just might as well say, ‘Listen, it’s irresponsible.’” The president told reporters on Thursday that he had “no regrets” over how and when the public learned about the documents and that there was “no there-there!””
We need to keep a close eye on Joe Manchin, who walks and talks more like an old-school Republican: fiscal responsibility, national security, energy policy, and the kind of things that matter the most to a vast segment of Americans, including border security. The West Virginia Democrat does not care about Critical Race Theory and trying to rewrite history to make it more woke and politically acceptable, the sort of thing which loses Democrats Middle American votes.
He may likely prove a better alternative to either Trump or Biden, at least for the rank-and-file members of both parties. However they will not ultimately make the decision. The merger of corporations with the government is now the standard of so-called democracy in the United States, despite the fact this is a staple of fascist thinking.
Biden’s midterm report: President has failed to deliver on his promise to unite Americans
Perhaps the most dismal report on all that Biden has done so far in office has been that of his inability, or lack of any semblance of desire, to deliver on his promise to re-unite America. His impact to date has been the opposite of his fine words.
Other than to have open borders for illegal immigrants; it is not hard to understand why the Democrats are seeking a new demographic landscape for the next election. As one pundit best describes, “Biden has not delivered ANYTHING to benefit ANY legal US taxpaying citizen”.
Other Political Board Games
In terms of leadership of the legislative process, Kevin McCarthy may likely have just won himself the most dysfunctional Congress ever, but the point is that his win serves its purpose. Otherwise the interests of special interests would not be served up on a platter, and the backhanders would be out panhandling.
Perhaps the greatest challenge is to remember the promises McCarthy made to get the necessary votes to be the Speaker of the House. He agreed not to raise the debt ceiling without extracting offsetting spending cuts, which is like having the best of both worlds, a train crash waiting to happen.
Lots of articles are coming out about the need to raise the debt ceiling, but this will end up as a bellwether of democracy in action, and whether elected officials are capable of putting America and not their special interests first.
President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) are so far refusing to negotiate with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on raising the nation’s debt ceiling, but voices across the political spectrum argue the precedent for such talks has been set.
Biden and his woke Democrats like to freely spend and back it by printing more money and talking about fiscal responsibility. However, all this may be overshadowed for now with investigations into Hunter Biden, and the failed border policy that is bringing drug deaths to Main Street America.
According to the New Yorker, this rocky road is full of potholes “with a standoff over the debt ceiling, in which Republicans threaten to default on the government’s debt in the name of small-government principle.”
Mini Icebergs Floating to the Top
The New Yorker sums it up well, “With members of the House G.O.P. caucus still pulling in all directions, does anyone know where the Party is headed?” The same can be said of both parties, and how they have found themselves stranded on the same barren rock, or the tip of an iceberg, with no rescue in sight, and more problems floating to the surface—like mini icebergs.
With the US economy not performing as expected, the war in Ukraine, and the alliance of the willing and misinformed caught questioning themselves, there is no easy way out. Now it is high time for a scapegoat, or a herd of scapegoats to push over the cliff.
Sifting the herd for “likely goats” to be sacrificed is not hard. We can start with Nancy Pelosi, especially in light of her entrepreneurial husband, who has a propensity for young male company and to hobnob with the leftovers of the Clinton and Obama dynasty – as their reputations are already tainted. Both husband and wife are likely involved in insider trading, and have profited directly from her position and vast networks of patronage.
Another one on the list is the US Treasury Secretary, and according to The Hill, Janet Yellen is quoted as saying in a recent interview published that Republican calls for spending cuts in exchange for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling were “very irresponsible.” She may be another one that needs to be culled from the herd, and quickly before more damage can be done to America’s financial standing and reputation. The US Congress and the American people must realise that the “Spend as you go Credit Card” is maxed out.
Even those closest to Joe Biden, such as White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who is described by CNN and others as “being the powerful force at the center of Joe Biden’s first two years in office”, is stepping down in the weeks after the president’s State of the Union address according to multiple people familiar with his plans; this is yet another indication that many see the writing on the wall.
They want to distance themselves from a president and his policies in decline—so as not to be tainted by what may be a presidency that may be forced to resign in shame, be impeached, or have to leave office due to a multitude of failed policies and declining mental and physical health.
In Conclusion
As Geoff Young, who is running for governor in Kentucky, shared while this article was in process, “We’ll know that politics in the US has begun to turn around when a president is impeached and removed from office for the war crimes he or she committed, rather than for bullshit charges like Watergate or January 6.”
But there is really not much distance between recent presidents; I lost all respect for Trump after he threw his supporters under the bus when they protested what they deemed to be election fraud. He riled his base up, accused the Democrats of election fraud, and then backed off when things got heated and he started to catch blame.
I am impressed with Young and his insight, as the only political candidate who seems to know what is going on in this part of the world, and if the house of cards tumbles over Ukraine and corruption in Washington, he might catch the right wave.
I suspect he will go far, and with the right circumstances, i.e. a defeat of the US proxy war in Ukraine, a diminished NATO and EU, and Russia achieving its objectives in securing its national security and protecting the rights of ethnic Russians and others in Ukraine, Geoff Young will be the “Hate to tell you so but I told you so Kentucky governor-elect.”
It should come as no surprise that even the mainstream media, which has been the most supportive of Biden and his minions, is turning on him like a pack of dogs. He is not getting the free pass anymore, and more and more staunch supporters are coming to the same realisation as this article: Good Riddance!
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
John Kirby, the National Security Council’s coordinator of strategic communications, made a significant statement in mid-December. Commenting on the events in Ukraine, Kirby said that the US authorities recognize Ukraine’s right to plan and conduct military operations in Crimea “against the occupiers, because the peninsula is Ukraine’s territory.” By making such a statement, John Kirby legitimized the residents of Iraq and Syria’s response to the US and Turkish militaries, which are rightfully considered occupiers in those countries.
For many years, the United States has taken numerous steps to strengthen its military presence on Syrian territory, including the use of US weapons. In this regard, Barack Obama’s August 2012 order authorizing the CIA to assist Syrian rebels was a watershed moment. Following that, Washington began providing intelligence on government forces’ movements to the armed Syrian opposition, as well as training fighters and cooperating with the rebel command center in Adana, southern Turkey, not far from the US military base Incirlik.
On August 31, 2013, US President Barack Obama announced the decision to strike Syria after accusing Damascus of using chemical weapons. Furthermore, Washington never proved Damascus’ involvement in chemical attacks, thus repeating US Secretary of State Powell’s previous lie at the UN with some “test tubes” and accusations against Iraq in preparation for the American invasion of that Arab country. So it’s no surprise that Colin Powell, with his test tube at the UN, and Obama, with his false statements about the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, have become the world’s living embodiments of the US ruling elite’s hypocrisy.
The government of the SAR was able to regain control of some areas of the country after the United States formed an international coalition in September 2014 without UN sanction and without the consent of the Syrian authorities under the guise of allegedly combating ISIS (a formation banned in Russia) terrorists and unleashing armed aggression in this country. Some areas, however, remain under foreign occupation. The country’s northern provinces, in particular, are under the control of militants backed by the Turkish army, while the country’s east is under American occupation. Damascus authorities have already repeatedly stated from the UN podium their accusations against the US military, not only for illegally remaining on SAR territory, but also for systematically smuggling and selling their oil abroad, emphasizing that such actions are a flagrant violation of international law.
Instead of following international law and withdrawing its troops from Syria, the US has increased its military presence in the captured Syrian territories. Since 2015, the United States has established nine military bases in northeastern Syria, the largest of which is in Tell Beydar, north of Al-Hasakah (620 km from Damascus). According to reliable sources, the US command is recruiting Syrian refugees from the al-Rukban camp to join illegal armed groups (IAF), who are then dispatched to Ukraine and other “hot spots.” According to The Cradle, the US has begun establishing a new military base in northeastern Syria and is sending significant reinforcements, including hundreds of trucks. Furthermore, Washington is looking to expand the local garrison as well as regroup loyalist forces on the borders with Jordan and Iraq.
As a result, it is not surprising that the people of Syria and Iraq, who have been demanding the withdrawal and termination of illegal US occupation troops on their territory through various UN structures, have recently turned to guerrilla warfare against foreign occupiers. For example, on December 15, a US military base in the al-Mayadeen area of the eastern Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor came under missile fire from the Syrian-Iraqi border. On November 26, a US military base in the al-Shaddadi district of Al-Hasakah, Syria’s southernmost province, came under missile attack near the Al-Jebsa oil field. On November 17, missiles were fired near the Omar oil field in Deir ez-Zor at a US military base and Kurdish Democratic Syrian Forces fighters.
On January 21, another drone attack targeted the US military base at al-Tanf in Syria. This US base is near the borders of Iraq and Jordan. Although US troops claim it is used for counter-terrorism operations against ISIS (a group banned in Russia), it is widely known that US instructors are training Syrian opposition fighters there.
In addition to guerrilla groups opposing US occupation forces, Turkish troops have recently launched a series of attacks in northern Syria and Iraq using Bayraktar reconnaissance strike drones against the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” – Kurdish armed formations supported by the US.
In messages to the UN Security Council, the Arab Republic’s Foreign Ministry has already condemned the US for stealing Syrian oil and demanded an end to the illegal American military presence on Syrian soil. According to the most recent Syrian Foreign Ministry document, the Arab Republic’s economic losses caused by US military operations on its territory are estimated to be $111.9 billion. Direct losses total $25.9 billion, with $19.8 billion attributed to oil and gas theft, $3.2 billion attributed to damage to state infrastructure, and $2.9 billion attributed to damage to oil and gas facilities.
In addition to the Syrian authorities, Russia and China have repeatedly urged the United States to explain its actions regarding oil theft from Syria, which are exacerbating the country’s energy and humanitarian crises. At a press conference on January 17, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that “in the first half of 2022, more than 80% of daily oil production in the country was smuggled out by the US military, which mercilessly violates the right to life of the Syrian people.”
Turkish troops seized territory between the border towns of Aazaz and Jarablus north of Aleppo, occupied the administrative district of Afrin, and took control of border areas east of the Euphrates River after launching an anti-terrorist special operation against Kurdish fighters. The goal was to establish a “buffer zone” to protect Turkey from potential Syrian Kurdish incursions. In fact, in the Turkish-occupied areas of the Syrian Arab Republic, alternative authorities, armed forces, police, and special services have been established that are not subordinate to official Damascus. Turkish is taught in schools, and the Turkish lira is used in commodity trade. It is no secret that this is an attempt to establish a pro-Turkish stronghold from among those opposed to President Assad’s regime in Syria, with the eventual goal of bringing pro-Turkish forces to power in the country.
This has naturally caused discontent among the people of Syria and Iraq, and in addition to anti-American sentiment, anti-Turkish sentiment has begun to grow in the region. As a result, Turkey’s military bases in those countries have become more frequently targeted by rocket attacks. Case in point: a missile attack was launched on the Zilkan Turkish military base in Iraq on February 1.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
From the most recent lunacy propagated by western “democracies,” my recent suggestion that Washington wants to give half of Ukraine to Poland may have merit. But, news, the Germans have been blackmailed into sending some old Leopard tanks to Ukraine bears watching since this move will undoubtedly sever Russo-German ties for good. And the fact that Russia now faces almost all westerners begs the question, “When does Russia go ahead and declare war?”
Crimea. If the Euromaidan coup was the catalyst for breaking west-east detente, Crimean’s deciding to return to Mother Russia busted any hope there would ever be peace on the steppes of Russia. Interestingly, Crimea and Ukraine have never been at peace and under a unified socio-cultural rule since the time of the Scythians. From the 7th to the 3rd century BC, those ancient equestrian nomads from Iran and Central Asia ruled the so-called Pontic–Caspian steppe. I know it’s a deep dive into distant history, but a necessary one for making my Ukraine conflict point.
You see, this region of the world now known as Ukraine has never seen peace except during the time of the powerful Scythians and Sarmatians, for a few decades as part of the U.S.S.R., and briefly as a close economic and cultural neighbor to the new Russian Federation. The in-between times consisted of the Goths took over and their role in the fall of the Roman Empire, followed by an endless succession of migrations, wars, and governance by the Huns, Mongols, Khazars, Magyars, the Russian Empire, and most recently the Soviet Union during the 20th Century. Peace in this land has been a rare commodity since immortal time. There is only one real constant that is fundamental to the crisis today.
The strategists in the so-called west are playing a centuries old game designed to fragment the natural inheritors of Eurasia’s wealth and culture at one another’s throats. Ukraine, much of Russia, and almost all of eastern Europe have roots in the mysterious Zeriuani tribe at the center of all Slavic cultures, nations, and empires. Few readers will have heard of the Zeriuani, for their origins remain obscure. However, whether these first Slavs came from Serbia, Lesser Poland, or along the Oder River in the Czech Republic, their legacy of conflict with outside influencers still causes clashes between great powers.
In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an essay about the kinship between Ukraine and Russia and their mutual Slavic heritage. Western academians have sought to undermine Putin’s claim by slicing and dicing his words. This excerpt defines his position and the truth:
“I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historic and spiritual space, to my mind, is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our mistakes made at different periods. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity.”
Putin explains how dividing Slavs has been the formula for western monarchies and democracies for centuries. He points out that these outsiders “play on the “national question” and sow discord among people.” Of course, the goal is to pit various fragmented parts of a single people against one another. Mr. Putin rightly contends in his essay that Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus. But the Russian leader does not return to the ways Slavic people were dispersed and situated before the Kievan Rus. Without delving deeply into the bloody history of eastern Europe these many centuries, I can portray what a unified Slavic nation melded into Asian Russia might look like. Some of you may have guessed it. The European Soviet Union, minus the Balts, the Avars, and some Greeks, made up the lands once (7th to 9th century AD) widely influenced or even dominated by the western, east, and southern Slavic tribes. Interesting, no?
It’s also interesting to note that the Germanization of Austria, served after the formation of the Bulgarian Empire, separated the South Slavs from the West and East Slavs. The Magyar’s conquest of the Carpathian Basin further separated the various Slavic tribes. Had these “outside forces” not interjected, the later Kievan Rus might have been powerful enough to withstand the Mongol invasion. Such are the potentialities when tribes put wedges in between more powerful and numerous neighbors. From Byzantium to the modern Germans and now the Americans, keeping Slavs separated or as foes is an ongoing strategy for dominating. Mr. Putin is fitting to recall history. Now, Washington and its hegemony of weak European nations drive the ultimate wedge between west and east.
What amazes me is how obtuse the elites in Europe are. None seem to be able to envision a future where a declining U.S. economic empire drags Europeans down. Now that Europe is little more than a tourist attraction and a consumer market, Germans and their troglodyte-ish minions based in Brussels and London just can’t conceive how the Americans are about to put the thumbscrews to them. It reminds me of Walmart’s strategy to run Mom and Pop out of business in the U.S. Mafioso tactics, basically. A protection racket Europe is begging for by cordoning off the largest sources of cheap energy and production on Earth.
The Liberal World Order can’t have some great Slavic Confederation intervene in their way of doing things. I only wonder how long it will take for the Russians to do what’s necessary. Mr. Putin ended his essay by saying, “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.” The only other alternative is to push to the borders of Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Recent events have increased the European society’s disdain for Washington’s policies and the desire for independence from the United States due to the White House’s paranoid ambition to rule the world, including Europe, and the European Union’s deteriorating status as an economic annex of NATO under proxy management by the United States and Britain.
In contrast to the Baltic countries, willing, herd-style, to go to any length for US patronage, anti-American sentiments have recently become especially active in Germany, which aspired to be the European leader following London’s Brexit. Therefore, it is not surprising that last summer the German Bundestag heard more and more calls for the EU to prepare for the dissolution of NATO and the return of European sovereignty. At the same time the intensity of criticism of German politicians grew against the United States that has ceased to reckon with the interests of partners trying to weaken Russia and unleash an energy crisis in the EU. In her interview to Chinese newspaper Global Times Sevim Dağdelen, German Bundestag deputy from the Left Party, spoke directly about the need for the European Union to prepare for the dissolution of NATO and to conduct its own policy that would not require the member states to abandon their own interests to please the US. The parliamentarian explained that “the long-term goal must be the dissolution of NATO and its replacement by a collective security system, which will be totally disarmament- and cooperation-oriented.” Dağdelen stressed that on the issue of the conflict in Ukraine, EU and US interests are completely at odds with each other, as the United States “is ready to fight to the last Ukrainian for the military defeat of Russia.”
The fact that US and EU interests have recently seriously diverged, although they have never been united, is also acknowledged by Bundestag MP Waldemar Gerdt. According to him, the US has always viewed the EU as just another colony – just like the rest of Europe. “Today, the relationship with the East is completely destroyed. There is no independence of decisions now. There is a hundred percent dependence on the United States. This is proved by all those decisions that are taken against their own economy, against their own people, against their own sovereignty,” the deputy explained. Due to the fact that the decisions today are not taken voluntarily, but under pressure of who the EU is completely dependent on, Gerdt believes that the dissolution of NATO is, although still an unrealistic prospect, but very much desirable. “It will happen when the EU collapses and each country begins to build its own sovereign policy and worries about its security by creating its own army,” the German MP is convinced.
Today, German citizens have to watch with sadness how not only the United States and the UK, but also all those who were admitted to the EU and NATO in waves of expansion, about the negative consequences of which Russia spoke with dismay for decades, began to speak about their country in the most humiliating terms. Germany, at the apparent beckoning from Washington, began to be reproached for something that traditionally was the pride and foundation of its foreign policy – dialogue with the East, large economic and energy projects with Russia, which contributed to the competitiveness of German products.
By unleashing such a critical atmosphere around Germany through its European vassals, especially Poland and the Baltic states, the United States is clearly seeking to curb German society and reformat it to fit into a more Russophobic ideology. In addition, the world is witnessing a clear encouragement of the military interstate integration of Poland and the Baltic states, which in the future may become more than strong enough to compete against Germany, especially given Warsaw’s ongoing claims for reparations from Berlin.
Against this background, Germany has recently begun to focus on independently (from the United States, that is) strengthening its own army and security, and launched a course that will make it the biggest European state in terms of defense spending, with the most advanced air force and a growing military presence in Central and Eastern Europe. It has, according to US media estimates, deployed its long-standing military foreign policy. Last June, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that Germany would soon have “the largest conventional army in Europe” among the North Atlantic Alliance countries, thus commenting on the parliament’s approval of the legal basis for the 107 billion euro special fund for the Bundeswehr.
An important milestone in the strengthening of the German army was the conclusion on November 30 at a meeting in Dresden between the Dutch Land Forces Commander Martin Wijnen and his German counterpart Alphonse Maison of a confidential agreement within the framework of the Common Army Vision to merge the armed forces of the two countries. According to the plans that became known, The Netherlands’ 13th Light Brigade, based in Oirschot, would come under the command of Germany’s 10th Armored Division, resulting in an association of 50,000 troops, 8,000 of which would be Dutch. Berlin is also considering joint procurement of military equipment and harmonization of charters, and the integration is expected to be fully completed by the end of April this year.
In Germany itself, many remain skeptical about this decision, as the historical parallels between German and Dutch military integration, as well as the overall plans for militarization of Germany, are rather obvious. In particular, due to the existence of foreign legions in Hitler’s Germany, as well as the actual subordination of Austrian military commanders during World War I to the Kaiser’s military command.
It cannot be ruled out that the next ground troops after the Netherlands, which will be commanded by Berlin, will be those of Finland, thus emphasizing the creation of an alternative NATO coalition against Russia. At the same time, the coincidence of this military integration with Germany’s build-up of military equipment deliveries to Ukraine is clearly not accidental and indicates that Berlin intends in the Russophobic mood of the current European military and political elite to actively use the so-called “threat from the East” to strengthen not only its army, but also the overall military image of Germany.
However, in this situation, Berlin’s decision to send German “Leopards” to the “Eastern Front” in order to appease aggressive Russophobes in the United States and the European Union can undo not only Germany’s historical achievements as a leading European power, but also its civilized, peaceful future.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In recent weeks there has been a build-up of talk regarding a US war with China. Not because of any actual provocation from Beijing, but instead because of a collective resignation to its supposed inevitability.
This is best illustrated by comments made by US Air Force General Michael Minihan. In TIME Magazine’s article, “U.S. General’s Prediction of War With China ‘in 2025’ Risks Turning Worst Fears Into Reality,” General Minihan is quoted as saying:
“My gut tells me we will fight in 2025.”
The article goes on to claim:
“I hope I am wrong,” Minihan, who heads the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, wrote in an internal memo, which circulated on social media, to the leadership of its 110,000 members. Chinese President Xi Jinping, he explains, “secured his third term and set his war council in October 2022. Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.”
Yet nothing General Minihan says explains why the United States itself would conceivably find itself at war with the United States. Instead, General Minihan is more or less admitting that the US will go to war with China over Chinese actions regarding Taiwan. In fact, the article goes on to admit:
Minihan’s comments are merely the most immediate of a worrying, emerging consensus that the U.S. and China are destined to clash over Taiwan, the self-ruling island of 23 million that Beijing claims as its sovereign territory.
A clash between the United States and China over Taiwan would be the result of the United States willfully going to war with China over a matter the United States officially recognizes as China’s internal political affairs.
The current US State Department’s website regarding “U.S. Relations With Taiwan” admits that officially, “we do not support Taiwan independence.”
If the US does not support Taiwan independence then by extension the US acknowledges Taiwan is not independent and therefore Washington, officially, recognizes Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan. This is what defines the “One China” policy Washington and virtually every other nation on Earth has agreed to in order to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in Beijing.
At a time when Washington regularly lectures Moscow about “violating sovereignty,” Washington’s stance toward Beijing and Taiwan should be a simple matter of respecting Chinese sovereignty. Yet it is not because of the double-game the United States plays both internationally and with China specifically.
Washington’s Deliberate Provocations
TIME Magazine and other Western media publications attempt to depict Beijing as the aggressor, omitting any discussion of either the “One China” policy or the US State Department’s own official declaration of supposedly upholding it.
Instead, Western audiences are led to believe that Taiwan somehow is independent and that Beijing is “bullying” it. The inevitable clash between the US and China is supposedly driven by America’s desire to “stand up” for Taiwan and its inferred sovereignty. In reality, a potential clash between the US and China would be the result of Washington once again violating the sovereignty of another nation thousands of miles from its own shores.
Washington’s double game of officially recognizing Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan while openly and deliberately trampling that sovereignty is best illustrated by former US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan utilizing an official US Air Force aircraft against the protests of Beijing. Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan is only one of many made by US representatives who openly use visits like this in an attempt to goad Beijing.
While the US claims American officials can travel “anywhere” they want and don’t need approval from Beijing to do so regarding Taiwan, this clearly contradicts what is written even on the US State Department’s own official website. But provocative diplomatic activity essentially encouraging separatism in Taiwan is by far the mildest of America’s provocations.
Looking at any map of US military deployments in the “Indo-Pacific” region reveals China as virtually surrounded by the US military by way of South Korea, mainland Japan, Okinawa, and with new basing agreements in the works with Manila, potentially the Philippines as well.
This puts US troops, naval assets, and hundreds of warplanes within striking distance of China, including Taiwan from north, east, and potentially the south.
The US has also poured billions of dollars’ worth of weapons into Taiwan, just as the US did in Ukraine from 2014 onward. The weapons are clearly intended for a Ukraine-style proxy war with China.
Worst of all is the small but growing presence of US military activity on Taiwan itself.
Even as the US State Department claims it does not support Taiwan independence, in 2021 Voice of America in its article, “US Nearly Doubled Military Personnel Stationed in Taiwan This Year,” admits that not only are there US troops on Taiwan, the number is increasing.
The article explains:
The increase from 20 personnel to 39 between December 31 and September 30 came with little fanfare, but it did coincide with a rare public acknowledgement by President Tsai Ing-wen in October that the U.S. military maintains a small presence in Taiwan.
Active-duty deployments now include 29 Marines as well as two service members from the Army, three from the Navy and five from the Air Force, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Manpower Data Center.
One could only imagine the reaction in Washington if Beijing and a government in, say San Juan, revealed the presence of Chinese forces in Puerto Rico. Yet as is the case in many instances regarding international relations, American “exceptionalism” not only absolves the US from any penalty for blatant violations of another nation’s sovereignty, it transfers the blame to the nation being targeted itself, in this case, China.
Why US War with China by 2025?
Despite serial provocations, Beijing has exercised exemplary patience and restraint. China has invested heavily in its military and is indeed preparing for conflict with the United States, not because it seeks to wage war with the United States but because the United States has placed its military on China’s doorstep, very clearly seeking war with China.
Taiwan’s full reintegration with the rest of China is inevitable. Already its economy is heavily dependent on access to markets across the rest of China. Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity reveals that nearly 50% of all exports from Taiwan go to the rest of China. The rest of China also accounts for the largest amount of imports to the island. Many of these imports are crucial inputs for Taiwan’s semiconductor and electronic component production which constitutes, by far, Taiwan’s largest industry.
Only through Washington’s persistent and extensive interference in Taiwan’s local political affairs has gradual reintegration been suspended. Before the US-backed Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2016, the incumbent Kuomintang (KMT) party was on track to sign a trade agreement with the mainland that would have increased already extensive economic integration even further.
Ironically, as the US captured Ukraine politically in 2014, it was also backing opposition protests in Taiwan dubbed the “Sunflower Movement,” paving the way for the DPP’s ascent into power 2 years later. Just like the US-installed client regime in Kiev, the DPP immediately set a course for self-destruction, irrationally rolling back ties with the mainland at the expense of the people living on Taiwan.
More recently, local elections in Taiwan saw the DPP fare poorly, serving as an unofficial referendum rejecting the DPP’s separatist platform, the damage it has consistently done to the local economy, and the instability it has created across the strait with the mainland. However, just as was the case in Ukraine where public sentiment sought peace, Washington and its client regime have every intention of overriding that sentiment in Taiwan, and pushing the island closer still to yet another US-engineered proxy war.
It is clear that it is not China rushing for war with the United States, but precisely the other way around. Time, economics, and proximity favor China. In 10 years, China will be economically and militarily stronger while the US will continue its slow decline. At that point the window of opportunity will have closed for the United States to wage any type of military conflict with China and obtain anything close to resembling “victory.”
Some could argue that the window has already closed.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently published the outcome of “wargames” regarding a theoretical Chinese “invasion” of Taiwan in a paper titled, “The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan.”
The paper concludes:
In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years.
Regarding China, it says:
China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule. Victory is therefore not enough. The United States needs to strengthen deterrence immediately.
In essence, the US will suffer unprecedented military losses and Taiwan itself will be scoured clean of its industry and infrastructure. While CSIS claims that the Chinese amphibious landing was successfully foiled in its wargames thus preserving Taiwan’s political existence, the cost is Taiwan’s physical existence.
Both the CSIS paper together with public comments made by the Pentagon about their own classified wargames indicate disparity between the US and China militarily is narrowing quickly. If there is to be a conflict between the US and China, the sooner it takes place the better chance the US has of achieving a favorable outcome. It is therefore the US racing eagerly toward war, not China. China’s military posture reflects the close proximity of US forces to Chinese territory and their obvious intent to menace China in its own territory, not a China expanding its military capabilities to threaten the United States. In fact, the CSIS paper made a specific note about China’s ability to attack the US “homeland.”
The paper claims:
Because the United States will be striking the Chinese homeland, the base case assumes that the U.S. homeland is not a sanctuary. However, the ability of the Chinese to conduct strikes against the U.S. homeland and thereby affect operations in the Western Pacific is extremely limited. A few special forces might infiltrate and attack a small number of high-value targets but not enough to materially affect military operations in the Western Pacific.
Thus, even in a war between the US and China where the US is conducting strikes on Chinese territory, CSIS admits that China has very limited means to likewise strike at the US. This reveals that US policymakers are not concerned about any real threat China poses to the US, but instead to US “interests” thousands of miles from its own shores and, in fact, within the sovereign territory of China itself.
Potential war between the US and China, if it takes place, will merely be the most recent example of US military aggression in pursuit of global hegemony targeting and attempting to undermine another nation’s sovereignty in violation of international law, not as a means to uphold it. As the US often does, the lead up to this potential war sees the US projecting its own menace toward international law, peace and stability onto the very target of US military aggression, in this case China.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In the 1990s, Mongolia created a new legal basis for the activities of foreign religious organizations: The law allowed free missionary and religious education activities of foreign organizations in the country.
This step was not simply a decision to ensure genuine religious freedom for the citizens of a democratic state. It was a decision made to avoid possible tensions with the country’s largest ethnic minority, the Altai Kazakhs, who practice Islam in a predominantly Buddhist country. Finally, restricting their relations with international Islamic institutions could result in an increase in protests in the region.
No less important was the creation of a legal environment for the activities of Tibetan Buddhist preachers that would preclude their contact with Mongolian state authorities. The fact is that Tibetan spiritual institutions (including the Dalai Lama himself) that are not loyal to China are perceived by Chinese authorities as an alternative Tibetan government. Consequently, even their purely religious activities in Mongolia, if the state is involved in regulating religious policy, could be perceived by China as an official relationship between Mongolian authorities and “Tibetan separatists.” And under the Mongolian-Chinese founding treaty, Mongolia has pledged not to interfere in China’s internal affairs.
Despite the seemingly complete observance of freedom of foreign missionary activity in Mongolia (at least in the above contexts), the results of its establishment soon became apparent, with rather unpredictable consequences. These are, in particular, the rapidly increasing missionary activity of religious institutions of Western countries, whose work has limited historical and cultural validity in contemporary Mongolia. And it is hardly necessary to comment on the well-known fact that some of these organizations operate within the framework of political initiatives of the United States and European countries. That is what they have begun to do actively in this state.
Speaking about the unexpected denominational changes caused by the activities of Western missionaries in Mongolia, we should first mention the fact that Protestant Christianity has become the second denomination in the capital Ulaanbaatar. As of 2021, 3% of respondents considered themselves Protestants. Since 1990, about 600 Protestant churches have been built in Mongolia, most of them in the capital and surrounding sums. The data on Ulaanbaatar is critical because it accounts for a large portion of the country’s population (over 50%) and because most of the country’s political life is concentrated in this city. Consequently, a sectarian group in this city of Mongolia can achieve a critical mass that gives it political weight.
A second indicator of active religious propaganda by Western missionaries in Mongolia is survey data on Mongolian citizens’ familiarity with various religious movements. For example, 7% of respondents know of the existence of Baptist Protestantism (which is banned in the Russian Federation), placing this nontraditional religious group sixth in awareness after Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and Shamanism. Since 2002, the Evangelists (an organization banned in the Russian Federation) with 12 churches in Ulaanbaatar and the Adventists (an organization banned in the Russian Federation) with six churches and nearly 4,000 parishioners have been very active in “educational outreach.”
Mongolia’s extremely high level of religious tolerance for a developing country also offers significant potential for foreign missionary work. 69% of respondents had no difficulty making contact with a representative of another denomination. Consequently, the ability of missionaries – representatives of non-traditional religions for Mongolia to influence public opinion is very high
Western missionaries to Mongolia have employed a wide range of tactics. Most notably, in the 1990s, their efforts focused on education. For example, Catholic spiritual missions opened several kindergartens and centers to care for street children in Mongolia. Later, they established English language centers in the country, which also gave Mongolian high school students access to Western universities. The target audience of religious organizations are young people, who are more loosely attached to Mongolia’s traditional faith than adults and older people. It is Mongolia’s young people who are most receptive to Western values and politico-social ideas disseminated in the country, including by Protestant and Catholic preachers.
Representatives of Christian missions in Mongolia focus much of their efforts on explaining the justification for their activities in Mongolia. Their sociocultural rhetoric, for example, includes popular references to Nestorian activities in Mongolia in the 11th and 13th centuries. In addition, the missionaries emphasize the popularization of the story of Kereit Toghrul Wang Khan, the patron saint of the future Genghis Khan, who is believed to have professed Christianity. These references to Mongolia’s history are used in religious propaganda to justify the growing popularity of Catholicism and Protestantism in a country whose traditional religions are Shamanism and Buddhism.
Another means of “accommodating” the citizens of Mongolia is the simplification of traditional religious rituals. Most missions are reluctant to initiate Mongolians into the intricacies of religious procedures and ceremonies, which are extremely important to any church as a religious organization. The “community of values” is emphasized by missionaries as a top priority.
Summarizing a brief overview of the religious activities of the Protestant and Catholic spiritual missions in Mongolia, some peculiarities of their “spiritual work” can be noted.
Firstly, it does not have at all the “anti-pagan enlightenment” character often emphasized by Western missionaries around the world. Most of the spiritual missionary activity is concentrated in the city of Ulaanbaatar, the area with the least prevalence of traditional polytheistic cults in Mongolia. This concentration in the political and social center of the country may indicate that the political and ideological aspirations of “spiritual mentors” coming to Mongolia from the United States and Western Europe predominate. This is also evidenced by their widespread neglect of their own religious ceremonial in favor of conversations about values and worldviews.
Secondly, there is consistency and coherence among missions. Despite the wide range of Western religious movements in Mongolia, missionaries have avoided competition and interreligious conflict. Moreover, they even sacrifice the spread of their own vision of Christianity in favor of the broader interests of promoting Christianity by abandoning their own rituals and fighting the “heresies” of other preachers. These circumstances make relevant the question of the overall political impulse driving the preachers’ “enlightenment” impulses.
Thirdly, a common tactic of all missions is to target young and non-religious citizens of Mongolia, suggesting that the preachers have a long-term strategy to consolidate their influence in the country. It is no secret that propaganda among secular youth is the most effective, if not the fastest, way to satisfy Western political and ideological interests in Asia.
Fourth, because of the broad class of non-religious citizens, their considerable religious tolerance, the decline of traditional beliefs, the country’s orientation toward Western political and social structures, and the limited interference of the state in religious life, we should expect a further strengthening of the position of Western preachers in Mongolia. At this point, it is difficult to speak about the extent of the missionaries’ actual influence on the country’s political life. However, this is the case simply because they focus on very long-term results.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The conservatives’ offensive against the opposition is partly carried out under the slogans of searching for pro-Pyongyang NGOs and North Korean spies, and in this regard here’s a digest of the most famous espionage scandals of recent years.
An underground activist network or another crackdown on unions?
Recall, back on August 6, 2021, four activists from Cheongju, North Chungcheong Province, about 140 kilometers south of Seoul, were accused of espionage for allegedly taking orders from Pyongyang and organizing a series of protests against the purchase of US-made stealth fighter jets. All members of the group are about 50 years old and were active participants in the student nationalist and left-wing radical movement in their youth. They allegedly have been meeting with North Korean spies in China and Cambodia since 2017, signed a blood oath of allegiance to Kim Jong-un, and received $20,000 from them to establish an underground organization in South Korea called the North Chungcheong Comrade Party for Independent Unification. Although their influence was small, the intelligence services claimed to have been following them for years, and during the search they seized USB sticks containing correspondence (including encrypted) with North Korea.
In November 2022, the story continued as police searched the home and car of Mr. A., a permanent representative of the civic group North Jeolla People’s Action, and seized his cell phone and computer. Mr. A. was accused of contacting a North Korean official dozens of times between 2013 and 2017 and transmitting information to him via email.
A total of seven community activists living in North Jeolla, South Gyeongsang, and Jeju Island affiliated with the small “progressive party” were caught in the investigation. They were charged with passing information to North Korean agents and creating an “anti-state (read: secret) and pro-Pyongyang organization” called the Vanguard of the People’s Independent Unification, which had been operating since 2016.
“Korea Times” reports that this is an extensive underground network – allegedly when a former senior Progressive Party official met with a North Korean agent in Cambodia in July 2017, he was ordered to set up a secret organization on Jeju Island. He was then taught for three days how to form an underground group and transmit and decode coded messages.
The Progressive Party, until June 2020 known as Minjudang (Mass Party), is an extreme left-wing political party, founded on October 15, 2017 by merging several groups, including fragments of the banned United Progressive Party.
The Jeju Island cell had been in contact with the North for more than five years, helping to organize anti-American protests and supporting certain candidates in elections. By November 2022, they allegedly received specific orders from North Korea, including to “take control of the Jeju branch of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (the same KCTU that was behind the relatively recent mass protests by various trade union organizations,” “expand anti-US struggle and opposition to Yoon Suk-yeol,” “oppose high-tech weapons shipments from the United States”, etc.
Although the investigation began under Moon, it is not clear why its active phase has only begun now.
Since most of those arrested were trade unionists, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) immediately announced that this was “nothing but an attempt to undermine the credibility of the confederation, which opposes the anti-labor policies of President Yoon Suk-yeol.”
In January 2023, conservative media in the ROK began to report that intelligence agencies had recorded signs of similar underground organizations in three other cities – Changwon and Jinju in South Gyeongsang Province and Jeonju in North Jeolla Province. It is assumed that all of these cells, including the one uncovered in 2021, were part of an underground organization called “HKH” (“Movement for the United Way of the Homeland”).
On January 18, the secret service and police raided the KCTU headquarters in downtown Seoul. At the same time, the headquarters of the Korean Health and Medical Workers’ Union (KHMU), part of the KCTU, was raided. According to eyewitnesses, the city hasn’t seen anything like this in a long time. KCTU spokesman Han Sang-jin told reporters that investigators used excessive force in the raid, which is very unusual compared to previous cases.
On February 1, 2023, Ha Yeon-ho, a “progressive South Korean activist” and head of the Jeonbuk People Movement based in the North Jeolla province, was charged with unauthorized contact with North Korean spies. According to the investigation, between 2013 and 2019 Ha allegedly met with North Korean agents in Hanoi and Beijing several times and corresponded with them via e-mail. On the same day, four activists from Changwon (the investigation believes the underground organization’s “headquarters” was located there) were arrested on charges of carrying out anti-government activities at the behest of North Korea.
Double Agent Broker
On November 10, 2021, a 40-year-old woman who arrived in the South as a defector in December 2018 stood trial in the ROK. It is alleged that since 2012 she has been a broker and transferred money to the families of defectors (such activities are illegal in both South and North Korea, but widespread). In 2016, her activities were uncovered and she was accused of having been allegedly recruited by North Korean intelligence services, which had instructed her during telephone conversations to persuade migrants to return to North Korea. She is alleged to have secured the return of at least one person to North Korea in September 2016.
Upon her arrival in South Korea in 2018, the woman admitted to cooperating with the intelligence services because she had no other choice. In May 2022, the broker was sentenced by a court to 30 months in prison.
The Case of Businessman Kim, or Spy Plagiarism
On January 25, 2022, a businessman named Kim was sentenced to four years in prison for selling facial recognition software developed by North Korea to the ROK and leaking military secrets to Pyongyang.
According to court records, Kim was a member of a student group supporting North Korea and in the early 2000s started a business involving economic cooperation between the South and the North. In 2007, he bought facial recognition software from the North Koreans for 500 million won ($444,422) and then resold it, passing it off as development by his technology company.
Kim was indicted back in 2018, and during court hearings he denied all of the charges against him, claiming that he met with Pyongyang officials with permission from the South Korean government. However, the court found him guilty of violating the National Security Act. At the same time, the court acquitted Kim’s deputy, saying that the latter probably did not know that the program was developed by North Korea.
Hackers, military and watch with a secret
On April 28, 2022, a ROK army captain and the head of a cryptocurrency exchange named Lee were arrested on charges of espionage. The media reports that this is the first time a serving South Korean military officer has been arrested for espionage and receiving payment in cryptocurrency, and the first time a North Korean spy has remotely gained favor with a military officer via social media.
Lee reportedly met a North Korean agent in a dedicated online community and conspired with him to convince an officer he knew to steal classified material. In August 2021, Lee approached a 29-year-old captain, seduced him with cryptocurrency, and allegedly sent the captain first a spy camera disguised as a wristwatch and then a Poison Tap computer hacking device. According to one version, the captain did the hack and provided Lee and an alleged spy with registration information of the Korean Joint Command and Control System (KJCCS – a confidential military network), according to another, he did not manage to hack anything, but the North Koreans received some screenshots of the defense network website, including demonstrating internal security rules.
Nevertheless, Lee received 700 million won ($551,000) in cryptocurrency for his work, while the military officer received 48 million won in bitcoins.
What made the situation particularly poignant was that the arrested captain was a member of a special unit (the 13th Special Operations Brigade, also known as the “beheading squad”) created during the 2017 crisis that was responsible for eliminating the DPRK’s military and political leadership and neutralizing key military infrastructure in case of hostilities or other crisis situation.
… and other stories
On January 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals upheld a 3.5-year prison term for a defector accused of spying for Pyongyang. The defector, whose identity has not been made public, was charged with meeting with a North Korean official after traveling to the border region between China and the North in May 2018 at the request of his brother living in the North. During the meeting, the defector allegedly accepted the official’s request to gather and provide information about brokers who help North Koreans flee their country and about those who leak information about the North’s armed forces to the South. Since then, the defector has repeatedly shared information about other defectors living in Seoul and their families left behind in the North.
On May 3, 2022, NK News published a story about the trial of a DPRK defector named Kim. In 2018-2019, fearing for the safety of his relatives who remained in the North, he allegedly agreed to cooperate with North Korean secret services. Kim collected information about North Korean refugees in South Korea, their political and other organizations, as well as brokers and border guards who facilitate border crossings by refugees and smugglers for bribes. A South Korean court found him guilty of violating the National Security Act and sentenced him to three years in prison.
On August 8, 2022, a 21-year-old member of the Navy stood trial on charges of praising the North Korean political system and possessing material “beneficial to the enemy.” The Navy prosecutor’s office charged him with posting video clips and materials promoting the North on the Internet, as well as possession of related materials. The sailor had been distributing this material since at least March 2021 and even allegedly used a television in his barracks to play a North Korean propaganda video in front of his comrades. According to preliminary data, the serviceman became interested in socialist ideology when studying at a university and, according to his acquaintances, even before he was drafted into the army, posted materials glorifying North Korea on his social networks.
“Is this what Moon Jae-in brought the country to?”
To what extent these accusations are based on real evidence is unclear to the author, since for obvious reasons the trials are secret. But it would be interesting to point to something else. Although most of the investigations did not begin under Yoon Suk-yeol, the conservative media is actively hyping the thesis that for fear that the investigations would spoil the government’s efforts to demonstrate inter-Korean relations, “Moon Jae-in’s administration, obsessed with peace with North Korea, actually sat idly by without tracking down people who spied for the North,” and only under Yoon was counterintelligence unleashed.
According to the Korea Institute for Liberal Democracy (a right-wing NGO), the number of cases in which intelligence agencies caught groups of spies working for North Korea from 2011 to 2016 was 26. During Moon’s presidency, that number was reduced to three, with investigations into those three cases allegedly beginning during Park Geun-hye’s time.
This is “polished” by the defectors’ tales of “enemies everywhere.” For example, a former senior colonel of the KPA claimed in 2021 that North Korean intelligence officers played an active role in various NGOs and institutions in South Korea.
In addition, as part of the December 2020 National Intelligence Service reforms, the Moon administration passed a law through parliament to give police the right to pursue and investigate North Korean spies, even though identifying spies and gathering evidence requires specialized knowledge, and counterintelligence investigations often require the help of foreign intelligence networks. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2024, and conservatives are actively demanding its repeal.
Perhaps that’s what this wave has to do with. As the author has written before, the effectiveness of the police, which under the Moon reforms will also be subordinate to the local authorities, is likely to fall dramatically, especially if a politician like Lee Jae-myung becomes its regional chief. In this context, the counter-intelligence is trying to catch the closing doors, while also trying to prove that the authors of the security services reform were motivated by self-interest, not by democracy.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In he practice of political figures symbolism frequently manifests itself as a commitment to certain historical traditions established in national society and as an expression of consistent steps toward the future. This is a practice that can be found in both Eastern and Western politics.
As the Ottoman Empire’s successor, modern Turkey holds the idea of reviving imperial status in the political consciousness of the ruling class, which naturally cannot be accepted by outside forces but finds support within its own society.
With the publication of Ahmet Davutoğlu’s seminal work “Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position” in 2001, which made public the strategy of “neo-Ottomanism” at the beginning of the 21st century, many experts saw not only another ambitious program of Turkish foreign policy, but a certain symbolism for the revival of the imperial origin of the Turkish state a century after its loss. This strategy has been the main source of Turkish foreign policy in the first quarter of the 21st century and perhaps even after the end of the Cold War, when President Turgut Özal said that after the fall of USSR there will be a “golden age of Turkey” in the new century, the age of pan-Turkish integration with Ankara as the leader.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in this sense, has become a consistent follower of the “dream” of the political elite of the Republic of Turkey and has brought new achievements on the road to the revival of a strong Turkey. Of course, the “Turkish dream” called “neo-Ottomanism” can hardly please the Western world (the United States, Britain, and EU countries), Iran, and China, as well as all of Turkey’s neighbors that were formerly part of the Ottoman Empire (Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, the Arab East, Armenia, and Georgia). Objectively, such a policy is “to say the least” undesirable for Russia as well, given the internal Turkic factor in the Russian Federation itself as well as the multiple contradictions that Turkey’s and Russia’s interests may encounter in such important post-Soviet regions as the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
The almost parallel transition of power in Russia and Turkey in the early 2000s and the arrival of charismatic leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan allowed the two countries to go through a series of trials, to find themselves on the brink of a rupture (especially in the situation following the downing of the Russian Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force in the skies over the Syrian-Turkish border and the killing of Lt. Col. Oleg Peshkov in November 2015 and then the assassination of Russian Ambassador to Ankara Andrei Karlov in December 2016 by Turkish radicals), but still to find a way to preserve relations and turn them into a strategic partnership. This does not mean that Moscow is interested in reviving a new Turkish empire. Still, the persistent tendencies of Turkish pragmatism are primarily due to Turkey’s own ambitions, regardless of who, where, and what Ankara’s plans are.
The preference for symbolism in the policy of President Erdoğan is reflected in the name “Sakarya” given to the new large gas field in the western part of the Turkish sector of the Black Sea, with a volume of more than 700 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Notoriously, the Turks were able to defeat the Greeks in the Battle of Sakarya in September 1921 and that this determined the further course of the history of the new Turkey. It is no coincidence that Recep Erdoğan, in his speech in Baku in November 2020, linked the success in Nagorno-Karabakh with the historical memory of the military minister of the Young Turk government Enver Paşa.
Another manifestation of symbolism is President Erdoğan’s decision to move the date of the next presidential election from June to May 14, 2023. In fact, on May 14, 1950, a new party and a new party leader were elected to power in Turkey, ending the nearly 30-year monopoly of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) founded by Kemal Atatürk himself (the architect of the Turkish Republic and the ideology of Kemalism). On that day, Ali Adnan Menderes, a Crimean Tatar who left the ranks of the CHP (because there were no other legal parties in Turkey at the time) and co-founded the Democrat Party (DP) with his partners (Jalal Bayar, Fuat Köprülü, and Refik Koraltan), was elected as the new leader of Turkey.
It is well known that the establishment of a multi-party political system in Turkey following World War II was one of the demands made by the United States and the United Kingdom as a condition for Turkey’s accession to NATO. Given the fierce competition with the USSR, the monopoly of one party in government could limit the West’s options in Turkey. The DP’s rise to power was largely due to the influence of Western-connected big capital, the Marshall Plan, and American patronage. As a result, Turkey made significant progress in economic development (transportation infrastructure, energy, banking system, real manufacturing sector) and foreign policy (it strengthened strategic alliance relations with the US, joined NATO, and stationed US intermediate-range missiles on its territory) under Adnan Menderes’ rule. Menderes’ fascination with authoritarianism, media despotism, Turkish nationalism, and the independent course, however, came to an end with the 1960 coup d’état, Cemal Gürsel’s seizure of power, and the prime minister’s personal tragedy (Menderes was hanged in the Imrali prison yard on September 19, 1961).
Of course, President Erdoğan has no intention of repeating Adnan Menderes’ tragic fate at the end of his career. He hopes that Menderes’ success on May 14 will be repeated as a symbol of Turkey’s new power, a country free and independent of external dictates and capable of announcing a new status and course for Turkey, a leader in the Turkic world and a pole in world politics, on the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic in September this year. In other words, Erdoğan seeks to emulate Atatürk in terms of historical contribution (if Kemal preserved Turkey as a regional state under conditions of westernization, then Erdoğan restores Turkey’s supra-regional and independent status after a century).
It is worth noting that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with the establishment on October 3, 2009 of the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States (Turkic Council), transformed into the international “Organization of Turkic States” (OTS) on November 12, 2021, has made an important contribution on this path. The policy of neo-Ottomanism and Neo Pan-Turkism with the motto “One Nation – Five States” (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan) is positively perceived in the Turkic countries of the post-Soviet space, in addition to Turkey, and is based on the pragmatic approach of economic, communication, military-political unity.
Given all the circumstances, President Erdoğan understands that the “Turkish dream” will remain a “dream” if the maximalist approach in foreign policy is pursued with no consideration for the interests of the leading geographical neighbors, first and foremost Russia. Modern Turkey is experiencing a severe economic crisis, a devaluation of the national currency, rising unemployment, complicated relations with the United States, a great interest in foreign investment, and the implementation of major projects (such as the Akkuyu and possibly Sinop nuclear power plants, a gas hub from Russia, the new link to the East) on the eve of the next elections.
The patriotic propaganda and focus on the successes in Syria and Greece are undoubtedly important issues for the Turkish voter. However, given the traditional 10% of the electorate of the radical Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), supporters of pan-Turkism will not be able to play a key role in the upcoming elections. At the same time, stability on the external borders boosts voters’ confidence in the improvement of their later lives. And in this situation, the Turkish-Russian partnership in Syria is an advantage for President Erdoğan. In the South Caucasus, Armenia’s weakness and the success of the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem also give the ruling AKP hope for mass support in the election campaign. Finally, Russia’s large-scale and feasible economic projects for its Turkish partner fuel hopes of stabilizing the local economy under Erdoğan’s high profile.
Aleksandr Svarants, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
The world is hearing a great deal about the recent protests in Israel. There are anti-government protests in many countries at any one time; and in some a state of open civil war.
But it is the Israeli protests which are grabbing headlines, as if they are something to do with the news consuming public everywhere else. Why all those column inches over a place automatically associated with conflict?
There is an English saying – “the elephant in the room”. This refers to an important fact deliberately not being talked about when all other dimensions of a problem are being discussed.
For example, the British government is giving all kinds of reasons for its current economic troubles. But it will never talk about the main driver of them – Brexit, the policy it was elected to uphold.
Similarly, when Australian Rugby League star Andrew Johns received an offer to defect to the New South Wales Rugby Union in 2004 there was some debate about why he wasn’t being offered the usual salary top-up sweetener by the national rugby union. In all those words, no one would mention the fact that Johns was a known drug user, and that this was known to be the real reason, regardless of the lame excuses given at the time.
There are several elephants in this room, which are not being talked about for the same reason. If they were, people would have to examine what they already know and what that says about them, both individually and collectively.
So let’s offend the world’s press and public by drawing attention to some of these elephants. No one is going to like it, but if they continue to be ignored, the whole herd might just trample on us all before we have realised it.
Gold Standard
The narrative of these protests is a familiar one. Tens of thousands of people are protesting against legislative changes which they see as an over-mighty government trying to grab more power for itself by removing the rights of the population.
The Netanyahu government, frequently described as the most right-wing in Israel’s history, is trying to reform the judiciary to prevent what it regards as activist judges doing what the government doesn’t like. According to the protestors, this is simply to prevent those judges convicting Netanyahu himself, and some of his fellow travellers, under laws designed to protect the public.
When anti-government protests are held elsewhere, we never hear what they are really about. The international media puts two and two together and makes any number except four, depending on the taste of the outlet and the prevailing wisdom of the time.
Any protest is thought to be about what interests the media outlet. In this one we are hearing all about “democratic standards being eroded”, but how many people on the ground are actually saying that, or using this noble ideal as their main motivation?
If Israel were an Arab and Muslim country, it would be automatically assumed that the protestors would have a case. No one expects those countries to be free or fair or functioning. The judiciary is assumed to be beholden to the rulers, whatever the laws are, and judicial decisions are seen as founded in politics rather than law.
These protests are only news because this is Israel. It has to be seen to be a democratic country with Rule of Law, not because these things are good in themselves, but because they supposedly distinguish Israel from its neighbours.
Why? Because Israel must be the good guys, all its hostile neighbours the bad guys. Good guys do democracy, bad guys don’t.
Why is such positioning necessary? Because Israel can’t be treated as just another country. If you do that, you end up multiplying the elephants even further.
Supposedly the Jewish Homeland was created to right a recent historical wrong, and a lot of very ancient and on-going ones. Its existence has a moral rather than an ethno-political basis.
So it must always reflect the best principles and ideas. These are the ones expressed by the same press and politicians who care little about the dispossessed Palestinians, and report Israeli abuses in the region as stains on the country’s character, rather than expressions of that character.
If democracy really is under threat in Israel, this matters more than it does in other countries, where the retreat from, or absence of, democratic standards is tacitly welcomed as it confirms prejudices. If Israel is the same as the countries around it, it is not superior, and therefore the moral basis for imposing Israel upon them, and supporting it with so much weaponry and technical support, is called into question.
What else does this call into question? Not Israeli elephants, but Western ones. The very ones in every room of every ministry in every Western country, which no amount of ignoring will make go away.
Exceptionally Bad
Every major Western country has a colonial past it now claims to be officially ashamed of. Despite all the achievements of those colonial regimes, the current thinking is that the “natives” should run their own affairs, and the colonial era is a dark chapter in the history of both coloniser and colonial.
Belgium doesn’t like to talk about the Belgian Congo, even though the Belgian state took it over in 1908 as a humanitarian gesture to stop it being cruelly exploited by the King of the Belgians himself, Leopold II. The Congo was Leopold’s private possession until then, but the atrocities he committed there would obviously be associated with the country which had such a person as its king, even if they were not being sanctioned by the state itself.
Leopold has now been rehabilitated in Belgium, though not in the Congo, as “the Builder King” as a result of the monuments and infrastructure he gave Belgium by laundering the profits of his exploitation. As a result, though people still resent his methods, no one questions his walking into someone else’s country and doing whatever he wanted on the grounds that he was European, and therefore more civilized than the ancient and self-governing peoples he subjugated.
Countries run away as hard as they can from that particular elephant – justifying their every move by claiming they are superior. The basis of all colonial regimes was control of trade and resources, but that control was taken by those who didn’t just consider themselves more powerful than others in the real world, but believed some natural superiority had given them this inevitably transient power.
Now we have a different paradigm – partnership between nations. But countries have the same interests in each other now, wherever they are. This has simply created colonialism in another form – allowing a country to be nominally independent, but controlling its functioning through economic, social and political colonisation in the form of money and threats.
If Israel isn’t superior to its neighbours, all its friends who claim it “aren’t” superior to theirs either. So every gift they give these inferior friends really has to be a gift, not something designed to increase your own power and influence in another country.
Who really wants to go down that road? If the Israeli protests succeed, there will be more pressure on all its friends to be seen doing the right thing, not what suits them, and thus supporting democracy as a positive principle, not a means to an ignoble end. If they fail, they can’t go on supporting Israel for the same reasons they should no longer support themselves, creating the danger that global thinking will sweep all today’s leaders away.
Scary, isn’t it? Hence the desperate attempt to describe these as “Israeli protests” rather than anti-government protests.
Whatever the outcome, calling them Israeli will preserve the supposed superiority of the country’s benefactors, as if the issues at stake having nothing to do with them. However we are hearing about then all the time because our rulers know only too well that they have everything to do with their own elephants in their own rooms.
The Devil is in the Terminology
It is clear from press reports who is to blame for these protests. Whereas in some countries agents provocateurs are supposed to be responsible, in Israel we are not hearing about protestors with dubious foreign links but the “right-wing Israeli government”.
The terms right- and left-wing are easily bandied about in an emotional context, but it is very difficult to give precise definition to them. This is because if a leftie espouses a policy defined as rightist, or vice versa, whilst remaining within their clan this would create a situation where definition is more important than actuality, and you can’t get anything done if you have to keep checking whether you are ideologically sound.
We are supposed to take from the presentation of Israel’s government that it is extreme, and this is a bad thing. We are further supposed to infer that this is contrary to democracy, which should create an acceptable middle ground in which all views can be tolerated.
Once again, it is expected that Arab and Muslim governments will be extreme and repressive, and cater for the few not the many. This cannot be allowed to happen in good old Israel however, because its sponsors don’t think of themselves like that, or wish to be seen supporting such things.
The list of corrupt dictatorships supported by the Western powers, as long as they are not in their backyard, is very long. The reasoning behind supporting states Western voters would regard as unacceptably extreme, at least by reputation, is that this furthers Western interests in some way.
So interests are first, democracy second. If the West admitted that in its relations with Israel, this would open the question of what the moral basis of the Israeli state really is, or what the West wants it to be.
It also brings yet another elephant into the room. The West only wants its beloved democracy when it produces the results it wants. If not, there must be something wrong with that democracy.
Israel has closed list national proportional representation. People don’t vote for local representatives, the whole country is one big constituency and you can only vote for a list, not an individual candidate. The seats are then allocated in proportion to votes, so the number of seats gained exactly reflects the national view.
The criticism of such systems is that they give too much power to the people who draw up the lists, even if people prefer candidates lower down those lists. But it cannot be denied that this is a democratic system designed to represent the will of the electorate as accurately as possible, as long as voters identify with parties rather than individuals.
So democracy, not a retreat from democracy, created the Israeli government, just like it created the Marxist government of Westernised Chile when Salvador Allende was elected. Whose fault is that? Are Israelis suddenly defective? Or does the West not want to be reminded that it doesn’t care about democracy, but about getting its own way?
Reducing the Ears
The Israeli protests are being given all this publicity because the Western Friends of Israel, however justified their position, are absolutely terrified of them. Every weakness they suggest in the Jewish state is one they know exists in their own countries, their own attitudes and their own assumptions.
No one wants to talk about these for fear that one admission will lead to another. So we are seeing politicians and compliant media desperately scrambling to get a handle on the protests which will generate an acceptable narrative, before all those elephants become clear to everyone else, and others will know that the Westerners can see them too.
No Western country supports Israel for the reason they say they do. No one acknowledges the legitimacy of this state, and its creation, for the reason they say they do.
The protests may have some effect on the Israeli government. But win or lose–the fact that these protestors are there, with a valid argument, is a bigger threat to the West’s politicians and media than any terrorist campaign or public humiliation.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
During Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s keynote speech on January 23, at the winter session of Japan’s parliament, among the key internal and external problems confronting the country’s government was the country’s continuous birth rate decline (over the past few years), mentioned practically for the first time. However, the unavoidable and multifaceted “national catastrophe” associated with this has long been discussed. Not only among experts, but also at government meetings. A special ministry has even been established to combat this disaster.
But in the Prime Minister’s public address to parliament, this problem, we repeat, was included for the first time in the list of several “traditional” issues. Such as, for example, turbulence in the economy, which requires its restructuring in the format of “new capitalism,” and various kinds of “external challenges.”
In these latter, the government of the country includes “unprovoked Russian aggression in Ukraine,” “aggressive behavior in the region by the PRC and the DPRK.” As a response to such “challenges”, “radical” innovations in the sphere of defense, which require appropriate financial support, have been announced. The main source of which, apparently, will be additional taxation of both businesses and ordinary citizens, which provokes understandable sentiments in society.
Under these conditions, it is simply unacceptable to continue mumbling words in relation to the problem of the falling birth rate, which is particularly dangerous in the long term. Especially since the data published late last year by the Department of Health show only its continuous (“for the past seven years and for the first time since registration began in 1899”) aggravation.
The findings of a recent survey of young people aged 17 to 19 about their attitudes toward marriage are also dismal. More than a third of those who declared their intention to marry, do not want to have children at all. And the majority of those who plan to have them will only have one child.
As a result, there has been a lot of panic about the already dangerous problem of an aging population. At the very least, the total population could be cut in half within a few decades. It is no idle question who will serve in the government agencies tasked with “countering Sino-Korean-Russian aggression” by the current Japanese government. Given the general disapproval of military service in Japan today.
Surveys are used to determine what is at the root of young people’s generally negative attitude toward the prospect of continuing to live as a family and as a Japanese nation. The general answer, roughly speaking, boils down to fears of loss of freedom of action in an uncertain and increasingly hostile future. A crucial component of this response lies in the area of material (in the broadest interpretation of this category) provision for both the present and the future.
Therefore, in order to at least curb the pace of development of the demographic problem which is disastrous for Japan, the Prime Minister appeals to private businesses to maintain employee salaries at a level that would include the inflation factor. It should be noted that the addressee of such an appeal (the contents of which constitute one of the main elements of the “new capitalism” concept mentioned above) is not obliged to react positively to it. Especially in conditions of the quite probable emergence of problems in connection with the financial support of the updated National Security Strategy.
Masanobu Ogura, who heads the above mentioned special ministry in the government with a wide range of tasks, among which the fight against low birth rate is the main one, speaks of the need for stability in the area of employment for young people.
Apparently, in order to win political points in the eyes of women (on the eve of very likely early parliamentary elections) F. Kishida made an obvious mistake when he advised Japanese women on maternity leave not to waste time and get involved in upgrading their working skills or even simply retraining during that period. Which, when the period is over, may help them strengthen their position in the labor market, and thus increase their level of financial security.
However, this useful piece of advice only served as an excuse for the opposition to accuse the Prime Minister of “ignorance of the subject,” on which he dared to argue publicly. It was clearly explained to him that bearing and giving birth to a child is far more difficult than raising a professional qualification. However, the critics appeared to be male as well, and it is unclear where they obtained their knowledge on this particular issue.
Let us also highlight Japan’s current Prime Minister’s extensive political experience, which, in general, can foster intuition in the search for answers to some pressing national issues. For example, F. Kishida doubts the usefulness of allowing same-sex marriages in Japan.
But, by the way, this is evidence of his “free-thinking.” This time in matters of global socio-cultural trends dubbed the “new normal.” Earlier, he responded by refusing Kyiv’s invitation to visit Ukraine – this “outpost of protection of the free world from Putin’s aggression.”
In general, as they call it, sometimes he “grows bold”. And, in fact, he gets away with it. At least for now. Apparently because the current Japanese government is completely following the “big brother” in the main issue of confrontation with China. China is the main target of the previously mentioned “radical” changes in Japan’s national security.
But the general state of anxiety among young people caused (among other things) by that prospect is not conducive to solving the problem of low birth rates, which Japan needs so much. And there is a lot of money to be spent on preparing to repel “aggressive intentions.”
Fumio Kishida’s cabinet faces a difficult choice…
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Turkey’s decision to block Sweden’s NATO membership has sparked a new controversy in the alliance at a time when the alliance is desperately looking to expand. Tukey’s Erdogan thinks that Sweden has failed to take the action that it was supposed to take i.e., act against “terrorists” living in Sweden and expel others involved in the 2016 military coup controversy. Turkey’s decision to block Sweden’s membership has, however, produced something else: a new military pact between Sweden and the US. Called a bilateral “Defence Cooperation Agreement”, the pact will allow the US to deploy its forces immediately to Sweden. The pact has been announced at a time when the US – and its allies in Europe – are already intensifying their war on Russia by supplying tanks. But the question that merits attention is: why is Turkey blocking this membership even though Sweden claims to have all it could do to fulfil Turkey’s conditions?
At it appears, the underlying reasons for this blockade have more to do with the Erdogan government’s own interests rather than any real annoyance with Sweden’s non-compliance with the 2022 agreement with Ankara, in which Stockholm had agreed to act upon Turkey’s demands.
There are political and geo-political factors. That Russia opposes Sweden’s (and Finland’s) NATO membership is a well-known fact. But why does it matter for Erdogan? Today, Erdogan is leading a country whose economy is sinking fast. The Erdogan government is sitting on the country’s worst inflation rates in over two decades. In November 2022, the inflation rate was 84.4 per cent according to the data released by the Turkish Statistical Institute. (It dropped to 64 per cent in December.) In this context, Turkey’s ties with Russia matter and Ankara calculates this might not be the best time to support a western decision that is targeted at Russia. Why does Russia matter to Turkey?
Since the start of this conflict in Ukraine, Turkey’s export of (cheap) energy (oil and gas) from Russia has increased manifold. This supply of cheap energy is helping Erdogan keep the country’s economy afloat. Not only is it buying discounted gas, but it is also paying for the gas in roubles rather than USD. Paying in roubles helps the Russian currency and it helps the Turkish economy as well. Turkey is not only importing from Russia. Turkish exports to Russia, in fact, rose by 45 per cent in 2022. In short, the way Turkey’s ties are constituted with Russia at the moment leaves little room for Turkey’s support for NATO’s expansion.
What will happen if Turkey’s economy were to sink further? In Turkey, this is elections year. With the Erdogan regime sitting on a sinking economy, it could face a startling defeat. As polls show, Erdogan and his party are already behind the opposition. For sure, for the Erdogan government what’s more important at this stage is not the question of NATO’s expansion but that of its own future as survival.
In this broad context, opposing Sweden’s NATO membership serves two distinct yet interrelated objectives for the Erdogan government.
First, it will obviously keep the flow of energy intact. Secondly, by demonstrating to its voters its government’s ability to follow an ‘independent’ foreign policy vis-à-vis the West, Erdogan hopes to boost its dwindling political position vis-a-vis a vibrant opposition. In other words, by keeping the economy afloat and by projecting an autonomous foreign policy, the Erdogan regime is trying to limit the space for the opposition and win back its popularity.
Blocking Sweden’s membership is a matter for Erdogan that is not simply a geo-political question. The recent burning of the Holy Quran has allowed him to add a religious fervour as well, as he said that “Those who allow such blasphemy in front of our embassy [in Stockholm] can no longer expect our support for their NATO membership”, adding that “if you do not show respect to the religious beliefs of the Republic of Turkiye or Muslims, you will not receive any support for NATO [membership] from us.”
While Swedish authorities defended the incident as an expression of ‘freedom of expression’, it is obvious that Erdogan has a different political view of this so-called ‘freedom of expression.’ As it stands, he sees in it an opportunity to galvanise its supporters i.e., 85 million Turkish citizens, around his brand of Turkish nationalism, infused deeply and directly with religion (as opposed to a secular approach that its NATO allies cherish).
What might change this scenario? As mentioned above, the decision to block Sweden’s membership has not had a real, qualitative impact on the country’s shift away from non-alignment to alignment with the West. The pact with the US has practically ended the era of Sweden’s non-alignment, but it is still short of a full NATO membership.
Erdogan’s opposition is not permanent. Given the fact that this opposition is tied to elections – both presidential and parliamentary – means that Turkey’s official position might change soon after the elections, especially if the opposition wins, which is expected to take a more pro-West, pro-Ukraine foreign policy approach.
Even if Erdogan wins, the position can still change, since the threat of losing power would no longer be there and Erdogan will be more confident in dealing with his western counterparts in NATO and with Russia as well. The West might itself come to the conclusion that meaningful economic support – including enhanced trade – could ‘convince’ Erdogan to change its stance.
For now, however, things are unlikely to change for the next few months. Depending on how the conflict unfolds in Ukraine, the international geo-political scenario could possibly change in the next few months in ways leaving little to no room for sea changes.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
India celebrated its 74th National Republic Day solemnly and grandly on January 26, 2023. The Indian Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, with Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar as chairman of the drafting committee. Since the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, to commemorate this event, India has celebrated Republic Day as a national holiday every year. India was given its own constitution and became a free country, severing all ties with brutal British rule, which was plagued by numerous crimes against the Indian people and the total plunder of their natural wealth.
Contrary to the myth that Britain supposedly gave India many gifts, British rule was a cruel and oppressive regime responsible for the deaths of some 35 million Indians. Britain’s misanthropic actions in India, which boasts one of the blackest colonial records among Europeans, are also marked by the open and cynical plundering of that country’s wealth, which to this day allows tiny Britain to stay afloat.
The list of Indian artifacts stolen during the colonial period and now in the United Kingdom is long, very long. Among the artifacts that the British seized, looted or took as “gifts” is the 105.6 carat Koh-i-noor diamond. The idol of Lord Harihara, the Buddha of Sultanganj, the personal effects of Tipu Sultan, the wine goblets of Shah Jahan, and the throne of Maharaja Ranjit Singh are among the other valuable objects, idols, and artifacts that were stolen and looted from India many years ago but are still in the possession of British museums and “respected” members of the royal family. Many Indians remain angry about the artifacts that were stolen during the British conquest of India and still have not been returned. India’s government has repeatedly appealed to the British with a legitimate demand that all these Indian riches be returned to their homeland, but the British criminal power remains stubbornly silent. Numerous appeals to a number of international organizations overflowing with Western officials have also failed to produce any positive result.
Another crime committed by the “democratic” British colonial regime, which relied heavily on the Indian Army, was the use of Indians in the metropolitan war effort, resulting in enormous loss of life for India. The Indian Army was used by Britain in the World War II, fought against the Italian Army in Ethiopia, against the Italian and German Armies in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, and against the German Army in Italy after the Italian surrender. Nevertheless, most of the Indian Army was sent to fight the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian frontier; later, after resting and re-equipping for a victorious pushback into Burma, in the largest British Empire army ever raised. These campaigns claimed the lives of more than 87,000 Indian soldiers, 34,354 were wounded, and 67,340 became prisoners of war. World War II was the last time the Indian Army fought as part of the British military establishment, for independence, and colonial partition followed in 1947.
Another serious crime committed by the British “democrats” that falls under international responsibility is the testing of chemical weapons on Indian soldiers, openly reported by the British media. According to a The Guardian report, British military scientists conducted chemical weapons experiments on Indian colonial troops for more than a decade before and during the World War II. Thousands of Indian soldiers were exposed to mustard gas during tests in Rawalpindi, which was then part of the British colony of India. The gas severely burned the soldiers’ skin and caused pain that sometimes lasted for months, requiring many of them to be hospitalized. The death toll from such human experiments is not mentioned in the British press. Suffice it to say that not even Hitler dared to use chemical weapons against his enemies at the front, and the British did it quietly because they considered the Indians their enemies then as now.
Not surprisingly, Britain began plundering India and its riches from the beginning, and the plunder became “London’s rightful spoils.” With 20,000 soldiers, the British East India Company (EIC) became the de facto ruler of Bengal in 1757 and plundered the territory, ceding all the region’s wealth to Britain. The company’s tax collectors in Bengal reported that “Indians were tortured into giving up their treasures; towns and villages were completely looted.” By the mid-eighteenth century, much of India had been taken over by this unregulated private company, which had increased its army to 260,000 by 1803. It is estimated that Britain stole a total of about $45 trillion from India between 1765 and 1938. The British impoverished India through a tax operation that amounted to systematic theft. Simply put, the British collected heavy taxes in cash from the Indian population, used this tax money to pay Indians for their goods, and then exported goods overseas, investing the profits in the British economy and the Indian colonial army, which far exceeded India’s own defense needs.
The British destabilized the harvest pattern by forcing commercial harvesting and made Indians more vulnerable to famine. Between 12 and 29 million Indians starved to death while India was under the control of the British Empire. In response to the onset of famine, British authorities rarely provided humanitarian aid, insisting that famine was a “natural” and “necessary” remedy for overpopulation. During the Great Madras Famine of 1876-78, British authorities began to make small efforts to provide relief only after 5.5 million Indians had died. Instead of charity, the British set up labor camps for the poor, where Indian workers received less than 50% of the amount of food given out in Nazi concentration camps for their hard labor of 12 to 15 hours. This comparison shows exactly from whom the Nazis took their theory of white supremacy and how they learned from the “democratic” British.
Not surprisingly, it was Britain and its industrious disciples, the US and NATO, who instigated Ukraine’s war against Russia. It was in British India where British ideologues developed the theory of destroying other peoples, and then the military began to put that theory into practice. There is no place in the world where London and Washington have not unleashed wars that condemn the peoples of many nations to starvation, poverty and extermination. That is the point of Western democracy – to build one’s own existence on the bones of others.
Incidentally, the building of railroads by the Raj is often mistakenly seen as one of the “gifts” that Britain gave to India. In fact, the railroads were paid for entirely by Indian taxpayers, who also had to pay higher fares than British personnel and were housed in overcrowded “third class” compartments. British shareholders were able to make untold sums of money from their investments in the railroads, even though they paid no taxes to India. All this is called common robbery and violence, and in a decent civilized society these acts would be punished by trial and imprisonment. But not in Britain, which, according to its racial theory of the Anglo-Saxons, considers itself a superior race and all others, including Indians, its slaves, second-class human beings.
This is not to say that Indians accepted the condition of British slaves without complaint. When peaceful protesters defied a government order to demonstrate against British colonial rule in Amritsar on April 13, 1919, they were blocked inside the walled gardens of Jallianwala and fired upon by the military. Under orders from General Dyer, the soldiers fired until they ran out of ammunition. According to military reports, as many as 1,000 protesters were killed and another 1,100 wounded within 10 minutes. Other eyewitness accounts indicate that the total number killed and wounded was far higher. Britain never officially apologized for the massacre and considered it a routine matter of punishing its slaves.
The influenza pandemic in India in 1918 claimed more than 17 million lives. When the British arrived in India, they brought with them not only their soldiers but also numerous diseases that did not exist in that country. British ships carrying troops returning from World War I in Europe brought Spanish flu with them and devastated India. Almost an entire generation of Indians was wiped out. All the rivers in India were littered with corpses because of the lack of firewood for cremation. Young people between the ages of 20 and 40 were hardest hit by the epidemic, with women disproportionately affected. According to the Sanitary Commissioner’s report for 1918, the minimum number of deaths in a week exceeded 200 in both Bombay and Madras. The spread of the disease was exacerbated by the absence of seasonal rains and the resulting famines, which left people malnourished and weakened and forced them to move to the densely populated cities. As a result of the severity of the outbreak in 1919, the birth rate declined by about 30%. Population growth in the decade from 1911 to 1921 was 1.2%, the lowest rate in any decade before or after British “rule.” The country’s health care system could not cope with the sudden increase in demand for medical care. The resulting sacrifice and suffering, as well as the economic consequences of the pandemic, led to a growing rejection of colonial rule.
Indians remember all these British “gifts” on the Republic Day with bitterness and horror, while a now free and independent India pursues a policy in the interests of its people and strives, together with all other independent states, to build a multipolar world.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In the last months of 2022 and now in the first decades of 2023, political and civil society discourse in Mongolia has resumed with calls for constitutional change. Calls for legislative change became especially loud when the largest corruption scandal in the country’s recent history was uncovered, involving the theft of coal from Mongolia’s strategic deposits. At the heart of this debate over the transformation of the country’s political system was the choice between a parliamentary and a presidential model of the republic.
In its three decades of democratic development, Mongolia has shown a clear trend toward a parliamentary model of democracy. The last major step in this direction was the law limiting presidential powers to one term. Nevertheless, the country cannot yet be called a fully parliamentary republic: The country’s president still has considerable powers that are, in principle, subordinate to those of Parliament. However, the general vector of political thought in Mongolia aims to reduce the role of presidential power in favor of the power of the State Great Khural, the parliament of democratic Mongolia.
In the context of the excalating debate in Mongolia, many experts theorize that such a reform would have a negative impact on the prospects for Russian-Mongolian cooperation. It is believed that the transition to a parliamentary form of government would make Mongolia less similar to the Russian Federation, which is a presidential republic. At the same time, a parliamentary republic would make Mongolia more similar to Russia’s main international rivals in European countries such as the United Kingdom and Germany.
It is hard to deny that the “institutional compatibility” between Russia and Mongolia would decrease in this most likely scenario of Mongolian reforms. However, contrary to the above view, there are a number of factors that, when taken into account, make it clear that Moscow seriously benefits from Mongolia’s transformation into a parliamentary republic.
Mongolia’s Parliamentary Republic as a Guarantee of Macro-Political Stability in the Russian Federation’s Neighboring State
In modern Mongolia, the distribution of power and property is much more in line with the parliamentary model than with the system of centralized government by one person or another. Significant financial and political resources in Mongolia are distributed among numerous factions of the country’s two largest parties, the Mongolian People’s Party and the Mongolian Democratic Party. Since the 1990s, a system has been established in which factions within the party reach an agreement on the distribution of all possible privileges and resources and then compete with one another. Under such conditions, when strong presidential power is established, the struggle for the presidency can exacerbate both the struggle within party factions, which divides the party into a variety of feuds, and the interactions between parties. In the language of “game theory,” the current political process in Mongolia, which can be described as a “positive-sum game” in which one can win little but retain their status as a player, may turn into a “zero-sum game” in the transition to a presidential-republican form of government, in which the victory of one player would automatically mean a heavy defeat for all other players and possibly a decline in their political and economic status. In this respect, the parliamentary model is more in line with the interests of the “elites” and therefore poses less of a threat to the country’s political stability. Russia, as Mongolia’s immediate neighbor, has little interest in destabilizing the political situation in that country, which could be the case with the transition to a presidential form of government.
The parliamentary model will better ensure that the PRC and Russian Federation maintain parity in their positions in Mongolia
An analysis of Russia’s gains or losses from constitutional reforms in Mongolia must also be made in the context of the triangular system of relations between Russia, Mongolia, and China that exists in the region. For example, the strengthening of presidential power may lead to the emergence of an authoritarian type of leadership in the country, with limited changes in power. In this case, a very limited but extremely stable circle of leaders in the country becomes more vulnerable to foreign influence and must ensure its political survival by joining forces with one or another external force. Most likely, the choice of the external political and economic guarantor of the newly formed “top” will fall on China rather than Russia because of its large number of promising economic proposals. In this situation, it would be more difficult to attract Mongolia’s political elite to Russia than it was in the 1990s with a number of post-Soviet authoritarian leaders: today’s Mongolia exists in an already established regional environment in which China’s economic role seems to be dominant. Therefore, the republican parliamentary model in Mongolia is more likely to maintain parity between Russia’s and China’s political and economic positions in Mongolia, which suits Russia’s interest in the current environment.
The parliamentary model benefits the Russian Federation, which wants to maintain its influence, more than China and the “Third Neighbor” countries, which want to expand their influence
The parliamentary model has the potential to slow the implementation of major infrastructure projects in Mongolia. The presence of real political power among a variety of party candidates can slow government decision-making on major economic projects proposed to Mongolia by other countries. In addition, the inherent unpredictability of the parliamentary model in making limited legislative changes may reduce the interest of large foreign investors in Mongolia. In this regard, the parliamentary model of the political process will benefit Russia by limiting the strengthening of China’s and Western countries’ economic positions in the country. After the sale of Russian shares in the mining and processing company Erdenet and Mongolrostsvetmet SOE, Russia is focusing on maintaining its economic initiatives in Mongolia rather than strengthening them. At the same time, all other global players are focused on expanding their participation in the Mongolian economy, particularly in the mining sector. Incidentally, this pattern does not apply to the projects that are in the interest of Mongolia’s two major neighbors: The construction of a gas pipeline through its territory, for example, is beneficial to both neighboring powers, albeit to different degrees, which severely limits the ability of certain groups in Mongolia to obstruct its implementation. Thus, the parliamentary political process, with its incessant struggle between political factions in the legislature, is more beneficial to foreign powers seeking to maintain their positions than to those seeking to expand them.
A more comprehensive and multidisciplinary view of potential reforms in Mongolia therefore opens up much better prospects for cooperation with the neighboring country than the projections of the future that result from a superficial and purely institutional understanding of Mongolia’s potential constitutional changes.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
A real war always begins unexpectedly, even if the parties have been preparing for it for a long time. However, it is not uncommon for “big wars” to be provoked by small countries in the hope of becoming part of the clientele of major powers (allies).
The recent provocations in the form of airstrikes against Iranian military facilities (nuclear research facilities, companies producing drones and ballistic missiles) and the restrained reaction of Tehran, which has not publicly named the culprit for this action, have created a new situation of tension in the system of regional and global relations.
The assessments of the international and national media show that the current situation is a consequence of the US policy aimed at causing additional problems for Russia against the background of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian crisis. In fact, the anti-Russian Western coalition aims to prevent the formation of an anti-Western Eastern coalition around Russia, with Iran and the Greater Middle East Theater being of great interest.
Given the openly hostile relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran, it is impossible not to say that the United States has once again used its trusted and dependent “friend” in the person of Israel as a detonator for such tensions. On the eve of the kamikaze drone action in January, the United States and Israel had conducted joint military exercises in the region, checking the coherence of naval and air force interaction and satellite reconnaissance. On the night of January 28-29 this year, the director of CIA, William Burns, was in Israel, apparently discussing methods of countering Iran with the head of the Mossad, David Barnea Brunner. Following the main American intelligence officer, the chief US diplomat, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, also arrived in Tel Aviv. According to Best Radio Editor-in-Chief Zvi Silber, Blinken’s mission and his meetings with his Israeli counterpart Eli Cohen are related to the “Iranian dossier” and preparations for Israeli Prime Minister B. Netanyahu’s grand visit to Washington.
Tel Aviv is taking advantage of the tensions in US -Russian relations and demanding from its main ally regarding Iran: the completion of the nuclear project, the reimposition of all anti-Iran sanctions anterior to the 2015 agreement, the formation of a joint anti-Iran coalition and the demonstration of a military threat to Tehran.
Thanks to the efforts of the United States and the United Kingdom, Israel is now one of the most important centers in the Middle East with a powerful army and a high level of its technological equipment. Israel has nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, but it is categorically opposed to the implementation of a nuclear project in Iran.
In the past, the Israeli Air Force has repeatedly invaded the airspace of countries in the region with impunity, carrying out targeted attacks with the destruction of military facilities (e.g., in Syria and Iran). And earlier, the Israelis, through their intelligence agencies, have launched a series of effective attacks on Iran’s military-industrial complex (including sabotage operations to eliminate leading physicists involved in military development of retaliatory weapons).
However Tel Aviv has not yet decided to launch an all-out war with Iran since it has information about the military potential and determination of the Persian leadership, which is capable of inflicting disproportionate damage on Israel. And this time, Tel Aviv believes that Iran will not decide to strike directly against Israel because of the likely negative consequences, considering the Israeli-American military coalition. Exploiting the image of an external enemy attributed to Iran allows the right-wing regime led by B. Netanyahu (Likud Party) to ensure domestic unity and prevent internal social unrest.
In Iran, however, the Israelis see a serious opponent, despite all the verbal boasting about their own power. Which has achieved considerable success in the field of military production (including drones and ballistic missiles), has experienced war with dictator Saddam Hussein, and has withstood the pressure of American sanctions. And which has developed the concept of a “Shiite world” and rallied Shiites in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Afghanistan, dealing a serious blow to ISIS’s combat units in Iraq and Syria. Abroad, Tehran has at its disposal not only powerful IRGC and Quds units, but also al-Sadr’s Shiite fighting forces, armored units from Bamiyan, Afghanistan, and, of course, Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Israel recalls the unfortunate events of 2006, when it found itself in a helpless position vis-à-vis Hezbollah.
Iran has proven itself not only in Iraq and Syria, but also in Yemen against Saudi Arabia. In Afghanistan, without the Taliban’s agreements with Iran over Herat, there would be no Western gateway. A particular theme of Iranian diplomacy breakthroughs is advanced relations with China and India, including investment in Iranian energy and transportation infrastructure, which does not preclude military-technical cooperation. Finally, the United States and Israel cannot ignore Iran’s multisectoral partnership with Russia. The 2015 agreement among international actors on Iran took place with Russia’s participation and signature, which precludes the revival of previous sanctions without coordination with Moscow.
For this reason, Israel, in cooperation with the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon world (the United States and Britain), is trying to expand the platform of its regional allies and partners (including Turkey, Azerbaijan, and the quasi-Kurdish entity led by M. Barzani). It is no coincidence that after the January 29 demarche, the Israeli side launched a disinformation campaign in the media with references to the complicity of Kurdish forces in Mashhad and even Azerbaijan itself, hardly part of the plans of the cautious I. Aliyev. The goal of Tel Aviv and Washington is obviously to create a zone of tension around Iran and provoke Tehran to deteriorate relations with neighboring Iraq and Azerbaijan and eventually pull Iran out of the pro-Russian coalition. For this reason, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to V. Zelensky’s office, has played a prominent part in information support of air strikes on Iran, linking this provocation to the Iran-Russia partnership.
Tehran has strongly warned Kyiv that it will not support the Western coalition in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Further provocations by the Kyiv regime could result in a harsh response from Iran.
The fact is that the Persians have a thousand-year-old civilization and high traditions of governance. More than once have they had to find themselves in a hostile environment and they gained immunity. Tehran’s tactics in the Middle East region now amount to creating centers of threat and support for friendly regimes and forces (in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Afghanistan). Who knows where else around Iran the Persians might form a “belt of friendship” (including in the South Caucasus and Central Asia), because it is in the nature of the Persians to rally different cultures and peoples around them. If Israel, which has no immediate borders with Iran, seeks to expand its ability to find a beachhead to attack the enemy, Iran itself does not rule out similar tactics when it comes to entrenching, strengthening, arming, and supporting its partners.
They say waiting to die is worse than dying. In this case, waiting for a retaliatory strike is worse than the strike itself. Iran always reserves the right to retaliate and does not throw words to the wind, but the Persians are characterized by caution, strict calculation of the consequences of certain steps, waiting for the victim and then suddenly attacking. Everyone remembers the relatively recent example of the death of IRGC General Soleimani and the Iranian response to it. And the question of where, when, and how the Persians will retaliate against their most important, permanent, and likely enemy is one that the experts and intelligence agencies of the anti-Iranian coalition are “guessing” about.
Given past experience with the Iran-Israel confrontation, it is obvious that Tehran will not attack Israel directly with ballistic missiles. Iran is by no means aiming for a nuclear strike against Israel, as some Israeli experts claim with varying frequency, because the Persians cherish holy Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. For devout Muslims, this is not just history and words, but a way of life.
Iran, however, is in any case capable and likely to respond to the enemy in the latter’s own language of violence. That is why not only Israel but also the more powerful forces supporting the Kyiv regime militarily, technically, and diplomatically are now concerned about the Polish airport in Rzeszów, where NATO cargo planes carrying military cargo for Ukraine have been temporarily suspended. Indeed, the “Ukrainian case” has come under fire from Iranian proxies and combat assets. Apparently, therefore, the US refuses to accept responsibility for the nightly attacks on Iranian military facilities.
Israel itself is urgently withdrawing from Ukraine more than 500 of its military instructors in the field of electronic warfare and counter-battery warfare. Israeli air gates are increasingly being approached by US Air Force military transport aircraft loaded with air defense and missile defense systems. Moreover, on the one hand, Benjamin Netanyahu is discussing with US partners new forms of military and technical support for the Kyiv regime against Russia; on the other hand, he appears to be offering Moscow his services as an effective mediator with Kyiv. The latter suggests that the United States, Britain, and Israel are seriously concerned about the possible response of both Iran itself and the variability of approaches by key Iranian partners (including Russia, India, and China).
The time to hope for continued impunity for Israel on the part of the international community and the continuation of corresponding actions against countries in the region may be hopelessly over, as the approach of a major war will certainly result in a severe blow to opposing forces. It is precisely this prospect that cannot please the United States, as it weakens in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine and in the event of a conflict with China alongside Taiwan. In the meantime, it is Russia that can act as a more reliable mediator in reducing Iran-Israel tensions, as Moscow maintains a fairly high level of trust for Tehran and Tel Aviv, and most importantly, the Russians are not interested in a new belt of conflict.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
A historic pact that officially ended the Vietnam War for the United States, formalizing its defeat, was signed in Paris precisely 50 years ago. Following that, the United States halted all combat operations in Vietnam and began withdrawing its troops. The United States’ involvement in this war was and continues to be a stain on its military, political, economic, and humanitarian records.
The United States Army was unable to subdue a comparatively tiny Vietnam in eight years. After having harassed Vietnam with bombs, napalm, and defoliants for eight years, the nation with the strongest economy in the world, the largest and best-equipped army, and a population of a couple of hundred millions abruptly left the country and its “allies” behind.
The US Army suffered losses of nearly 60,000 soldiers killed alone, 9,000 American aircraft shot down, and 1,000 pilots captured by guerrillas!
In Vietnam, the US showed itself “in all its glory” – with its “scorched earth” tactics, the destruction of the ecosystem of an entire country, the mass murder of civilians, and atrocities comparable only to what Hitler’s criminals had wrought at the time. During the war, US aircraft dropped more than a hundred kilograms of bombs on each Vietnamese resident. According to the US Department of Defense, from 1962 to 1971, the Americans sprayed 77 million liters of the defoliant Agent Orange on the territory of South Vietnam, 44 million liters of which contained dioxin, so that over 14% of the country was doused with this super-poisonous toxin. The chemical weapons used by the US affected 60% of the jungle and more than 30% of the lowland forests. In 1969 alone, the Americans gassed more than 285,000 people and destroyed more than 905,000 hectares of crops with pesticides in South Vietnam!
In addition to the 60,000 US soldiers killed, 2,500 went missing, and about 300,000 soldiers were wounded or left disabled. A US Senate subcommittee estimated in 1975 that about 1.4 million civilians had died as a result of the war in South Vietnam.
Although more than fifty years have passed since the end of the Vietnam War, its deadly legacy continues to claim lives today. In Vietnam, unexploded bombs and land mines, as well as deadly chemicals, maimed generations of locals. More than a million US veterans were stranded and mentally ill.
These are just some of the true costs of American democracy’s “exports.” And this is just one example of one of the wars the U.S. unleashed. But there were others! The Korean War, the war in Iraq, where there were also significant casualties, both of American soldiers and local civilians.
And the war in Afghanistan? Did it bring victory to the US and its Army? With its insane spending, at the cost of which more than one country could have been made happy.
After a Soviet T-55 tank broke through the fence in front of the Independence Palace in Saigon on the morning of April 30, 1975, and the US ambassador fled the besieged city by helicopter, that tank became the symbol of Vietnam’s and USSR’s victory over the United States. After this lesson, Americans stayed out of the wars in Africa and Asia for a long time. But as soon as the USSR had collapsed, the United States and NATO took up arms again and Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were set aflame. There was an attempt to launch a major military aggression in Syria … And everywhere the United States suffered the same fate – a complete political and military defeat. It affected American weapons, the American army, and Washington’s bayonet-wielding attempts to impose “American-style democracy.”
We can now confidently add the defeat of the United States in Ukraine, where Washington is following the same path of stepping on the rake, to the failures of the United States in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. Additionally, it damages its compliant European allies who only speak up on orders from Washington and use all of their might to defend Kiev’s neo-fascism.
Everywhere, American armed aggression aims to “transform” the defeated into something more to its liking and standards. The US political establishment, however, has always been characterized by political shortsightedness, a lack of objectivity when it comes to understanding the nature of the world and the particulars of the nations and regions it sought to subjugate. Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon presided over the United States during the unsuccessful Vietnam War. All three ignored the complex ties that existed between Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and China. In subsequent wars in the Middle East, other American presidents failed to understand the peculiarities of the Islamic world. This is another reason why events in that region proved to be a failure of US policy.
However, all these events did not serve as a lesson for the current US political establishment, and so the collapse of White House policy looms in the Washington-inspired conflict in Ukraine and in its bet on the resurgence of neo-Nazism to “defeat” Russia. The US, trying to pit NATO in Ukraine against Russia to maintain its hegemony, has failed to restore America’s global dominance, making that endeavor a pipe dream. Washington has not succeeded in subduing Russia, which, according to American and many European media and analysts, is already a winner not only in the Ukraine conflict but also in the confrontation with the United States, whether by using the weapons at NATO ‘s disposal or by imposing numerous sanctions. More and more countries today understand this and support not the aggressive policy of the United States, but Russia, which defeated fascism in the World War II and is now subduing the neo-fascist criminals of the Kiev regime, supported by Washington and its Western allies.
The Washington-inspired wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Barack Obama’s flirtation with political Islam and radical Islamists, and US attempts to change the regime in Syria have already failed. The decline of American hegemony has accelerated, and against this backdrop, Russia has further expanded its sphere of influence in the world. The worn-out neoliberal model of American economic dominance, which has been replaced by China’s self-assured policy of disinterested cooperation, as well as the country’s rate of economic growth and global influence, all contribute to the loosening of Washington’s preponderance.
In Russia, it is said that “only the grave will fix the hunchback.” This appears to be the fate of the United States, which refuses to learn from the mistakes of the past and keeps attempting in vain to reverse history and return to global neocolonialism and the use of force to oppress the entire world. The United States’ military failures in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine serve as further evidence of this, as they only hasten the fall of the American Empire, which is already widely regarded as the Evil Empire.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
At a time when the United States, the EU, and aligned NATO countries are attempting to eradicate Russia, something extraordinary is happening. Several amazing things are taking place. One, a program for citizens of the U.S. to study at every level at Russian universities, is particularly ironic.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently addressed the western world elites at Davos, Switzerland, about the “threat” Russia represents to the world. At the same meetup of the crazy capitalistic cabal, EU President Ursula von der Leyen begged private financiers to fund Ukraine’s Zelensky to defeat Russia, once and for all. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the Russian government is advertising to fill the 2023-2024 academic year quota for a free education process for some foreigners.
According to the announcement, which Americans can only find on Telegram or other back channels, acceptance for applications for free education in Russia is now open. The statement says US Citizens, stateless persons, and Russian compatriots not registered in the territory of the Russian Federation can register. (test website) The scholarship program allows candidates to study in Russia for free at the undergraduate level, postgraduate level, residency, specialty areas, and other categories of study. Free college at some of the world’s top colleges and universities. The New York Times will say, “Putin is weaponizing learning and careers.”
Then the news that Russia took over the chairmanship of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council, and the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission on January 1st demands mentioning. At a meeting of the heads of the union on January 23rd, President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about the union gaining self-sufficiency and building mutually beneficial and equal cooperation between the union and external partners and international associations. He went on to suggest:
“Expanding the geography of the EAEU’s international links and contacts with countries in the Asia-Pacific Region, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America would help boost exports of the union’s products and build new logistics chains.”
The speech went on to address matters of union security. One section of great interest was the Russian president’s comments on the robust agro-industrial base, which guarantees self-sufficiency for the bloc, as well as export possibilities. Putin stressed that Russia would be drafting a wide range of measures to develop the agricultural sector further. I suspect someone at the US State Department is already preparing a memo to be leaked to the mainstream press that the Russians are broadening their weaponization of food.
Finally, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stepped off the plane in Pretoria, South Africa, the other day to begin a broader tour of the BRICS partner nation. Lavrov and his counterpart Naledi Pandor have so far discussed various issues. An upcoming Russia, China, and South African military exercises scheduled to be held in SA in February are foremost on the minds in Washington, London, and Brussels. However, the more positive and saner world is focused on the things like the fifteen African nations currently involved in Russian-financed nuclear power deals, not to mention business and security contracts. I’ve no doubt the Washington Post or some other American media news tabloid will tell the American public Putin needs South Africa’s navy to invade the United States.
The point here is Russia is carrying on as the world turns and not pouring trillions into arming the Taliban, and desperate Yemenis, sending Syria more tanks to attack Israel or Turkey, and certainly not asking Russians to pay for wars in countries no Russian can pinpoint on a map. On the other side of current west-east affairs, citizens in western countries hear nothing but China getting too big and Russia’s unquenchable thirst for conquest. There is another side. I just think more people should know.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Kamikaze drones struck Iran from the air again on the night of January 28-29, 2023. A number of cities, including Rasht, Khoy, Hamadan, Ban, Karaj, Tabriz, Mazandaran, Mahabad, and especially Isfahan, where nuclear research facilities and military factories are located were targeted. The sounds of gunfire and air-raid sirens rang out in Tehran itself, Javanrud, Rasht, Lorestan and other locations.
According to Israeli expert Doron Peskin, 14 Iranian facilities were targeted, including UAV and ballistic missile production facilities, the headquarters of the IRGC and Quds Force, and other defense facilities (including munitions production). By the evening of January 29, a series of strikes by unidentified warplanes had targeted pro-Iranian formations and a convoy of 25 Iranian trucks in the Syrian border town of Al-Bukamal.
At the same time, an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.9 on the Richter scale was recorded in the epicenter of the city of Khoy in northwestern Iran, killing over 800 people. This heightened tensions among residents of the Islamic Republic.
On the same night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated: “We took the decision to target terrorist organizations tonight. Our response will be strong, swift and precise. We will bring harm to anyone who tries to harm us.” The Mossad’s targeted attacks against Iran were praised by Israel’s allies. Israel did not acknowledge its involvement in this action, though, until less than a day later. As a result, the Al-Hadath TV channel claimed, citing American sources, that Israel was not responsible for the airstrikes on the Isfahan military factory. The Wall Street Journal, among other significant American media outlets, asserts, on the other hand, that Israel was responsible for destroying Iran’s strategic facilities.
The Arabic channel Al Arabiya TV claims that since the main attack radius involved Iran’s western provinces, the nature of the drones used in the attack on Iranian military facilities (e.g., in Isfahan) indicates that the drones were allegedly launched from the territory of the unnamed Islamic Republic bordering Iran. The issue here, of course, is the parameters of the drones and their flight range. Given the geographic location of the drones and the deed, it is reasonable to conclude that Israel is using the territory of an Islamic country in its vicinity. It is clear that Israel does not have many partners (allies) in the Islamic world, certainly not in the region. Therefore, it is unlikely that it could be a NATO country, Turkey, because the alliance will not test Iran today. Moreover, Azerbaijan is not interested in worsening its already strained relations with Iran’s leadership. That leaves Iraq, where Israel finds very favorable conditions after the invasion of Anglo-American coalition forces in 2003. But whether that is true remains a big question.
Azerbaijani military expert Agil Rustamzade has suggested that some military targets in Iran have been attacked by a modified Israeli kamikaze drone Harop, whose range after installation of satellite control (satellite antenna in the nose of the drone) exceeds 1000 km and is not affected by EWB means.
Iran’s Ministry of Defense responded by saying that its air defense forces had “shot down all enemy drones,” and local administrations in the cities attacked (e.g., Deputy Mayor of Isfahan Mohammad Reza Jan-Nesari) said that there had been little damage and that defense contractors had not been harmed. In other words, Iran has not yet publicly acknowledged the January 29, 2023, airstrikes by Israel and its partners; it believes that the objectives of these attacks were not achieved and that the defense complex has maintained its stability.
If Iran does not speak of an external attack, then the Islamic Republic’s partners can say no more than the Iranian Foreign Ministry. However, Iran and its intelligence agencies apparently have (or suspect they have) information about who, why, and how carried out the January 29 scare. Meanwhile, early indications of the Iranian bombings point to Israeli involvement, as evidenced by the military expertise of the means of the airstrikes and the particular activity of the anti-Iranian Israeli expert community (e.g., Avraham Shmulevich, chairman of the Jerusalem Institute for Eastern Partnership, international law specialist Michael Finkel, columnist Doron Peskin, and others).
The Persians reserve the right to retaliate, which, according to the traditions of Iranian politics, “may pursue the initiator and the instigator for the foreseeable future.” Depending on the geography of Iran’s counterattacks, Tehran’s version of the perpetrators and those involved in the Jan. 29 attacks will be determined. According to some reports, Israeli security services (Mossad, Shabak, and Aman) are already examining the possibility of an Iranian response and conducting the necessary consultations to locate such a threat.
Ukraine can be indirectly considered as one of the interested participants in this action, accusing Iran of supplying military equipment to the Russian side. It is known that attacks have been carried out, including against the production facilities of “Shahed-136” drones, which are allegedly supplied by Iranians to Russia and used in combat operations in Ukraine. It is no coincidence that Ukraine’s official representative, Chargé d’affaires Yevhen Kravchenko, was invited to the Iranian Foreign Ministry to make statements in connection with the statement made by Ukrainian Presidential Adviser Mykhailo Podolyak on the eve of the attack on Isfahan. It is known that the Ukrainian official noted in the social networks that “the attack on the military facility in Iran may be related to the events in Ukraine and the imaginary support of the Russian Federation by the IRI.”
For its part, the Pentagon has denied any involvement in the attacks on Iran. In particular, US military spokesman General Patrick Ryder told Reuters: “No US forces were involved in the attacks on Iran.” Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations warned the United States that any attempt by Washington to launch a war against Iran would lead to a serious regional and global confrontation.
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said at the same time that the United States now has every opportunity to preclude the success of Iran’s nuclear project. For some reason, Washington believes that in the current situation Moscow is reportedly willing to give Tehran the technology to make nuclear weapons. Moreover, the United States is extremely concerned about the possibility of military-technical cooperation between Russia and Iran.
The use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons has recently become the subject of speculation by the United States and the collective West in general against Russia and its partners. At the same time, Iran and Russia, under sanctions, can maintain a long-term partnership in all areas of interstate relations, regardless of third party opinion and in accordance with common interests (including regional interests).
The “British footprint” is almost not mentioned in all the above actions in the public space. However, some Russian experts believe that the UK may have something to do with the night actions on January 29, 2023 in Iran. London is interested in the reincarnation of the “Great Game” of the edge of 19th-20th centuries, with access to Russian Turkestan, for which it is trying to revive the famous Great Turan project with the help of Turkey and newly emerged Turkic countries of the post-Soviet space. Britain prefers the “quiet signature” of its own intelligence agency, SIS, headed by the now seasoned professional Richard Moore. The geographic and communications docking line of the “Turkish arc” is believed to be in Transcaucasia near the Iranian-Armenian border, which angers Tehran. Iran is committed to preserving the existing borders in the region and opposes their redrawing at the instigation of Anglo-Saxon interference.
It should be recognized that Iran is the heir to the ancient and global civilization that has passed the peak of imperial domination and prefers a tough defense of its own interests. The leadership of the IRI, which is obviously under pressure from the social protests, will have to make certain changes in the life of Iranian society (the so-called revolution from above) in order to preserve the unity of the country. The “red lines” defined by the Iranian authorities represent the limit of what is acceptable, beyond which a global catastrophe could begin in the form of a regional and global conflict.
The perception that the January 29 anti-Iranian action is merely a shot in the dark and a warning to Tehran could cost the perpetrators of the provocations dearly and prompt the Persians to retaliate. In the meantime, Iran is not bending or breaking, but merely focusing…
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The events in Ukraine in 2022, as well as the international and political fallout from them, necessitated cstating its position on the rapidly escalating crisis. The position of this country is sensitive for both Russia and the opposing forces in Ukraine. The opinion of Mongolians is particularly important to Russia because Russia values their partnership and good neighborly relations, and it is also important to representatives of the “anti-Russian camp” because they want to see Mongolia as a “budding democracy” and a “partner of the Western countries” that they have created for themselves.
And hence, Mongolia’s state position stems first and foremost from the country’s central foreign policy task, as articulated in the state’s foreign policy concepts (particularly those of 1994 and 2011). Maintaining the highest level of good neighborly and partnership relations with Russia and China, the two immediate neighbors, while strengthening and deepening relations with Western countries, referred to in this context by the uniquely Mongolian term “third neighbor.” Such foreign policy behavior is consistent with the concept of “balancing a small power,” which exists in Western schools of international relations and aims to reduce the pressure that any of the three power centers can exert on the country. Senior Mongolian officials use the logic of “balancing” to explain their neutral and benevolent stance in the crisis.
In terms of Mongolia’s position on the Ukraine crisis, the “balancing” looks like this: Mongolia abstains from voting on resolutions from UN condemning Russia and expresses its hope for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, avoiding value judgments as well as the search for “right” or “guilty”
Notably, Mongolia has abstained from voting on all “anti-Russian” resolutions, including A/RES/ES-11/1 “Aggression against Ukraine” (March 2, 2022), A/RES/ES-11/2 “Humanitarian Consequences of Aggression against Ukraine” (March 24, 2022), A/RES/ES-11/3 “Suspension of Membership in the UN Human Rights Council” (April 7, 2022), A/RES/ES-11/4 “Territorial integrity of Ukraine: protection of the principles enshrined in the UN Charter” (October 12, 2022), and resolution A/RES/ES-11/5 “Ensuring reparations and compensation for aggression against Ukraine” (November 14, 2022). At the same time, on December 15, Mongolia voted in favor of adopting the UN General Assembly resolution introduced by Russia on combating the glorification of Nazism, including in the context of the Ukraine crisis. Mongolian representatives on UN justify their “abstention” with the unwillingness of the Russian side to go against the opinion of the international community and with the importance of good neighborly relations with Russia for Ukraine and the states supporting it.
Because of such measures, Mongolia has managed to remain among the countries that have not come under the criticism of the “West,” while it has not once condemned Russian actions.
In this scheme, however, Mongolian politicians leave some room for political maneuvering. For example, despite their position of “benevolent neutrality toward all parties to the conflict,” Mongolian officials note that there are discrepancies in Moscow’s and Ulaanbaatar’s assessments, albeit exclusively in the context of bilateral Russian-Mongolian dialog. In particular, during Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s visit to Mongolia on July 5, 2022, Mongolian Foreign Minister B. Battsetseg made such a remark (in Russian) about the incomplete convergence of views on global processes. Nevertheless, such details cannot be understood as a criticism of Russia’s actions, but as a certain “negotiating claim” against Russia, implying the exchange of Mongolia’s “benevolent neutrality” for leniency in the field of energy exports from Russia.
The Mongolian government avoids officially discussing or commenting on the conflict, which is an important feature of its stance. Mongolian officials did not make the first official comment on the escalation of the crisis until March 2, 2022. At the time, hope for peaceful negotiations appeared in Russian-Ukrainian relations for the first time, and Mongolia decided to take advantage of the opportunity to express its official position for the first time, which was accompanied by words of support for both parties to the conflict against the backdrop of the negotiation process’s beginning.
The joint statement issued by Mongolian President U. Khürelsükh and Japanese Prime Minister F. Kishida following the Mongolian leader’s November 30, 2022 visit to Japan is an example of the Mongolian authorities’ subtle avoidance of harsh comments on the Ukraine crisis. In it, the parties committed to the principles of the UN Charter, specifically the principles of border inviolability, respect for state territorial integrity, and non-use of force. It is worth noting, however, that the two leaders did not include the principle of “peoples’ right to self-determination” in this list, indicating their respective positions in the crisis. Only one sentence directly mentioned Ukraine: “The parties express their concern about the difficulties and hardships endured by the Ukrainian people” “The parties express their concern about the difficulties and hardships endured by the Ukrainian people”.
Despite all the restraint in Mongolia’s official position on the Ukraine crisis, the country has not stayed away from the humanitarian dimensions of this international problem. On April 4, 2022, Mongolian authorities decided to provide Ukraine with $200,000 “for humanitarian purposes”. The Mongolian government justified its decision by saying that it was complying with the decisions of the UN, which had recently begun providing aid to Ukrainian civilians from its funds. 75% of Mongolia’s aid was channeled to recipients through UN and another 25% through the International Committee of the Red Cross, underscoring Mongolia’s desire to remain neutral in the conflict and to conduct all related activities through international organizations rather than through bilateral agreements with the parties involved. This circumstance of assistance to victims of the conflict through international organizations serves as an excuse for Mongolia’s lack of assistance to another category of victims of the escalating crisis, namely residents of Russian-controlled territories formerly part of the DNR, LNR and Ukraine. Finally, the international organizations prefer not to provide them with aid. In this “asymmetry” of Mongolian aid, one can also see the desire to show solidarity with the position of the “international community” without worsening relations with Russia.
Thus, Mongolia’s national position is committed to the principle of peaceful resolution of conflicts and benevolent neutrality toward the parties involved. It is entirely focused on Mongolia’s foreign policy interests, unobtrusive and evasive, devoid of emotional connotations, and formulated in such a way that Mongolia can, in appropriate situations, express its solidarity with the parties to the conflict through indirect but no less unambiguous hints. In the turbulent world of 2022, where there are still many important actors who are undecided in the contradictions that have already arisen, a small state like Mongolia cannot afford to clearly choose one camp or the other.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The world is currently experiencing an aging population, which will necessitate increased government spending in the coming decades to ensure an acceptable standard of living for older adults. As a result, officials and policymakers must adapt to shifting priorities by focusing on a comprehensive strategy for healthy aging.
An in-depth examination of the Arab World Demographic Report, published by the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia, sheds light on the region’s looming aging problem. By 2030, experts predict that there will be 49.6 million elderly people living in the Arab world, or 9.5 percent of the entire population. This figure is anticipated to surpass 102 million by 2050, with people 60 and older making up 15.1% of the population. Surprisingly, as a significant portion of young people are now approaching old age, the Arab world will age even faster starting in 2050. By 2050, the average life expectancy is predicted to be 76.9 years, necessitating massive financial investments and interventions to enhance the quality of old age.
Policymakers must examine specific trends that will have an impact on a number of crucial levers, including economic growth, productivity, retirement systems, talent base, living standards, consumption rates, housing demand, social safety nets, and health care, in the context of these alarming seismic shifts in population demographics, as noted in this report. And not only analyze, but also proactively improve their social programs from the ground up.
The idea of healthy aging will be at the forefront of many policy agendas in the future. Currently, the Arab world suffers from a number of chronic diseases, which cause people to live fewer healthy years. According to the World Health Organization, chronic diseases such as cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in the Eastern Mediterranean region, accounting for 2.6 million deaths in 2016. This figure is expected to increase to 3.8 million by 2030. As a result, governments are increasingly relying on comprehensive surveillance systems to collect, analyze, and interpret timely and sophisticated data on the prevalence and causes of chronic diseases in order to develop effective policies. To manage the influx of elderly patients, governments must raise the bar for health-care systems.
Many world-class public health systems are focusing on early detection programs to detect early signs of chronic disease and treat them before complications arise. Simultaneously, future healthcare delivery models will most likely revolve around preventive pathways that reduce or prevent the onset of chronic disease. As a result, governments are funding educational programs that discuss common strategies for improving healthy lifestyles. In addition, there is a remarkable transformation of urban space to allow for new cycling initiatives, green spaces, and walking projects to promote physical activity.
The Saudi Times reports that governments must raise the bar for healthcare systems to cope with the influx of elderly patients. Investing in breakthrough technologies and medical devices will be key to accessing life-saving services such as diagnostics, treatment, medications and palliative care. Equally important is universal health coverage, which ensures that patients in all regions are treated and cared for as soon as possible. Simultaneously, investment in geriatric research must be significantly increased in order to continue to find innovative solutions that improve the quality of life of the elderly.
The Arab region must focus on developing a sufficient medical workforce capable of meeting the increasing needs of the elderly population. This should include a diverse range of health workers, such as physicians, geriatric specialists, nurses, physical therapists, social workers, and caregivers, who may be responsible for the care of elderly patients in some capacity. The ability of countries to recruit, train, retain, and support health workers to provide excellent health and elder care services to the public needs to be improved. It is no secret that many well-trained medical professionals and especially nurses are migrating to Europe and the United States, causing a “brain drain” to the West, while there is a shortage of well-trained professionals in the Arab world.
Another important issue is the mental health of the elderly. The WHO estimates that more than 20 percent of adults aged 60 and older suffer from mental or neurological disorders. Mental health problems in older adults can be caused by a number of health issues, but also by difficult life experiences such as the loss of loved ones, retirement, loneliness, abuse and isolation. It is worth recalling that the situation in the Arab region is heated to the breaking point precisely because of the aggressive actions of the West, led by the United States, where age-old lifestyles and habits are literally crumbling before our eyes, with particularly negative effects on older people.
Therefore, policymakers must develop proactive and responsive services to improve mental well-being. This includes investing in early diagnosis of chronic disease, promoting preventive interventions, and training health professionals to provide high-quality mental health programs. Along these lines, social and community programs can go a long way toward improving well-being, such as maintaining contact with family and friends, participating in creative or cultural activities and lifelong learning programs, volunteering, and participating in community activities.
Given all these aspects of healthy aging, it will be more important than ever to encourage people to improve their own health. Educational programs along these lines are essential to promote personal responsibility in the prevention and management of chronic disease. Educational programs can focus, for example, on teaching effective pain management techniques, strength-building exercises, early health checkups, proper nutrition, depression and stress management, and healthy eating.
More than ever, it is critical for governments to implement programs to educate people about financial security, as it will have a profound impact on well-being in the years to come. This includes launching free online financial planning resources and tutorials, teaching people about retirement planning, and helping people buy a home as early as possible.
But standing in the way of improving the health and lives of Arabs is the cruel and selfish West, which has managed to live richly and without much trouble for nearly 1.5 centuries by robbing the natural wealth of the Arab world. Now, as the world is evolving from a unipolar to a multipolar one, the West has gone straight to open robbery to prolong its own cushioned existence. It is enough to cite the sad fate of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen to understand the logic of the Western rulers who will not change their post-colonial policies.
The huge sums of money that the West forcibly extracts from the Arab world are not enough for the Arabs to implement concrete and effective programs that help the elderly and prolong their health and lives. But the opportunity to challenge Western policies of plunder is critical for those Arab governments that expect to pave the way for their national policies, including creating better conditions for their aging populations.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
During President Yoon Suk-yeol’s visit to the United Arab Emirates, a “diplomatic misunderstanding” (the wording of the ROK Foreign Ministry) occurred, which, according to Yoon’s political opponents, destroyed the sisterly relations between Tehran and Seoul.
Since the days of Lee Myung-bak, South Korean special forces have been stationed in the UAE to train local troops. In a speech to the fighters on January 15, 2023 Yoon said, among other things: “The UAE is our brother country… The security of a brother country is our security. The enemy of the UAE, the most dangerous country (in another translation, the greatest threat), is Iran, and our enemy is North Korea… We are in a very similar situation.”
Of course, Tehran demanded an explanation: the Iranian Foreign Ministry called on the Korean government to explain these words of the President, calling them “interference in relations between Iran and the UAE, two neighboring countries and allies.” A spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry also said that the South Korean official’s remarks showed that he was totally unaware of Iran’s historical and friendly relations with Persian Gulf countries, including the UAE, and the positive changes taking place in this regard.
In response, the presidential administration and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea said on January 17 that Yoon Suk-yeol’s remarks had nothing to do with the current bilateral relations between Korea and Iran. The head of state’s remarks only served to encourage ROK soldiers who contribute to maintaining peace and security in the UAE.
The next day, Democratic Party chief Lee Jae-myung railed against the president, likening the incident to a diplomatic disaster: “With one-sided and biased diplomacy based on the notion that a friend’s enemy is my enemy, you cannot properly protect people and national interests.” Moreover, the president’s inappropriate and ill-considered remarks have provoked Iran, which could negatively affect Korean citizens in the country as well as South Korean ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The center-right Korea Times publication also noted that “Yoon should think at least three times before making diplomatic remarks”.
On January 19, Iran’s Foreign Ministry summoned South Korean Ambassador Yoon Kang-hyun, and voiced protest. Deputy Minister Reza Najafi emphasized Iran’s friendly relations with most Persian Gulf states and said Yoon’s remarks amounted to interfering in those relations and undermining peace and security in the region. Najafi stressed, “If effective measures are not taken to settle the dispute, we may reconsider our bilateral relations”.
On the same day, South Korea’s First Deputy Foreign Minister Cho Hyun-dong summoned Iranian Ambassador Saeed Badamchi Shabestari and explained Seoul’s position once again: The president’s remarks were words of support for our soldiers serving in the UAE and had nothing to do with South Korea’s relations with Iran and Iran’s international relations.
However, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani stated on January 23 that while Tehran recognized Seoul’s efforts, it was dissatisfied with the level of cooperation provided. The Democratic Party then reiterated on January 24 that President Yoon Suk-yeol was the greatest threat to South Korean diplomacy and security.
As you can see, the incident is not over yet, but the author would like to draw attention to the thesis that Yoon’s speech dealt a tremendous blow to relations between the two countries. Of course, the president should be more precise, and this is not the first time that Yoon Suk-yeol has made a slip of the tongue that needs to be clarified. However, the claim that there have been no problems between the two countries so far is, to say the least, far from the truth. Relations can be described as strained, and the reason for this strain dates back to Moon Jae-in’s reign.
Diplomatic relations between the two countries were established in 1962, and during Park Chung-hee’s administration, many South Korean workers earned money in Iran. Tehran-ro in southern Seoul is the only street in Korea named after a foreign city. The Iranian capital also renamed one of its boulevards Seoul Street in 1977.
Since 2018, more than $7 billion owed to Iran by the ROK has been frozen at the Industrial Bank of Korea and Uri Bank on US orders. The accounts were denominated in won to evade US sanctions on Iran, and Iran used the Korean accounts to pay for imports of non-sanctioned goods from Korea and other humanitarian goods exempt from sanctions. The US government gave the green light to this scheme after the denuclearization agreement had been signed with Tehran in 2015.
The Islamic republic was South Korea’s third-largest trading partner in the Middle East before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers and added Iran’s central bank to its sanctions list. Iran was a major oil supplier to resource-poor South Korea, importing industrial equipment, home appliances and auto parts in return.
Despite repeated requests by Tehran to release the frozen assets, Seoul maintains its stance that Iran cannot recover its funds in Korean banks until US sanctions against Iran are lifted. Although Korea is not a party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), it supports the reinstatement of the 2015 nuclear agreement between China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Iran.
All of the diplomatic news stories encountered by the author in 2020-2021 were related in one way or another to the issue of frozen assets, including the story about the seizure of the South Korean ship MT Hankuk Chemi by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in January 2021. In South Korea, the incident was seen as an attempt to force Seoul to hand over the frozen funds, although Tehran has repeatedly denied any connection.
On July 14, 2021, the Yonhap news agency, citing an unnamed source, reported that Iran had repaid a number of South Korean exporters with funds frozen in South Korean banks: 40 South Korean companies have received $70 million in overdue payments for goods exported to Iran.
Howbeit, on the same day, July 14, the Iranian Foreign Ministry stated that South Korea had taken no significant steps to release Tehran’s financial assets held in ROK banks, despite Seoul and Washington’s expressed willingness to cooperate in this matter.
On July 20, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani urged the Republic of Korea to seek a solution to the frozen assets issue during the ceremony of receiving credentials from Yun Kang-hyeon. Rouhani expressed hope that the issue would be resolved soon, as it has harmed bilateral relations and Iranian trust in the ROK. Despite Seoul’s assurances, the problem remains unresolved and Iran is having trouble buying medical and pharmaceutical equipment and vaccines against COVID-19.
On August 4, 2021 First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea Choe Jong-gon and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi met in Tehran, where the South Korean diplomat had arrived to attend President Raisi’s inauguration. During the conversation, Choe Jong-gon said Seoul was making “extraordinary” efforts to resolve the issue.
Nevertheless, being fed with promises was not satisfactory for Tehran, and Hossein Amir-Abdollahian warned that his country would sue South Korea if it continued to refuse to do its duty.
On November 29, 2021 amid ongoing diplomatic disputes over assets, South Korea welcomed the resumption of talks to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. However, on January 4, 2022 a US State Department official stated that sanctions against Iran would remain in place until Tehran returned to full compliance with the nuclear agreement.
Thus, at the time of the change of power in ROK, relations between the two countries were at an impasse, and Said Badamchi Shabestari bluntly stated that “Korea’s involvement in the sanctions jeopardizes its bilateral relations with Iran” and “Korea’s image in Iran deteriorates.” Nevertheless, the ambassador hoped for a new beginning in relations under a new president, especially since there had been no dramatic increase in anti-Iranian rhetoric in the media despite Iran’s membership in the “axis of evil.”
In June 2022, Foreign Minister Park Jin met with the Iranian ambassador and expressed hope that negotiations to restore the Iran nuclear agreement would gain momentum.
On October 3, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani reported progress in negotiations on the property issue. According to him, the sides were able to make positive progress in finding a solution to the problem. However, following the October 29, 2022 tragedy, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kanaani said that five Iranians had died in the tragic accident and that the South Korean government should have taken security measures during the Halloween celebrations. Moreover, Kanaani criticized Seoul for expressing concern over Iranian protests against the mandatory wearing of hijabs, adding that “Korea, which has maintained good relations with us in the past, has recently shown irresponsible behavior in matters such as frozen assets”.
The Korean Foreign Ministry rejected the Iranian representative’s criticism, stating that what he said reflected his own personal views as opposed to the Iranian government’s official position.
And, of course, Yoon’s statement in this context is a pretext, not a reason-it is no coincidence that all Iranian statements mentioned the $7 billion freeze and Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman stated on January 19 that the inability of the ROK to take effective action to resolve these issues would cause Tehran to reconsider its attitude toward relations with the ROK.
What next? The author doubts that Tehran will succeed because Seoul lacks independence on this issue, which means that similar excesses will occur from time to time. Just in case, the Korean Shipowners Association (KSA) has issued a warning to ships in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as South Korea transports more than 70% of its imported crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz. But it is already clear that although the current president of the ROK should have a better idea that anything that can be misunderstood will be misunderstood by the opposition’s efforts, it is not him but Moon Jae-in or his mentors in the US who are to blame for the crisis.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The first and, of course, alarming question to be expected after reading the title of this article can be formulated roughly as follows: “And what does India actually have to do with the Taiwan problem, which is almost central in the present phase of the “Great World Game”?” Any positive response to this question (“something will definitely happen”) would make any observer of the Indo-Pacific situation suspicious.
The only thing missing in the current, to say the least, complex system of relations between the two Asian giants, India and China, is the actualization of this problem. After all, it is the source of China’s most serious foreign policy wound. If you want to keep normal relations with China, you should not interfere with it in any way (that is, even indirectly). The executive branch of the Republic of India has no official relations with Taiwan. But can the recent trips to the island by some members of the Union Parliament and the articles by Indian experts (also published in Taiwanese publications) with strongly anti-Chinese content, directly calling on the Indian government to establish and develop comprehensive relations with Taiwan, be considered as “first signs” of Indian interest in contacts with Taiwan’s leadership?
Just take the title of a text from a year ago, “India must give Taiwan a helping hand”. Its author, Brahma Chellaney, is one of those researchers at the global table whose word carries a lot of weight and is not usually ignored by the major players. In particular, the above text was immediately heavily criticized in the Chinese Global Times.
Apparently in order to (at least) keep relations with India, already at a low level, Beijing has not publicly reacted to the precedents of visits by individual MPs to Taiwan. After all, such actions can be seen as private initiatives by low-profile politicians who are not part of the executive branch and do not have to obey it. However, such visits express many commonalities between the political order of the “two democracies” that can serve the process of developing India-Taiwan relations.
However, it is not just about general statements made by individual politicians and speculative constructions made by political scientists. There have recently been efforts to shape some concrete projects between India and Taiwan. A group of Taiwanese specialists visited India in August 2022 to assess the prospects for organizing the production of integrated electronic chips. It is worth noting that the implementation of such a project would be consistent with the United States’ efforts to exclude its main geopolitical adversary (China) from the international system of production of this critical product.
The head of World Buddhism is a very important figure in international politics (though not primarily due to the efforts of China’s main geopolitical adversary’s massive propaganda machine). China cannot afford to ignore a (de facto) politician of this stature who is “challenging its territorial integrity.”
Beijing did not do so even during the 14th Dalai Lama previous visit to Taiwan in August 2009. Relations between the mainland and the newly ascended ruler on the island were, as they say, in full bloom at the time. The pretext for the trip seemed good enough – to provide spiritual support to Taiwan’s Buddhist population, which had suffered from a series of catastrophic earthquakes, the epicenter of which was the island itself as well as China’s neighboring eastern provinces.
At the time, some demonstratively concrete (if fleeting) protests against the Buddhist spiritual leader’s visit to the island by Beijing concerned only Taiwan. These actions had no impact on India, from which he came to the island. The author does not recall any mention of India in connection with this incident. The problem of the two emerging Asian giants’ increasingly competitive positioning on the international stage was only sketched out in principle at the time.
However, the current situation in the region is markedly different, and for the worse, than it was fifteen years ago. First, Taiwan has been ruled by the Democratic Progressive Party and its (most recent) leader and current (with one year to go) president, Tsai Ing-wen, who have been labeled by the PRC with various derogatory epithets (“hopeless separatists,” “American agents”). Second, almost the entire system of Sino-Indian relations collapsed in the summer of 2020, and it has been slowly and painstakingly recovering ever since.
So it’s clear what (uncomfortable) questions might be asked today from Beijing to New Delhi if the 14th Dalai Lama’s declared intention to visit Taiwan comes true. For instance, questions like this, “Have certain boundaries for behavior inside and outside the country been set for this guest of yours, a refugee from our country who has been in your territory for more than 60 years? If so, has Taiwan been declared a place where visiting (at least without our government’s permission) constitutes a violation of those boundaries?”
It is also more or less obvious what the authors of such questions will hear as an answer. Namely, and roughly, the following: “The 14th Dalai Lama is on our territory along with hundreds of thousands of refugees after the famous events that took place in Tibet in 1959 with the participation of your PLA. Since then, they have been living with us in their own community without interfering in our public affairs. We cannot forbid the spiritual leader of world Buddhism to move both inside and outside our country. Such a trip has nothing to do with the politics of our country.” This is the end of the (hypothetical) dialog, and both participants are dissatisfied with its results. It will only add an extra touch to the current, to reiterate, complex picture of bilateral relations, which has accumulated enough negativity even without it.
The border patrol clash in Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh on December 9 last year was one such negative act. This area is referred to by the PRC as “southern Tibet” and is not recognized as belonging to India. The dispute over the right to the territory (an area of about 90,000 square kilometers) designated by this name is the basis for border incidents, which are not uncommon here. Fortunately, the latter incident did not go beyond simple physical violence and did not result in serious injuries to those involved. In India itself, however, the incident has led to fierce opposition rhetoric against the government and personally Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom they accuse of being “not tough enough” on China. There has also been another series of “space warnings” from the leadership of the Indian armed forces. However, the military is there (among other things) to regularly flex its muscles on inconvenient neighbors.
It is the worst possible time for the current leader of World Buddhism to visit his co-religionists in Taiwan. He would be wise to wait for the current upheaval in international relations in general, and in relations between the two Asian behemoths in particular, to end. Better times may come.
After all, as we all know, hope is the last to die.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
Mass shootings are mostly a Western thing, and most commonly American, where with distressing frequency a new shooter brings about carnage and raises calls to ban assault weapons. But the same is now happening in places such as Georgia, which is paying the price for trying to improve its lot by being uncritical US ally, rather than a partner in the actual meaning of the term.
A gunman has opened fire from his balcony, killing six people, including a police officer, and injuring five others in the eastern Georgian town of Sagarejo before taking his own life. Local media has identified the man as Nodar Atuashvili, who served in Georgia’s armed forces between 2006 and 2021, in a “blood for bread”-type scenario.
As we might imagine, there is much more to this story than the simple facts as reported by Radio Free Europe. It may have far reaching implications, especially in terms of access to weapons and criminal links to Ukraine, as the weapons Atuashvili used were his own, and derived from his service in that conflict.
How come?
Many are asking whether former soldiers should be allowed to have weapons and explosives at home. Of course, they shouldn’t but we should not be surprised that they do, and that this shooting was one of the consequences.
Considering the number of weapons held in Georgia, and the links between this and the ongoing situation in Ukraine, US Special Services, and how a coup is being prepared by some in the UNM and the Georgian Legion, this was going to happen eventually. No one ever really thought that these weapons would only be used under direct US direction, against the “bad guys” who get in the way of US plans for the area.
The same has happened in the US, with former soldiers from the Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts. Many of those coming back from the illegal wars of recent history suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD.
These were conditioned to kill, drugged up, and at times still don’t know the difference between war and reality. The fact that these wars were illegal has played no small part in damaging these soldiers, as we will all sacrifice ourselves for a cause, but not for one we don’t believe in, and know we were lied to about by the people demanding our sacrifice.
Reports of Georgian soldiers dying in the fight for Ukraine’s independence are at first impression heartwarming, at least for the naïve. But those soldiers too are part of a US-sponsored plan to get Georgia into a conflict with Russia, designed to benefit the US and NATO in their proxy war over Ukraine, and no Georgian soldier wants to see such a conflict.
The responsibility for what happened in Sagarejo lies mostly with those behind the weapons and mentally wounded soldiers being sent back to Georgia – the US Embassy. When the US gives its regular defensive tirades about all it is doing for the region, rather than addressing the actual allegations being made at a given time, this is one of the many things it conveniently leaves out.
The (Anti)-Georgian Legion Strikes Again
Jeffrey Silverman, Bureau Chief for Veterans Today, has spent the last six months warning Georgian newspapers and [indirectly] the Georgian government, and the international community, of this possibility with his interviews.
He is quoted as saying, “I hope now the Georgian government will finally wake up to the threat and take drastic control over the situation, and question and detain potential threats as to their connections with Afghanistan, Ukraine and weapons. Many weapons from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other places are in Georgia, but are stored in various locations and should not be hard to find. Investigators should start with some USAID connected warehouses in the Zugdidi region of West Georgia, connected to a former USAID-funded hazelnut project.
“Investigators should contact former OSCE and EUMM members for details about these warehouses, as they know but are afraid to speak openly about this—as it could end some careers. These murders should be a warning, but if the Georgian Prime Minister goes to visit the families of the five who were murdered, is it possible that he will be threatened with something?”
Silverman is a former US military Forward Observer, 19D. He suggests Georgian border guards be activated in this investigation, as many in the Georgian army, especially NCOs, are active in support of the Georgian Legion, because they receive money from the US government, including off the books, for being so.
The US knows, as it demonstrates in every country it stays in, that its local recruits are not motivated by ideals but by the money the US offers. Has the Georgian Legion come home to Georgia and disrupted Georgia internally in an effort to create a nexus between war in Ukraine and removing the Georgian government. So accepting this money is treason, conducted by armed forces personnel.
There are other potential illegal groups involved in this disruption. These include Turkish terrorist group the Grey Wolves, or rogue operatives thereof, who are looking to destabilise Georgia in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and Samchablo (South Ossetia). However, their main region of interest is Adjaria, which was reunited with Georgia during the 1877 Russian-Ottoman war.
There are few operating under the Georgian flag that can be trusted, or are skilled enough to react, if a coup is attempted by some now retired or deactivated soldiers from the Georgian Army. If Turkey assists in this, even if unofficially, it can regain what it lost in 1877, which would be entirely consistent with Erdogan’s known political position.
People such as Mamuka Mamulavili and his sister Nona, (whatever their real names are), are driven only by selfish goals in the war in Ukraine, not by any patriotism or respect for human rights. They will work to destroy Georgia for their short-term goals, as so many have done before that your average Georgian-in-the-street expects this to happen sooner or later whichever government is in charge.
There have been other weapons-related deaths in Georgia, and a history of the Georgian Army selling weapons to Chechen terrorists. The money for these came from the proceeds of a US Department Food for Peace Program. Have we forgotten that Levan Samkharauli, an expert on the case of Zurab Zhvania, the former Georgian PM who ended up dead from (officially) poison gas, was brought to Kakheti and killed by firearms?
He was killed in a lake resort, probably as part of the cover up of those responsible for the murder, in which forensic evidence disappeared and was intentionally tainted so as to hide who actually killed Zurab Zhvania. However, most people don’t want to remember that, and especially how the FBI was involved in the destruction of evidence.
Is Georgia Under a Real and Imminent Threat?
Silverman continues, “Georgia is under greater threat now than at any time since I came to live here in 1991. Education is collapsing, people are fleeing and the country is being sold off. I see this threat coming more from within than outside, as many people have stopped caring. Public health is in crisis, for most people poverty is increasing, and this creates the conditions for people to support criminals as an alternative.
“Don’t forget perceived or real threats from Ukraine – many think it didn’t send a single bullet or knife to help Georgia back in August 2008 when it attacked its own citizens. Ukraine had supplied air defence systems and electronic warfare jamming equipment, but then-president Mikhael Saakashvili made sure this was never used, and even fired the military experts who knew how to use it right before the war, to make sure Russia had air and communications superiority.
“There are many things I could tell you about what actually happened in August 2008, as this was not a war but a game in support of the US government. Look at Ukraine now, with Arestovich’s resignation and the deaths of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and his staff in the downing of a helicopter.
“There are those in Ukraine who understand the military conflict is coming to an end, and NOT in favour of Ukraine and its Western backers; there must be a negotiated settlement. Now Poland wants to mobilise Ukrainian refugees to go fight as cannon fodder. That is not going to go well, as many Ukrainians know what is going on and don’t want to die in vain.
“When the negotiations with Russia began, one Ukrainian high-ranking official who participated in them was killed. What does this mean? The hardliners are desperate, and more will die, I suspect this was not an accident. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany, when officers tried to get rid of Hitler when they understood he was crazy and the war would not end well for Germany.
“From my analysis, being paid by some to know what is happening in Georgia, there is great potential for an unstable situation developing, not only here but the region, and it is only going to get worse, politically, economically and even culturally. As for Georgia, if the government does not stop the destabilisation from within and crack down on the plotters, certain political parties, and think tanks, NGOs, etc. it will not survive.
“So far the situation is under control, but because of US staff, mostly associated with the US Embassy and military, and some Georgian Volunteers in Ukraine bad will get worse, as they need a backup base of operation in the region. Ukraine may soon be a failed state, so they will (again) turn their attention to Georgia.
“January 18 marked the 80th anniversary of the lifting of the Leningrad blockade. After 80 years, there is now more talk of German tanks being provided to Ukraine. No German tanks should ever be sent to Ukraine, and I doubt any more will be sent, as Germany does not want them destroyed or for the technology to fall into the hands of the Russians.
“Ukraine needs more than a few tanks. It needs crews to operate them, and that takes time. Ukraine does not have time. I doubt Germany is foolhardy enough to be providing additional tanks.
“Germans are what they are and will never change. The only thing they are sorry for is that they lost the war”. It should be noted that Silverman’s father fought in France and Germany and was wounded in 1945, and Silverman therefore grew up knowing about aspects of the German character, and can speak German.
Georgia and Germany were connected in World War One, when the British supported Armenia in starting a war with Georgia, providing weapons and encouragement to the Armenians to take Georgian territory and then giving it to Armenia in the peace negotiations when Georgia had won that war.
In World War Two at least 30,000 Georgians fought on the side of Germany against the West and the USSR. Fortunately, most Georgians fought against the fascists, as you would expect given Georgia’s exemplary history of protection of its ancient Jewish community, but all that was forgotten by a significant minority in exchange for cash.
The Bogey Man
Jeffrey Silverman knows former Georgian president Mikhael Saakashvili well, having once edited letters to gain financial support for him. He now describes him as a poster child, scapegoat, useful idiot and lamb to be slaughter. Saakahvili is being kept alive for the short-term gain of former sponsors who are desperate to drop him as soon as he has served his purpose. We can see that by the things being discussed now in Georgia.
For instance, current president Salome Zurabishvili has stated that she does not welcome the resumption of commercial flights to Russia or visa free travel. US Ambassador Kelly Degnan toes the same line. So, what do these people want?
Zurabishvili, with her long history as a French spy, was imposed on the electorate as a quid pro quo for not destroying the current Georgian government sooner. She is not working for the needs of Georgia, and really is an enemy of the Georgian people.
Both she and Kelly Degan are frustrated old women no longer in their prime. They show their faces by making a mess of an already complicated situation. They both need to go back whence they came!
In Georgia, the economy is developing, but in a very perverse way. There is a deep split in society, a small handful of people (such as Salome and others) are quickly getting richer and a large mass is slipping into the deepest poverty.
Many people have stopped caring about the country, seeing the hopelessness of the situation. To distract people from internal problems, the ruling elite, especially the UNM and some in the Georgian Dream, are looking for an external enemy.
The ex-serviceman sacrificed for the agenda caused a huge tragedy in the Eastern Georgian town of Sagarejo. Just imagine what the rest of the paid killers will do when they return from Ukraine!
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
All international political alliances (particularly military-political ones) are formed on the basis of shared interests and threats to two or more international relations subjects. In other words, there is something that unites and something against which the alliance is formed. NATO’s formation in 1949, led by the United States, signaled the beginning of a new era in international relations and foreshadowed the collective West’s Cold War against the Soviet Union and its satellites.
In Soviet historiography, the ideological component (particularly the opposition of the capitalist system to the socialist choice, the liberal-market model vs the planned state-led economy) was overly dominant in assessing the causes and content of the Cold War. In the second half of the twentieth century, such a justification for the opposition of the two world systems corresponded to reality. However, it should be noted between the lines that the world powers’ contradictions and opposition are determined not only by their ideological, political, and economic systems, but also by deeper issues related to geopolitical (from the root geo, geographical) and historically developed national interests. The goal is the struggle for leadership in world affairs and the preservation of the great power status.
This viewpoint has been reinforced throughout the post-Soviet period of global conflict at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. However, the demise of the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO), as well as the rejection of the socialist system, have not resulted in greater and more reliable security for the world. Despite numerous warnings to its Western partners about the inadmissibility of NATO eastward expansion and even Moscow’s readiness to join the North Atlantic Alliance in the early 2000s, Russia, as the successor to the USSR, has remained the main adversary for the US and its allies.
It is precisely NATO’s attitude toward Russia, combined with ongoing contradictions and local conflicts in the post-Soviet space, the majority of which are related to the consequences of the former USSR’s demise, that has led to the current confrontation between the West and Russia in Ukraine. The latter takes the form of a hybrid (economic sanctions, information, technical, and political support for the Kyiv regime) and, more recently, outright (massive military and military-technical support for Kyiv) war.
Accordingly, the imperatives of NATO have not changed since its inception in 1949 until today in terms of confrontation with Russia. However, the situation within NATO has objectively changed after the collapse of the USSR and the WTO, which is associated with the expansion of membership through the accession of new members from the Baltic countries, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and an increase in the number of partners in the post-Soviet space (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and a group of sympathizers from Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan).
Thus, NATO’s eastward expansion, which is not militarily or politically supported by real military threats, serves the geopolitical interests of the Anglo-Saxon leaders (the US and the UK). Their goal is to establish their own global dominance in Eurasia through control of the CIS countries’ natural resources and geography, as well as to form a new corridor of separation between Russia and China in order to exclude the likely centers of resistance to Washington and London’s ambitions.
And, in this process of seeking new partners, the US, while not dismissing Turkey’s role on NATO’s southeastern flank, no longer sees it as the only ally in this theater. Furthermore, the wholesale destabilization of Middle Eastern countries undertaken by the US and Britain with the 2003 invasion of Iraq provides Americans with a new operational maneuver in that region and reduces their relative dependence on Turkey’s next “whims.”
Such shifts in Turkish-American relations could not go unnoticed in Turkish leaders’ political circles. As is well known, the main focus of their disagreements is on Turkish-Greek relations (particularly the issue of Cyprus and several Aegean islands) and the Kurdish issue. There is also the Turkish strategy of neo-Ottomanism and neo-Panturkism aimed at reviving Turkey’s imperial status in the southeast, and, most importantly, the Turkish-Russian multifaceted partnership, which has the potential to transform into a strategic relationship.
The United States cannot tolerate this: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s policy on Turkey’s military and technical cooperation with Russia; Ankara’s refusal to fully support Western sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine crisis; the Turkish-Russian situational partnership in the South Caucasus; the Turkish president’s intention to block Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to NATO.
Washington sees “the hand of Moscow” in everything and everywhere. Of course, from the beginning, Russia has made no secret of its critical attitude toward Sweden’s and Finland’s intentions to join NATO. Moreover, Moscow has not changed its views since the Cold War, seeing no threat to the security of these Scandinavian countries from Russia. In other words, Moscow has given the Finns and Swedes no reason to worry, regardless of the aggravation of Russian-Ukrainian relations.
As for Turkey’s position, expressed by President R. Erdoğan, regarding the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, Russia has nothing to do with it (although it understands the concerns of Mr. Erdoğan, who represents a country of 85 million people). Turkey justifies its special position regarding Finland’s and Sweden’s inclusion in the alliance on the basis of its own national interests (in particular, it condemns Helsinki’s and Stockholm’s support for Kurdish separatism in Anatolia).
The recent provocative anti-Turkish action of January 21 this year, when the leader of the Danish anti-Islamic party and racist Rasmus Paludan burned the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm, not only provoked a negative reaction in Turkish society, but was also another shock for the entire Islamic and civilized world. Of course, Ankara demands a just punishment from Stockholm for this manifestation of racism and xenophobia, otherwise Turkey will show its determination to rule out any Swedish attempt to join NATO.
Judging by the ambiguous reaction of the US diplomatic corps officials to the racism in Stockholm (they say that citizens’ freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by law in a democratic society and cannot be restricted by the authorities), one has the impression that the action is not accidental. Those who stand behind Paludan can understand only too well the reaction of indignation that the burning of the most important book of Islam, the Quran, has provoked among all Muslims and especially among Turks.
Comparing the recent statements of the former US President’s Security Advisor John Bolton on the possible suspension (or revocation) of Turkey’s membership in NATO and the anti-Turkish action of Rasmus Paludan in Stockholm, as well as the statement of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg on the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO without regard to the opinion of others, one cannot help but see the sequence of the West’s anti-Turkish moves.
In other words, Washington warns President R. Erdoğan and with him Turkey that the warnings of threats will become reality if the latter continue to pursue a course independent of the United States (including cooperation with Russia, opposition to the collective opinion of the West on the fate of the new NATO members and on any other issue). Thus, NATO could suspend Turkey’s membership in NATO in one decision and admit Sweden and Finland in another.
The deputy of the Turkish Motherland Party, Ethem Sancak, believes that Turkey can leave NATO in 5–6 months because of the provocations of the alliance against Ankara (the Greek-Turkish controversy, the Middle East issues, the action against the Quran in Sweden), the Azerbaijani website minval.az reports.
Someone has seen pro-Russian tendencies in this statement of Ethem Sancak (as well as in the activities of the Motherlan Party of Doğu Perinçek, which he represents). In reality, Russia has nothing to do with the Vyathan (Motherland) Party itself, its leaders and statements. Moreover, Russia knows very well that the United States is unlikely to reject Turkey’s membership in NATO for objective geographic reasons and because of Ankara’s political aspirations with respect to a number of important (including post-Soviet) regions and countries. Washington is simply blackmailing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, seeking both to contain his independent policies and to deprive Turkey itself of the right to vote without US government recommendations.
Thus, the US does not intend to exclude Turkey from membership in NATO, but only sternly warns Ankara about what it should do and what it should not do. Otherwise, Washington threatens to exacerbate all of Turkey’s external and internal contradictions and arrange a “Turkish Spring” to either transform its government into a controllable regime or fragment Turkey’s territorial integrity, taking into account current and dormant ethnic issues.
Aleksandr Svarants, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
After the end of World War II, the United States not only managed to preserve its army and economy, but it also significantly enriched itself in the war. This is not surprising given that the war occurred far from the United States’ borders and could not have had the same impact on the United States as Europe and Russia, who had paid for their victory over Nazism with completely destroyed cities, businesses, infrastructure, and the deaths of millions of their citizens.
Against the backdrop of widespread postwar devastation and disasters, Europe used to believe that the Americans were the principal winners, not Russia, who had paid for the victory over Nazism with the lives of 26.6 million of its citizens and raised its victorious flag over the German Reichstag. This perception of the United States was actively promoted by American propaganda. So there was a legend that the United States has the most powerful army and economy, which the ruling American circles used to consolidate their global hegemony.
However, in recent years, this bubble of American superiority has burst. Washington’s continuous political and military defeats (one of which is the complete failure of US policy and its military campaign in Afghanistan), as well as the United States’ annual deepening of the global financial and economic crisis, have all contributed to the decline of US power and authority. Under these conditions, one way for Washington to stay “afloat” was to stop its financial and economic crisis at the expense of other states.
In this context, the United States has recently begun to actively impose economic sanctions, arresting multibillion-dollar accounts of undesirable countries and freezing them in their banks, therefore earning significant interest from making very impressive funds seized by them “work”. In its history, the United States has repeatedly applied its sanctions against other countries. In particular, this list included more than two dozen countries in the last three decades alone, including: Balkan states (during the Balkans conflict, these were Serbia and Montenegro), Belarus (in 2004, the US adopted the “Belarus Democracy Act”), Burma (in 1997), Cote d’Ivoire (in 2011, the US imposed sanctions on President Laurent Gbagbo), Cuba (only in 2000, the US decided to use frozen accounts totaling $120 million to pay “compensation to victims of Cuban terrorism), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (sanctions have been extended several times since 2006), Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and many other countries. The US blocked $330 billion in Russian assets in 2022, and Russians with assets worth more than $30 billion face sanctions.
Thus, Washington’s actions have become its main weapon for destroying foreign corporations that interfere with aggressive American businesses, and have earned the moniker “law fare.” Specifically, using the so-called Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and applying it to a company of any nationality that has nothing to do with the United States, Washington began using the FBI to arrest the management of such a corporation and send it to prison in the American territory, even under a presumption and without direct evidence. Within the framework of this law, a simple suspicion of bribery is sufficient for the US Department of Justice to bring charges against the head of a foreign company and issue a mandate to its authorities to arrest him. As a result, the US began to meddle in the affairs of any foreign company, removing its competitors.
The recognition by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the products of a number of Chinese companies (in particular, Xiaomi, Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, and a number of others) that were banned from import and sale due to the alleged risk to national security was a fairly striking example of Washington’s elimination of competing companies from the market. A member of the Carr commission, in order to gain public support in the country, even tried to point out that China allegedly threatens the interests of the United States through espionage through such companies.
However, such outright terror on the part of the US has recently become practiced not only against a specific foreign corporation. The United States has long abandoned “free trade” laws, providing political support to its businesses while disregarding the interests of other countries, particularly the EU. Against the backdrop of the Ukraine conflict, it became clear to everyone that the most important lever for any country’s development was energy, and the US decided to use this aspect to maintain its superiority over Europe. It began to do this thanks to new laws, shale gas and the imposition of an embargo on Russian energy resources. One of the most important laws for the United States on this path was the “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), thanks to which the US gained a decisive competitive advantage over Europe, primarily in the field of energy.
Having unleashed a Russophobic propaganda campaign on the alleged need for Europe to move away from energy dependence on Russia, thereby removing it from competition for this EU market, Washington has made the entire continent dependent on American LNG, which is many times more expensive than Russian natural gas. And this has been repeatedly confirmed by Western media and experts who speak about the onset of a new era of American neocolonialism in this way. Companies in Europe, for example, have recently signed more than a dozen contracts for the supply of expensive US LNG, with a third of them due in 2022. This made the EU dependent on the United States and brought many dangers, especially against the background of lessons from the time of Donald Trump’s rule, which showed that the image of the United States as a reliable partner of Europe is especially low. Gas prices in the United States have already more than doubled since the beginning of last year, as have electricity prices. And, if the US does not have enough gas, it will decide to keep the majority of it for itself, condemning the EU to a severe crisis, which has already engulfed Europe as a result of America’s aggressive actions in recent months.
It is well known that a fifth of the world’s semiconductor production is accounted for by Chinese manufacturers. That is why, and in order to gain illegal advantages for itself in this industry, Washington forces its customers and suppliers in Europe to follow US policy. For example, the Dutch firm ASML has recently been under increased pressure from the United States by “American officials” to force it to stop selling some chip-making machines to China. Trying to become a global monopolist in the field of chip manufacturing, the United States has actively engaged in eliminating competitors in this way, not only in China, but also in the EU. Since October 2022, when the United States legislated a number of bans on the export of semiconductors to China, it became clear that the current White House administration is pursuing a ruthless policy in the field of chips under the motto “America first”. According to the German media, if Europe does not take action to stop this aggressive policy, it will lose its dominance in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. And not only semiconductors!
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Since it’s establishment in 2008, the BRICS forum, in the absence of economic, political or geographical dominance by any of the participating countries, has created comfortable and parity conditions for cooperation between states, steadily deepening it between countries located in different parts of the world on different contingents, in different hemispheres. Potential rivalry among the members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has given way to convergent, cumulative cooperation. Each of the members expanded the work to involve new participants or new observers, energized the activities of institutions and civil society, and actively participated in the improvement of relations in the field of economy, finance, social sustainability and political security. Despite differences in foreign policy positions in a number of areas, the BRICS have remained an important forum for discussing geopolitical trends. These steps alone highlight the multipolarity of the global integration process, in which the members of the association, as countries with actively developing economies, currently play a leading role.
The year 2022 of China’s BRICS chairmanship has given an additional poweful impetus to the BRICS+ format and the interaction of the five key countries of this association with other developing states. Algeria, Argentina, and Iran applied to join the BRICS in June 2022, confirming the organization’s growing appeal in the global economy. After the announcement by the president of the BRICS international forum Purnima Anand at the June virtual XIV summit of the leaders of the association that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey also intend to become BRICS members in 2023, a number of Western states started talking about the fact that this statement is allegedly just some kind of opportunistic geopolitical game. However, there was nothing surprising in such steps of these three Muslim countries, since the West, with its arrogant and dismissive attitude, itself took Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey out of the brackets, clearly not considering them “promising” for integration into the “Western community” in the future. And this was confirmed by the non-announcement of these three countries, which are very important in current international affairs, to the last G7 summit in Madrid, where, nevertheless, other “non-Western countries” were invited: India, South Africa, Japan, Argentina, Indonesia, South Korea, Senegal, Jordan and Mauritania.
While performing its primary functions, the BRICS association does not pursue any confrontational goals, such as the formation of a new closed economic formation or a political club directed against third countries, which unfortunately abound in various formations established recently by the West. On the contrary, in an era when the world community is confronted with an increasing number of new challenges and threats, the BRICS member states are convinced that only by pooling global efforts can key international problems be solved. The BRICS partnership strategy is to organize mutually beneficial cooperation with other international political and economic organizations in order to develop a program of constructive actions to stabilize the global economy and create a harmonious global order.
The victory of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil’s presidential elections confirmed recent changes in the political situation in Latin America. The unconditional reinforcement of these processes, which led to the formation of new international cooperation principles on this continent, was the election of politicians representing a new wave of independence from Western dictates in Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Honduras, and Colombia, as well as the restoration of the Venezuelan economy, which has suffered from the illegal US sanctions policy since 2014. Argentine President Alberto Fernández confirmed the shift in Latin American policy during a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on January 29, saying that his country would not supply weapons to Kyiv’s neo-Nazi regime, as the US insists.
According to the Argentine president, other Latin American countries will follow Buenos Aires’ lead. And this position was recently confirmed by Brazilian President Lula da Silva, who stated that his country would not transfer shells for Leopard tanks to Germany, citing concerns about the appearance of these ammunition in Ukraine, which could harm Latin American countries’ relations with Russia.
Thus, the leaders of Argentina, Brazil, and their Latin American counterparts have clearly demonstrated that they do not intend to sever ties with Moscow in order to advance the geopolitical interests of the West, but rather to pursue an independent foreign policy.
South Africa, which took over the BRICS chairmanship from China on January 1, has already stated in Foreign Ministry statements and speeches that it values its membership in the group and intends to support the effective work of this influential organization in the world, working on the basis of consensus and continuity. As the principal focus of its presidency, South Africa proclaimed the BRICS-Africa collaboration to accelerate growth, sustainable development, and inclusive multipolarity. In terms of new chances for collaboration, South Africa aims to pay close attention to Africa’s growth and the potential involvement of the BRICS in the functioning of the African Continental Free Trade Zone. Musa Mbhele, the president of the administration of the South African city of Durban, has previously called on the BRICS nations to establish a free trade zone to boost the growth of BRICS commercial relations.
Numerous experts and international observers believe that BRICS has already formed the global governance of the twenty-first century, presenting to the world various fundamental concepts, missions, institutionalization models, and priorities that correspond to the current extremely difficult conditions of confrontation with the Western neocolonial policy of domination. The BRICS Business Council’s final report in 2022 featured 39 ideas in the fields of sustainable development, responsible social management, innovation, energy, and food security, all of which are vitally pertinent topics right now. The BRICS interstate organization is playing an increasingly essential and prominent role in the rapidly developing architecture of the multipolar world order. In terms of buying power parity, the BRICS countries’ GDP has already surpassed that of the G7 countries.
Experts anticipate that by 2050, the overall volume of the BRICS economies will exceed that of the G7 economies: USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Japan. As stated during the XIV BRICS summit on June 23, 2022, the BRICS organization, which previously intended only to focus the efforts of the developing world, now intends to strengthen the non-Western world’s resource through expansion in the context of economic and geopolitical confrontation with Western countries.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
America is on the ropes. As a citizen of the United States, someone whose family helped shape a great nation, it is a tragedy beyond comprehension. But it is real, I assure you. For decades now, those who watched closely took in the incremental devolution of the republic. Then, with the resignation speech of President Eisenhower, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the political coup against Richard Nixon, an oligarchy of deceit formed a dark empire. Today, we are on the threshold of Armageddon because of “them.”
I was just reading comments from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his discussions with the President of the Republic of Angola Joao Lourenco. The meeting boiled down to an assessment of the international situation concerning Ukraine and the West’s unhinged support and promotion of Nazism resurfacing.
No More Detroit
They also discussed the hybrid war the United States is waging against Russia. Both confirmed that the U.S. and its allies are engaged in exerting unprecedented pressure on the developing economies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America in a reenactment of the colonialism period of European history. On many occasions, Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed out that the West is using the same colonial methods “in order to plunder other countries and to use resources of global importance for its gain.” This is not a conspiracy theory, for any honest and intelligent American citizen knows where the United States’ wealth comes from. It’s not from Detroit or the textile mills of Georgia and the Carolinas, that’s for sure.
Lavrov and Angola’s leader further discussed how the US is trampling on the same globalization our leaders advertised as “the way.” The move to make America’s elite families more prosperous, which led to our core economic advantages being disintegrated, was supposed to promote fair competition worldwide. Instead, even our property is becoming inviolable, a target for the World Economic Forum to usurp for our good. Mr. Putin correctly assessed that my country would betray its allies at any given moment to keep the price of gas and bread Americans stable. And that stability fuels rampant super consumerism to enrich technocrats, Wall Street banksters, and the wealthiest of the wealthy in the west.
Putin used Afghanistan, Iraq, and the 2011 Arab Spring as prime examples of how American friends and allies can quickly become targets of regime change, outright war, and massive crimes against humanity covered up by corporate media. I won’t get into Julian Assange and the other whistleblowers in prison or sought by CIA assassins. The most recent revelations by Elon Musk about the FBI, the CIA, and the so-called “Deep State” rigging Twitter are just the latest revelations. Facebook’s Zuckerberg admitted to conspiring with the FBI to previously infringe on people’s free speech. Unfortunately, these elites now have complete information control. Americans who might care, or who could act, have no idea why Joe Biden is marching us into World War III.
A War to Isolate Russia
The reason for the coming world war is pretty simple. At least, America has used it up, worn it out, and eaten it all for the past half-century. One nation of just over 300 million souls consumes one-quarter of virtually every commodity on the planet. Even the Romans were not so greedy in their exploitation of conquered territories. And while our methods differ from those of the Caesars, the result is the unprecedented enrichment of one society above all others. And by far, up until recently. Those who disagree might ask, “Okay, what is in Angola that is so important to American interests?” Some readers will already know the answer. Washington hates to see Sergey Lavrov talking with Joao Lourenco about oil, natural gas, and valuable mineral reserves. Only the reason for this is not so apparent.
Angola has vast untapped oil and gas resources estimated at 9 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and 11 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Looked at another way, Angola’s peak daily oil production is about 20% of what the Saudis can maintain. So all Angola needs to become the wealthiest country in Africa is a massive refinery. The government has to spend $2 billion a year on refined oil products for domestic use. Angola is as transparent a case for neo-colonial efforts by western nations as it exists. Plug in Italy’s ENI oil and gas contracts for exploration and production, add Norway’s Equinor, BP, Chevron, and Exxon Mobile, and the picture becomes more evident. Still, the primary stimulus for warring with Russia is obscure for most people. I’ll try to explain briefly.
We are in an unprecedented transitional phase where fossil fuel demand peaks and other technologies and commodities are rising. Experts predict that peak demand for liquid fuels will top out at about 103.2 million barrels daily. This number was determined by comparing data from all the most verifiable sources. This Washington Post story outlines how past recessions, COVID-19, and the coming global recession will negatively affect demand. Factoring in the desperate move toward electric cars and other so-called renewable solutions, what we are seeing now is an energy profits war. The west is optimizing profits for some different phase of this conflict.
One way for the western elites to marginalize Russia for good will be to make oil and gas unsellable commodities. At least, this is one strategy. The Titans of energy know that remaining fossil fuels must be sold at the absolute optimum price. And the only way to do this is to interrupt supply. But Biden’s war on Russia is not about stopping Russians from profiting on gas; it’s about Americans and their British buddies benefiting by a lot more. This quote from the WAPO article serves as an illustration:
“…oil demand has continued to grow as the indispensable energy carrier fueling rising global incomes and development. Still, the reserves of stamina that crude has called on to maintain its upward trajectory are finally giving out.”
In short, it’s a race to reap massive profits for the short term and to ramrod future alternatives into the consumer space without Russia and probably without China. This would leave both competitors holding an empty bag where worldwide competition over energy is concerned. Still, profiting massively from places like Angola, and the other energy periphery, is a short to mid-term strategy. I believe that the energy tycoons will use the conflict with Russia to optimize profits for investment in electric vehicles and other oil-intensive sectors. Perhaps the military-industrial complex factors in? Or, some Bill Gates depopulation schemes could also be in the mix. Given today’s uncertainties, who can say?
As for Russia and China, cheap oil and gas can still boost industrial growth. I also think emerging economies are the broader targets of trade and consumption. Putin and his BRICS partners know what is coming. I would not be surprised to see discussions about fueling new industrialization in all these countries with the use of cheap Russian fuels. That is, once the nuclear Winter blows over.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
We recently wrote about the ways the United States’ allegations of North Korean munitions shipments to Russia had created a new standard of proof. However, it appears that the US side is not content with having hit rock bottom once again.
On January 20, 2023 National Security Council Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby raised new allegations against the Wagner PMC and Russia, claiming that the US had presented its intelligence findings to the relevant expert group of the UN Security Council (Committee 1718, which is in charge of sanctions against the DPRK). Although this was the first time ever any “evidence” had been presented, it was unfortunately very peculiar type of proof.
The world was shown “rare, declassified photographs of Russian rail cars traveling between Russia and North Korea in November” and what Kirby described as the original delivery of North Korean weapons to the Russian PMC. According to the US statement, the photos were of a five-car train that ran between the Khasan (Russian Federation) and Tumangan stations on November 18 and 19, 2022, and those cars contained ammunition for Wagner.
“We obviously condemn North Korea’s actions and call on North Korea to immediately stop these shipments to Wagner,” Kirby said at the start of the daily White House press briefing. He then stated that “while we estimate that the amount of material delivered to Wagner has not changed the dynamics of the fight in Ukraine, we anticipate that it will continue to receive North Korean weapons systems” and therefore “will not preclude imposing additional sanctions if deemed appropriate at the UN”. As an aside, it was noted that North Korea continues to circumvent sanctions with the help of Russia and China.
On January 23, State Department spokesman Ned Price also stated that the United States and South Korea regularly discuss how to counter threats from North Korea, including “the supply of weapons and other military equipment from North Korea to Wagner units for use in Ukraine”.
Not coincidentally, not only Russian but also Western experts who deal with North Korea professionally have noted this reference with some surprise. Even those who dislike the North reacted in the style of “maybe the US has other evidence that has not been shown to us, but this is just a hint.”
Asked by RIA Novosti if it could be said with certainty that the pictures show weapons being transported from the DPRK to Russia, NK News director Chad O’Carroll said the photos do not show what is called hard evidence that would confirm US claims. The photos DO NOT show weapons or grenades being loaded and only include an image of Russian rail cars in North Korea – which, he adds, Russian media have also written about. That White House officials, according to O’Carroll, “show some level of specificity by releasing satellite images of a certain date showing rail cars and cargo” only means that Washington is very confident in its intelligence, but “anyone would be happy to see more detailed evidence”.
Another US expert noted that the pictures provided by Kirby show covered rail cars in which containers of ammunition would not fit, especially since they are loaded on platforms and not in boxcars. He also pointed out that “the versions voiced by Washington keep changing. In September, they claimed that North Korea was supplying Russia with millions of artillery shells and missiles. They claimed Pyongyang was trying to make it appear that the supplies were going to the Middle East and Africa, but in fact they were going to Russia. Now that version is forgotten – there is a new one. Meanwhile, one million shells is 50,000 tons, which is several large ships.”
The claim that the data were sent to the committee that investigated the sanctions is also not identical to the fact that the experts who examined them agreed with the American version.
In this context, the author will try to explain to the audience what more reasonable evidence of this kind would look like, using pictures of the train: Here is a picture of what looks like a military factory, and of containers of ammunition being loaded into wagons; here is a traceable route (because it is not particularly difficult to trace their path through the consignor system) by which a train from North Korea went directly into the front line area where it was unloaded, whereupon the shell shortage ended in that section of the front line. Such things can still be used as evidence, although indeed some questions remain.
The second thing that came to the author’s mind was a quote from a Russian cartoon, “This picture is useful: it covers a hole in the wall,” and he draws attention to two events that paralleled Kirby’s statement.
The first event is that on January 19, 2023, the day before Kirby’s statement, the Pentagon asked United States Forces Korea (USFK) to provide some of its equipment in support of Ukraine, stressing that its security operations on the Korean Peninsula would not be “affected in any way” by this move. USFK spokesman Col. Isaac Taylor said, “The Department of Defense continues to provide military assistance from its reserves in support of Ukraine. US forces in Korea have been asked to support this effort by providing some of their equipment… This does not affect our operations or our ability to fulfill our ironclad commitment to protect our ally, the Republic of Korea. There should be no doubt that we are ready to fight tonight as well”.
Taylor did not specify, however, what equipment or in what quantity would be delivered for use in Ukraine. The ROK Department of Defense also declined to comment on the issue.
The New York Times had previously reported that the US Department of Defense had drawn on US artillery stockpiles in South Korea and Israel because of Ukraine’s urgent need for munitions assistance.
USDOD deputy spokeswoman Sabrina Singh clarified this information, pointing out that the withdrawal of munitions and military equipment from US depots in South Korea and other countries in support of Ukraine had no impact on US defense capabilities and had little to do with reducing domestic stockpiles. It has also come to light that the US is in talks with Korean military contractors to replenish empty depots.
To the author, this information indicates two important things.
First, despite the loud declarations about the danger of the North Korean threat and the need to give money to counter it, it appears that the US does not in fact particularly believe that the North will attack the South in the relatively near future. Otherwise, they would not have moved an arsenal to Ukraine from a place where these munitions could be urgently needed.
Second, the fact that ammunition is being sent to Korea means that the arsenal of democracy is not bottomless and is slowly running out. Weapons and ammunition even need to be withdrawn from long-term storage. As we noted in one of our articles, it appears that their talk of Moscow’s “ammunition shortage” is masking their own ammunition scarcity, which is not so much affecting Russia as it is Ukraine and its allies.
Combined with a number of other news items, this suggests that the Europeans are growing weary of the conflict and increasingly reluctant to hand over new arms tranches to Kiev. This is a rather important sign, suggesting that in a certain situation Kiev will come to understand that for all the need to “defend democracy,” it has to do it alone.
The second event is a statement by Russian Foreign Intelligence that Ukrainian authorities are placing munitions from the West in nuclear power plants because they know that Moscow will not dare to bomb them. Foreign Intelligence Director Sergei Naryshkin said, “The Foreign Intelligence Service receives reliable information that Ukrainian forces are storing weapons and ammunition supplied by the West on the premises of nuclear power plants. This applies to the most expensive and scarce missiles for Haymar’s multiple rocket launchers and foreign air defense systems, as well as large-caliber artillery ammunition the AFU lacks most. Just in the last week of December 2022, several railroad cars with lethal cargo were delivered from abroad to the Rovno NPP via the Rafalovka station. Moreover, we would like to hope that no one in Kiev would come up with the idea of deliberately destroying such depots in order to extricate more weapons and ammunition from the US and its allies.
Naryshkin’s statement does not contain exhaustive evidence, but the reasoning is somewhat more detailed than Kirby’s and contains some specifics. Apparently, it is precise data on where and how Ukrainian ammunition stocks move.
Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office, then stated on social networks that “Ukraine has never stored weapons on the territory of the nuclear power plant” and noted that Ukraine is “always open” to inspection bodies, especially the IAEA.
In this context, the author once again reminds us that it is not unusual in war to attribute to the enemy acts committed by one’s own side in order to divert attention from oneself. So if you want to make the next lofty claims of DPRK intrigue, look at the holes in the wall this picture covers.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
While Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the way the West has supplied weapons to the Ukrainian army to fight the Russian forces has increasingly NATOized Ukraine’s forces. As I mentioned previously, Russia is fighting a conflict not with Ukraine but with NATO. This is evident not just in terms of the fact that the whole Western alliance against Russia happens to be part of NATO but also in terms of the very weapons that the Ukrainian forces are using. Importantly enough, this NATOization is not something that started to happen after Russia began its military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. As NATO itself mentions on its website, the alliance has been supporting Ukraine since the 2014 Crimea events. The support includes, NATO says, “equipment and financial support” as well as “training for tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops.” It also mentions that the alliance has enhanced its support ever since February 2022.
The claim tells many things, but the most important one is that the ongoing conflict was neither inevitable nor unprovoked. What led to the present state of affairs was precisely this ongoing NATOization of Ukraine since 2014, a policy that actually laid the groundwork for Washington to push for Ukraine’s formal membership of NATO in 2021-22. The conflict would not have taken place if the West had eschewed arming Ukraine and using this territory to expand NATO. It is this Western strategy, rather than the so-called Russian “unprovoked aggression”, that made the present conflict inevitable.
The West, in keeping with its policy, is continuing its policy, which is evident from the recent decision of the UK government to provide Ukraine with its Challenger 2 Tanks. Ben Wallace, the UK’s Defence Secretary, called this supply “the most significant package of combat to date to accelerate Ukrainian success.”
While there are not enough tanks, the US has already announced to send Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to support tank warfare. A clear escalation is taking place, but the big question is: will it work to achieve the objective that the suppliers have in mind?
The US/NATO fought a twenty-year-long war in Afghanistan against a much weaker enemy, let alone a non-nuclear country, in Afghanistan. It withdrew after two decades without achieving its key objective i.e., dismantling global terrorism. Afghanistan today has many terror groups – al-Qaeda, the IS-K, the ETIM, and the TTP – operating from within its borders. Clearly, the presence of these groups reflects a US military defeat in terms of achieving its objectives even after spending billions of dollars.
The US has so far spent only a fraction of that money in Ukraine where NATO is fighting a country that has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Keeping this in mind, the strategy not only seems unrealistic, but unworkable as well. Short of providing Ukraine with actual nuclear weapons and creating a nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis Russia – which is not even conceivable – there is no way NATO can arm the Ukrainian army and help Ukraine in ways to actually defeat Russia.
On the contrary, hawks in the West – especially, in the US and UK – continue to see it within the realm of possibility to achieve their objectives, which now include creating a situation favouring a coup in Russia against President Putin.
This NATOization is unlikely to work, not only because not everything can possibly be supplied to Ukraine – that is, unless the West wants a total, nuclear war – but also because Ukraine itself is fast running out of its capacity to fight a total war, let alone the present conflict.
Let’s see what the actual ground situation is. In and around Bakhmut, the Ukrainian forces lost 70 per cent of their fighting capacity in just one week in the second week of January. Does it make sense to continue to supply weapons to an army that is unlikely to win?
Many countries in the West think that it does not make sense. In a meeting held on American Ramstein Air Base in German on January 20 involving leaders from 50 countries, including NATO allies, the participants failed to reach a consensus on providing German Leopard Tanks to Ukraine. Although Germany has now decided to supply these tanks to Ukraine, the very fact that it took them so much time – and it involved lots of political pressure from Washington – to make this decision shows that the Western alliance is actually far from united. There are serious concerns that Germany itself shares.
As German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said after the January 20 meeting, Germany is not alone raising concerns. He said that “there are many allies who say we share the view that I have put forward here.” Of course, the UK is not amongst them, as it has already decided to supply Challenger 2 tanks. But the fact that the UK took a decision independent of the rest of Europe means that Europe, thanks to Brexit, itself is divided between the EU and the UK.
The root cause of this disagreement is simple to understand. Many Europeans, excluding the UK, have realised that mainland Europe, or the EU, is a victim of the US-UK politics of NATO expansion and that the continent has become a proxy land for the US to fight the war of its own survival as the global hegemon, supported by its strongest allies in London.
For the US, Russia’s success in Ukraine would be the end of NATO and the end of Washington’s influence in Europe. Many Europeans already want a European security system independent of the US and NATO. Were this to happen, Europe can most certainly rewrite its ties with Russia in ways that avoid confrontation. But if this happens, the global strategic landscape will change in ways in which Washington will no longer be the only centre. Hence, the US-UK sponsored intensification of the war as the last-ditch effort to save the system they have been dominating for many decades.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
During an official visit to Lebanon on January 13, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian stated that Lebanese politicians could fill the months-long presidential vacancy through dialogue and without foreign intervention. He denied that his country is meddling in Lebanese affairs, but said at a press conference that Iran will remain Lebanon’s “loyal friend” during the current economic crisis. He also reiterated Tehran’s willingness to assist Lebanon in supplying fuel and rebuilding its dilapidated power plants.
During his trip to Syria, Amir-Abdollahian met with Lebanon’s acting Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib, and Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. The Iranian minister stated that Tehran wishes to assist in restoring calm in the region and is open to any rapprochement, particularly with Saudi Arabia. He emphatically stated that his government did not interfere in Lebanon’s presidential elections in any way. His tone was diametrically opposed to bellicose statements made a few years ago at the height of Iranian influence in four neighboring Arab capitals.
Iran’s policy toward Lebanon is frequently criticized, and Tehran is routinely blamed for a variety of issues, ranging from preventing the formation of new governments to interfering with the investigation into the August 2020 Beirut port bombings to sabotaging elections for a new president after former President Michel Aoun’s term expired last October. The main reason that Lebanon’s parliament has been unable to elect a new president is that Hezbollah and its allies insist on pre-screening any potential candidate to ensure that he is not opposed to the “Axis of Resistance.” As the reader may be aware, Hezbollah, Iran, the Syrian government, and Palestine have formed an unofficial anti-Western and anti-Israel alliance.
The Lebanese parliament has held ten sessions since September to elect a new president, but to no avail. Hezbollah and its allies either cast blank ballots and then leave the parliament, or they do not appear, failing to meet the required quorum of 86 of the 122 deputies. Opponents of Iranian influence have proposed keeping the vote open until a new president is elected, or electing a new president by a majority of 65 votes if a minimum consensus for a candidate cannot be reached in the first round, as required by the Lebanese constitution.
Amir-Abdollahian addressed economic issues during his visit to Beirut. He specifically stated that his country is willing to assist Lebanon in repairing two power plants, one in Beirut and one in the country’s south, in order to ensure the republic’s stable electricity system. Proposals for energy cooperation are frequently fraught with controversy, with fears that if Lebanon accepts Iranian assistance, it will face US sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program.
A technical team from Lebanon had previously visited Iran to discuss energy cooperation. However, when Washington refused to give the go-ahead, the Lebanese took no further action. Lebanon, which is in the grip of a severe economic crisis, is seeking international assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other Western organizations. Lebanon is unlikely to jeopardize this much-needed aid by negotiating an energy deal with Iran, which could lead to accusations that Iran is using this cooperation to avoid US sanctions.
Amir-Abdollahian also addressed the emerging relationship between Iranian and Saudi security officials following the Baghdad 2 summit in Jordan last December during his press conference. He expressed hope that political contacts would continue, potentially leading to the restoration of full diplomatic relations with Riyadh and the establishment of Saudi and Iranian consulates in Mashhad and Jeddah, respectively, to facilitate religious tourism. Given that Tehran had recently accused Riyadh of fomenting the protests that erupted in Iran last September, the Iranian tone was surprisingly positive and welcoming.
On the Syria issue, Amir-Abdollahian reiterated his government’s support for a Russian-brokered rapprochement between Damascus and Ankara. Restoring relations between Syria and Turkey would “completely change” the political situation in Syria, he said, adding that the best way to resolve the Syrian crisis would be to include Damascus in the Russian-backed Astana process and give it a seat at the negotiating table alongside Moscow, Tehran and Ankara. However, this “new path” of rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus does not include Tehran, except perhaps as an observer and active ally in the peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict unleashed at the time by the West and some Gulf states. It should also be recalled that Iran did not attend the meeting of Russian, Syrian, and Turkish defense ministers in Moscow in December, and the same will be true for the upcoming meeting of the three countries’ foreign ministers.
It is unlikely that Amir-Abdollahian’s visit to Beirut was part of an initiative to help Lebanon break its current political impasse. Iran itself is in crisis due to the anti-government protests that have rocked the country since the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman arrested in Iran last September for violating dress codes. Public outrage in Iran has been further fueled by the economic crisis, which has been exacerbated by rising energy prices. Contrary to earlier expectations to focus regional and international attention on Lebanon’s troubles, the West’s hypocritical condemnation of Tehran’s crackdown on protesters in Iran appears to have put any action on hold. In December, US President Joe Biden announced that he would not resume negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, and many European capitals recalled their ambassadors from Iran to protest the execution of some Iranian protesters. Meanwhile, the fact that several policemen were killed and dozens of others were injured in the demonstrations is somehow hushed up and not seen by the so-called democratic press in the West.
Given the Iranian leadership’s dim prospects for further resolution of the Syrian conflict, it appears to have decided to consult with its closest allies in Beirut and Damascus, as well as to use Beirut as a platform to send conciliatory messages throughout the region and conduct some “probing” in Riyadh. If Iran can facilitate contacts that lead to regional reconciliation and the peace process, it will provide Tehran with some breathing room in the face of enormous pressure from the US and Europe. While Iran had hoped for a reduction in Western sanctions until recently, domestic political developments may force it to face new sanctions.
The question now is whether Riyadh will respond to the clear Iranian signals. If it decides to reciprocate despite European and US pressure, further steps toward rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran could lead to a breakthrough in the Lebanese political crisis that would result in the election of a new president, the formation of a new government, and the provision of an aid package by Saudi Arabia, probably in return for the reduction of Iranian influence in Lebanon. But the political will for reconciliation in the region – as opposed to a tendency toward intransigence – depends on which winds are blowing internationally. This is also true of Lebanon’s presidential elections, which often attract a great deal of attention in Western capitals, especially Washington and Paris. As a result, the electoral process in Lebanon is rarely purely domestic or even regional, and international election observation is often a critical factor in the process.
In any case, Amir-Abdollahian’s visit to Beirut could be a first step toward a regional normalization process and have a positive impact on the overall domestic political situation in Lebanon. However, if the Iranian minister’s visit does not elicit a “positive reaction” and nothing comes of it, it will be just another diplomatic step that will not change anything in deeply crisis-ridden Lebanon.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
On January 9 of this year, Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang began an eight-day trip to the African continent, having been appointed to the post just ten days earlier (December 30, 2022). The Chinese foreign minister visited Ethiopia, Gabon, Angola, Benin, and Egypt during his trip. He also paid visits to the headquarters of the African Union and the Arab League in their respective capitals. Qin Gang met with high-ranking politicians and statesmen in every location he visited.
Commentary in the Global Times on this trip highlights several noteworthy points. First, this trip was the first in a series of such events that Qin Gang has undertaken since taking office. Second, it continued the tradition established by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s (and never interrupted since) of beginning each new year with a trip to Africa by the head of the ministry. Former Minister Wang Yi, who headed China’s Foreign Ministry for nearly a decade and is now responsible for the full range of China’s foreign policy activities in the CCP Central Committee, has always been guided by this principle.
However, the current trip by China’s new foreign minister is given a very important flavor by the recent sharp increase in activities by Beijing’s main geopolitical adversary, Washington, in the same region of Africa. Nonetheless, EU officials, still in limbo over the foreign policy choices of the continent they lead, are beginning to show signs of similar concern.
Note that it was only after the current administration had come to power in the United States that US policymakers more or less understood the answer to the question: how exactly does China’s emergence as a world power threaten the unique position Washington gained with the end of the Cold War, i.e., in the current phase of the “Great Game”?
The search for an answer to these and similar questions in the sphere of “gunboat diplomacy,” which is what the propagandists (with their apocalyptic nuclear mania and their bellicosity) do most often, is now a dead end. If not a global catastrophe. For the above “game” is increasingly being played around the already identified major global problem of humanity’s survival (not proverbial “progress”) in the face of a multiplication of challenges, also of global proportions.
It cannot be solved without settling the problems that have accumulated over the centuries in the relations between the “North and South” constituting the present world order. China’s central state concept of building a “community of destiny,” unveiled by current Chinese leader Xi Jinping in late 2012, aims to overcome them. The Belt and Road Initiative project is crucial to this concept and has several branches, of which the African one is becoming increasingly important.
Since the early 2000s, the PRC has had a platform for dialogue with all African countries, in addition to bilateral relations with individual African states. The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) has met eight times with a three-year periodicity since its inception in 2000. In particular, it has met three times at the senior official level. FOCAC last met (at the ministerial level) in November 2021 in Dakar, Senegal’s capital.
Note that the three-year hiatus between regular FOCAC negotiating rounds does not mean that nothing fills this period. On various occasions, working groups and ministerial videoconferences are held with a select group of participants. For example, former Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosted such a conference in August 2022 “due to the complex and unstable international situation as well as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.”
China is rapidly expanding its presence on the African continent, primarily through economic, educational, and health-care cooperation. This is where African countries face the most serious problems, which go unresolved and result in millions of migrants. The latter are primarily moving northward.
The importance of engagement on the African continent is already growing rapidly for all of the world’s major players for a variety of reasons. And it will only grow over time. Success in the increasingly evident “race to influence Africa” will be enjoyed by those actors who have been particularly successful in implementing projects on the continent in the areas outlined above, as well as other similar spheres.
China is already well ahead of its main geopolitical competitor and the leading European countries individually in terms of integral indicators (volume of trade, annual investments, and the volume of their accumulation) reflecting the status and prospects in these areas. While it has so far underperformed the EU as a whole on these indicators, Beijing has set a goal of catching up to the Europeans in Africa in their entirety.
The graph of changes in foreign direct investment (FDI) in African economies over the last two decades illustrates the main reason for the gradual accumulation of anxiety in Washington related to China’s growing activity on the continent. Since 2013, China has been significantly ahead of the United States in this indicator. This is why Washington (and Brussels) sounded the alarm: “Something must be done about this.”
Initially, said “something” was limited to crude propaganda about “debt pits”, where allegedly anyone who agrees to cooperate with China in the framework of, say, its BRI will end up. The project to modernize Uganda’s international airport in Entebbe, in particular, has been attacked in this manner.
However, propaganda can only play a minor role in the fight against a political opponent. The main thing (aside from hurling insults at the competitors) is to offer something unique and “better” to the object of the competition. Initially (in the summer of 2021), the matter was limited to developing a general conceptual plan (“Cornwall Consensus”).
A conceptual plan is a sound idea. However, Africans in need require specific action, which is what the EU and the US proposed last year at their summits in Brussels and Washington.
The sixth EU-AU summit, held on February 17-18, 2022, was attended by the leaders of forty African countries. The EU’s leadership made a number of specific and appealing promises to them. One of the comments stated that the EU wants to be Africa’s friend. Indeed, the entire event was described as “a combination of pomp and meaningful results.” It also stated that both parties “pursued overlapping and occasionally divergent interests.” The comment about “China’s growing influence in Africa” as one of the main reasons for the Africa-Europe summit is noteworthy.
Almost a year later, the leaders of 49 countries on the continent listened to no less enticing promises from US President Joe Biden. The meeting with him, held on December 13-15 in Washington, was under the slogan “Africa’s success is the success of the whole world.” Secretary of State Blinken, who attended, uttered a number of other words that were no less gratifying for the guests. For example, “Africa is the most important geopolitical power” in the world.
Against the backdrop of these (outwardly impressive) events held last year by the main geopolitical adversaries, the new head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry made a trip to the African continent. Its results were quite positively evaluated both in the countries visited and in China itself.
We point out an important fact that Qin Gang may well be considered an expert on the policies of major geopolitical rivals. In the year before he took office now, he had been ambassador to Washington, and before that he had worked for a long time in the Chinese embassy in London.
Meanwhile, doubts are being expressed in the US and the EU about the possibility of ousting China, at least tangibly, from the positions it has come to occupy in Africa. This conclusion is reached in particular by the experts of the analysis center of the prestigious British publication Economist Group, whose research is cited by Bloomberg. In particular, it points out that Africans have not forgotten how Europeans had put to use their continent relatively recently. In this context, they are today asking “questions about the motives for the repeated participation of the EU and the US” in projects (ostensibly) aimed at the economic development of African countries.
In conclusion, we note once again that the uncompromising struggle between the main players in the current phase of the “Great World Game” for influence in Africa leads to the division of resources accumulated in the world, which could be used in a coordinated way to support the population of both this continent and the “Third World countries” in general.
The aforementioned coordination is directly linked to the key Chinese concept of building a “community of a Common Destiny”.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Turkey remains a key element in the overall geopolitical architecture of the Middle East and the Mediterranean. On the occasion of the upcoming celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Republic, the country is demonstrating to the world the very significant capabilities of its national armed forces and its military-industrial complex (MIC).
The Turkish Armed Forces are now rightly considered the strongest in the Middle East and are the second strongest in terms of strength and capabilities at NATO. The Turkish army comprises about 360 thousand troops, which is quite a high figure for a country with a population of more than 80 million people. Meanwhile, the mobilization potential of the Turkish Armed Forces is estimated at 8 million soldiers and the Turkish Army can accommodate more than 700,000 soldiers with first-order reserves. The Turkish ground forces amount to 260 thousand, the navy to 45 thousand and the air force to 50 thousand. The country’s very well-developed and financed military-industrial complex, which ranks 11th among 138 leading armies in the world according to the Global Firepower Rating with a Power Index of 0.2098, favors well-equipped armed forces.
The Turkish authorities’ concern for the national armed forces is reflected in the dynamics of the country’s military spending, which has increased from 6.25 billion liras in 2000 to nearly 124.5 billion liras in 2020.
The success of Turkey’s military-industrial complex is evidenced by the SIPRI rankings, which in 2010 included only one Turkish company, Aselsan A.S., in the “Top 100,” ranking 92nd at the time, while Defense News’ similar ranking for 2019 already includes seven Turkish companies.
While the export volume of Turkish defense products was $248 million 20 years ago, it has already reached a record $4.4 billion by the end of 2022. The main buyer of Turkish military products used to be the United States (nearly 60%). Recently, however, Turkey has expanded its arms exports and focused on unmanned military equipment. Not only for aircraft, but also for the navy. The country is now the fourth-largest manufacturer of combat drones in the world and has recently sold Bayraktar TB2 drones to Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Qatar, Libya and Poland.
A new vertical takeoff and landing drone was recently tested and successfully reached an operational altitude of 8,000 feet. As the management of the Baykar Makina, the company developing the drone, told the media on January 4, the supersonic version of the new Bayraktar drone, Kizilelma (translated from Turkish as “red apple”), is barely visible to radars and can develop hypersonic speeds. According to Turkish developers, it will become “a challenge” to US 5th generation aviation because, unlike the American F-35, this fighter is unmanned and remotely piloted. It will be able to take off and land on warships with a short runway.
A notable feature of Turkish drones that gives them a significant advantage in this military equipment market is that their control system is via a satellite communications channel.
Defense contractor Aselsan A.S. has developed a new-generation Albatros-S unmanned boat that features high maneuverability and the ability to operate in a swarm. The Turkish company ARES Shipyard has developed quite interesting modifications of the high-speed Predator and Dagger ARES -32 interceptors with a large power reserve. These vessels can reach speeds of up to 45 knots (83 km/h), are extremely maneuverable, and have a range of about 2,000 nautical miles. They are designed for naval operations in the coastal zone and have already received orders from countries in the Middle East and Africa.
Turkey’s Defense Industries Agency has contracted private shipyards to build the indigenous MILGEM naval project and expects to increase the number of these Class I frigates to 8 within the next three years. They will be built with 75% indigenous capability.
In light of the shutdown by the US of American air defenses during the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey and Ankara’s loss of confidence in these American weapons, the Turkish leader not only purchased the Russian S-400 air defense system, but also organized the development and construction of his own long-range HISAR-U SIPER air defense system. Its successful test took place in January this year. The SIPER (“Shield”) air defense system was developed by Turkey as an alternative to the Russian S-400 and US Patriot systems. It is expected to enter the Republic’s armed forces in 2023 and become the basis of national air defense by 2026. According to published data, the HISAR-U SIPER system will be capable of intercepting aerial targets at an altitude of more than 30 km with a range of up to 120 km. The HISAR (Turkish for “Fortress”) family of air defense systems already includes the HISAR-A short-range missiles and the HISAR-O medium-range missiles. Ballistic tests of the missiles of these systems began in Turkey in 2013 and 2014, and the main development of these systems is being carried out by major Turkish defense companies: Aselsan A.S. and Roketsan; the project also includes Tuebitak SAGE, which is responsible for developing warheads and targeting systems. According to some experts, Turkey will hardly be able to start exporting HISAR-U SIPER systems before 10–12 years, as Ankara will have to meet the needs of its own armed forces in the first phase. Considering the fact that today only two countries – Russia and the US – are capable of building the full range of air defense systems, from man-portable air defense systems to sub-strategic systems such as the latest Patriot and S-500, and also taking into account the fact that so far only Russian SAM systems are capable of engaging hypersonic targets, Turkey will hardly be able to compete with Moscow and Washington in the market for these products in the coming years.
Turkey’s success in the military field is a clear reflection of its scientific and educational achievements.
Given that nuclear weapons are now becoming a dominant factor in world politics, Middle Eastern countries and Turkey are no longer exceptions in this regard. Therefore, it is not surprising that recently one can read in the Turkish and regional media more and more information and the alleged possibility of Ankara’s possession of nuclear weapons in the near future, that Turkey is taking this path that “guarantees its presence at the forefront of geopolitics. In particular, Israeli political scientist” Yakov Kedmi argues that it is only a matter of time before Ankara possesses a nuclear arsenal.
As reported by Zee News, India, Turkey and Pakistan have long been negotiating over nuclear missile technology. In particular, it was pointed out that the nuclear issue was discussed at a meeting of the joint organization of these states, “High Level Military Dialogue,” in late December 2020.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
Following the second ever US-Africa summit in Washington (the first was in 2014), the White House launched a massive offensive against African states, attempting to force them to either abandon cooperation with Russia entirely or reshape it in ways that benefit US businesses.
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen embarked on an 11-day tour of African countries (Senegal, Zambia, and South Africa) in January 2023 to develop the theses that the US presented to African leaders at the December 13-15 summit. The main thrust is that Russia’s (and, of course, China’s, how could it be otherwise!) actions are allegedly exacerbating economic problems in Africa, and Russia in general has allegedly caused “untold suffering” to the world and created “global economic obstacles,” which is why African economies are being “unnecessarily squeezed.”
In trying to lure Africans, Janet Yellen claimed that the West’s cap on Russian oil prices would save African countries $6 billion per year. She urged African countries to take advantage of this fact in order to obtain significant discounts on oil.
It is difficult to say what all of these rhetorical exercises contain more of: lies, hypocrisy, distortion of facts, or sheer insolence mixed with the arrogance of a world power losing its hegemony.
Start with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, whose American interpretation underpins the entire narrative. The widely circulated Western version of this conflict, created by the United States and repeated by Kyiv, is well known in: Imperialist Russia allegedly attacked “innocent sheep” Ukraine in order to tear it apart, seize territories, and deprive it of statehood. According to allegations, Russia does not recognize the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination and does not adhere to the principle of state territorial integrity.
Life itself has long debunked this false thesis: 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has sought to build constructive relations with Ukraine, pouring $400 billion in investment into the country, $200 billion of it through extremely low prices for energy resources imported by Ukraine in exchange for Moscow’s desire to ensure the rights of the Russian-speaking population and good neighborly relations. Russia was duped in both cases: as a result of the bloody 2014 Western-inspired coup in Kyiv, pure neo-Nazis came to power, burning Russians who opposed them in Odessa on May 2, 2014, and good neighborly relations were buried by enshrining in the Ukrainian constitution in 2018 the proposition that Ukraine should join NATO, which Russia vehemently opposed.
Russia offered Ukraine a federal agreement formula that would have helped secure the rights of Russians in Ukraine in an attempt to save Ukrainian statehood, but it was rejected. The palliative 2015 Minsk agreements, which were supposed to grant autonomy to the Donbass and Luhansk regions on a variety of issues, were shamelessly exploited by Ukraine and the West to arm them and turn them into a direct and immediate threat to Russian security. This was acknowledged by Russia’s Western partners, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande, who both stated unequivocally that neither the West nor Kyiv intended to implement the agreements.
Furthermore, it became clear that the Ukrainian government intended to launch an offensive on Crimea and the Donbass to carry out ethnic cleansing and destroy any resistance to its anti-Russian plans to integrate with the West.
Russia was forced to respond to these overtly anti-Russian plans.
This is true, but it is not the truth, but rather the fabricated stories of Russian aggression that serve as the foundation of Washington’s entire foreign policy. Meanwhile, the US is illegally occupying a portion of Syria’s territory and stealing its oil, all while screaming loudly about Russian aggression causing “unspeakable suffering” to nearly the entire world. Many other facts from the recent and older history of the aggressive actions of the USA are known to all: the destruction of Libya and its leader Muammar Gaddafi, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia by the forces of NATO and the separation of its historical territories, such as Kosovo, the participation of the USA in the creation of “Al-Qaeda” and ISIS (both terrorist groups are banned in Russia), the support of the once racist regime in South Africa, not to mention the slave trade until the mid-19th century.
In banking, there is such a thing as credit history. So the US is far from having the right to accuse others of destroying statehood. Let us not forget the system of plundering nations created by Wall Street bankers, the Bretton Woods system of the IMF and the World Bank. It has created for the whole world such financial conditions of life based on the domination of the US dollar, that do not allow the supposedly independent states to develop independently and effectively. It has secured the status of African countries (and not only them) as raw material appendages of the Western world. The facts have been known for a long time: Africa produces 90% of cocoa, but receives only 11% of the profits from it. The same is true for all extractable mineral resources in Africa. Niger, for example, has the seventh-largest uranium reserves in the world, but the energy it produces lights up France, while Niger suffers from hunger, disease and lack of development. The same is true for almost all countries on the African continent.
Janet Yellen has come to Africa to defend this system, luring Africans with illusory handouts such as the $55 billion in investments promised in Washington in December for the next three years. Meanwhile, the United States and other Western countries have already provided Ukraine with real $100 billion in 11 months, and this is not the end. This money could have long ago been used to end hunger in Africa, but instead it is going to war with Russia and to the US military-industrial complex, which is profiting from the war.
There are numerous other examples of the West’s, specifically Washington’s, hypocrisy and double standards. Palestine is the most notorious example. The same zeal and enthusiasm on the part of the US to establish a Palestinian state and liberate the occupied Palestinian territories is nowhere to be seen.
In Africa, where the Soviet Union spared no effort, no money, and no soldiers’ lives to fight for independence (particularly in Angola), they can discover without the interference of Washington’s emissaries who their true friends are and who their true oppressors are. They can clearly see who really wants to maintain neocolonial power on this continent under the guise of the pseudo-fight for democracy, and opposes with all their might the unavoidable transition of the world to a qualitatively new multipolar state based on taking into account the interests of all states and peoples, and giving everyone equal opportunities for development and liberation from the Western financial domination that sucks the juice out of the absolute majority of the world’s peoples.
The United States’ efforts to maintain its already lost expansion, at least through Janet Yellen’s travels and false rhetoric to save Ukraine, which is supposedly dying because of Russia, are futile and will not result in the desired outcome.
Pogos Anastasov, Political Scientist and Orientalist, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
Following Britain’s exit from the European Union, France appeared to have certain opportunities to strengthen its position on the international stage, such as shifting the balance of power in Europe and bolstering Paris’s position in the Franco-German tandem.
First, while Germany remained the EU’s economic leader, the Fifth Republic had more options in the political and military spheres. In fact, it was the French factor that played the most important role in the Brexit negotiations with London. And not just because the chief EU negotiator was Michel Barnier, a prominent Gaullist politician. As you may be aware, French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain’s admission to the European Economic Community in 1963 and 1967 because he saw it as a United States’s Trojan horse and a country that was fundamentally different from continental Europe in economic, legal, and cultural terms. As chief negotiator, Michel Barnier therefore sought to defend not only the interests of the EU, but above all those of France itself.
Second, the Brexit directly impacted France’s political and military position, as London, which has a privileged relationship with Washington, particularly in defense and intelligence, has traditionally been concerned that EU defense policy not conflict with NATO and that Britain remain the bridge between the EU and the US. And with an unmistakable preference in the UK’s relationship for the US and NATO over the EU. And this is reinforced by the events of 2003, when the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq and France and Germany opposed this armed aggression.
After World War II, France had an advantage in Europe over Germany because Germany was the defeated side and France was in the victors’ camp thanks to the USSR, which objectively assessed France’s contribution to the victory over fascism. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Washington’s support for European integration was aimed, among other things, at containing German revanchism through economic means. As, by the way, is the case with NATO, which was also established to prevent Germany from regaining its independence and emerging as a potential future hegemon in Europe.
However, the current French political elite, now in power in the Fifth Republic, has failed to strengthen the country’s position and international standing in recent years. This is primarily due to the apparent lack of intellectual and strong-willed qualities among recent French politicians, as well as their lack of independence in defending France’s national interests. Instead of demonstrating their independence, de Gaulle-style, French politicians in recent years have preferred to demonstrate their obedience to Washington and to receive instructions from the White House every time French policy is implemented. As a result, the Gallic rooster, the symbol of France in memory of the ancient freedom-loving Celtic population, the Gauls (Gall, or Gallus, in Latin means “rooster”), may now be found only among French sports fans.
The current French government’s policies are failing on many fronts, as evidenced by the recently published results of a poll in which the French were asked whether they approve of the country’s current leader’s policies. Unfortunately, it was only 27%, indicating that Macron has lost more than half of his voters and former supporters in just over six months since the second round of elections and the extension of his mandate for another five years (it was previously just over 58%). However, according to the law of conservation of energy, if something decreases somewhere, it implies that something increases somewhere else. Yet it is definitely not the support for Macron’s policies, already called “Macronism,” that has increased.
Because of the Elysée Palace’s current allegiance to the US, the growing criticism of Washington’s aggressive policies has objectively begun to extend to the perception of Paris’ foreign policy actions. This has been particularly evident recently in France’s relations with the countries of the African continent, where 2022 has become a symbol of a general “de-Westernization.” Particularly in light of recent events in Mali and the Central African Republic, where Paris’ policy has completely compromised itself and begun to diverge from former ties with the former metropolis.
This process has recently accelerated in another Francophone African country, Burkina Faso, where the government has denunciated the agreement on the presence of the French Armed Forces, which regulated their presence since 2018, ordering the French military to leave the country within a month.
Anti-French demonstrations increased in other Black Continent countries. Thus, residents of the Central African Republic’s capital recently attended a mass rally against the presence of the French company CASTEL in the country, which activists accused of financing militants and supporting radical gangs in order to disrupt the state’s harmonious development. Last summer, the non-governmental organization The Sentry accused a subsidiary of the French alcohol magnate, Castel Sucrerie Centrafricaine (SUCAF), of collaborating with militants from the radical Union for Peace in the Central African Republic (UPC) and aiding terrorists.
Algeria demands an apology from France for its colonial past. However, according to Egyptian experts, French President Macron’s recent statement in an interview with the newspaper Le Point that he will not apologize to Algeria threatens Paris’s relations with the Arabs.
According to the British newspaper The Telegraph, France has stopped thinking and existing under Macron, and is now stuck in a spiral of chaos and decay.
Is Macron solely to blame for this? Is Lebanon’s al-Binaa correct in attributing the French president’s destructive policies to mental health issues? — Or could it be a case of the current French political elite’s “consciousness obscuration”? Who have begun to support Washington’s provocative policy aimed at ousting Russia from the European energy market for purely selfish reasons, for which the French people and the entire EU are now paying with the collapse of the European economy and total impoverishment? And who is to blame for African countries’ accusations that Paris openly supports radical gangs and terrorists? Or that France’s current political establishment has completely forgotten that it fought alongside Russia against fascism in WWII and now defends the neo-fascist regime in Kyiv and joins Washington’s Russophobic campaign in the events in Ukraine?
Vladimir Danilov, political analyst exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
Iran and Saudi Arabia stand out among many Middle Eastern states in terms of their status, historical content, natural resources, and scale. The regional security of the Middle East is also affected by the state of relations between Tehran and Riyadh, because each of them represents one of the Islamic world’s currents (Shiism and Sunnism), and their unique geographical location and resource base of oil and gas are of global importance.
As you may be aware, following the Saudi execution of Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in January 2016, there was an attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran, resulting in yet another schism between Riyadh and Tehran. The package of Iranian-Saudi contradictions included issues such as religious differences between Sunnis and Shiites, competition for leadership in the Islamic world, oil export policy, and relations with the US and Britain. Indeed, the last issue is the most important in the list of contradictions between Riyadh and Tehran; everything else can keep the constructive rivalry strategy alive. America is attempting to establish a controlled regime and, through it, subjugate the major countries and regions.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian announced Tehran’s readiness for comprehensive normalization of relations with Riyadh on January 16, 2023, and five “important and positive” rounds of negotiations were held between the two countries in Baghdad. According to the statement, normalization of interstate relations could begin with the opening of consulates general of the two countries in Jeddah and Mashhad. According to Iran’s chief diplomat, the “ball is in Riyadh’s court.”
Russian expert Maria Mohammad identifies three blocs among the main factors of the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran – religious, political and economic. However, without questioning this approach, it can be said that the religious factor is often used for political purposes to control and manipulate the consciousness of the masses. The struggle for power at the national level and the competition for leadership in the Muslim world is often accompanied by the ideological coloring of the confrontation between Shiism and Sunnism. Iran, as the leader of the Shiite world, and Saudi Arabia, as the leader of the Sunni world, have been fighting unsuccessfully for leadership in the Islamic world for more than four decades after the 1979 February Revolution in Iran. This conflict, fueled by internal and largely external forces, has no future and is becoming a “zero-sum conflict.”
Of course, Riyadh is seriously concerned about Tehran’s influence on the Shiite part of the KSA’s subjects, especially those living in the coastal area of the oil and gas fields. The issue of Shia rights and freedoms has often been the subject of controversy and disagreement between the Iranian mullahocracy and the Saudi monarchy. The religious contradictions between Shiites and Sunnis supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia have traditionally manifested in countries of the Arab East such as Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria. At the same time, each of the parties seeks to place its supporters with local authorities or use external threats to further its own interests. Today, Tehran has achieved greater success in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt, and Hezbollah organizations in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have become Shiite Iran’s militant wings and political partners in the region.
Despite the traditional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the relatively recent history of the second half of the twentieth century demonstrates that the similarities of the monarchical regimes, a common external friend, and a collective enemy allowed the two countries to develop cooperation. Prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, in particular, Tehran and Riyadh maintained a close, high-level partnership under the auspices of their main external ally, the United States, and the perceived common external threat of the communist ideology of the Soviet Union.
The overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi and the assumption of power by a theocratic regime in Iran revealed significant ideological differences and disrupted relatively good relations between the two countries. But again, as you can see, politics took precedence over ideology (regardless of its religious connotations). When Iran abandoned its alliance with the United States and nationalized its entire oil and gas industry, the subsequent deterioration of Iranian-American relations directly affected Tehran’s relations with Washington’s allies (particularly in the Middle East and especially Saudi Arabia).
This is because the Americans and the official ideology of Riyadh’s Wahhabism are far from the standards of democracy, but the KSA’s oil resources outweigh the ideological costs and the monarchical regime established here. In the IRI situation, the US could also “turn a blind eye” to the characteristics of the theocratic mullah regime if Iranian oil and gas came under the control of American energy companies. Therefore, Washington has an interest in keeping tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran relatively high, with religious contradictions between Sunnis and Shiites becoming an additional tool to satisfy US hegemonic interests.
During the administrations of Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami (1989 to 2005), there was a relative thaw in interstate relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The situation changed dramatically after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, as well as the beginning of the Arab Spring, which was provoked by the United States to bring chaos to the region, change regimes, and strengthen its own control over the Middle East. This policy of Washington has destabilized the situation in the region and preordained new local conflicts.
In particular, the Saudis’ intervention in the Kingdom of Bahrain, where 70% of the population is Shiite Muslim, capitalized on the ideas of the “Arab Spring” and revolted against the local Sunni monarchy. Their brutal repression severely damaged relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Tehran has strengthened its position in the same Iraq (also with the government of Nouri al-Maliki), the new regime in Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood candidate Muḥammad Mursī, and in Syria, where the Persians have supported the current regime of Bashar al-Assad against the Sunni monopoly.
The US has made a strategic mistake with regime change in the Arab East, because the result of this policy has been an objective increase in Shiite Iran’s influence in the region. With the emergence of Russia in a new role in the Middle Eastern theater of military operations in Syria and the formation of a new platform for cooperation between Moscow, Tehran and Ankara, a new dynamic has emerged in the geopolitics of the Middle East.
In the midst of the Ukraine crisis, Iran has consistently strengthened its military and political ties with Russia, becoming an important regional partner and opening up new opportunities in bilateral economic and military relations. Unquestionably, during the years of sanctions and isolation, Iran has adapted to new realities and developed a relatively capable national defense industry, which Saudi Arabia, for example, has not.
Since 2016, Iran has begun to develop similarly groundbreaking relationships with Asian behemoths such as China and India. Beijing has given Tehran a lucrative loan of more than $450 billion to develop the oil and gas industries, infrastructure projects, and communications, and it expects to import Iranian oil at a reduced price for the next 25 years. Iran is working on important communication projects with India, which will help Tehran’s position.
Meanwhile, Russia’s successes in Syria, as well as the expansion of Russian-Turkish and Russian-Iranian, Iranian-Chinese, and Iranian-Indian regional partnerships, have established a precedent for Saudi Arabia to pursue a policy that is relatively independent of the US and UK. Furthermore, there have been signs in recent years of a relative complication of Riyadh-Washington relations.
For example, despite US President Joe Biden’s administration’s expectation that Saudi Arabia would increase oil production against Russia, for which CIA Director and Arabist William Burns was dispatched on a special mission to Riyadh in April 2022, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud rejected the proposal of the key ally in a meeting with President Biden himself. King Salman’s selection of Mohammed, whose youth and radicalism make him unwilling to accept US criticism of Saudi authorities over the October 2, 2018, killing of dissident journalist Jamal Hoshoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, could be the start of yet another failure of US regional policy.
Despite their historical and current differences, Iran and Saudi Arabia share many similarities: a conflicted and united Islamic world; oil and gas power; a unique geographic location in the Middle East; relative similarity of political regimes (mullahocracy and theocratic monarchy); leadership in two streams of Islam; rejection of a neo-Ottoman revival in neighboring Turkey; and the prospect of success through pragmatic cooperation in political, religious, and economic fields. Riyadh could follow Tehran’s lead and develop long-term economic, defense, and security (including nuclear) ties with Russia, India, and China. OPEC Cooperation between the two countries would boost the global oil market, and their financial capabilities could pave the way for an alternative to Switzerland as a global financial center in the Middle East.
The great historical past of Persia and Arabia, together with the current situation of the two countries and peoples, gives one hope that future relations between Tehran and Riyadh, the two wings of the Islamic world, will develop independently of the US and other external factors.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”
The recent announcement that the United States will be sending at least 31 M1 Abrams tanks along with a growing number of German Leopard 2 main battle tanks comes as Ukrainian forces find themselves losing ground across much of the line of contact.
Articles like the Guardian’s, “US joins Germany in sending tanks to Ukraine as Biden hails ‘united’ effort,” claim:
Joe Biden has approved sending 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, a significant escalation in the US effort to counter Russian aggression as international reluctance to send tanks to the battlefront falls away.
The reversal of the US’s previous position came after Germany confirmed it will make 14 of its Leopard 2A6 tanks available for Ukraine’s war effort, and give partner countries its permission to re-export other battle tanks to aid Kyiv.
It also says:
“Putin expected Europe and the United States to weaken our resolve,” Biden said in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. “He expected our support for Ukraine to crumble with time. He was wrong. He was wrong. He was wrong from the beginning and he continues to be wrong.”
Yet despite the apparent uptick in support, upon closer analysis it appears practical support for Ukraine has long-since been exhausted and the West has now resorted to “wonder weapons” that will have even less impact on the battlefield than previous aid packages.
Not the “Game Changer” Many Think
The idea that the West transferring their main battle tanks to Ukraine will be a “game changer” is rooted in the myth of Western main battle tanks being “superior” to their Russian counterparts. In turn, this myth is owed to their performance in Iraq in 1991 and again during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 where modern US and British main battle tanks went up against Soviet-era export versions of the T-72.
Not only do several experienced US military officers warn against this misconception, the performance of Western main battle tanks in recent conflicts tells a much different story.
Former US Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis in a recent article published by 1945 helps dispel the myths surrounding Western tank performance in Iraq and asked the question whether or not these high-tech tanks will make a difference – allowing Ukrainian forces to drive Russian forces from territory Kiev claims is Ukrainian.
He points out the critical factors that actually lead to a US victory in Iraq. He explains:
In Desert Storm, U.S. M1A1 Abrams tanks wiped out Saddam Hussein’s fleets of Soviet-made T-72s, and again the American Abrams-led invasion in 2003 revealed the T-72 was no match for U.S. tanks. And truly the American tanks were witheringly successful. During Desert Storm, for example, the U.S. and its coalition partners destroyed more than 3,000 Iraqi tanks. Saddam’s armored force, however, did not destroy even a single Abrams tank. It’s understandable, then, why anyone would want to have an Abrams or equivalent tank, especially when it has proven so effective against exactly the type of tanks Russia has.
Lt. Col. Davis omits, however, that the tanks used by Iraqi forces during Desert Storm are not comparable to the type of tanks Russia has today.
The T-72s operated by Iraqi forces during Desert Storm were protected only by the steel armor they were originally manufactured with. They lacked night vision and thermal imaging sights, as well as computerized fire control systems that automatically calculate firing solutions for tank gunners taking in account a number of factors including temperature, munition type, wind speed and direction as well as barometric pressure.
Also not mentioned in Lt. Col. Davis’ article is the fact that the US deployed upward to 1,900 Abrams to fight against these far inferior Iraqi tanks and that this immense tank force was supported by an equally massive amount of supporting air power, artillery, and mechanized infantry which when combined is referred to as combined arms warfare.
Lt. Col. Davis does, however, mention a very important factor that worked almost entirely in America’s favor, training.
Training is Key and Training Takes Years
Lt. Col Davis in his article explains:
First, the U.S. crewmen were highly trained as individuals. In my unit, tank drivers, loaders, gunners, and vehicle commanders had all mastered their individual jobs, then for more than a year before battle, had conducted considerable time training as platoons, then at company-level, and later we trained in squadron and eventually regimental levels. No one could have been more ready to fight than we were.
Conversely, Iraqi forces had none of this training. Lt. Col. Davis explains that many Iraqi tankers had little if any practice firing their main guns, little if any unit-level training, and maintenance programs required to keep heavy weapons like a main battle tank operational on the battlefield were “virtually nonexistent.”
The disparity in training was so extreme that Lt. Col. Davis concluded that even if US tankers were operating Iraq’s T-72s and the Iraqis were given American M1 Abrams, the United States still would have won.
He then explains:
In tank fights, the side that accurately fires first almost always wins. In Desert Storm, we almost always fired first, and because of our training, almost never missed. But even when the Iraqi gunners got off a shot, it was rarely on target. The results were fatal for them.
Russian tanks today have computerized fire control systems, night and thermal sights, as well as sophisticated explosive reactive armor (ERA). They will be at least as capable as Western main battle tanks transferred to Ukraine. Russian tanks will also be many times more numerous. Training aside, if tank battles in Ukraine become a matter of who sees who first and delivers the first accurate shot, there will be many more capable Russian tanks looking for and firing at Western tanks.
It takes nearly half a year to train an entry-level tanker to operate a modern Western main battle tank (22 weeks according to the US Army’s website). Western tank crews consist of a driver, a gunner, a loader, and a tank commander. The tank commander will often have years of experience operating the specific tank in question, meaning that there are no Western tank crews composed of just entry-level tankers.
This is an insurmountable problem for Ukraine. While the Western media even admits that it will take months for Ukrainians to learn how to operate and then deploy Western tanks, this is only if crews are given crash courses on how to operate their own individual tanks, omitting any training on how to use tanks together as units.
Many argue that training can be abbreviated and that Ukrainian forces are “highly motivated” and thus somehow capable of compressing years of necessary training and experience into a few weeks. This is simply not true.
US Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling (retired) in a recent thread on Twitter agrees.
He warned that training can’t be “hand-waved.” If it is, crews will be ineffective on the battlefield while actually causing damage to the tank itself.
The M1 Abrams is propelled by a multi-fuel turbine engine that requires a significant amount of careful driver training to avoid damaging it. A damaged engine needs to be replaced – a non-trivial task on the front line in Ukraine. The engine cannot be maintained by a general mechanic but requires a technician trained and certified to work on it specifically.
Lt. General Hertling points out that virtually everything that breaks on an M1 Abrams will need to be replaced, requiring an 800 km-long logistical line to be established as Ukrainians themselves will not be able to perform the repairs inside Ukraine.
He also points out that other nations using the M1 Abrams including Iraq and Saudi Arabia required a 5 and 7 year training program respectively before standing up their fleets. Both nations still depend on General Dynamics (the tank’s manufacturer) to perform maintenance since technicians in either country have yet to acquire training and equipment to do it themselves.
It is easy then to imagine the complications that will arise attempting to deploy such weapon systems on such short notice in Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Western Tanks Will Fight Alone
Lt. Col. Davis in his article also pointed out that “tanks cannot fight alone or they die.”
He is referring to combined arms warfare – the air, artillery, and mechanized infantry support the US had in abundance when advancing into Iraq – support Ukraine doesn’t and will not have throughout this current conflict.
The example of Ukraine’s offensive toward Kherson was mentioned, pointing out that Ukrainian tanks rushing forward were targeted and destroyed mostly by artillery shells, rockets, and anti-tank missiles. Very few if any tank-on-tank engagements ever took place. Russia eliminated brigades worth of Ukrainian soldiers and equipment during the multiple offensive waves Ukraine launched at Russian positions. Lt. Col. Davis surmises the same outcome would have resulted even if Ukrainians were operating M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks instead of T-72s.
This is because in addition to tanks, Russia has air power and significantly larger amounts of artillery than Ukraine does on the battlefield. Russia has also developed and possesses large numbers of a variety of anti-tank weapons from anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) launched by armored vehicles, helicopters, and warplanes, to ATGMs and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) operated by infantry.
These ATGMs and RPGs have proven effective in recent conflicts around the globe specifically against Western main battle tanks like the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the Israeli Merkava, and the German Leopard 2. Often these losses were suffered at the hands of irregular forces armed with older Russian anti-tank weapons and without the benefit of combined arms support like air power and artillery or their own tanks.
Dragging Out a Lost Conflict
At the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in February 2022, Ukraine had large numbers of modernized Soviet-era tanks, artillery, warplanes, and mechanized infantry.
Russia systematically destroyed it prompting a deluge of equipment from NATO’s Eastern European members still in possession of Soviet-era equipment. This “second” army was likewise destroyed during Ukraine’s Kharkov and Kherson offensives.
Now NATO is building Ukraine a “third” army consisting of equipment Ukrainian forces have no experience using or sustaining on the battlefield. It is also equipment that offers no substantial advantage over Russian equipment even if training and sustainment issues did not exist. Worse still, Russia has a much large amount of any given type of equipment on the battlefield including main battle tanks and an industrial capacity to replace tank losses at rates the collective West are not capable of.
The transfer of Western armor to Ukraine will certainly draw out this conflict longer, lead to more casualties on both sides, and more thoroughly destroy Ukraine itself, but it will not alter the outcome of the fighting.
Western tanks without the benefit of artillery and air support, crewed by inexperienced Ukrainian tankers will fare worse than Ukrainian forces did operating equipment they had years of experience operating. Suspicions that Western tank operators will crew these weapon systems are well-founded. However, even if Western operators crewed these tanks, they would still be going into battle outnumbered and without the type of combined arms support the US required to prevail in Iraq.
At the end of it, Ukraine will find itself back to where it started, in need of another army’s worth of equipment to replace their substantial losses and a shrinking pool of trained manpower to operate it.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The Republic of Indonesia does not actively participate in the present geopolitical game being played on the world stage and strives to maintain harmonious ties with both its immediate neighbors and powerful nations like China, the United States, and Russia. Meanwhile, the fact that Indonesia is a pretty large state with 275 million citizens and a gradually expanding economy—which, many economic experts believe, has a bright future—determines its relevance not just in regional affairs.
Australia, whose influence in the South Pacific region has recently been surpassed by China, is eager to deepen its relationship with its neighbors in order to maintain its former political and economic sway. Despite past tensions over the East Timor crisis in 1999, Canberra and Jakarta’s relationship is still developing year by year. The goal of Indonesian politicians is to entice as much foreign investment as possible in order to build their nation, and Australia does not want China to continue to dominate the Indonesian economy, which is currently Jakarta’s principal trading partner for both imports and exports.
Australia and Indonesia delegates came to a free trade deal on March 4, 2019. The agreement, signed by the two countries’ trade ministers, allows 99 percent of Australian goods to enter Indonesia either duty-free or on preferential terms. The agreement also gives Australian universities the opportunity to open branches in Indonesian cities. In order to make Indonesian society more supportive of Canberra’s policies in the future, Australia is interested in teaching Indonesian nationals in accordance with Australian norms.
Despite their close proximity, Australia and Indonesia are not close trading partners, but Canberra is doing everything it can to retain and increase its economic involvement with Indonesia.
It should be noted that Australia and Indonesia have been in free trade talks since 2018, but that progress has delayed as a result of diplomatic tensions surrounding the relocation of Australia’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. While Indonesia, the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world, supports Palestinian independence and opposes Israeli government actions on the Palestinian issue, Australia, an ally of the United States, does not recognize Palestine and believes that the nation belongs to Israel. However, Canberra and Jakarta’s desire to trade on mutually beneficial terms has proven stronger than conflicts based on ideological grounds.
Anthony Albanese, the prime minister of Australia, and Joko Widodo, the president of Indonesia, met in Jakarta on June 6, 2022. As a result of the special operation in Ukraine that started in February 2022, the leaders of the two nations decided to step up their collaboration in the area of food security, particularly with regard to the delivery of wheat. Expanding bilateral collaboration in the fields of food innovation and the food business was deemed necessary by Widodo and Albanese. The Indonesian President emphasized the need of Canberra and Jakarta to expand their cooperative energy projects and cooperate in the battle against climate change.
Diplomats from Australia and Indonesia signed a memorandum of agreement on September 21, 2022, to improve bilateral cooperation. The pact would improve ties between Australia and Indonesia, according to Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Indonesia’s finance minister.
On November 24, 2022, during the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia, Indonesian Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto met with his Australian counterpart Richard Donald Marles. After the meeting, Subianto said Jakarta has always considered Australia a reliable friend and important partner in the region, including in the area of defense. According to the Indonesian defense minister, the close friendship between the two countries has come about not only because of geographical proximity, but also because of the two nations’ shared geopolitical interests.
During the meeting, the Indonesian defense minister also thanked Australia for allowing Indonesian cadets to study at the Australian Defense Force Academy. So far, two Indonesian soldiers are participating in the 18-month military training at the academy after joining on February 2, 2022.
The good relations between Australia and Indonesia do not indicate that Jakarta is sympathetic to Western countries and pursues policies that benefit the United States and its allies. As noted earlier, Indonesia shows no tendency to place itself entirely within the sphere of influence of the United States or China. Indonesia’s relatively solid economy allows it to maneuver between Washington and Beijing to its advantage and maintain mutually beneficial relations with its Asian neighbors and key global players such as the EU and Russia.
A clear example of Jakarta’s position, characterized by the Indonesian leadership’s loyalty to all countries, is the naval exercises conducted with them. For example, in May 2021, a joint Indonesian-Chinese naval exercise was held off the coast of Indonesia, the main purpose of the exercise was to improve the coordination of the two countries’ military actions in maritime emergencies. Two Chinese guided missile frigates participated.
In December 2022, representatives of the Indonesian Navy invited the navies of 47 countries to participate in the Komodo International Exercise (MNEK) to be held in Makassar, South Sulawesi, in June 2023. According to media reports, the Indonesian military has invited Russia, China, the United States, Canada, South Korea and North Korea, among others.
MNEK is a joint international exercise that has been held regularly every two years since 2014. Organized by the Indonesian Navy, the exercise is non-military in nature. Its main goal is to promote maritime cooperation in the South Asian region to reduce international tensions.
Although Jakarta is unlikely to establish tight connections with Canberra, Australia is keen in making more strategic friends. The scale of the Indonesian economy makes it possible for the government to maintain cordial ties with all of its neighbors, which is crucial for their own interests. Nevertheless, a rapprochement between Indonesia and Australia could be expected in the near future since Jakarta should accept the relatively attractive terms of collaboration that the Australian leadership is proposing to Jakarta.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
You would imagine the Russia-Ukraine conflict to be a political dispute. News coverage focuses on the political claims of both sides, and the military operations and economic and political sanctions resulting from these.
But it is becoming ever more obvious that this is actually the Forth Crusade reborn. Under the radar, efforts are being made to divide Orthodoxy, and take Ukraine and Georgia closer to Rome and its supporters.
Why is this necessary? What does it have to do with the geopolitical issues and NATO expansion, etc., the conflict is all about?
It is not hard to see that in Georgia, Russia and even Serbia, as well as Ukraine, the Orthodox Church is under attack in ways not seen since the time of Stalin’s terror. This assault is disguised as rooting out collaborators with Russia, or resisting efforts to discriminate against sexual identities and religious minorities. But when it happens over and over again, and is linked to conflict, it does beg the question of what these armed conflicts are really about.
Church and populations are being divided, with Orthodoxy presented as the corrupt and backward option which has created the problem, with the West, represented by Rome, as the solution. We might expect this from religious leaders who want to prove they are right, but when this effort is being directed by various governments, NGOs and think tanks – the Hudson Institute, the Potomac Institute, the Soros Foundation, etc. – it is clear that anything people prefer to the new agenda has to be destroyed – which tells you a lot about what the Church of Rome actually is, and thankfully also a lot about Orthodoxy.
The Old Confrontation
In Ukraine, political parties who don’t toe the line are simply banned, and their members and leadership touted as traitors, even arrested. How do you identify a traitor without having to go into the ins and outs of what they have said and done? You criminalise whole populations, the very thing representative democracy is supposed to protect us from.
The New York Times reported last year that Zelensky Proposes Barring Orthodox Church that Answers to Moscow, as he called for legislation to prevent the Ukrainian parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate from operating in his country. The fact that the Moscow Patriarchate parishes still exist is due to the dubious canonical nature of the Ukrainian Autocephalic Church, and this is what has prevented it from becoming the national Church.
Orthodoxy is organised on the basis of national jurisdictions, one reason for this being to engender a proper relationship between Church and State, so people can live in both without difficulty. However there are also other national jurisdictions present in countries which have a national Orthodox church – there is always a Greek Orthodox Church for example, under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, often related to an embassy.
Ukraine is divided between the parishes which remained under the Moscow Patriarchate after independence and those of the self-proclaimed Ukrainian national Church. The problem with the latter, from a religious point of view, is that it long separated itself from the rest of Orthodoxy, and the legality of its ordinations and sacraments was for decades highly dubious.
Critics of the Ukrainian Autocephalic Church used to refer to it as the “Ukrainians of the Severed Hand”. This is because it had so few bishops, and so few other Orthodox wanted any connection with it, that on at least one occasion it preserved its alleged Apostolic Succession of bishops by cutting the hand off a dead one in order to have enough bishops to ensure the consecration of another.
Having nowhere else to go, it finally became part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which preserves its own existence by consisting of every Greek parish outside Greece and a ragbag of other groups, some with a genuine reason for separateness and some kicked out for breaching the canons of the Church. Constantinople then steers these groups back into the fold, with varying degrees of success.
Most Ukrainian faithful don’t have a big issue with either side in the ecclesiastical dispute – they go to the church they can get to. But from a Church point of view, there are obvious difficulties with accepting the independent Ukrainian Church as the only genuine one, and just telling the Moscow Patriarchate parishes, whose authenticity is not in dispute in religious terms, to give up their property and move out.
Zelensky, a self-proclaimed Jew, has directed his government to conduct an inquiry into the Moscow Patriarchate-allied Ukrainian Orthodox Church and its ties to Moscow, as if he doesn’t know them, “and, if necessary, to take measures provided for by law.” The Ukrainian Constitution forbids this, but the move is about using a blanket stereotype to root out “collaborators”, and simultaneously exonerate everyone on his own side.
Already there are other proposals to change the dates of religious holidays. Ukraine uses the Church Calendar, i.e. the one based on the Julian calendar, whilst many other Orthodox have adopted the Gregorian calendar used in the West. Consequently the feasts based on the movable part of the calendar, those relating to the date of Easter which changes every year, are celebrated on the same physical day in every Orthodox Church, whereas those with a fixed date, such as Christmas, are celebrated thirteen days apart, December 25th on the Gregorian Calendar being only December 12th on the Julian.
Why should the Soros Foundation care what date Christmas is? If anyone wants to argue, several recurring miracles only happen on the Julian calendar date, the Holy Fire at the Resurrection in the Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre at Easter and the cloud descending on Mount Tabor on Transfiguration being two of particular note.
But this is a matter for the Church to resolve, which is why the New (Gregorian) Calendar was not universally adopted when Greece did it after WW1. Most of the Orthodox Churches, considering that observing the cycle of feasts is the best way to live your life, did not agree with what was recognised as a blatant piece of secularism, nothing to do with the Faith, which did not replace that cycle with anything better but corrupted it.
Case Study of Georgia
Georgians and their political parties don’t have a tradition of collaborating and working for the interest of the country, as they are too self-centred and greedy—and for those who know the REAL history, the greatest threat to Georgia comes from within, as its first president found, as there are fewer spoils to be had than crooks who want to claim them.
So it is hardly a surprise that, when those crooks look for friends, they turn to the West. Not because it has money, but because it will attack the Georgian Orthodox Church, which has a multitude of sinners in its ranks, but doesn’t elevate criminality to a principle of reasonable conduct.
Like any country seeking Western sponsorship, one of the terms of this is not ensuring a functional, accountable democracy, as it should be, but holding Gay Pride marches.
In Orthodoxy homosexuality is a sin to be fought against and repented of, nothing something to be proud of. No form of persecution or discrimination against gays is acceptable, but this orientation is not regarded as a natural and alternative lifestyle, for which the evidence is clear from all the prisoners who turn gay inside, but never were or are the rest of the time.
On 5th July 2021, as in every other recent year, a “March of Dignity” was held by “Tbilisi Pride” with the backing of many NGOs and the Foreign Service community. It was attacked by violent, homophobic, ultra-right groups, who gathered near Rustaveli Metro and Kashveti Church to demand its cancellation in accordance with the call of the Georgian Orthodox Church and various other groups.
The Church has never, at any time, condoned violence towards Gay Pride marchers. As an official statement from the Georgian Patriarchate condemning the violence which ensued reads:
“We shall remember that hurting even one person is not only harmful to the individual, but also harms the entire society and goes against Christian teachings”.
One day earlier the same press service had said, “We address our population with a call not to rise to deliberate provocations, in order that the peaceful protest of people is not transformed into violent confrontation.” Indeed the head of Tbilisi Pride, Giorgi Tabagari, who well knows the views of the Church, said that he believed the State Security Services may have been assisting counter-protestors throughout the day, rather than the Church.
Tabagari wrote on Facebook(banned in Russia) that the group had privately changed the location of the Pride March five times during the day, but that anti-Pride protestors had arrived at those locations ahead of them every time. He claimed that no outsiders had been informed of the planned location changes, and questioned how the information could have leaked. But the Church was, predictably, painted as one of the main villains in this conflict.
In this country whose official agencies would rather have the West than the Church, which is recognised as the cornerstone of its nationhood even by those of other faiths, human rights are being violated left and right and the population left in abject poverty due to policies imposed by the “free world”. But the press barely seems to mind, as everything in Georgia has to be about trying to keep up with the West, and accepting this alternative “sexual identity” is perceived as a badge of so-called Western values.
This does of course have one consequence: if Georgia steps out of line, Uncle Sam can send the cavalry in to rescue it, and impose more of the same on people who have suffered enough. But to do that, the West has to undermine the Church. It will however find out the hard way that Matthew 16:18 can be taken literally: on this rock He has built His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.
Georgia is, and will remain, a Christian country, and as such Gay Rights will never be accepted by the vast majority of the population. The same is true of any political orientation which goes against local values and cultural dependencies, just as socialism is not acceptable in the US.
If you read the reports of the NGOs and statements of foreign missions, you would be convinced that Georgia was “improving” in its treatment of the LGBTQ+ community. But the fundamental flaw of all these reports is that they assume that Georgians are on one side and Gays on the other.
In a culture as venerable as Georgia’s, Gays are Georgians too. Whichever side of the debate they are on, no one wants to be used as a tool against their own country. Gays are not going to overthrow every aspect of Georgian culture to keep living there, and if anyone doesn’t like them living there, they are dealt with by both the law and their priests as they are in every other country.
Georgia’s proud history of non-discrimination against its ancient Jewish community is something which should be celebrated in every country which holds a Holocaust Remembrance Day and makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offence. But it is little known and less discussed in the West, because it doesn’t suit the stereotype of barbarous East Europeans the West is trying to promote.
If Georgia has this history, it makes it an ideal political partner for the trendy West. But it did all this whilst predominantly Orthodox, so no one talks about it. So is the agenda to end Holocausts, or to start a new one?
One People Under God!
If anyone wants the Ukraine conflict to end, it is the Orthodox Church. It has consistently spoken out against Orthodox fighting fellow Orthodox. It is more affected by this conflict than either side, which were separate to begin with, and is therefore ideally placed to broker a peace agreement.
But such an agreement would leave Orthodoxy in place, and its distinct practices would remain the standard. So no one in the West wants the Church, the one thing the sides have in common, to be involved. Hence the only solution is a Western one, and the only interests which peace can serve are those of secular governments in the West, not Ukrainians, Russians or anyone else.
One wonders why the Church is such a threat. Could it be because the more credence you give it, the more you have to accept your own sinfulness? Or is the real issue that the Tradition of the Church has developed over centuries, and has more validity than the latest schemes and values of people who have been here five minutes?
We all saw Western humanity during the global financial crisis – destroy everyone’s savings and then bailing out the people who did it so they didn’t have to admit they were wrong. Imposition of Western practices because the West is desperate to survive has no moral basis, and never will, and that is exactly why it needs to be done in countries which know that.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The investigation into the October 29 tragedy in Seoul’s Itaewon district, in which 168 people were killed in a stampede, has finally concluded. Both the official investigation team and the parliamentary inquiry launched by the opposition Democratic Party announced their findings. And, because it was obvious from the start that the investigation would be highly politicized, it was.
The outcome of the official investigation
The 501-member investigation team began its work on November 1, 2022, and announced its findings on January 13, 2023. The cause of the tragedy was described as “Crowd Crush as a result of uncontrolled crowding.” The main causes of death were pressure asphyxia and cerebral hypoxia.
Flaws in the work of the authorities responsible for safety were cited as the reason for the incident, as such a situation had been foreseeable given the mass influx of people.
As a result, 23 cases (mainly for involuntary manslaughter by negligent performance of professional duties) were referred to the prosecutor’s office. Six people are in custody, including the head of Yongsan Police Station, Lee Im-jae, and the head of the local administration, Park Hee-young. The cases against them have been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office for indictment. The four others include Superintendent Park of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA), who is accused of deleting internal reports warning of overcrowding on Halloween and a possible safety accident. On January 18, the Seoul Western District Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against Lee Im-jae for professional negligence and falsifying official reports related to the accident, and on December 26, Park Hee-young was arrested. Lee is forced to claim the role of scapegoat, mainly because it took the official an hour to get to the scene of the accident – he drove there through traffic when it would have taken only 10 minutes if he had walked, and no action was taken for the lost time.
Another 17 people have been charged but are not in custody. They include SMPA chief Kim Kwang-ho, two other SMPA officials in charge of monitoring emergencies, the chief of Yongsan Fire Station Choi Seong-beom, the chief of Yongsan Community Medical Center, and the chief of Itaewon Subway Station.
The managers of the Hamilton Hotel, which is adjacent to the accident site, and the bar on the hotel’s second floor are also being prosecuted for illegally erecting structures in the narrow alley, making it even narrower.
Once the cases are transferred, prosecutors are expected to conduct additional investigations to determine whether they should go to trial.
As a result, the investigation team decided not to charge officials from the Ministry of Administration and Security as well as Seoul City Hall. Investigators concluded that the deaths had resulted from actions and omissions of the police, fire department, and Yongsan-gu Municipality, which includes Itaewon. According to a member of the investigation team, the local administration, not the central or metropolitan government, is legally responsible for disaster prevention and emergency response. As a result, Minister of Administration and Security Lee Sang-min, National Police Agency Commissioner General Yoon Hee-geun, and Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon are not held accountable, and the author agrees that symbolic and actual responsibility should be separated.
Of course, the relatives of the victims disagree with this thesis and demand symbolic dismissals, especially since lawyers from NGOs affiliated with the Democratic Party immediately began working with the former. According to the bereaved families, the official investigation “cut off the lizard’s tail to save its head” because “the government and the ruling party were only interested in containing the political fallout by attempting to protect the mayor of Seoul, the minister of interior and security, and the national police chief”.
Parliamentary investigation
A parallel parliamentary police investigation was initiated, reasoning that the police had to investigate themselves and “we will not know the truth.” Especially since the truth in the Democrats’ version has long been known: similar to the sinking of the ferry Sewol in 2014, the Democrats immediately began to make the tragedy a symbol of the current government’s incompetence and impotence, concluding that all of its key representatives, of course, should be fired.
It is clear that a parliamentary investigation in this form could not work properly. On the one hand, the conservatives sabotaged its progress; on the other, the democratic investigators were more likely to make grand gestures on camera and talk more with the victims’ relatives than actually investigate.
The 45-day parliamentary investigation began on November 26, but it was not until December 19 that opposition parties approved the schedule and witness list for the parliamentary inquiry into the Itaewon stampede because the ruling party boycotted the investigation. The schedule included two on-site investigations, two rounds of report sessions by relevant agencies including the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, Seoul City Hall, Yongsan District Office, Yongsan Fire Station, Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and Yongsan Police Station, and three days of hearings, in which eighty-nine witnesses, including Lee Sang-min, Yoon Hee-geun and Se-hoon were to appear before parliamentarians.
On December 21, the Parliamentary Committee began its investigation by visiting the crash site. The committee’s next stops were the Seoul Metropolitan Police Headquarters and City Hall.
Along the way, committee members visited the memorial altar and met with the families of the victims. Some attacked the committee members, accusing them of a belated visit that took place about a month after the committee had been established.
As for the hearings, the ruling party fixated its attack on the Yongsan police station chief. The Democratic Party focused on criticizing the overall police response, arguing that the police were more focused on fighting drug-related crimes and were not keeping an eye on the crowd.
In the end, the parliamentary investigation (let’s not forget that the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in parliament) came up with exactly the outcome the Democrats wanted. South Korea’s three opposition parties – Toburo, the Justice Party, and the Basic Income Party-submitted a report accusing eight high-ranking government officials, including Minister Lee Sang-min, Han Oh-Sop, head of the Presidential Administration’s State Affairs Operations Department, Yoon Hee-keun, head of the National Police Agency, and Kim Kwang-ho, Seoul police chief, among others, of perjury and false testimony. But the Democrats traditionally gave no specific examples of perjury or improper response.
Representatives of the ruling party predictably spoke out against it, which provoked outrage among the relatives and family members of the victims who were present at the meeting, and the subsequent riots. On January 18, the opposition parties stated that since the parliamentary inquiry “did not live up to expectations,” “an independent organization is needed to further uncover the truth about the tragedy and work out measures to prevent similar accidents.”
“What now”?
From the author’s point of view, the excitement surrounding the tragedy is gradually subsiding as no heartbreaking details have emerged about a minister/official who had played golf during the tragedy, chatted with shamans, and had gone about his business only after the banquet. Thus, media coverage of the tragedy is moving from an acute to a chronic phase, and the Democrats have rather failed to unleash a wave of mass discontent along the lines of Sewol.
For starters, the administration has shown a reasonable degree of empathy, promptly addressed the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, and put forward a series of amendments designed to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again. The claims that Yoon Suk-yeol tried to downplay the tragedy from the beginning, instructed officials to use the word “accident” instead of “disaster,” and has yet to issue a presidential statement apologizing to the nation are loud but not dangerous.
Second, the anti-government argument is neutralized by the fact that conservatives and Democrats are still measured not by their approval ratings, but by their anti-ratings. And the latter is currently higher by the Democrats: the likelihood of a criminal case being brought against Democratic Chairman Lee Jae-myung has increased significantly recently, and the evidence cited in the media and elsewhere does not give the impression that it has been “concocted.”
Therefore, it is too early to finish the story on the stampede, but it is time for an ellipsis.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Relations between Iran and Europe, particularly the three European giants France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (E3), which signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in 2015, are steadily deteriorating due to the hostile actions of the Europeans in recent months. The Europeans have increased diplomatic pressure on Iran since last September, when nationwide unrest erupted in Iran. In this context, the execution of Iranian-British citizen Alireza Akbari for Western espionage only served as a catalyst.
In the latest hostile action by the E3, Germany summoned the Iranian ambassador for alleged human rights violations, following the example of France and Britain, which are now putting even more pressure on Iran under the pretext of defending human rights. This comes at a time when debate is intensifying in Europe over the classification of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, further dampening hopes for a revival of the Iran nuclear deal.
When former US President Donald Trump designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization in 2019, there was widespread discontent in Europe over fears that the move would hinder the revival of the JCPOA under the next president. But in 2023, under intense pressure from Washington, the Europeans are already considering the possibility of classifying the IRGC as a terrorist organization, further confirming the Europeans’ dependence on the United States and their willingness to follow the White House. At the same time, however, the E3 has made it clear that they are reportedly open to a controversial move, even though negotiations on the JCPOA are still at zero. According to Fars News, Peter Stano, the E3’s senior foreign relations official, said that negotiations on the JCPOA are still ongoing.
But the ongoing hostility of the E3 has cast a long and dark shadow over these negotiations, if not stalled them altogether. According to experts, Europe has joined forces with the United States to exert strong pressure on the Iranians, forcing them to accept European, and by extension American, terms and positions. “Putting pressure on Iran to weaken Iran’s image in the world public opinion, alienating the country from its allies, limiting Iran’s role in regional and international issues and, in a word, “sidelining” Iran in foreign policy are the main goals that the three European countries are pursuing together with the United States,” Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency said rather accurately. According to that agency, the United States is also seeking to extract maximum concessions from Iran in future nuclear negotiations, if they take place at all.
Rising tensions between Iran and the West in general have also raised questions about what might happen next. Observers believe that the current state of affairs between the two sides is not moving in the direction of de-escalating relations and negotiations, and that a possible increase in tensions could at some point dash the last remaining hopes of reviving the JCPOA. Therefore, the West needs to think about the consequences of its steps toward Iran, especially after sending some kind of signal that it is “ready to resume the agreement.”
The West responded to Iran’s repeated calls for diplomacy in the talks with sanctions and threats. Russia’s representative to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, pointed to the West’s disinterest in the JCPOA negotiations. “The best way to prevent negative developments in the region would be to conclude negotiations on the JCPOA in Vienna. A breakthrough in this area could lower tensions and pave the way for a re-energized regional security dialogue. Clearly, Western countries are not prepared for this,” he said on social media.
With Germany pushing for new sanctions against Iran, talks in Vienna on renewing the shaky 2015 Iran agreement now face new obstacles. Experts believe Germany’s hasty action could unintentionally derail the talks. Commenting on the issue, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Berlin and Brussels are considering whether to blame the IRGC after Germany criticized Iran for its handling of weeks of unrest. Baerbock told ARD television, “I made it clear that we will impose another package of sanctions, that we will consider how we can also put the Revolutionary Guard on the list of terrorist organizations.”
Interestingly enough, these remarks came a few days after the German foreign minister issued a statement promising a fresh start in relations with Iran. At the same time, however, she stressed, “There can be no ‘business as usual’ in our bilateral relations with a state that treats the lives of its citizens with such contempt.” She added, “The last few weeks have been used for intensive efforts to critically review the few remaining instruments in the areas of trade and finance, including the business relations that still exist with Iranian banks. Where bilateral dialog is still ongoing, for example in the areas of economics and energy, we will suspend it. The same applies to German cultural institutions and teachers working in Iran – we will significantly reduce their presence.” In general, German policy and especially the foreign minister’s policy toward Iran is quite difficult to understand and to assess correctly – Berlin wants to draw good dividends from the few remaining economic relations with Tehran on the one hand and has to submissively bow to Washington on the other. One wonders how Berlin will manage to walk safely on the political blade of the Iranian-American knife.
It is only natural that Germany, which has taken the lead in defining the role of the IRGC, should complicate the talks in Vienna, because the IRGC issue was and continues to be one of the most pressing issues in the nuclear talks. Furthermore, this issue prevented the promised economic benefits envisioned for Iran in the JCPOA, which were presented by the US as a kind of “carrot.” Earlier in the talks, a proposal was made to avoid the US’s “definition of the IRGC” and its role in Iranian domestic and foreign policy. However, neither party has yet agreed to the proposal, and the issue is expected to be resolved when negotiations resume at a later date.
While the Vienna talks are stalled for a variety of reasons, European and US sanctions against the IRGC will be another impediment to the resumption of the JCPOA, if not the end of the negotiations themselves. Aside from complicating the talks, Iran will almost certainly retaliate by designating the IRGC as an official state institution. In a press release, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani stated that declaring the IRGC a terrorist organization is illegal: “The remarks of German officials about the decision to sanction the IRGC are a continuation of the irresponsible actions of these [European] countries toward the Islamic Republic of Iran and spring from their wrong attitude toward the Iranian nation and government.” He added, “The IRGC is Iran’s official military organization, and such a move is illegal. We hope the German government and other states will take note of their unconstructive actions and refrain from sacrificing their bilateral interests to temporary political interests and emotional decisions.”
Iran is not willing to back down from its position on the IRGC and warns that the European Union would “shoot itself in the foot” if it declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. “We have repeatedly stated that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an official and sovereign organization whose role is central to Iran’s security,” Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said during a phone conversation with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, adding, “Steps taken by the European Parliament to list the organization as terrorist are in a way a shot in the foot of Europe itself.”
There is little to add to this view of Tehran, because it is the Iranians who want to settle all relations with the West and bring peace to this turbulent region of the world. The West, led by the US, relies, as always, only on brute force, sanctions and cheap deceit in negotiations with the other side, in this case Iran.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
The penultimate chronicle of events accompanying the development of the Taiwan problem, discussed more or less regularly in the NEO, described the state of the initial reaction of politicians, both in Taiwan itself and among leading players in the world, to the rather unexpected results of local authorities elections on the island in late November.
This appears to be an insignificant event in the context of the current phase of the “Great Game,” but it may well serve as a sign of which scenario the latter will follow in the near future. The one that will inevitably lead to an unprecedented catastrophe (if not of global, then of regional proportions), or the option of a peaceful solution to this problem. The latter, by the way, remains the preferred one for the Chinese leadership. This is evident from the Chinese leader’s speech at the 20th Congress of the CCP, held a month before the above-mentioned elections. Meanwhile, large-scale military demonstrations continue in the vicinity of the island.
The main component of the answer to the above question is undoubtedly due to the nature of the change in relations between the two leading world powers, the United States and China. However, the domestic political situation in Taiwan should not be ignored either. Its development is significantly influenced by the struggle between the two party groups. One of them has been led by the Democratic Progressive Party ruling since 2016, while the other is led by the Kuomintang Party, the oldest party in modern China.
The DPP is clearly focused on making Taiwan a de facto independent state. This is supported (also increasingly clearly) by various factions of the US establishment. It should be noted that Washington’s continuing official declaration of respect for the principle of “one China” is coming under heavy fire in the United States itself, and the likelihood of such declarations being abandoned in the near future does not appear to be zero. And then the “apocalyptic” scenario of “solving” the Taiwan problem will also be quite likely.
That is why the outcome of Taiwan’s general election next January is so important. If the DPP retains the levers of political leadership on the island, especially the presidency, the likelihood of the negative scenario mentioned above will increase dramatically. The Kuomintang, on the other hand, remains committed to Sun Yat-sen’s “Three Ones Principles,” which would directly contradict the emergence of a “second China.” This is the basis for the Kuomintang to maintain contact with the CCP. Even during the 20th Congress of the latter.
Again, this does not imply that the Kuomintang would immediately begin incorporating the island into the PRC if elected in a year. But the leadership of the latter has little choice among political partners with whom to begin (at least) discussions about this process.
Meanwhile, in the December-January local “by-elections,” the Kuomintang confirmed that the prospects for this party in the upcoming general elections a year from now are at least as good, relatively speaking, as those of the DPP.
The situation with the latter is exacerbated by the fact that Taiwan’s current president, Tsai Ing-wen, who presided over the party until recently, cannot run again, having already held that office for two terms. Meanwhile, the fact that Ms. Tsai (one of Taiwan’s most colorful politicians in recent decades) had agreed to lead the DPP again just a year (in January 2020) after a similar defeat in the November 2018 local elections has ensured the party’s victory in the next general election.
Her current departure from the chairmanship of the DPP is final. Not only because she has taken responsibility for the failure of her fellow party members in November 2022 (including those for whom she had personally campaigned), but also, we repeat, because of the impossibility of running for a third time in the next presidential elections.
So, against the backdrop of the syndrome of the recent election defeat, the question of the new DPP chairman became particularly acute for the party, and on January 15, the party official, 63-year-old William Lai, was named chairman. A poll conducted two days later showed that the new chairman of the (so far) ruling party and a possible Kuomintang candidate for Taiwan’s presidency would receive almost the same number of votes if the election were held today. Far behind is a possible third candidate representing the Taiwan People’s Party. In other words, nothing has been decided yet about the outcome of the next general election in a year’s time.
One of the most important issues in the upcoming pre-election struggle will undoubtedly be a series of questions related to the development of defense potential and the strategy for its deployment in the event of an armed attack on the island from the mainland. Basically, of course, the current Taiwanese leadership is relying on the US to participate. And for some time now, on Japan as well. We reiterate that Washington is not bound by any formal commitments to Taipei in this regard and that “at hour X” everything will depend on the current political situation in the US.
But the Taiwanese leadership itself is making serious efforts in this area (we emphasize, regardless of party affiliation). Among these recent events, we point to the news that appeared on the eve of the turn of 2023 about the purchase (for a total amount of $180 million) of Volcano minelayers in the above mentioned US. These minelayers can be deployed (“on the eve of the expected invasion”) from both trucks and helicopters.
During a videoconference held by Taipei two weeks later, M. Pottinger, who served in the Trump administration as Deputy National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, answered “uncomfortable questions” related to this deal (e.g., about a possible violation of the 1997 Ottawa Treaty) and touched on the specific issue of the so-called “silicon shield” in the problem of ensuring Taiwan’s security.
The factor at issue is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), a Taiwanese company which now has near-monopoly position in the global market for the manufacture of silicon wafer-based integrated electronic circuits (“chips”). TSMC chips are used in today’s most advanced (mostly civilian) industries. In this context, it is sometimes assumed that Beijing is as concerned about the security of this company, including its 50,000 employees, as others are (and perhaps even more, since it is one of the main buyers of TSMC products). As a result, it will avoid a “non-peaceful” solution to a problem that may be critical for it today.
However, the aforementioned M. Pottinger takes the opposite view and believes that the prospect of gaining full control of TSMC can only be a major incentive for the landing operation. Therefore, according to this former US official, the “traditional” methods of improving the island’s defense capability, which are jointly conducted by the US and Taiwan, should be continued.
Incidentally, the above factor is also being diluted since TSMC has been building chip fabs in other countries, including the US and Japan. The possibility of constructing more fabs there is being discussed. In this context, the prospect of this extremely important (including its political aspects) area of the modern global economy losing its Taiwan-based nature raises concerns.
Finally, increased efforts of certain groups of Europeans in the field of political “legalization” of Taiwan on the world stage attracted attention. The rabid “young Europeans” from the east of the continent, such as Lithuania, are particularly eager in this regard. As for “old Europe,” it behaves more decently (so far) on generalized Taiwanese issue. The island continues to be visited by groups of parliamentarians, mostly (but not always, as recently in Germany, discussed below) in opposition to the current executive.
Representatives of the latter usually keep a low profile in order to preserve an opportunity to develop relations with the PRC. Such a task is particularly important today, given the (comprehensive) pressure from Washington on “old Europe,” with the US using those “young Europeans” as improvised tools in the Ukraine conflict.
In this context, the visit to Taiwan of a group of German parliamentarians from the Free Democratic Party, which, by the way, is now part of the governing coalition in Germany, has been noteworthy. During their visit from January 9 to 11, the members of the delegation made various statements that were not flattering for Beijing and they were received by President Tsai Ing-wen.
Note that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz shows only a desire to maintain mutually beneficial relations with China. Which is not consistent with the trip to the “rebellious island” by parliamentarians from one of the parties in the coalition he leads. However, it is not said that they had been sent to Taiwan by the leadership of the FDP. They have the right, as they say, to do so on their own behalf.
All in all, the sum of recent events accompanying the development of the Taiwan problem fits into the general background of a rather alarming picture of the current phase of the “Great World Game.”
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
What is the price of a Yale professor? If you wanted to buy one lock, stock, and barrel, depending on what you want to use one (or two) for, the cost could be pretty steep. More often than not, today’s Ivy League know-it-all types seem like soap salespeople. Whoever supplies the grant money gets the squeaky brain grease.
Take the current superheated Russophobia as an example. Many of the western world’s most successful and respected professors publish “research” that looks more like tabloid journalism. It’s the trend. Or, I should say, outlandish analysis is now acceptable in any form as long as the desired “truth” is presented. A recent study at Foreign Policy entitled “The World Economy No Longer Needs Russia,” is just dumb from the title to the summary. Yes, I just said Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfel, and Steven Tian are both obtuse with reality. Or else they feel confident that we are. Let’s take their high-profile genius analysis from the start, just to show you what I mean.
First, the two Yale scholars claim that claims that Russia Vladimir Putin has been holding the global economy hostage until the world services his whims. It’s a lie, of course. It was not Russia that blew up the Nordstream pipelines, and Putin has said gas is often available for all who will buy it. How can the Russian president possibly hold Europe or America, hostage, when both countries have the gun to their heads? These Ivy League chums of Biden are ridiculous. The authors spew about Europe’s utter dependence on Russian natural resources, then bound off into never never land with this:
“Now, as we approach the one-year anniversary of Putin’s invasion, it is apparent that Russia has permanently forfeited its erstwhile economic might in the global marketplace.”
Take note. It’s “Putin’s invasion,” but no mention that America and the Europeans lied about the Minsk accords to create a Ukrainian NATO base under the Russians’ noses. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France/s François Hollande just told the world the peace deal was a sham to give Ukraine time to rearm. The sinister nature of the whole Euromaidan affair, the eight years of hammering the separate eastern republics with artillery, and Joe Biden’s insane “all-in policy” for arming Ukraine to death, it’s like watching a lunatic asylum set loose in Washington.
Next, the highly compensated professors paint Europe’s cutting off Russian gas as a genius stroke amplified by unseasonably warm European weather. According to Yale big brains, Europe is running on renewables, nuclear, American LNG, and the medieval benefits of coal. The dynamic duo of Biden policy propagandists does not tell their audience that early on, U.S. LNG was sold in Germany at quadrupling the price it costs in America. This is what prompted EU President Ursula von der Leyen to start advertising for a price cap. The cap was not aimed at Russia, as the new media professed. Instead, it was initiated to hold back the pirates from across the Atlantic, taking advantage of a situation.
Then there’s the big lie. Sonnenfel and Tan claim that the Russians have no alternative buyers to take the place of the European market. They also say Putin is selling gas at zero profit and that the world no longer depends on Russia’s oil. Their contentions are not only misleading, but they are also laughable. I am amazed that Sonnenfel, an adviser to several presidents, even put his name on this FP story. But he’s not alone by a long shot. Fortune Magazine’s Lars Paulsson also said it was Putin trying to strangle Europe’s gas supply, not the United States and the globalist elites. I mention the Fortune story to show that the thinking of these academics is not thinking at all. It’s a queued narrative parroted all over the information space. Now for the perspective from the “rest” of the world.
I was just reading a CNBC story by Natasha Turak, which aired the projections of Saad Sherida al-Kaabi, energy minister and head of state gas company QatarEnergy. One point made, one which validates my thesis is reflected in the passage below:
“EU countries dramatically cut down their imports of Russian energy supplies over the course of last year.”
Also, note that CNBC is all-in warmongering for the Biden administration, but the truth has a way of slipping out, as above. If EU countries dramatically cut down their Russian gas on account of whatever, how is Putin holding a gun to their head? The Qatari energy boss even admits Europe will soon be back on Russian gas once the world forgets Ukraine again. Remember, the EU and UK have banned all seaborne imports of Russian crude oil as of December. Furthermore, the EU is set to ban refined product imports starting from Feb. 5. The Brits also banned imports of Russian LNG as of Jan. 1st.
Here’s the actual situation partially illustrated by a report from Viktor Katona, lead oil analyst at Kpler, an intelligence and data firm for commodity markets. “Russian oil exports have been effectively unchanged since the introduction of the oil price cap.” Russia ships energy primarily to Asia, with India being the saving grace. According to Katona, Arctic crude oil now flows almost exclusively to Asia. Markets Insider reported a few days ago that seaborne crude exports from Russia have surged by over 30% to an 8-month high, thanks to shipments to China and India. And with Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Nicaragua all lined up to enter BRICS, the logic of these Yale quasi-energy experts fails. Now prepare for a good laugh.
The U.S. Congressional Research Service report “Russia’s Trade and Investment Role in the Global Economy,” tells the savvy humanoid Yale professors are sometimes full of sheep dip. According to government experts, the Ukraine situation “has heightened congressional interest in understanding Russia’s economy.” After scanning the report, I’m 100% sure neither of the Yale teachers read it. Or, they did read it and decided to go with the “Russia broken” narrative anyhow. What does the report say, you ask?
Russia’s role in the global economy is vital to the extreme. It is true energy is Russia’s biggest export, with the country supplying 11.3% of the world’s demand for oil and 17.2% of the demand for natural gas. And here’s where the funny part begins. A 2011 report from Yale predicted that China and India will be responsible for almost half of the rapidly doubling energy consumption by 2035. This same report tells the entire tale. The Yale analysts said that by 2035, only about 15 percent of the world’s power would come from renewable sources. They also confirm that 80% of our energy will still come from fossil fuels even in another decade. The point is the numbers do not add up to Russia being put out of the game. China and India, Russia’s new biggest customers, will take up over half of the world’s energy consumption shortly, and eighty percent or more of this will be fossil fuels.
Overall, consumption will grow by more than thirty-five percent worldwide, so the questions for the genius analysts Jeffrey Sonnenfel and Steven Tian is, Where will the rest of the energy come from with Russia gone?” Saudi Arabia hit “peak oil” decades ago. The U.S. alone used about 97,331,601,000,000,000 Btu, or about 97 quadrillions Btu in 2021. So, when will consumption reach production capacity equilibrium in the U.S.? Or will there be windmills from coast to coast by 2035? What’s obvious is that Yale University has some interesting brains at work. And maybe the ultimate cost will be credibility.
Russia’s role in the world economy will expand rather than contract in the decades to come. And it’s not all about fossil fuels. More on this in another report.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The topic of this article, of course, is very complex, profound and ambiguous, which requires more fundamental case studies. The author does not claim to have comprehensive coverage of this issue but will nevertheless try to outline the main features of Turkish-American relations taking into account the Kurdish issue.
The Kurdish issue remains an integral part of the Greater Middle East issue and, considering the geographical area of the Kurdish ethnic group, poses a threat to the territorial integrity of neighboring countries in the region – Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. For the first time, this issue appeared on the agenda of international diplomacy following the results of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877–1878 in the Berlin Treaty, and then following the results of the First World War in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. However, interstate contradictions between the countries of the West and Russia did not allow the implementation of decisions on the Kurdish issue in the context of Kurdish ethnic formation under the protectorate of one of the key world powers.
From this, it could be surmised that two major forces, the Anglo-Saxons and the Russians, had a decisive external influence on the Kurdish issue at different stages of modern and recent history. The modern architecture of the borders of the countries of the Middle East largely appeared according to the Versailles system of world order following the results of the First World War with the decisive role of Great Britain. Depending on the foreign policy of countries with a Kurdish population, the Kurdish issue received the corresponding attitude from leading powers. In other words, if Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria remained in the zone of Western influence, then London and Washington paid minimal attention to the Kurdish issue.
The situation gradually began to change with the appearance of the State of Israel and Tel Aviv’s policy of subversive influence on Iran and Syria, where the Kurdish theme was used as pressure on Tehran and Damascus. Accordingly, London and Washington did not reduce their interest in the oil resources of Kurdish-populated Kirkuk. However, before World War II, the UK controlled the oil resources of the future state of Iraq and limited Turkey’s capabilities, and the Kurdish issue was used by British intelligence to put pressure on Ankara’s government in order to exclude revanchist hopes for Kirkuk (for example, the case of the uprising and suppression of the Simko from the Kurdish Shekak tribe). During the Cold War era, the US and the UK considered Turkey as a reliable southeastern flank of NATO, which automatically ruled out support for the Kurdish movement within Anatolia. And, on the contrary, the formation in 1978 of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party of a pro-socialist direction, headed by Abdullah Ocalan in Turkey, was considered by the CIA as a project of the KGB, directly connected with the Middle East policy of the USSR.
Naturally, the Kurdish movement in Turkey and other countries of the Middle East could hardly be considered Marxist and socialist, given the level of political consciousness of the Kurdish masses. At the same time, the leaders of Kurdish political organizations (especially in Turkey), objectively assessing the systemic contradictions between the NATO bloc and the Warsaw Pact, often tried to play on the contradictions between the two political systems and benefit from cooperation with Moscow against the “common enemy” (including financial and perhaps limited military support for combat resistance).
Situations like these actively developed between the USSR and the US in the so-called Third World countries (including in the Middle East). By the way, it was the Soviet Union that paid high attention to the Kurds in terms of training scientific researchers and personnel. Thus, in the USSR, three academic centers in the field of Kurdology were created at the institutes of oriental studies in Yerevan, Moscow and Leningrad.
In Turkey, during the years of the Cold War, the Kurdish movement under the leadership of the PKK was fiercely suppressed by the security forces with the participation of units of the local gendarmerie, as well as MIT commando units Covert operations known as “Counter-Guerrilla” (as part of Operation Gladio) targeted Kurdish leaders, activists and militants. At this time, the Turkish radical forces of the Pan-Turkism direction under the leadership of the MNP and the Grey Wolves organization, in cooperation with the MIT, were directly involved in subversive actions against the Kurds.
The situation changed somewhat after the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the so-called “communist threat.” In fact, the PKK lost an important external ally and found itself in a systemic ideological and political crisis. With the arrest in February 1999 of the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Ocalan, and his subsequent life imprisonment in a special prison on the island of Imrali in the Sea of Marmara, the Turkish authorities deprived the Kurdish resistance of an important control figure. The joint operation of the CIA, Mossad and MIT to arrest Ocalan became possible taking into account the planned construction of an alternative pipeline system to Russia through the eastern Kurdish-populated vilayets of Turkey in order to export Azerbaijani oil and gas to Europe. Ankara and its partners, in order to ensure the security of the energy traffic of the Caspian basin, were forced to localize the threat of the Kurdish guerrilla movement in Turkey itself.
However, given the search for a new Middle East strategy, the US and the UK began to consider the possibility of absorbing the Kurdish factor in their regional geopolitics, giving preference to Iraqi Kurdistan, taking into account oil reserves and personal factors. As is well known, in the second half of the 20th century, the CIA established its patronage over the leader of the Kurdish movement in Iraq Mustafa Barzani, and his death in an American clinic on March 1, 1979, according to some informed sources, is linked with the intervention of American intelligence after he accepted the offer of the leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, to visit Tehran to discuss the Kurdish issue.
The Kurdish issue in its potential is a factor of confrontation on the scale of a large region and can be used by the US and its key allies (in particular, the UK and Israel) to form a new geopolitical structure in the Middle East. The idea of forming “Kurdistan” under the auspices of the US and being closely connected with the EU and Israel took on a new shape in the regional geopolitics in the first quarter of the 21st century.
London began conducting systematic research (including field research) on Kurdish topics. At the turn of the century, there were virtually no experienced specialists on the Kurdish issue in the US analytical community, therefore, to design its policy in this area, the US administration entrusted the development of Kurdish issues to three research centers: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Middle East Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as well as individual university teams. It is known that American research centers remain imperative in the development of foreign policy only in cases where there is not enough experience in applying political decisions. Kurdish topics are among those where priority is given to the opinion of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Israel and its intelligence services, in turn, have sufficient experience in contacts with Kurdish political and military structures because Tel Aviv seeks to effectively use the Kurdish factor against Iraq, Iran and Syria. Therefore, Israel provides some assistance to the government of Iraqi Kurdistan (including through intelligence). Israel is also interested in the formation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq with control of the oil-bearing region in Kirkuk. If earlier Israel, in terms of the Kurdish issue in Turkey, supported the position of Ankara and offered some kind of complicity in the liberalization of the socio-cultural rights of the Kurdish population, then over time, the great interest of Tel Aviv in the Kurdish issue drew criticism from President Erdoğan, which was reflected in the breakdown of relations in 2010. The conflict off the coast of Gaza in May 2010 actually became the reason for the dissolution of relations between Turkey and Israel, as Ankara, in response to Tel Aviv’s pro-Kurdish obsession, became more active in supporting Palestinian Arabs. And only in June 2016 did the parties agree to restore relations.
The invasion by the collective forces of the US and the UK of Iraq in 2003 led to an increase in Anglo-Saxon support for the project of a Kurdish political entity in northern Iraq, where, in fact, with the support of Washington and London, plus the complicity of Tel Aviv, a de facto Kurdish autonomy was formed. However, while the initial US goal was dividing Iraq into three independent and Washington-controlled parts – Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish, the aggravation of the internal political situation in Iraq in 2006-2007 forced the Americans to abandon such a project in favor of maintaining a united Iraq and cutting down on their promises to the Kurds. Nevertheless, while formally maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, the US provided local Kurds with favorable conditions for forming governing bodies of political institutions, for controlling oil resources and for creating military structures under the protectorate of American military bases. The Kurdish regional government in Iraq received a considerable amount of weapons from the US and the UK, while CIA and SIS residencies are actively operating in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The subsequent US policy in the Arab East and the aggravation of its relations with the Alawites and the regime led by Bashar Assad in Syria led to a situation of expanding the American protectorate over the Kurdish factor in the region. After Iraq, Syria became the new place for American support for the Kurds (Kurdish political and militant structures opposed to the regime). If earlier on American experts found it difficult to form a US position on the Kurds in Iraq, they considered it undesirable for Washington to divide the once powerful Iraqi state into three parts, because such a policy would displease the Arab world, then after 2011 and the Arab Spring, such a forecast lost its relevance to US regional diplomacy.
In relation to the fate of Iraq, the leading British expert on the Kurdish issue Gareth Stansfeld noted as follows: “The US and the UK are trying to keep Iraq from disintegrating, but if it turns out that the desire is unfulfilled and the Kurds are determined to implement the national idea, the most reasonable thing would be the recognition of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq.” The change in the priorities of American policy in terms of the Kurdish issue depends on a number of factors related to the policy of the ruling regimes of the countries where the Kurds live, control of local oil resources and energy facilities, and the fight against so-called international terrorism.
Naturally, such a US policy towards the Kurds cannot suit Turkey, including the creation of a Kurdish state in bordering countries (Iraq and Syria). Perhaps Ankara does not rule out a secret discussion with Washington on the subject of “exchanging” the independence of the Kurds in neighboring Iraq for the recognition of the sovereignty of, say, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Meanwhile, it is Turkey’s productive partnership with Russia that has allowed Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to contain the “Kurdish onslaught” of the United States in Syria and maintain the security of its southern borders. Russia has so far managed, thanks to its peacekeeping operation in Syria and constructive relations with Turkey, to maintain relative security in the Kurdish-populated areas of the SAR. Concurrently, the well-known local military operations of the Turkish forces in northern Syria in order to form a security zone with a depth of 32 km with a center in Idlib significantly undermined the authority of the United States, which bears moral and political responsibility for the security of the Syrian Kurds.
The US is worried that support for the formation of a Kurdish statehood in northern Iraq will eventually lead to a situation where Turkey will move to closer cooperation with Iran and the Arabs, and Kurdistan will become the subject of US “strategic concern” by analogy with Israel. At the same time, the existing regional partnership between Russia, Turkey and Iran will block the American monopoly in Kurdish affairs.
American expert Wayne Merry believes that “sooner or later the Kurdish problem will need to be discussed and resolved, while there are no ideas about solutions. The US may face an unexpected crisis caused by the Kurdish problem on a scale of the entire Middle East.”
It follows from this that the US has already “faced” the Kurdish issue in the course of its military operations in Iraq and Syria, now only Iran and Turkey are left. Accordingly, the Israeli lobby in the US (including from the standpoint of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) is actively trying to play the “Kurdish card” against Iran to remove the undesirable mullocracy regime in Tehran. It should also be mentioned that the growing dissatisfaction of the US administration with the independent policy of Turkish President Recep Erdoğan in the event of the latter’s victory in the elections on May 14 this year, could expand the geography of manipulation of the Kurdish issue within Turkey itself, where the largest Kurdish population is located (up to 30%). It is in this case that the US may face an “unexpected” Kurdish crisis throughout the Middle East. In other words, the US will not implement the “Ralph Peters’ Map” of redrawing the borders of individual countries in the Middle East in terms of resolving the Kurdish issue until the Kurdish factor becomes a universal tool for changing the regimes and policies of all four Kurdish-populated countries in the region.
What can prevent such plans of the US and its satellites, if not the constructive role of Russia in the Middle East, respecting the interests of existing states and the rights of their citizens, regardless of nationality? It is this balanced and responsible diplomacy of Moscow that preserves the contours for restoring regional security in the Middle East and ensures the increase of pro-Russian sentiment in the region.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
The warnings by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan uttered during a meeting with the youth in Mugla on January 15 that relations between Turkey and Sweden could worsen if Stockholm did not take action against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) are becoming prophetic.
As is known, in the summer of 2022, Turkey, Sweden and Finland signed a trilateral security agreement in Madrid, which gave a number of observers hope that the countries would reach an agreement on the admission of the two Scandinavian countries to NATO, which Ankara links with the implementation by these countries of concrete steps to combat terrorism. Although the Turkish authorities say that there are no particular complaints about Helsinki’s application, Ankara nevertheless seeks from Stockholm a decisive fight against Kurdish separatists, the extradition of suspects and the complete lifting of the embargo on the sale of weapons to Ankara: exports to Turkey were suspended in 2019. Insisting that Stockholm harbors representatives of movements that are recognized as terrorist in Turkey, Turkey gave Sweden and Finland a list of persons involved in terrorism, but they have not yet been handed over to Ankara. We are talking about 130 activists of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), who, according to Turkish authorities, were actively involved in mass protests in Turkey earlier.
Stockholm, under these conditions, tried to improve relations with Ankara, and in mid-November the Nordic country’s parliament even adopted amendments to the Constitution to tighten the anti-terrorist law starting from January 1, 2023, which would make it easier to prosecute members of the PKK and expand criminal liability for participation in terrorist organizations. However, on January 15, President Erdogan said that Sweden and Finland had refused to extradite nearly 130 terrorists that Ankara had requested, which is the reason for Turkey’s continued refusal to ratify the Nordic countries’ NATO applications.
After the start of anti-Turkish demonstrations in Sweden and the Swedish authorities refusal to halt such demonstrations from being held in Stockholm, events began to develop in a frankly unfavorable direction for further relations between Turkey and Sweden, increasing mutual tension.
American and European media outlets hostile to Turkey, who have joined in forming a public opinion against Erdogan, in connection with the presidential elections scheduled for May 14, attempted to place this conflict under the spotlight and bring to the fore the six-sided opposition coalition coming up with headlines such as “Opposition must win in Turkey.” The British newspaper The Economist also joined in discrediting the Turkish leader, stating, in particular, that Erdogan “may lose his post if the next presidential election is fair.” As evidenced by recent statements by several Western politicians and the media, this is a confrontation by the West against the Turkish leader which is escalating. The reason for this becomes clear from Bloomberg’s recent admissions that “the impact of the Turkish elections will be felt in European capitals, in US-Russian relations, in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa.”
According to Turkish media, in this context, various scandals and provocations against Turkey have been activated in the West, and a noticeable emphasis in this regard has been placed on the involvement of Sweden in anti-Turkish rallies. Thus, in France, supporters of the PKK, recognized by Ankara as a terrorist organization, desecrate the Turkish flag at every opportunity. In Sweden, in addition to the more frequent similar attacks on the Turkish flag, an effigy likened to Erdogan was recently hung by the feet, and Stockholm Prosecutor’s Office, despite the appeal of the Turkish authorities, refused to investigate this provocative action against the head of the Turkish state. Hanging upside down in front of the Stockholm City Hall on January 12, the effigy caused a diplomatic row between Turkey and Sweden. Moreover, in Sweden, Flamman magazine launched a satire competition aimed at insulting the Turkish president. The British news agency Reuters recently opened a separate vacancy for people who could write negative articles against Erdogan for publication.
Thus, the confrontation between Turkey and Sweden has already grown into an attempt by the West to create a kind of anti-Turkish front. This situation has especially aggravated in recent days, when the diplomatic scandal between Sweden and Turkey began to escalate into a global religious conflict after the demonstrative burning of the Koran in the center of Stockholm. As follows from media reports, the leader of the Danish far-right Islamophobic party Rasmus Paludan, during a rally organized at the Turkish embassy with the explicit authorization of local authorities, uttered demonstrative epithets against the Prophet Mohammed, President Erdogan and the migrants who flooded the country, and desecrated the holy book of Muslims. The role of the Swedish authorities in this openly anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish actions is evidenced by the fact that this “event” took place under the protection of the Swedish police.
This incident incensed not only Turkey, but also other Muslim countries, as well as many states not under US pressure. In Ankara, during protests, the crowd burned the Swedish flag, and at the same time Sweden was accused of inciting religious hatred and extremism. Turkey expelled the Swedish ambassador, canceled the visit of Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson, previously planned for January 27, and, for obvious reasons, Stockholm’s hopes for negotiations on the accession of the Nordic state into NATO were shattered.
The Foreign Ministries of Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as several other Muslim countries, strongly condemned the action of burning the Koran in front of the Turkish Embassy in Stockholm on January 21, emphasizing that this action indicates the level of Islamophobia, racism and discrimination in Europe, and may cause feelings of indignation among Muslims all over the world and become a dangerous provocation. This action of burning the Koran is “an act of unacceptable vandalism,” said Vladimir Legoyda, Chairman of the Synodal Department for Church’s Society and Mass Media Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. Vakhtang Kipshidze, deputy head of the Synodal Department for Church’s Society and Mass Media Relations, stated that “such a desecration of sacred objects is directed equally against all believers and is an attempt to impose a worldview in which there is no place for respect for the sacred, no matter what religion it may belong to.”
The Islamophobic rally that took place on January 21 in Stockholm is not the first and certainly not the last in recent years. And therefore, to a certain extent, we can anticipate the scope of reciprocal actions of Muslims in Europe in the near future. Including not only in Sweden, where there are already big problems with Muslim migrants. But also in a number of other European countries, where Muslim communities, including Turkish ones, have more than once shown their potential in the development of internal political processes in the EU.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Some powerful people – especially, the Neo-conservatives (Neocons) – in the US are getting desperate to defeat Russia in Ukraine. They think the US and NATO are not doing enough, leading Russia to win in Ukraine. Their basic premise is that the US must do much more than it has been doing i.e., providing weapons worth billions, to Ukraine, because the basic aim of the Russian president is to establish a “Russian Empire.” The US must do everything in its power to prevent, or, as Condoleezza Rice (former US Secretary of state and Robert M. Gates former Defence Secretary) recently wrote in The Washington Post, Russia will become too powerful, which is an “unacceptable” position for the US. They argue that “the only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south.”
In short, US support for Ukraine – which is just a little short of an all-out war of NATO on Russia – is indispensable for the West to win and maintain a global order that serves the Neocons’ interests i.e., global domination with hegemony. They see the conflict not as an outcome of the US politics of NATO expansion, but as an “unprovoked aggression” and “attack” on the “international order” by Russia.
These concerns about protecting US hegemony – which unwittingly expose the western myth of their strong position and imminent victory in Ukraine – are now echoing in the White House as well. In a January 6 press briefing, Deputy Assistant Defence Secretary Laura K. Copper said that,
“From an overall strategic perspective, it is hard to emphasise enough the devastating consequences if Putin were to be successful in achieving his objective of taking over Ukraine. This would rewrite international boundaries in a way that we have not seen since World War II.”
The core purpose behind pushing NATO’s expansion was to strengthen this alliance in the face of a resurgent Russia. Now that Russia has resurged against the combined forces of the West (US/Europe), the conflict in Ukraine has become an existential crisis not only for the Biden administration but for all those Neocons who, almost a year ago, thought this conflict will end only in one way: a devastating defeat for Russia.
But this is not happening, even as the said ‘deep state’ Neocons wrote in their own words in the article that despite the US support, “the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control.”
Everything that is in shambles in Ukraine reflects the state of Neocons’ own state of affairs: their world order is collapsing under their own weight, as they push to revive it via the same militant means they have been using across the world for the past many decades to keep it intact.
Their situation is exacerbating, as not all countries in the alliance share Washington’s, or the Neocons’, interests and perspectives. Germany is one fine example. France is another. To add to this list and to make matters worse for the West, even Ukrainian officials now believe that they are fighting a conflict not for their own sake but for NATO.
In a “bombshell” interview with a Ukrainian TV show, Ukraine’s defence chief said that Ukraine, because it is receiving heavy funding from NATO, is already a de facto member of NATO. Secondly, he said that the ‘war’ that they are fighting is also NATO’s mission i.e,. tied directly to the politics of expanding NATO and ensuring Western hegemony. To quote him,
“At the NATO Summit in Madrid” [in June 2022], “it was clearly delineated that over the coming decade, the main threat to the alliance would be the Russian Federation. Today Ukraine is eliminating this threat. We are carrying out NATO’s mission today. They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons.”
What is that mission? According to Atlantic Council, a think-tank closely tied to NATO itself, the mission is to defeat Russia. “Defeat in Ukraine would relegate Russia from the ranks of the world’s military superpowers and leave Moscow facing years of rebuilding before it could once again menace the wider region. Crucially, by supporting Ukraine, the West is able to dramatically reduce Russia’s military potential without committing any of its own troops or sustaining casualties.”
But, as mentioned above, mere enthusiasm for defeating Russia has not been enough so far. Hence, the despair in Washington to ‘do more’ for Ukraine. The idea that these Neocons and ‘Atlanticists’ are peddling is that NATO’s defeat in Ukraine will have devastating consequences. First, it will upend the post-Second World War global order. Secondly, NATO’s defeat in Ukraine could also lead Russia to attack other NATO members as well.
These unnerved predictions project a doomsday, or World War III, scenario in which the West will no longer be able to manipulate the world. In this scenario, if Russia can single-handedly defeat the combined forces of NATO, the balance of power will dramatically change once China militarily joins the ‘Eastern bloc.’ This is not a distant possibility only; it is very much real, as the “no limits” friendship between Moscow and Beijing indicates. This alliance is only serving to dismantle the global order that the Neocons and the Atlanticists have been trying to shield for the past many decades from any challengers.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
The visit of Israel’s far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem has caused an uproar among Palestinians and in Arab and international circles. Even within Israel itself, it led to resentment because of the serious consequences the visit would have on stability in the Palestinian territories. Especially after Palestinian factions had made it clear that they would not tolerate such incursions.
Ben Gvir’s trip, which had been personally approved by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was accompanied by unprecedented Israeli sanctions against members of the Palestinian Authority. Added to this are punitive financial measures in response to Palestinian actions in the UN, taken with the full support of Arab countries. At Palestine’s request, the UN passed a resolution referring the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories to the International Court of Justice for a legal opinion on the nature of the Israeli occupation and Israel’s responsibility as an occupying power.
Israeli sanctions include revoking the safe-conducts of prominent Palestinian officials, including Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki, Fatah deputy leader Mahmoud al-Aloul, and other key Fatah members. Israel also seized 139 million shekels ($40 million) in tax revenues collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority under agreements signed by both parties. During a cabinet meeting, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh warned that these consistent Israeli measures could lead to the complete collapse of the Palestinian Authority, which is already in serious financial and economic difficulties. “The total amount of Israeli contributions since 2019 is two billion shekels [$570 million],” Shtayyeh said. “These steps are a new war against the Palestinian people and their fate. This is a war against the Palestinian Authority, its existence and its achievements.”
Many Israelis warn that additional raids could result in the collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA), according to Israeli Army Radio. The government, though, still insists that its actions directed against the PA are well-thought-out and won’t actually cause it to break down. It is however hard to believe. The Palestinian flag is not permitted to be flown in any Arab cities in the occupied territories or in any other locations that are under Israeli control, among other stringent steps that Ben Gvir himself has implemented. After the boisterous celebrations honoring Karim Younis’ release from Wadi Ara in northern Israel, this ban was notably reinforced. The Palestinian spent 40 years in prison as punishment for his participation in an operation carried out by the Israeli army itself, in which an Israeli was killed.
As a further provocation, Ben-Gvir visited Israeli prisons and ordered Israeli flags to be hoisted outside the cells housing Palestinian prisoners accused of attacking Israel, i.e., in the territory inhabited by the Palestinians themselves. He also ordered the transfer of prominent Palestinian prisoners, including Marwan Barghouti, to high-security solitary confinement to prevent him from meeting with Palestinian leaders in other prisons. This unprovoked action by Israeli prison guards has exacerbated tensions among many Palestinian prisoners.
The far-right policies of Netanyahu’s administration, which was sworn in late last year, are foreshadowed by all of these moves. The PA has issued a warning that this cabinet will be harsher on the Palestinians, and even Washington has taken some action to prevent early conflicts and disputes between the US government of President Joe Biden and Tel Aviv, whose main tool at this point has evolved into the extreme right-wing pro-Israel lobby in the United States. According to Israeli media, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan are actively attempting to alleviate anticipated tensions between both governments. Netanyahu, though, is the one who has gained notoriety for adamantly rejecting requests from Washington, regardless of which administration is in power.
Following Ben-Gvir’s unfortunate visit to al-Aqsa, Washington, under international pressure, reiterated the need to preserve the status quo of the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem and reaffirmed its support for the two-state solution as the way to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper said the new Israeli government is a puzzle for Biden’s team, which wants to shift attention from the Middle East to rivals such as China and Russia. This comes at a time when Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives and are trying to paint Biden as anti-Israel in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. It should be remembered that there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US that could significantly influence the outcome of future election.
According to the newspaper, the potential disagreements between Washington and Tel Aviv go far beyond warnings that escalating tensions with the Palestinians is unacceptable. There is also the issue of Russia and Iran, on which both capitals have their own opinions, often differing in substance. Tel Aviv takes a more aggressive stance toward Iran and seeks a preemptive strike, while Washington still wants to conclude a so-called nuclear deal, at least in words. There is also some disagreement on Russia. The Biden administration wants Tel Aviv to take a more pro-American stance on the US self-inflicted armed conflict of NATO in Ukraine.
Other issues are also causing tension between the two sides. New judicial reforms announced by Israel’s far-right Justice Minister Yariv Levin have also sparked outrage in Israel because they undermine the authority of the judiciary. The Israeli opposition believes that these measures are intended to protect Netanyahu from further corruption charges against him, at the expense of destroying the Israeli judiciary. These are fears and objections also voiced by US officials against anything that attacks the authority and independence of the Israeli judiciary. The Walla news website quoted unnamed US State Department officials as saying that the general principles of democracy are at the heart of US-Israel relations, but that the actions of the new Israeli government are troubling because they threaten Israel’s democratic institutions. According to the US official, judicial reform could affect the democratic system in Israel in a way that could undermine Israel-US relations, which are based not only on shared interests but also on shared values.
The same sentiment prevails in Israel itself. As many as 80,000 Israelis gathered in downtown Tel Aviv to protest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to reform the legal system and weaken the power of the Supreme Court. The protest was the first challenge to Netanyahu and his ultranationalist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has ordered police to crack down if protesters (Palestinian or Israeli) block roads, obstruct traffic or display Palestinian flags.
Netanyahu, who is under trial for corruption, has made reform of the legal system a centerpiece of his agenda. His government has put forward proposals to weaken the Supreme Court by giving parliament the power to overturn court decisions by a simple majority. It also wants to give parliament control over the appointment of judges and limit the independence of legal advisers. Leading Israeli opposition politicians, former attorneys general and the chief justice of Israel’s Supreme Court have spoken out against the plan. The legal changes could help Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, avoid a conviction or even stop the trial altogether. Since his indictment in 2019, Netanyahu has claimed that the judicial system is allegedly biased against him, and that is why he is actively campaigning to change Israel’s entire legal system. As the saying goes, this entire mystery is easily solved.
Fears of military escalation between armed Palestinian groups in Gaza and Israel, especially as these groups have warned that any attempt to change the status quo in occupied Jerusalem is a red line that must not be crossed, have arisen after the new Israeli government has come to power. Following Ben-Gvir’s deplorable visit to al-Aqsa, the Israeli army reported a failed attempt to fire a rocket from Gaza into Israeli territory, which Israeli analysts say is a sign that clashes with factions in Gaza may begin again.
Meanwhile, Palestinians are calling on Washington, which supplies the state of Israel with huge amounts of military equipment and generously subsidizes its budget every year, to intervene and block steps announced by the right-wing Israeli government that may soon be implemented. According to Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh, the Palestinians are aware that Washington is unlikely to exert significant pressure on the Israelis, and therefore also call on Arab countries and the world to strongly oppose Israeli abuses and violations. Prominent Palestinian officials have stated that they may take decisions to review relations with Israel in response to the new government’s actions. However, the Palestinian Authority does not have a clear plan of action for this resolution and its political and economic implications, especially given internal Palestinian dissents and the fact that much of the world is now distracted by more pressing political and security concerns.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Economic sanctions and blackmail have long been the preferred methods of conducting foreign policy and advancing the United States’ own geopolitical interests.
In 2018, the US withdrew from the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program signed in May 2015, following which Washington began to implement the “maximum pressure” strategy on Iran.
In 2019, the US government imposed a slew of restrictions on the Chinese firm Huawei, which is widely regarded as a leader in digital technologies, particularly in the deployment of 5G networks. Following that, Washington began to intercept Huawei’s foreign market as a result of an open competitive struggle.
And Russia’s gas squeeze in Europe, orchestrated by the US, exacerbated an already obvious economic and financial crisis for Europeans, resulting in total population impoverishment against the backdrop of America reaping additional superprofits from the sale of expensive American LNG instead of cheap Russian gas to Europe.
Sanctions, including secondary ones, become a tool for seizing funds and assets and bankrupting competitors, and are used by the United States to strengthen its global dominance.
Although the definition of extortion as a common law crime in US criminal law varies across states, both in wording and substance, it is nevertheless recognized everywhere as a serious offense and prosecuted under domestic law. In recent years, in an effort to introduce “rules” unilaterally favorable to the United States in place of international law, Washington’s policy has begun to carry the principle of “extraterritorial” sanctions into the international arena when the United States imposes them and openly extorts not only US legal subjects but also foreign ones, including independent states.
The fact that under these conditions, the US uses the dominant role of the US dollar, blackmail, and economic sanctions as the main instruments of foreign policy (the use of sanctions almost tripled in 2009-2019 alone) makes many countries think about possible alternatives. One of them is already the increasing use of national currencies in bilateral trade.
Washington’s abuse of such criminal policies and blatantly illegal pressures are causing resentment even among the United States’ allies. It is no coincidence that in 2019 the chairman of the United Kingdom’s central bank, Mark Carney, called for the creation of an international digital currency that would weaken the dominant role of the US dollar in international trade.
Washington is increasingly using outright blackmail, not just in the political, economic, and trade spheres. It is also used in the military sphere, with the sale and subsequent use of American weapons directly threatening the national security of countries that purchase US weapons.
And one of the many egregious examples of this is the events of 2016, when the US attempted to stage a coup in Turkey by killing President Erdoğan with American weapons and preventing Turkish authorities from using US air defenses to prevent them from shooting down F-16 aircraft flying from the US military base at Incirlik. And it was only thanks to the intervention of Russian politician Alexander Dugin (against whom, by the way, Ukrainian accomplices of the United States committed an act of terrorism in 2022 and killed his daughter) and the Russian military at the behest of President Vladimir Putin that this sinister plan of Washington was foiled. The arrested Turkish coup plotters themselves have given detailed accounts of it. In particular, about how the Russian military, using seven Russian fighter jets and two S-400 missile systems in northern Syria, warned the coupist aircraft that if the radar showed any indication of their suspicious or improper actions, they would be hit directly. As a result, the Turkish F-16s could only track Erdoğan’s plane and not attack it. In addition to the testimony of the Turkish participants in this failed American coup attempt, those interested can learn more from a Turkish report published on Odatv.com on September 21, 2016.
This blackmail of Ankara with US weapons continues even now, as pointed out in particular by Bloomberg the other day, which reported that the US will not supply Turkey with F-16s until it agrees to admit Sweden to NATO.
Even if Turkey, under pressure from Washington, agrees to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO, which the United States is trying hard to push into the alliance, Turkey will never be able to use those aircraft or other American weapons unless such use would be advantageous to the White House.
And the US decision in April 2021 to withdraw US Patriot air defense batteries from the Persian Gulf region after the White House deteriorated relations with the Saudi monarchy is proof of that.
The threat from Washington to restrict the use of purchased US weapons has become increasingly serious for many countries recently. Especially considering that it is the US that sells twice as many weapons as Russia and six times as many as China, thus dominating the market for weapons of death, destruction and protection of many states from external threats, the vast majority of which are also initiated by Washington. Here one can also see the recent White House game of supplying Greece with more and more offensive weapons against Turkey, whose relations with both Athens and Washington have recently deteriorated significantly.
Washington has made similar attempts at blackmail in its arms supplies to the other two rival parties to the conflict in South Asia – Pakistan and India. Therefore, despite Washington’s blatant blackmail and intimidation of New Delhi, India continues to focus on buying arms from Russia rather than the United States. In the meantime, India has two important defense needs: the availability of weapons and their quality. In its preferential treatment of Russia on this issue, Indian leaders assume that if the country begins to buy weapons from the West, it will strengthen its autonomy but sacrifice these two needs, since Western systems are many times more expensive but inferior to Russian ones.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
As the date of the Turkish presidential elections approaches, the contours of outside interference in Turkish society become clearer. In the first month of 2023, John Bolton, former national security adviser to US President Donald Trump, said that if incumbent Turkish President Recep Erdoğan remains in power, the question of suspending Turkey’s membership in NATO should be raised. At the same time, John Bolton already believes that another Erdoğan victory will be illegitimate because such election results can only be manipulated. In other words, the American politician defines a priori who and how Turkish voters should or should not vote, based on the highest interests of… the USA.
Overall, the state of US-Turkish relations over the past two decades cannot be described as stable and befitting strategic allies (including as NATO members). Turkey has traditionally not been the most predictable and reliable partner, but the national passions of Turkish politicians for strengthening an independent course vis-à-vis the United States have regularly created crisis situations for Washington in the second half of the twentieth century. While Washington had succeeded three times before in bringing convenient political forces to power through military coups (1960, 1971, 1980) and keeping Turkey in its circle of control (subordination), this tactic did not pay off in the first quarter of the 21st century. The failure of the July 2016 uprising to overthrow an unwanted president, Erdoğan, is a case in point.
This situation is due in no small part to internal political and economic changes in Turkey itself, in which the role of a number of Turkish politicians (such as the pragmatic Turgut Özal, the authoritarian Necamettin Erbakan, and of course the charismatic Recep Erdoğan) is crucial. On the one hand, the United States opposes the Turkish course of reviving imperial status and radicalism (especially the strategies of neo-Ottomanism and neo-Pan-Turkism), because Washington stands for a monopoly construction of the world order under its hegemony after the collapse of the USSR. On the other hand, the United States is critical of Erdoğan’s policy of strengthening Turkey’s regional (and even more so, strategic) partnership with Russia. America feels offended by Erdoğan’s military deal with Putin on the S-400 SAM system, Turkish-Russian cooperation in Syria and Transcaucasia, Turkish mediation in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, and Ankara’s boycott of the entire sanctions package against Russia. Thus, Erdoğan is becoming an unwelcome partner of the US presidential administration.
Washington believes that the tough sanctions of the collective West (US + European countries) against Russia may lose their effect if Ankara expands economic and military cooperation with Moscow. At the same time, the US “forgets” that in the not so distant 1990s-2000s it used a lot of efforts and resources to make Turkey an important transit route for Caspian oil and gas exports to Europe.
Turkey’s longstanding efforts and aspirations for European integration have been unsuccessful in terms of EU membership. The government of Recep Erdoğan sees this as a kind of insult to Turkey, one of the oldest members of NATO, on condition that the former countries of the socialist community of Eastern and Southeastern Europe and the former Baltic Soviet republics, where politics prevailed instead of economics and law, join the EU as a group. And Ankara sees this as partly in the interest of the United States.
The first serious concerns in US-Turkish relations in the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan years surfaced in 2003, when the Grand National Assembly of Turkey refused to allow the US 4th Army to pass through Turkish territory to invade Iraq. The US Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Steven Edelman (2003-2005), “failed” at the time to push for a US decision on this seemingly important issue (although the Turkish parliament voted only once, the Americans did not insist on a second discussion). In reality, however, as time has shown, Washington was not interested in a positive decision by Turkey on this issue because the United States and Britain understood Ankara’s considerable interest in the Kurdish issue in Iraq and that it would have demanded its shares in, say, Mosul and Kirkuk (including Kurdish oil). Indirect evidence of this version was the fate of Ambassador Eric Edelman himself, who later received a career promotion and was named the Pentagon’s deputy director for the Middle East (although the ambassador should have received a demotion for such an impressive military and political failure in an allied country).
Turkey then actually asked the United States for freedom of action in Iraqi Kurdistan and for substantial funds in the form of a soft loan almost comparable to the size of the national debt. Meanwhile, the Anglo-Saxons did not want to share the “laurels of success” in Iraq with the Turks because the goals of their Middle East policy did not coincide with Turkey’s interests.
John Bolton is obviously not just proclaiming his own opinion of Turkey, or more specifically, of its inconvenient President Erdoğan. Rather, this is the opinion of the US political elite and authorities, regardless of party affiliation. Senior officials at the National Security Council and the US State Department in the 2000s stated to their confidential interlocutors more than once that US-Turkey relations are becoming more problematic every year, and America stumbles over the “Turkish stone” in the Levant almost every time. Add to that US-Turkish differences in Syria over the Kurdish issue, in Cyprus and Greece over territorial disputes, and Ankara’s claims to certain oil and gas fields in the Greek sector of the Mediterranean and in the post-Soviet Transcaucasia.
The luminary of American political analysis Anthony Cordesman once remarked, “Much of what you hear from American pundits about Turkey is undoubtedly true, but that is only part of the truth, not the whole truth … After you spend a day at the National Security Council, you either do not hear about it at all, or you hear about it in a series of two dozen other problems.” Well-known American experts (notably James Jatras, Bulent Alireza, Soner Cagaptay, Fiona Hill, Wayne Merry, John Sitilidis) noted in the 2000s that the problems in Turkish-American relations had increased and that they are systemic. In the US Congress, Turkey has become unpopular, and the pro-Turkish lobby has effectively collapsed.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan can afford to publicly criticize the US and other NATO allies (including France and Germany). Finally, Turkey today uses the Kurdish issue and the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to block the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, which is also in line with Russia’s military-political interests. America sees this as Erdoğan’s subversive activities in relation to the North Atlantic Alliance.
All this led to the fact that America began to call Recep Erdoğan “the sick man of Europe.” How the fate of the Ottoman Empire ended, which received such an unflattering political diagnosis from Britain for the first time in the 19th century, is well known to history after the results of the First World War.
However, the same John Bolton who today once again refers to Turkey as the “sick man of Europe” is in fact referring not to Turkey itself, as a NATO country under the control of the United States, but to the “disobedient” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who got carried away by the pro-Russian course and disobedience of the Western “Commonwealth.” Consequently, the United States is by no means giving up on Turkey (its advantageous geographical position with control over the strategic straits of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles), but only intends to use next year’s electoral process to get rid of the disagreeable Erdoğan, which, as the Azerbaijani website minval.az notes, is scheduled to take place on May 14, 2023 (Erdoğan apparently decided to bring the elections forward by a month to surprise his opponents).
Bolton’s speech is reminiscent of a threat that can be associated less with Turkey’s exclusion from NATO and more with an assessment of the extent of the threat posed by Erdoğan’s policies, comparable to the role of NATO in the United States. That is, Washington can use force against Erdoğan because the price of the facility’s director and the facility itself are very different.
As you may know, during the Cold War, the CIA used Operation Gladio in allied countries (in Europe and specifically in Turkey) to prevent pro-Communist forces from gaining power. In Turkey, these operations were dubbed “counter-guerrilla,” and they included targets such as Kurds and leftist politicians (journalists) in addition to communists. In these developments in those years, the American and Turkish intelligence services actively used the radical ideology of Pan-Turkism and its military wing, the Gray Wolves organization. Today, however, there is no longer a communist threat, and Turkey’s Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), chaired by Devlet Bahçeli, which is the flagship of global pan-Turkism and traditionally supported by up to 10% of Turkish voters, is a political ally of ruling Development and Justice Party Chairman Recep Erdoğan.
However, Turkish radical nationalists (Pan-Turkists) were involved in the murder of Russian pilot Oleg Peshkov and Ambassador Andrei Yerkhov. Therefore, the well-known principle “the blow comes from where it is not expected” can be used again in provocations against Erdoğan.
Whether the head of the CIA, William Burns, would decide to take such an action without the consent of his closest colleague and ally, Richard Moore of the SIS, is difficult to say. In any case, Moore, the head of British intelligence and former ambassador of the United Kingdom to Turkey, is a personal friend of President Erdoğan. In a civilized society, it is not customary to abandon friends. But how much is this formula in line with the traditions of British diplomacy once (on March 1, 1848) established by Prime Minister Lord Henry Palmerston: “England has no eternal friends and enemies, England has eternal interests” – time will tell. One thing is clear: according to the principles of the same Palmerston, England has a hard life whenever no one is at war with Russia.
One can only wish Turkey stability and peace during and after the election of its leader.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
One of the most significant outcomes of the CPC’s 20th Congress, held at the end of September, and the 1st Plenum of the Central Committee of the ruling party in China, held a month later, was a radical change in personnel, both in the leadership and in the state administration that implements the party’s decisions. The CCP Central Committee’s composition shifted by two-thirds. In terms of the Politburo Standing Committee, which has the most power in the PRC, six of the seven new members are previously unknown officials. Against the backdrop of such drastic changes in the personalities of the PRC leadership, the current Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s re-election for the next (third) five-year term appears extremely remarkable.
Putting aside the most general (inevitably subjective) interpretation of what is happening in the second world power’s political system (which is probably not fully understood even by professional sinologists), let us allow only the most general (inevitably subjective) interpretation of what this might mean for the political space surrounding it.
And the first thing that can be said with reasonable certainty is that China will maintain the foreign policy course that has gradually taken shape since Xi Jinping’s election in early 2013. Although it is difficult to discuss the final formulation of this course, given the situation at the Great World Game table, which has changed dramatically and comprehensively over the last 10–15 years.
However, an important proof of the stability of the trends that emerged in the PRC’s foreign policy 10 years ago was the fact that on January 1, 2023, former Foreign Minister Wang Yi took the post of the head of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the CCP Central Committee. In the hierarchy of managing the entire field of PRC foreign policy, this post is second only to the current Chinese head of state, to whom Wang Yi now reports directly. Note the no less important fact that he was inducted into the Politburo of the CCP Central Committee two months earlier.
Recall the statement he made shortly before his appointment to the above post on PRC-Russian Federation relations, defining the latter as “monolithic-firm.” These words were uttered a few days after Dmitry Medvedev flew to Beijing to meet the Chinese leader with a message from Russian President Vladimir Putin. On the eve of the New Year, the negotiations between the leaders of the two countries took place via video conference.
Let us also recall that the format of Russian-Chinese relations in the PRC has long been firmly defined as “back to back.” This means that in the course of escalation of relations between China and the United States, that is, the two current world powers, the former need not worry about the situation on the border with the Russian Federation, which is about 4,000 km long. Note that this border has taken its final shape with the active participation of Vladimir Putin.
The latter fact should be given special attention for two important reasons. First, it put an end to the disagreements, mutual distrust and even conflicts that have been recurring in the relations between the two great neighbors for the last century and a half. Second, it is the process of comprehensive development of Russian-Chinese relations that is at the heart of the motives for provoking an armed conflict in the region of the western borders of the Russian Federation.
In fact, everything associated with this strongly resembles the situation that developed three centuries earlier during one of the most dangerous periods of the Russian Empire’s emergence. When the ideological forefathers of the current Kyiv government decided to trade their subjugated territory and the people who lived there with Moscow’s mortal enemy at the time. This ended very badly for some of those people (despite the efforts of the “Supreme Prince”). But, again, it could not have been otherwise at that critical point of confrontation between the new Russia and the best army of the time, led by the best commander. On the eve of the decisive battle, time, which has always been the most important factor, has shrunk to hours.
And today on the territory of Ukraine, the “Mazepa syndrome” breaks out again, and in the process of its (“specific”) healing, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the fact that Beijing supports Moscow. At the same time, the author would like to emphasize that this support imposes a number of serious costs on Beijing. This is because it has its own interests in the foreign policy arena in general and in relations with its main adversary in that arena in particular.
An extremely important difference between US-China and US-Russia relations is a very significant presence in the former of a trade and economic component. It can be argued with a fair degree of certainty that this will continue to be the case in the future. Despite the statements of intent characteristic of Washington’s public rhetoric. If not entirely, at least in the area of technologies that are becoming critical to ensuring national security. These include, for example, “chip” production technologies.
Nevertheless, it seems to the author (perhaps mistakenly) that there are signs of the possibility of some positive trends in bilateral relations. And not only because of the mentioned factor of mutually beneficial cooperation in the economic sphere, but also because of the awareness of the increasingly emerging “Thucydides Trap,” the triggering of which under the present conditions would mean a catastrophe of unimagined proportions. Not only for the two leading world powers, which are still moving directly and immediately in its direction, but also for the rest of humanity. It would appear that no one will stay unaffected by the “misunderstandings” in relations between the two.
Immediately after his appointment to a new post, Wang Yi confirmed the intention to strengthen relations with Russia and advocated taking a “right course” in relations with the United States. Qin Gang, who succeeded him as foreign minister, gave an emotional review of his one-year tenure as PRC ambassador to the United States. The new head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed his intention to promote the development of bilateral relations in every possible way.
One of the masters of American political science, Joseph Nye, formerly Deputy Secretary of Defense of the United States and now a professor at Harvard College, released a remarkable article on the topic, titled “US must avoid provoking China”.
The New Year’s speeches of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and a representative of China’s Mainland Department, which is in charge of China’s relations with the island, show some toning down of mutual rhetoric and even calls to begin bilateral dialogue.
The start of China’s import from the United States of new specialty drugs developed by pharmaceutical giant MSD for the treatment of patients with early to mid-stage Covid-19 was also noteworthy. It is the latter that make up the bulk of the next wave of this disease in China, which is reaching near-catastrophic proportions. Once again, we see that it is quite possible to put aside political differences in the face of a common threat.
If the author’s sentiments reflect certain realities in US-China relations, then perhaps we will see an increasing presence of elements of the “Offshore Balancing Strategy” in US foreign policy. This was proposed two decades ago by respected US political scientists and involves a shift away from the strategy of an all-out US presence, which has been increasingly overwhelming and counterproductive to national interests.
One of the important practical consequences of the gradual introduction of this “strategy” into foreign policy was the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, initiated by President Barack Obama and continued (and also completed) by his heirs.
It should be noted that the (apparently planned) transition of the United States to the “offshore balancing strategy” in the Indo-Pacific region will by no means necessarily lead to a general easing of tensions in the region. This is because (and contrary to the absurd construct of the “end of history”) new contenders are already being identified to fill the positions in the ITR that the United States (again, seemingly) intends to vacate. Among them, the most important are India and Japan. It should be noted that such claims of the latter are strongly encouraged by Washington.
Therefore, the author will closely follow the large-scale foreign tour of Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, which began on January 8. With a final stop in Washington, where he is awaited with obvious impatience. Immediately after the end of the guest’s talks with President Joe Biden, another bilateral meeting is scheduled in the 2+2 format. The results of this meeting will be no less interesting than the already mentioned talks between the leaders of the two countries.
In conclusion, it should be noted that judging by the available biography, Japan is at the center of Wang Yi’s professional interests. The new head of China’s Foreign Ministry, however, has originally focused on the leading Anglo-Saxon countries. — Is Beijing preparing to change its main regional adversary?
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
In our last article on South Korea’s response to a UAV raid conducted by North Korea, we described South Korea’s most likely reaction, namely developing its own UAVs and upgrading its air defense system in view of the threat posed by UAVs and other provocations aimed at escalating tensions.
However, in addition to the UAV raids there are at least two other factors that could seriously inflame tensions on the peninsula.
Firstly, on January 4 a spokesperson for Yoon Seok-yeol’s administration informed journalists that the president has instructed the National Security Directorate to consider the issue of terminating the military agreement between North and South Korea. This could happen in the event of a further provocation from Pyongyang involving a violation of South Korea’s territory integrity.
The agreement on reducing military tension and preventing accidental clashes on the Korean peninsula was signed on September 19, 2018 in Pyongyang by South Korea’s then president, Moon Jae-in, and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The agreement is aimed at bringing an end to hostile actions between the two parties and minimizing the risk of war, and also includes plans to transform the demilitarized zone into a peace zone, develop military guarantees to enable trans-border exchange, and implement military measures to increase confidence between the two countries. The agreement also calls for the creation of a 10-kilometer buffer zone along the land border, in which the use of artillery and military exercises would be prohibited. It also establishes maritime buffer zones, 80 km wide, in the Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea.
It also provides for the removal of a number of customs posts, the disarmament of the Joint Security in the demilitarized zone (DMZ), cooperation on removing the bodies of soldiers from the Korean War from the DMZ, and the development of a Joint Utilization Zone along the estuary of the Han River.
The present author sees the 2018 agreement as significantly different from the other joint declarations, firstly because it has actually been implemented, and secondly because it played an important role in the demilitarization of the DMZ, and reduced tensions along the border, taking them back to the level seen in, say, 2015.
South Korea periodically accused North Korea of violating the agreement, not entirely accurately. In South Korea’s view, North Korea’s repeated firing of artillery rounds into the eastern and western maritime buffer zones in October, November and December last year were in breach of the agreement, although the text only actually prohibits the permanent basing of armaments in these territories. ICBM test launches are also not prohibited by the agreement – after all, if it applied to these it would also apply to the exercises conducted by South Korea. On the other hand, South Korea’s launching of balloons to carry propaganda leaflets into North Korea was clearly a hostile action, and to prevent such incursions Pyongyang was forced to blow up the building of the Kaesong liaison office in 2020.
However, as the journalist and Korea specialist Oleg Kiryanov sees it, in all fairness the agreement has now ceased to have any effect, as both sides have resorted to the principle of “answering force with force”, which is having the effect of aggravating the situation and ramping up military and political pressures. The major joint military exercises conducted on a regular basis by South Korea and the USA are also difficult to reconcile with the agreement, but South Korea insists that they are necessary for its defense.
Moreover, on January 5 South Korea’s Presidential administration announced that it is considering suspending the Declaration signed on September 19, 2018 in Pyongyang if North Korea launches any more attacks on South Korean territory. The agreement on reducing military tension is an annex to that Declaration. It is true that the Unification Minister was quick to stress that the possible suspension of the agreement on reducing military tension was not the same thing as suspending the Declaration.
Secondly, South Korea has discussed the possibility of renewing its propaganda campaigns directed at the North Korean capital. This could involve either the use of loudspeakers to transmit audio messages or the dropping of propaganda leaflets – although that tactic has hitherto been the preserve of marginal figures such as Park Sang-hak.
In the past, the South Korean military made propaganda broadcasts across the border as a key element in their psychological war against North Korea. According to South Korean soldiers, announcements made using loudspeakers can be heard over a distance of 10 kilometers during the day and 24 kilometers at night.
The announcements criticized the North Korean regime, but the use of loudspeakers was discontinued after the 2018 summit.
The loudspeaker announcements and the use of balloons to send propaganda leaflets may be reinstated if North Korea commits another violation of its South Korea’s airspace and the latter responds by suspending the agreement on reducing military tensions which was concluded on September 19, 2018.
It is true that there is some disagreement about the legality of using propaganda to target North Korea. Article 24 of South Korea’s Law on the Development of relations between North and South Korea, adopted following the events of 2020, prohibits the sending of propaganda across the border, and specifies a penalty of up to three years in prison or a fine of 30 million won ($23,000) for violations. Article 23 of the act stipulates that the president may suspend all or a part of each South-North Korean agreement for a fixed period, when significant changes occur in inter-Korean relations or when it is deemed necessary for national security, maintenance of order or public welfare.
Yoon Suk-yeol and his Unification Minister Kwon Young-se have criticized Article 24 as a “mistake”, arguing that it is unconstitutional and restricts citizens’ freedom of expression and political action.
According to a senior civil servant in the Ministry of Unification, following the UAV incident the Ministry began a legal review to establish whether Seoul could recommence loudspeaker announcements along the border or permit the dropping of propaganda leaflets over North Korea.
Professional defectors such as Thae Yong-ho, now a Conservative deputy, often claim that Kim Jong-un fears the “loudspeaker broadcasts directed against North Korean soldiers based along the border” more than anything else. Thae Yong-ho has therefore proposed warning North Korea that using the threat of loudspeaker broadcasts as a weapon to prevent North Korea carrying out its seventh nuclear test.
Cha Du-hyeogn, a principal fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, also said the government needs to consider the option. Bruce Bennett, a senior defense researcher at RAND Corporation Graduate School, a well-known foreign policy hawk, also believes that words can be more powerful than pullets and can preserve peace in the current situation. “What does Kim fear more than the collapse of his regime? Shouldn’t South Korea and the US threaten North Korea with a continuous bombardment of information from outside if he continues with his provocations?”.
However, according to Shin Jong-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, “the South Korean government’s stance is focused on deescalating tensions and deterring provocations, but loudspeaker broadcasting may provide an excuse for North Korea to make further provocations, so I think it would be better no to resume it preemptively.”
As for “leaflet bombing”, in 2022, shortly before Yoon Seok-yeol came to power, Park Sang-hak’s NGO Fighters for a Free North Korea and other activist groups asked to meet with the presidential administration, and a meeting did in fact take place. However, there has been no repeat of that meeting this year to date, although, according to presidential officials, the government is “keeping open the communication channel and during his presidential election campaign Yoon Seok-yeol promised to work with the international community to improve North Koreans’ human rights. Nevertheless, so far the president’s office is limiting itself to “looking into the activists’ calls to allow the resumption of leaflet flying across the border to help inform North Koreans of the brutality of their regime”.
On January 9, 2023, in an interview with the Yonhap Press Agency, Park Sang-hak stated that he planned to send UAVs carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflet over the border in the near future, as balloons do not fly well in the winter because of the bad weather. Earlier Park Sang-hak had announced that back in April 2020 his group had send a drone carrying leaflets across the border, and it had flown as far as Pyongyang.
On the same day South Korea’s Ministry of Unification contacted Park Sang-hak’s NGO, calling on it to stop using drones to send inflammatory leaflets to North Korea, to protect the safety of residents living in border regions and in view of the tense situation on the border and the importance of ensuring compliance with the law.
Why does the present author consider that Seoul may not be just walking but actually leaping towards the line of danger? Firstly, because the North Koreans have long insisted that they will not only fire at the balloons, they will also target the locations from which the balloons are launched. The same applies to the loudspeakers. That greatly increases the risk of exchanges of fire in which people, including civilians in the regions from which Park Sang-hak has launched balloons, may be hurt. Moreover, any such incident would justify Seoul in declaring an end to the “Olympic warming”, and the result would be a vicious circle.
Secondly, it would be extremely dangerous to allow Park Sang-hak to do what he wants. In the past he has come up with alarming proposals such as to send materials infected with the COVID-19 virus into North Korea (an idea that was much criticized by other defectors) or to launch drones packed with explosives from China in order to blow up statues of the Kim dynasty – attacks that would serve as a justification for “humanitarian intervention”. If people like that are allowed free rein, they may end up doing something extremely dangerous, and it is Seoul that would have to carry the can.
Thirdly, Yoon Seok-yeol is naturally trying to ratchet up tensions with North Korea is exchange for a relatively discretion with Russia and China, but where’s the guarantee that the US won’t twist them?
Significantly, the Korea Times has suggested that instead of sticking to the logic of “an eye for an eye”, Yoon Suk-yeol might be better off looking to the example of two of his predecessors, Park Chung-hee, who was able to arrange the first significant talks between North and South Korea in 1972, and Roh Tae-woo, whose “Nordpolitik” approach enabled both Koreas to be accepted as members of the united Nations simultaneously. As the Korea Times put it, “what made these possible was that both ex-presidents were conservative leaders, free from criticism from South Koreans who were averse to communists. In contrast, three leftist leaders — Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in — were constantly put on hold by inter-Korean hawks from within and out”.
To sum up, let us hope that South Korea’s potential leap towards the danger line does not carry it too far.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In an article published here in November 2018, I referred to the statement of the UK representative of a UN organisation named the International, Impartial, Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011.
I will repeat that statement because it is relevant to the current situation in Syria. That person stated,
“We must demonstrate that those who have committed the most serious crimes of international concern can have no place to hide. There must be no impunity for the horrendous acts taking place on a daily basis in Syria. There must be justice for the victims.”
The UK representative said this without any sense of irony, without any sense of shame, for, of course, it is the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and their gang who have committed war crimes, and crimes against humanity beyond number in Syria since they instigated the uprisings against the government of Syria, beginning in 2011, supported their allied terrorists groups to attack Syrian armed forces and civilians, and imposed their illegal sanctions on the people of Syria.
The history of the war against Syria by the US and UK, Israel and their allies is well-known, the cruel sanctions, the aerial bombings, the missile attacks, the assassinations, the torture, the illegal occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel with US support, and, finally, the US invasion of Syria that began in 2015 with US special forces raids into its territory on a number of occasions that year and 2016 and the formal entry of US forces on March 8, 2017. Their invasion has continued to this day.
During the summer of 2017 US forces laid waste the city of Raqqa, Their carpet bombing of the city, their heavy artillery strikes and use of white phosphorous shells, banned under international law, killed hundreds of civilians, and today Raqqa lies in ruins. Their terrorist allies laid waste Aleppo, Damascus and numerous other cities and towns and villages with a savagery as common to US trained groups, as it is to the US forces themselves.
The Americans gave all sorts of pretexts for this invasion, none of which were true and none of which gave them any legal basis for their aggression, for that is what their actions were; direct and brutal aggression against a sovereign nation in violation of the Nuremberg Principles established in 1946, in violation of the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928, in which all these nations agreed not to attack any other nation, and in violation of the UN Charter, all of which the aggressor nations were subject to as part of international law and their own domestic law.
The invasion ordered by President Obama, making him a war criminal, expanded in scope until President Trump ordered American forces to be pulled out in 2019. But US forces still remain in occupation of the northeastern parts of Syria. Their exact number is not known but it is at least one thousand and probably higher than that as they continue to build bases controlling the important oil fields that provide much of Syria’s energy needs and cash for exports as well as areas of wheat production vital to the survival of the Syrian state and its people. The Americans continue to provide their usual pretexts for this, such as “fighting terrorism” “containing Russian influence in the Middle East, or supporting the Kurdish forces opposing both Syria and Turkey.
On January 10, 2023, in the magazine Defense One, William Roebuck, an American with the long title of Former Deputy Envoy for the Global Coalition against ISIS, repeated all these pretexts as justification for the American invasion but added, in calling for the invasion to continue,
“Our presence also blocks Russian consolidation of its military mission in Syria, undercutting one of the key sources of Moscow’s surprisingly resilient prestige in the region and hence lending support to our Ukraine policy efforts,”
thereby linking the US invasion and occupation of Syria to the US-NATO aggression against Russia in Ukraine.
Of course Mr. Roebuck could not cite any legal reasons or justifications as to why the US should be able to continue its occupation, because there are none, but as is common with all American and NATO governments and their officials, they could not care less about the law or morality.
The Syrian government states the situation clearly.
Om January 12, the Syrian Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, Muhammad Hassan Qatana, affirmed that the exceptional circumstances that Syria is passing through because of the terrorist war, instigated by the United States, and unilateral coercive measures have badly affected achievements of many years of sustainable development and caused large losses.
On January 13, Syrian Petroleum and Mineral Resources Minister, Bassam Tu’ma, said that the US occupation of parts of the Syrian territory, including oil resources, and the illegal sanctions imposed by Washington on Syria, cause great suffering on the Syrian People.
These statements follow the August 22, 2022, report in Tass that,
“According to the Syrian Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, U.S.-led entities illegally export up to 66,000 barrels of oil daily, representing 80% of the daily production of hydrocarbons. The scale of Washington’s oil theft has reached a peak. Because of this the humanitarian situation in the country remains difficult, millions of Syrians face energy, food and water shortages and are in need of basic necessities.”
“Russia and Syria strongly condemn the plundering of the natural resources. The US-backed Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces currently control most of Syria’s eastern and northeastern Al-Hasakah, Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces. The US military command has established nine military bases there since 2015. Damascus views the US military presence in Syria as an illegal occupation.”
On December 14, 2022, the Syrian government in a statement to the Security Council stated,
“Syria condemns the actions of the US occupation forces and demands an end to the illegal US military presence on its territory.
“Syria draws the attention of the international community to the systematic plundering of the natural resources of the Syrian people by the United States and associated paramilitary units,” the statement said.
“Damascus,” it said, “demands the return to the Syrian state of the captured oil and gas fields and the payment of compensation for the stolen resources.” The ministry’s statement provides data on the losses that Syria has suffered in recent years from the theft of its oil, gas and other minerals, as well as wheat. They are estimated by Syria at $19.8 billion. In addition, the bombing by the Air Force of the Western coalition caused the country damage worth $2.9 billion.”
The Syrian Foreign Ministry said “further silence of the UN Security Council on the aggressive policy of the United States and the violation of the principles of international law is unacceptable.”
“It’s impossible to ignore the suffering of Syrians as a result of the sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union, which have disastrous consequences for the daily lives of citizens and don’t allow them to receive the necessary services, fuel, household gas, electricity, especially in winter,” the statement said and concluded with,
“the blockade and coercive measures of the West against Syria are tantamount to war crimes, they increase the suffering of the people and slow down the process of post-war reconstruction.”
War crimes they are, yet, as the Syrians noted, nothing is said in the collective west in defence of Syria. Nothing is said about the crimes of the Americans and their allies, either by their governments, or their media. How can we expect them to since they are all complicit in these crimes?
Since the Americans will not leave unless forced to, it will take operations by the Syrian Army to drive out the invader, but that is complicated by the continuing incursions and occupation of parts of northern Syria by the Turks intent on ridding themselves of the Kurdish threat. Hopefully the on-going talks between Turkey and Syria with the participation of Russia will lead to a resolution of that issue so that Syria can, with the help of its allies, finally take action against the invading US forces.
All the while the US and its NATO allies along with their puppets in Kiev rant on about “Russian war crimes” in Ukraine and call for international tribunals.
Yet it is they who should face trial and punishment for the war crimes committed by them over the years, including the nuclear attacks on Japan in 1945 for which the Americans have never been brought to account, a crime which, as President Biden said on January 13, in a surreal meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, referring to the the use of nuclear weapons, is “a crime against all humanity.”
The world will not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if the Japanese government pretends to, nor the American and allied crimes and the millions of dead in Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and all the other crimes, too many to list here, that they have committed around the world to support their interests.
Who will try them? Who will bring them to justice? Only the future can provide the concrete answer, but the reckoning is coming, of that we can be sure.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Over the last two decades, China’s economic and political rise has made it a key player in global politics, particularly for neighboring Central Asia (CA). China’s desire for active economic cooperation with the region, as well as its willingness to invest large sums in the implementation of projects that Central Asian countries require, are encouraging the region’s elites to collaborate even more closely with their large neighbor.
In relations between China and the countries of Central Asia the just ended year 2022 saw them commemorating the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. On January 26, 2022, the parties adopted a joint statement by the heads of state stressing their readiness to expand cooperation between China and the Central Asian republics in the fields of politics, security, mutual interest in increasing investment and trade, and implementing priority joint projects. China announced its intention to increase trade with Central Asian countries to $70 billion by 2030 and its willingness to provide $500 million in interest-free loans to countries in the region by 2025. China, which already wields significant economic influence in Central Asia, is increasing its influence in the region, acting not only as the largest source of foreign direct investment but also as a financier of new technologies.
As per regional media reports, the existing trade and investment cooperation between China and Central Asia will further strengthen in 2023. The joint use of the logistics route to Europe via the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, in particular, will increase.
Despite the positive momentum, some external analysts have noted a cautious attitude among the people in the region toward cooperation with China. According to studies conducted in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in 2020, only 7% and 9% of citizens in those countries supported Chinese infrastructure projects, respectively, and support for China in general dropped from 65% in 2019 to 48% in 2020 in Uzbekistan. China is paying close attention to this trend, and additional efforts are being made to develop a strategy to improve China’s image in Central Asian countries.
This factor has become particularly important in recent years, when the post-Soviet republics of Central Asia became a theater of fierce economic disputes between China and Turkey and China and the United States. At this point, it is worth recalling that Turkey was the first country in the world to recognize the independence of the Central Asian countries and has been trying to play the role of leader of the Turkic community since the early 1900s. However, interaction within the framework of the Turkic Council, established by Turkey in 2009 and to which most Central Asian countries belong, is still largely cultural and humanitarian in nature. However, this does not preclude expanding this interaction to other areas, especially given Ankara’s growing interest in building greater trade and economic cooperation with countries in the region and its attempts to expand military-technical cooperation there. Recently, it became known that the Turkish company Rönesans Holding intends to invest almost $8 billion in projects in Uzbekistan (part of the funds will be invested in Uzmetkombinat, $4.1 billion – in the development of the Almalyk mining and metallurgical plant, and $3 billion – in the social sphere, especially in the construction of hospitals and shopping centers). Thus, Turkey is now trying to demonstrate its “second coming” in post-Soviet Central Asia. The first one, in the 1990s, as you know, was based mainly on cultural identity with the peoples living here, which resulted in good education. Now Turkey is trying to focus on economic cooperation to strengthen its position here, although there are no particularly large investment projects that would change the fate of the region. Nevertheless, all this is leading to growing interest not only from China but also from Turkey in new regional logistics routes.
The Central Asian countries’ location at the crossroads of trade routes connecting Asia, the Middle East, and Europe makes this regional “five” appealing not only for transit investment, but also for industrial and commercial investment. However, the region’s investment potential in this sector has not been fully realized due to its remoteness from maritime trade routes and the poor development of the transportation and logistics system. A particular source of concern for external investors was the region’s consistent high outflow of labor.
The increased anti-Chinese policies of the United States and its Western allies in recent years have been a significant impediment to strengthening China’s position in the region. With Washington’s investment and economic interests recently centered in Kazakhstan, where US private companies own a significant share of oil production, the US has expressed interest in using the region primarily as a tool of influence over its main adversaries—Russia and China. This is also confirmed by the recently released United States strategy for the region for 2019-2025, which anticipates spending approximately $9 billion on “supporting democratic reforms and humanitarian initiatives.”
In addition to the former post-Soviet republics, China has also recently shown increased interest in Afghanistan. Concrete evidence of this came when the Taliban (banned in the Russian Federation) signed on January 5, 2023 the first international contract in the country’s history to extract oil from the northern basin of the Amu Darya, with China’s Xinjiang Central Asia Petroleum and Gas Co. Specifically, the agreement calls for the Chinese company to extract oil from a total area of 4,500 square kilometers in the northern provinces of Sar-e Pol, Jowzjan, and Faryab, which contain more than 80 million barrels of crude oil, according to preliminary estimates. At the same time, according to Western analysts, China is clearly counting on a privileged position during tenders for gas production in the same region, and is reportedly already negotiating for copper and lithium deposits estimated to be worth more than $1 trillion. Of course, it does not forget that rare earths, cobalt, bauxite, mercury, uranium and chromium are also in the exploration phase here.
In expanding cooperation with this country, China is deftly exploiting the Taliban’s keen interest in reviving the Afghan economy and attracting foreign investment. As a result, such significant economic contracts could pave the way for Afghan authorities, who are currently operating in a vacuum, to gain international recognition. By assisting in the economic stabilization of Afghanistan, China is undoubtedly assisting in the military-political stabilization of the country’s north, which is critical for the Central Asian republics and Russia.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”
The leadership of the social media giant Twitter (access to this social network is prohibited in the Russian Federation on the basis of Article 15.3 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection”) stated before the New Year that it had long adhered to clear positions on the spread of American influence abroad, and in this regard, it works shoulder to shoulder with the Pentagon. The revelation was made in the latest round of “Twitter files” released simultaneously by several American journalists. Screenshots, emails and chat logs show how Twitter helped the US government run its covert propaganda and disinformation campaign. The sole purpose was to influence public opinion, in friendly and unfriendly countries alike, and amongst such targets, Iran and the war in Yemen were in the center of attention.
The spread of anti-Iranian propaganda consistently by many US government officials has been well documented for decades. Recently, media reports have talked about the use of social networks to spread anti-Iranian propaganda and form the public opinion Washington needs in West Asia against Tehran. The US military and intelligence community has long used the politics of fake online personas and third parties to “amplify” US narratives in West Asia. For example, using an authentic message in Persian may have more impact and appeal than an official Pentagon press release. Moreover, no one is responsible for the veracity of such messages, and often their content is far from the truth.
For years, senior Twitter executives have said they had been working very hard and making a “concerted effort” to stop accounts backed by foreign governments from spreading their propaganda on the social media platform. In 2020, Twitter spokesman Nick Pickles testified before the House Intelligence Committee and stated that the company was making “aggressive efforts” to end “coordinated platform manipulation efforts” attributed to foreign government agencies. And this is despite the fact that foreign governments have repeatedly denied such accusations and called on the leadership of the social network to be genuine and truthful.
It has now been revealed that the government agencies spreading the state propaganda referenced by Twitter was the US government itself. New internal documents show how the social media giant “whitewashed” a network of US military-linked accounts to influence public opinion in West Asia. And even though the social media platform executives knew about these accounts, they didn’t shut them down. Instead, they allowed them to remain active for many years. The leaked documents also show that some of them are still active, sowing discord and confusion in the West Asia region.
Twitter, for example, places a visible blue checkmark next to accounts that the company trusts to be authentic, and these accounts enjoy additional privileges. The “whitelist” essentially granted Pentagon accounts the same verification privileges without the visible blue status on Twitter. This raises serious questions about Twitter’s decision-making and malicious manipulation practices before the company was sold to billionaire Elon Musk. It has now been revealed that the secretive collaboration between Twitter and the Pentagon goes back at least five years, and maybe even more.
One account operated by Twitter and CENTCOM, the US Central Command, operating in West Asia, under the username @yemencurrent (now deleted), promoted crude American propaganda and fake news about the war in Yemen, actively supported by the Pentagon and Saudi Arabia. Other posts have focused on advertising and promoting US-backed bandits in Syria who brazenly violate the country’s sovereignty and plunder Syrian oil. Other reports have contributed to false anti-Iranian propaganda in Iraq, fueling hatred between the two neighboring states. The Pentagon used Arabic-language accounts to post its propaganda material on Twitter. Coincidentally, this is when violent, deadly riots began in Iraq, sparked by a group of thugs who killed and set fire to the offices of the anti-terrorist forces after they defeated Daesh (this terrorist group is banned in the Russian Federation) with the help of military advisers from Tehran.
Another CENTCOM account, @althughur, publishes rude and shameless anti-Iranian propaganda messages, aimed also at the Iraqi public. It even changed its Twitter name from CENTCOM affiliation to an Arabic name – “Pulse of the Euphrates.” American propagandists believe that under this name this account will be mistaken for an Iraqi one, which would be more trustworthy than a clumsy and tasteless American one that sows only hatred and enmity. Iraqi officials have repeatedly complained about suspicious social media accounts spreading misinformation, directly blaming the US embassy in Baghdad. Now this shows just how widespread the Pentagon’s anti-Iranian propaganda campaign was in the Iraqi media.
Leaked texts from internal logs show that Twitter had “special trust” for CENTCOM accounts. Twitter researchers have determined that one Pentagon account, under the username @mktashif was using a fake photo to hide its real identity. Thшы account initially identified itself as a US government account associated with CENTCOM. Later on, this information changed to what non-Twitter researchers identified as a “deepfake.” The new Twitter narrative claims that the account was an impartial source of opinion and information, loosely translated from Arabic as “dedicated to serving Iraqis and Arabs.” The account regularly posted false propaganda against Iran and the people’s revolution in Yemen. Now that it has become known who is behind this account, it has been deleted. But in its place, about a dozen new accounts appeared, which continued the false claims against friendly relations between Iraq and Iran.
Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, a non-profit organization dedicated to the diplomatic resolution of foreign conflicts, was cited as saying: “It is a matter of deep concern if the Pentagon is working to shape public opinion about the role of our military abroad, and even worse, if private companies help cover it up.” This may be of deep concern, but it is certainly not a surprise. “Congress and social media companies should investigate and take action to ensure that at the very least our citizens are fully informed when their tax money is being spent on putting a positive spin on our endless wars,” added Sperling.
Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and other Arab countries have long accused Washington of using social media platforms to wage dual warfare against sovereign states opposed to American foreign policy and wars. This is especially true in Latin America, where the Pentagon routinely seeks regime change in its favor throughout the region. A 2020 Washington Post report revealed that Facebook officials (access to this social network is restricted in the Russian Federation based on Article 15.3 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection”) had identified several fake accounts attributed to whitewashing CENTCOM’s influence on the social media platform.
The leaked Twitter emails claim that in 2020, senior Pentagon lawyers invited Facebook and Twitter executives to attend secret briefings at a covert information facility, also known as SCIF, used for high-profile meetings. During these, apparently, the executives of the social networks were called upon not only to actively help the military in their false dissemination of information, but also threatened to bring them to justice if these executives refused to be good soldiers and obey the orders of the Pentagon.
On July 26, 2017, Nathaniel Kahler, then a CENTCOM employee, sent an email to Twitter asking for approval to review one account and whitelist accounts in Arabic “that we use to amplify certain messages.” Stacia Cardille, then a lawyer on Twitter, noted in an email to her colleagues that the Pentagon might want to change its previous practices by classifying its use of social media “to avoid exposure.”
The latest leaks are consistent with a major report released in August by the Stanford Internet Observatory that focused on thousands of accounts they suspected were part of a state-backed US disinformation operation. Many of them used photorealistic human faces created by artificial intelligence, a practice also known as “deepfake” technology. Researchers linked these accounts to a vast online ecosystem that included “fake news” sites, meme accounts on other social media platforms such as Telegram and Facebook, and online personalities who repeated Pentagon messages without disclosing any military affiliation.
Some reports claimed that Iran was “threatening Iraq’s water security and flooding the country with crystal methamphetamine,” while others promoted claims that Iran was trafficking human organs from Afghan refugees. But the truth is that it was the US military, which in every possible way encouraged the Afghan peasants to increase poppy crops, and then the raw materials processed into drugs were exported to Europe and the USA on its planes under the patronage of the CIA. In Kabul and some other cities, there were American military hospitals where Afghans, mostly children, were allegedly operated on. And if Washington started talking about human organ trafficking from Afghans, how can one not recall the proverb about an experienced thief who runs ahead of the crowd pursued by him and also shouts “Stop the thief!” During the 20-year US aggression in Kabul, there were rumors that the US military personnel allegedly adopted children, but before that they had to be examined in American hospitals by surgeons for some reason. No one saw these children again, and their parents received large, by Afghan standards, monetary compensations.
The revelations of Twitter, as well as the statements of former German Chancellor Merkel about the Minsk agreements, confirm the same simple truth that lies in the statements and propaganda of the West and, above all, the United States – lies, lies, lies, and nothing but lies, deceit and falsehoods.
Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On January 8, 2023 Andrey Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine suggested that the Russian government may propose a “Korean solution” for bringing an end to the military operations in Ukraine, which would involve dividing the country and legally enshrining Kiev’s loss of control over eastern Ukraine. He added that certain (unnamed) South Korean officials, speaking to him, have expressed their regret that their predecessors had agreed to split up the country into two parts, with a demilitarized zone in the middle.
As readers will remember, the 38th parallel North marks the approximate route of the demilitarized zone which has divided North and South Korea since the 1953 ceasefire had put an end to the Korean War. But a review of the events that led to the choice of that line as the boundary will make it clear that the Korean situation is very different from the Ukrainian one. Those differences need to be considered in greater detail.
To begin with, the 38th Parallel is not just a line marking the position of the front as it was at the end of the Korean War. The border is in almost exactly the same place as the line that marked the occupation zones in Korea. And while in 1945 there was no thought of breaking up the country, as the Cold War set in the situation began to change. Unlike Germany, the Korean peninsula was divided into two separate states, each of which saw itself as the only legitimate state and claimed jurisdiction over the entire peninsula. Of the two states, South Korea could claim to have attained statehood first, and the United Nations accepted the results of its elections, while North Korea had different arguments – which the present author finds more persuasive. Firstly, because North Korea held elections, albeit illegitimate ones, in the southern half of the peninsula. Secondly, those elections took place according to the procedure set out in the 1945 agreements, that is, before the US broke that agreement by submitting the Korean question to the UN, which, given its composition at the time, was certain to vote the way the US wanted.
As a result Seoul, on occupied territory, was officially the capital of North Korea until 1972, and Article 3 of South Korea’s Constitution still states that the whole peninsula is part of South Korea. Moreover, South Korea has a government body called the Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces which is officially responsible for administering these breakaway territories. And according to South Korea’s National Security Law North Korea is not a country, but an anti-State organization, and so we could say that Seoul views Pyongyang in the same way that Kiev viewed Donetsk and Lugansk, until these unrecognized republics became part of the Russian Federation.
When the Korean War began, both sides insisted that they were the victim of unprovoked aggression by the other side. North Korea claims that South Korea was the first to attack. Technically, this is incorrect, although it is possible that the major attack launched by the North may have coincided with one of the many provocations launched by the South Koreans. But there was certainly no unprovoked attack launched against a peaceful country.
We shall now look at the nature of the conflict. The Korean War was not a proxy conflict between the USSR and the US, fighting through their puppets. On the contrary, it was a civil war which outside influences then transformed into an international conflict. The undeclared war along the 38th Parallel and the left-wing uprisings in the South were so intensive in nature, with an average of three incidents a day, that it is possible to describe them as an open war rather than just exchanges of fire across the border.
It should also be noted that each side was making preparations to escalate the conflict to a more serious level. When the North Koreans occupied Seoul, they discovered a large number of documents containing information about the preparations for war. Syngman Rhee was aiming for a rapid escalation of the war into a global war against Communism which would allow “Greater Korea” to seize the Chinese region of Manchuria and the Soviet Primorye region, which Syngman Rhee and his associates believed should be treated as “Korean ancestral territories.”
At first neither Moscow nor Washington wanted to openly support “their” Korean protégés. However North Korea managed to persuade Moscow that South Korea was on the verge of a revolution, and that once their army had been defeated in the regions adjoining the front and the capital had been seized, Syngman Rhee’s regime would collapse. In fact, it is hardly surprising that North Korea jumped to this erroneous conclusion – after all since the US had chosen not to intervene in the Chinese civil war and support its regional ally Chiang Kai-shek, it seemed reasonable to suppose that it would definitely not support Syngman Rhee, with whom it had more difficult relations. In addition, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson claimed that Korea was not part of the USA’s defensive perimeter, and that if it was threatened it could “appeal to the United Nations.”
However, after China had fallen to the Communists the right wing of the Republican Party began to accuse the Democrats of “favoring the Reds.” The government was under strong internal pressure from Senator McCarthy and his supporters. Furthermore, lacking enough Korea specialists and being blinded by its own political ideology, the US saw the Korean Civil War, not as an internal conflict between the North and South, but as part of a wider conflict. It was for this reason that the US immediately sent its forces into the Strait of Taiwan in the expectation of an attack by Communist China on Taiwan, and possibly an attack by the Soviet Union on Japan.
The Truman administration, reluctant to use the term war, initially referred to its operations as a “special police action.” Moreover, in an attempt to portray the Korean War as a “campaign by the international community to punish an aggressor”, the US soldiers in Korea did not fight under their own flag, but that of the United Nations, although in fact the UN contingent was almost entirely made up of Americans and was led by a US general.
Nevertheless, when the territory of South Korea was effectively under the control of the UN forces, the question was what to do next. But before the UN command could reach a decision on this issue, on October 1, 1950 Syngman Rhee ordered his forces to cross the border and attack North Korean territory, leaving his allies with no choice but to follow. In South Korea October 1 is still celebrated as Armed Forces Day, although during the original incursion back in 1950 the South Korean military simply attacked civilians and fled when they met any opposition. This general situation was confirmed by a small number of exceptions. On the South Korean side, it was not the Koreans, but the UN forces who did most of the fighting.
After that the war took on an international character on the North Korean side as well. When the South Korean army crossed the border the Chinese government was faced with a dilemma – as supporting North Korea would prevent them from rapidly taking over Taiwan. But the Americans were already conducting systematic flights over Chinese territory, carrying out attacks, and bombing infrastructure facilities such as the Sup’ung hydroelectric power plant, which supplied power to both North Korea and nearby regions in China. Syngman Rhee’s expansionist plans were also well known and at least some members of the Chinese government were convinced that if the North Korean regime fell the forces of the “free world” would not stop there.
However neither China nor the US officially took part in the war. Soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army fought in Korea as “Chinese national volunteers”, while modern Chinese propaganda portrays the Korean War as a war fought between China and the US on Korean soil, in which China was defending its national interests.
The course of the war swung like a pendulum, with Seoul passing from one side to the other four times, but by the summer of 1951 it was clear that neither side would be able to achieve an outright victory. The front line stabilized along the 38th Parallel, and talks began, as a result of which each party retained the territory they currently occupied. As for the victims, by the end of hostilities in both North and South Korea some 10% of the population had been killed or injured or had disappeared without trace. In absolute terms it resulted in more causalities than any other war except the First and Second World Wars and the less well-known Second Congo war.
Nevertheless, each side was able to claim that it had not been defeated and that the “attacks by the aggressor had been repelled.”
The peace talks took a long time and on both sides the “doves” were able to prevail over the “hawks”. In South Korea the Truman sidelined MacArthur, while in North Korea the less well known figures of Pak Hon -yong and Lee Seung-yup were purged by Kim Il-sung. The charges against the latter two figures were based on a mixture of real and invented facts and Pak Hon-yong was convicted of being an American spy. However most non-Communist historians believe that his and his associates’ convictions were not unfounded and that the real reason was that Pak Hon-yong wanted to continue with the war while Kin Il-Sung was in favor of peace talks.
But the main opponent of peace talks was Syngman Rhee – and the Americans were even tempted to organize a coup in order to overcome this obstacle. That plan, known as Operation Ever-ready, was never put into effect, but, as a result of Syngman Rhee’s objections, South Korea never signed a peace treaty. Thus, the peace treaty was only signed by North Korea, the Chinese volunteers and the UN forces.
In order to minimize the negative effects of its refusal to sign the treaty, South Korea was pressurized into signing a Mutual Defense Treaty, under which the South Korean armed forces are subordinate, not to the country’s President but to the Joint Command (in effect, to the USA). Syngman Rhee would not be able to launch another war without Washington’s approval.
Given the above background it is clear that, in terms of its character and outcome, the 1950-53 Korean War and the Ukrainian conflict have very little in common. Both in terms of their origin, and in terms of the international participation, the two conflicts are quite different. Now that the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk have ceased to exist, whether and to what extent the Ukrainian conflict can be seen as a civil war is now debatable, to say the least.
To conclude with a rather trivial observation, if Ukraine were to be divided in a similar way as Korea, say along the River Dnipro, then the line in question would be a border, with no demilitarized zone. It would not be a border between Western and Eastern Ukraine, being two parts of a former state, but between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
Moreover, such a border would be seen by the public on both sides as a defeat, and not as a victory. In Ukraine, because it would mean that Russia had occupied a significant part of its territory, and in Russia because a number of territories that were acquire by it following the referenda would thus remain as part of Ukraine. A peace agreement on such terms would be unlikely to last long and each side would be ready to further escalate the conflict in order to achieve something they could describe as a victory, rather than a “shameful peace”.
Given the above situation, it appears likely that the South Korean officials whom Andrey Danilov claims to have spoken to are actually the product of his imagination. “Big mistake”, “cession [of territory]” – these terms do not apply to the end of the Korean War. Some commenters are therefore of the opinion that the comments about then 38th Parallel are also invented.
And if Andrey Danilov and his colleagues identify them with South Korean government of the 1950s, then the comparison is far from flattering to Kiev. After all, it is now a well-known fact that the “White Terror” in South Korea, both during and after the Korean War, claimed more victims than the “Red Terror” did. And most of the attacks in that terror campaign were carried out by semi-criminal paramilitary “Youth Corps”, who occupied a similar position to Ukraine’s volunteer brigades. If our readers want to know more about the leader who Ukraine’s government is comparing itself to, then our site has a number of other articles about South Korea under Syngman Rhee – and they can note the parallels for themselves.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In the last few years the USA and its Western allies have been making increasingly overt attempts to put pressure on Africa in a bid to stop the continent turning towards Russia and China.
The situation in African countries has started to deteriorate seriously as a result of the West’s thoughtless and self-serving sanctions against Russia, which have caused the continent problems in a number of areas, including that of food security. For example purely as a result of having to buy wheat from Argentina rather than from Russia, Angola has lost more than $15 million since the beginning of Moscow’s special operation to denazify the criminal regime in Ukraine and the West’s imposition of sanctions against Russia.
According to an announcement made by Turkey’s Minister of Agriculture Vahit Kirişci, since the signing of the “grain deal” 16.9 million tons of grain, carried by 633 ships, have been exported from Ukraine through the marine humanitarian corridor established under the deal. However, just 5.4% of the exported grain has found its way to poor nations, including African nations, despite the West’s insistence that the deal would prioritize shipments to these countries.
As for Russia, despite the restrictions imposed on it by the West, it has been able to export more than 15 million tons of grain as well as large volumes of mineral fertilizer, much of it intended for poor countries. Moreover, in discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Erdoğan last November, it was decidedto supply grain to the poorest African nations free of charge.
According to Saudi media it is the events in Ukraine and the anti-Russian policies of the West that are to blame for the sharp rise in food prices in 2022 (wheat, rice, maize, vegetable oil etc.) and the resulting famine that caused widespread suffering, especially in the world’s poorest countries. By tightening their financial policies the developed nations have reduced the flow of funds to poor countries, and the departure of foreign investment has significantly exacerbated the food crisis – a problem which, even in 2023, will be particularly challenging to overcome. In March 2022 global food prices reached their highest ever level. According to statistics published by the media, global spending of food imports amounted to almost $2 trillion in 2022, significantly more than in previous years. Shortages of wheat and fertilizer have caused price increases and raised the cost of importing food for the most vulnerable sections of society (by more than $25 billion). State support for low income families has been unable to raise their standards of living, as most of the subsidies granted have been eaten up by rising food prices. Jasper Okodi, a consultant to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), has stated that even if global prices fall the price of foods in local markets in unlikely to fall until the third quarter of 2023.
Unlike the West, Russia has been a trusted partner to African states for many decades. From the mid 20th Century onwards, as African nations achieved independence from the yoke of their former colonial masters, the Soviet Union provided them with a great deal of disinterested support, building up their social and economic infrastructure. As representatives of the African nations themselves insist, Russia has never been involved in schemes to rob Africans of their natural wealth, and has never applied political pressure in an attempt to gain economic benefits. In the current highly challenging conditions posed by the anti-Russian policies of the USA and its western allies, African leaders clearly understand that Russia, despite the aggressive and immoral opposition of the West, is fighting to bring about a just world order. It is also fighting the USA’s overt propaganda campaign, which is based on disinformation and lies about Moscow’s policies. Speaking on this and other issues at a meeting of the UN Security Council on January 10, Anna Evstigneeva, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation, categorically rejected the West’s attempts to discredit Russia’s assistance to African nations by falsely accusing it of appropriating African resources or contributing to the growth of terrorism in the continent.
Many African politicians have emphasized that while France, Britain and the USA are now losing their influence in Africa, in the past, when these countries dominated the continent, it was very difficult for Africans to stand up against Western neo-colonialism. But now the world order is changing and the African nations are able to breathe freely at last.
In an article published at the end of December The Times was forced to admit that 22 African nations refused to censure Russia’s special operation to protect residents in the Donbass at the UN General Assembly, and that in the light of current international feelings Moscow was winning more and more sympathy in the world’s most rapidly developing continent. The Times also recognized that the West has already lost the battle for Africa and that Africans are turning away from their former colonial powers and towards Russia, China, Turkey and the Persian Gulf States.
The struggle between the USA and Russia for influence in Africa took a new turn when South Africa’s president took on the chairmanship of the BRICS group and the country’s ruling party proposed inviting new members from among the world’s major developing nations to join the grouping. As the South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said, “The BRICS group should lead the process of reforming the entire international architecture for the benefit of most countries in the world, and this group has an important role to play in leading the creation of new decision-making mechanisms in the UN and other international organizations to establish a more inclusive, just and sustainable world order.” And that will certainly end the global dominion of the West and particularly of the USA, which is why the USA is opposing such reform.
Washington is particularly critical of the plans for Russia, South Africa and China to hold joint naval exercises – known by the code name Mosi – in the Indian Ocean off the Southern African coast from February 17 to 26. The exercises will include artillery practice and anti-aircraft drills. Similar joint naval exercises were held in November 2019 in the South Atlantic ocean, off the Cape of Good Hope, not far from Cape Town.
In view of the above background and specifically Washington’s growing opposition to African countries’ good relations with Russia, Thandi Modise, South Africa’s Minister of Defense and Military Veterans was recently impelled to accuse the USA of putting pressure on those African nations that maintain good relations with Russia. The Wall Street Journal admitted the truth of this accusation in a recent article on the US reaction to the docking of the Russian cargo ship Lady R at a South African port.
The West understands that Russia has an interest in maintaining international relations with strong, self-sufficient and economically independent partner countries – including in Africa – which are able to ignore the West’s threats of repressive measures and work as allies of Moscow in the creation of a new multipolar world order. But it is precisely this process that the West fears, and it is imposing all the illegitimate sanctions that it can devise in order to impose its neocolonial policies in Africa.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The NEO has already drawn attention to the increased activity on the international stage displayed on various occasions by members of the current Japanese cabinet, especially Prime Minister Fumio Kishida himself. This activity was reaffirmed by his week-long overseas trip, which began on January 9 of this year and included Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, the countries making up 5 of the 7 members of the G7 group, which includes Japan itself. Another summit, with the German chancellor, is scheduled for this spring.
Japan’s increasing activity in international affairs has been accompanied by a strengthening of its own role. This is particularly evident in Japan’s inclusion in the UN Security Council for the next two years.
Fumio Kishida’s visit to the above five countries is not coincidental. First, Japan will hold the presidency this year and host various events in the G7 format. Second, late last year Japan adopted new versions of its long-term defense and security instruments that differ substantially from previous versions.
The need to familiarize the de facto allies (that is, the first four countries) with these changes (as they say in the first person) and to coordinate them with the de jure ally (the United States) was one of the main objectives of Fumio Kishida’s trip abroad. And the last stage was undoubtedly the most important in the trip discussed here.
Still, among the results of Fumio Kishida’s visit to London was also the appearance of a landmark document showing the further and comprehensive development (especially in the field of defense) of Japanese-British relations. Its development was launched during then-Prime Minister Theresa May’s visit to Tokyo in September 2017.
This case involves the signing of a bilateral document in London on January 11 to “facilitate” reciprocal access to the territory of one partner for units of the other’s armed forces (Reciprocal Access Agreement, RAA). The related statement from the Japanese Foreign Ministry reads that Fumio Kishida and the “honorable” Rishi Sunak (note the absence of any such designation before the Japanese prime minister’s name) signed the document (with their positions indicated). The same statement also refers to the long (27-page) text of the Japan-UK RAA.
The signing of this document alone is a milestone in the development of Japan-UK relations. Just as it was a year earlier in Japan-Australia relations.
The focus of the Japanese prime minister’s entire trip, however, was a visit to Washington, D.C., where he held talks with US President Joe Biden on January 13. Just two days earlier, another meeting of the bilateral Security Consultative Committee (often referred to in the press as the “2+2 format”) was held in the same Washington, D.C., involving the foreign and defense ministers of both countries. The outcome of this “format” was undoubtedly on the table where the leaders of the United States and Japan met.
This voluminous document deserves the attention of those readers who are interested in the main points of the current phase of the development of relations between these countries. For the brevity and general character of the Joint Statement issued by the White House after the talks between Joe Biden and Fumio Kishida may serve as indirect confirmation of the suspicion that the former is hardly any longer in a position to discuss the content of the above points.
As for the Joint Statement to be adopted at the end of the next meeting of the US-Japan “2+2 format,” it should be emphasized once again that such documents (which are usually quite long) do not contain unnecessary words, and everyone decides for themselves what is of primary importance in them. For the author, these are the following points.
First, the new trends in Japanese defense policy, and in particular Tokyo’s intention to double its defense spending within five years, have the full approval of the Americans. Second, China is identified without qualification, i.e., quite clearly, as the greatest security challenge and the intention is stated to increase “synchronism” in bilateral cooperation to counter this challenge. Third, special attention is given to the problem of maintaining the status quo with respect to Taiwan and its current positioning in the international arena. Fourth, Japan’s interaction with NATO is expanded, and the US side welcomes the signing of the Japan-UK RAA.
Overall, the impression is that Japanese foreign policy is irreversibly tied into the main trend of the current phase of the Great Game, which is toward a global confrontation between the two leading world powers. And it is clear whose side it is on. The increasingly obvious anti-Chinese character of Tokyo’s foreign policy can only have a negative impact on the state of Japan-Russia relations.
And yet, a remarkable episode in the preparation of the tour under discussion could not fail to attract attention. On January 5, i.e. three days before the start of the tour, an invitation to visit Ukraine was extended to Fumio Kishida through the Japanese Ambassador in Kyiv, which was immediately reported by Kyodo News. In a conversation with journalists the next day, the addressee of the invitation expressed evasiveness, which actually meant a negative response.
Incidentally, in the brief statements made by Biden and Kishida before the start of the negotiations, it was also noticeable that the latter did not mention the “Ukrainian issue.” While the former promised to “hold Putin accountable for unprovoked aggression in Ukraine.”
The joint statement by the two heads of state does mention the “Ukrainian issue,” but without any sharpness or mention of “Putin.” Who, apparently, for the American president is the source and embodiment of all the problems that currently afflict him personally.
It should be noted that today on the international political scene the Kyiv regime is assigned the role of a new idol. Completely artificial, but no less important than its predecessor, Greta Thunberg. Given its full proxy role, it seems clear that Ukraine played only the role of a middleman in initiating the above invitation. Considering the fact that Japan, again, will be chairing the G7 configuration this year (with its demonstrative reverence for the incumbent government in Kyiv), Fumio Kishida, by his above-mentioned refusal, has almost called himself a “Voltairian.” If not a “Carbonari.” Did he start a “revolution from above” in the G7? By the way, Fumio Kishida promised something “unusual” for the upcoming G7 summit in Hiroshima during his last speech in Washington.
It should be noted that the current Japanese Prime Minister is by no means the originator of Japan’s “maneuver” strategy regarding the country’s positioning in the Ukraine conflict. Shinzō Abe did the same long before him. The Japanese leadership’s motivation for such behavior goes far beyond the infamous “Northern Territory’s problem” and is mainly due to the same complexities in Japan-China (and possibly Japan-Korea) relations.
For Russia, however, the apparent interest of the Japanese leadership (for various reasons) in maintaining constructive relations provides an opportunity to act as a mediator in resolving the difficulties in China-Japan relations. Provided, of course, that both countries agree.
As for the reaction of the main object of Japan’s growing foreign policy activity, there is a mixture of caution and regret. This is especially true when it comes to the question of whether Japan’s current leadership will voluntarily take on the heavy burden of a steep increase in defense spending. An article commenting on this issue in the Chinese Global Times is accompanied by a revealing illustration.
Vladimir Terekhov, an expert on the problems of the Asia-Pacific region, especially for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.”
In recent years observers in many different countries have been warning ever more insistently about the inevitable collapse of the dollar – which Washington has inflated far above its true value. The US has experienced nine recessions since the beginning of the 1970s, and the dollar has fallen twice in real terms, from 1972-1974, and from 1994-1995. The main international currency remains overvalued and public confidence in the dollar is likely to be hit by a double blow in the near future as the US faces the likelihood of a serious recession and high inflation rates. Distrust of the dollar is growing in many countries as a result of the US policy of using its currency as a weapon against “disloyal” leaders.
Many economists are now predicting a fall in the dollar’s value in 2023, which would cause financial commotion worldwide and encourage people to invest in outlier currencies, which would consequently increase in value this year.
The dollar’s loss of influence in global markets is clearly demonstrated by recent developments in the energy sector. In the last few years China, now the world’s second largest economy, has increasingly been purchasing oil and gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela and a number of African countries, and paying in yuan – thus bringing the world closer to dropping the dollar altogether. In view of this trend, the Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s announcement in December that he is ready to pay for oil and gas from Persian Gulf nations in Chinese yuan naturally attracted a great deal of comment. Beijing has announced that over the next three to five years it will significantly increase its oil imports from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and also develop comprehensive energy agreements with countries in the region, which may include cooperation on hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, as well as investing in oil refineries and petrochemical facilities.
China’s petrochemicals policy is of particular concern for the USA, since Russia, Iran and Venezuela account for about 40% of OPEC’s oil reserves, and China already buys oil from these countries. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries account for another 40% of OPEC’s reserves, while countries in China’s and Russia’s zones of influence account for the remaining 20%. China’s plan to start using the yuan for payments has therefore caused considerable concern in the USA, as it will significantly weaken the dominant position of the dollar and of the USA as a whole at a global level, and also lead to radical changes in the global energy market, which Washington is trying to control since the Second World War.
With a view to strengthening the position of the yuan vis a vis the US dollar, China has already made the Chinese currency convertible into gold on Chinese gold exchanges. Along with the trade in the petroyuan, this will make the yuan a more attractive reserve currency option than the dollar, and provide economic and financial benefits for politicians and investors alike. In these conditions foreign purchasers are losing interest in US treasury bonds, which is speeding up the process of “de-dollarization” all over the world. Already now there are clear indications that Japan and China, the main holders of US treasury bonds in Washington, are reducing their dependence on the dollar.
But it is not just the Persian Gulf states that are taking steps to drop the dollar. As reported by Al-Monitor on December 26, Iraq’s Central Bank has already drawn up a plan for reducing the Iraqi dinar’s dependence on the US dollar, and aims to buy Chinese yuan in order to increase the value of the dinar. Other central banks in the Middle East are also showing increased interest in the Chinese yuan. In August last year Egypt decided to issue bonds denominated in yuan. In April, the Bank of Israel added Chinese yuan to its reserves.
Russia and India have also agreed in principle to stop using the dollar for mutual trade settlements, and will start paying in their national currencies. The Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the USA and the West of discrediting the dollar and other reserve currencies by “helping itself” to the national reserves of Russia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan and many other countries. Taking advantage of the crisis in Ukraine, the USA and its allies in the West are using illegal sanctions and tightening their dollar-related policies, thus threatening the future of the world’s financial system in a bid to set up a new economic order. Moscow has responded by taking measures to protect the ruble, requiring purchasers to pay for Russian oil and gas in rubles, threatening, if necessary, to cut oil production, and refusing to accept any caps on oil prices.
However, by its actions against Russia the West has damaged global confidence not only in itself, but in the dollar. It is therefore not surprising that the ruble, along with other currencies of Russia’s “friendly” states, is increasingly being used for payments made to and received by Russia, with more than half of such payments now being made in these currencies. Moreover, according to official statistics, prices in Russia have scarcely changed since May 2022, and since the beginning of 2022 the Russian ruble has been one of the strongest currencies in the world. The Bulgarian newspaper Fakti, among others, has supported this view, pointing out that, unlike the US dollar, the ruble is backed up by gold, oil and gas.
In recent months, even US media have increasingly accused their government of resorting to aggressive and arrogant methods to ensure the US dollar retains its dominant status. In a natural response to Washington’s aggressive tactics, many countries, having lost confidence in the dollar, are now building up gold reserves rather than relying on dollars. The proportion of dollars in central bank reserves has fallen from 65% at the end of 2016 to 59% in 2022.
Significantly, Turkey and Egypt, both key allies of the US (although its relations with them have significantly deteriorated over the last decade) have decided not to link their central bank reserves with the currency of any one country. According to Hassan Abdullah, head of Egypt’s Central Bank, the country has recently began working on a new index to support the Egyptian pound, to avoid the need to link its value to the US dollar.
Since the end of the Second World War, the only conflict between the main world powers which has really had an effect on investors has been the Cold War, which ended with the establishment of a unipolar world order dominated by the United States. Globalism was the dominant economic ideology and the US dollar was the currency of choice. But now geopolitics have again emerged as a potent force and the current world order is facing a serious threat. For perhaps the first time in its history the United States is facing an equal, and, in some respects, superior rival in the form of China, which is trying, with the support of Russia, to establish a new world order. These two countries are bringing into being a new form of globalism, using instruments such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and in 2023 this multipolar world view is increasingly becoming dominant.
Given the current environment, the rejection of the US dollar represents the single biggest economic threat to the USA’s national security. It threatens to trigger a huge decline in the US economy, causing a dramatic reduction in consumer spending and wealth nationwide.
It has now become clear to observers all over the world that the heyday of US might is over. And the sooner the US understands this, the easier it will be for it to renew its economy and restore its political prestige.
Vladimir Danilov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
For both North and South Korea the New Year’s Eve was a time to boast of noteworthy achievements.
On December 21 Korean prime Minister Han Duck-soo presided over the 22nd Session of the National Space Committee, during which it adopted its fourth framework plan for space exploration. The plan sets out three main goals: to carry out landings on the Moon and Mars in 2032 and 2045 respectively, to allocate 1.5 trillion won of state funds to the space program for the period up to 2027, and to increase the global market share of South Korea’s private space construction sector to 10% by 2045 (from 1% in 2020).
The Ministry of Sciences, Information and Communications Technologies has chosen three regions of the country – South Jeolla Province, South Gyeongsang Province and Daejeon city – which will host specialized clusters dedicated to the development of the space industries.
The South Jeolla Province, home to the Naro space center, has being proposed as the main location for purchases, and a number of launch sites and a center for the commercialization of rocket technology will be constructed in this province. South Gyeongsang will specialize in the development and creation of satellites – and already has sufficient production capacity to achieve this goal. The planned construction of a space innovations center in the region will help to extend its capacities in this area. Daejeon will develop as a scientific research and education cluster. The city is already home to the Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST), the country’s leading technical higher education institution.
If the construction of the necessary infrastructure is approved then Korea will invest some 800 billion won ($620 million) in the three clusters between 2024 and 2031. In the period up to 2030 Seoul plans to invest 1.4 trillion won in the development and creation of a network of observation satellites to monitor the territory of the Korean peninsula, along with a ground-based satellite control system.
On December 22 South Korea published a photograph of Pyongyang taken by one of its own satellites. North Korea had previously published a photograph of Seoul, which, it claims, was taken by a military spy satellite. The color photograph clearly shows Kim Il-sung Square and the buildings surrounding it. And since the North Korean photograph, which was published earlier, was in black and white and in lower resolution, a number of experts have joked that North Korea’s most recent drone attacks were carried out as a response to South Korea’s publication of its photograph of Pyongyang.
On December 30 South Korea successfully tested a solid fuel space launch vehicle. According to a statement by South Korea’s Agency for Defense Development the test was part of a drive to strengthen the country’s space surveillance capabilities. The statement did not specify where the test took place, and it was conducted without any prior announcements, but the rocket trail was clearly visible in the night sky and was the subject of a great deal of comment. A number of people even jumped to the conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the launch, and the emergency services received more than a thousand calls.
According to a statement by South Korea’s military, this was the second stage of testing, following an initial test on March 30, 2022, when the rocket decoupling system was tested and the upper stage rocket control system was fine-tuned. But while the initial test involved only two rocket stages, the most recent test was conducted with rockets on the second, third and fourth stages of a four-stage vehicle.
Experts believe that the rocket is designed to launch a small surveillance satellite into low-earth orbit. Its development became possible after the US lifted its 800 km limit on the range of Korean rockets in May 2021.
The solid fuel rocket represents a technical advance in Seoul’s technical capabilities, as solid fuel rockets tend to be easier and cheaper to launch than liquid fuel rockets. On January 2 South Korea’s Defense Ministry announced that the testing of the solid-fuel space launch vehicle (note the absence of the word “rocket”) is a step forwards in the country’s drive to protect its space security without being dependent on other countries.
It is now clear that the rocket uses solid fuel for the first three stages, while liquid fuel is used for the fourth stage – experts consider that the use of liquid fuel makes it easier to control the fuel injection and thus place the payload in precisely the required orbit
In or around 2025 the Ministry now plans to launch a 500-kilogram synthetic aperture radar (SAR) radiolocation satellite into low earth orbit in order to carry out space intelligence and surveillance functions. But first a number of other flight tests and other trials will need to be performed.
Moreover, the technical innovations developed during the project to create the launch vehicle will be shared with the civil sector, thus helping to kick-start Korea’s space industry.
Seoul can also congratulate itself on another achievement – its unmanned spacecraft Danuri has completed an orbit around the moon. It is no secret that all projects of this kind can be used for both military and civilian purposes.
In the past the author has reported on South Korea’s Nuri (KSLV-II) rocket, which made its first proper flight on June 21, 2022. Shortly afterwards, on August 4, 2022 the Falcon 9 rocket operated by the private aerospace company Space Exploration Technologies, took off from Cape Canaveral, in Florida and launched South Korea’s Danuri (Pathfinder) orbiter into space.
Back in December 2016 the Korea Aerospace Research Institute and NASA signed an agreement under which they would work together to develop a lunar orbiter. In 2020 the orbiter was assembled and it was tested in September last year. 40 South Korean companies and 13 universities contributed to the project, together forming almost the entirety of the country’s space research capabilities, participated in the project.
Once it had reached the height of 1,656 kilometers the Danuri orbiter separated from the rocket and entered a low-energy ballistic lunar trajectory (BLT), first traveling towards the Sun, and then turning towards the Moon. In four and a half months it traveled 1.56 million kilometers. On two occasions in November 2022 Danuri sent texts and images back to the Earth, thus demonstrating its ability to send data over large distances. On December 27 it successfully entered lunar orbit at about 100 kilometers above the surface of the moon. South Korean scientists will monitor Danuri’s activities for another month and then in February 2023 it will begin the main part of its mission. Using six on-board sensors (including DTN – a form of “space Internet”, long-range space telecommunications links etc.) it will take measurements of landscape features, the strength of the magnetic field and other aspects of the moon’s surface.
Another task for Tanuri is to search for a suitable site on the Moon’s surface where Korea’s lunar module (to be launched in 2032) will be able to land. Danuri will also help the NASA to implement its Artemis program, which aims to send astronauts to the moon’s surface in 2024. The South Korean spaceship will help NASA to identify a landing site for the US astronauts.
Danuri will then try to create the world’s first map of the Moon’s x-ray polarization and then set up a space Internet link. Currently Danuri has 30% of its fuel reserves remaining, and this will be enough for it to carry out its mission over the next year
As for Nuri, the third launch of this rocket will take place in the first half of 2023. The Korean government plans to conduct four more launches of the booster rocket so that it can upgrade its technological capabilities and in the future use it to launch a domestically made satellite and landing module without assistance from other countries.
Finally, on January 5 the third prototype of the Korean KF-21 Boramae fighter jet made a successful flight. In the first half of this year three more prototypes are to be tested and the jet will carry out some 2,000 test flights before it enters into service in February 2026.
The KF-21 project, which was launched in 2015 at a cost of 8.8 trillion won ($6.9 billion), was designed to develop a 4.5 generation fighter jet to replace the obsolete F-4 and F-5 jets which are to be withdrawn after dozens of years in operation.
In conclusion, two points should be noted. Firstly, the recent launch of the solid fuel rocket, and, before it, the launch of the Danuri orbiter, both took place under the current President Yoon Suk Yeol, but all the preparations were carried out before he came to power, and they should be seen as evidence of the militarization policy of his predecessor, Moon Jae-in – a policy this author has looked at more than once in his articles.
Secondly, just like North Korea’s space rockets, they fall within the category of dual use technology, and so are contributing to the escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
With multiple objectives in its target list, Israel’s new Netanyahu administration is becoming a key player in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine (Russia-NATO) military conflict. Israel, in other words, is far from neutral. In fact, it has many objectives, and the Netanyahu administration – which is very well connected both with Washington and Moscow – sees the ongoing conflict as a strategic opportunity. It is for this very reason that Israel not only calls the ongoing conflict a “serious violation” of international law by Russia but, at the same time, has refused to provide the Iron Dome air defence system to Ukraine for it to be used against Russia. With Netanyahu in power, Israel’s play on both sides of the conflict has become even more complicated. Israel continues to need Western support for various reasons, and it cannot afford to antagonise Russia, especially because Russia in today’s world is a major strategic player in the Middle East/West Asia, where the traditional US role and presence have changed and decreased, respectively.
Israel understands that Western sanctions on Iran have failed to prevent Tehran from enriching uranium. As media reports show, Iran is already enriching uranium at a 60 per cent level, which is a major departure from the 3.7 per cent agreed upon in the 2015 JCPOA agreement. Besides it, as a move against Western supplies of advanced weapon systems to Ukraine, Russia is considering upgrading the Iranian air defence system by possibly providing its 4th generation SU-35 fighter jets. This is not just a result of Russian Tit-for-Tat for the West’s supplies to Ukraine. In fact, this possible deal is embedded in a much wider strategic cooperation between the two countries, including that happening around Ukraine, which is now a target of US sanctions.
For Israel, this fast-developing alliance is a serious concern, as it could ultimately lead Russia to take steps to stop Israel from operating in Syrian airspace, a freedom that Jerusalem has had for many years that it has been using to target the Iran-backed militias to prevent from them from consolidating in – and opening a new front against Israel – from Syria. Israel’s supply of weapon systems, or taking a clear-cut position against Russia, could alter this balance of power between Israel and Iran in Syria. This alteration could have serious repercussions for Israeli national security. At the same time, Israel thinks that in the face of the West’s failure to check Iran’s nuclear enrichment level, it needs Russia to prevent Iran from actually acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Russia blames the US – and rightly so – for exacerbating the nuclear deal with Iran, just as it blames the US for its aggressive pursuit of NATO’s expansion to Ukraine. Russian actions vis-à-vis Iran are partly tied to the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. Therefore, Israel thinks it is in its best interest to end this conflict as soon as possible to maintain the regional (West Asian) balance of power in its favour; hence, Israel’s proactive diplomacy led by Netanyahu who comes with plenty of international experience vis-à-vis both Washington and Moscow. His objective, however, is not simply to bring peace but to manage the situation in ways that best advance its national interests.
Most importantly – and to the utter disappointment of the US and Ukraine – Israel does not intend to do this by ending its friendship with Russia. In fact, it intends to protect it. As Michael Brodsky, the Israeli ambassador to Kyiv, reminded Washington recently in an interview with the Washington Post that Israel’s security ties to Russia create limits that cannot be overcome, adding that “No government in Israel is going to jeopardize this interest for anybody else, including the Ukrainians.”
In fact, this was clearly the message that Netanyahu gave to Vladimir Putin when the latter called to congratulate the former on his victory. Netanyahu did not forget to reiterate Israel’s core interests as well, as he said, as disclosed by Netanyahu’s office, that Israel remains determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Tehran’s attempts to establish military presence in Lebanon and Syria along Israel’s northern border.
The message was apparently well received in Russia, as Israel did not take too long to target the Damascus airport to test its alliance with Russia. This was encouraging enough for the new administration in Israel to start playing a proactive diplomatic role between Washington and Moscow. While the strike happened on the 2nd of January, it was on the 3rd of January that Israel’s new Foreign Minister– who spoke with his American counterpart on the 2nd of January – passed a message from Blinken to his Russian counterpart, foreign minister Lavrov. As Israeli officials have said, Israel will continue to play this role and that it will do so less publicly i.e., in a more nuanced and silent manner.
For many in the US, this is disheartening, since doing diplomacy ‘silently’ means Israel is unlikely to take any position that might threaten its ties with Moscow. It also means that Israel will not provide any advanced weapon systems – especially when Western stockpiles are depleting – to Ukraine to fight Russia.
But, for Israel, what matters is not what some policymakers in the US think, but what serves its own strategic interests in the region. With conflict in Ukraine leaving an inevitable impact on the Middle Eastern geostrategic landscape, Israel cannot afford neutrality and/or a position against Russia, but it can certainly afford to play a role that brings the conflict to an end as soon as possible and without changing the regional balance of power too much or at all.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
Over the past 20 years of the new century, for various reasons, relations within the NATO alliance have undergone certain transformations. It should be acknowledged that after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, for some time the threat of nuclear confrontation between the leading powers was lessened. However, this state of global détente did not bring stability to the world, and this was due not only to persistent local conflicts with the involvement of major world players. First and foremost, it was owing to the US policy of expanding the NATO military bloc in relation to the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe in the 1990s, and the continuation of this strategy in relation to the countries of the post-Soviet space in the 2000s (in particular, the Baltic states), and subsequently in relation to Ukraine, Georgia and further to the East.
A similar trend in US policy has led to the formation of a de facto club hierarchy of NATO members in terms of their importance. In particular, the leading position in the North Atlantic Alliance is occupied by two Anglo-Saxon powers – the US and the UK, followed by the countries of continental Europe with a key role assigned to France, then by Turkey in the Middle East, and by the countries of the former socialist bloc led by Poland. In NATO, both before and now, due to objective historical, political and economic reasons, internal contradictions persist, where the complex nature of relations between Turkey and Greece stands out in particular.
Naturally, the United States, which retains a leading role in NATO and continues the course of world hegemony, is interested in and implements a policy of strict control of the political regimes in NATO countries in order to exclude from power undesirable forces that can challenge Washington’s monopoly. During the years of the Cold War, the main focus of the United States was directed against left-wing forces and pro-communist movements, discrediting and ousting communists from the ruling circles of NATO member states. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, this area of US special activity was readjusted to counter those forces in NATO states that were aimed at a foreign policy course independent of Washington (primarily, a strategy of partnership with Russia or China).
In this regard, a fairly clear example is the rejection of the Bulgarian government in the 2000s to implement a mutually beneficial Russian energy project for the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline. Sofia was forced under pressure from Washington, London and Brussels to abandon this cooperation with Russia.
Turkey, being an important country in the Middle East and maintaining its membership in NATO, has begun to pursue a more nationally oriented foreign policy since the early 2000s under the rule of Recep Erdogan. In particular, by developing mutually beneficial relations of regional partnership with Russia and no less promising economic cooperation with China within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, and by considering the ambitious strategy of neo-Ottomanism and neo-Pan-Turkism in order to change the status of the country from a regional state in favor of a power with the prospect of joining the club of leading world actors. This independence of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is increasingly being met with a negative attitude from the US, regardless of the ruling administration, be it the Democrats or the Republicans.
America, as in the years of the Cold War, is interested in maintaining allied relations with Turkey as a controlled and ruled country. First of all, using its favorable geographical position and its leaning towards the Turkic world against Russia, Iran and China, and forming some kind of “Turkic arc” as a dividing strategic corridor between Russia, on the one hand, and Iran and China, on the other. However, the United States (as well as the UK) is not interested in Turkey’s excessive independence, which can turn it into one of the world’s main centers based on the newly formed Turkic countries of the post-Soviet space.
At the same time, Turkey has been waiting for the patronage of the United States for quite a long time on the way to European integration. Since the signing of the Ankara Agreement with the European Economic Community (the predecessor of the EU) in 1963, Turkey has been standing at the door of the European home for almost 60 years, according to R. Erdogan. Despite the reforms of national legislation carried out by Ankara at the request of Brussels, Turkey has remained outside the EU threshold. All this led to the fact that, without officially abandoning the idea of European integration, on October 1, 2017, at the opening of the parliamentary session of the Grand National Assembly, Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared: “We no longer need membership in the European Union… We will continue to go our own way.”
Of course, such a statement by Erdogan can be considered to be another political declaration pursuing the practical interests of changing the attitude of Brussels and Washington towards Turkey’s role in European affairs. However, the Turkish leader began to sharply criticize the policies of several EU countries for their patronage of Kurdish separatists, insufficient economic attention to the Turkish market (especially in light of the growth of spontaneous migration from Afghanistan, Syria and several other countries of the Arab East) and, despite the protestations of the United States, made a deal with Russia on the acquisition of its S-400 air defense systems.
Turkey, using the European interest in alternative sources of gas bypassing Russia, since the early 2000s, implemented several important projects for the construction of trans-Anatolian and trans-Adriatic pipelines through its own territory. And interacting quite efficiently with Russia, Turkey supplemented the Blue Stream gas pipeline along the bottom of the Black Sea with the TurkStream gas pipeline. Turkey’s participation in the Syrian crisis, along with the task of localizing the Kurdish threat on its southern borders, has the goal of pursuing an interest in the export of Qatari gas. In other words, the pragmatic and independent energy policy of Recep Erdogan’s administration allowed Turkey to become a powerful factor in the way of gas supplies from Russia, Azerbaijan, the Middle East, the countries of the Mediterranean basin, and in the future possibly Central Asia to Europe. Taking into account the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the EU sanctions imposed on Russia at the behest of the United States, Turkey is increasing its influence on the energy security of continental Europe.
That is why President Erdogan, in his New Year’s address to the nation, declared that Ankara’s main goal in 2023 – the year of the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of the Republic – was the transformation of Turkey into one of the world leaders in the political and economic spheres. At the same time, Turkey intends to become a hub of energy supplies to Europe.
Such a policy of Erdogan was met with outward irritation in the US. It is no coincidence that Erdogan accused his political opponent Fethullah Gülen, who has lived in Pennsylvania since 1999, and, indirectly, the US secret services (including for Washington’s refusal to extradite the above-mentioned religious and political figure to Turkey) of the attempted military coup in July 2016. The forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey in June 2023 will once again accentuate the confrontation between the authorities and the opposition, which does not exclude external interference from the forces interested in overthrowing the Erdogan regime.
The founder and leader of the Sufi political movement Hizmet, F. Gülen actually stands for moderate Islam and the preservation of secular power in Turkey with a strict focus on the United States. Gülen, thanks to his talent as a preacher and his organizational qualities, with strong external support, actually created one of the largest Turkish multi-layer echeloned organizations (including with units of its own intelligence and counterintelligence) with secret branches of Sufi structures both in Turkey and in almost all Turkic countries and states with Turkic populations. Despite Erdogan’s tough fight against Hizmet using the state mechanism of suppression (law enforcement and special services), it can hardly be argued that Gülen’s followers are completely deprived of the opportunity to carry out subversive actions against the ruling regime of AKP and its leader.
In 1990, with the revelations of former Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, the world learned about a secret operation codenamed Gladio (Short Sword), carried out with the leading participation of US clandestine agencies in NATO countries against the coming to power of pro-communist forces. At the same time, the Italian judge Felice Casson proved that the main perpetrator of the well-known terrorist attack in Peteano in 1972 (the explosion of a car) was a member of the neo-fascist organization Gladio, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, and not activists of the extreme left group “Red Brigades.” This is how they revealed the complicity of Italian secret services in the carrying out of a terrorist attack by a certain “covert army” under the control of NATO with a network in Europe.
The name “Gladio” was used in relation to operations in Italy, in all other countries of Europe and Turkey, similar operations had different names, but came from the same center. In 1990, the European Parliament adopted a special resolution on Gladio, which noted the complicity of secret service officers of several states in carrying out terrorist attacks in European countries, allegedly without the knowledge of their leadership. It is obvious that the political crisis in European countries (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, etc.) after the revelations of the Italian Prime Minister and the judicial investigation was so large scaled that the European Parliament was forced to adopt such a “spineless resolution.” Secret service professionals, regardless of their index, are quite aware that if there are any “rebels” in the ranks of their employees, then their life, as a rule, is short. Operations of the Gladio type require a high degree of conspiracy, planning and organization, which cannot be achieved without clearance from the secret service leadership and the political leadership.
In turn, the former director of the CIA, William Colby acknowledged operation Gladio as “an extremely important program.” This means that the United States tightly controls the politics and ruling regimes in allied countries in order to exclude an internal split in NATO and threats to American strategy on the world stage. In relation to Turkey, the well-known “counter-guerrilla” operations in the second half of the 20th century were mainly carried out with the participation of radical forces under the control of local and American secret service agencies against left-wing pro-communist forces (politicians and journalists) and Kurdish resistance (threats of domestic ethnic separatism).
Given the presence in Turkey of a huge army of Gülen supporters (according to some sources, from 3 to 6 million people), including secret sympathizers in the government and the administration, which was not without the participation of the CIA (according to revelations by Sibel Edmonds, an employee fired from the FBI), we can assume another threat of a struggle between Erdogan and Gülen in June 2023.
It is known that after Necmettin Erbakan, the leader of the Islamic Refah party, became Prime Minister in 1997, F. Gülen offered him some kind of cooperation. Erbakan’s rejection of the Hizmet leader’s proposal largely predetermined his resignation and the dissolution of the Refah bloc, on whose ruins the Justice and Development Party (AKP), headed by R. Erdogan, emerged. Many experts rightly believe that the ascent of the former mayor of Istanbul R. Erdogan to the heights of power in Turkey was not least associated with his cooperation with F. Gülen.
In this regard, based on the Azerbaijani pro-government website haggin.az, Sibel Edmonds in her revelations in 2014 noted: “Gülen is just a symbol. After 1997, the CIA got hold of him … The CIA took him to the United States and “by chance” stationed him in a citadel near its headquarters in Pennsylvania. He has lived in the US for 15 years and controls a network worth $25 billion. This was the “Gladio A” plan… Schools, mosques and madrasahs opened by Gülen together with the CIA outside the United States were closed one after another, since the countries in which these institutions were located considered the Gülen ideology dangerous for their own national interests. F. Gülen’s network was used in operations jointly with the CIA… But the Gülen-CIA alliance, not satisfied with this, created a large media network in Turkey, and Gülen’s movement strengthened its position in the police, justice and defense sectors. And this “power” network, i.e. the CIA along with the Gülen movement, unexpectedly discovered Erdogan and propelled him to power… With the consolidation of Erdogan’s power and the growth of his popularity, his faith in himself increased. He began to believe that he could no longer bow his head to the imam and obey him, but build his own power.”
However, the main reason for the divergence between Erdogan and Gülen is not the cult of personality and not just the independent course of the Turkish leader. It is the strategic partnership between Turkey and Russia which implies maintaining stability in Eurasia and stands against the redrawing of the “Greater Middle East” political map according to the American “Peters map” model.
In the context of sanctions of the collective West against Russia due to the Ukraine crisis and Moscow’s policy of strengthening its sovereignty, the Russian-Turkish strategic partnership under Erdogan’s rule may acquire new contours in energy policy to control the export of world gas to the European market. Accordingly, the stakes in this “Great Game” with the participation of R. Erdogan and V. Putin are taking on new meaning and threaten the strategy of US global hegemony. That is why the possibility that CIA repeats its clandestine operation “Gladio B” against the independent Erdogan cannot be ruled out in the foreseeable future.
Assuming the possibility of such an operation to physically eliminate an undesirable candidate, the organizers of the operation, in search of cover, can, of course, use the Kurdish flag (armed suppression of the Kurdish movement in Turkey and militant resistance in Syria, repression against the leaders of the main Kurdish organizations – the Kurdistan Workers’ Party of Abdullah Ocalan and the Peoples’ Democratic Party of Selahattin Demirtas, as well as the prominent human rights activist Osman Kavala). However, the Kurdish theme in the domestic political struggle for power in Turkey is unlikely to be appropriate, since in this case Turkish society will not accept a new leader.
Obviously, the use of a retired military man who unreasonably suffered from the repressions by R. Erdogan and acts under the banner of conservative Kemalism would be the best option for the performer of “Gladio B” on the eve of, during or after the 2023 presidential election. It should not be hard to find such a candidate in the CIA’s filing cabinet. And “Gladio B” could be carried out”:
a) on the eve of the election in case of the imminent defeat of all opposition candidates running against the incumbent president;
b) during the second round of voting in order to block the use of administrative resources in favor of R. Erdogan;
c) under conditions of widespread political destabilization with the cancellation of election and the declaration of a state of emergency in the country under the guise of fighting the Kurds or aggravating the situation on the border with Syria or Greece;
d) after announcing election results in favor of the leader of the AKP on the eve or on the day of inauguration of the president.
Naturally, all the options noted remain the opinion of one author and one must bear in mind that happenstance can change any forecast. On our part, we wish peace and stability to the people of Turkey in order to independently choose their leader and determine the subsequent course of their country.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
At the beginning of January 2023, several media outlets reported the wide-spreading news that Russian citizens who had had their refugee status rejected were stuck at Incheon Airport (Republic of Korea). And this case was not the only one, because under the guise of receiving this status, some with ill intentions were trying to enter the country.
It should be noted that the Republic of Korea joined the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1992 and became the first country in Asia to adopt a law on refugees in 2013. However, before the admission of South Korea to the membership of the UN Refugee Agency in 2000, not a single person had been recognized as a refugee.
In recent years, South Korea has experienced a sharp increase in the number of applications for refugee status. If in 2013 there were 1,574 applicants, then in 2019 the figure was 15,451 persons. That is, in just six years, the number of foreigners who are trying to obtain refugee status has increased tenfold, which does not delight the South Korean government at all. It fears a significant influx of unreliable persons who, under the guise of refugees, could engage in illegal activities.
If we talk about the global situation, then in 2021 more than 27 million people were given refugee status, which is 700 thousand more when compared to the end of 2020. In 2021, Syria ranked 1st in the world in terms of the number of refugees (6.8 million people), followed by Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Myanmar. As for host countries, the largest host country in 2021 was in Turkey (3,760,000) or 14% of the total number of refugees worldwide. Colombia was in second place with 1,844,000 people. Following them are Uganda, Pakistan and Germany.
There are no concrete statistics on refugees for 2022 yet, but it can be assumed that in view of the situation in Ukraine, this country may take first place in terms of the number of refugees, the number of which, according to media reports, has already exceeded 7 million people.
As for the Republic of Korea, during the period from 2010 to 2020 the rate of refugee admission to the country was only 1.3%, although the country accepted and processed more than 50 thousand applications for refugee status, of which only 655 were given the green light. In 2021, the refugee intake rate in South Korea also remained at the same level, which is the second lowest amongst G-20 countries. In 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic, the influx of refugees decreased, but experts expect that in the near future the number of new applications for refugee status will exceed 20 thousand. In 2022, information emerged that South Korea was accepting refugees from Ukraine. However, it should be noted that most of them were ethnic Koreans who were eligible for simplified visas as overseas compatriots and for the most part did not need refugee status.
From time to time, disputes in regard to foreign refugees flare up in the Republic of Korea. Supporters of granting them asylum call for humanism, categorically refuting allegations that refugees could be potential criminals and pose a threat to public safety and security. They give the example of Germany, which received a large number of refugees, and whose crime rate is quite low. Opponents point to the growing number of cases of abuse of the asylum system, as a result of which criminals from other countries can freely enter the Republic of Korea and create security threats. In this regard, they demand the abolition of the provision of the law on refugees that prohibits forced repatriation, insisting on creating a system that would reveal the true intentions of refugees.
One of the high-profile cases in this area was the mass entry of Yemeni residents (more than 500 people) to the South Korean island of Jeju in 2018, after which the South Korean authorities decided to tighten the laws for issuing refugee status and cancel the visa-free entry regime for citizens of this country in order to stop the further influx of people. The tightening of the rules included carrying out more rigorous identity and background checks, tougher penalties for those who overstayed their visa expiration dates, as well as prohibiting new applications for any applicant returning to their home country, etc.
The current immigration legislation of South Korea establishes more than 30 types of visas, including the G1-refugee visa (or rather, its variety – the G1-5 visa for obtaining political asylum, issued on grounds of the persecution of citizens in their homelands on account of political, ethnic, national and religious motives). At the same time, obtaining refugee status in South Korea is extremely difficult. Now everyone who enters in this capacity undergoes strict control and supervision. Under South Korean refugee law, asylum seekers can apply for refugee status at the time of entry and then undergo an interview. If South Korean immigration authorities deem their reasons to be valid, applicants may undergo additional verification procedures. Otherwise, they may be repatriated.
During the period of reviewing the application, the applicant does not have the right to work in South Korea and the consideration of such an application may be delayed.
It should be noted that the refugee visa is valid for one year, after which it needs to be renewed. To do this, it will be necessary once again to confirm the grounds for extending this status and prove that the situation in your homeland is still unsafe. That is why there are fears that many refugees, after a year of residence, acquire an illegal status and remain in South Korea. This is also confirmed by a significant increase in foreigners staying in the country illegally, the number of which in 2022 exceeded 400 thousand people.
Victoria Samsonova, Ph.D. in Economics, Leading Research Fellow, Head of the Center for Korean Studies at the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
I wonder just what per cent of the population even knows about Bretton Woods and its implications for the global system. What goes around comes around, and the US and its economic allies, under the guise of the IMF and World Bank, Bretton Woods Entities that emerged in the wake of World War Two, have long since become everything they claim to despise.
These entities were founded so as not to make the same policy and economic mistakes as were made in the aftermath of World War One, those which were the main cause of World War Two. They therefore sought to stabilise what was left of the European Economic Landscape, so that no country would fall so far behind the others that it could be manipulated by extreme populist leaders, or communists.
Since then however it has changed its agenda, and adopted one of economic control, political manipulation and subterfuge, with overtly political and not solely strategic goals. The economics which have led so many countries down the garden path of debt and currency collapse have been imposed on everyone so that those who have risen to the top, without democratic accountability, can avoid admitting they might be wrong, and therefore don’t have the qualifications, skills and intelligence politicians have been forced to believe they think they have.
The original idea was to achieve the stabilisation of markets, economies and society as a whole. In other words, it ignored the lessons of nineteenth-century liberalism, which ended up creating a class of people “more Liberal than Thou”, who pulled the ladder up behind them by saying that whoever didn’t profit from these broader opportunities must have something wrong them, rather than the system itself not being the answer to everything.
This is why “liberalisation” is still a mantra spouted by the crusaders who think they have all the answers. No one means by that that every Tom, Dick and Harry should really have the same opportunities in life, and the same access to the resources necessary to take advantage of them.
They mean shifting economic power from those who currently have it to chosen nominees who will support whatever programme the donors have in mind. How liberal this idea really is can be seen in the fact that this same process of shifting capital and power away from existing elites is exactly what got the junk bond king Michael Milken put in jail, when the same practices continue daily as long as they [such crimes] benefit the established players.
In Your God We Don’t Trust
As a recent title so appropriately reflects, Bretton Woods II ended today, with China and much of the oil producing world beating the Americans at their own game. The dollar-for-oil monopoly was the lynchpin of Bretton Woods II’s stability, so it follows that Bretton Woods as we knew it just ended, and in turn Bretton Woods becomes redundant in terms of World Trade and Commercial Policy.
Put simply, the world is dumping the dollar, at least in terms of trading in oil, and this is impacting the US from many sides. The dollar as an instrument of US policy will lose its ability to run roughshod over friends and enemies alike, and will have to change its own fiscal policy to reflect the New World Order which has been imposed upon it out of the blue.
Sooner or later this was going to happen. This is what Jimmy Carter was really talking about back in the seventies, when he spent so much of his presidency droning on about energy crisis and how it was key to keeping inflation under control, often to his own disadvantage and demise.
Without stabilisation of energy resources and supply, “whoever can order the tune” can also control the economies of wherever countries they want—and a backlash results over time, with those disadvantaged by that process ganging together to turn the tables in what might be called the Liberia Effect: overthrow the corrupt system, and build a one equally corrupt but run by your own people.
Much of post-war history involves the sale of oil in dollars, and conflicts generated by that process. However this was made the overt driver of political and economic relations during the Nixon Administration, despite the chaos in foreign exchange markets that followed, and the resulting instability being made worse by the inflationary OPEC oil embargo of 1973-74.
In July 1974 the US Treasury Secretary William Simon and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made a top-secret flight to Riyadh to meet King Fahd. They offered a deal: sell Saudi oil exclusively for US dollars and buy US Treasuries with the proceeds, or we kill you, your entire family, and occupy the oil fields with the US military.
Strangely, this is the same Saudi Arabia now being lambasted for systematic human rights abuses which are held to be a product of its being Muslim and undemocratic. One doubts that Simon and Kissinger would appreciate being tarred with either brush, but the fact they thought such behaviour was alright for them tells you what you need to know about Bretton Woods mega players being more Liberal than Thou.
Now, quickly and without much fanfare, the petrodollar may soon be obsolete. It is ironic and hypocritical to reflect on how Biden “used sharp rhetoric to contrast himself with former President Donald Trump’s unreserved embrace of Saudi Arabia”, but is now going to be the main casualty of policies he previously supported.
What comes next is not hard to predict. The British Empire took a long time to catch up with colonial leaders it had branded as rebels, extremists and terrorists being embraced as statesmen on the world stage. The US is congenitally incapable of doing so, caught up in its own rhetoric, as only by promoting the concept of American Exceptionalism, and using it to justify whatever it says, can it even justify the country’s very existence when every other country, in one way another, has made the USA’s founding ideals its own, and done a better job of it.
Let’s Just Call it a Global Reset and Leave It At that!
We must not forget Biden’s failed trip to the Middle East prior to Midterm Elections, in which he came away embarrassed, empty handed, and humiliated on the world stage. The same is also holding true in other parts of the world, as the pack is scenting blood, even if it is not Biden’s own.
Biden’s trip to the region will soon reveal itself to be all for PR, and desperately trying to close ranks against Russia under the guise of diplomacy and the worldwide price of oil. It is what a US President is supposed to do to show they are awake, rather than what they need to do to achieve anything positive.
As the collapse of the Soviet bloc showed, the problem doesn’t come when people stop believing in you, but when they start thinking that everything you attack isn’t so bad after all. Then you have no room for manoeuvre, no way to construct a new paradigm. You can only go on clinging to the old certainties, because doing the opposite would be so hypocritical it would destroy you entirely.
In real democracies there is a gradual process of assimilating your enemies after they are retired or die off. It is routine to attack opposing parties by saying that they are no longer the decent, reasonable, principled party of old, when they were led by people who the speaker’s fellow travellers regarded as the Devil Incarnate at the time.
When you build your own economic and political dominance on saying that everyone else has something wrong with them, it is very difficult to then say that those countries once had the right idea but have now lost it. How can you have allowed that to happen, if the first idea was so good?
The US will now have to construct a new political paradigm which underpins a new economic paradigm it can present as a better option. One reason the Orthodox Church began gaining adherents in parts of Africa in the twentieth century was that it was not associated with the colonial powers, even though “foreign” in essence. Those churches which were have had to reset, but can’t claim their assumption of superiority doesn’t exist. The US is about to have the same problem on a much grander scale.
Reaping What Others Have Sown
What was predicted when this article was first was sent off for publishing has been confirmed. The position the US now finds itself in was demonstrated when, despite what Biden was saying, he was pictured engaging in embarrassing fist bumping with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who can be best described as a psychopathic killer – and had been by Biden himself in his earlier rhetoric.
The US doesn’t care about Saudi Arabia, must less like it, but has to defend its friends to defend itself, no matter how wrong they are. It has to pretend the old system is still worthy while it works out how it can play a part in the new one.
There are not many frontiers and unwavering friends left, other than former allies who are actually partners in business and crime. They are distancing themselves, and a New Order is evolving.
But it is not the New World Order envisioned by the US and its previous presidents. It is one in which no one automatically accepts that the US is right, and makes correct moral judgments. It is one in which everything the US doesn’t like is re-examined to see what good might be found in it.
Syncretism is another facet of a real democracy. Parties take the ideas of other parties and see how they can adapt them to their own way of thinking. Thus you get a case for any idea within any party, on the grounds there is an ideologically acceptable version of the concept somewhere, and the public can be made to believe in it.
Until their final day in power, the rulers of Communist Czechoslovakia insisted that they could accept this or that reform, but not the abandonment of socialism. They knew that was the one thing above all the Czech public wanted gone, and that they once could still have had a future by finding a capitalist narrative acceptable to the party, as in Hungary, Bulgaria and China, but that opportunity had gone because the people had investigated these questions before them, simply because the party had told them how bad they were, and the party could no longer control the debate.
The US has missed its own opportunity to move away from itself whilst retaining all the benefits of that self – the money, the glamour, the fundamental correctness and desirability of much of what it claims to believe in. Now anyone talking about alternatives will only be listened to if they are not the US, and traded with and trusted on the same basis.
Old Values, New Valuables
The price is now being paid for Biden’s earlier trip, which was most likely anti-Iran, anti-China, anti-Russian, as he sought allies in time of need, “birds of a feather who will flock together,” and to justify this for US domestic consumption. Now he needs Saudi Arabia and still friendly OPEC more than they need him, and whenever he talks to them, he shows it. This, in light of the European self-inflicted energy crisis, is a rude awakening for him and the Democratic Party.
In his Washington Post op-ed, “Why I am going to Saudi Arabia”, Biden laid out a position hostile to and contemptuous of both Saudi Arabia and Iran and their security concerns. To understand Biden’s modus operandi, and to judge the most appropriate way for Saudi Arabia to handle Biden’s visit and his seemingly pro-Iran policies, one needs something of a crystal ball and a sense of humour.
Biden claims in the article, which was obviously written for him, “I’ll pursue diplomacy intensely — including through face-to-face meetings — to achieve our goals.” This is somewhat ironic considering Biden’s previous track record at diplomacy—one of dismal failure and cozying up to backhanders in Ukraine and China, for starters.
The answer to Biden and the policies of his administration is loud and clear. OPEC’s outright refusal to defer oil production cuts until after the American midterm elections was a further sign that Saudi Arabia and OPEC+ no longer take orders from Washington.
Saudi Arabia went further by taking the unusual step of officially rejecting the US request for cuts in public, and did not even stabilise oil production but decreased it in face of a tight market, created mostly by US and European sanctions against Russia.
Saudi Arabia did not mince its words when it rejected as “not based on facts” American criticism of an OPEC+ decision back in October to cut its oil production target despite US objections. It explained that Washington’s request to delay the cut by a month would have had negative economic consequences.
Naturally, in light of political considerations, the White House said it presented the Saudis with an analysis that showed the cuts could hurt the world economy, and alleged that the Saudis pressured other OPEC members on a vote. But now the world has decided that what the US says is bad might be good, the analysis was bound to have the opposite effect, as the US still cannot face one fact: that the “world” means everybody else, not the eternal spread of the US opinion and hegemony.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Tensions between the US and China, which have reached an intense level in recent decades, especially under Donald Trump, have continued to escalate with the arrival of the Joe Biden administration in the White House. At the same time, despite deep contradictions between Republicans and Democrats on most political and international issues (in recent years), when it comes to the topic of China, there has been a rare consensus on the need for a tough course towards this country. It is also noteworthy that ever since Joe Biden was Vice President under Barack Obama, his views on China have become markedly tougher.
The heightened tensions in relations between China and the US can be clearly seen in the events of 2022, when in May the wording about recognizing Taiwan as part of China was removed from the State Department’s website. And then in August, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, visited the island, with the openly provocative purpose of being the first high-ranking American politician to be there, despite warnings from Beijing. In response, China conducted massive live-fire exercises around the island and suspended bilateral dialogue with Washington on a wide range of issues. After Nancy Pelosi, in order to “cement” this provocative policy, the White House sent not only other representatives of the American political establishment to Taiwan, but also political delegations from several of Washington’s European satellites, which participated in plans to incite Chinese separatism. In order to create security risks in the region, the US began to carry out demonstrative sailings of its warships through the Taiwan Strait on an almost regular basis. One particular transit happened on January 5 with the participation of the Arleigh Burke-class-guided-missile destroyer. Recently, Japan, the main regional ally of the United States, has also begun to clearly send its signals to the separatist forces in Taiwan, which forced Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin to appeal to Tokyo in late December to officially sever ties with Taipei.
As part of the recent anti-Chinese policy, the US began to intensively supply Taiwan with modern weapons, creating, following the example of the Ukraine crisis, the necessary stock of weapons there before the start of a potential armed conflict. Thus, at the end of the previous year, the US State Department approved a $1.1 billion deal to supply Taiwan with arms, which included AGM-84K Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles, AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and radar units. The new US defense budget, signed on December 23, 2022 by President Joe Biden, provides for military assistance to Taiwan in the amount of $10 billion, which, in particular, includes the supply of M136 Volcano anti-tank remote mining systems in the amount of $180 million.
At the end of December, the official representative of the Chinese Ministry of Defense Tan Kefei expressed Beijing’s extreme dissatisfaction with this policy, acknowledging that such a course only leads to escalation of tensions and possible armed confrontations, as well as to a military clash (by analogy with the Ukraine crisis) between representatives of one nation. At the same time, the Chinese side promised to take retaliatory measures and insisted that the United States should stop selling weapons to Taipei, cease contacts with the Taiwan military, or else Washington “will itself get burned in the fire it has created.”
Against the backdrop of these provocative US actions, the Chinese Armed Forces were put on high alert in early January 2023.
Continuing the spiral of escalating relations with China, Washington has recently begun to actively involve not only the UK and other Western European countries, but also its allies in the Asia-Pacific region, namely Australia, South Korea and Japan.
Although earlier Japan’s role in military confrontations was not significant, today the US is pushing this country to build up its military potential in order to use it in possible regional conflicts, and, above all, with China. At the same time, Washington proceeds from the fact that today Japan is becoming a formidable military power with its strong fleet and the ability to independently produce many types of weapons and equipment. Tokyo is also forming full-fledged armed forces, increasing the defense budget and altering its defense strategy with the approval of Washington. In this regard, the United States is clearly counting on the possibility of using the military potential of Japan in the event of the conflict in Taiwan escalating. After all, without relying on regional allies and using their “cannon fodder,” the US alone cannot withstand the arms race that it launched with China. And in the event of an aggravation of the conflict over Taiwan, it is Japan that will be the main base for operations of American forces against China, supporting the Americans and providing cover, supplies and defense.
These calculations of the military-strategic use of Japan in today’s situation are especially clearly shown following the results of talks held on January 12 in Washington between the heads of the foreign ministries and military departments of the US and Japan. During those talks, an appeal was repeatedly made to commitment in accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security of both countries to using all means of military potential, including the nuclear one. The joint statement that was made details the discussion of issues related to covering Japan with the American nuclear umbrella, and confirms the intention of both countries to boost cooperation in the expanded deterrence of the “potential adversary.” It also implies that China is “the most serious common challenge for the US and Japan, as well as for their allies and partners,” according to a statement made by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during the meeting in Washington.
Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, on his part, pointed to the intention of the US to optimize the presence of US forces in Japan through the advance deployment of more versatile, mobile and resilient units, and also to expand the presence of US Marines in Japan by forming a new coastal defense regiment. He also stressed that Washington fully supported the decision of the Japanese authorities to build up counterattack capabilities through the acquisition of missile weapons, as well as strengthen the US-Japan military alliance, including through closer interaction and the use of this potential. It was also emphasized that the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands, controlled by Japan and being the subject of a territorial dispute with China, fall under the security treaty between Japan and the US, and the American side will strictly adhere to this provision.
At the same time, the US and its allies clearly understand that they will be able to repel China’s attempt to establish control over Taiwan by force only at the cost of losing tens of thousands of military personnel. And this, in particular, was confirmed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, which published the study “The First Battle of the Next War” and prepared a simulation computer game on this topic. It should be noted that even the British, who are especially loyal to the US, in their comments about such a war with China, remind Washington to “not forget about how the Afghanistan fiasco unfolded.” The head of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee under the House of Commons of the British Parliament, Alisha Kearns, also stressed the fact that the impact of the conflict in Ukraine on the British is “negligible in comparison with any conflict over Taiwan.”
Under these conditions, despite the urgent approval on January 11 by the US House of Representatives of the proposal to form a special committee on China, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during a phone conversation with the new Foreign Minister of China Qin Gang, acknowledged the importance and necessity of maintaining open lines of communication between Washington and Beijing.
However, taking into account the lack of any predictability in US policy under the Joe Biden administration, which has been repeatedly shown by the White House recently, it is very difficult to guarantee that Washington will reduce tensions in relations with Beijing. And this, among other things, is confirmed by forecasts made in early December by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Ely Ratner that 2023 “could be the most transformative year in US force posture in the Indo-Pacific region in a generation.” Against this backdrop, China’s recent warning to the United States about the ongoing provocations around Taiwan and the proposal to give priority to peaceful methods of resolving the Taiwan issue are quite justified.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Over the past decade, Turkish foreign policy has faced serious difficulties, and the crisis unleashed by the US and its allies in Syria has been the main reason for this. The Syrian crisis has had and continues to have several consequences for Turkey at various levels: the intensification of the Kurdish question, the build-up of the refugee crisis, the escalation of security threats at home and abroad, the increase in internal polarization due to economic and social problems, as well as the worsening of relations with several entities, global and regional alike.
With the exception of a brief period when Ankara tried to persuade Damascus to carry out reforms, Turkey has consistently sought to bring down the legitimately elected government of Bashar al-Assad by supporting opposition groups and providing asylum to millions of Syrian refugees. It should be recalled that diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed in 2012 after the outbreak of the Syrian conflict, and Erdoğan was one of the first leaders to call on Assad to step down. But in August 2022, the Turkish president said toppling Assad was no longer on his country’s agenda amid Ankara’s plans to step up a new ground offensive against Syrian Kurdish groups it considers to be “terrorist.” At the end of November, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan even expressed interest in meeting with Bashar al-Assad, declaring the “possibility” of a meeting in the near future.
A week after the January 5 Turkish-Syrian defense ministers’ meeting, Erdoğan said he “could” sit down at the negotiating table with Assad to promote peace and stability in Syria. His use of the word “could” to meet with Assad is explained by the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram: the Syrian president had previously turned down the Turkish president’s request to meet.
Now the question arises as to why the Turkish leader has altered his strategy. “Turkey and Syria have mutual interests in the current situation, and Ankara will demand firm guarantees from Syria for the return of Syrian refugees to their country,” Turkish newspaper Millieyt reported. During the war, numerous Syrian refugees arrived in Turkey, and this has become a problem for Ankara. On December 31, 2022, Al Jazeera reported as follows: “After Turkey and Syria severed ties for approximately 11 years, the defense ministers of both countries met in Moscow on December 28 in the presence of their Russian counterparts. They agreed to form joint committees of defense and intelligence representatives. These committees will begin their meetings at the end of January in Moscow. After that, meetings will be held in Ankara and Damascus.”
In this regard, Fikret Ozir, a former Turkish diplomat, said: “Turkey tried to resolve the Syrian crisis through the Astana and Geneva processes, and now it is trying to intensify the processes that have reached a dead end. Turkey is trying to ensure its internal security, protect its borders with Syria and conduct the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland. This issue depends on ongoing negotiations between Syria and Turkey.” Earlier on, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar was quoted as saying: “The return of Syrian refugees must be voluntary and safe. Turkey has declared its readiness to cooperate in this matter.” Now Erdoğan has decided to change his country’s hostile relationship with Syria, and he wants to return relations to the pre-war state, but there are some difficulties along the way.
Not only has the Syrian crisis gone through several different phases, there have also been important changes in Ankara’s policy. Turkish-Syrian relations, which have been full of hostility for years and even bad blood between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have now reached a new phase. On December 28, Moscow hosted the first open meeting of senior Turkish and Syrian defense and security officials in more than a decade. This important meeting caused concern and irritation among some of the parties involved in this conflict, namely the US, Israel, Kurdish militias, the armed and political opposition of Syria, as well as Syrian refugees living in Turkey. As worsening relations with Damascus have affected Ankara’s relations with several players in the Middle East, in the same vein, any thaw is likely to change its ties with other interested parties in Syria. But the question of how the talks will affect the balance of power in Turkish politics ahead of this year’s upcoming elections remains unanswered.
To make an analysis of the Syrian reality, apparently, one must start with the Syrian opposition. The Syrian political and armed opposition called on Turkey to reaffirm its support for their cause after the meeting in Moscow. Hoping to appease the opposition, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu defiantly “welcomed opposition figures and reaffirmed support” for a UN Security Council resolution that calls for a political solution to the Syrian conflict. During the Astana peace process with Russia and Iran, Ankara saw the opposition as a powerful card to play in a diplomatic game against Assad’s allies.
The next player “alarmed” by this meeting was the US, which is also a staunch supporter of the Kurdish groups in Syria, which Ankara has deemed to be terrorist. Immediately after the meeting in Moscow, Washington angrily urged all countries to think twice about rehabilitating the “cruel” Assad regime and, as usual, threatened the “disobedient” with sanctions. Although the goals of Turkey and the US were similar at the initial stage of the crisis, and the two countries often coordinated their actions, over time this cooperation weakened due to the conflict of interests of both sides.
Since the Kurdish issue escalated domestically and Ankara took a tough stance to counter the Kurdish separatist threat outside its borders, the US, in retaliation against Ankara, defiantly continued to cooperate with the Syrian Kurdish offshoot of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party, the People’s Defense Units (YPG), which allowed Washington to expand the zone of its influence in Syria. The latest crisis in Turkish-American relations erupted last year when Ankara threatened to launch a new large-scale ground operation against the YPG. Thus, the third player alarmed by Turkish-Syrian relations normalizing is the US-backed Kurdish factions, which have profited from the hostility between Ankara and Damascus for more than a decade.
The fourth player is Damascus’ last and most brutal, aggressive regional enemy that remains on its southern border – Israel. If the process of normalizing Turkish-Syrian relations is successful, Israel’s role will be superfluous in the region, since other regional parties are also in the process of positive interaction with Damascus. For example, while the headlines of the world media are dominated by news of regular Israeli airstrikes in Syria, Hamas has reconciled with Damascus owing to Iran’s mediation.
While Syria does not pose a direct military threat to Israel, its potential normalization of relations with Turkey and a return to the regional fold will have several implications for Tel Aviv – notably growing Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, and even among Palestinian groups. This is one of the main reasons why the Israeli leadership considers the Syrian Kurds to be allies against Iranian influence in Syria and has supported them for several years, both diplomatically and otherwise.
Finally, talks between Ankara and Damascus have also affected the nearly 4 million Syrian refugees who have sought asylum in Turkey since 2011, as Ankara recently stepped up efforts to increase what it calls “voluntary returns.” It is quite natural that the presence of refugees on Turkish territory has created several difficulties in terms of communicating with the local population and increasing food prices, at the same time placing a great burden on the country’s economy. And even monetary allocations from Europe will not solve all these complex problems.
However, there are those who support normalizing ties between Ankara and Damascus. Russia, fundamentally true to its peace-loving policy, supports the Turkish-Syrian reconciliation more than any other political entity. Moscow has established strong ties with Ankara as part of the Astana peace process, and so far both Ankara and Moscow are “moving in the same direction” in order to resolve the complex Syrian conflict. Iran, which is the third party in the Astana process, also actively supports the Russian-led talks, seeing them as a direct path to peace in the region.
In Turkey, the political opposition, which was negative about Turkey’s adverse relation with Syria, has always supported the normalization of relations and the repatriation of refugees. However, the question of how negotiations between Turkey and Syria will affect the balance of power in Turkish politics ahead of this year’s elections remains unanswered. All this will become clear just before the upcoming elections, scheduled for June 2023.
Any Turkish-Syrian rapprochement seemed unthinkable a year ago. However, not only Ankara and Damascus are involved in this positive development, but also many other players mentioned above, including Moscow, which is interested in a peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis and is making every effort to establish lasting peace in this integral region of the world.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Western nations have begun pledging a variety of Western armored vehicles to Ukraine including infantry fighting vehicles and even main battle tanks. Until now, the majority of armored vehicles sent to Ukraine had been Soviet-era weapons Ukrainian forces were familiar with both in terms of operating and repairing them.
However, following Ukraine’s Kherson and Kharkov offensives, much of this equipment has been destroyed, leaving the West little choice but to begin sending Western systems or leave Ukrainian forces in the field with only small arms.
While Western leaders and the media claim that Western armored vehicles represent a significant increase in Ukrainian capabilities, the reality is quite the opposite. Far from giving Ukraine an advantage on the battlefield, Ukrainian forces will struggle merely to get the vehicles on the battlefield and keep them there. Additionally, recent conflicts elsewhere in the world have proven Western armored vehicles including main battle tanks are neither “invincible,” nor “game-changing.”
Thus, if Ukraine’s hundreds of Soviet-era tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers failed to achieve favorable outcomes for Kiev, it is unlikely replacing these systems with Western hardware will make any difference.
Logistics, Training, and Maintenance
In order to get Ukrainians into Western armored vehicles they will have to be trained in their basic operation, in using them effectively on a modern battlefield together with other tanks and weapon systems, and keeping them on the battlefield (maintenance). Entry-level tankers can take up to half a year to acquire these skills – time Ukraine doesn’t have, meaning that unless Western operators will be manning them posing as Ukrainians, heavily abbreviated courses will be given instead, producing subpar operators compared to the training and effectiveness Ukrainian tank crews had on the battlefield using their own equipment at the beginning of Russia’s special military operation.
Another aspect of most Western main battle tanks is that unlike Soviet and Russian main battle tanks which feature autoloaders for their main guns, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and M1 Abrams require a crew member to manually load their main guns. So, while Soviet-era and Russian tanks have three crew members, a driver, a gunner, and a commander, Western main battle tanks require a fourth, the loader. This means that for every 3 Western main battle tanks sent to Ukraine, four Ukrainian tank crews will be required to man them – more trained tankers spread across fewer tanks.
Before these newly trained Ukrainian tankers can crew their Western armored vehicles, they have to be moved onto the battlefield. Western infantry fighting vehicles like the US Bradley and the German Mauder are heavier than their Soviet and Russian counterparts. So are the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks pledged by the UK and Poland. The US M1 Abrams is heavier still.
This presents a challenge to moving the vehicles by truck or rail just to reach the battlefield. The second option, rail, is complicated even further by the fact that much of Ukraine’s rolling stock is moved by electric traction which has been severely inhibited by Russia’s systematic targeting and destruction of the Ukrainian power grid. There is also the matter of sustaining these armored vehicles on the battlefield as they operate. They will consume much larger amounts of fuel than Ukraine’s previous armored vehicles, meaning more fuel will be required and much more often.
Heavier vehicles place more wear and tear on mechanical components including the vehicles’ transmissions, suspension, road wheels, and tracks. Increased maintenance required by newly trained, inexperienced crews will prevent the vehicles from being operated to their maximum potential. More problematic still is that Western armored vehicles – both infantry fighting vehicles and especially Western main battle tanks – possess complex optics and computerized fire control systems. It takes months just to train technicians to diagnose these systems, and a year or more to train and gain experience in actually repairing them.
What is much more likely is Ukrainian armor crews will be forced to regularly send broken vehicles to the border with Poland to be repaired. Depending on where fighting is taking place this can be up to 1,000 km away from the front line. It is then another 1,000 km back to the front. Ukrainian maintenance facilities manned by Western technicians cannot be established in Ukraine itself because Russia possesses the means to target and destroy them with long-range precision weapons like cruise missiles and drones.
This means Western armored vehicles may spend more time either in transit or being repaired than actually fighting on the battlefield.
Because NATO armored vehicles use different types of ammunition than Ukraine has been using with its own armor vehicles, it will need to be shipped in constantly to the front to keep these vehicles firing on the battlefield. While many NATO main battle tanks fire 120mm rounds from smoothbore main guns, the British Challenger 2 fires unique ammunition from its 120mm rifled main gun. This means that two supply chains will need to be established for Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks. The same applies for basic spare parts for mechanical repairs Ukrainian crews may be capable of performing in the field.
Western Main Battle Tanks are Far From Invincible
Pundits argue that despite the many challenges facing Ukraine in employing Bradley and Marauder infantry fighting vehicles along with Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 main battle tanks, the capabilities of these vehicles will give Ukrainian forces a decisive advantage on the battlefield over Russian forces. However, the performance of these armored vehicles in recent conflicts indicates the exact opposite.
The Leopard 2 main battle tank is widely used across NATO, including by Turkey. Turkey deployed Leopard 2 tanks during several incursions into northern Syria against irregular Kurdish and “Islamic State” forces. Their performance was described in a 2019 National Interest article ominously titled, “Turkey’s Leopard 2 Tanks Are Getting Crushed in Syria,” which noted:
…evidence emerged that numerous Leopard 2s had been destroyed in intense fighting over ISIS-held Al-Bab—a fight that Turkish military leaders described as a “trauma,” according to Der Spiegel. A document published online listed ISIS as apparently having destroyed ten of the supposedly invincible Leopard 2s; five reportedly by antitank missiles, two by mines or IEDs, one to rocket or mortar fire, and the others to more ambiguous causes.
The article links to photographs of the destroyed Leopard 2 tanks, sometimes side by side Turkish infantry fighting vehicles and with at least two with their turrets completely blown off the hulls of the tanks, illustrating just how vulnerable any main battle tank is, Russian or Western, to modern anti-tank weapons. The National Interest lists AT-7 Metis and AT-5 Konkurs antitank missiles, both produced by the Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation, as the culprits in at least 5 of the destroyed Leopard 2 tanks.
While the most widely produced Western main battle tank is the M1 Abrams, because of its fuel-hungry turbine engine and exceptionally heavy weight, it is impractical to send in large numbers to Ukraine. The Leopard, produced in large numbers and used widely across NATO with its diesel engine makes it the most likely candidate to replace the bulk of Ukraine’s tank force, but considering its performance against even irregular forces on the battlefield, this leaves only bleak prospects for Ukraine.
The British Challenger 2 has fared no better on the battlefield. The myth that it has is owed to cover-ups and deliberate war propaganda as exposed by a 2007 Telegraph article titled, “MoD kept failure of best tank quiet,” which noted:
The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank’s armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier’s foot and injured several others.
The article pointed out that the weapon that likely damaged the Challenger 2 was the Russian-made RPG-29. It notes:
The RPG-29 is a much more powerful weapon than the common type regularly used by insurgents to attack British troops. It is specifically designed to penetrate tank armour, although this is the first occasion on which it has managed to damage a Challenger.
And what of other Western main battle tanks which share similar design and doctrinal philosophies? Have they performed any better? It is a question worth considering both to assess the combat potential of Western armored vehicles in general and to get ahead of additional transfers to Ukraine that might include these other vehicles.
The M1 Abrams, like the Challenger 2, has a legendary reputation. However, the US itself had multiple M1 Abrams knocked out in Iraq from 2003 onward. A CBS New article from 2003 titled, “U.S. Tank Hit, 2 GIs Dead In Iraq,” noted that the knocked out M1 Abrams was damaged by either a bomb or an improvised explosive device.
The M1 Abrams has been transferred to US allies including Saudi Arabia. A 2016 Defense One article titled, “Saudi Losses in Yemen War Exposed by US Tank Deal,” would explain:
The U.S. State Department and Pentagon Tuesday OKed a $1.2 billion sale of 153 Abrams tanks to Saudi Arabia Tuesday. But that’s not the real news.
Turns out: 20 of those tanks, made in America by General Dynamics Land Systems, are “battle damage replacements” for Saudi tanks lost in combat.
Even though the formal announcement of the sales does not say where the tanks were fighting, the Saudi military is believed to have lost some of its 400-plus Abrams tanks in Yemen, where it is fighting Iranian-backed Houthi separatists.
It is very clear that far from invincible, despite the massive weight and heavy fuel consumption of the M1 Abrams, even irregular forces are capable of facing off and defeating the US main battle tank.
Pundits have claimed that heavy losses of Saudi M1 Abrams are owed to the fact that exported M1 Abrams lack key features including special armor and fire control elements responsible for their poor performance. However, it is unlikely the US would ever transfer M1 Abrams to Ukraine with classified armor or highly sophisticated fire control systems for precisely the same reasons the US has not sent any of its modern unmanned aerial vehicles like the Gray Eagle. The capture of either of these weapon systems by Russian forces – a very common phenomenon amid the special military operation – would mean these advanced features would quickly be under examination by Russian engineers.
And finally, while Israeli Merkava main battle tanks are highly unlikely to end up in the hands of Ukrainian forces, the Merkava is considered one of the best main battle tanks on Earth. They too, however, have not only performed poorly against modern anti-tank weapons, but anti-tank weapons produced by the Russian Federation.
Haaretz in its 2006 article, “Hezbollah Anti-tank Fire Causing Most IDF Casualties in Lebanon,” would report:
The Hezbollah anti-tank teams use a new and particularly potent version of the Russian-made RPG, the RPG-29, that has been sold by Moscow to the Syrians and then transferred to the Shi’ite organization.
The RPG-29’s penetrating power comes from its tandem warhead, and on a number of occasions has managed to get through the massive armor of the Merkava tanks.
It should be noted that in each case, whether it was Turkish forces in northern Syria, Saudi forces in Yemen, US and British forces in Iraq, or Israeli forces pushing into southern Lebanon, each military operation consisted of well-trained tank crews supported by large-scale logistical lines and as part of well-organized combined arms combat including infantry, artillery, and air support.
What will happen when Ukrainian tank crews given abbreviated training attempt to employ Western main battle tanks on the battlefield, only without the proper logistical or combined arms support Turkey, the US and UK, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were capable of? And what will happen when these Ukrainian tank crews go up against Russian-made anti-tank weapons proven over the years to be highly effective against the very best Western main battle tanks now that these anti-tank weapons are in the hands of Russian troops themselves?
It was Russian forces destroying hundreds upon hundreds of Ukrainian armored vehicles over the course of the special military operation, exhausting both Ukraine’s initial inventories and then NATO’s inventories of Soviet-era equipment that has prompted the West to consider sending their own armor in the first place.
Effective Russian-made anti-tank weapons like the guided AT-7 Metis and AT-5 Konkurs but also the newer 9M133 Kornet missile along with RPG-29 and now RPG-30 rocket propelled grenades will surely produce the same destructive results experienced by Turkish, US, British, Saudi, and Israeli tank crews. But Ukrainian forces will also face hundreds of Russia’s own main battle tanks including modernized T-72 and T-80 tanks, as well as the newer T-90 Proryv. Russian military aviation also has a variety of weapons capable of precision strikes on armored vehicles and Russian artillery is more than capable of destroying main battle tanks even on the move using laser-guided Krasnopol artillery rounds.
In other words, Ukrainian tank crews will be less prepared and fighting under less-than-ideal conditions than their Western counterparts and fighting against a much larger arsenal of anti-tank weapons both in terms of quantity and quality. Just as other Western “wonder weapons” had supposedly “turned the tide” including the M777 155mm howitzer and the HIMARS GPS-guided multiple launch rocket system, Ukraine finds itself in need of yet another “wonder weapon” to induce yet another badly needed “turning of the tide.” Western main battle tanks will help Ukraine prolong the conflict, but ultimately Kiev and its Western sponsors will find themselves right back to where they started.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
During an official visit to the US from January 9-11 by an Indian delegation, headed by Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal, a scheduled meeting of the US-India Trade Policy Forum (TPF) was held in Washington DC.
It is also sometimes referred to as “Strategic Dialogue” since, within the framework of this Forum, the relevant representatives of both countries have repeatedly made noteworthy statements regarding both bilateral relations and the situation in the Indo-Pacific region. The main goals of this platform set up for discussing a wide range of issues of US-Indian relations can be found here.
As is noted in this document, it was formed back in 2005 and 13 meetings have already been held (including the latest one). It should be mentioned that a four-year break in the work of the TPF was taken from 2017 to 2021. It seems that it is no coincidence that this platform was relaunched (in November 2021) during the collapse of Sino-Indian relations, unprecedented in decades, as a result of the well-known incident that occurred in the summer of 2020 in Ladakh.
Following the results of the previous TPF meeting, a Joint Statement consisting of 28 clauses was adopted. Clauses 4 and 15 are noteworthy. In clause 4, the then head of the American delegation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai “welcomed” the Indian government’s measures to provide guarantees for foreign direct investment and a significant simplification of the procedure for their introduction into the Indian economy. In clause 15, the Indian side expressed its desire to participate in the American branch of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
In the course of talks held in April 2022 between Katherine Tai and the Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, who was on a visit to Washington at that time, both sides highlighted the importance of resuming the work of the TPF. The scheduled 13th meeting was to be held a year after the 12th, that is, in November 2022. But it was postponed due to the tense domestic political situation in both countries in connection with the election cycle. In the US, these were the midterm elections; in India, there was an inter-party struggle in connection with the election of new parliaments in several states.
It follows that the officially declared reason for postponing the “calendar” date of the next TPF meeting by two months seems quite reasonable. And yet, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that it took place a month after another Sino-Indian border incident in the Tawang district. Like Ladakh, this zone is the subject of territorial disputes between both India and China.
It should be noted that Shri Piyush Goyal, who headed the Indian delegation at the last two meetings of the TPF is a very significant figure in the leadership of India today. In addition to the above, he holds several more positions in the current government. He is the Leader of the Upper House of Parliament (Council of States) and one of the coordinators of the ruling party bloc, National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which is center-right and led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
During his current trip to the United States, Shri Piyush Goyal held talks with Katherine Tai and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. In New York, Mr. Goyal and members of his delegation talked to prominent representatives of American businesses and US think-tanks.
In the new Joint Statement, which has 28 clauses as well, adopted by both sides this time around, several points are noteworthy. First and foremost, both sides are happy with the activities of the working groups formed a year earlier in various areas of bilateral trade and economic cooperation, and with the general state of the latter. Nevertheless, it is pointed out that even the current volume of trade in goods and services (which is at the level of $160 billion annually) falls far short of the capabilities of both countries.
One can see a noticeable lagging behind in this indicator in terms of trade with India by China and the EU, whose trade volume with the Republic of India is in the range of $120 and $90 billion, respectively. Moreover, in trade with the former, India has a steady and constantly increasing deficit, which is already at the level of about 80% of the total volume.
Clause 4 expresses the satisfaction of the American side with India’s participation in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), the creation of which was recently discussed in NEO. Let us note the obviously anti-Chinese goal-setting in Washington’s launching of this initiative. However, the number of such initiatives is constantly increasing, and the desire of the US leadership to involve India in them seems no less obvious.
However, among the abundance of various topics covered in this document (including, for example, the problem of preserving sea turtle populations in the process of fishing), it was not possible to find any traces of the intention of both sides to solve perhaps the main problem in bilateral economic relations – the absence of free trade. Commentators attribute this (outwardly strange) circumstance to the wary attitude of the US leadership (regardless of party affiliation) in general to this format in foreign trade. That is why the world’s largest economy is not among the participants in configurations such as CPTTP or RCEP.
The above-mentioned fact is the main reason for the generally skeptical assessments given to the TPF Forum, as well as the results of its latest meeting. Indeed, the presence of this Forum in the US-India system of relations is unlikely to have any noticeable effect on the generally quite positive state of its trade and economic components.
Which does not mean that there is no reason to pay attention to the above-mentioned fact. But its significance is due not so much to the economic sphere as to the political situation in the Indo-Pacific region. One of the main aspects is due to the positioning of India in the Indo-Pacific region. This is the reason for the growing attempts by Washington (in concert with London) to win over New Delhi in the fight against Beijing for influence in the region.
As part of these attempts, there are facts of the formation by the US leadership of other (both multilateral with the participation of India, and purely American-Indian) forum initiatives. In this regard, the holding in mid-January (i.e. immediately after the TPF meeting) of the 6th India-US Forum (Antony Blinken participated in it remotely) stands out. US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu embarked on an official visit to New Delhi in order to participate in the Forum.
Donald Lu, along with Katherine Tai, is also of Chinese origin and works in the current US administration. It seems that ethnic Chinese and Indians, as they say, “coexist” quite peacefully there, unlike their ancestral homelands. In particular, the reaction in China to the latest meeting of the TPF Forum can be defined as skeptical and cautious. An article on this subject in the Global Times is accompanied by a very expressive illustration.
Finally, one must mention that, despite the obvious signs of a certain “bias” of India’s foreign policy as a whole towards Washington (and its regional allies, primarily Japan and Australia), New Delhi retains its traditionally rather neutral position in the international political arena. This is evidenced not only by India’s refusal to join the anti-Russian actions that Washington has recently taken, but also by rationally restrained behavior in conflicting situations that arise in relations with China.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The author constantly writes about the “crimes of hackers from the DPRK,” and after talking about the problems that the cybersecurity of the Republic of Korea is facing, it’s time to talk about what hackers from the North have recently been accused of.
Cryptocurrency theft
The claim that the Pyongyang regime is making money for its nuclear missile program by hacking has become so common when directing accusations at the DPRK that almost every material in the media of the Republic of Korea or the West cannot do without writing a piece about it.
On April 20, 2022, Eric Penton-Voak, the coordinator for the UN body monitoring enforcement of sanctions on North Korea, spoke about this. And on November 17, 2022, White House spokesperson Anne Neuberger reported that a third of North Korea’s military spending was supposedly financed from cyber-attack proceeds.
On April 14, 2022, the FBI announced that North Korean hackers from the Lazarus Group had successfully attacked the website of the online game Axie Infinity. A feature of the game is the use of cryptocurrency and the opportunity for successful players to earn significant amounts while playing. During the attack on the website, hackers managed to steal $620 million. The media of the Republic of Korea stated that this amounted to the cost of more than 30 ballistic missiles.
On April 15, 2022, the US Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on Lazarus Group.
On May 6, 2022, the United States for the first time imposed sanctions against the cryptocurrency mixer Blender.io, “which is used by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to support its malicious cyber activities and launder money from stolen virtual currency” in the amount of more than $20.5 million. Allegedly, Blender was used in the processing of illegal proceeds by the same “state-sponsored hacker group” – Lazarus Group.
In August 2022, similar sanctions were imposed on the cryptocurrency tumbler Tornado Cash, which allegedly helped launder more than $455 million stolen by Lazarus Group.
How much did the hackers pocket in total? In 2021, North Korea (more precisely, Lazarus Group) allegedly stole up to $400 million worth of digital assets in at least seven attacks on cryptocurrency platforms, according to blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis. And in 2022, North Korean hackers allegedly stole $1 billion of cryptocurrency, which is about half of the total amount of digital currency obtained illegally.
In other sources (as you can see, the numbers vary, which is apparently related to the question of which hackers are considered North Korean) they write that since the hacking of websites for trading cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets in 2017, North Korea has allegedly earned more than $1.17 billion, including more than $78 million from South Korea, with about 800 billion won in 2022 alone.
According to a former National Intelligence Service official named Mr. Choi, North Korea transfers funds using cryptocurrency as follows:
- Banks are hacked and money is stolen;
- The stolen money is used to buy cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or ethereum;
- Bitcoin is transferred to Iran, Syria or the UAE via email or PayPal links;
- There, the cryptocurrency is additionally traded and increases in value;
- After several small transactions, the cryptocurrency is transferred to China;
- In China, the cryptocurrency is converted into cash, which is then transferred to North Korea.
Phishing and stealing data
The second block of accusations is extortion and attempts to steal not money, but information. Many people do this, and the author receives emails at least once a month with attached “documents” poisoned by malware.
FBI Director Christopher Wray called the DPRK, along with China, Russia and Iran, one of the threats to the US in cyberspace. According to him, North Korean hackers over the past two years have carried out repeated attacks on hospitals, medical centers, as well as educational and research institutions, involved in the development of vaccines against COVID-19. The attackers use ransomware as a toolkit that blocks computer networks and requires money to unlock them.
North Korea-linked hackers are said to have attacked readers of the DailyNK website with malware capable of stealing files and passwords. According to researchers at cybersecurity firm Volexity, the attack exploited two known vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Edge web browsers to install malware dubbed “Bluelight”.
On September 12, 2021, cybersecurity firm ESTsecurity reported that “the hacker group Thallium with alleged ties to North Korea” attempted to steal data from South Korean experts working as members of a defense ministry advisory group.
In November 2021, NKNews reported that North Korean hackers, more specifically Lazarus Group, were using South Korean servers and Google Drive to cover up malicious attacks and install malicious code into corrupted PDF files disguised as job vacancies for Samsung.
On July 6, 2022, the FBI and the US Treasury issued cybersecurity advisories against ransomware, which they said was being used by “North Korea-sponsored cybercriminals.” North Korean hackers were said to be using Maui ransomware to attack healthcare and public health organizations. This is a code that allows a remote entity to interact with malware and identify files for encryption. Potential victims were reminded not to pay the ransom, as providing money or other goods to North Korea could result in penalties under US and UN Security Council sanctions.
In July 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco stated that the FBI and the Department of Justice stopped a North Korean government-sponsored hacker group targeting US hospitals through the above-mentioned “Maui” program. The FBI was able to recover half a million dollars, including the entire ransom paid by the hospital.
In October 2022, the 1718 Committee of the UN Security Council released an expert report on the DPRK. It states that North Korea has earned about $635 million selling confidential and personal data and voice phishing applications to cybercriminals, including from citizens of the Republic of Korea.
On December 25, 2022 Tae Yong-ho, a defector-turned-lawmaker now living in the ROK, publicly warned Kim Jong-un against using fake accounts to send phishing emails on behalf of his office after police discovered that “North Korean hacker organizations” had been sending out mass phishing emails under the name of the lawmaker’s secretary. The story caused quite a stir: from April to October 2022, hackers allegedly from the Kimsuky group posed as reporters covering national security issues in the ROK, as well as Tae Yong-ho’s assistant. The targets of the attacks were 892 security, foreign policy and defense experts (professors and think-tank staff). 49 of them clicked the links received from the attackers and their emails were hacked.
South Korean media reported that hackers compromised 326 servers in 26 countries to mask their actions, however, the Internet protocol addresses, the type of virus and the usage of North Korean vocabulary were all similar to the North Korean attack on Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) in 2014.
But it should be mentioned that Kimsuky as the culprit for the hacking of KHNP in 2014 and the sending of e-mails on behalf of the National Security Administration in 2016 was reported by South Korean intelligence officials only in connection with this story.
North Korean IT workers under a different flag
In May 2022, the US Treasury Department reported that North Korea was sending thousands of skilled IT workers abroad in search of work, posing as citizens of the United States or other countries. The document, jointly released by the State Department and the FBI, states that the North Korean IT workers hired are usually engaged in work other than malicious cyberattacks, but they can still use the access they received as contractors to support cyberattacks, and the income they receive can be directed to WMD programs. Therefore, hiring North Korean IT workers could carry “reputational risks” as well as “potential legal consequences” for violating US and UN Security Council sanctions. With some modifications, this message was voiced throughout the year.
On June 15, 2022, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Eliot Kang held a meeting with representatives of IT companies and warned them about the dangers of hiring North Korean computer scientists. On July 16, Eliot Kang again briefed industry and government officials on the risks involved in hiring North Koreans, warning of dangers including intellectual data theft, legal ramifications and reputational damage.
On December 8, 2022, South Korea issued an inter-agency recommendation against hiring North Korean IT workers in disguise. Local companies have called for stronger background checks when hiring IT workers at home and abroad, “as the reclusive North Korean state increasingly sends highly skilled people around the world to generate income to fund its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.” “Forging identification documents is one of the easiest ways to obfuscate their identities. They illicitly collect foreigners’ driver’s licenses and identification cards, and replace the photos on identification document with their own using Photoshop. Moreover, they utilize a proxy phone call authentication service website when having to going through the process of phone call authentication,” the advisory says. A distinctive feature is the refusal to participate in video calls.
As a rule, North Korean infiltrators specialize in creating software, including for mobile devices. The Government of the Republic of Korea calls on national commercial structures to be vigilant and immediately inform the relevant authorities (police, MFA, NIS) in case of suspicious cases.
What does 2023 have in store?
In the 2022 National Cyber Power Index compiled by Harvard University’s Belfer Center in September 2022, North Korea ranked 14th overall (the US, China and Russia are in the top three, while South Korea is ranked 7th).
In terms of cyber defense, North Korea ranks last, but it ranks fifth behind the US, Russia, China, the UK, and Iran in terms of the destructive power of its cyber capabilities.
Fear (or rather hype) knows no boundaries, and on December 22, 2022, the National Intelligence Service of South Korea held a press conference on North Korea and cybersecurity, where the audience was diligently intimidated: after all, according to intelligence officers, every day the infrastructure of the Republic of Korea faces 1.18 million cyberattack attempts. North Korea is to blame for 55.6% (600,000), while only 4.7% falls on China.
First and foremost, in 2023, North Korean hacker groups are likely to focus on stealing South Korean technology related to nuclear plants, chips, and the defense industry, as well as gathering information about South Korea and the US policy towards the North. In addition, they will commit even more cybercrimes related to the theft of cryptocurrencies, being the best in the world in terms of the ability and potential to hack and steal digital assets.
Secondly, the DPRK can more actively use Deepfake technologies to produce and replicate videos designed to cause chaos and increase social instability in the ROK. However, the author has not yet heard of such videos and believes that the explanation “it was a Deepfake from Pyongyang” is intended to render obsolete a possible compromising video.
Thirdly, with a high degree of probability, the target of increased attention of North Korean hackers will be South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and the technology he uses (mobile phone, e-mail, instant messengers, etc.). Here the author is simply bemused in terms of the digital security of the Head of State – either Yoon Suk-yeol uses an unsecured email, which he has had since the time of being a prosecutor, or the digital border is locked in much the same way as the land border against North Korea’s UAVs.
Which of these will come true – only the new year will tell. Meanwhile, in the opinion of the author, Russian-speaking readers can consider “KimSuki” and “LazaRus” as North Korean hackers only with some stretch of imagination.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of the Far East at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
For the past two years, the Republic of Ireland has been a member of the UN Security Council. That’s right, Ireland – when millions of people still expect the word “Irish” to be followed by “terrorist” or “freedom fighter,” depending on their point of view, or someone else’s perception of their way of seeing things.
Now its service is coming to an end, the Republic is reflecting on its achievements in the role, as countries usually do. One of these is the resolution of 9th December 2022, co-drafted by Ireland and the US, concerning humanitarian assistance.
This resolution resolves what essentially a conflict of principle was: it will now be possible to deliver humanitarian aid even in areas which are under UN sanctions. These sanctions are themselves often a response to conflict, or a driver of it, or both. Ireland has now helped the UN face the fact that sanctions should not apply to helping people, so aid workers won’t need special permission to try and mitigate the consequences of these conflicts.
However this measure reminds some of a French proposal to the European Union back in the 1990s that no one should be allowed to claim asylum on the grounds of persecution if they come from another European country. This had more than a little to do with the potential of a Basque uprising, with civil action having replaced terrorism as the main form of Basque protest against French and Spanish domination.
The UK is not facing UN sanctions, but the Republic of Ireland still wants to be able to go into Northern Ireland, the part belonging to the UK but claimed by the Republic as rightfully its own, and do what it likes without having to agree this with the British. This resolution, though having a different aim, can always be invoked in order to redress any imbalances Ireland feels currently exist in the support given to the Republican community in the north, should it wish to go down that road.
But perhaps more significant was the resolution adopted on 9th September 2021, during Ireland’s actual Presidency of the Security Council. This is designed to secure a transition from UN peacekeeping operations, of which Ireland has many times been a part as a neutral and inoffensive state, to local peace building initiatives “putting in place the right resources and planning to preserve peace and protect civilians at a time when they may be most vulnerable”. Though adopted in 2021, it is the blueprint for initiatives coming into effect now.
Everyone has their own definition of what peace is, and what sustainable peace is, much like “democracy”. The simple absence of fighting is not enough: all kinds of social factors must be in place, and be believed to be in place by those who live there, to assume that communities previously in conflict with each other, or between themselves, can invest in a shared future where conflict is not an acceptable weapon, response or default.
So what might Ireland mean by peace? The Troubles in the British part of the island involved the Republic in all kinds of generally unwanted but very deep ways, reflecting traditions, sympathies and commitments fundamental to the Irish nation, and creating practical difficulties paradoxically welcomed as a result of those same factors.
So Ireland has always had a vested interest in learning how to promote peace, but at the same time it has developed a very idiosyncratic way of doing it. As soon as these peacekeeping to peace building transitions start, the Irish will once again be watching everyone else trying to develop their version, which suits their preconception, and concluding that the Irish method only applies to Ireland, the Hollywood land of Celtic charm, leprechauns and goblins.
The differences between what Ireland has done to preserve peace, and what other countries consider normal, may marginalise Irish involvement in their implementation now its Security Council term is ending. But is there anything others can learn from the Irish approach, which marginalisation will oblige it to defend, and explain the virtues of, all the more?
Choose Your Weapons
As more and more countries are created during the pendulum swing towards self-determination for the chosen few, a familiar pattern emerges – war of independence is followed by civil war, and it takes a very long time for a state to decide, at either official or popular levels, what it should and shouldn’t be, what is acceptable and what is not.
Ireland also went through that process within living memory, having obtained its independence around a century ago, the date depending on what you consider the most significant event. Everyone whose family was in Ireland at that time has a family member who was involved in those events, as a civilian or a guerrilla, and their position and actions remain a part of the identity of that family to this day.
Whichever independence was the actual one, some around at that time thought it wasn’t the one they had fought for or come to believe in. Consequently the new state was engulfed in civil war between those who accepted the terms agreed with the British, and those who felt these were a betrayal due to the continuing links with the British Crown, much like the disputes over the status of the ethnic Russian population in post-Soviet states.
Where the Irish experience differs, is that after this conflict was over it did the opposite of what everyone tries to impose on everyone else. In Ireland what is considered the riskiest solution was adopted – continuing the war through parliament, rather than finding a common ideological ground which transcended differences.
The two traditional main parties in Ireland developed from the two civil war sides – Fine Gael representing the pro-Treaty side, which had become the Irish government, and Fianna Fail the dissident “true republicans” who eventually created a new and more independent state, without the British crown holdovers. Many politicians still active today are direct descendants of civil war combatants, defending the same old standards with different language rather than finding some new and overarching principle to bind them.
The Republic has achieved peace since 1924 by avoiding the consensus building usually preached, having on-going conflict in what it regards as occupied territory in its northern part, and enduring the traditional war-ravaged economy for many decades, though it is no longer the poor man of Europe. How? By treating peace not as an ideal but a practicality, which no one has to like or live with, but gets on with because there isn’t anything better on offer.
Anyone from the UN trying this in, say, Syria, would be laughed out of a job. You might as well give everybody a gun without giving them any reason not to use them.
But the Irish do understand that after a while violence does become pointless, and excluding people becomes pointless, for any individual who wants a better life, as we see in the Irish communities all over the world, very much themselves, with their recognisable culture and symbols, but just as much part of everywhere and everyone else because there isn’t any point of not being.
Bad as Each Other is Good as Each Other!
It is too early to say what a local peace building initiative in Ukraine would look like, however that conflict turns out. But there are a few other places where we can transplant the Irish experience onto the local landscape, to see what might work better than some more recent efforts.
We have all seen how horribly the peace building initiatives in Afghanistan turned out and the fallout is still settling. It was a no brainer to understand that no one was ever going to defeat the Taliban (banned in Russia) by imposing ideology seen as not Afghan, and thereby condemning the population as backward, and their country as second rate and incapable of existing without others showing it what to do.
The reason it all went so wrong is that the US and its lackeys were concentrating on the awful extremist views of the Taliban (banned in Russia), without recognising the points at which they intersected, however distortedly, with the values and assumptions of most of the Afghan population. What no one wanted to face up to was the manner as how the Taliban (banned in Russia) had taken power in the first place, and why it has now taken power again in the end—and without shots fired.
The Taliban (banned in Russia) originally emerged after 15 years of civil war in Afghanistan. It swiftly took over most of the country without fighting a major battle. It may have been extreme, but it brought peace in its wake. When you are surrounded by war, you will take the peace and worry about the politics later.
Those politics were always too much for most Afghans, and eventually even its supporters were repelled by the Taliban’s criminality and brutality. The war had come again, this time against the population.
But now the Taliban (banned in Russia) is back for the same reason it came: as Afghans have repeatedly stated in interviews, it may be awful, but at least it stopped the bombing. People can get on with their lives, to a large extent, provided they don’t do anything too much out of turn: and as the Soviet experience showed, repression doesn’t have to mean mass murder, and nor can it last forever.
The Taliban (banned in Russia) are understandably unwilling to allow the same agenda driven “aid agencies” which supported the Americanisation back into the country with their idea of help. But they will need some foreign support to achieve anything of substance. The Irish peace building model would be as effective as any, and more likely politically to bear fruit.
No one will have to agree with each other, or accept an official ideology or path. No one will try and find common ground. They will do whatever they want, but when everyone does that, they will find that the easiest way to protect their own interests is to also protect everyone else’s – exactly what “liberal democracy” is supposed to be about.
Combatants can continue to be as mutually antagonistic as they like. But if they are in constant threat of being destroyed by each other, they will find ways of continuing the fight which don’t hurt them or their supporters. The first parliaments were not imposed; they evolved because that was the best way to get everyone to agree. If such a model is adopted in Afghanistan, rather than one based on ideology, everyone will have far more to gain than lose, whatever their orientation.
We all live alongside other people without caring what their politics are, because we all want to live peacefully and have access to facilities which can only be public in nature. This is not a political but a human paradigm. Ireland has put that first throughout its history, and is now in a position to lead the way when it comes to helping others move on from the conflicts other approaches have caused.
What’s Mine is Yours Some of the Time
There is another way in which a peace building model based on the Irish experience can make more of an impact than others. This is in recognising what is universal and what is your own, and what to do with that distinction.
You can always spot an Irish household or establishment. The shamrocks, the music and the accent are not just for the tourists. Irish culture is instantly recognisable, and assumed to be autochthonous – if you look and sound even a bit Irish, you must have Irish connections, however tenuous.
But the reason we see these things and recognise them is because we accept them as having universal relevance. They are also part of the rest of us, because they express deeper concepts of identity, fellowship, a shared heritage and a common purpose. That’s why Ireland is associated with “the craic” and Switzerland with cheese and clocks.
The Irish also have things which are theirs, such as Gaelic Football and Hurling. But they understand that they do things their way, and others do the same things differently. When Irishman Jim Stynes became an Australian Rules Football legend, he hadn’t ceased to be Irish, he had done the same things he did back home in Dublin in a different mode of expression, which he not only respected but loved, just like his original form of expression.
The Irish way is to be yourself, and then find that self is more in tune with other selves than it would be if you tried to be someone else. All conflict communities, however bitter the hatreds, have more in common when they express their very contrary positions than when they don’t, simply because they recognise the same characteristics in each other when they do.
If Ireland’s time on the UN Security Council results in the Irish experience being treated as a starting point in peace building efforts, its service will have been worthwhile. If you build peace because humans do, not because someone says so, you get there in the end.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Centuries change, epochs succeed one another … It seemed that antagonistic contradictions between peoples and states should be a thing of the past, that a historical decision should lead to the formation of civilized relations between former adversaries and enemies. However, not only does time have no power over collective memory, but sometimes we observe a return to the past.
Turkey, as the heir to the Ottoman Empire, still maintains a series of contradictions with almost all of its geographical neighbors, of which Turkish-Greek relations deserve special attention. From the fall of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, in May 1453 until the proclamation (recognition by the great powers) of Greek independence in February 1830 – that is, for almost four centuries – the Greeks lived under Ottoman rule.
After World War I, Greece was never able to consolidate Eastern Thrace and Smyrna (Izmir) on the Aegean coast. Greek defeat in the Asia Minor War of 1919-1922 was related to both external conflicts (especially the Anglo-German, Anglo-French, and those between Russia and Europe) and internal dissents (especially King Alexander’s opposing course in favor of England and the pro-German orientation of his father Constantine, who returned to the throne after his son’s death). In many ways, the successes of Ismet Pasha’s army at Inönü and Mustafa Kemal Pasha’s army at the Sakarya River, Istanbul and Smyrna were achieved thanks to the alliance between the governments of Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey. These wars were accompanied by atrocities against Greek and Turkish civilians.
However, the historical problems inherited by the two governments are not the only ones on the list of interstate relations. There are also the territorial contradictions concerning the ownership of some islands in the Aegean Sea, the definition of territorial waters in the maritime zone, and the resolution of the Cyprus issue.
After the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty, Turkish-Greek relations seemed to be gradually restored by the middle of the 20th century. However, the desire of Greek Cypriots for reunification with Hellas led to a renewed outbreak of Turkish-Greek confrontation (e.g., pogroms against Greeks in Istanbul). In July 1974, as is well known, there was a coup in Nicosia and a radical Greek government of the “Black Colonels” came to power. Some experts (e.g., M. Drusyetis, K. Artamonova) saw the events in Cyprus as a US reaction to the nonalignment policy in relation to NATO and the pro-Soviet aspirations of Archbishop Makarios.
In late 1973, Cyrus Vance, US Assistant Secretary of Defense and Special Envoy for Cyprus, said in Rome, “If the situation in the eastern Mediterranean deteriorates again, the United States will not prevent Turkey from invading Cyprus and sending troops.” America feared at the time that Cyprus would become a “red island.” As a result, the Turks used the controversy between Archbishop Makarios and the administration of US. President Nixon as a casus belli and carried out Operation Attila – the landing and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus with the proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) – at lightning speed. Adding to the problem is the complex maritime boundary in the Aegean Sea, disputed approaches to ownership of a number of islands inherited by Greece from Italy, which had previously seized them from the Turks.
Territorial issues are often closely linked to the conflicts of economic interests between Turkey on the one hand and Greece and Cyprus on the other. Economic motives are often at the forefront of the next escalation of Turkish-Greek relations. In particular, Turkey, which is not rich in energy resources, claims parts of the Greek Aegean and Mediterranean shelves, where significant oil and gas reserves have been discovered. And only the system of military controls in the NATO bloc under the aegis of the United States won’t not let the next crisis in relations between Ankara and Athens slide into a military conflict.
Economic conflicts usually imply the entry into Greek territorial waters of Turkish research vessels that have received permission from their government to extract oil or gas. The international institutions (UN, the Court of Arbitration) cannot resolve the Turkish-Greek conflicts, and the slide into a “hot conflict” can be contained thanks to the intervention of NATO and the course of the United States.
Turkey and Greece are part of NATO and, in fact, formal military-political allies, even if there are clear contradictions between them. However, as has been shown over time, membership in the North Atlantic bloc does not reduce the extent of Turkish-Greek confrontation. This practice shows once again that NATO is mainly driven by the primary interests of the two leaders of the Anglo-Saxon world (the US and the UK) who initiated the formation of this military alliance in the middle of the last century. The other members of the bloc align their interests with those of Washington and London, and their favorable geography and foreign policy determine their place in NATO.
Meanwhile, Turkey has a long tradition of flexible and pragmatic diplomacy. It is known that after the Cyprus crisis in the mid-1970s. The United States was forced to impose an embargo on the supply of arms and equipment to Turkey and reduce support for the Turkish economy. This situation contributed to the governmental crisis in Turkey and led to a series of snap elections, the formation of unstable governing coalitions, and the rise of social problems. The domestic political crisis was caused not only by internal problems but also by external interference.
Meanwhile, in the second half of the 1970s, Turkish intelligence agencies (especially MIT), on the recommendation of their government, actively explored the possibility of separate negotiations with the Soviet side on a military-technical partnership. In 1978, under the guise of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Turkish side actually made that proposal to Soviet representatives in Istanbul. Moscow advocated strengthening Soviet-Turkish relations and weakening the southeastern flank of NATO. On this basis, the Soviet side took a positive view of Ankara’s possible turn in the military-technical sphere.
However, the Turks leaked information so that the DIA and the CIA could convince the Pentagon and the White House that Ankara had an alternative. Ultimately, this situation led to Turkey’s third military coup in 1981, which strengthened pro-US positions. Accordingly, after removing political obstacles to maintaining and strengthening US and NATO positions in strategically important Turkey, Pentagon chief Caspar Weinberger announced the end of the embargo on military supplies to the ally because of the Cyprus crisis.
The long history of almost 50 years without a political solution to the Cyprus question is not evidence of the impossibility of resolving the problem in Greek-Turkish relations with the participation of the great powers, but rather of the unwillingness of the United States to put an end to the long-standing dispute. At one time, fear of the alleged Sovietization of Cyprus led to the occupation of part of the island by the Turks as part of US plans to control the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. The US has alternately imposed and lifted military embargoes on Turkey and Cyprus. At the same time, Washington’s goal remains unchanged: to maintain control over strategic regions with a divide-and-conquer policy.
Following the discovery of oil and gas fields on the Greek and Cypriot shelves of the Aegean and Mediterranean seas, the Turkish-Greek dispute has taken on a new poignancy in the first quarter of the 21st century. The fact that Turkish authorities under the leadership of President R. Erdoğan began to pursue a balanced policy and focus on pragmatic national interests, especially in their partnership with Russia, aroused the unhealthy jealousy and criticism of the United States.
Turkey has once again become the “France of the Orient” which US regional policy stumbles against. Following the Turks’ purchase of the Russian S-400 SAM systems, the United States famously imposed sanctions to restrict military supplies to its NATO ally (specifically the Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets). For its part, Ankara is seriously concerned about the US military policy toward Greece and Cyprus, in terms of military base reinforcements and arms deliveries. Athens and Nicosia now receive significant military support in the form of fighter jets, air defenses, and naval forces. The US does not even rule out the transfer of its largest air base, Incirlik, from Turkey to Greek territory. France, in turn, is delivering its new Rafale aircraft to the Greeks.
Although Turkish forces are more than twice as numerous as Greek forces (355,000 troops versus 144,000), Ankara cannot repeat the Attila blitz operation against Greece for several reasons. First, the Turkish army is now spread across several theaters of war (including Syria, Libya, and the Caucasus), which does not give it a large numerical superiority over the Greeks in the event of a military conflict. Second, Greece and Cyprus now receive significantly more weapons and equipment from the United States than Turkey. Third, the Americans are expanding their military bases on Greek territory (including the base of the NATO 6th Fleet in the Greek waters). Fourth, in the event of a Turkish-Greek military escalation, the US (and with it most NATO countries) will support Athens rather than Ankara. Accordingly, despite the high level of military threats in the Turkish president’s speeches promising an “overnight trip,” a military conflict with Greece and Cyprus is rather out of the question and could be costly not only for Recep Erdoğan’s political career but also for Turkey itself.
In the second half of the twentieth century, officers of the General Staff and intelligence agencies closely linked to NATO and the United States played the main role in all three coups d’état in Turkey (1960, 1971, and 1980). Another such attempt in July 2016, involving senior Turkish Air Force officers (notably former Air Force Chief Akın Öztürk and the head of Incirlik NATO Air Base, Bekir Ercan Van), failed and resulted in a putsch rather than a coup d’état. At the same time, Russia played a positive role in preserving the constitutional government of Turkey and its leader.
Thus, by a strange coincidence, the Turkish-Greek contradictions in the first quarter of the 21st century could repeat the situation of the second half of the 1970s, when Turkey was able to change course from the West to the North between the United States and Russia. However, for President R. Erdoğan, it is important to preserve his power in the process.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
South Korea found the answer to conquering the world years ago. Taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Republic of Korea (ROK) has gone on the offensive on new fronts. While others shake their fists and brandish their missiles, the South Koreans rely on soft power – they have been promoting their culture in other countries for years. The economic benefits followed the cognitive interest of ordinary people – foreigners bought Korean goods and unwittingly invested in the Korean economy. When the pandemic struck and many countries braced for economic collapse, South Korea rode the new wave and took advantage of the situation to expand its international influence and invest in further economic prosperity.
The ROK showed remarkable adaptability to events and used the COVID-19 pandemic crisis to its advantage. The ROK’s public relations, its willingness to quickly reallocate resources to the production and export of goods in demand, and its strong scientific and technological base to respond to the new challenges played an important role.
When the Covid-19 pandemic broke out, South Korea followed China’s lead and did not close its borders or impose strict lockdowns. The government used modern technology to identify contacts and conduct mass testing. An algorithm for responding to such crises had been developed earlier-during the 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak-and the country’s leadership set up a special coronavirus website in English, Korean, and Chinese to provide the latest statistics and recommendations. On social media, the World Health Organization posted a video featuring interviews with the ROK Minister of Health and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Subsequently, there have been many academic articles on how the experience of ROK can be applied in other countries.
The ROK ranks first on Cambridge College’s Covid-19 index for OECD countries. Media outlets such as BBC News, CNN, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Agence France-Presse, and Russian news agencies have given positive ratings to the measures taken by the Korean government. Crucial to the trend was the fact that South Korea took the second-highest hit after China and was the first country to show positive results, recording a drop in the first wave of cases after just two weeks. The ROK cemented its success by holding general elections in April 2020 in the midst of the pandemic, with the highest voter turnout in 20 years (62.7%) and no increase in Covid-19 infections in the population. The country’s government actively shared its successes with the world, maintaining full openness and agreeing to support other countries. In this way, Korea became a trendsetter in the fight against the pandemic, surpassing both Europe and the US and strengthening its position on the world stage.
In parallel with the active PR campaign, South Korea has relied on the production and export of medical goods, including medical masks and test systems, which have been in short supply in many countries. In February 2020, at the start of the pandemic, Korean exports of Covid-19 diagnostic test kits were valued at $600,000, and in April they had already reached nearly $200.7 million. The export of medical masks already in February compared to the same period of 2019 increased by 2195% and amounted to $157.13 million. The share of these products in total exports is small, but the country has demonstrated that even in the dire global environment, it is possible to find points of growth.
The Republic of Korea began to actively cooperate with vaccine developers to agree to produce vaccines in the country. In parallel, the country was actively developing its own versions of coronavirus vaccines. The then President Moon Jae-in announced that the Republic of Korea planned to become one of the world’s leading vaccine hubs by 2025, and medical product manufacturing and export was listed as a priority sector. At the same time, great emphasis was placed on diversification – agreements were made to produce vaccines from different developers in the country, namely AstraZeneca (SK Bioscience), Moderna (Samsung Biologics), Novavax (SK Bioscience) approved for use in the ROK, as well as Sputnik V for export. The situation with the Russian vaccine was quite remarkable: the initial policy of maximum diversification was to secure the country against possible delays in vaccine supply from partners, and to expand potential markets by supplying the Russian vaccine to more than 70 countries where it is approved. A significant factor in favor of this decision was the fact that Russia agreed to give the full production cycle to the South Korean side, unlike other partners with whom dependence on the supply of component parts for vaccine production was maintained. GL Rapha said that Western sanctions would not prevent the company from continuing to produce Sputnik V. However, the political component defeated the economic one and as a result the vaccine was not approved for use in the country for 2 years and the Huons Global consortium, which had previously invested over $8 million in the Russian vaccine project, announced in March 2022 that it was suspending production of Sputnik V due to the “world situation”. It is worth noting that vaccines and medical devices, according to General License No. 6B of July 14, 2022, are exempt from sanctions and procurement and production arrangements should not negatively affect the South Korean partners. However, the situation was aggravated by the fact that, although the production of the vaccines themselves is an exception to the sanctions, RDIF (the Russian Direct Investment Fund), which promotes Russian vaccines abroad, is subject to sanctions and in this stalemate few appeared willing to risk being blacklisted by the US.
The first South Korean vaccine, developed by SK Bioscience Co Ltd, was not approved for use until late June 2022, after the largest waves of the disease and when more than 80% of the population had already been vaccinated with imported vaccines. But the vaccine is not a purely South Korean development; the company used technology from the University of Washington Medical School. Last March, the government of ROK purchased 10 million doses of this vaccine, but by the end of November 2022, less than one percent had been used, and Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were still preferred.
So South Korea is setting trends and trying to make the best of every situation, but it must maneuver between national economic benefits and pressure from allies by favoring investment in US and European drugs, artificially limiting its own opportunities for cooperation with Russia that could enhance existing growth potential in the ROK’s medicine and healthcare. In the meantime, South Korea is building bridges for further growth by entering into agreements with Russia, producing its own vaccine, investing in local production of imported vaccines, and opening a center to train medical professionals to produce vaccines in middle- and low-income countries. While the returns may not be that great now, where you have to agree to terms, which are not always favorable, to support “friends,” all of these seeds will bear economic fruit when the opportunity arises.
Lada Semina, Senior Researcher at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.
In both North and South Korea, rocket scientists were able to congratulate themselves on a number of new achievements at the end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023. South Korea launched a solid-fuel rocket and completed a lunar orbit, while their North Korean colleagues continued to fulfil the policies of their national leader, reaching new heights in their aerospace program.
Between 26 and 31 December 2022, the 8th Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea held its 6th plenary meeting. During the meeting Kim Jong-un made a number of important announcements about developments in the military sector. Specifically, he stressed that “In a situation where South Korea has become our undoubted enemy, it highlights the importance and necessity of a mass-producing of tactical nuclear weapons and calls for an exponential increase of the country’s nuclear arsenal.” In addition, the industry was instructed to “develop another ICBM system whose main mission is quick nuclear counterstrike” and to put a spy satellite into orbit as early as possible. Today let us look at two events that took place as Kim Jong-un was addressing the country, and which demonstrate the might of North Korea’s military-industrial complex.
On January 1, 2023 North Korea’s national news agency published a photograph of Kim Jong-un and his “most beloved” daughter Kim Ju Ae visiting a North Korean rocket base. While most popular media tended to focus on the daughter (with some speculating that this 10-year-old girl may be named as his future successor) more eagle-eyed commentators were quick to point out that the images showed 12 or more mobile launch platforms, presumably for KN-23 tactical missiles (popularly referred to as “Kimskanders”) and 26 medium range Hwasong-12/KN-17 missiles (with a maximum range of 4,000-4,500 km), without warheads.
Why is this important? North Korea’s critics often claim that its nuclear capabilities are much exaggerated, and that if it does have nuclear weapons then they are very few in number and “white elephants”of little practical use, perhaps a single “wonder weapon” that is seen as so precious that it is not used until the very last moment, by which time it can no longer effectively change the situation. That does not prevent them from warning about the serious threat posed by such weapons and demanding that the world take measures – or at least spend money – to prevent these “white elephants” from being used in an attack. The key thing is for North Korea to show the world – even if not in detail – that it “has the goods.”
It is clear, however, that these rockets would play a key role in any potential conflict. Their published technical characteristics are truly impressive, and, what is more, North Korea has announced that the rocked has now been upgraded. While debate may continue about how many of the Hwasong-15 and Hwasong-17 exist and their level of technical development, there is little doubt about the Hwasong-12.
Also on January 1 North Korea’s NKNCA Agency published an article “Ceremony of Presenting 600 mm Super-Large Multiple Rocket Launchers Held with Splendor”. To put it briefly: On December 31, 2022 600 mm super-large multiple rocket launchers provided by workers of the military industrial complex were presented to the 6th Plenary Meeting of the 8th Central Committee of the WPK in a solemn ceremony held in the grounds of the headquarters of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of North Korea. It appears that this armaments presentation ceremony was the first of its kind. Moreover according to representatives of the workers in the military industrial complex, these MLRS were not part of the workers’ production target.
Kim Jong-un participated in the ceremony and made a speech, in which he assured the audience that the weapons are “powerful in that they will give a fresh strength and courage to the whole country.”
Some 70 rocket launches in 2022 is not only an absolute record for North Korea, it also marks the beginning of a new phase for the country’s armaments industry, as many experts in a range of fields have noted. If a country can afford to use that many rockets for tests, it is clear that it has enough reserves to replace the expended rockets. These are tell-tale signs of a properly functioning armaments industry which is able to manufacture enough rockets for defense purposes, plus enough to enable testing on a large scale.
The ability to manufacture 30 large-scale MLRS over target is a good indicator of the intense pace of work in North Korea’s armaments industry and how many units it is able to produce simultaneously. This is very important, as the ability to produce armaments is a key indicator of a country’s military might. During the Korean War the North started off with a large number of Soviet tanks, but they were relatively quickly destroyed in US air strikes, and since it lacked its own armaments industry it was unable to replace them. Today this capability is of crucial importance, as in the event of a hypothetical conflict North Korea would have to stand against the military potential of the USA, and a country that is able to manufacture three tanks for each tank made by the enemy will be able to win a war of attrition even if the forces on the battlefield are evenly matched.
Here it is worth saying a few words about the MLRS, which first appeared three years ago. 600 mm is a very large caliber. It is the same caliber as that of the guns on the Japan’s Yamato – the most powerful battleship used in the Second World War. In fact, North Korea’s weapon is more than just a large-caliber MLRS, it is able to fire short range rockets (a range which takes in the whole of the Korean peninsula) with the speed and intensity of Soviet Katyusha rocket launchers. Moreover each rocket can carry a tactical nuclear warhead.
This kind of weapon is of great importance in a modern war, in which each side aims to make its first strike as powerful as possible. Moreover, these rockets are able to reach not only greater Seoul but key military facilities in central regions of South Korea and transport hubs such as Busan, which can be used to provide supplies to troops. And it is difficult for air defense systems to intercept short-range rockets of this type.
In his speech, Kim Jong-un also said that the constructors had developed a special trailer to carry the MLRS. It should be noted that the development of specialized vehicles suitable for transporting rocket systems is a major challenge, and in the past North Korea has used repurposed Chinese vehicles for this task, which led to a certain cooling of relations between the two countries. Now, it seems, that problem has been resolved.
Moreover in 2022 armament manufactures also provided farmers with more than 5,000 farm vehicles, “providing powerful support for the agricultural front, and thus keeping up morale.”
Naturally, when the MLRS are transferred to the military, they are thoroughly checked. As reported by the KCNA, the presentation of the missiles on December 31 included a test launch: “The Second Economic Commission in the DPRK conducted on the morning of December 31, 2022, a test-fire of the super-large multiple rocket launchers being presented to the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea to examine their performance”.
Seoul’s response was predictable. South Korea’s Ministry of Defense warned that “any attempt by North Korea to use nuclear weapons would lead to the end of its regime.”
On January 2, a new department was added to the structures overseen by South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee – a Directorate of Countering Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction, tasked with developing the response to nuclear threats from North Korea. In the future it is expected that this Directorate will become a fifth Strategic Command, reporting to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee alongside the existing Intelligence, Operations, Strategic Planning and Military Support and Provisioning Commands. The new Command will manage the process of creating South Korea’s three-axis defense system, made up of Kill Chain (responsible for preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities), Korean Missile Defense, and Overwhelming Response (which would destroy North Korea’s government infrastructure).
The new Directorate is based on the nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction response division, which reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Planning Directorate. It has now become a separate directorate with additional functions.
To sum up, a quote from Kim Jong-un would be appropriate: “That we have such a self-supporting defense industry which displays such heroism and possesses characteristic features and absolute strength is something no other country in the world can have or build even though it wants to, and this is a source of pride of prides of our Party.”
Kim Jong-un (and he is not alone in this view) appears to consider that tensions will continue to increase in 2023 just as much as they did in 2022, and that this challenge should be met fully armed, as the doctrine of nuclear deterrence – that nuclear weapons will be used against nuclear weapons and direct confrontation will be met with direct confrontation – is as valid as ever.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On December 12, 2022 in London, during a meeting of the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, its head, James Cleverly, said that he was in favor of expanding the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) by including Japan, India, Brazil and Germany.
The British diplomat believes that the current world order allows a much larger number of people to live much better than before, but today it needs some changes. According to Cleverly, the UK is interested in reflecting the needs of as many countries as possible in the UN. He also noted that the inclusion of Japan, Brazil, India and Germany would allow London to expand interaction with these countries and thus accelerate the growth of global prosperity.
The British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs said that the established system of international relations, which was approved as a result of the victory of the Allies after the Second World War, is allegedly outdated due to the fact that since 1950 the volume of world trade has increased by about 40 times, which has led to a radical change in the balance of power in the world. Furthermore, he emphasized that demographic changes had also made their own adjustments to the modern world order.
The rhetoric of the British leadership is quite logical. The UK no longer represents the military and economic power that it used to be during the second half of the previous century. London is aware that it needs allies to support it internationally. The countries listed by James Cleverly, which, in his opinion, should become permanent members of the UN Security Council, maintain close relations with the US and the UK and are highly likely to pursue a common policy with London and Washington on many issues.
In accordance with the norms of international law, the UN Charter can be revised only with the unanimous consent of all the permanent members of the UN Security Council. France, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is loyal to the policy pursued by Washington and London, will support the proposal of the UK, however, Russia and China, who are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, may not approve its expansion, as this may upset their geopolitical plans.
Russia welcomes the inclusion of India and Brazil in the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Russian Federation has fairly warm relations with these states, and it is unlikely that Moscow will have any international disputes with them in the foreseeable future. Back in 2010, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was serving as Prime Minister of the Russian Federation that year, during a meeting with Indian diplomats, said that India should be included in the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council. Subsequently, the Russian president has always adhered to this rhetoric. As for Russian-Brazilian relations, they have always been at a high level, and Lula da Silva, elected for the third time as President of Brazil in October 2022, is known for his pro-Russian views. During the previous presidency of Lula da Silva, the international organization BRICS was created (in 2006), which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Consequently, the Russian Federation is likely to approve the inclusion of Brazil in the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council.
However, the Kremlin has a negative stance when it comes to the inclusion of Germany and Japan in the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council, since these states are pursuing an unfriendly policy towards Russia, and Tokyo completely casts doubt on the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, claiming control over the Kuril Islands.
It should be noted that the inclusion of Germany, Brazil, Japan and India in the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council is not beneficial for China either, since these states maintain good relations with the United States and will adhere to a pro-American position in numerous international disputes.
Germany and Brazil are in close economic relations with London and Washington and therefore, with a high degree of probability, they will act in the interests of the US and the UK if they become permanent members of the UN Security Council. Of course, China will prevent such a development of events.
In China, the memory of Japan’s war crimes against the Chinese population during the Second World War is still fresh. Beijing also disapproves of Tokyo’s pro-American policy and is wary of the impressive number of US military installations in Japan.
Relations between Beijing and New Delhi are also at a fairly low level. India and China are competing for influence in places like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The Chinese authorities do not want the strengthening of Indian international influence and will do everything in their power to prevent India from being included in the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council.
It is important to emphasize that skirmishes have periodically occurred between Indian and Chinese border guards over the past 45 years. As recently as December 9, 2022, another conflict broke out between the military of China and India along the Indian line of actual control in the Tawang district in the west of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh in an area of the disputed territory. As a result of the collision, the military personnel of the two countries were slightly injured.
Despite the rationality of the idea of expanding the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China are unlikely to take such a step. Russia will not vote for granting this privilege to Germany and Japan, which today openly support the Ukrainian army participating in hostilities against the Russian Armed Forces. In turn, China is not interested in increasing the clout in the international arena of Tokyo and New Delhi, which are on cool terms with Beijing. Also, China will not give an opportunity to Germany and Brazil to become permanent members of the UN Security Council since both countries sympathize with the policies of the states of the Western bloc. As noted above, without the unanimous consent of all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, changes in the norms of international law are impossible.
The West is pursuing its own interests and engaging in geopolitical confrontation with China through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), which includes Australia, the US, Japan and India. Within the framework of this organization, annual military exercises of the participating countries are held.
On May 24, 2022, a QUAD summit was held in Tokyo, the main agenda of which, according to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, was to discuss how to counter the growth of China’s influence in East and Southeast Asia.
As it stands now, there will be no expansion in the number of countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council any time soon, since this comes into conflict with the plans of several current permanent members of the UN Security Council. However, the absence of Japan and India in the UN Security Council is offset by their participation in the QUAD, as well as their close cooperation with the United States in the field of defense.
Petr Konovalov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On April 12, 2022, the Southern District Court of New York sentenced American programmer and former Ethereum cryptocurrency developer Virgil Griffith to 5 years and 3 months in prison for visiting DPRK and giving a lecture on cryptocurrency technologies. He initially received 20 years in prison, but his sentence was reduced after he pleaded guilty to violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which imposes sanctions on North Korea. In addition, he was fined $100,000.
In accordance with the IEEPA and Executive Order 13466, US citizens cannot provide goods, services, or technology to the DPRK without permission from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) under the Department of the Treasury. But in April 2019, in violation of the ban, Griffith visited North Korea (entering through China) to give a presentation at the “Pyongyang Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency.” During the conference, “he and his accomplices presented instructions on how North Korea could use blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies to launder money and circumvent sanctions”. This is what the official accusation looks like. In the unofficial version – he was simply answering questions in detail.
In November 2019, Griffith was arrested in the US. In court photographs were presented, taken during the North Korea conference, which showed Griffith, dressed in what looked like a North Korean military uniform, standing in front of a board that said “No Sanctions.”
In addition, in April 2022, the FBI published a wanted notice for two Europeans who were identified as his accomplices. These are Spanish citizen Alejandro Cao de Benós, head of the KFA, and British citizen Christopher Emms, a cryptocurrency expert. According to court documents, the two planned and organized the aforementioned conference for the benefit of the DPRK, and may also have colluded with Griffith to provide blockchain services and technologies to North Korea. The FBI has labeled both of them “dangerous international fugitives” and they face up to 20 years in prison for violating the IEEPA.
This story had interesting implications regarding the search for Griffith’s alleged accomplices in the ROK. On June 29, 2022, Minister of Justice Han Dong-hoon traveled to the United States for a nine-day visit that included meeting with the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and two vice presidents of the World Bank to discuss cooperation in the fight against cybercrime.
After this, some opposition figures said that Han visited the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to learn more about the results of the Griffith investigation.
Allegedly, the New York district attorney’s office submitted evidence to a New York court in the form of email correspondence between Griffith and an unnamed person based in South Korea, and these emails contained the assertion that the mayors of Seoul and Seongnam were interested in creating a cryptocurrency infrastructure in their respective cities. The mayor of Seoul referred to in the email was the late Park Won-soon, while the mayor of Seongnam Lee Jae-myung is the current leader of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea.
So Han went to New York to see if there were other documents that could show the possible links these politicians had to North Korea’s attempt to build a cryptocurrency infrastructure to avoid international sanctions.
The Minister of Justice neither confirmed nor denied this claim.
Later on, Democratic MP Kim Ui-gyeom gave some details. Griffith’s counterpart was a woman named Erica Kang, and the correspondence amounted to about 50-60 pages of documents. For example, Griffith’s business partner wrote to him on June 29, 2019 as follows: “The Seoul government is open to providing support for the Ethereum Foundation, but we are in the process of discussing how to provide such support. During the conversation, we talked about supporting the Ethereum research center and establishing an institution in the DPRK. So it’s not a 100% confirmed proposal, but we’re trying to make it happen.”
Following this, the Mayor of Seoul Oh Se-hoon said he would carefully look into the allegation that his predecessor tried to circumvent sanctions. However, he did not immediately blame his opponents and noted that he would turn to law enforcement agencies with a request to investigate this case if any violations were found. So far, the mayor has indicated something along the lines of “I have no information on the extent to which the city government was involved in the cryptocurrency project during the former mayor’s tenure” and “I was told that there were no working-level employees in the city government who would contact North Korea about cryptocurrencies.”
This is not the only US operation against the “accomplices of the Pyongyang hackers.” On November 7, 2022, a prominent Nigerian social media figure who was involved in money laundering for North Korea was sentenced to 11 years in prison by a US court. Nigerian citizen Ramon Olorunwa Abbas, acting alongside Canadian citizen Ghaleb Alaumary, was instrumental in legalizing the money that was stolen by North Korean hackers from a bank in Malta in 2019. Abbas gained notoriety in Nigeria for his habit of posting photos of himself wearing expensive clothes in luxury hotels and private jets on social media. In June 2020, at the request of US authorities, Abbas was detained in Dubai, after which he was extradited to the United States. His accomplice received a similar sentence in 2021.
But even more interesting is the story of hacker Denis Dubnikov, who, according to The Wall Street Journal, was arrested at the request of the United States in the Netherlands on November 2, 2021, and faces up to 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
According to the US Department of Justice, the Russian was engaged in money laundering in the interests of the Ryuk hacker group, and also received a reward of $400,000 in the form of Bitcoin from the funds that the victims transferred to the extortionists. In 2020, Ryuk accounted for a third of all ransomware attacks in the United States, according to cybersecurity firm SonicWall.
And now the most important part! Initially, it was assumed that the Ryuk group was associated with North Korea, but experts from CrowdStrike and McAfee Labs reported that the malware was allegedly developed by “Russian-speaking hackers.” And this again makes the author wonder if the “DPRK-related” hacker groups with specific names like “KimSuky” or “LazaRus” should not be taken as a joke of Russian-speaking hackers using the image of North Korea as a cover.
On March 22, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that North Korea had significant cyber capabilities and was working with all kinds of cybercriminals, including those from Russia. But the cart has already been put before the horse.
It should be noted that North Korea is independently forming its cybertroops and boosting digital literacy in general (yes, we remember the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy). On December 27, 2021, Rodong Sinmun reported that “about 100,000 workers are currently enrolled in online classes across the country, including 10,000 registered this year alone.” North Korea has highlighted the development of distance education system as a tool to help workers acquire the “modern science and technology” needed in their workplaces.
On November 23, 2021, North Korea launched a nationwide computer programming competition aimed at developing talent capable of leading the country’s information technology development: about 1,240 participants, ranging from teachers and researchers to college and high school students, participated in three rounds of preliminary competitions in the run-up to the final.
It is no wonder that the West and the ROK have already started talking about the fact that “Juche IT specialists” who have undergone such training can be hired for remote work, but the author will talk about how the US and the ROK oppose the “Pyongyang hackers” in the next article.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Turkey, by virtue of its objective geographical position, occupies an important position in the Middle East, has a key influence on regional developments, remains relevant on NATO’s southern flank and controls strategic communications at the junction of three continents (Asia, Europe and Africa). Consequently, many processes in the international system depend on Turkey’s political choices and its subsequent course.
The next presidential and parliamentary elections in Turkey, to be held in June 2023 (the centenary year of the Republic of Turkey), are of high interest to internal and external observers. Such attention to Turkish politics is determined by the peculiarities of the region’s dynamic transformation, as well as by the particular tensions in the internal political struggle between the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the opposition against the backdrop of a worsening economic crisis by the 21st year of R. Erdoğan’s rule.
It should be recognized that Turkey has come a long way since World War II in forming a democratic political system, where a streak of stability has been followed by crisis (including three military coups in 1960, 1971, 1980 and one failed attempt in 2016) and vice versa. At the beginning of the 21st century, Turkey witnessed not only the rise to power of a pro-Islamic conservative political force represented by the AKP, but, as time has shown, a more successful pragmatic and nationally oriented team led by the charismatic Erdoğan.
It cannot be said that since the founder of the Republic of Turkey, Kemal Atatürk, there have been no successful and outstanding leaders in the new history of the Turkish state (e.g., the same Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel, Turgut Özal). Each of the mentioned leaders of Turkey in his time contributed a lot to the development of the state, skillfully combining national interests with those of the West and ensuring stability in relations with the USSR (Russia). However, certain mistakes could not be avoided, which tragically affected the personal fate of Adnan Menderes and Turgut Özal.
Of course, the political reform to establish a multi-party electoral system in the mid-20th century was an objective consequence of Turkey’s progression with its membership of NATO. The US, which has strictly monitored political processes in allied countries, has always paid special attention to Turkish internal politics to the exclusion of radicalization towards independence. For all the costs of Turkey’s economic problems, the threat of Ankara’s isolationist foreign policy has been the main reason for the coups that took place and failed. The CIA was quite effective in preventing such tendencies in Turkey through influential positions in the Turkish secret services and the General Staff of the Armed Forces, which resulted in three military coups in the 20th century.
With the dissolution of the USSR, the position of US intelligence in the Turkish power structures seems to have weakened as the military threat to Russia on NATO’s southern flank has diminished in importance. At the same time, for the same objective reasons, Turkey’s monopoly role in NATO’s Middle East strategy declined at the turn of the century, and with the new members and partners of the Alliance (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia), also in the Black Sea. In the meantime, the formation of five Turkic countries in the post-Soviet space has contributed to the crystallization of Turkey’s new foreign policy strategy.
These external dynamics, combined with the persistent problems of the economic crisis in Turkey, forced the same President Turgut Özal to bet on the development of a free market economy, big business, integration into the world economy and the promotion of Turkish products. In parallel with the economy, Özal sought to strengthen the country’s independent course and weaken the influence of the Turkish military on domestic politics. It is Özal who is considered the initiator and founder of Turkey’s new strategy, dubbed “Neo-Ottomanism”, which was developed and continued in the 2000s by his successor Recep Erdoğan. Neo-Ottomanism meant the political burial of the republican strategy of “Kemalism” with Turkey changing course from a regional state in favor of a super-regional power. Of course, the United States could not be happy with such an arrangement.
According to the famous “Sursuluk scandal” case, it was reported in the media that President Turgut Özal and gendarmerie chief Eşref Bitlis, who advocated non-military (political) methods of solving the Kurdish question, died in 1993 by a strange coincidence. In particular, one died of a heart attack and the other in a plane crash, which some experts link to external interference.
Such a legacy, inherited by AKP leader Recep Erdoğan, has allowed in the early 21st century to focus on strengthening independence and seeking Turkey’s new rise as one of the poles of a multipolar and center of the Turkic world. The phenomenon of Erdoğan’s rule is not only linked to the duration of his two decades in power, but also to Turkey’s achievements in domestic and foreign policy. In particular, he has managed to strengthen the independent course of the country; to build more pragmatic relations with major powers such as Russia and China; to carry out political reform of the government (transition from a parliamentary to a presidential model); to implement major economic projects in the field of transit communications and nuclear energy; to make Turkey a key factor in gas exports to Europe; and to lay the foundation for pan-Turkic integration, based on mutually beneficial economic, energy, political and security interests.
Erdoğan’s independent course was the main reason for the military coup in July 2016 involving external forces (in particular the US and Pennsylvania-based Imam Fethullah Gülen), supported by the Turkish Air Force command (in particular former Air Force Commander General Akın Öztürk and Incirlik Air Base Commander General Bekir Ercan Van). Graham Fuller, a former US intelligence resident in Kabul and F. Gülen’s mentor, was named as the CIA’s coordinator of this covert operation. However, in the summer of 2016, Erdoğan, thanks to the effective action of the Turkish intelligence service (MİT) led by the loyal Hakan Fidan and assisted by his Russian colleagues, managed to preserve his life, quell the coup attempt and carry out a harsh crackdown against his opponents.
Of course, the cyclicality of the global economic crisis and the monetarist course, where the growth rate of the money supply exceeds the level of the national economy, could not fail to affect the Turkish economy. Erdoğan, while achieving significant successes in foreign policy, has failed to maintain stability inside Turkey. In turn, President R. Erdoğan’s expressed autonomy (e.g., on the topic of military and technical partnership with Russia) has had a negative impact on the financial and economic support of Turkey by US-controlled global institutions. As a result, Turkey is now experiencing a difficult period of high inflation in excess of 70% (and according to Le Figaro, inflation has crossed the 84% line). Some experts believe that the financial and economic crisis and high inflation were largely provoked by R. Erdoğan himself, who insisted on lowering the Central Bank’s key rate to 14%.
The current situation forces the R. Erdoğan administration to remain highly interested in economic partnerships with major players such as Russia and China, and to consider new regional cooperation projects in the Middle East, the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
The successes of the Turkish army and arms in local conflicts in the Syrian, Libyan and Transcaucasian theatres of war also encourage Anatolian society to support the course of the ruling party, which, in the spirit of traditional Turkish diplomacy, promotes large and small national interests in the foreign arena and reinforces Turkey’s regional leadership status.
Nevertheless, the next presidential election in June 2023 promises to be difficult for R. Erdogan and his party in a situation of growing economic crisis, high inflation, unemployment, the leader’s rating dropping to 35%, the assertiveness of young opposition representatives with a moderate course oriented towards the US and European integration.
Recep Erdoğan’s ruling AKP maintains a coalition with Devlet Bahçeli’s Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which has 7-10% voter support. The main rivals of the AKP and Erdoğan in the parliamentary elections are traditionally Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Meral Akşener’s Good Party. The main opponents to the presidency are likely to be representatives of the AKP with experience as mayors of the two major cities of Istanbul and Ankara (Ekrem İmamoğlu and Mansur Yavaş respectively), although competition from Meral Akşener is not ruled out, despite her statement of desire to become prime minister (perhaps with the expectation of restoring the parliamentary model of government).
By the summer of 2023, K. Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the CHP, will be the oldest candidate (he will be 74 by then) and the main Kemalist’s rating in May 2022 according to SOANAR research organization was only 3.5% against almost 35% for Erdoğan.
Following R. Erdoğan’s June 2022 announcement in Izmir (the city where Kılıçdaroğlu was elected to parliament) that he would run for president, Ekrem İmamoğlu was sentenced in September to 2.7 years in prison for insulting the Electoral Commission and 5 years in prison for political activity. Perhaps the decision will reduce the intensity of the struggle for the presidency for Erdoğan (although the appeal process could stretch to an election date and change the situation). For his part, Mansur Yavaş said he wished to pursue a political career as mayor of the capital. However, in this case too, it is possible that this opinion of Yavaş was motivated by a desire to rule out premature provocations to block his participation in the presidential campaign.
The election campaign in Turkey promises to be tense if the opposition forces, on the recommendation of former Prime Minister and Future Party leader Ahmet Davutoğlu, unite and nominate a single candidate with coordination from a single center. Erdoğan is unlikely to be helped by another victorious local military operation in Syria’s “Idlib zone” against the local Kurds. The fact is that Turkey may clearly clash with the interests of a number of key countries there (in particular the US, Iran and China).
However, Russia, too, does not benefit from weakening its own position in Syria and the cooling of relations with Damascus. Moscow is interested in preserving the balance of power in both Syria and Transcaucasia while building up the Russian-Turkish economic partnership. The meeting of Turkish and Syrian heads of defense ministries, facilitated by Russia, on December 28, 2022, according to Turkish Minister Hulusi Akar, holds out hope of a peaceful resolution of the controversy while respecting Syria’s territorial integrity.
Six months remain before the election, which, given Turkey’s expressive domestic political dynamics, is ample time for new developments to manifest themselves that could influence the election and, more importantly, voter opinion. Of course, the incumbent president aims to achieve important results in the breakthrough interests of Turkey and its citizens. One such landmark achievement in the year of the 100th anniversary of the Republic may be the implementation of General Wehib Pasha’s strategy, noted at the signing of the Treaty of Batum on June 4, 1918, to take Turkey through the shortest route into the Turkic East. However, this project depends to a large extent on maintaining a balance of interests and strengthening Turkey’s strategic partnership with Russia in the same Transcaucasia. An equally breakthrough project for the stabilization and development of the Turkish economy is the idea of turning Turkey into a major gas hub with a concentration of gas from Russia and Turkic CIS countries on its way to Europe. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” project through the post-Soviet south and Turkey to Europe is in the same vein.
Russia has often been accused in the same post-Soviet space of conducting diplomacy with a reliance on the ruling powers and insufficient attention to the opposition. Perhaps the same is true for relations with Turkey. However, to be fair, Russian diplomacy differs from that of the West in its reliability and decency, its respect for the choices of citizens of their leaders and its value of partnership. This does not mean that the Russian competent authorities do not have full knowledge of the dynamics of events, irrespective of geography. The Turkish-Russian partnership is based on pragmatic interests that remain relevant and supported by the two societies.
In all cases, Turkey’s fate is in the hands of its citizens and depends little on foreign experts. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections in Turkey, if they take place, Moscow will respect the choice of the Turkish people.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Despite the breakthrough after a year of domestic crisis, now that all the top leadership of Iraq has been elected and appointed, including the Parliament, the President, the Prime Minister, and the government, political stability in the country is far from certain this year. And to a large extent, the United States is to blame for this, the 20th anniversary of the invasion by which the tortured Iraq will “celebrate” in two months. During the American aggression and subsequent domination, not only the economy and infrastructure were destroyed, and up to half a million Iraqis were killed, but the entire state structure was wrecked, which plunged the country into political chaos for many years.
The Iraqi agency Shafaq news noted that for almost two decades, the country was shaken by a protracted political crisis, and it suffered from an insurgency that tore it apart. The crisis has also been exacerbated by government dysfunction and widespread corruption, while the country’s oil-based economy has been severely affected by unprecedented mismanagement, thus resulting in severe financial losses for the population. And all this, Shafaq news concludes, is a shameful legacy of the invasion and aggression by the United States, which left the country in the most severe crisis and decline.
Although the fragile political system remains the main driving force, the country’s security problem remains a component determining the future of Iraq, as events on the ground further complicate the situation. In the coming months, Iraq will have to face the unpredictability associated with the consequences of the domestic conflict for the shaky policy of the country, the welfare of its population and relations with neighboring countries.
In the near future, all attention will be focused on the new Government of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani and whether it will be able to cope with numerous disturbances and subsequent public discontent. Similar to the seven prime ministers who have been in power over the past twenty years, Al-Sudani has solemnly promised to reform the economy, fight corruption, improve deteriorating public services and fight poverty and unemployment. In his address to Parliament after his approval, he also promised to amend the election law within three months and hold early parliamentary elections within a year.
On November 27, Al-Sudani demonstrated his anti-corruption efforts by appearing on local television and artfully positioning himself in the spotlight among a pile of Iraqi banknotes, while he announced the return of about USD 126 million after USD 2.5 billion had been stolen from the state treasury. However, many Iraqis remain skeptical of Al-Sudani’s anti-corruption measures and doubt whether they will be effective in ending the practice, which was promoted by some of the highest institutions of the government and the ruling elites of the country.
Corruption continues to damage Iraq and impedes the establishment of the principles of democracy, development and the ability to lift people out of poverty. The country ranks lowest in the international Corruption Perception Index being at the bottom of the list of 180 countries surveyed for the presumed level of corruption in the public sector. And this happens in the context of the richest oil reserves, revenues from which exceeded USD 115 billion last year, which is 52%, or 1.5 times more than in 2021 (USD 75.65 billion).
The failure of public services remains a sign of government dysfunction in Iraq, despite the fact that the public sector employs millions of people and accounts for about 40% of the annual budget. Two decades of mismanagement and rampant corruption have led to the fact that health care, education and the municipal sector have declined amid a serious crisis with water supply and electricity. The effects of poor economic policies and corruption on workers have been severe in both the public and private sectors, leaving many Iraqis unemployed, vulnerable to poverty and struggling to pay for food and other necessities.
According to the Ministry of Planning, while the unemployment rate in Iraq is 14.19% of the workforce, the poverty rate in the country is 24.8%. These trends indicate that the Al-Sudani Government may and most likely will face problems that will have negative consequences for further social unrest. Unemployment is especially widespread among young people, who make up the majority of the population. Many young Iraqis go to work either in the rich countries of the Persian Gulf or in Europe, especially in the north of the continent, i.e. in Sweden and Norway, whose legislation is very loyal to the Kurdish population.
One of the key problems facing Iraq today is climate change, which has exposed the country to such disasters as desertification and acute water shortage. The waters of the Tigris, Euphrates and a number of other smaller rivers are no longer sufficient for the needs of agriculture and urban services. Despite all the talk that the problem is largely the result of global warming, poor governance and inadequate solutions in this area are also largely responsible for the aggravation of the crisis, which threatens the stability of the country in the near future.
About five years after the declaration of victory over the so-called “caliphate” of DAESH (the terrorist formation is banned on the territory of the Russian Federation), the country is still struggling with this terrorist organization, and the problems of returning and reintegrating those who had a connection with this group in the past to their hometowns. Although terrorists no longer control Iraqi territory, they continue to pose a security threat through kidnappings, attacks and bombings, especially in desert areas on the outskirts of the country’s major Sunni cities. Currently, former members of DAESH and their families are in the Al-Khol refugee camp in Syria under the control of US-backed Kurdish groups. The Iraqi Government fears that such returnees will be able to create “incubators” where they can regroup and return to destabilize the country.
The crucial question this year will be whether the Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Sadrist movement decide to take part in the parliamentary elections, which Al-Sudani has promised to hold within a year. Al-Sadr suspended his participation in politics in response to the impasse with the formation of the government after his group had won the largest number of seats in parliament according to the results of last year’s poll. If the Sadrists stay away from the elections, this decision will probably be the biggest powder keg in Iraqi politics that has ever been. Iraq may witness the election of a new legislative body that will completely change the structure of its political system. However, if the Sadrists do decide to take part in the elections, this could be another opportunity for Al-Sadr to try to get the majority of seats he needs to form a ruling coalition that could weaken the pro-Iranian camp in the country.
Another potential flashpoint to watch out for in 2023 will be the deterioration of relations between the two main political parties of Iraqi Kurdistan, i.e. the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). A fierce power struggle has been going on between the two rivals for several months, and fears are growing that they are moving towards a new round of violence, according to the Kurdish Rudaw news agency, which has characterized their relationship for decades as “a relationship of envy and rivalry.”
In its foreign policy, the Al-Sudani Government will still have to balance the preservation of Iraq’s sovereignty, the ambitions of its neighbors and the interests of its international partners on various issues. Iran is expanding its influence in Iraq due to the fact that the Shiite Alliance “Coordination Structure” consisting of Iranian-backed groups enjoys great political influence after it managed to bring the current government to power. Since Al-Sudani came to power in October, the Alliance’s leaders have played a key role in managing national policy, and its pro-Iranian factions have restored their members to key positions in the government and security agencies. In order to increase its chances in the next elections, the Alliance plans, according to the Sky News newspaper, to introduce a new election law, which is designed to increase the number of its seats in the next parliament.
As a result of a major shift in Baghdad’s relations with the Kurdistan regional government in the north of the country, Tehran also managed to convince both sides to agree to the deployment of Iraqi army units along the border between Iran and the federal region of Iraq. They are designed to guard the border, which, according to the Islamic Republic, was used by opposition groups to provoke problems between the two states.
Another foreign policy problem facing Al-Sudani is Turkey’s growing military aggression in northern Iraq, which violates its sovereignty and increases its instability. For several months, the Turkish military has been carrying out airstrikes and ground incursions into the region, while claiming to be pursuing Turkish Kurdish militants who, according to them, are using Iraqi territory to carry out attacks on Turkey. However, it should be noted that Turkish aggression is part of Ankara’s expansionist policy in Iraq and regional ambitions that were formed after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. As a result of the American aggression, the balance of power in this region was disrupted, which allowed Ankara to act at its discretion, despite Baghdad’s official protests. While its presence in northern Iraq is aimed at pacifying the Kurds, Turkey is also targeting Sunni Muslim political groups and the Iraqi Turkuman minority in order to turn them against the central Shiite government in Baghdad.
Iraq’s relations with other neighbors and international partners will continue to depend on its stability and on whether the strategic interests of all parties are respected. To this end, the world will continue to closely monitor this new stage in Iraq’s regional relations. Under the previous Government of Mustafa al-Qadimi, Iraq has already concluded various agreements with some regional and foreign countries. Al-Sudani has not yet expressed his intention to maintain meaningful ties with these countries in order to balance Iran’s growing influence in Iraq and raise Baghdad’s international prestige.
One of the key trends to pay attention to in the coming year will be Iraqi-American relations. The Iranian-backed political parties in Iraq, which now control the government and want Tehran to become a pillar in Iraq, are not very interested in developing ties with Washington. This caused not only a wave of concern, but also indignation in the United States, which seemed to be annoyed that Iraq had failed in its attempts to bring the Al-Sudani government closer to the United States and its allies, while continuing to focus on the tensions between the United States and Iran playing out on Iraqi soil. Washington is resorting to new tactics, while questioning the activities of Iranian proxies in the Iraqi government and using the carrot and stick policy towards Al-Sudani to promote a new dynamic affecting US-Iraqi relations. While the US is offering the Al-Sudani government partnership in fighting corruption, overcoming the climate crisis and helping with economic reforms, it has also blacklisted Iraqi government ministers and officials associated with pro-Iranian militants.
In today’s turbulent times, Iraq continues to face old and new challenges. However, given its trajectory of development since the US aggression in 2003, it seems likely that this already tired nation will remain in a vicious circle of instability and crisis. And as long as Washington pursues its selfish policy of protecting only its interests to the detriment of Iraq, it is unlikely that the Iraqis will be able to radically reverse the situation that has developed negatively for them.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
From January 3 to 5, 2023, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was on a visit to China at the invitation of Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In itself, this fact has taken an important place in the list of events developing in Southeast Asia, which is characterized by an intensifying all-round struggle between the leading world powers for influence on the countries of this sub-region. Its continuously increasing importance at the current stage of the “Great World Game” should be well noted.
The Philippines is a presidential republic, which is why the personality factor in the presidency is so important. And, consequently, the close attention paid by external leading players to the process of electing a representative of this or that political force to the presidency is understandable.
The latest general elections, held in early May 2022, were no exception, and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ended up winning the presidency. He is the son of Ferdinand Marcos Senior, who is still revered in the country (since 1965, he had held various government positions, including the presidency). The post of vice president following the results of the latest elections was won by Sara Duterte who is the daughter of the previous president Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
Thus, since May 2022, both Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte have headed the country, which can be described as the “eastern border” of Southeastern Asia and the South China Sea. This is the main reason for the exceptional strategic importance of the Philippines, which consists of more than seven thousand islands stretching from north to south, with a length of 2,000 km and a total area of 330,000 km2. The population of the country today is more than 100 million.
Opened up to Europeans in early 16th century by Magellan, these islands belonged to Spain for more than three and a half centuries. But since the end of the 19th century, they turned out to be the focus of territorial claims, first by the United States and then by Japan. In 1898, they passed into the possession of the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, and in the period from 1942-1944, they were under Japanese occupation. Having gained independence in 1946, the Philippines continued to be under the de facto control of the United States for half a century. US dominance ended in 1998 when Washington announced the completion of the almost decade-long process of closing the two largest American bases in the Pacific Ocean: Clark Field and Subic Bay. However, according to statements made in early May 2022 by ex-President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte, some kind of American military presence still remains there. Moreover, he does not rule out that American nuclear weapons may be located at these bases.
Full control over the situation at these bases by the leadership of the Philippines is allegedly impossible (again, according to Duterte) due to the US-Philippine Defense Treaty of 1951, which, it should be mentioned, was confirmed by both sides in 2011, when the Philippines was led by the political opponents of Rodrigo Duterte. But he himself spoke about the same points during the visit of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Manila in late July 2021.
Now would be the right time to talk about the popular topic of “American intrigues.” But let’s leave that aside and focus on another aspect – what is the position of the Philippines itself regarding the escalating confrontation between the two leading world powers – the United States and China – in this sub-region? In addition, Japan is trying to catch up with the geopolitical dynamic duo. And on the horizon is India with its foreign policy concept “Looking to the East” (former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually spoke about the need for New Delhi to move from “observation to action” in this regard).
In the search for an answer to the question posed above, it quickly becomes clear that, despite the tough public struggle between various Philippine political groups, their attitude towards the above mentioned external players in the last two to three decades has been more or less the same. With a wary attitude towards China, sympathy for the United States remains (with rare exceptions) while Japan’s “return to the Philippines” is welcomed in every possible way. Apparently, the full-scale appearance of India here will be just as positively received, signs of which are already emerging.
However, spring-autumn 2016 is an exception of foreign policy preferences, when presidential elections were being held in the Philippines and during which time the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea was announced. It should also be mentioned that one of the regions of the Philippine island Mindanao was being rampaged by a terrorist group for several months.
Back then, Rodrigo Duterte, during the pre-election campaign for the presidency and for some time after his appointment, quite clearly spoke of his intention to drastically change the nature of his country’s foreign policy trajectory. In particular, he talked about the need of terminating the above-mentioned US-Philippines Treaty, and drastically improving relations with China and Russia.
However, to reiterate, such rhetoric continued for a very short time and faded away after the suppression of the armed uprising of some strange group, whose “nature” remains a mystery: either it was some offshoot of the well-known Abu Sayyaf (this terrorist group is prohibited in the Russian Federation) or it was some kind of competitor to the latter. There are a lot of ambiguities and simply riddles when it comes to “terrorist groups.” It is important to note that this group acted at the “right” time for Washington, whose help Rodrigo Duterte had to use in the end.
By the way, the Subic Bay base is also in the “right” place for the Philippines. It is interesting to note that two hundred kilometers west of its location on the coast of the island of Luzon in the South China Sea is the Scarborough Shoal. China claims this territory and uses its own name for several hectares of coral land and rocks, bordering 150 square kilometers of sea lagoon. The Scarborough Shoal ended up inside the famous “Nine-dash line,” the legitimacy of which was denied to Beijing by PCA in accordance with its decision in July 2016. Rodrigo Duterte could afford for some time to “not notice” this decision, which was positive for the Philippines, but negative for China.
Be that as it may, but the totality of the above-mentioned and other manifestations of Realpolitik prompted the then president, six months after taking this post, to return to the “traditional” distribution of foreign policy sympathies. For which he was rewarded with a decrease in the intensity of propaganda attacks against him in connection with “anti-human rights” methods of combating drug trafficking – one of the main problematic national disasters. These “methods,” by the way, turned out to be the main factor that ensured his victory in the 2016 elections.
Rodrigo Duterte inherited all these and other trends in politics, and the tandem of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte is further strengthening them. That is met with understanding in Washington. During a visit to Manila by US Vice President Kamala Harris, which took place after a series of recent international events in Southeast Asia, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. was promised “the fulfillment of [American] mutual defense obligations.” This implied possible Sino-Philippine armed incidents in the South China Sea.
The current Philippine President also confirmed the course outlined under Rodrigo Duterte for a comprehensive (including defense) development of relations with Japan. This happened during a meeting in New York at the end of September last year (on the sidelines of the scheduled UN General Assembly) between Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
It was under such conditions that the invitation of the Chinese leader was extended to the President of the Philippines to visit China. In this regard, it could be noted that China is new to the role of a global world player and has to learn its features, as they say, “on the go.” Responding to petty “grievances” from minor (but strategically important) players now does not correspond to the current place of China at the “World Games” table.
In turn, the Philippines, as well as all other countries of Southeast Asia, not without success, derive certain benefits for themselves from the (risky) position of the points of struggle unfolding in this sub-region between the leading world powers.
Therefore, the meeting between Xi Jinping and Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in Beijing (as well as a meeting of the latter with the former Prime Minister of China) can be heralded as a success, which resulted in the adoption of a Joint Statement. The wording of the Statement is fairly general, with mainly politically correct being used. The author would like to highlight paragraphs 11, 12 and 13, which indicate the intention to continue bilateral cooperation within the framework of the Chinese global project – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), specifically in the field of joint development of oil and gas fields (probably in the South China Sea) and the resolution of problems in the same region.
On the whole, the Philippine President’s visit to China and the results of his negotiations with high-level Chinese leaders are an undoubtedly good development in terms of the urgent task of maintaining stability in Southeast Asia.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In the first week of December, German officials told journalists that Berlin’s last year’s promise to raise their defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP will be missed not only this year (2023) but also the next year. This is a decision not just based on simple economics but on geopolitics. German decision also means that the possibility of procuring fighter jets from the US will also be delayed. As reports in the US media show, the purchase of 35 F-35 jets is in jeopardy. In fact, earlier in December, German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht told German lawmakers that the deal risks being hampered by “delays and additional costs.” This change in policy correlates to the changing German views on the military conflict in Easter Europe. When asked in April 2022, about 29 per cent of Germans said that NATO provoked Russia to go “to war.” When asked the same question in October, this number rose sharply to 40 per cent of the Germans holding the same view. In provinces once part of East Germany, 59 per cent believe that NATO is responsible for this military conflict in Eastern Europe.
This popular thinking is being reinforced by powerful Germans as well. For instance, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently revealed that the 2014 Minsk agreements did not resolve the then crisis. These agreements were only meant to buy time for Ukraine to become powerful vis-à-vis Russia. It shows how the seeds of the present conflict were sown many years ago by the West itself rather than Moscow. The changing German opinion is bound to have an impact on the German government, which is itself battling a severe economic crisis since the start of this conflict in February 2022 – a crisis exacerbated by expensive US gas.
This dual impact of a struggling economy and changing political opinion in Germany is at the heart of increasing German contact with the ‘Eastern camp’ i.e., China and, indirectly, Russia. The first major contact happened in November 2022 when the German Chancellor visited China. Many in the West explained that visit as a one-time meeting, but the recent call between German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Xi effectively shows the evolving trajectory of German geopolitical thinking away from the US camp. The Chinese readout was meaningful, as it said that
“The two sides also exchanged views on the Ukraine crisis. Xi Jinping stressed that China stays committed to promoting peace talks, and believes that a protracted and complicated crisis is in no parties’ interests. China supports the EU in demonstrating its strategic autonomy and in leading the establishment of a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture to realize enduring peace and long-term stability in the European continent.”
The reference to strategic autonomy is meaningful insofar as it shows Beijing is fully aware of where Germany is going in its quest for a greater role in the changing world. There is no denying that Germany wants to enhance its power, but it does not want to do it by simply playing a second fiddle to the US. Interestingly, the contact between Steinmeier and Xi was followed by a surprise visit of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to China. While this may just be a coincidence, many in the US believe that Germany is changing its course. Both the phone call and the visit were preceded by Olaf’s own call for Europe to go back to the “pre-war peace order” with Russia. This is nothing short of strategic setback to the whole US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine.
China, it seems, is facilitating as a mediator to make things normal in Europe. That, of course, is concerning for Washington, which saw this conflict as an opportunity to rekindle its hegemony by building a Cold War like scenario. But the fact that the centre of diplomatic action is now shifting away from the US to Beijing means that there are many reasons for the US to worry, as it is losing the initiative. That’s why the US has started a new offensive on China.
Followed by the phone call and the visit, Blinken made a phone call to Wang Yi, who is China’s State Councillor and Foreign Minister. It happened on December 22. The American readout said that “ The Secretary also raised concerns about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the threats it poses to global security and economic stability. They further discussed the current COVID-19 situation, and the Secretary underscored the importance of transparency for the international community.”
But the Chinese response was far more belligerent, as Wang reminded Blinken “that the United States should not engage in dialogue and containment at the same time, neither should it talk cooperation, but stab China simultaneously”, adding that “This is not reasonable competition, but irrational suppression. It is not meant to properly manage disputes, but to intensify conflicts. In fact, it is still the old practice of unilateral bullying.”
Unilateral bullying refers to Washington bullying China into toeing the US line on all matters, including staying away from Europe. But Wang’s response not only shows the inability of the US to keep matters under its control but also reveals how uneasy Washington is over these developments, as it sees Germany’s increased recourse to operate outside of the framework of the alliance as an unravelling of its own control of the European continent. Combined with French dissatisfaction with the US, the growing German distance from the US is particularly significant for the future course of events and the possible conclusion of Russia’s special military operations in Ukraine.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
The year 2022 has come to an end and it has become a symbol of universal “de-Westernization.” The criticism of the West is growing everywhere not only for its unwillingness to resolve the Middle East conflict between Palestine and Israel and to reach an agreement on the nuclear dossier with Iran, but also for the general energy and financial and economic crisis inspired by Russophobic sanctions.
And a demonstrative reaction to such an openly inhumane policy of the West was the refusal of most countries of the world to impose sanctions against Russia after it launched its special military operation to denazify the criminal Kyiv regime, as well as the adoption on December 30 of the UN General Assembly of an appeal to the International Court of Justice on the issue of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank. It should be mentioned that the countries of the African continent took the most active position in “de-Westernization,” demonstrating their opposition to the attempts of the West to return to the policy of neo-colonialism.
Undoubtedly, an important factor in taking such a position by African countries was the opposition to the continuation by former Western colonial powers of the policy of plundering the natural and national wealth of the Dark Continent. Especially energy resources in light of the EU’s rejection, under pressure from Washington, of Russian gas and oil. Thus, the European Union, under various pretexts, tried in April to force Nigeria to increase gas production and redirect it to the European gas market. In response, the Nigerian president said that Europe was seeking to withdraw almost all of the hydrocarbons produced from Africa and leave the continent with nothing. The country’s oil minister, on his part, said that the national oil company of Nigeria was working at its limit, and an increase in energy production in African countries was possible only in a few years. And only after the West invests billions of dollars in the form of investments in the development of new deposits.
As for Western corporations, not only are they in no hurry to invest in Africa, but through the international financial structures of the United States and Europe they are threatening to cut funding for African states and stop issuing loans to them if they do not support calls to invest in the construction of “green energy” sites imposed by the West.
As follows from official statistics and the conclusions of numerous experts, the losses of African states from the operation of Western corporations annually exceed $192 billion. Western oil and gas corporations, which receive most of the profit from the sale of African resources, cause particular damage to African countries. At the same time, the flow of annual Western investments to African countries is significantly less than the “solidarity assistance to the Kyiv regime” for armed confrontation with Russia. Thus, the EU and several member states, according to German media reports, allocated €1 billion to African countries as part of an initiative to overcome the effects of climate change. Meanwhile, the EU budget for 2023 has been provided with €14.7 billion for the energy transition (primarily for non-EU Ukraine and Moldova). From the end of February 2022 – after the start of the Russian military operation – the volume of international aid to Ukraine has exceeded $75 billion, and the largest donors of military and humanitarian aid have been the United States and the EU.
Realizing that over the past few years the position of the West on the African continent has been greatly shaken, and acknowledging that the influence of Russia, on the contrary, has increased, the White House held the US-Africa Leaders Summit in late December, which has been its only second edition since 2014. At the same time, it is noteworthy that during his tenure as President of the United States, Joe Biden has never visited a single country of the Dark Continent, clearly not considering it necessary to do so himself, and in rare cases preferring to delegate his vassals for this.
And so, on December 11, the British Foreign Minister James Cleverly, frankly demonstrating the UK’s desire to continue exploiting the natural resources of African countries, announced London’s intention to increase its expansion in Africa. At the same time, when analyzing the UK’s “Africa U-turn,” London’s recent “special plans” for Rwanda stand out, which are supposedly justified by an attempt to solve the problem of illegal migrants, who will now be sent to this African country, where asylum seekers will wait decisions on their applications for immigration to the UK.
However, such British plans are not something new in the African policy of the Anglo-Saxons. And painfully, they are repeating the “Liberian project” of the United States of the early 19th century to resettle black Americans to Africa in order to create a stronghold on the Dark Continent. Quite infamously, back then, in 1822, such “settlers” from the United States, who called themselves Americo-Liberians, founded, under the auspices of the American Colonization Society, a colony of “free men of color” on a coastal area of more than 13 thousand square kilometers, by paying the leaders of local tribes 50 US dollars. This “settlement” in 1824 was named Liberia. Subsequently, it began to actively increase due to the annexation by Washington by 1828 of part of the coast of modern Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire. In accordance with US plans for such expansion, these settlers did not seek to get closer to the African community, calling themselves “Americans.” The symbols of their state and the chosen form of government reflected the American past of the Americo-Liberians. Throughout the history of this country, they, in their relations with neighboring peoples, sought to dominate the local black population, which they considered barbarians and people of the lowest grade.
Something similar is now happening in Rwanda through the efforts of the current London administration, which is thus trying to start a new wave of conquests of the Dark Continent. However, these attempts of London are unlikely to be effective, because even the United States did not succeed in making Liberia a “European state,” and today it is one of the poorest countries in the world. This will not work for the UK either, whose empire, according to British media itself, collapsed long ago, leaving only colonial ashes…
Nevertheless, to provide “assistance” to such a project, various attempts are being made by London, and the forces of British PMCs have already been engaged, whose number has been growing noticeably in Africa as of late. In principle, this is not surprising, since in its modern form a private military company (PMC) is a British invention that appeared in 1967 as a result of the creation by David Stirling of the first official PMC Watchguard International (WI). As for the UK’s decision to more actively use military tools for its expansion in Africa, back in 2019, the chief of the UK’s Defense Staff, Nick Carter, said that London needed to strengthen its military presence in Africa, including through a more active presence of British PMCs. In order to fulfill London’s instructions to intensify work in Africa, the founder of the private military company Executive Outcomes, Eeben Barlow, has already announced the resumption of the activities of this PMC, which operated in Africa in the 1990s. Moreover, according to Barlow, it “will be active not only on the battlefield, but also in the field of information warfare.”
Today, Western PMCs are a go-to tool of Western expansion, including in terms of confrontation with Russia and China in Africa. Especially against the backdrop of the growing interest of the countries of this continent in cooperating with states that are by no means Western.
Vladimir Danilov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In relations between South Korea and China, something is emerging that can significantly worsen relations between Seoul and Beijing. We are talking about information disseminated by pro-American NGOs that China allegedly not only interferes in the internal affairs of neighboring countries, but also keeps “secret police stations” there. These police stations, if these bombshell statements are to be believed, are something like secret CIA prisons.
In September 2022, the Madrid-based advocacy group Safeguard Defenders released a report accusing the Chinese government of running more than 100 “secret police stations” around the world, including at least one in South Korea.
Safeguard Defenders is led by Swedish human rights activist Peter Dahlin, who was detained in China in 2016 and deported to his homeland. His NGO China Action formally trained human rights and civil liberties lawyers, but in reality collected negative information about the situation in China, which was then distorted and transferred abroad for publication in “human rights reports.” In addition, the personnel trained by the organization “intervened in acute social problems, provoking citizens to organize anti-government protest rallies”.
The report claims that the CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD, 中共中央 统一战线 工作 部), which coordinates “influence operations” in China and abroad, is behind the activities of more than one hundred secret police departments that the NGO has detected in 53 countries. They are allegedly called “110 Overseas Police Service Stations” after the Chinese police emergency number 110.
This department was established during the Chinese Civil War and was re-established in 1979 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. Since 2012, under Xi Jinping, the role and scope of UFWD has expanded and intensified. The department is believed to be working with diasporas and pro-Chinese NGOs, coordinating lobbying activities for Beijing.
However, anti-Chinese propaganda ascribes clandestine diplomatic activity to the department, recalling that, in accordance with the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the establishment of a “vice consulate or consular office” without the consent of the host country is a violation of international law. Chinese authorities allegedly claim that UFWD’s “under cover” facilities operate voluntarily, offering services such as document renewals for overseas Chinese citizens. But the Western NGO believes that the main function of these institutions is to ensure the loyalty of Chinese citizens living in this or that country and to pressure Chinese dissidents to return to China and face criminal charges. “The tools they use to do this are similar to the North Korean practice” – going to the extent of kidnapping people and then secretly sending them to China. Here, of course, examples would be good, but traditionally the Sinophobes did not provide any.
Safeguard Defenders claimed that in South Korea and several other countries, a Chinese government agency used Chinese students who study at local universities as “liaison officers”.
According to the NGO, more than 10 countries have launched investigations into what could be a violation of international law and an infringement of national sovereignty, and in some countries the existence of unauthorized Chinese police stations has been officially confirmed by government authorities. The Dutch government has announced that two such sites found in Amsterdam and Rotterdam are currently closed; another store in Dublin was also closed by the Irish government.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry denies such claims. According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning, the so-called overseas police stations simply do not exist. A spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Seoul also said that the Safeguard Defenders report was baseless and that “there is no such thing as the so-called overseas police stations.”
However, the well-known conservative newspaper The Chosun Ilbo reported that counterintelligence agencies had suspicions about a Chinese restaurant in southern Seoul due to a suspicious profit stream and a sudden suspension notice after a report by “security advocates” attracted international attention.
After that, on December 20, 2022, South Korean authorities were forced to launch an investigation, as the hype had already reached a high level, and the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that any foreign agencies operating here must act in accordance with the relevant domestic and international laws. Safeguard Defenders immediately offered to help, and the media began to provide information, hinting that the case was almost solved. For example, The Korea Times, the main English-language newspaper of South Korea, put it this way: “Media reports accusing China of operating covert police stations overseas, including at least one in South Korea, have now gathered significant evidence for further investigation, and more than a dozen countries are currently investigating these allegations”.
What is known at the moment? On the one hand, both the police and officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are involved in the investigation, on the other hand, in a conversation with The Korea Times, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Lim Soo-suk stated that “all governments, including the Chinese government, must respect the rule of law in South Korea,” but he declined to disclose any information about the ongoing investigation.
On December 23, the Dongpangmyeongju restaurant announced that it would cease operations, but the closure was not related to the news of the covert police stations, and on December 29, its representative, Chinese citizen Wang Haijun, issued a rebuttal, saying that the restaurant was an ordinary place of business until speculation surfaced. “A corrupt company is controlling public opinion with money and fooling Korean people and destroying the friendship between Korea and China by manipulating Korean politics”. Wang said he would take legal action against all media outlets that disclosed personal information about him and his family, including photographs associated with them.
At the same time, The Chosun Ilbo, which readers may remember as one of the well-established purveyors of fake news about North Korea, first published an article citing an unnamed source saying that the South Korean government was investigating a Chinese restaurant in Seoul’s Gangnam district as a possible secret police station, and then it presented yet another allegation. It turns out that when the former Chinese Ambassador to South Korea Qiu Guohun and his wife were invited by the then Governor of South Chungcheong Province, Ahn Hee-jung, to spend the night in a condominium in 2017, they brought a woman with them who wrote to Ahn and invited him to a “second round of tea,” implying sexual intercourse.
Ahn Hee-jung, as we recall, was found guilty of raping his secretary in 2019, becoming the first #MeToo victim in South Korea. Testifying against him in 2018, the victim also recalled this episode, stating that at the time she had the governor’s smartphone and saw a text message from a Chinese woman. So, sensing a political risk, the secretary spent the night in the hallway to stop her boss in case he tried to “go for tea.” But because the media at the time was heavily focused on Ahn’s sexual harassment of his secretary, “the alleged Chinese embassy plot was not made public” with only The Chosun Ilbo now finally breaking the news.
The Chinese Embassy in Seoul denied this fake information, releasing a statement that read “the report is fabricated, deliberately slanderous and contrary to etiquette.” Other media outlets, notably The Korea Times, were also unable to confirm these claims.
However, in doing so, The Korea Times found something that made the situation more ambivalent. Firstly, Wang is the president of the headquarters of the Korea China Overseas Association (KCOAH) and the China-Korean Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification (CKCPPNR), and he is also the director of the Overseas China Service Center in South Korea. The restaurant he represented is the residence of the Wang-led KCOAH and CKCPPNR, which have strong ties to Beijing. In 2021, the Chinese Ambassador to South Korea Xing Haiming visited the groups on an inspection tour to supervise their work.
Secondly, the newspaper found out that the idea of what was billed as a “secret Chinese police station” is an initiative by the government of the Chinese city of Nantong (a suburb of Shanghai) to set up overseas branches to protect its citizens from crime and solve security problems. In addition, this initiative aims to monitor Chinese citizens abroad who are suspected of financial crimes and collect information about their whereabouts outside China. So far, the center has jointly processed more than 120 requests for help in cases of all kinds, assisted in the capture and conviction of more than 80 suspects, and issued more than 1,500 warning messages, according to the newspaper.
In a press release dated November 26, 2021, the Nantong government confirmed that there was a branch in South Korea where a new representative had been appointed. In May 2022, Nantong Police announced that it would expand the center to provide services related to driving licenses and identity documents. According to a July news report, the Nantong police also recruited Chinese students and other Chinese citizens in South Korea as liaisons.
Thus, there is some kind of police support center in South Korea. However, the newspaper emphasizes that there is no evidence to support the claim that the Chinese restaurant in the south of Seoul was its branch. And the author can add that there is no evidence that the said center kidnapped or terrorized dissidents.
As you can see, no real evidence of the existence of “secret police stations” on the territory of South Korea was presented to us, despite the fact that these allegations again have become a pretext for repressive actions. There are no proven cases of interference in elections or political lobbying, much less seeking out dissidents or applying pressure on Chinese citizens living in South Korea. The author believes that if the “human rights activists” had at least some evidence, they would have no qualms about sharing it. The Chosun Ilbo is not particularly different from the “democratic press” in this sense, turning the information “the police were forced to launch an investigation amid the hype” into “the police and counterintelligence officials proved Chinese machinations and agents of influence are about to be arrested.”
On the other hand, there is no smoke without fire. Organizations that unite Chinese citizens in South Korea exist and work in conjunction with the embassy, although it is not clear to what extent. Both in Russia and in South Korea there is a practice of appointing a person as an “honorary consul.” But it is understandable that anti-Chinese NGOs have a “ human rights concern” that such structures are under the control of the United Front and that they cooperate with the security agencies.
Thirdly, information from “human rights activists” successfully struck anti-Chinese sentiments in South Korea itself. In this regard, there is also irritation due to the fact that during the reign of Moon Jae-in, relations between the two countries never returned to the level of “non-sanctions” imposed for THAAD. And there is also fear of the rich and influential Chinese diaspora. As well as other rumors about the political lobbying conducted by China (for example, through the Confucius Institutes, which other pro-American NGOs oppose). And the expectation of a situation where, against the backdrop of further confrontation between Washington and Beijing, Seoul will have to make a choice.
It is clear what choice this will be, but it is easier to make it if there is a reason to “strike an attitude” and say that we would like to cooperate, but a terrible event has occurred that is forcing us to “reset to 0.” Similarly, the government of Lee Myung-bak used the sinking of the Cheonan corvette in order to break the agreements that were inconvenient for the Conservatives, although the official version accusing North Korea was simply riddled with holes, which was rather painfully obvious.
The United States media has been writing about such a “pernicious influence of China” for a long time, trying to rock the boat and cut off the channels of China’s foreign cooperation, and the author will carefully observe how the investigation ends and whether the inflating of this story will trigger a significant cooling of South Korea-China relations.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In today’s world, the security of a country consists of various components, where energy plays a crucial role. The effectiveness of a country’s energy security is determined by its resource capabilities, its scientific and technological base, its geographic location and its access to strategic communications.
Turkey does not possess all of these components in equal measure (for instance, the country does not have significant oil and gas reserves or nuclear energy technologies), but this, to a large extent, is compensated by its advantageous geographical position at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, access to the basins of the Mediterranean Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea, as well as to key land transit routes between the West and the East, the North and the South and back again.
To these advantages of Ankara one should add:
– the favorable geopolitical conjuncture of the energy interests of leading world companies of the West (the US and Europe) that developed after the collapse of the USSR on the way to the resources of former Soviet states (primarily oil and gas) and the formation of new transit energy communications bypassing Russia through Turkey to EU countries;
– the pragmatic policy of President Erdoğan’s administration to build mutually beneficial relations with Russia which is the owner of more than 24% of the world’s proven gas reserves and the largest supplier of natural gas to world markets, as well as one of the leaders in the world’s nuclear power industry.
Being a NATO member state since February 1952, Turkey has never received from its Western allies (such as the US, Canada, Britain or France) the technology to build nuclear power plants. It was only the established partnership with Russia that made it possible to start building Turkey’s first ever Akkuyu NPP in the Mersin province on the Mediterranean coast with Russian investments ($21 billion) and technologies. With the start of the NPP operation, Turkey, indeed, will get cheaper energy, significant advantages for the development of domestic production, competitive opportunities in the regional market, a corps of national experts in the field of nuclear plant operation, and, in the future, the conversion of the peaceful atom to a military one cannot be excluded. Having evaluated the advantages of the nuclear project in the Mersin province, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan proposed to his Russian partners another project – the construction of a second nuclear power plant in the Sinop province on the Black Sea coast. Consequently, the use of the NPP will have a positive impact in terms of boosting Turkey’s energy security.
With no significant oil and gas resources, Turkey is forced to import these raw materials (the country is almost 100% dependent on gas imports). Taking into account the performance of its economy, gas consumption in Turkey is about 45-61 billion cubic meters (Bcm) per year, and 98% of this volume is accounted for by imports of raw materials. The main gas suppliers to the Turkish market are Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Algeria, Qatar, Nigeria and the United States. Relevant negotiations are also underway with Oman.
Russia supplies gas to Turkey through two pipelines under the Black Sea, namely Blue Stream (2002) and TurkStream (2019). Until the mid-2010s, Russia was the main supplier of natural gas to Turkey (at its peak, this share was as high as 58%). In fact, in 2022, the volume of Russian gas to Turkey was over 31 billion cubic meters (16 billion from Blue Stream and 15.75 billion from TurkStream). The growth of gas consumption by the country’s industry and population, as well as the concern of the Turkish authorities about the risks of high dependence on a dominant supplier, led Ankara to adopt a policy of diversifying its imports. In particular, Turkey increased the share of Azerbaijani gas purchases and invested in the development of gas transportation infrastructure and the construction of regasification terminals on the Mediterranean coast. The latter allowed the Turks to buy significant volumes of LNG (liquefied natural gas) under long-term contracts from Algeria, Qatar and Nigeria, as well as from the United States on the spot market.
Taking into account the transit advantages of Turkish geography, Ankara began to pursue an effective policy to turn Turkey into the most important transit route for oil and gas exports from the newly formed countries of the Caspian basin (primarily Azerbaijan) to Europe. With this purpose, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline, as well as the Trans-Anatolian and Trans-Adriatic gas pipelines, were put into operation in the first quarter of the 21st century.
The energy partnership with Russia to build new gas transit utilities was no less effective. After Bulgaria’s refusal to build the South Stream pipeline, which was done under pressure from the US and Europe, having a total export volume of more than 63 billion cubic meters of gas per year, Russia and Turkey reached an agreement and implemented the TurkStream project with a volume of 31.5 billion cubic meters of gas. The project is based on two lines (one with a volume of 15.75 Bcm of gas to Turkey, the other with the same volume to South-Eastern European countries – Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary – with access to the gas hub Baumgarten in Austria). And if earlier part of the gas from Russia came to Turkey via the Trans-Balkan pipeline in transit through Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria, then with the commissioning of the TurkStream, the geography of Russian gas supplies has also changed.
Turkish pragmatism, combined with an energy policy independent of the US diktat and reliability, enabled Ankara to diversify its gas imports through LNG (including spot gas purchases) and reduce dependence on the Russian Federation.
Simultaneously with this diversification of gas imports, the administration of President Erdoğan, in order to boost the country’s energy security and strengthen the position of Turkey’s transit corridor from Asia to Europe, began to actively search for gas deposits in the national waters of the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. To this end, Turkey has purchased three specialized vessels for gas exploration and deep-water operations (drilling) and has concluded the relevant contracts with leading Western energy companies (BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil).
In August 2020, President Erdoğan declared that the large deep-water (2,117 m) Sakarya Gas Field with a volume of more than 400 billion cubic meters of gas had been discovered in the western part of the Black Sea shelf (although these figures may be preliminary, and recoverable gas reserves will amount to about 280 billion cubic meters). In December 2022, the Turkish authorities announced the discovery of a gas field with a volume of 58 billion cubic meters of gas in the eastern part of the Black Sea shelf.
The start of production from the Sakarya field is expected in 2023 and by 2030 it may reach 8-10 billion cubic meters of gas per year, i.e. 16-20% of Turkey’s total gas consumption. However, the implementation of this project is hampered by complex issues related to the installation of a deep-water gas extraction device; the construction of a 200-km gas pipeline with a large diameter at great depths from the offshore field to the mainland; finding investment of about $6 billion; and the high cost of drilling at depths of more than 2,000 meters.
The corresponding deep-water search for gas reserves in the disputed areas of the shelf to the west of Cyprus in the summer of 2020 caused an aggravation in Greek-Turkish relations and controversy with France. In turn, the successful energy cooperation between Israel, Cyprus and Egypt led to the discovery of large gas fields (Aphrodite, Zor and Leviathan) in the Eastern Mediterranean shelf, which could not leave Turkey indifferent to a similar venture.
Naturally, changing the gas balance through its own supplies to the domestic market can significantly strengthen Turkey’s energy independence from external suppliers. However, this task is hardly feasible given the realities of the physical geography of the country. President Erdoğan is pursuing a very pragmatic policy within the framework of the neo-Pan-Turkism strategy in relation to the integration and formation of a common market for the Turkic countries of the post-Soviet space, most of which (with the exception of Kyrgyzstan) have considerable gas reserves. Notably, Turkmenistan has 7.2% of the world’s gas reserves, Kazakhstan (0.89%), Azerbaijan (0.83%) and Uzbekistan (0.74%) have a little less than one percent of the world’s gas reserves, and in total that makes almost 10% (9.66%) of total gas reserves. Consequently, Turkey’s policy of creating the Organization of Turkic States and forming new short corridors for connection with Azerbaijan and the Turkic republics of Central Asia is to a large extent in line with Turkey’s pragmatic interests in the energy sector (i.e. the import and transit of “Turkic gas” to Europe).
The meeting of the leaders of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, held on December 14, 2022 in the Turkmen resort of Avaz, envisaged the signing of an agreement on the export of Turkmen gas by sea on tankers to Baku and further along the Southern Gas Corridor to Turkey and Europe. However, the leader of Turkmenistan, having shown interest in the Middle Corridor for the export of goods from China to Europe through the Caspian Sea, linked the gas issue with guarantees to ensure transit security and clearance with all interested parties to this project (which can also be interpreted as a desire to get the green light from key Caspian neighbors represented by Russia and Iran, as well as from new partners such as China and India).
Nevertheless, if Erdoğan succeeds in implementing an “energy Turan,” i.e. creating a unified Turkic gas and oil market, Turkey’s oil and gas dependence on other external suppliers (including Russia) could be significantly lessened. It seems that Turkey, being a NATO member state and a large country, is more likely to become the leader of the common Turkic market, with a population of almost 164 million people, and will consider it as an alternative to European integration.
It can be said that by expanding the energy partnership for the transit of Azerbaijani gas to Southern Europe, Turkey, with the commissioning of the TurkStream gas pipeline, to a certain extent created the conditions for Russia’s dependence on gas exports to Europe. With the onset of the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the Western barrage of sanctions against Russia, as well as after the sabotage and shutdown of Russian gas pipelines Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 with a volume of 110 billion cubic meters of gas in the Baltic Sea basin, Russia has found itself searching for new corridors to access global gas consumption markets, where Turkey is seen as a reliable partner. That is why in October 2022, President Vladimir Putin proposed a mutually beneficial Russian-Turkish project to build a gas hub in Turkey, which was approved by President Recep Erdoğan.
The implementation of the gas hub project in Turkey, naturally, increases the role and importance of Turkey as not only a transit country, but also a participant in the sale of natural gas to world markets (including Europe). Negotiations are already underway between the Ministries of Energy of both countries on the implementation of this project. The western part of Turkey (the region of Eastern Thrace) should become the geographical location of the gas hub. It will be necessary to build new gas pipelines along the bottom of the Black Sea from Anapa for gas supplies and a gas facility for fuel concentration, as well as an increase in the volume of the gas pipeline from Yamal to Anapa by at least twofold. The hub envisages financial conditions for the transfer of the product into the ownership of the consumer.
After the sabotage and terrorist act against the Russian Nord Stream gas pipeline, Russia and its leading company Gazprom are changing their strategy for supplying and selling gas. In fact, why should Russia at its own expense build gas pipelines and various lines to bring gas directly to the countries of Europe, if their governing authorities pursue an irresponsible economic policy towards their own people, impose sanctions on Russian gas and also allow acts of sabotage on energy lines? As a rule, leading gas companies sell gas to the consumer before starting the construction of energy utilities. Turkey, in contrast to EU countries, has shown itself as a reliable partner in the issue of Russian gas transit, regardless of the Ukraine crisis. The Russian offer of a “gas hub” to Turkey is also to some extent aimed at reducing Turkish interest in Turkmenistan’s gas.
Naturally, the intensification of the Russian-Turkish partnership in the field of Russian gas exports promises Ankara new bonuses both in terms of discounts on imports (Erdoğan has already requested a 25% discount), and joint participation in determining the prices for the sale of Russian gas, depending on world market conditions. The energy policy of President Erdoğan’s administration continues the course of diversification and reduction of dependence on external suppliers.
At the same time, the implementation of the gas hub project by all parties will require time (at least 2-3 years), appropriate investments, potential involvement of large European energy companies and political stability. There are no guarantees that the West, led by the United States, will not boycott this project in terms of the EU’s subsequent refusal to buy Russian gas. To a large extent, the success of the announced project depends on the outcome of the presidential elections in Turkey in the summer of 2023 and the subsequent course of the elected leader. But in any scenario, sound economic pragmatism must prevail over short-term motivations.
Russia is forced to accept the risks of gas transit to Europe via Turkey. After Turkey’s purchases of LNG and with the commissioning of TurkStream, Moscow and Ankara have shifted the balance in gas relations and have adjusted the model from “dominant supplier-consumer” to “competitive supplier – transit country – consumer.” Turkey has reduced its gas dependence on Russia, and Russia has also reduced its dependence on transit through Ukraine. With the implementation of the “Turkish gas hub” project, the author believes, the interdependence of Turkey and Russia in gas trade according to the “competitive supplier-transit country-consumer-seller” model will become even more pronounced. This will have to be taken into account when forming foreign policy and economic relations between both countries.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, PhD in political science, professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
America’s CIA, the FBI, and other powerful agencies of the U.S. have been under fire recently for a range of questionable acts, being undertaken both inside and outside America’s borders. Recently, the release of the so-called “Twitter files” seems to prove massive interference in social media from what’s come to be known as the “Deep State.” However, leveraging media is only one facet of a massive anti-Russia campaign with still undefined goals.
Interference and intervention by the various agencies of the U.S. Government is certainly nothing new. After all, what is it we Americans believe our spies, assassins, analysts, and presidential advisors do all day? They make trouble for the enemies (real or perceived) they are sanctioned to make trouble for. And looking at how fouled up the world is right now. But unfortunately, their mission is not one with a rainbow at the end.
At least, not for most of us. I am reminded of the days when Senator Patrick Moynihan campaigned for the abolition of the CIA. And Moynihan was right. Only those who controlled the CIA and other agencies discovered ways to ensure the need for our espionage appendages. To save the CIA, the deep state controllers transformed these agencies into “good news” misinformation channels reporting to each successive president and their underlings, starting with George W. Bush. Where it all stands now is right back to the point neoconservative era before the fall of the Soviet Union, when President Ronald Reagan unleashed the CIA to perform dirty tricks against the Soviets.
During that period in U.S. policy history, defeating the Soviets on every level had become the top priority. A recent report dealing with the CIA’s transformation until now mentions one, Jennifer Lynn Gaudemans, who in 1989 had left the CIA’s Office of Soviet Analysis (Sova). The analyst resigned from the agency over what she said was “a disillusioned mindset in the agency led by then CIA Director of Russia Affairs, Robert Gates. She accused Gates of seeing Soviet conspiracies around every corner. I know this seems like Déjà vu for some readers. But, yes, it appears the CIA has been unleashed again. And it seems much of it is being run by Russian experts who remained intact when the agency was turned upside down by 9/11 and the invention of Homeland Security.
Turning the page, for the moment, a recent report from former Army Special Operations veteran and current investigative journalist Jack Murphy bring to light possible CIA involvement in recent successful sabotage efforts inside Russia’s borders. According to Murphy, whose sources remain anonymous for obvious reasons, the CIA is using a NATO ally’s spy service to conduct covert sabotage operations inside Russia. Murphy’s sources also claim the American spy agency is in direct control of these operations. He also claims his sources have identified “long-standing sleeper cells” of this unnamed NATO ally’s spy service having been activated for the secret clandestine efforts inside Russia. The former Spec Ops sniper kept most of the cards on this Russia sabotage story close to his chest, even in the Daily Mail story about the many unexplained explosions and fires that have hit strategic or prominent facilities in recent months. The investigator did, however, claim that sources told him Presiden Joe Biden was personally authorizing the missions.
CIA involvement in the conflict in Ukraine is no big secret. A New York Times story about CIA personnel directing intelligence when the Russian flagship Moskva was sunk is but one instance. In 2021, newly elected US president Joe Biden nominated his longstanding friend William J Burns as the CIA’s new director. Burns as CIA director, speaks volumes about Biden’s intentions in Ukraine. Burns, who is intimately familiar with how Russians view the idea of NATO in Ukraine, is on the record saying that’s the brightest red line to every Russian, not just Putin. So, what does that tell us about CIA operations against the Russians?
If Biden picked Burns, knowing full well the consequences of a proxy conflict in Ukraine, it means the gloves are off for the CIA again. But, this time, it’s not the Soviet Union on the other side. Instead, it’s a different entity known as the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, neither Burns nor any of his dinosaur colleagues at Washington think tanks get this. And which Baltic (excuse me, NATO) country’s sleeper agents are blowing up stuff inside Russia? Well, there are three choices, but I’ll go with Lithuania.
Remember, Lithuania’s intelligence agency helped the CIA set up secret prisons (Project 1 and Project 2) in the Baltic country back in the early 2000s. Furthermore, reading through Lithuania’s official documentation on Baltic asymmetrical warfare, it’s clear that Lithuanian strategic documents (Lithuanian only) specifically outline civil resistance by citizens individually and in small groups to engage in acts against aggressors or occupiers. The Ministry of Defense of Lithuania also published a so-called “comprehensive security” concept on its website, but this has been removed.
Finally, the notion of sleeper agents being directed by the CIA in Russia may seem archaic and dramatic to some. Still, just three years ago, Russia freed two Lithuanians, Jevgenij Mataitis and Aristidas Tamosaitis, sentenced in Russia in 2016 to 13 and 12 years in prison for alleged spying. The spy swap also included a Norwegian accused of spying and several Russians who had been charged with espionage against NATO. Furthermore, suppose you consider Lithuania’s State Security Department (SSD) is more or less an autonomous body of spooks. In that case, Jack Murphy’s claims the CIA is running ops inside Russia.
The Biden administration has given the Ukraine regime the equivalent of three times the annual Russian military budget. The EU is sending still more and continues a ludicrous series of sanctions that hurt Europeans. The rhetoric, the media, and the policy does not change no matter what revelations pop up. Take the news that former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted the Minsk accords were a sham, a delay tactic to make Ukraine a NATO staging ground. The Nordstream sabotage. Hunter Biden’s laptop and the new Twitter revelations. Can any of my compatriots honestly imagine that the CIA is NOT running covert ops in Russia?
Langley may be busy looking at Brazil or New Zealand instead. What’s a massive agency with thousands of analysts, hundreds of spies, and hordes of assassins supposed to do with enemies all around? Guard the U.S. border? No. Spies have their pride.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
While Iran has repeatedly expressed its willingness to resume talks in Vienna on the continuation of the nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Joe Biden administration has virtually put those talks on hold. Undoubtedly, as many political analysts and experts say, this stoppage is a negotiating tactic on the part of Washington aimed at obtaining additional concessions from Tehran.
After several months on the sidelines of the news, the topic of the nuclear deal came back to the forefront, but not at all in the way many observers had expected. Rather, the failed deal inadvertently received a “death certificate” from US President Joe Biden. In a video on social media, President Biden explained why he was not prepared to publicly announce the end of the JCPOA, even though he believed the nuclear deal was “dead”. In a video that was recorded at an election rally in California, Biden noted: “It is dead, but we are not going to announce it”. When asked why, the US President replied that it was a “long story”.
National Security Council spokesman John Kirby commented on Biden’s remarks on the JCPOA. Although he refrained from confirming Biden’s words, he said the JCPOA was not their “focus right now”. “There is no progress happening with respect to the Iran deal now. We don’t anticipate any progress anytime in the near future. That’s just not our focus,” Kirby said.
The US announcement of its reluctance on the JCPOA came at a time when Iran was doing just the opposite. Tehran has repeatedly stated recently that it is ready to resume the stalled negotiations on the resumption of the JCPOA. Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, reiterated his country’s readiness to resume stalled negotiations in Vienna in a statement to the United Nations Security Council. “Iran reiterates its commitment to dialogue and diplomacy. We are ready to resume the Vienna talks, to work cooperatively to reach an agreeable solution, and even to arrange the ministerial meeting as soon as possible to declare the JCPOA’s restoration. This is achievable if the US demonstrates genuine political will and stands ready to work towards a satisfying solution and agrees to fully comply with its obligations. The US now has the ball in its court”, Iravani said.
In addition, Mohammad Marandi, an advisor to the Iranian negotiating team, said Iran was waiting for the US to return to the JCPOA. At the same time, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian held an extensive meeting with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in Amman, the Jordanian capital, on the sidelines of a regional summit on Iraq. The JCPOA was the main issue at the 2-hour meeting, which was also attended by Iranian chief negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani and EU coordinator for the Vienna talks Enrique Mora. At the meeting, Amir-Abdollahian declared Iran’s readiness to take stock of the Vienna talks on the basis of the draft negotiating package, which was the result of many months of intensive and difficult negotiations. The Foreign Minister also advised other parties to avoid politicizing the issue, take a realistic and tough approach and take necessary decisions to announce the deal, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said officially. Borrell, for his part, reiterated the EU’s determination to continue negotiations in Vienna until they bear fruit.
Despite Iran’s constructive approach, the US has defiantly brushed aside the negotiations, reiterating that they are no longer on its agenda, and US envoy for Iran Rob Malley has further weakened the prospect of a return to the JCPOA. On social media, he clumsily tried to blame the Iranians for the protracted negotiations, in the habitual US diplomatic manner of lying and shifting the blame from the American head to the other. This is why he clumsily wrote that it was Tehran that “dashed our collective hope for a swift, mutual return to full implementation of the JCPOA”. Many US media have interpreted Malley’s statement as another clear indication that the US is not interested in diplomacy and negotiations with Iran, at least for the time being.
This has stunned observers in a way, since Biden administration officials have long said, at least publicly, that they would keep the door of diplomacy open for Iran. But recent events suggest otherwise. Of course, Washington is trying to justify its disinterest in diplomacy by the US-organized unrest in Iran. But it is clear that the Biden administration believes Tehran is now in a “weak position” and that Washington can extract further concessions from the Iranians.
But judging by history and current facts, this tried-and-true US approach will not produce the desired results for the White House, because Iran has long stated and repeatedly states that it will not negotiate under US pressure. So, pressure has been shown to simply not work with Iran and the Iranians are not people who will surrender to the mercy of the US.
It should be pointed out that the policies of the United States of America towards Iran, as well as many Western countries, act in a sneaky and biased manner, something that even US President Joe Biden admitted to and found no shame in. “Our politics has gotten so angry, so mean, so partisan… We see each other as enemies, not as neighbors,” he said, delivering his Christmas address to the nation at the White House. Earlier, Bernd Lange, chairman of the trade committee in the European Parliament, suggested that Brussels should lodge a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the US over America’s sneaky subsidy policies. At the same time, CNBC reported that Europe has come out in unison against the same sneaky Inflation Reduction Act initiated by US President Joe Biden.
And all this Washington, using its blatantly incorrect methods, applies against its official allies. What then of the enemies against whom the Pentagon and its enormous military might is largely used. But, as the experience in Afghanistan has shown, even military methods do not bring victory to the officials in Washington, who have lost all semblance of reality and still continue to live in illusory dreams of world domination.
The failure to soberly assess the international situation, including in Iran, is eloquently illustrated by the fact that the West, led by the US, has failed to provoke widespread demonstrations in the country itself and to change the ruling regime there. Since September, the Western media has reported on Iranian regime change almost every day, and vast amounts of effort and money have been poured into this. According to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, “47 spy agencies waged an all-out hybrid war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The Western media did everything possible, as if on cue, to provoke riots that left dozens of security forces and ordinary people dead. Iran’s two leading intelligence agencies have published a lengthy report detailing foreign interference in Iran during the riots.
And the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly said that the US and some of its allies were involved in the unrest in Iran. He added: “These riots were planned… Who designed these plans? I openly state that these schemes were designed by the US… They devised these schemes. Their employees, mercenaries, wage earners, and some treasonous Iranians abroad helped them.”
He went on to say that the US was using all sorts of fallacious analyses and rhetoric to try to show that foreigners were in no way involved in the Iranian events. He said in particular: “Riots take place all the time around the world. If you look at Europe, especially France, massive riots occur every now and then on the streets of Paris. I want to ask you, “Has the US President or the US House of Representatives ever supported European rioters? Have they ever issued a statement saying we stand with you?”.
All this shows that Washington’s policies are not only malignant and hostile, but also duplicitous, which shows the low morale of the current “democratic” rulers of the US and their so-called “allies” in Europe. And so, a fair solution to the JCPOA and the easing of tensions in the Gulf region can hardly be expected now or in the future.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
This article offers the author’s perspective on some of the past year’s outcomes with regard to developments in the Indo-Pacific region (IPR). It is where the focus of the current phase of the “Great World Game” shifts irreversibly.
But first, a few words about the term itself. The public introduction of its shortened version is attributed to R. Kipling. The author has, however, come across some statements to the effect that the expression “Great Game” itself was used in the British Foreign Office 50 years earlier, i.e., before the “Crimean War”. In the author’s view, this term can be used to describe the entire period of Russian-British relations over the last three centuries, including the present one.
Most likely its current highly significant manifestation in 2022 was the bombing of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, well within the definition of the “Terrorist Act of the Century”. Its purpose is quite clear and, moreover, it fits into the general scenario of that very Russian-British “Great Game”.
Today, one of its most important subjects is driven by the (also relatively old) problem of preventing economic cooperation between Russia and “Old Europe”, led by Germany, which is extremely beneficial to both sides. The list of measures to tackle this task also includes incorporating anti-German agents into the German leadership, building an anti-Russian barrier out of the East European limitrophe public, and provoking an armed conflict in Ukraine.
The latter has already led to the very traditional consequences of today’s wars in the form of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and destroyed infrastructure. In addition to all the hardships endured by the population of this unfortunate country, a large part of them also seems to have lost basic common sense. Already deprived of a fifth of its territory, totally dependent on external “sponsors”, living in the cold and waste of its own life and regularly receiving portions of “reparations”, it argues about “freedom-democracy”, the fate of “Putin” and also about “victory”, which is either already achieved, or will “soon” be.
But the lapse of reason is becoming almost universal (which is troubling). Once again, it should be expressed again in bewilderment at the shameful clownery regularly reproduced on television, directed at the country most affected by the same “Terrorist Act of the Century” (with the West almost completely ignoring the fact itself).
The conflict in Ukraine is in direct correlation with the theme stated in the title. With it, one of the now two major world players (the US) is trying to solve intermediate (tactical level) but crucially important tasks in the unfolding “Great World Game” in the IPR. The format of this latter, of course, goes far beyond the centuries-old Russian-British disputes.
At the heart of what is happening in the IPR today is a complex relationship between the US and another global player, which is already modern China. One of those very “intermediate-tactical” tasks boils down to the attempts by the US to prevent China’s rapprochement with Russia. The current positioning of the two countries “back-to-back” provides Beijing with a reliable rear to counter Washington.
In turn, the “pivot to the East” of the Russian state machine, which includes the process of rapprochement with China, is primarily due to the objective process of shifting the center of world political and economic life to the IPR. This “pivot” has only accelerated due to those “external” efforts to break the cooperation of the Russian Federation (which originated in the days of the USSR) with the “old Europe”. In other words, the provocation of the conflict in Ukraine has already had the opposite effect to that anticipated by the initiators of the conflict.
Incidentally, contrary to the popular view that the breakdown in EU-Russia relations is final, the possibility of a certain restoration of relations in the future cannot be ruled out. A prerequisite for this should be the “flushing out” of the elites of the “old Europe” of anti-national elements. In this way, the recovering organism is freed from the contagion that was once introduced into it, as well as from the outside (including that associated with the “new normality”). It simply cannot be otherwise, unless the “old Europe” wishes to fade into oblivion once and for all.
And it clearly does not want that and is already making efforts to get out of the narrow rut into which the overseas “big brother” is trying to push it (with the help of the Ukrainian conflict). This is particularly evidenced by efforts to maintain and further build on the positive momentum that Europeans have accumulated in their relations with the PRC. The recent increase in Chinese-European contacts, including the recent visit to Beijing by German Chancellor O. Scholz should be seen in this light. Incidentally, contacts of this kind can play a role in the process of restoring EU-Russia relations.
The author does not rule out the possibility of positive developments in US-Russian relations. It should be stressed that this is not to the detriment of the development of Russia’s relations with China. This prospect may arise, first, as Washington realizes the counterproductive nature of the whole Ukrainian adventure, which, as it turns out, does not solve the problem of “forming-up” not only Russia, but also European (still) allies, and is not worth the associated costs.
The second factor, which is becoming global (in contrast to the first, local and intermediate level of significance), is thus driven by the process of shifting the “Great World Game” to the IPR. The US (quite justifiably) considers itself an integral part of the IPR, which “cares” about everything that goes on here. However, there may well be ways in which this “care” will be realized.
The current strategy of “sticking its nose into everything” related to the activities of a global opponent of the US in the region (especially under the pretext of China’s “violation” of certain “international rules” as well as “human rights”) seems to stem from the specificity of the current Washington administration. Meanwhile, respected US political scientists have long proposed an “Offshore Balancing Strategy”, involving a shift from “failed” positioning as a hegemon to “strategic restraint and maintaining the balance of power in the world”.
The adoption of such a strategy by the (naturally, not the current) authorities in Washington would be well in line with the real weight of the US in the world. But it does involve a dramatic increase in the role of other significant regional players, most notably Japan and India. In fact, this is already being observed, and the state of relations in the Japan-PRC-India triangle is becoming critical for developments in the IPR. So far, the picture that shows the real state of affairs in this triangle does not inspire optimism, to put it mildly.
This is especially true of its Japan-PRC side. Tokyo’s adoption of the new National Security Strategy, whose changes to the previous 2013 version are defined by the term “radical” in Japan itself, and the special attention paid in the document to the situation in Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait, have caused an understandable reaction in Beijing. The visit to China by Japan’s Foreign Minister, which had been repeatedly postponed, did not take place at the end of the year. For the third year in a row, a summit in the PRC-Japan-South Korea configuration (envisaged as an annual event) did not take place.
Compared to Japanese-Chinese relations, whose current state can be described as “very poor”, relations between India and China look bleak as well, but not as bad. After their deep collapse in the famous Ladakh incident of summer 2020, they are gradually recovering. This positive process does not seem to have been affected in any appreciable way by the recent incident in Tawang, which was followed by another meeting of the military high ranks of both sides.
But of course, so far there is nothing like the “spirit of Wuhan” in China-India relations, which seemed to have been established in bilateral relations since the informal meeting of the two leaders in that Chinese city in April 2018. The development of a long-standing trend towards India’s rapprochement with Japan is also a cause for caution in Beijing.
The Russian Federation’s role in “turning East” is seen as helping to reduce the level of negativity in Beijing’s relations with Tokyo and New Delhi. This seems an almost impossible task (especially in the format of the first pair), but this should not mean that attempts are abandoned.
It makes sense to conclude this article with the story that started it, namely the current state of the “Great (Russian-British) Game”. The author in no way shares the definition of Russia’s eternal opponent with the (popular) term “insidious Anglo-Saxons”. The very use of the word “game” is only meant to reflect more or less closely the realities of the transformation of Russian-British relations, with its ups and downs. The word contains no answer to the (nonsensical) question, “Who is right and who is wrong”, and the current failed state of said relations need not be eternal at all.
But it would be useful to hear a reasonably clear answer to the traditional question, “Who did it, gentlemen?” in order to rectify them. One would have to look for a whipping boy (or a girl, or even both together). So that the parties will consider the incident (in the Baltic Sea) to be more or less over. Although, of course, there will still be some “technical” issues, e.g., about compensation. A sea of blood is not required, but a birching on the “teaching place” (a discontinued method of education in British schools, but a useful one) would be appropriate.
There remains, however, the issue of the “Skripals” (and the “Novichok”), which started another aggravation of the same (centuries-old, to repeat) Russian-British “Great Game”. But these are relative trivialities.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On December 16, 2022, Japan’s Cabinet approved amendments to three key national security and defense documents.
First, an increase in the military budget is envisaged. The Japanese government has previously announced plans to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2027 (it is currently 1% of GDP). If Japan does so, its defense spending (43 trillion yen or $314 billion) would become the world’s third-largest after the US and China.
Second, the amendments provide for the right to launch counter-strikes against targets in enemy territory. The national security strategy document refers to missile threats from neighboring states, to which “it is becoming difficult to fully respond at the expense of the existing missile defense system”. In other words, if Japan deems hostile action unavoidable. Self-defense forces could, say, strike Pyongyang first if they believe North Korea is preparing to attack US bases in Japan. To achieve this, Tokyo plans to purchase 500 US Tomahawk missiles with a range of 1,250 kilometers.
A Japanese government official was then asked in a briefing whether Japanese authorities would consult with the South Korean government in the event that Japan decided to launch a pre-emptive strike against the DPRK. He replied that it would be Japan’s right to self-defense, so it would not ask permission from another country on this issue and would deal with it itself.
Furthermore, the new documents describe the islands of Dokdo in the East Sea as Japanese territory.
The decision to launch counterattacks on enemy territory contradicts the Constitution of Japan, which enshrines the renunciation of military action as a means of settling international disputes. For this reason, the Cabinet’s decision has drawn criticism even in Japan itself.
From an internal security point of view, Tokyo is understandable because, as in the case of South Korea, it is highly doubtful that a missile attack by the North could be intercepted in the event of armed conflict. In such an acute threat situation it is reasonable to rely on a pre-emptive strike, but the dangers of a pre-emptive strike were the subject of a dedicated essay back in the day.
Furthermore, the security dilemma surrounding Japan’s armament not only affects the North, but also the South. Anti-Japaneseism is an important element of the ideology of both Korean states, since Japan’s colonial policy in 1905-1945 can be described as both “modernization” and “ethnocide”. So, it is worth talking about how Tokyo has reacted to this move in the ROK.
On the same day, a representative of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul was summoned to the ROK Foreign Ministry and a military attaché was summoned to the Ministry of Defense. They were issued strong protests on behalf of the South Korean government. According to a Foreign Ministry spokesperson, any Japanese activity related to the Korean Peninsula must be discussed and approved by Seoul. The South Korean military also said that if a military strike against North Korea is planned, Japan must obtain Seoul’s approval, as North Korea is the ROK territory under the Constitution of South Korea. As for the Dokdo Islands, they are historically, geographically and under international law the territory of the ROK. The Japanese government should be well aware that repeating abusive territorial claims will not help efforts to build a future-oriented relationship between Seoul and Tokyo. Furthermore, Japan’s increased military spending could provoke an arms race in the region.
In response to Tokyo’s statement that it would not seek Seoul’s approval for a counter-attack on North Korea, the presidential office said it was one of the issues to be discussed as part of trilateral security cooperation involving the US.
On December 19, President Yoon Suk-yeol’s office reiterated that Japan needs to consult closely with or seek approval from South Korea on issues directly related to security on the Korean Peninsula.
The reactions of Northern officials were not particularly different from those in the South. On 20 December, a DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesperson noted that Tokyo’s new strategy is leading the Korean Peninsula and the East Asian region into a serious security crisis. The Kishida government is trying to turn Japan “into an offensive military giant”, but the so-called “counterattack capability” has nothing to do with the right of a sovereign state to defend itself, being a justification for a pre-emptive strike on other countries’ territory. Of course, Pyongyang has pointed out that Japan’s remilitarization is being instigated by the US.
Let’s move on from the positions of government officials to experts and the media and leave aside the Democrats, who are throwing a fit of hysteria over the matter: at this rate Japanese self-defense forces are about to invade the Korean Peninsula again, and of course it is all Yoon Suk-yeol’s fault for daring to talk about a greater level of cooperation with Japan. However, Yoon has also been rebuked by some conservative media for forgetting historical experience. And in that context, it is more interesting what conservatives and their invited experts have written about these moves by Japan.
According to the conservative JoongAng Ilbo, behind Japan’s behavior are “endless missile provocations by North Korea and increasingly offensive security policies of China and Russia”. In particular, “…North Korea, China and Russia are augmenting their military cooperation. Chinese and Russian military aircraft conduct joint drills around the peninsula nearly on a regular basis. Their infiltration of the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (Kadiz) takes place more often than before. China and Russia also veto UN Security Council resolutions denouncing uninterrupted missile launches by North Korea”.
Foreign media often raise the issue of the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Yonaguni Island – Japan’s westernmost island, located just 111 kilometers east of Taiwan – in the event that China invades Taiwan: the island serves as a forward base for logistical support for Taiwan in emergencies.
The center-right Korea Times points out that since their defeat in 1945, Japanese right-wing groups have had one goal: regaining their country’s former military and political influence, beginning with the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea poses an immediate security threat. However, Japanese militarism sowed the seeds of unhappiness on the Korean peninsula by colonizing it. And if, according to Kishida, “Japan and its people are now at a turning point in history,” “Koreans wary of Japan’s resurgence might be forgiven for thinking that their former colonizer is also at a turning point – shifting from a defensive stance to an offensive one”.
Of course, says the newspaper, Tokyo’s biggest potential enemy is not Pyongyang, but Beijing. But can this justify or explain why President Yoon Suk-yeol agreed on “real-time sharing of missile intelligence” with the US and Japan in his meetings with Biden and Kishida in Phnom Penh? Japan could launch a missile attack on North Korea using information provided by South Korea. Therefore, “before it gets too late, Seoul must prevent the possibility of becoming sidelined by the unilateral decisions of Washington and Tokyo”.
The Korea Herald reports that “it may be too early to say that Japan’s adoption of a new security change will be limited to purely defend itself against possible attacks from China, North Korea and Russia”. However, changes in its security strategy “herald gloomy geopolitical developments in the region” and appear to go beyond the self-defense defined in its pacifist constitution. Japan’s capability to launch counterattacks, which can be arbitrarily abused without the consent of neighboring countries, is problematic enough to raise doubts and concerns among South Korea and other Asian countries. “After all, Japan has a dark history of invading the Korean Peninsula on multiple occasions and killed an enormous number of innocent people during World War II”. Furthermore, if Japan were to take on more offensive responsibilities, the geopolitical structure in Asia would inevitably undergo radical change. South Korea, Japan and the US are expected to work together to contain the North. “But Japan’s military involvement or provocation targeting the Korean Peninsula based on its new security strategy is an entirely different matter”. Claims on Dokdo or arbitrary strikes on territories that are considered part of the ROK could be the basis for conflict.
Another article in the same newspaper noted that South Korea should engage more actively with Japan through their common ally, the US. Acting Director at Seoul National University’s Institute for Japanese Studies Nam Ki-jeong said the 1998 Declaration signed by President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, which discusses Japan’s commitment to pacifism and non-proliferation, should be the basis for Seoul-Tokyo cooperation.
In any case, this situation shows that the creation of the Washington-Tokyo-Seoul bloc faces greater challenges than cooperation between Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang. Instead of a triangle, there is still the letter “L” and various problems in the relationship between Seoul and Tokyo are quite sufficient.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of the Far East at the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The significant changes seen in the Ukrainian crisis in 2022 are being actively discussed all over the world. Mongolia, a small but no less important neighbor of the Russian Federation, is no exception in this regard. The unique features of Mongolia’s historical development, its relations with Russia, its geographical location and the political and social orientations and values unusual for Eastern countries made its perception of the “Ukrainian events” special and worthy of attention in its own way.
Media space and the media
As for the Mongolian public perception of the Ukrainian crisis, it is safe to conclude that it is very often perceived by its citizens “through the prism” not only of moral-value assessments or cultural-political sympathies, but also of Mongolia’s key international security dilemma. It is about choosing the main external guarantor of the country’s security between Russia and the “West” in the face of growing Chinese influence. Citizens’ views on this issue very often determine their choice of position in the “intra-Mongolian” debate on the Ukrainian crisis. If the citizen considers maintaining friendly relations with Russia to be the main means of counterbalancing Chinese political and economic pressures, he/she tends to support Russia in the crisis, even if he/she has no sympathy for its actions on a moral level. In turn, those citizens who see their country’s “third neighbor” as the main counterweight to China tend to support the opposite side to Russia in the conflict – not Ukraine itself, but mainly the US, EU and NATO.
The purely pro-Ukrainian position, as shown by the results of the public opinion polls that will follow, is exhausted by the tendency of an ordinary Mongolian citizen to draw parallels between Mongolia and Ukraine. Both countries are often perceived by Mongols as small states oriented towards Western democratic standards, neighboring powers and pursuing independent policies that do not conform to the expectations of the same powers. Such searches for similarities were popular in Mongolian society in February-March 2022, and were often linked to ordinary people’s fears for the country’s sovereignty should the “Ukrainian scenario” be repeated in Mongolia itself, especially against the background of a propaganda campaign unleashed by the West about Russia’s alleged “aggressiveness”. This was also made possible by the poor dissemination of information about the aims of the special military operation and the events of 2014-2022 in the Mongolian-speaking community.
Speaking of sources and mechanisms for disseminating information on the Ukrainian crisis in Mongolian public space, there are a number of factors that make it difficult for Mongolian citizens to learn about the aims and objectives of the special military operation, as well as details of the historical genesis of the Ukrainian crisis. The key ones among them are the following:
1 – Factor in the use of English and the popularity of English-language media.
In Mongolia, a fairly large percentage of the population receives information on international political processes precisely in English, which serves up a mostly anti-Russian narrative. In turn, Mongolian national news portals and agencies most often duplicate material from foreign media in their coverage of events in Ukraine, simply translating it into Mongolian. As a rule, foreign media refers to US, European, Japanese and South Korean news publications, while the share of translated news from Russian sources is many times less significant.
2 – Factor in Western social media as a key source of information on international relations.
The main source of information on international developments for an ordinary Mongolian citizen (especially for the 18 to 45 year old) is not newspapers, magazines, TV and radio news, or even Internet news portals, but precisely social media. Due to the dominance of anti-Russian attitudes and propaganda on these social networks (also Western in origin), a large proportion of Mongolian citizens are influenced by Western propaganda and Western public opinion in general.
3 – Factor in the credibility of the UN opinion.
Mongolia seeks to participate actively in the work of this body, and this makes the image of the UN in the minds of Mongols more respected than in most other parts of the world. As a result, in Mongolian society, the assessment of events as recorded in UN General Assembly resolutions appears to be as objective and fair as possible. Given the condemnatory nature of most resolutions against Russia, this UN credibility, typical of Mongolia, contributes to the spread of anti-Russian sentiments and attitudes in society. Nevertheless, the UNGA is perceived in Mongolia as the voice of the international community in general, rather than as the voice of the “collective West”.
The preservation of the memory of the positive aspects of Russian-Mongolian and Soviet-Mongolian friendship in the public mind, especially the joint struggle against Nazism during World War II, plays the opposite role by making Mongols view Russian actions positively. Due to the latter circumstance, the Russian motif of “denazification” is extremely positively perceived by the widest sections of Mongolian society. A large number of Russia’s supporters are also provided by those citizens who were educated in the USSR. This category of the population is quite visible, but has a long-term downward trend. After all, this is about citizens aged 50 and over – in a country where the median age is 27 and average life expectancy is 71 years. Also, Russia is supported by those sections of society that view the experience of building socialism in the Mongolian People’s Republic positively.
Public opinion polling data in 2022
Public opinion polls conducted in the country after the Ukrainian crisis has entered a new phase of aggravation (February-March 2022) provide a measure of the extent to which certain attitudes are prevalent in society. From their analysis it seems possible to draw the following conclusions:
- There are many more Mongolian citizens supporting Russia than those supporting Ukraine. 21.7% support Russia in the conflict, while only 1.8% support Ukraine.
- Mongolian citizens consider Ukraine’s destructive policies to be the main reason for the escalation of the crisis. Thus, 20.8% of those surveyed blame Ukraine for the aggravation of the crisis, 10.5% blame Russia, 10.8% blame the US and 11.8% blame NATO.
- Russia is still perceived by Mongols as a key foreign policy ally. 33% of those surveyed have a very positive attitude towards the Russian Federation, and a further 52% have a rather positive attitude. In addition, 66% see the Russian Federation as the closest ally and 46% as the main guarantor of Mongolia’s national security. At the same time, the PRC was named as the “main guarantor” by four times and the so-called “Third Neighbor” countries (USA, EU, Japan and South Korea) by ten times fewer respondents. Also, 56% of respondents believe that the Russian Federation has a decisive influence on Mongolia’s future.
- The escalation of the Ukrainian crisis has had a significant impact on the social and economic situation in Mongolia. 75% of respondents note a certain impact of the “Ukrainian events” on their country’s well-being because of the effect of Western anti-Russian sanctions. By the way, a particularly strong negative impact can be seen in the rise in fuel prices imported from Russia, the suspension of international currency transactions by Mongolian banks due to their dependence on Russian ones in this matter, and the suspension of Russian exports of explosives for the mining industry in Mongolia.
- Mongolia’s official position enjoys the relative approval of its population. Thus, 71.2% of Mongolian citizens surveyed are in favor of maintaining neutrality towards the participants in the crisis.
- The amount of anti-Russian narrative on the Mongolian internet is far more visible than in the results of comprehensive public opinion polls. The situation here is somewhat reminiscent of the significant dominance of the Democrats’ agenda in the US online space, with little difference in the votes of citizens and electors in the recent presidential and congressional elections.
- The level of support for the Russian Federation in rural areas is higher than in urban areas. In the capital 15.3% openly support Russia, while in the rest of the country (predominantly rural areas) 27.1% do.
Summary
Therefore, the Mongolian public perception is characterized by a “mongolocentric” and “pragmatic” type of perception of Ukrainian events. At the same time, pro-Russian judgements and perceptions noticeably prevail in assessments of the parties’ actions, despite the presence of significant factors that can ensure the relative popularity of pro-Western sentiments.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Reports of Georgian soldiers dying in the fight for Ukraine’s independence are at first impression heartwarming, at least for the naïve. BUT when you dig deeper into this story, you soon realise that their plight is of their own choice, and motivated by financial considerations, not solidarity or standing up for a fledgling democracy.
As one recent headline in Georgia reads, Five Georgian Fighters Killed in Ukraine, on or around 3rd December while fighting near the city of Bakhmut, marking the deadliest day for Georgian fighters since Russia went in to Ukraine on 24 February. Since then, approximately 40 Georgians have died in the fighting. Prior to this one, other headlines, which were later removed or met with denials, claimed that the Georgian Legion had summarily executed captured Russian POWs.
Georgian Legion Commander Denies Involvement in Russian PoW Incident
The work of the Georgian Legion is highly suspect, as is its Commander, Mamuka Mamulashvili. He told Civil.ge that the Legion “has nothing to do” with the filmed incident [execution] involving Russian prisoners of war in Makiivka village, in the Luhansk region of Ukraine.
Mamulashvili stated that the claim represents “Russian disinformation”, and that this is “not the first such case.” However, a few days prior Mamulashvli had bragged in a video that executing prisoners was standard practice amongst the Georgian Legion.
The day after, he confirmed that they had committed the executions. The IDs of some of those involved, including a confession from Mamuka, are in the above-linked.
Yes, we tie the hands and feet of Russian soldiers. I speak for the Georgian Legion – we don’t take Russian soldiers as prisoners, nor Kadyrovites (Chechens) – not one!
The New York Times reported the veracity of the videos, but tried to dismiss them and claimed that they showed grisly before-and-after scenes of the encounter earlier this month, in which at least 11 Russians, most of whom are seen lying on the ground, appear to have been shot dead at close range after one of their fellow fighters suddenly opened fire on Ukrainian soldiers standing nearby. There are other allegations of those units, and the regular Ukrainian army, routinely executing POWS, which as Russian media outlets have written, “Are being ignored by international institutions”…
It is also reported that a representative of the United Nations Office for Human Rights asked Kyiv to ensure that such allegations were “promptly, fully and effectively” investigated, adding that the UN was looking into the available evidence. The UN Human Rights Commission has stated that “prisoners of war must be treated humanely at all times – from capture until release & repatriation.
We call for an end to torture & ill-treatment, full access to prisoners of wars & accountability.” Its Twitter page also shows human rights abuses consisting of civilians being duct taped to utility poles, although such instances of blatant violation are being ignored by the mainstream Western media.
Is Georgia directly involved?
Recent media reports have lamented the deaths of the most recent group of Georgian mercenary fighters, who were killed after their detachment was attacked by a group of Kadyrovites, which is how the Georgian media describes Chechen detachments fighting on the side of the Russian Federation.
It is interesting to note that Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili, who grew up in France and whose family played all sides prior to escaping to there 100 years ago, immediately offered her condolences to the families, friends, and relatives of “all Georgian fighters who have died in Ukraine.”
The number of dead Georgians now stands at 40, and counting, and it is thought that nearly 2,000 Georgians are engaged in the fight. Zurabishvili’s condolences seem more than a bit strange, considering she must know the history of the group, and its actual funding source, admitted war crimes, and how it exists outside of any official policy or approval by the elected Georgian government.
That Georgian government also realises that the Georgian Legion, which had once found a safe haven in Ukraine, is no longer safe there, and its members will soon be returning to Georgia dead or alive, with the help of other foreign fighters, where those with the skills may consider staging a violent coup. Warnings of this eventuality have been widely discussed in the Georgian print media, Georgian TV being under the control of outside influences.
The Georgian presidency is now only a token position, with the real power vested in parliament and the PM. Their active participation in a foreign war, and how their funding has been from the CIA and other foreign sources, is what raises eyebrows. It is also becoming very difficult to have alternative views of situation in Ukraine, even for US officials, due to threats which may prove terminal.
The French-Swiss Connection
Let us not forget that Nona Mamulashvili, and her infamous brother’s, French education was provided by Dominique Saudan, a Swiss ex-serviceman who worked in the OSCE mission in Tbilisi during 2000, sent by the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Dominique openly spoke with colleagues about young Nona Mamulashvili, and how he had fallen in love with her and given her money and his house in Paris to live, and despite his admitted sexual problems.
Likely such self-inflicted gossip was part of the subterfuge. We can be fairly certain that both Nona and Mamuka Mamulashvili took advantage of his attention and used him for years.
However, they themselves were the ones actually being used by a foreign intelligence agency or agencies. It is no coincidence that Saudan gained part of his education in Russia, and did a tour of duty in Kosovo, naturally as a peacekeeper.
In the opinion of her former colleagues, “Even after living in Paris Nona Mamulashvili was the same faceless and rustic-looking girl without any semblance of high society and fashionable taste, but somehow after she returned to Tbilisi she immediately started working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. In fact, she was personally brought there by Salome Zurabishvili when she was the minister. This was indeed very strange, as Nona demonstrated little to no competence, and did nothing, several of her former co-workers claimed.
Nona was eventually dismissed from the Ministry just after Salome herself was. But Saudan’s money, connections to others in France, and free apartment made it possible for her brother Manuka, now head of the Georgian Legion, to come to France. With the change in government Nona was a liability and no longer needed, but she found a home as an MP representing the UNM, the party of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili.
The loving brother often repeats in TV and print interviews that he has a French diplomatic education. However, he does not mention that his sister and a well-connected Swiss officer made all this possible. His present connections to US think tanks, as noted in a recent interview with Luke Coffey of the Hudson Institute, could only have been established from such a source.
Mamuka’s background is in Abkhazia, a network of railway criminals, links to former FSB and KBG networks of patronage and organised crime. That is just the sort of background that can be liability in civilian life. This is also true of others in the Georgian Legion; there many contradictions in Luke Coffey’s “conversation with Commander Mamulashvili” where they discuss the current situation on the front lines of Ukraine’s heroic defence against so-called “Russian aggression” and what the future holds for the region.
Much of the information about Saudan dates back to 2003, and was well known in the OSCE mission to Georgia, and to the late 80s and early 90s, when Georgians controlled railway terminals and freight transit throughout the former Soviet Union. However, this information is disappearing from the internet, even in the Georgian Language. It is likely that several intelligence services are involved in this, some tasked with finding incriminating evidence, others with hiding or spinning it.
We have been able to glean some information that still exists about Saudan. He speaks 14 languages, including Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Serbian, Russian, Ukrainian and Romanian. So he doesn’t need a translator to read and analyse information from all corners of the planet.
Live together, die together
Each and every word and action of Saudan continues to have a purpose, and often a long term one. He is not alone, as there are many useful idiots, even a former Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Giorgi Baramidze, involved in a BIGGER plan—not only to change the Georgian government by force but to involve Georgia directly in the military conflict in Ukraine.
One recent interview is revealing, much to the dismay of the Georgian government.
“I’m Giorgi Baramidze, a member of Georgian parliament, and a former vice-speaker of the Georgian Parliament. I am one of the volunteers from Georgia who is fighting on the side of Ukraine in the Georgian Legion. The current Speaker of the Georgian parliament said yesterday that there was no need to go to Kiev in order to see what’s going on. His speech made Ukrainian people angry; however, we want to say that the real Georgians are with us, with Ukraine, supporting not only with words, but also with deeds”.
Giorgi Baramidze is then asked by a Ukrainian journalist, “what do you think about the Speaker and what are Georgian people’s thoughts on this topic?” He responds,
“Of course the whole country is worried about Ukraine. This war is actually a war against 21st century fascists. This is a war for Georgia, too. Despite the Georgian authorities’ actions, people are handling the situation well. No matter how bad these authorities are, I could never imagine that they would refuse to visit Bucha and show the whole world that Russians have committed genocide there. We are ashamed of the authorities, but at the same time proud of the warriors who are here in Ukraine. These warriors didn’t owe anyone anything, and even though they were obstructed and not allowed to come here, they are fighting and dying.
Connecting the Dots as to Sponsorship
Apparently, the above rant is scripted, likely from some of the staff from the backstopping organization, CASE, which has by happenstance set up shop in Georgia. It is not difficult to connect the dots is understanding who is calling the shots, at least when the time is right to Call for Fire.
All one has to do is research who is Nona Manulashvili, her brother Mamuka, who was the father, and then their connections with US intelligence, Georgian snipers, a wide and diverse range of sponsors. Authorities should investigate the Case Study as above, some of it dating back to 2014, and contingency plans to overthrow the Georgian government. Already enough “volunteers” have been trained up and equipped for this purpose, some in Ukraine, others in Georgia, and by great trainers.
Many of the weapons are warehoused in Georgia, still in containers and original packaging, thanks to the generosity of the US and NATO member countries, and many of the arms had been previously siphoned off from the Ukrainian and Georgian army for a rainy day, or left over from the 2008 Georgian-Russian military conflict.
A portion of the financial backing in provided in part by UAE, Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA). Such a spider web of sticky connections should also come as no surprise, especially with all the logistical and money transfer operations.
It should come as no surprise, as Nona Mamulashvili recently posted on her Twitter account that “Georgian government officials are criticizing Georgian soldiers fighting in Ukraine and calling them “mercenaries” and threatening to revoke their citizenship.”
Salome Zurabishvili must know everything about the Mamulashvilis and what is being [alleged here] and who they are working for, and even earlier when the brother and sister were sponsored in France through various links with French and US intelligence.
It is still an open question, at least in Georgia, which Foreign Service the “lame duck” president works for now, given that she has been censored in recent months for making statements which contradict the official policy of the Georgian government. She is also in the damaged control mood over her intentions of pardoning certain high-value prisoners.
-
As a close observer, knowing personally some in this so-called military unit, Legion, I can aver that The Georgian Legion is a covert means to train killers to take over the Georgian government through bloodshed, as there is no other way back for members of the UNM, as they will never again achieve power by legal means.
-
If the Russians are able to take some Georgian Legion fighters prisoner, top ones, we may soon have all the answers. In the meantime, however, enough open source information is available to draw some interim conclusions.
Read Between the Lines
Intelligence agencies, the Foreign Ministry and the NGO community are concerned about the rhetoric and actions of the Georgian Legion, and fully understand that it is helping the other side by discrediting Georgia in an attempt to spoil Georgian-Russian relations. Georgian pundits could even argue that its real sponsor is the GRU, which would explain why war crimes are being committed and openly admitted to and videos posted.
The Russian-Ukrainian military conflict is a result of the work of foreign intelligence services dating back to 2014, which includes the involvement of US trained snipers in Maidan, most of whom were Georgian. However part of the picture involves returning the UNM to power in Georgia, hence the moves to discredit the country and make an armed takeover appear inevitable.
I would suggest interested parties read the Mark Twain short story War Prayer. The Georgian Legion may have far worse consequences for Georgia than Ukraine when its’ militarised volunteers return home looking for new action, and these may be more fatal than the military conflict in Ukraine itself for the Georgian state and citizens.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
December 10, as is well known, is observed around the world as Human Rights Day, designated as such by the UN. But one of the features of the modern world, thanks to the “efforts” of the West, is the discrepancy between phrases and their true meaning: Freedom, democracy, human rights, and so on. Today the West, which illegally appropriated to itself the epithet of the “standard-bearer” of human rights, abuses this title in relation to other countries, and its hands are still richly stained with the blood of other innocent peoples. One such example of modernity is the cynically unleashed Ukrainian armed conflict against Russia by the USA and NATO, which, without a doubt, is clear and irrefutable proof of the depravity of the West’s policy in observing “human rights.”
In other words, the West, which cannot tolerate minor security measures in its own countries, encourages chaos and insecurity in other states. For example, one should take into account the quick and harsh decision of Germany, which recently arrested 25 people on charges of “attempting to overthrow the government.” But now the same Western media are writing with a smile that this group did not pose any threat to the country’s security and was orchestrated by the intelligence service of another country in order to scare Chancellor Olaf Scholz and force him to unquestioningly follow in the footsteps of US policy. As before, a wide-ranging campaign to promote the killing of allegedly innocent people in various states of the world is being exaggerated daily on the pages of the Western press. But as soon as this happens due to the fault of the West, immediately these same media outlets become defenders of “human rights” and vie with each other, loudly talking about “barbaric methods of government” in this or that country.
The mixed history of the last three hundred years of the existence of the West is replete with barbaric and widespread crimes against humanity and basic human rights. If Western countries today have wealth and power, one of the main reasons is the plunder of other peoples, which continued in the form of colonialism until the middle of the 20th century. Although colonialism seems to have ended in its past forms, its new and modern form and methods persist.
In today’s world, if a country does well in the Western camp, it gets the green light for any crime without being punished. However, if this goes against the current Western course, then the West will instantly initiate proceedings against this country, making it a pretext for exerting additional political and economic pressure. Yes! This is the notorious American version of “human rights” that the United States shamelessly tries to crudely impose on the whole world.
That is why the call and actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin to transform the unipolar world into a multipolar one found tremendous support throughout the world. It is with a multipolar world that peoples and countries link their future, and not with the foul West, which is declining.
But all this did not begin today or yesterday, but many years ago, when Great Britain replenished its treasury by killing, colonizing and plundering Eastern countries, mainly the Indian subcontinent! And this led to poverty and hunger in the countries under its rule. But all this, as was said then and now, was done in the name of “educating barbarian peoples” and under the pretext of establishing “human rights” there.
The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to working in India, and that didn’t include sympathy for the natives. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines, and Bengal suffered the most. The first of these occurred in 1770, followed by serious ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892 and 1897, and finally in 1943-44.
Also on April 13, 1919, hundreds of unarmed men, women and children were shot by British troops in Jallianwala Bagh, a walled garden in Amritsar, following an uprising by dispossessed Hindus in the northern Indian city. The British government, which ruled India at the time, reported 379 deaths, while Indian freedom fighters said around 1,000 had perished.
Then the mantle of protecting “human rights” was passed on to the United States, which uses the power of the media to cover up its true face with a mask of “observing human rights” and deceive public opinion in the world. They talk about the rights of peoples, while these peoples, more than ever before, feel their open lies and the monstrous ambivalence of their position. They pretend to protect the rights of minorities, women and children, LGBT and asylum seekers, etc. But they constantly and regularly commit crimes against most peoples around the world. Remember how barbarically the US acted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Africa, Asia and the Americas. They claim to be committed to human rights, but in practice they act differently! Now they have turned human rights into a tool for unceremoniously interfering in the affairs of other countries and blackmailing them!
Washington likes to preach about human rights and actually uses it for political confessions, but Washington needs to take a serious look in the mirror. This is the same country where systematically racist groups still treat black Americans as second-class citizens, despite decades of work by the black civil rights movement. US authorities have failed to enact and implement the significant police oversight and accountability promised by the Biden administration in response to nationwide protests against police violence in 2020, which were marked by widespread excessive use of force by police officers. Limited public data available from 2015 to 2021 suggests that African Americans have been disproportionately affected by police use of lethal force. The federal government’s program to track the number of such deaths per year remained unimplemented. At least 1,055 people were killed by police with firearms in 2021, far more than in previous years.
Indigenous women continue to experience disproportionate levels of sexual violence and lack access to basic post-rape care. In addition to this, indigenous women continue to face high levels of disappearances and murders. The exact number of such women who are victims of violence or missing remains unknown because the US administration does not collect data and does not properly coordinate with the tribal authorities. Violence against women is on the rise. Police brutality against minority groups is on the rise as well.
The US human rights record under the current administration of President Biden has so far failed to adopt a human rights-based immigration and asylum policy at the US-Mexico border or implement its human rights agenda domestically. Under the Biden administration, authorities continue to drastically restrict access to asylum at the southern border, irreparably harming many thousands of people, including children, who seek safety from persecution or other serious human rights violations in their countries of origin.
There are discriminatory encroachments on voting rights or illegal restrictions on rights at the state level, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Opposition politicians continue to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election, insisting on vote rigging.
State governments continue to step up efforts to restrict reproductive rights, seeking to criminalize abortion and restrict access to reproductive health services, with more restrictions on abortion in 2021 than in any other year. Texas passed a law criminalizing abortion as early as the sixth week of pregnancy – before most people know they are pregnant.
The US military arbitrarily and indefinitely detains Muslim men in a detention center at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in violation of international law.
Legislators in at least 36 states and at the federal level have introduced more than 80 bills to restrict freedom of assembly, with nine states passing ten such bills into law in 2021. In May, media outlets reported that US authorities tracked and harassed human rights defenders. Human rights activists and journalists continued to report intimidation and harassment by US authorities while crossing the US-Mexico border or while doing their work in Mexico, which affected both their ability to do their jobs and their general well-being.
The West, primarily the United States, is pursuing a bloody and dirty policy, trying to turn Russia and other countries of the world into an instrument for realizing its geopolitical goals. “Power over the world is exactly what the so-called West has put at stake in its game,” said President Vladimir Putin. “But this game is certainly dangerous, bloody and, I would say, dirty. It denies the sovereignty of countries and peoples, their originality and uniqueness, and does not have room for the interests of other states.”
Thus, the main human rights problem is that the authors and developers of this program in the West themselves, unfortunately, are the main violators, and they have created a deep gap between what is said and what is happening in practice. This hypocrisy of the West is now more evident than ever, and the peoples of the world are more aware of this than ever before. In practice, European countries and the United States have literally committed and continue to carry out all sorts of crimes and atrocities around the world. Well, these are bright masterpieces of Western civilization and the so-called Western “liberal democracy”!
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Moscow’s special operation in Ukraine to denazify the criminal Kiev regime has not only become a dividing line between Russia and the US with its Western allies who have openly stood up for the blatant neo-Nazism they have revived in recent years. But it also showed what losses for Americans and Europeans the White House is prepared to take today to satisfy the corrupt goals of the current US political and military elite.
It is well known from the world history that any military action always results in the death and terrible suffering of thousands of civilians caught up in the fighting. But it is these same events that enrich the initiators and so-called “sponsors” of any military action by billions of dollars. The examples are not far to seek, if only to think about the recent wars initiated by the US in the Middle East and Afghanistan, with hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and the US military and political elite enriched by hundreds of billions and vetoed proceedings: to what corrupt schemes have these fabulous American taxpayer money gone?
A similar situation is happening today in front of the world’s eyes with the events in Ukraine, which the White House, or rather the US Democratic Party, had been preparing for many years to unleash a military confrontation with Russia. Although everyone was well aware that even with the support of the so-called “united West”, the corrupt Kiev regime could never count on the victory “over Moscow” promised as always by Washington’s lying propaganda.
Today, the clear lack of “prospects of victory” for Kiev since the start of the current armed conflict is openly stated by many politicians and analysts in the pages of popular publications such as Newsweek, Breitbart and many other US and European media. While accusing Washington of unleashing an armed confrontation with Moscow and using Ukraine for this purpose, analysts acknowledge that only incredible US financial and military support allowed Ukraine to avoid defeat in the first days of the Russian special operation. They believe that without such “help”, things would have taken a very different turn at the beginning of the special operation, including the chaos in NATO. And even US military experts acknowledge this, among them William Astor, a former professor of history at the US Air Force Academy, who pointed out the other day that had it not been for US weapons and money, Ukrainian forces would have been defeated back in the summer.
The Federalist stresses that $100 billion poured into Europe’s most corrupt country is an insane waste by the current US authorities.
Uncovering the reason for this “generosity” from the White House, American Thinker explicitly points out that Ukraine has long been a money-laundering machine. But also, every American knows that Biden has long had a “wonderful relationship” specifically with Ukraine. After all, none other than the Ukrainian company Burisma gave Hunter Biden a seat on its board with a salary of $85,000 a month, and even Hunter’s complete ignorance of the company’s business was no barrier to this “appointment”. All that was taken into account was that Hunter’s dad, then vice-president, did everything he could to stop the investigation into Burisma’s corrupt connections.
With the apparent defeat of such a White House policy of supporting the criminal Kiev regime, which for the past eight years has been killing thousands of people in eastern Ukraine and destroying their homes and infrastructure under US cover, many Americans are now asking: why are politicians putting the interests of Ukraine ahead of the interests of the American people? And why are they blatantly throwing billions of taxpayers’ dollars away when the US itself and Americans have a host of pressing problems, including social ones? The examples are not far to seek, it is enough to read the findings of experts of the financial website WalletHub, who admitted that the most needy metropolis in the USA is Detroit, where one in five tenants is in danger of eviction. And Cleveland, with a poverty rate of 29%, became the second poorest major city in the country. As for Philadelphia, it suffers from security problems and lack of funding for this struggle: in 2022 there were 500 murders in this city! New Orleans has similar problems, with more than 250 murders in the last year. The highest child poverty rate was found in Rochester, New York, followed by Detroit and Cleveland. And Huntington, West Virginia has the highest adult poverty rate, followed by Detroit and Cleveland. Gulfport, Mississippi, topped the list of cities with food insecurity, with more than a quarter of its residents below the poverty line.
Is this not genocide of the American population by the White House, in the name of more and more fabulous profits for the current US rulers at the expense of military events in Ukraine? Hence, the reason for Biden’s recent invitation to Zelensky to Washington and the involvement of the current US political elite in this political show becomes clearer than ever. This arranged “Zelensky’s face trade” was especially needed by the US military-industrial complex to form new orders for weapons, ammunition, allocation of even more money, which the US and Ukrainian corrupt officials will jointly divide in the coming days… Biden needed this trip to keep Ukraine’s military provocations against Russia going, to expand the armed conflict with the participation of an ever eager to fight Poland, trying to present itself as Washington’s most loyal viceroy in Europe and, as during World War II, as the “hyena of Europe”, hoping that with US help it could expand its territory at the expense of Ukraine…
In response, according to The American Conservative columnist Bradley Devlin, Ukrainian President Zelensky did not even thank ordinary Americans for the “Christmas present” of the new $45 billion Washington had given him.
Hence, the current crisis in the US, especially in the Republican Party, on the issue of aid to Ukraine is not surprising, with Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz calling the White House’s policy of supporting Ukraine “America Last”. And Kentucky gubernatorial candidate Geoffrey Young said that every member of the Democratic Party who voted in Congress for a new aid package for Ukraine is a sponsor of Nazism.
And British analysts are probably right when they say that in 2022 the Democrats in the US have shown themselves to be a genuine threat to democracy. And Fox News admitted that an F isn’t low enough for Biden for his efforts with regard to protecting the US and Americans themselves in 2022.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In today’s geopolitical dynamics, Russia and Turkey maintain a relevant regional presence in strategically important regions of the Near and Middle East, where the interests of the two powers can combine and diverge. However, the ruling elites have a high sense of maintaining a balance of power, respecting national interests, avoiding the prospect of radicalization of conflict situations and seeking decoupling to strengthen regional peace and mutually beneficial cooperation.
It should be recognized that the administrations of Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have so far succeeded in finding relatively acceptable solutions to crisis situations through constructive dialogue, guiding the diplomacy of the two countries towards finding joint solutions on the same issue of Syria, overcoming the burden of historical stereotypes and building a new example of a worthy partnership.
In this context, Russia and Turkey have established a number of effective negotiating platforms (in particular the Astana, Sochi and Geneva summits in multilateral and bilateral formats). Russia understands the concerns of Turkish partners on key issues of Turkey’s national security (including ethnic separatism, external threats to territorial integrity and international terrorism). Russia, given its economic, resource, technological, intellectual and military-industrial strength, does not set out to suppress its important geographical neighbor. On the contrary, Moscow is developing a high level of strategic partnership in all the aforementioned areas, making a significant contribution to stabilizing Turkey’s financial and economic situation and strengthening its defense potential, and expects to expand trade with the ambitious goal of reaching USD 100 billion.
The stability and progress of each country depends not least on border security and the normalization of relations with its immediate neighbors. The political course of Turkey’s ruling Justice Party, led by its charismatic leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, proclaimed the “Zero Problems with the Neighbors” strategy in the early 2000s. For the Republic of Turkey, which will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2023, the tradition of a post-imperial state remains high, where the complex history of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I was partly transformed into a painful relationship with many of its neighbors, who regained or lost their independence on the wreckage of the collapsed state.
Of course, the declaration of the said strategy without taking into account current realities cannot simultaneously succeed on all directions of Turkey’s borders and requires time and painstaking diplomatic work on bilateral and multilateral levels. At the same time, Turkey has had a number of positive achievements in shaping better relations with Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and African countries. There is every reason to believe that Ankara is also interested in restoring full-fledged friendly relations with such a key country in the Arab East as Syria.
The peculiarities of the US regional policy in the Middle East have led to widespread destabilization in a number of Arab countries, to the negative phenomenon of the growth of radical Islamic movements with their institutionalization as Al Qaeda and ISIS (both terrorist groups banned in Russia), which eventually led to the chaos in a large part of the Levant. Accordingly, the destabilization of the political situation in the same Syria has provoked ethnic and religious strife, triggered a wave-like flow of a large army of refugees mainly to neighboring Turkey, and caused a significant social and economic crisis which took a heavy toll on the Turkish economy.
For Turkey, the politicization of the Kurdish issue within and near its national borders is an objective concern, forcing the authorities to pursue a tough course to prevent another territorial redistribution and, as a consequence, new social cataclysms in the Near and Middle East. Both Turkey and its reliable partners have to contend with these challenges.
The Russian peacekeeping operation in Syria since fall 2015 has set a new precedent for eliminating the US foreign monopoly in this region. With the arrival of the Russian Air Force, conditions have developed on Syrian territory for more effective interaction with key states in the Near and Middle East (in particular Turkey and Iran) to curb the threat of international terrorism emanating from ISIS (terrorist group banned in Russia) and to find political ways to resolve the accumulated differences in the Syrian-Turkish agenda, combining them with effective peacekeeping operations.
Turkey, which has problems with Kurdish separatism, is very sensitive to attempts to activate the Kurdish militant movement in Syria. This is why, after the Syrian Kurds declared political autonomy in 2014, Ankara recognized the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) as a terrorist organization and ally of the PKK, which is banned in Turkey, and the fighting wing of the PYD, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), as a military opponent. Partly due to the Russian presence in Syria, a number of Turkey’s limited military operations in the north have become a reality in order to avoid the creation of quasi Kurdish independent territorial entities capable of intensifying terrorist and separatist threats to Ankara. In particular:
Operation Euphrates Shield in 2016-2017 (as a result, the cities of Jarablus and al-Bab were subjected to military mop-ups, 2,000 square kilometers of Syrian territory came under Turkish control with the formation of a security buffer zone there);
Operation Olive Branch in 2018 to prevent the Kurdish-populated cantons of Jazira, Kobani and Afrin from uniting and the Kurds from reaching the Mediterranean Sea (Afrin ended up under full control of Turkish forces);
Operation Peace Spring in October 2019, with Turkish military and pro-Turkish Free Syrian Army (FSA) units advancing deep into northern Syria, taking control of new population centers – Ras al-Ain and Tel Abyad, cutting the strategic M-4 highway. Thanks to effective negotiations between the Russian and Turkish leaders in Sochi on October 22, 2019, new zones of influence in north-eastern Syria were secured, with the status quo maintained in Turkish-occupied areas and the withdrawal of all Kurdish groups from the entire border with Turkey 30km inland, as well as the establishment of Russian-Turkish patrols in the area.
It should be noted that from operation to operation, Turkey has built up its military forces from special forces units to the use of armored vehicles, artillery and air force with a combination of infantry from the same FSA units, gaining new experience in combat operations in this theater.
In November 2022, with air strikes against Kurdish military bases (in Kobani, Aleppo, Raqqa, al-Hasakah), Turkey announced a new “Operation Claw-Sword” in northern Syria. The formal occasion was the terrorist act of November 13, 2022 in Istanbul’s Istiklal Square, which the Turkish intelligence services recognized to be organized by Kurdish insurgents (in particular the PKK and a Kurdish fighter executor from Syria). Ankara aims to implement a declared plan to establish a 30-kilometer security zone along the entire border with Syria.
Erdoğan has announced his intention to conduct a ground operation involving regular army forces alongside the air operation. He also criticized Russia to a certain extent. Turkey’s leader believes that Moscow has not fully met its obligations under the 2019 Sochi agreements to withdraw Kurds from the 30-kilometer zone. However, the creation of the same “Idlib Security Zone” with Russian participation was, infamously, prevented by the fact that the US refused to withdraw its forces from the zone with the support of local Kurdish forces.
Russia and Turkey have gone a long way towards an effective partnership in the Syrian crisis. Of course, every time Moscow and Ankara make progress in finding new solutions to stabilize the situation in northern Syria, the US, aware of the loss of its own hegemony in the region, finds another form of torpedoing the Russian-Turkish agreements. Accordingly, the Russian-Turkish effective partnership is perceived in Washington as a kind of attack on America’s monopoly and a breakdown of NATO unity, plagued by equally obvious internal contradictions.
Meanwhile, Russia-Turkey relations are progressing with strong results to show for it. Thus, according to Mehmet Samsar, Turkish Ambassador to Russia, the trade turnover between Russia and Turkey by the end of 2022 could be close to USD 50 billion, an increase of USD 15 billion over 2021. The scope of this partnership is expanding: from a gas pipeline to a nuclear power plant, from military and technical cooperation to joint actions for regional peace, from a grain deal to a gas hub. Turkey remains one of the few NATO countries that has not supported total sanctions against Russia in the context of the special military operation in Ukraine, pursues a traditionally pragmatic policy and maintains its role as a reliable partner and effective mediator in relations with its northern neighbor.
The author believes that, in the new year too, the Russian-Turkish situational alliance that has developed in recent years will maintain its momentum of growth, trust and optimization of new opportunities. The coming year 2023 will prove to be a time of intense and important political, economic, military and cultural events in the lives of the two countries. In particular, the next presidential election in Turkey, the launch of ambitious new economic projects (the gas hub, the unblocking of important regional communications, the prospect of a second nuclear power plant near Sinop on the Turkish Black Sea Coast), the establishment of stability in the safe corridor on the Turkish-Syrian border, the approach of peace in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, etc. All this points to a broader agenda of Russia-Turkey relations, where the parties can complement each other and interact effectively.
Aleksandr SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Generally, when it comes to cybercrime, the author writes about North Korean hackers, but an overview of what the issue of hackers in the ROK in general looks like is also noteworthy.
First, some general statistics on hacker attacks in the ROK. Back in 2021, following the attempted hacking of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute and Korea Aerospace Research Institute servers, the National Intelligence Service conducted a special inspection of some 20 of the country’s most important government agencies. As a result, 34 cyberattacks against the Korea Electric Power Corporation were detected. The number of attempts to hack into government and public servers has almost quadrupled in the past five years, to an average of 1,620,000 per day.
The ROK National Intelligence Service has disclosed data on damage to South Korean companies prevented in 2021, when attempts had been made to steal advanced industrial technology and designs. According to it, from January to September 2021, a total of 14 cases worth 1.783 trillion won (USD 1.5 billion) of leaked trade secrets were detected. Seven of these were in leading chip and display industries, and interest in the theft of relevant designs increased from 29% in 2017 to 50% in 2020.
In 2017-2021, 89 cases of industrial technology leakage were detected and the amount of damage prevented is estimated at 19.44 billion won. Of these, 29 incidents (32.6%) involved the loss of key technology, which has a negative impact on national security and the economy.
According to data provided by the Financial Security Institute in February 2022, nearly 1,100,000 cyber attacks were launched against 17 South Korean commercial banks between 2017 and 2021. Between 2017 and 2018, the number of cyberattacks more than tripled, from 63,000 to more than 210,000.
Analysis of IP addresses showed that 34.7% of cyberattacks originated in China, followed by the ROK, the US, India and France. Thanks to robust security, the banks’ internal servers were not compromised.
According to a Ministry of the Interior report in September 2022, 558,674 attempts to hack into key government computer systems were detected between 2017 and July this year.
Analysis of Internet protocols showed that 127,908, or 22.9%, of detected hacking attempts came from the PRC, while 113,086, or 20.2%, came from the US. Hacking attempts within the ROK accounted for 8.5%, followed by Russia (4.7%), Germany (2.8%) and Brazil (2.4%).
According to the ROK parliamentary defense committee, the number of hacking attacks on the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), which oversees South Korea’s latest military technology and weapons development, has steadily increased in recent years. It was found that 4,592 attacks were launched from IP addresses in China (33%), 2,928 from the US, 929 from South Korea, 514 from India, 405 from the UK and 358 from Canada.
It was noted that as a result of last year’s malicious activities, attackers may have stolen technical information on Korea’s most advanced KF-21 fighter jet, as well as submarine blueprints.
In March 2022, ransomware group Lapsus$ claimed it had successfully hacked into Samsung Electronics, stealing up to 190 gigabytes of confidential data, including source code. The stolen information was reportedly uploaded for downloading online via torrent.
On December 15, 2022, the ROK Ministry of Industry announced that South Korea’s largest public institutions in industry, trade and energy were subjected to 1,603 hacking attempts in the first 11 months of the year. The Ministry did not disclose other details, including the names of institutions or whether the attacks had been successful.
On December 26, the Ministry of Science and ICT disclosed that a total of 1,045 cyberattacks were reported to authorities in the first 11 months of 2022, up from 640 in 2021. The number of cyber threats increased by more than 60% in 2022 compared to a year earlier due to an increase in ransomware attacks that encrypt victims’ files and demand ransom payments. Attacks of this kind accounted for 303 cases, or 29%. In addition, 90% of ransomware victims were SMEs and only 41.8% had systems in place to protect against such attacks. The number of DDoS attacks has also steadily risen to 48 cases, “up sharply from nine a year ago”.
A separate major problem is phishing, which, according to a BI.ZONE study, ranks second among all types of cybercrime. In mid-October 2021, experts of global antivirus vendor ESET conducted a test that found that 60% of internet users could not distinguish between a phishing email and a regular email. Users over the age of 65 had the most problems, with only 28% being able to recognize the fraud.
Very often phishing was disguised as a message on behalf of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency saying “as a victim of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, you are entitled to compensation from the government, please provide your personal details and a photo of your bank card”.
Voice phishing also refers to electronic fraud, in which people are tricked into revealing important financial or personal information to fraudsters over the phone. Money transfer fraud makes up the majority of phishing crimes.
The amount of damage caused by phishing has more than tripled from 247 billion won in 2017 to 774.4 billion won (USD 538 million) in 2021, according to the ROK Prosecutors Office.
A new problem that has received a lot of attention lately is the hacking of the “internet of things,” usually smart home cameras to get compromising videos for sale or blackmail. In November 2021, unknown hackers distributed several video files that recorded the private lives of residents in some 700 residential complexes across the country by manipulating the video function on wall panels; the files contained not only everyday activities but also sex scenes.
But while the public is more concerned about privacy, from a terrorism perspective, access to control of the heating, gas, lighting etc. provides very interesting opportunities… And here the experience of the Busan Ilbo newspaper, whose hired programmer students hacked into the system of a residential complex built in 2018 in a day, is interesting. The hackers were able to open the door of one flat and peek into another through a camera set up for video calls between residents; they were also able to turn the gas and lights on and off.
In December 2021, the ROK National Intelligence Service confirmed that an automated facilities management system server installed at a residential complex in Seoul had not just been hacked, but had been turned into a stopover for attacks on Internet servers in 40 countries.
On January 19, 2022, intelligence said it had allegedly identified more than 100 sets of Internet of Things equipment that were infected with the Mozi botnet. The infected equipment could be used in DDoS attacks, and included CCTV televisions, internet routers and digital video recorders.
Now about how the ROK is dealing with this. Speaking at a ceremony marking Information Security Day on July 13, 2022, President Yoon Suk-yeol said cybersecurity is a key element of national security. Yoon Suk-yeol has promised to create a so-called reserve force for cyber warfare, modelled on Israel’s military-academic Talpiot program. After leaving the unit, it will be possible to continue in the Armed Forces or take up civilian service. In addition, the head of state intends to speed up the Republic of Korea’s accession to the Budapest Convention on responding to cybercrime.
In this context, the ROK authorities intend to train a total of 100,000 highly qualified cyber security specialists over the next five years, against the backdrop of increasing threats in this field. Plans to do so have been announced by the Ministry of Science and Information and Communication Technology. It focuses on educating 100,000 cyber security practitioners, training 2,000 high-level subject matter experts and supporting 25 of the most promising start-ups in the field. For this purpose, specialized educational programs and courses will be set up in universities and postgraduate institutions to provide selection and step-by-step training.
On October 17, 2022, the authorities announced that the Republic of Korea’s Office of National Security had decided to form a cyber security task force to protect the country’s security agencies’ facilities. The decision follows the leak of limited data on South Korean soldiers and prosecutors through vulnerabilities in the Korean messenger KakaoTalk.
The ROK has been actively cooperating with other countries (primarily the US) on this issue, both under Moon and Yoon. For example, on July 16, 2021, South Korea said it would follow up on a recent summit agreement between Presidents Moon Jae-in and Joe Biden to establish a cybersecurity working group with the United States to strengthen cooperation against hacker attacks.
From April 19 to 22, 2022, the ROK National Intelligence Service participated in the world’s largest cyber security exercise, Locked Shields 2022, organized by the NATO Cyber Defense Center. To this end, the intelligence service trained a combined team of 70 people from 8 private, government and military agencies to counter attacks on computer networks of satellite communications, energy, industry, financial sector facilities and other areas.
On May 5, 2022, the ROK National Intelligence Service joined the Cyber Defense Group under NATO (CCDCOE), based in Tallinn. The ROK thus became the first Asian country to join the unit, which was established in 2008 at Estonia’s initiative in response to hacker activity. In 2020 and 2021, the ROK participated in the largest international cyber defense exercise Locked Shields, organized by the aforementioned cyber center.
In August 2022, South Korean Minister of Defense Lee Jong-sup and Cyber Command Commander and Director of the US National Security Agency General Paul Nakasone met and agreed to enhance cooperation on cybersecurity, including through information sharing, regular exercises and training on cyber defense.
In October 2022, to increase the preparedness of Washington and its allies, eighteen members of the South military took part in a Cyber Flag exercise in Virginia.
In November 2022, the ROK held a remote multinational cyber security exercise involving the United States, China and Russia as part of a virtual two-day ASEAN cyber security expert working group session. Participants worked together to address fast-growing cyber threats such as ransomware, as well as malware analysis and analysis of Windows infringement incidents.
On November 28, Minister of Science and ICT Lee Jong-ho met with European Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton by video conference to sign an agreement to step up joint work in the fields of cybersecurity, quantum technologies, high-performance computing and semiconductors as part of a digital partnership.
On June 23, Prosecutors Office announced it would form a joint investigation team with relevant agencies (National Police Agency, Financial Services Commission, Financial Supervisory Service and Korea Communications Commission) to launch a massive crackdown on voice phishing fraud.
On December 8, 2022, South Korea’s Ministry of Science and ICT said it had adopted new software to block phone number spoofing and prevent text messaging fraud to help people better deal with fraudulent phone calls or voice phishing and easily report fraudulent text messages to authorities through their smartphones.
As can be seen from the above, the Pyongyang hackers are far from a first-priority threat. On the other hand, the justification for increased cyber preparedness by intrigue from the North works well, and the next article will focus on how the global community is dealing with cyber threats – both fictional and real – from the DPRK.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Right at the end of 2022 the first of China’s COMAC (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China) C919 airliner jets was delivered to a domestic Chinese airline company, China Eastern Airlines.
Reuters in an article titled, “China Eastern takes delivery of the world’s first made-in-China C919 jet,” would report:
The world’s first C919, a Chinese-made narrowbody jet, was delivered to launch customer China Eastern Airlines (CEA) in Shanghai on Friday and took off for a 15-minute flight to mark the historic moment.
The plane, a rival to the Airbus (EADSY) A320neo and Boeing (BA) 737 MAX single-aisle jet families, is expected to make its maiden commercial flight next spring, according to state-owned Xinhua News Agency.
Between delivery and its first commercial flight, the first C919 will undergo up to 100 hours of flight tests, Simply Flying has reported. The test flights will include flying between multiple destinations. Meanwhile China Eastern has already trained a range of personnel to operate the aircraft including 9 pilots, 24 flight attendants, and 13 maintenance personnel.
The milestone is obviously a major achievement for COMAC, China Eastern, and the People’s Republic of China, but it is also a leap forward for multipolarism.
More than Airplanes at Stake
Together with Russia’s Irkut MC-21 airliner which is already certified to fly, and the prospect of both aircraft and the companies behind them fulfilling not only domestic but also international demand, the duopoly enjoyed by the West’s Boeing and Airbus corporations may be coming to an end.
Germany’s Deutsche Welle in an article titled, “New competition for Airbus and Boeing,” would note:
New aircraft are entering the highly lucrative main segment of the airliner market. And Airbus and Boeing need to take it seriously. The MC-21, in particular, could offer superior performance in some areas, compared to the common types of Airbus and Boeing now being sold. And it is no wonder as the giants from America and Europe have been resting on their laurels for many decades: The Boeing 737 traces its origins back to 1967, while the Airbus A320 premiered in 1987.
To prevent Russian and Chinese airliners from challenging Western monopolies, everything from national security to human rights have been cited particularly by the US government in a bid to place crippling sanctions on Russian and Chinese aerospace companies. Just as the US government has done in terms of Chinese telecommunication companies, these sanctions will seek to prevent Russian and Chinese aerospace companies from competing internationally, and if possible, eliminate these companies altogether.
However, China with a population larger than that of the G7 combined, has a potential air travel market that could boost COMAC and other Chinese aerospace companies regardless of its access to international markets. Russia and adjacent markets provide the MC-21 with similar prospects of being sold in large numbers, proving themselves and becoming appealing and accessible to a larger number of nations over time.
Acutely aware of the impact and intentions of US sanctions, both Russia and China are developing alternatives to components they once depended on the West for including engines and control systems.
Multipolarism Requires Multiple Alternatives
Multipolarism is not merely a political declaration or desire for an alternative international order to the Western-led unipolar “rules-based” order that currently prevails. It is the physical creation of alternative systems of financing and trade but also of industry and production.
The power the West possesses stems from monopolies like Boeing and Airbus and the immense profits concentrated into the hands of their shareholders. Those profits translate into likewise concentrated power and influence. The creation of alternatives to these monopolies dilutes that concentration of profits and thus redistributes the resulting power and influence.
This is what makes the potential success of China’s C919 and Russia’s MC-21 particularly important. Their success will chip away at the concentrated power and influence of the West’s duopoly in an industry that is notoriously complex and difficult to enter. The success of the C919 and the MC-21 would provide a case study and an example for future success not only in China and Russia but in other emerging industrialized economies.
More than mere greed and the jealous protection of their duopoly, Boeing and Airbus and the circles of special interests around them realize that this is more than just selling airplanes, it is about either preserving or displacing Western hegemony.
China’s C919 together with other products from ever expanding Chinese companies across a wide and growing range of industries is what accounts for China’s rise on the global stage and the subsequent tensions between Beijing and a Washington who refuses to accept that rise.
Understanding the industrial and economic factors that underpin the political aspects of multipolarism help us understand the decisions being made in both Washington and Beijing in terms of sanctions the US seeks to impose and methods used by China to circumvent and rise above them. The continued development and expanding adaptation of the C919 and the MC-21 seem inevitable. Had the West recognized and respected these new players they would have shared in the prosperity these new airliners will produce. Both aircraft used Western parts including engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney. Because of Washington’s determination to sabotage the development of these aircraft, both China and Russia either have or are in the process of developing indigenous alternatives. These engines will eventually be adopted domestically and once proven, enter into global markets and likely outcompete their Western counterparts.
Just as the US has isolated itself politically through its overdependence on sanctions, it is creating more problems than it is solving for its industry.
Only time will tell when and to what extent Chinese and Russia aerospace companies and their products begin competing for significant market shares with Boeing and Airbus, but when they do it will be more than just aerospace companies and profits at stake, it will also be the wealth, power, and influence that come with those profits up for grabs and a future decided either unilaterally in Washington or via multipolarism beginning in Beijing and Moscow.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In mid-December, Turkish President R.T. Erdoğan, returning from a trip to Turkmenistan, sent a clear signal that the Syrian conflict could be resolved within the Syria-Turkey-Russia trio. For this, the Turkish leader suggested, representatives of the intelligence organizations of the three countries and the defense ministers should meet first, and then the foreign ministers. The three leaders will then be able to meet to resolve the Syrian crisis, the refugee issue and work out joint efforts against terrorist organizations.
Thanks to Russia’s mediation, the first ministerial contact between Turkey and Syria after 11 years of political spat took place in Moscow on December 28. Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar met with Syrian Minister of Defense Ali Mahmoud Abbas in the presence of Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu. The intelligence chiefs of the three countries, Turkish intelligence chief Hakan Fidan, Syrian military intelligence chief Rafik Shahadah and Russian Foreign Intelligence Service chief Sergei Naryshkin, met in parallel.
Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar said one of the most pressing issues discussed at the meeting was the fight against terrorism. He stressed that Turkey respects the territorial integrity and sovereign rights of Syria and Iraq and that Ankara’s only objective in the border areas with these countries is to fight terrorism: “We seek to neutralize members of terrorist organizations such as the YPG (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which is banned in Turkey) and ISIS (banned in the Russian Federation)”. The minister also assured that through its actions Turkey aims to ensure the security of the country, its people and its borders, and to prevent a resumption of uncontrolled spontaneous migration flow from Syria to Turkey.
Regarding Ankara’s plans for Syria, the head of the Turkish Ministry of Defense pointed out that there was no intention to target the Syrian brothers living in Turkey and Syria, nor was there any intention to commit actions that would create difficulties for them. The Turkish military stressed after the meeting that “it took place in a constructive atmosphere and an agreement was reached to continue meetings in a trilateral format in order to ensure and maintain stability in Syria and the region as a whole”. Similar positive assessments of the trilateral meeting were voiced in Damascus.
Furthermore, the day after the trilateral meeting, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu pointed out that, despite the importance of the meeting between the heads of Russia, Turkey and Syria, which was previously mentioned by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, it will take place, not in January 2023, but later. Before the meeting, according to Turkey, the defense and foreign ministers, as well as the heads of national intelligence services of all the countries, should work on a roadmap for a resolution in Syria.
Assessing Turkey’s actions in the region, President Erdoğan stressed that Ankara had carried out a record number of operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in 2022. In 2023, there are plans to step up efforts to strengthen the buffer zone adjacent to the Turkish border and against the organization, the fight against which he explains the Turkish intervention in Syria and Iraq. Moreover, the Turkish leader promised that Ankara would enter “a new phase of the fight” to destroy the military capabilities, economic resources and infrastructure of Kurdish militias related to the PKK.
Thus, while Turkey does not abandon its intention to carry out a ground operation against the PKK, it clearly wants to prepare the conditions for it first, with the clear understanding that agreements must first be reached with Russia, whose armed forces have been present in Syria since 2015 at the invitation of the official authorities of that country. Of course, in this aspect, Ankara would primarily like to avoid trouble from Russian air defense against its aircraft. Furthermore, the objectives of the Turkish ground operation clearly include, in addition to the territories already effectively occupied by Turkey’s proxies and its own army, the occupation of some additional areas in northern Syria. However, Russia is unlikely to take such a step unconditionally and has repeatedly dissuaded Erdoğan from launching a new phase of the ground operation, arguing in favor of securing the Turkish-Syrian border through the active involvement of the Syrian Arab Army, supported by Moscow.
Demonstrating his willingness to take this option, Turkish Presidential Spokesperson İbrahim Kalın said on January 2 that Turkey expects the US and Russia to fulfil their security commitments on the border with Syria. In particular, the provisions of a memorandum of understanding signed by Russia and Turkey in October 2019. In particular, one of its clauses provides for the deployment of Russian military police and Syrian border guards on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey to jointly patrol and assist in the withdrawal of Kurdish units and their weapons 30 kilometers from the Syrian-Turkish border.
At the same time, Kalın stressed the need for the United States also to fulfil its commitments to Turkey to fight terrorist groups on Syrian territory. He emphasized that “US attitudes towards terrorist organizations continue to influence relations between the two countries” and that Ankara “will not accept unilateral imposition of policy, no matter who it comes from”. This Ankara’s position is clearly due to the fact that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which are based on the YPG self-defense units, control most of Syria’s Al-Hasakah and Raqqa provinces and some localities in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor provinces with the support of the US military. However, like Ankara, official Damascus does not recognize this autonomous administration in north-eastern Syria, nor does it recognize the illegal presence of the US military on Syrian territory.
Thus, against the backdrop of comfortable conditions for restarting the peace process in Syria, the trilateral meeting in Moscow was able to lay the foundation for a future resolution of the Syrian crisis. And Russian efforts in this direction will certainly be able to facilitate the search for a compromise. With elections scheduled for the coming spring in Turkey, Ankara clearly has no interest in delaying the process, raising hopes that one of the hot and highly dangerous armed conflicts could be eliminated in the near future.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In November President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan won re-election with over 80% of the vote. As he was the official candidate of every party represented in parliament, this was not surprising.
It is this sort of thing which has given Central Asian states in general a bad name. Even though they may be democracies in certain strict technical terms, everyone knows who will win the elections before they are held. There is usually one strongman leader, one dominant party, and everyone else is allowed to be there purely for decoration, provided they pose no genuine threat to the ruling class.
Consequently, international observers have once again complained about a “lack of pluralism,” and [they] stated the need to “work towards achieving greater transparency” in Kazakhstan elections. This is a way of saying that the result wasn’t actually rigged, but it was impossible for the present political system to produce any other result, due to the innate advantages enjoyed by the ruling party.
This is what you would expect advocates of liberal democracy to say. But there are two reasons why even the most devoted sycophant of Scandinavian-style accountability and participation should think again in this particular case.
Bucking the System
Firstly, the basis of this argument is that democracy should be about substance rather than image. Everyone should have an equal chance to present their views, and the voters should be able to make a totally free choice of what is best for the country, without fear of any negative consequences for themselves if they vote against the incumbents.
But the argument against the façade democracies of many developing countries is exactly that: a preference for image over substance. Put Western and Central Asian politicians together, and you know which will be seen as democratic and responsive and which will be seen as authoritarian and corrupt, simply because of how their countries are perceived.
Scandals in Western politics are regarded as aberrations, but the same things in Central Asia the norm, even though the offences committed may be exactly the same. The only reason Central Asian states cannot walk the same walk and talk the same talk as their more acceptable Western counterparts is because the definition of that walk and talk are simply, “something which doesn’t include countries from certain parts of the world”.
For example, how often do you hear people complaining about a lack of democracy or pluralism in flash, Western-leaning, economically successful Japan? When China advances economically, it is because it is exploiting its workers and doing dirty deals. When Japan does the same its local customs are merely eccentricities, because they can’t really be important if the country is as successful as the very culturally different West.
Japan has an Emperor who is given semi-divine status, as we see whenever one dies. Japan’s war crimes are legendary, and the apologies have often been criticised for deliberately not addressing the actual events.
Japan’s democracy has also thrown up disturbingly predictable results. The Liberal Democratic Party, founded in 1955, has held power for all but four years since then. The main reason for this is the Japanese preference for the collective over the individual – being part of institutions and supporting them. Japanese “know which side their bread is buttered” just as much as a fearful Central Asian voter wants to keep the job and official blind eye provided by their ruling party.
If the West cared about this, US troops would invade Japan tomorrow. But it has cleaned up its image, and given people what they want, even though it shares all the characteristics, and cultural alienation, of the Central Asian states which don’t enjoy its wealth.
The second reason Kazakhstan should not be treated as another identikit authoritarian backwater is that very wealth. Everyone else still expects the Kazakhs to jump to their tune to join whichever club they claim to represent. Kazakhs don’t care because they are busy exploiting their natural resources, and buying up means of securing their wealth against external shocks.
Known for its mineral and energy resources, Kazakhstan is big enough to position itself as an alternative to whichever energy supplier is in bad odour internationally at a given time. This not only brings significant foreign investment into Kazakhstan, but has enabled Kazakh individuals and companies to invest in supply chain and infrastructure projects which can be used to help all kinds of industries, often under the counter but within the law.
You often wonder why former Soviet countries which are not on good terms with Russia continue to attract Russian investment. The answer is that these “Russians” are very often Kazakhs, and thus more acceptable, but seen as “Russian” because they don’t wish to advertise that they are investing for the benefit of Kazakhstan rather than local populations.
Some years back a Kazakh woman married to a British executive of a Kazakh company visited her husband’s homeland for a holiday. She was asked by immigration if she wanted to stay in the UK and said “not particularly”.
We know this story because the woman has repeated it ever since, because she couldn’t believe how shocked the immigration official was that someone from Kazakhstan wasn’t trying to jump into the UK in search of a better life. They had everything they wanted in Kazakhstan, so moving to the UK would have been a backward step, but the British couldn’t understand this.
Kazakhstan is what it is, and whatever the social inequalities and lack of opportunity there is enough to go round. A Western country wouldn’t do differently in these circumstances, provided it could project the right image, nor would it be expected to. Kazakhstan will do what it wants, and won’t care what anyone else thinks because it is an independent country which gives others what they want and profits from it, in true liberal capitalist style.
Tomorrow is Today Somewhere
But Kazakhstan does know that there will always be “upward peer pressure” in the international arena. If you can’t be pushed around, you have to lead. Where is Kazakhstan heading, and where will it lead others?
Kazakhstan is cited as a country with an “increasingly independent” foreign policy – not automatically aligned with Russia, that is. In English, this simply means that it is an independent state, and has enough clout to behave like one.
NATO members take different foreign policy positions on practically everything, from relations with Israel to support for military actions in Syria and Afghanistan. Yet we never hear any of them described as “increasingly independent” when they come to different conclusions to their allies.
It is assumed that NATO members are fully independent in thought and action, whatever the reality on the ground. Kazakhstan must still be beholden to Russia, or rather the Western opinion of Russia at a given time, because prejudice will not allow the West to treat it as another independent nation, after telling it for decades that it should be.
The obvious path for Kazakhstan would therefore be the act as a “bridge between East and West”. That sounds fine on paper, until you see what happens to the other countries which try it.
Despite officially supporting this concept, the Western powers will not allow anyone to have a foot in both camps. As Ukraine, Georgia and many others have found, you have to be with one or the other. Even then, anything Eastern is considered bad and backward, anything Western is good and progressive, so you can only actually move those feet in one direction, no matter how firmly you plant them on your chosen side.
Nor can Kazakhstan be a leading player in the Non-Aligned Movement. If it speaks, it is East, if it makes money, it is West. All it can do if it tries to define its friends is make enemies, as no one has enough to gain from allying with Kazakhstan politically, or being seen to ally with it economically.
Kazakhstan belongs to the group of nations which rejects all classification – the political equivalent of the 1970s-80s musical group Sky, which fused classical, rock and jazz elements into a style which is its own, and doesn’t belong in any of these categories. The problem with the Non-Aligned Movement is that it is still about who can be more Non-Aligned than whom, as Cuba’s chairmanship of it once demonstrated. You can’t be Non-Aligned unless you watch the Aligned countries very carefully, but if you think the alignments are nothing to do with you, you go a step further.
Kazakhstan has internal problems like any other country. But it has resisted being defined by these, or by the directions taken to resolve them. If it keeps proceeding in its own anomalous way, it has much to offer countries which may not like or agree with aspects of Kazakhstan, but think that isn’t so important when benefits can be found.
Winning by Not Playing
One area in which the “Kazakh method” is already bearing fruit is in energy agreements. These are always more about politics than energy- except, it appears where Kazakhstan is concerned.
If you buy energy from Russia or Iran, or a country being used to bypass Russia or Iran, you have a problem. Domestic consumers may not care about the political implications of their oil, gas and electricity, but politicians have to tread very carefully when giving any country the right to supply such a fundamental commodity, with all the leverage this gives it in control of industry and other resources.
Kazakhstan is not only a generally acceptable partner; it is also an acceptable non-partner. You can use Kazakh energy because you want to, and you can call it what you like. If you don’t like another energy supplier, you don’t have to be seen running to Kazakhstan to spite them.
The Kazakhs are in the position Afghans were in in the English-speaking world before the Taliban came along. If someone looked “Asian” they were assumed to be Indian or Pakistani, both of which identities had all kinds of negative connotations. Sri Lankans, on either side of that violent domestic argument, were a sort of Fifth Column.
But if you were an Afghan, those who wanted to listen to racists wouldn’t hit you. You might also be a foreigner of strange religion, taking homes and jobs and benefits off the natives, but you didn’t have any particular image, and thus no particular baggage. It was therefore so much harder to either make you into an enemy or gain political brownie points by ostentatiously proclaiming you a friend, whilst doing nothing to help you.
Kazakhstan can enter energy deals, or not, depending on the perceived needs and desires of the parties concerned. If it changes direction, this does not represent a political change but a commercial one, just like buying a Volkswagen instead of a Ford doesn’t make you a neo-Nazi rather than a socialist.
The discussions over a tripartite gas union between Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan present a case in point. Russia wants to supply gas to these countries, which derive significant revenue from gas exports but need to cut these back to serve domestic populations. It is assumed that Russia has political motives in wanting to supply this gas, but although that is undoubtedly true, it is also the case of practically with every energy deal, or trade deal, with all their hidden opt-ins and restrictions which make parties politically bounden.
Uzbekistan is not hot on the idea of the gas union, because it will alter how everyone else sees the country, and potentially its investment and defence climate. Kazakhstan isn’t too interested either, but not because ties with Russia will hurt its bottom line.
Kazakhstan wants the freedom to do what it likes how it likes, without this having consequences it simply has to put up with. It is doing its best to put each other country on the same moral, legal and commercial footing, so there is a level playing field for all.
Diplomacy is not the driver but the by-product of all this, just as genuine democracy and genuinely free markets are fundamentals of human character, which underpin, not reflect, the political and economic systems those humans live under. When populism has run its course as an alternative to everything being about politics, Kazakhstan’s increasing prosperity and accidental pragmatism, will provide an alternative model whose very virtue is that you can take it or leave it.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In late December last year, Pakistan’s Balochistan province, which covers 45% of the country’s desert and sparsely populated area, suffered three terrorist attacks in less than two days. The most damaging of these was an improvised explosive device that blew up an army convoy in the eastern Kohlu district of the province on December 25. As a result, five servicemen, including the convoy commander, were killed and six wounded.
This brings the death toll of Pakistani servicemen in these three terrorist attacks alone to ten. And just three weeks earlier, a suicide bomber blew himself up next to a truck carrying Interior Ministry police in the capital of the same Balochistan province, Quetta. Three died instantly and about 30 people (half of whom were police officers) were injured in various ways. Another three weeks earlier, a former judge was killed in a mosque in that Quetta while praying.
Such terrorist attacks have been occurring in this province regularly and for years. This is why the expression “the war in Balochistan, which has been waged since the independence of Pakistan in 1948” is sometimes used. The Balochs associate the loss of their quasi-statehood with this “moment”, the restoration of which is at the heart of the struggle of the nation’s diverse political as well as paramilitary insurgent organizations.
It should be noted, however, that Pakistan is home to a majority of Balochs (about 70%), whose total global population is estimated at 10-12 million. Incidentally, in this province too, the Balochs make up not all but just over half of its population. The other part is the Pashtuns, with whom the Balochs seem to “coexist” quite peacefully. And not only in Pakistan, but also in neighboring Afghanistan, where about 17% of the total Baloch population lives. Another 6.5% of these people are located in Iran. That is, like the Pashtuns (and also, for example, the Kurds), the Balochs are a so-called “divided people”.
But while in Afghanistan this Baloch status is not (at least explicitly) a source of problems for the authorities in that country, which represents mainly the same Pashtuns, in Iran Baloch paramilitary groups are no less frequent than in Pakistan in carrying out attacks on various local authorities. One significant motive for such sorties (in addition to the “division” mentioned above) is that the Persians and Balochs belonged to different branches of Islam. The former are predominantly Shia, the latter Sunni.
It is not uncommon for such sorties to be carried out in the southeastern Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchestan and to move into neighboring Pakistan’s Balochistan. The largest such attack occurred on October 1, 2022, when Baloch militants attacked a police station in that Iranian province. 19 people were killed, including an IRGC colonel. On December 19, four more members of the same IRGC were killed in the same Iranian province. The attackers then fled into neighboring Pakistan.
The presence of the “Baloch factor” has also been noted recently in the newly aggravated situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border. So far, the main participants in the “blow-up” there have been the same Pashtuns of present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan. They were divided more than a century ago (at a ratio of approximately 1:2) by the so-called “Durand Line”, named after an official of the former “British India” administration. Neither the previous nor the current Afghan leadership of the victorious Taliban (organization banned in Russia) in August 2021 has ever recognized it as a border with Pakistan.
This is not surprising since, again, it is the “divided” Pashtuns as a whole who are the main ethnic group in Afghanistan. They also form the core of the country’s power structures, whatever their “partisanship”. While in Pakistan, the Pashtuns, though the second largest ethnic group, are three times smaller than the Punjabis, who constitute 45% of the population. So far, it is the Pashtuns living both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces that have proved to be as much of a headache for the Pakistani leadership as the Balochs. In the area adjacent to the “Durand Line”, there is virtually uninterrupted, almost full-scale fighting.
The factor of unacceptability for Kabul of the current “border” with Islamabad explains the outwardly weird fact of poor relations between the former and the latter’s co-religionists (also Sunnis, by the way). And, conversely, any (i.e. the current) Afghan leadership maintains good relations (especially in terms of economic cooperation) with “pagan” India.
No positive “dividend” for Pakistan comes from the fact that much of the current leadership of Afghanistan has in the past been closely associated with Pakistan’s “all-powerful” Inter-Services Intelligence. It is sometimes argued that in terms of specific personalities, the Afghan leadership was created by the ISI.
Apparently in this case the universal rule of principled difference in the behavior of certain politicians when they are in opposition to the incumbent government and when they themselves are in charge of it has been triggered. In this second period, the recent opposition finds itself confronted with the need to address the country’s real and critical problems, which often have their origins in already distant history.
Be that as it may, the “Pashtun factor” has not disappeared from Islamabad’s list of problems even under the Taliban (banned in Russia) leadership in Afghanistan. Again, November and December last year were filled with reports of almost full-scale fighting by the Pakistani army and police against Pakistan’s Taliban (banned in Russia) offshoot in the “Durand Line” area.
The Taliban’s proposal, announced on December 7, to ensure the safe operation of the long-planned North-South Transport Corridor, which is to begin in Russia, pass through Iran and end in India, fits perfectly with the aforementioned external “weirdness” of the foreign policy positioning of the current Afghan leadership. At the same time, ensuring the specified security of the Chabahar port area in Iran is of critical importance. The latter is intended to act as a transshipment hub for the final maritime section of the said “corridor”.
It is important to note that so far it is expected to bypass Pakistan. In this regard, Pakistan’s inclusion in the project would be a strong signal of dramatic improvement across the vast region encompassing Central and South Asia.
But until now, mutual accusations of attempts to destabilize the situation on the neighbor’s territory through support for various separatist movements continue to be voiced from India and Pakistan. The former points to the situation in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. On the part of the latter there are accusations of India supporting the same Balochs.
As for the persistent domestic political turbulence in Pakistan as a whole, other negative factors have not disappeared. Of these, the main one remains that which stems from the ongoing confrontation between the two main political factions led by the incumbent and the previous prime ministers. However, this is a topic for another special commentary.
Finally, it is worth pointing out once again that all these different kinds of troubles are taking place on the territory of a country that is a de facto nuclear power. Mainly for this reason, Pakistan’s domestic political situation is being watched with particular vigilance by the world’s leading players.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On December 8, 2022 in Washington the defense chiefs of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, members of the 2021 AUKUS defense alliance, praised the nuclear submarine construction process for Australia and expressed their hope that it would proceed as soon as possible.
The US Department of Defense stressed that all of the above parties would carefully comply with all approved international standards for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and cooperate with the IAEA.
The trilateral security alliance AUKUS (named after the first letters of the participating states – Australia, the UK and the US) was established in September 2021 to reduce China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region in general and in the Pacific in particular.
To this end, the Australian Navy was to significantly enhance its capabilities by building nuclear submarines and putting them into service in the coming years. The initiative led to Canberra pulling out of a submarine construction agreement already signed with the French Naval Group, leading to a major diplomatic scandal, which was, however, resolved with the coming to power of Australia’s new Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in spring 2022.
The decision to build nuclear submarines for the Australian Navy was made to improve Australia’s chances of successfully fending off a Chinese attack in the event of a regional conflict.
Thanks to the US initiative, Australia, which so far has had no nuclear weapons in its arsenal, can now have at its disposal large quantities of highly enriched uranium, which is needed to build nuclear submarines on its territory. According to analysts, Australia may well have enough uranium to produce nuclear missiles. If this happens, in the not too distant future a once non-nuclear-weapon state will become a nuclear one without signing the relevant agreements and therefore remaining out of the sight of international supervisory bodies.
Such an initiative on the part of the US is explained by the fact that the US leadership is prepared to do anything to promote its geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific region, thus upsetting China’s plans.
For the first time in 50 years, the US may grant access to its underwater technology to a foreign nation, Australia. Half a century ago, the first country to receive US designs was the UK. This was done so that the British Navy could do something to counter the Soviets. Washington is now going to share its technology with Canberra in case of combat operations against potential aggression. If Australia succeeds in launching a nuclear submarine, it will join the list of countries that use nuclear submarines and have one of the strongest navies in the world.
China, for its part, opposes Washington’s military preparations. Chinese diplomats have repeatedly issued statements condemning US actions, which they believe violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and provoke a situation in the Pacific that could lead to nuclear conflict.
It is important to note that Russia, too, has a negative view of the AUKUS bloc and the US ambition to give Australia access to advanced military technology. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the emergence of new defense alliances organized by the United States is raising international tensions. Similar statements by other Russian politicians can be explained not only by the Russian Federation’s desire to maintain good neighborly relations with China, but also by the Kremlin’s reasonable intention to prevent the spread of nuclear and conventional weapons around the world. The recent outcome of US arms supply policy is the ongoing fighting in Ukraine.
In the meantime, AUKUS member states plan not only to improve their own armed forces, but also to include as many countries as possible in their sphere of influence.
Australia, for example, is interested in developing further relations with the Philippines. It is a developing country with a population of 114 million and enjoys an advantageous geographical position. A friendly dialogue with the Philippines allows Canberra not only to boost its economy through lucrative trade agreements, but also to secure its far-flung frontiers. This is especially so given Australia’s stated concern that Chinese military installations, highly undesirable to Canberra, could reach its borders in the foreseeable future.
At a joint press conference with Philippine President-elect Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Philippine capital Manila on June 19, 2022, Australian Ambassador to the Philippines Steven Robinson said relations between the two countries should become strategic by the end of 2022. Robinson expressed hope that Marcos Jr. will pursue a measured and rational policy for the benefit of the Philippines. During the meeting, the two countries exchanged views on future cooperation in the field of defense. In particular, they discussed the training of reservists for the Philippine army and the $80 million allocated by Australia for this purpose. Also, Marcos Jr. and Robinson discussed the problems of the Filipino diaspora in Australia, which is the fifth largest ethnic group living in the country.
In October 2022, a joint Philippine-Australian naval exercise was held to increase the two countries’ capacity to counter smuggling, terrorism, drug trafficking and the effects of natural disasters. A total of around 400 sailors and officers from both countries took part in the exercise. According to the Philippine Navy, the exercise contributed to increasing the level of capabilities of the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard.
It should be stressed that the 2022 joint Australia-Philippines exercise on Philippine territory was not the first time, with a similar exercise on May 12 of the same year at the Philippine Fort Ramon-Magsaysay range in Nueva Ecija. This demonstrates Australia’s keen interest in maintaining its presence in the Philippines and demonstrating its military strength to neighboring countries.
However, active AUKUS action in the Pacific is unlikely to actually produce the desired results for its member states. Many states around the world are steadily shifting their foreign policy vectors in favor of Beijing, which offers them more favorable conditions for cooperation. For example, South Pacific island states such as the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, strategically important to Australia’s security, are steadily increasing their partnership with China and increasing their trade turnover with it. Sooner or later, other island states in the AUKUS area will follow suit.
By increasing armaments and demonstrative exercises on other countries’ territories, AUKUS member states only heighten international tensions and harm their budgets by wasting financial resources to the detriment of taxpayers – this is the opinion of a large proportion of voters of the alliance members who will cast their votes in future elections not in favor of the current trend.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
It would seem that not long ago we touched on the intricate situation regarding rumors of North Korean or South Korean arms being supplied to the region of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, noting that there was no real evidence of either. Unfortunately, the situation is not evolving for the better and even those in the US establishment, who previously had refrained from making direct and unsubstantiated accusations, have begun to do so.
On December 22, 2022, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters that the DPRK had completed its initial arms delivery to Russia back in November, including infantry rockets and missiles: “We can confirm that North Korea has completed an initial arms delivery to Wagner, which paid for that equipment”. And while Washington does believe “that the amount of material delivered to Wagner will not change battlefield dynamics in Ukraine,” it is still “certainly concerned that North Korea is planning to deliver more military equipment.”
Kirby’s further statements reflected that, for him, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is taking place on some other globe. It turned out that Russian military officials report to the command of this PMC, which has 50,000 fighters. “It’s pretty apparent to us that Wagner is emerging as a rival power center to the Russian military and other Russian ministries”. The Russian reader can only raise a restrained smile, which also applies to the idea that the PMC has not only heavy equipment, but also missiles and heavy artillery in its arsenal.
Nevertheless, Kirby said the US, along with its allies and partners, would raise the issue in the UN Security Council, as the North’s arms deliveries were a clear violation of sanctions resolutions and he promised new sanctions against the Wagner group. US Permanent Representative to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield also said that the US “intends to raise the DPRK’s and Russia’s violations of UN Security Council resolutions in future meetings of the Security Council and will share information of this violation with the Council’s 1718 Sanctions Committee.”
The ROK and Canadian foreign ministries joined in the condemnation. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly stressed that the actions of Wagner and Pyongyang “clearly violate international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions.” South Korea’s foreign ministry also condemned the arms trade between North Korea and the PMC, saying it was detrimental to peace and stability in the international community in direct violation of the resolutions.
More interestingly, Stéphane Dujarric, the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, told a briefing that the UN had no information on possible arms deliveries from the DPRK to the Wagner PMC. From the author’s point of view, this is a hint…
Equally interesting is that Kirby’s information was published almost exactly the same way a little earlier by the British media. Reuters quoted a senior US administration official as saying that the ammunition had been bought from the DPRK last month and delivered to Russia: allegedly the volume of shipments is not large enough to seriously affect military operations, but the US fears that this channel will continue to operate.
A little earlier, the Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shinbun had reported that similar missiles were being supplied via the Hasan-Rajin railway.
And all this could not but prompt a comment from the DPRK Foreign Ministry, which on December 22 dismissed the manipulative report by the Japanese media as a completely clumsy and groundless PR stunt. The rest of the statement should be quoted as fully as possible:
“The DPRK remains unchanged in its principled stand on the issue of “arms transaction” between the DPRK and Russia which has never happened.
The international community will have to focus on the US criminal acts of bringing bloodshed and destruction to Ukraine by providing it with various kinds of lethal weapons and equipment on a large scale, rather than lending an ear to the groundless theory of “arms transaction” between the DPRK and Russia cooked up by some dishonest forces for different purposes.
Taking this opportunity, I would like to say that the Russian people are the bravest people with the will and ability to defend the security and territorial integrity of their country without any others’ military support”.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, the owner of the Wagner PMC, also dismissed the allegation of North Korean supplies as “gossip and speculation”, and the author partly agrees with him: there is still no regular railway connection between North Korea and Russia. All the more so since the movement of trains across the border is monitored by US military satellites, among others.
The author also draws attention to the fact that the PMC has far less capacity to procure this type of weapons than the state does, because it would require additional time. Finally, if the PMC had received these weapons back in November, they would have already been used on the battlefields, which would have left an information trail.
This looks like another fake about North Korean shells, but for the author it is an excuse to talk about two additional things.
First, that accusations are very often based on the method of projection or, as the saying goes, the tongue ever turns to the aching tooth. And in this context, it is worth talking about a series of US pieces in the Western media which suggest that the “arsenal of democracy is depleting” and it is not Russia, but the “free world” which is having problems in supplying arms.
Second, although this version was first published by a British news agency and then voiced by Kirby himself, no evidence was produced. Meanwhile, the author reiterates a very important point: if you accuse your opponent and you have hard, irrefutable facts that incriminate them in some way, you can safely put them out there – without fear that some independent expert will discover that it was a poorly concocted fake. When someone says “we have secret evidence, but we won’t show it to you because it is a military secret”, this approach has been considered rotten since the Dreyfus affair.
The accusations concerning Moscow’s use of Iranian drones include at least debris that is structurally similar to Iranian designs. There is nothing in this case, and the Wagner PMC seems to be attached because it is today the most demonized armed formation having anything to do with Russia. Moreover, it also operates in the Middle East and Africa, which might have added credibility to the US claims, if there had been any specifics.
The use of accusations, however, which are not backed up by any semblance of credible evidence, did not begin with North Korean shells. One may recall the high-profile doping case in which the Russian side somehow allegedly tampered with urine samples in containers that were not supposed to be opened as per design. One may recall the poisonings of the Skripals or Kim Jong-nam when, in response to a direct question as to how exactly on the technical side the special operation had been carried out, there was no sane answer.
Rather than going into detail and sorting out the extent to which certain actions are technically possible, the analysis is substituted by notions of how capable we think “They” are of doing It. And if They could do it, then They did it, no matter how.
That said, such unsubstantiated information becomes a pretext for imposing sanctions of any level of severity – and this is an important criterion of a post-globalization world in which there is no longer any room for normal investigations and evidence. And this is a worrying sign, because now it is possible to use a fantastic accusation as a pretext for sanctions and if it is said from a high rostrum, the status of the one who said it is confirmation in itself: “How can we doubt the existence of Marquis of Carabas if the talking cat claims it?”
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The world is changing from a US-led unipolar world to a non-US-led multipolar world. Its sources are multiple and geographically diverse. The change is tied not just to the rise of Russia and China as two powers capable of challenging the US dominance, but also to the fact that many powerful states, otherwise traditionally tied to Washington, are increasingly moving away from the US orbit to developing what is now being called ‘indigenous’, or new (non-US), air combat systems, including 6th generation fighter jets. While these states, through these fighter jet programs, may not be openly challenging the US yet, the direction of this development does show their appetite to reduce their dependence on Washington and enhance their military – and strategic – autonomy. Europe defines its autonomy on the basis of being “an entity capable of taking its own decisions and determining its own future.” Having its fighters jets – and a joint security system – is crucial for actualising this definition.
More autonomy means more space to enact foreign policies that best suit their own interests rather than those of the US. More space to make and implement policies not reflecting US interests means a world with more than one power centre offering little space to US unilateralism. Hence, multipolarity.
As it stands, this is exactly what the French-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS), the UK, Italy, and Japan Global Combat Air Program (GCAP), Turkey’s TF-X indigenous fighter, and South Korea’s KF-21 Boramae fighter jet programmes reveal. All of these countries want to modernise militarily, but they want to do this not just by buying jets from the US, but mainly by developing their own jets. As France’s Airbus – which is one of the key developers of the FCAS system – mentions on its programme website, the FCAS “is a key instrument in ensuring future European autonomy and sovereignty in defence & security.”
This programme is not just an idea. In fact, on December 1, 2022, Airbus (representing Germany) and Dassault (representing France) reached an agreement on launching the third phase of the project, overcoming existing disagreements and stalemates regarding production, division of labour, and intellectual property rights. On December 15, France agreed on the contract for the third phase of production. Apart from Airbus and Dassault, the programme also includes a Spanish company called Indra. The FCAS is, therefore, being seen as a Europe-wide project, reinforcing a latent, yet very real, European search for an independent, or rather ‘indigenous’, security structure that is not necessarily tied to NATO.
Similarly, the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) being jointly run by the UK, Italy and Japan is another addition to the developing menu of fighter jets that allows the relevant states to look beyond the made-in-American systems. In fact, the UK government was keen to stress the possibility of other NATO countries – mostly European – might buy into GCAP in the near future. Like the FCAS, the GCAP is also seeking continent-wide usage.
At the same time, the fact that Germany, France, and Spain are developing a separate fighter jet means that the FCAS and GCAP are two rivals in Europe. While they will compete for market, they will jointly squeeze the space for the US F-35 or the 6th generation ‘New Generation Air Dominance System.’ Therefore, while the Transatlantic Alliance is moving away from its dependence on the US, internal competition will also make it difficult for the alliance to continue to act as a unified bloc, especially if internal unity comes at the expense of much sought-after European autonomy in a multipolar world.
Indeed, this was the message that Macron gave in November when he unveiled France’s “national strategic review” and emphasised that France wants to be an “independent, respected, agile power at the heart of the European strategic autonomy”, adding that “When peace is back in Ukraine, we will need to assess all the consequences” via a “new security architecture” on the continent.
While Macron mainly represents France, the EU Parliament’s policy document on the EU’s strategic autonomy calls for “investment in defence capabilities” [which] should happen ‘in a collaborative way within the EU’ and ‘stimulate Member States’ collaborative investments in joint projects and joint procurement of defence capabilities’.” While one may suspect that this thinking might have changed post-Russian special military operations in Ukraine, the said document, published in July 2022 i.e., during the ongoing military conflict in Europe, stresses the importance of EU strategic autonomy in the wake of this very crisis.
While the EU’s quest can be explained with reference to the continent’s increasing displeasure with the US, it remains the case that the US itself is contributing to the world’s shift towards multipolarity. This is most evident in the case of Turkey, which, while a NATO ally, is also building its own indigenous fighter jet. As reports in Turkey’s official media show, producing TF-X, besides yielding many other advantages for the Turkish defence industry, will also make it possible for Turkey to reduce its dependence on the US and become “self-sufficient and independent,” adding that this will allow the Turkish Air Forces to “have absolute superiority in the region.”
What does all this mean for the US? If NATO was conceived of as an internally unified system, this is no longer the case – not only because this unity is gradually eroding, as the EU becomes more assertive, but also because there is a growing realisation that dependence on the US has a cost: strategic autonomy. In a crisis ridden world of today, it is now more important than ever to exercise this autonomy. Erstwhile US allies in and out of Europe are cultivating this autonomy as an asset of its own kind.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
On December 26, 2022, there was an incident between North and South that some media outlets immediately hyped as “peninsula on the brink of war”: five North Korean drones crossed the inter-Korean border, with one of them flying over northern Seoul. This was the first such incident in five years.
Four downed drones were discovered in the spring and fall of 2014. They contained footage of the presidential administration and the military. On June 9, 2017, the North sent a camera-equipped drone across the border to take pictures of a US military base using the THAAD missile defense system, but it did not return and crashed in the north-eastern district of Inje in the south. Prior to that, drones flew into the South in 2014 and 2016.
ROK analysts estimate that the North has as many as 1,000 drones in service (both reconnaissance and kamikaze drones), with Seoul “remaining concerned that some North Korean drones could carry chemical and biological weapons for use in potential terrorist operations.”
As in 2017, small and likely unarmed drones up to 2 meters wide crossed the border this time. According to a South Korean pilot, the UAV he saw was similar to a drone that flew into the South in 2017.
According to South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), DPRK UAVs have been spotted in the border areas of Gyeonggi province. Although initial reports spoke of a large group of “unidentified objects, presumed to be unmanned aerial vehicles”, some of these turned out to be birds.
One drone reached the northern part of Seoul after being in ROK airspace for three hours. After circling the northern part of the capital, the drone departed. However, its exact area of flight over Seoul is not specified. This may be due to the fact that the radars could not provide sustained surveillance of the object, occasionally losing sight of it. Reports that a drone may take pictures of the presidential administration building while flying over the Yongsan district have not yet been confirmed.
The other four were circling around Ganghwa Island to the west of the capital. The drones were clearly visible to the naked eye and were caught on camera by individuals, causing some excitement in the “civil media.” The exact routes of all five UAVs could not be traced due to their small size.
Later, another unidentified UAV was spotted near Seongmodo Island (Ganghwa County) at around 3 p.m..
The South Korean military responded to the DPRK by firing several warning shots and also informed North Korea of the violation of ROK airspace. South Korea’s Ministry of Transport temporarily suspended flights at Gimpo and Incheon international airports. About 20 warplanes and helicopters were scrambled to intercept.
Nevertheless, no drone was shot down, as confirmed by the lack of new photos. All the Yonhap news reports on the incident were illustrated with photos of previous drones. One that flew over Seoul returned to North Korea via the Paju area. The other four disappeared from radar and it is unclear whether they were shot down or fell because they ran out of fuel or power.
The ROK military gave two reasons for the failure. First, the drones were small (less than 2 meters) and sky-blue in color, so it was difficult for fighter pilots to identify them with the naked eye and to shoot them down. Second, the drones were flying low and there was a chance of damaging civilian facilities. In the end, only about a hundred shots were fired from the helicopter’s 20mm auto-gun – in the direction of the radar-tracked trail, rather than aimed at the drone.
In response, the South sent its manned and unmanned aircraft to the North and the ROK border areas to conduct surveillance and other operations, including taking pictures of “key enemy military facilities.” They all returned home safely.
Now for the reaction to the events, since drone raids on each other’s territory clearly violate the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement on de-escalating tensions. “This is a clear act of provocation in which North Korea invaded our airspace,” ROK Major General Lee Seung-o said. Later, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kang Shin-chul formally apologized: “We feel sorry that although our military detected and tracked the drones, we failed to shoot them down.”
The Office of the President said Presidential National Security Advisor Kim Sung-han and other staff reacted immediately, but did not hold a meeting of the National Security Council over the drone flight.
ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol himself pledged on December 27 to strengthen the military’s surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, saying the infiltration of North Korean drones showed that South Korea’s military preparedness had been “severely lacking” for years.
This was a dig at Moon Jae-in, during whose reign there were no exercises against such drones. Yoon expressed regret over the fact that the National Assembly had cut the government’s proposed budget for drone operations by 50% for 2023 and promised to set up a military unit specializing in drones.
The opposition Democratic Party criticized Yoon for evading responsibility and shifting the blame to the previous administration, “making us question his qualification as commander in chief.” For example, former general and Democrat MP Kim Byung-joo criticized the Yoon administration for not holding a meeting of the National Security Council, accusing it of being nonchalant about people’s safety.
The United States reaffirmed its commitment to defending the ROK and said it was in close consultation with South Korean allies.
On December 27, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the ROK’s Armed Forces decided to conduct an air defense test. According to a committee spokesman, the air defense forces have been put on high alert.
In this situation, the author would like to draw attention to several points.
First, the fact that none of the drones were shot down is not just a demonstration of the ROK’s weak drone-fighting capabilities, but a general problem of dealing with such an atypical target, common in other regions as well.
Apologizing, Kang Shin-chul noted that the military has limitations in detecting and defeating small surveillance drones, while it is still capable of countering threats from larger strike drones and, as another spokesperson for the JCS, Colonel Lee Sung-jun, said, “there are considerable restrictions in detecting and identifying drones smaller than 3 meters”.
Supersonic jets fly too fast to track drones that reach speeds of around 100 kilometers per hour. In addition, their small size and power-to-weight ratio make it impossible to use standard guidance systems, and since drones can change speed and altitude, hitting them “the old-fashioned way with a scope” is not easy either.
After the infiltration of drones from the North in 2014, the Ministry of Defense procured a radar system from Israel, but the limited radar deployment and small size of the drones made them difficult to intercept.
However, it is unclear what the South Korean air defense forces, which possess Vulcan automatic anti-aircraft guns, were doing in the meantime. Their inaction is attributed by the military to a desire to prevent possible damage to civilian facilities and the population, but this is perceived by critics as a rather weak justification.
Defense experts contacted by the Korea Times said that unlike in the past, the military was able to detect the drones when they violated South Korean airspace and did the right thing by deciding not to use excessive force to destroy the drones, which flew over civilian populated areas. However, the military needs to improve the speed of its decision-making process to prevent drones from infiltrating deep into the country.
According to Shin Jong-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, “it would be reasonable not to take the risk of damaging the lives of civilians or their property to destroy the small-size paper drones”.
Second, there will still be a spat between the ruling party and the opposition. Democrats will say that with his thoughtlessly harsh policies towards the DPRK, Yoon has driven the country to such direct provocations and, as the country’s leader, bears responsibility for all military failures; Conservatives will reply that the Moon administration has ruined military preparedness with its policy of appeasing the North, which is why drones are flying around like they are at home.
Third, the level of South Korean reaction is rather proportionate: the National Security Council did not meet (unlike the missile launches), the Ministry of Defense spoke out at a minimal level. In fact, in response to the North’s drone attack, the South simply conducted a similar raid and then engaged in a combat readiness check so that the North would not have it next time. This is quite important because there was no sign of the South’s actions inflaming the conflict.
Therefore, although the dangerous line has come one step closer, it is more of a minor incident that should be taken into account but not given undue significance.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
It’s a bit funny how propaganda works, especially the lies woven by the western elites these last few years. Take the Russian economy, for instance. A recent Twitter trend was #RunOnRussianBanks. With over 8,000 Tweets of photos of a dozen people standing in line in the snow at an ATM, the intent is to create a panic, I guess. Then there are the Washington think tanks claiming the conflict with the west has already set Russia back decades. Ditto, and ditto, at the New York Times and the media following them. If you live in Des Moines, Iowa (for instance), Russia is about to crumble beneath America’s geopolitical, financial, and/or military might.
There’s a problem, however. First, and perhaps foremost, these media and think tank reports are almost all written by Cal Berkeley transplants in Moscow institutions who were sleepers set to man the negative PR campaigning effort against Putin when all hell broke loose. Now, all hell has broken open, and the amplitude has been turned up. On Twitter, nefarious disinformation groups sponsored by the US or Soros, or both, play at the game the same way they blamed Russia for trolling social media. Visegrád Group, for instance, is a rat’s nest of liberal order crazies hell-bent, and I mean hell-bent, on a war on Russia.
Looking at the profiles Visegrad24’s first followed when coming online in 2020, you find assistant exorcist Dominik Tarczyński, the European Parliament’s Polish poster child representing the ruling PiS party. His role, the role of the PiS, has been to transform public media in Poland into a “propaganda mouthpiece” for the government and to attack the enemies of extreme conservatism. Oh, and to hate Putin and Russia some more.
The Visegrad propagandists are fear-mongering now, saying Russia may move past Ukraine to create a corridor through Moldova to connect Transnistria. The point is to get Romania stirred into a reported “transnational” force comprised of US, Polish, and Romanian forces to try and rescue Kyiv from the coming onslaught. When Russia’s General Sergei “Armageddon,” Surovikin gives the command, experts say a “conflict ending” operation will take place against Ukraine’s crippled armed forces. Viagrad is one of the dozens of groups (clans) targeting all things Russian. Now, let’s return to the economics propaganda. Are Russians rushing the banks to get their cash? Or is the Russian economy cash-heavy right now?
Recently, the Bank of Russia agreed to sell the bailed-out Otkritie Bank to state-owned VTB (VTBR.MM) for 340 billion roubles ($4.7 billion). Most of the deal is to be carried out in cash, with the rest in OFZ treasury bonds. I mention this deal because VTB fell under some of the toughest sanctions imposed by the West on Russia’s financial sector. Nevertheless, they seem liquid enough to fork over billions to buy a distressed bank. Then there’s the Institute of International Finance projection that Russia will post a record $250 billion cash surplus this year. Add to this the fact that Russia’s Central Bank still holds over $300 billion in foreign currencies to leverage currency and debt markets, and you get the right picture of where Russian’s stand. And they’re not rushing in mass to withdraw their rubles.
Due to this international reset mess, Russia’s trade balance is at a record high right now. The surplus for January-September was $198.4 billion, roughly $120 billion higher than for the same period in 2021 and more than double the previous record in 2008. And this is from NPR, not Tass, RT, Fox News, or me. Finally, EU President Ursula von der Leyen’s snarky oil price cap on Russian oil has far backfired. As of last week, Oil prices sat at $3 per barrel higher for a second straight week of gains after Moscow said it could cut crude output in response to the G7 price cap on Russian exports. Meanwhile, India is consuming Russian fossil fuels at ever-increasing rates, and it appears Mr. Putin is preparing to reopen rail loading terminals in East Siberia to increase crude shipments to China and the Asia-Pacific region.
Finally, I just phoned my good friends Evgeny, Ramilya, Sasha, and a countess from the French Riviera I know who just moved to Moscow about all this. Their advice on a cash run was unanimously in favor of staying at home or visiting Red Square for beautiful seasonal festivities. Russia is not broken yet.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The past year 2022 was marked by a number of important events on the Asian continent, in the Middle East and a number of other regions. Armed confrontations, terrorist attacks, the illegal sanctions policy of the West, which caused economic and energy crises, the widespread impoverishment of the common population — that’s the outcome of the short-sighted policies employed by certain countries…The “New Eastern Outlook” editorial board want to thank our authors and readers for the their contribution to the efforts of the international community, both diplomatic and media ones, made in an attempt to reduce international tension, to minimize regional conflicts, especially the armed ones, to improve the political climate on our planet.We want to wish each an every one of you family happiness, peaceful sky over your head, good health and a lot of success in your good deeds and endeavors in the year 2022.Next year we will strive to strengthen our cooperation even further and to expand the range of our readers and authors with your participation.Happy New Year to you all!The “New Eastern Outlook” editorial board.
The media has recently been more frequently reporting on the deteriorating situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and the heightened warlike accusations made by Turkish and Greek officials. Moreover, the disputes between these states over the situation in the Aegean Sea are aggravated by outright incitement to conflict by several states in the region.
First of all, France, which in October, together with Greece and Egypt, declared “illegal” the deal authorizing Turkey to explore for hydrocarbons Libya’s Mediterranean waters and with its official “revelations” to give Athens military protection against possible Turkish aggression only increases the heat of the Greek-Turkish conflict and divisions within the North Atlantic alliance.
Also actively fomenting the fuse is the United States, which, as the Turkish newspaper Milliyet wrote in October, “is provoking a military conflict between Greece and Turkey, which is a CIA plan to overthrow Erdoğan, undesirable for the Americans.” Even the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez, openly declared in October that Erdoğan, who leads the second most powerful army in NATO, is now a threat to Washington.
And, against this backdrop, it is clear that the US, actively supporting Greek military capabilities in recent months by strengthening and expanding its presence in the country, has in November allocated an additional $33.5 million in funding to the Larissa air base to accommodate advanced platforms and MQ-9 Reaper strike drones. These can carry air-to-ground missiles as well as air-to-air missiles, operating continuously in the air for 20 hours, which is more effective than Turkey’s Bayraktar TB2.
Noting rising tensions between the two countries, Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias, in letters to European diplomatic chief Josep Borrell and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in early September, had already warned of the threat of a serious conflict with Turkey. In response to Greece’s redeployment of armored vehicles to the islands of Midilli (Lesvos) and Sisam (Samos) in the Aegean Sea, which have demilitarized status, Turkish officials have hardened their belligerent tone towards Athens. Erdoğan, for example, threatened that Athens would “pay a heavy price” if it continued to “provoke the Turkish military.” And while visiting the aerospace and technology festival Teknofest in Samsun, the Turkish leader even said: “I want to tell Athens only one thing: don’t forget about Izmir!” – clearly referring to the events of 1922, the peak of which was the extermination by Atatürk’s army of the Greek population of the city of Smyrna (now Izmir).
It is therefore not surprising that the recently concluded joint military exercise “Brother Fist,” conducted by units of the Azerbaijani and Turkish armies in Baku and the areas bordering Iran on the Caspian Sea coast, caused concern not only in Greece but also in many countries of the region, as a demonstration of the Turkish-Azerbaijani army’s preparation for war with Greece. In particular, Greek media noted that, according to the scenario of the exercise, “allied forces” practiced landing from the sea on islands under enemy control. However, given that Azerbaijan has only 3 islands in the Caspian Sea, therefore it has been speculated that the aim of the exercise was actually to prepare for a joint capture of islands in the Aegean Sea with the Turkish army.
These assessments have been strengthened by Turkey’s successful test of the new ballistic missile Tayfun in October and Erdoğan’s blatant hints that it could reach Greece if Athens does not change its policy and course to expand its weapons arsenal.
The region is also somewhat cautious about Ankara’s readiness to activate the military vector in its confrontation with Athens, as are the decisions of the December 20 meeting in Ankara of the Defense Industry Agency (SSB) under the country’s presidential administration. In particular, Turkey, among 25 different defense projects, will start serial production of three national air defense systems, SIPER, HISAR and SUNGUR, as well as various strike systems, including the Akya torpedo and Tayfun, Atmaca, TRLG-230, Karaok, Gokdogan and Bozdogan missiles.
However, despite the increasing tone of mutual criticism and threats, a serious armed clash between the two NATO members seems unlikely to happen in the near future. It must be borne in mind that both Turkey and Greece will have key election campaigns in the coming months. Erdoğan’s popularity is known to have been built primarily on rapid economic development and a rising quality of life. However, the global crisis and deficiencies in monetary policy have led to inflation, a sharp depreciation of the Turkish lira, a deterioration of the situation of the population and increased imports of basic goods by Turkey. Greece is experiencing similar problems, where the blatantly failed policy of Washington’s anti-Russian sanctions has resulted in severe impoverishment of the population and an economic crisis.
Under these circumstances, due to the difficult economic and domestic political situation in both countries, both Athens and Ankara are trying to shift the focus to foreign policy, which is why there is such an active outburst of mutual hostility. However, the current political elites of these countries do not benefit from a major conflict, although border incidents such as those that took place in 2019-2020 cannot be ruled out.
In addition, growing tensions between NATO members Greece and Turkey threaten to complicate Europe’s efforts to maintain its unity in the face of the serious economic and energy crises that have erupted.
Therefore, both Brussels and Washington will seek to prevent the Turkish-Greek conflict from escalating to a hot phase. Precisely to mitigate the conflict, according to Greek media reports, a secret meeting was held recently in Brussels between Anna-Maria Boura, director of the Greek prime minister’s diplomatic office, and İbrahim Kalın, Turkish presidential representative, in the presence of Jens Plötner, the diplomatic advisor to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
As previously reported in the NEO, a joint meeting of the leaders of the ruling parliamentary coalition (90% of which are members of the Liberal Democratic Party) on December 12 approved new draft versions of three documents concerning national security and military development in Japan.
Of these, the basic document will be Japan’s second postwar National Security Strategy for the next 10 years. The commentary on the forthcoming NSS revision has long included the strong epithet “radical” to refer to the changes that Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has been talking about repeatedly throughout 2022.
This is despite the fact that their very necessity had been outlined by the newly appointed Minister of Defense Nobuo Kishi (the younger brother of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe) back in the fall of 2020. He said then that Japan Self-Defense Forces (SDF) should have the right and capability to launch a “pre-emptive strike” against areas of some neighboring countries where preparations are being made for an attack (e.g. a missile attack) on Japanese territory.
And the first thing that came to the fore when the cabinet passed the new draft NSS on December 16 (subject to subsequent Parliament’s approval, which will be easy in view of its control by the LDP) was the fact that (“anti-war”) Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution, which has not been amended since then, was de facto abolished. The question of when and how this will happen de jure comes down to (political) “technique”, which is quite tricky given the complexity of the constitutional change procedure itself, but nevertheless no more than “technique”.
It should be noted straight away that this would complete Japan’s “normalization” process and make it “like everyone else”. For there is nothing similar to Article 9 in any other national constitution, and the right to and possibility of “pre-emptive” strikes, if not explicitly spelled out in the relevant documents of other countries, is implicit, as they say, “by default”.
It is argued today that the need to be “like everyone else” in this regard was discussed back in the mid-1950s, i.e. during the formation of the SDF. However, it was felt at the time that this would have contradicted the strategic course already adopted to focus on the reconstruction and qualitative and quantitative development of the country’s economy. This required deactualizing the negative memory factor among neighbors about Japan’s recent past. In this course, the issue of security was effectively transferred to the United States.
All this formed the basis of the so-called “Yoshida Doctrine” (named after Japan’s first postwar prime minister). Its practical implementation ended with complete success and by the mid-2000s it became apparent that the doctrine had been exhausted and that it was necessary for Japan to become “like everyone else” in the field of security issues. By the time Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resigned (September 2020), he had allegedly drawn up a list of measures in this field, some of which were announced by his younger brother.
However, some kind of conceptual notes on paper only make sense if they are backed up by projects for their practical implementation, and these latter are secured by adequate funding. A special “anti-missile unit” being created within the SDF, whose name should not be misleading, should have a “counter-attack capability”. Since this is not a question of missile defense in the usual sense of the term, but of destroying missiles on enemy territory before they are launched at targets in Japan.
The main technical means of carrying out such a “counter-attack” would be a new ship-to-ground missile, which has allegedly been under development for two years based on the existing Type 12 anti-ship missile, which has a maximum range of 400 km. However, in reality (and most likely) they imply a completely new weapon with a range of over 1,000 km.
Apparently, it will take a few more years to develop and in the meantime the task of “counter-attack” will be assigned to the US company Raytheon’s Tomahawk cruise missiles. It was previously reported that (“for now”) 500 such missiles were to be procured between now and 2027. That said, the impression was that without much haste all 500 missiles would be placed on the Japanese Navy’s destroyers and submarines closer to the stated deadline.
But the national government has started in this direction, as they say, at a lightning pace. On December 20, it was reported that already in the draft (“record”) defense budget for FY 2023, $1.6bn was allocated for Tomahawk missile procurement. At an estimated cost of $1.5 million per missile, the entire Tomahawk shipment (again, for now) could be purchased with the money made available as early as next year.
One cannot but conclude that the very idea of acquiring these missiles was not born yesterday. It may have been present already in those very notes by S. Abe. Most likely, it has already been worked out in detail at expert level and it seems to be heading towards the manufacturer’s final phrase: “Cash on the barrelhead and get the Tomahawks from that warehouse over there. They’re yours.” Training for Japanese crews on the Tomahawk is probably already underway. In other words, it is possible that the first sea-based launchers will be equipped with these missiles by the end of next year. It is an impressive speed of transition from words to deeds in the key point of those very “radical changes” in Japan’s NSS.
Meanwhile, the government has stepped on thin ice when it comes to financially securing crucial innovations in the military construction, which require a doubling of the country’s defense spending over the next five years. Already at the end of December, a special commission established earlier under the Cabinet prepared a plan to gradually increase taxation of the population as the main source of additional revenues for the defense budget. However, regarding the deadline for the launch of the said plan, the Delphic phrase “in 2024 or thereafter” is used.
And such caution in wording is understandable. An opinion poll carried out by Kyodo News Agency on December 18 showed that 65% of those surveyed did not agree with plans to raise taxes for the aforementioned purposes. With all sorts of “other” problems (the aftermath of Covid-19, the global economic crisis), a tax increase to buy some Tomahawks is the last thing an average Japanese needs.
The first news of such plans caused the government’s rating (already subject to a gradual decline for a variety of reasons) to plummet immediately and dramatically to the all-time low of 31%, or even 25%, over the last 10 years. These figures were provided by two respected publications, Asahi Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun respectively.
The same figures reflect obvious public dissatisfaction with the procedure for adopting the new version of the NSS. It is pointed out that the drafting of this document did not sufficiently involve experts with different perspectives on security itself. On December 15 in particular, a group of experts announced an alternative vision for Japan’s role in the region, which envisages a much lesser role for the military factor in defending national interests.
Finally, a point of view expressed by retired officers of the highest ranks has also drawn attention, according to which an emphasis on upgrading the equipment of the current SDF would not achieve its promise without a dramatic increase in the size of the country’s armed forces. Apparently, these experts continue to believe in the ancient Roman principle that a military campaign can only be judged successful if a boot of a legionary (in this case, of course, a samurai) enters enemy territory. Despite all the progress in stone-throwing machines and other Wunderwaffe specimens of the time.
Meanwhile, the government’s plans (described by critics as “paper”) envisage maintaining this figure at the long-established limit of 250,000 troops. For any significant increase in this figure would immediately exacerbate the same problem of funding. This is because the defense spending of modern states is almost dominated by various types of support for military personnel.
Be that as it may, Japan’s new National Security Strategy is beginning to operate in a not very comfortable domestic political environment. Therefore, it makes sense to periodically refer to the practical implementation of this document.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In the run-up to New Year’s Eve, it is common to take stock of the past and make predictions for the coming year.
Like any other year, the outgoing year 2022 will be remembered for its events of national, regional and universal scope. However, among the particularly important ones in 2022 are perhaps the progressive climate change, galloping inflation in almost every country in the world with slowing economic growth and increasing widespread poverty, and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
An important factor affecting the international situation has been the unrelenting attempts by the US and Western countries to confront Russia, including by reviving and supporting neo-Nazism in Ukraine. This conditioned the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics to secede from Ukraine on February 21 and join Russia through a voluntary general referendum, in accordance with the UN Charter. As a result of the West’s escalation of neo-Nazi hysteria in Ukraine and NATO’s intensified expansion eastwards, in violation of Moscow’s earlier conditional agreements with the West on this issue, Russia was forced to launch a special operation in February to denazify and demilitarize the Western-backed criminal neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. For eight years (!), with complete inaction by the West and international organizations, the regime had been killing thousands of Russian-speaking civilians in eastern Ukraine, bombing and destroying their cities.
Clearly fearing to lose the initiative in anti-Russian actions through Ukraine, Washington has tried to impose inappropriate actions on the world to replace the world order, established on the basis of international law, with a system of “rules” beneficial to Washington, imposing Russophobic sanctions contrary to market relations and pushing Russia out of the European energy market. The fear of most of the current rulers of Europe to defy the White House directives and their unconditional adherence to them has reinforced US policy not only within NATO, but also in pan-European affairs, subjecting the EU to US energy and economic pressure, almost already leading to the collapse of the European economy and a deep European crisis.
Because of the anti-Russian sanctions on Russian energy supplies imposed by Washington on Europe, and its apparent complicity in the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, the EU has been deprived of cheap and previously guaranteed Russian gas as well as oil. This, following Washington’s imposed purchase of several times more expensive US LNG, has caused a serious energy and, subsequently, economic crisis in Europe. Across the EU, businesses are going bankrupt and closing down, utility costs are rising and the population is falling into catastrophic poverty. For example, not only in Germany, which was relatively prosperous in the recent past, but even in Norway, according to the media there, an acute crisis of poverty has broken out, the queues for food are getting longer and longer, there are parents who do not know how to feed their children.
The situation has been exacerbated by the fact that, under pressure from the White House, not only the US but also European countries have found themselves in bondage to financial support for the corrupt Kiev regime, directing tens of billions of dollars to so-called “aid to Ukraine” at the expense of Western taxpayers and instead of financial and social assistance to the impoverished Western countries’ own population in the face of a general crisis caused by the US.
The situation has also been complicated by Washington’s demands not only for financial support for the criminal Kiev regime, but also for the West to transfer large quantities of military equipment and hardware to Ukraine. As a result, Europe is already talking about the loss of its own defense capabilities and the need to allocate more funding in 2023 not to support its own population but to buy new weapons. As a result, only the US military and industrial complex is rejoicing, which, thanks to this White House policy, can expect significant new arms contracts and even greater profits at the expense of Europe.
All this has led to a rise in social outrage in Western countries, which could erupt into a wave of anti-government demonstrations both in Europe and in the US itself, not today but tomorrow. “The globalists and the White House have dragged us into a proxy war with Moscow on Ukrainian territory in order to capture Russian resources”, the US media report. Numerous Western politicians and analysts have stressed that without US and Western weapons, the criminal Ukrainian regime would have long ceased to exist. Not only the hostilities there, but also the deaths of civilians in eastern Ukraine and the incessant bombing and terrorist attacks of Ukrainian fighters, whose actions are strengthened by the West by sending and funding thousands of foreign mercenaries, would have ceased.
But it is not only in Europe that Washington tried to escalate the situation in 2022 to achieve its self-serving military and economic objectives. One of the active areas of this hostile policy of the White House has been the aggravation of the trade and economic situation with China, provoking the Taiwan crisis and creating and strengthening an anti-Chinese bloc in addition to the anti-Russian one. That said, including in the military sphere in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the struggle for international expansion, the White House continued in 2022 to impose its policies in the Middle East, exacerbating the situation in the region by continuing to restrain the conclusion of a nuclear agreement with Iran. All this is leading to a rise in anti-American sentiment there as well, which has largely manifested itself in the refusal of OPEC+ countries to support anti-Russian policies, in the bid by Saudi Arabia and several other Muslim states to join the BRICS and SCO associations that adhere to Moscow and Beijing’s positions.
In 2022, numerous actions by the USA and Western countries on the African track aimed at dragging the states of Africa and Central Asia into a Russophobic and Sinophobic confrontation have also proved to be futile and unsuccessful.
Of course, all of these factors will have an impact on global developments in the coming year 2023. It is already clear to everyone that the quest for world hegemony by Washington and its universally criticized, even by Americans, President Biden’s limited capacity is over. The unipolar world being imposed by the White House is being replaced by an era of political multipolarity. In the trade sphere, in response to provocative US actions, a growing number of states have started to oppose such protectionist policies, and China even outright foresees the expulsion of the US from the global community.
In short, it is unlikely that anyone other than “Washington strategists” and the US military and industrial complex will miss the outgoing year 2022.
But lessons must be learnt from all events and the experience must be applied in a new way. Today, on New Year’s Eve 2023, there is perhaps widespread hope for a calmer, more peaceful and more benign period for ordinary people. And this hope can be ensured not only by the greater prudence of all politicians, but also by the population choosing their new politicians.
Some hopes for the calmer year 2023 are given by the fact that its symbol, according to the Chinese horoscope, is the Black Water Rabbit, which comes into the world only once in 60 years, promising calmness and stability. So let these hopes come true!
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
US appears to be in the process of transferring its Patriot air defense missile system to Ukraine. CNN in its article, “Exclusive: US finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine,” claims the US will approve and then quickly ship the system or systems into Ukraine in just days after the decision is made.
Paradoxically, CNN admits that training the large numbers of Ukrainians necessary to operate the system will take months. This has left analysts speculating that in fact NATO personnel already familiar with the system will operate it merely posing as “Ukrainians.”
This represents a significant escalation. While Western forces are believed to be covertly operating across Ukraine against Russian forces in a variety of roles, Western personnel operating an ever-growing number of sophisticated weapons may lead to mission creep in terms of other sophisticated Western weapons including Western aircraft and tanks entering the conflict with Western operators behind the controls.
The decision to send Patriot missiles follows a now steady tempo of Russian missile and drone strikes across Ukraine targeting military and dual-use infrastructure including the power grid. The Western media admits Ukraine’s own Soviet-era air defense systems are dwindling in number and running low on interceptor missiles.
The Financial Times in its article, “Military briefing: escalating air war depletes Ukraine’s weapons stockpile,” admits:
…ammunition and spares for the S300 and Buk systems, the mainstay of Ukraine’s air defences, are dwindling. Ukrainian officials have confirmed a claim by British military intelligence that Russia has been firing X-55 nuclear missiles — with the nuclear warhead replaced by an inert one — simply to exhaust Ukrainian air defences.
The article notes that buying additional ammunition and spare parts for the systems is not practical. It also notes efforts by the West to provide Ukraine their own air defense systems, however such systems suffer from similar problems in terms of limited quantities and limited access to ammunition.
Financial Times cites the German “Gepard” mobile anti-aircraft gun as being “highly effective.” No evidence was provided to substantiate that claim and ironically, shortly after the article was published, shortages of ammunition for Gepard systems were reported as was Switzerland’s unwillingness to supply additional ammunition to Ukraine.
Germany’s Rheinmetall company has announced it would expand ammunition production to compensate for Switzerland’s decision according to Anadolu Agency, but production would not begin until June at the earliest and Ukraine would not begin receiving ammunition until at least July and only if the German government places an order for the 35mm rounds the Gepard fires.
IRIS-T and NASAMS, two Western short to medium range air defense missile systems have been provided to Ukraine, albeit in small numbers that will increase incrementally over the course of several years. This represents a rate far too slow to replace Ukraine’s dwindling Soviet-era air defense systems.
Considering this reality, the decision by the US to transfer Patriot missile systems to Ukraine may not be because Washington believes they can make a difference, but simply because the US and its allies have nothing else more appropriate or numerous to send in its place.
But even the Patriot air defense system is plagued with problems ranging from its own critical shortage of ammunition to its inability to provide defense against drones and cruise missiles, the very systems they will be tasked with protecting Ukrainian skies against.
Patriot Missiles: Too Few, Too Feeble
Far from “Russian propaganda,” the Patriot’s shortcomings have been reported by the Western media for years. Al Jazeera in an early 2022 article, “Saudi Arabia may run out of interceptor missiles in ‘months’,” would admit to Saudi stockpiles of Patriot interceptor missiles running low and the inability of the US to manufacture enough to replace them.
The Wall Street Journal would report in March 2022 that additional missiles were eventually acquired, but not because the US was able to manufacture more, and instead because the US convinced Saudi Arabia’s neighbors to transfer missiles from their own stockpiles to Saudi air defense forces.
Faced with a growing shortage of missiles, Lockheed Martin pledged in 2018 to double annual missile production from 250 to 500, according to Defense News. By 2021, Camden News would report that Lockheed was on course to reaching its 500 missiles per year goal by 2024 after building a new 85,000 square foot expansion to existing production facilities.
However, even at 500 missiles a year, and if every single missile was subsequently sent directly to Ukraine, it would not be nearly enough to match the number of cruise missiles, drones, and other long-range precision weapons Russia is using as part of its ongoing special military operation.
The New York Times in an article titled, “Russia Is Using Old Ukrainian Missiles Against Ukraine, General Says,” cites Ukrainian sources who claim Russia is likely building at least 40 cruise missiles a month. Over the course of a year that works out to 480 cruise missiles. Considering the Patriot missile system falls far short of 100% effectiveness, the idea that 500 Patriot missiles could protect Ukraine against 480 Russian cruise missiles is unrealistic.
Annual missile production for Russia is likely higher, however. From October onward alone, the BBC reports that Russia has fired over 1,000 missiles and drones at targets across Ukraine. This is twice the number of missiles Lockheed plans on producing annually.
This reality is so obvious that Western analysts have commented publicly about their doubts regarding any impact Patriot missiles will have. Breaking Defense in its article, “Patriot missile system not a panacea for Ukraine, experts warn,” would cite a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Tom Karako, who called the transfer of Patriot missiles to Ukraine “a political gesture of support.”
The article would also note, citing Karako, that:
“We need to be careful about these scarce, precious assets,” Karako said. “While we’re only sending one battery, once it’s there, it’s probably not going to come back. And if they start expending munitions, they’re going to ask for more, right? And we don’t have just tons and tons of PAC-2s and PAC-3s [missiles] lying around that we can afford.
Karako would also point out that Patriots are needed for “deterring a Taiwan conflict,” highlighting the fact that the steady depletion of Western weapon stockpiles in its proxy war with Russia is not happening in a geopolitical vacuum and impacts the West’s ability to menace other nations in other regions of the planet – especially in East Asia.
The same article also pointed out how expensive Patriot missiles are versus the relatively cheap drones they would be attempting to intercept. But that’s even if the Patriot missile system can intercept them.
NBC News in a 2019 article titled, “Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites,” would note how US-provided Patriot missile systems failed against cruise missiles and “triangular” drones used by Yemen against Saudi oil production facilities.
Despite Patriot missile batteries guarding the facilities, Saudi forces resorted to small arms fire in a failed attempt to down the drones. One attack temporarily disrupted half of Saudi Arabia’s daily oil output.
The article claims:
Drones and missiles can be detected by radar, but they tend to have small radar signatures and can fly close to the ground, sharply reducing the detection range and thus opportunities to fire on them from far away. They also are easy to maneuver, allowing them to hit the coverage gaps between radars and Patriot batteries. And drones and cruise missiles are often cheaper than a $2 million or $3 million Patriot missile, meaning the supply of Patriots can be depleted much faster than the bevy of drones launching attacks.
NBC News is describing precisely the threats Patriot missile systems transferred to Ukraine will face, but on a much larger and more sophisticated scale.
The article discusses extensive measures the US is taking to counter threats the Patriot is not well-suited to defend against – measures that only began being fielded as of 2021 – but not measures the US is prepared or even able to send to Ukraine in large numbers.
The US and its NATO allies have long neglected ground-based air defense systems in favor of achieving and maintaining air superiority over any potential battlefield through the use of warplanes. Several decades of fighting “small wars” against adversaries lacking anything resembling an air force has only compounded the problem.
Just as it will take years and large amounts of money to solve the current weapons and ammunition shortage the West faces as it continues to arm Ukraine, creating air defense systems in both the quantities and quality Ukraine’s requirements demand will take more time than Ukraine has, and more resources than the West may care to spend.
While it is common knowledge that wars are won through superior logistics, military technology, and strategy, one would be hard-pressed to recall when any war was won by “a political gesture of support.”
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Leading international experts estimate that one in four global consumers will be African by 2050. The African continent is home to 8 of the world’s 15 fastest-growing economies. It is therefore not surprising that interest in Africa has recently increased considerably on the part of leading international players, especially former metropoles.
British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said the other day that Britain intends to develop long-term strategies for developing relations with African states to ensure that Russian influence does not spread to the region. London stressed that Britain’s proposal to develop relations with these countries would build on British strengths in trade, investment, defense, technology and climate change, backed by a reliable source of infrastructure investment. However, in his interpretation of British strengths, Cleverly did not mention the historically important aspect of British damage to African states during the colonial era, which the people of that continent remember very well.
It is noteworthy that the announcement of this “African vector of London” coincided with the US-Africa summit in Washington in mid-December and was clearly prompted by the appropriate “whistle” to Britain from the White House for a return to the policies of the former metropole there. It is also worth adding that the two outcome documents of the above Washington forum, the “US-Africa Leaders Summit: Joint Statement on Food Security” and the “Vision Statement for the US-Africa Partnership”, clearly show anti-Russian and anti-Chinese overtones, a move to oust Russia and China from that part of the world. However, the US plan to turn African countries against Russia has clearly failed and, as the Ambassador of Russia to the US Anatoly Antonov noted, “Washington’s slogans about a new 21st century partnership are really a wolf in sheep’s clothing… The previous and in fact neocolonial line of behavior was covered by assurances of friendship”.
Britain’s African vector of interest is not new. It should not be forgotten that the plan to establish an unbroken chain of dominions in Africa along the Cairo-Cape Town line defined the main thrust of British colonial expansion on that continent. The plan was put forward by British mining magnate Cecil John Rhodes, whose name was later even given to two British possessions in the south of the continent, Northern and Southern Rhodesia. The land and people of Africa were brutally exploited by the British colonial rulers as mines and plantations of cash crops proliferated in order to extract the continent’s wealth and export it to Europe and North America.
Although formal European domination of Africa ended in 1977, after Djibouti gained independence from France, Western companies continue to exploit the continent’s resources relentlessly. And when a local national leader gets in the way, Western governments, through “color revolutions” or armed intervention, remove such an “obstacle”, leaving the resource-rich continent poor. As Kwame Nkrumah, founder of Ghana (a former British colony), back in the day pointed out in his book “Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of imperialism”, the result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used to exploit rather than develop less developed parts of the world. According to a report published by a coalition of British and African non-governmental organizations, African states lose at least $60 billion annually from cooperation with Western governments and multinational corporations. The main force robbing Africa under the guise of charity is, according to Martin Drewry, head of Health Poverty Action, the global financial system with its center in London.
So in Africa, the struggle for control of the coast between the Cape Colony and Portuguese Mozambique, initiated by the British in the late 1870s, is well remembered. They also remember the defeat of the Zulus in 1880, turning their country into a colony, and the annexation of the entire eastern coast of South Africa to the British colonial empire after 1894, and then the British invasion of the Upper Nile Valley and their gradual entrenchment in Sudan. The Guinea coast was (and still is) also attractive to Britain as a source of cotton, palm oil and other raw materials.
Britain had already attempted unsuccessfully to regain influence in Africa in January 2020 by holding its first Britain-Africa investment summit in London. However, it was not a success for a number of reasons, among them, for example, the imperial desire to moralize the human rights situation in some African countries, notably Zimbabwe, which did not even receive an invitation to the summit. And clearly even then Britain was frankly overdue for a new division of the continent, though this time not a colonial one but an investment one: in 2014-2018 it invested $17bn in the Dark Continent, far less than, for example, the $72bn Chinese, $34bn French and $31bn US investments. And even in the following period, Britain has not been able to devote sufficient attention to Africa because of its busy post-Brexit relationship with the EU, its main trading partner.
However, as even British analysts acknowledge, the failure of London’s policy on the African continent is largely due to the lack of reinforcement of the African vector by years of diplomatic work at various levels. And the example of China, with which Washington and London intend to do battle on the African continent today, is very telling in this regard. Especially when one remembers that China hosted the first African summit on its territory back in 2000, which was followed by numerous and regular visits of Chinese officials to the African continent and investment projects. London’s policy with the African countries “with whatever funds remain”, with donor aid and investment dependent on the human rights situation, will continue to tie London’s hands in its African ambitions.
As for the reasons for London’s current “pivot” towards Africa, apart from the desire to continue exploiting the continent’s natural wealth, it should not be forgotten that it is largely due to its attempt to solve the problem of irregular migrants. They will now be sent by Britain to Rwanda, where asylum seekers will now await a decision on their applications to immigrate to the kingdom. Incidentally, this decision by London has already sparked outrage from humanitarian organizations and human rights groups. All the more so as London itself has recently accused Rwanda of human rights abuses.
London’s bold declarations of intent to actively develop relations with Africa are therefore already met with little enthusiasm and much criticism on the African continent. So are Britain’s plans to become the largest G7 investor in Africa by 2025, given the kingdom’s plunge into a deep financial, economic and energy crisis in recent months, its demonstrative focus on military and financial aid not for the world’s poorest states, but the outright Nazi regime in Kiev.
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia is now the focus of attention not only by their immediate neighbors, as the stability of the Middle East and the situation in their rival countries, such as Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, depends on the development of this relationship.
According to anecdotal evidence leaked to the media, Iranian leaders have recently expressed an interest in re-establishing diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, for its part, has been careful not to make any overt reciprocal steps towards Tehran. However, it must be stated that the complete reciprocal boycott by the two countries has ended. Many powers, especially in the Persian Gulf, have already expressed their willingness to assist in the search for reconciliation and the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have been in permanent crisis, especially since the Iranian revolution and the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. Going beyond traditional Shia/Sunni dividing lines, the rivalry between the two countries has long transcended the religious sphere, affecting politics and the economy. Nevertheless, although Iran and Saudi Arabia are antagonists, it is quite clear that they are in no mood to escalate the conflict to a military phase.
However, there are certain forces in the world seeking to stir up controversy and even armed conflict between these countries. Above all, it is Israel and the US, which have an obvious interest in weakening Tehran. Washington has recently actively sought to build a united front against Saudi policy because of the desire for foreign policy autonomy expressed by this once closest US ally in the Middle East. Riyadh’s willingness to join BRICS, and subsequent decision with other OPEC+ countries to cut oil production in order to maintain global price levels, has been met with particular hostility in the White House. Accusing the kingdom’s leadership of allegedly helping Russia fund the special operation in Ukraine, US President Joe Biden has even threatened the Saudis with “consequences,” as Washington has recently been intensively considering how to respond to “such behavior on the part of Riyadh.” Therefore, should relations between Tehran and Riyadh escalate, Washington is clearly counting on a subsequent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and the US and on using any such conflict to make new multi-billion dollar deals to sell significant quantities of US arms to the kingdom.
However, while the rhetoric of Iranians and Saudis can at times be described as openly bellicose and hostile, both countries prefer to follow the Middle Eastern wisdom that tomorrow Americans may be tens of thousands of miles away, and that Allah has ordered all Muslims to live in friendship. Therefore, even the appearance of the red banner of vengeance over the dome of the Jamkaran Mosque in Iran on November 1, which could be interpreted as a declaration of war, is most likely a provocation by external forces (particularly, perhaps, Israel), who tried to use the radical Shia town of Qom, where the mosque is located, to exacerbate bilateral relations.
It is therefore not surprising that representatives of Tehran and Riyadh, in an apparent attempt to avoid interference by “external players” in their relationship, have engaged in a series of secret meetings in recent months to discuss regional security issues. In particular, the parties touched upon the war in Yemen between the Houthis and the Saudi-backed military coalition.
In early November, at the concluding session of the Bahrain Dialogue Forum “East and West for Human Coexistence,” in the presence of Roman Catholic head Francis, Al-Azhar sheikhs called for an intra-Islamic dialogue to address the causes of division and sectarian conflict. They stressed the need for Sunnis and Shia to abandon the elements that provoke escalation and tension that have resulted from an era of divisiveness and aggression against the Islamic world.
For Russia, which has excellent relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia, any conflict in the Middle East region is extremely unprofitable. Moscow has therefore repeatedly declared its readiness to play a mediating role, to act as a negotiating platform between Tehran and Riyadh and to complement the steps of rapprochement already taken by the two countries.
It should be recalled that the two neighbors have recently made efforts to resume diplomatic relations and have held an entire series of negotiations, most of which took place in Iraq. Meanwhile, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as major oil producers, have demonstrated their interest in establishing bilateral ties, including to secure oil trade, which is important for the economies of both countries. This similarity between the parties in recent years is not surprising and is explained by their growing financial difficulties and the maximization of current revenues in the oil market, as opposed to Washington’s policy of keeping prices low enough to discourage oil consumers from turning to alternative energy sources.
Throughout the autumn 2022, representatives of Iran and Saudi Arabia negotiated through Baghdad in an attempt to restore relations. The last few rounds of negotiations have eased tensions, with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian even indicating in one of his interviews that the negotiations were moving from strictly security matters to the political level. On December 19, the Islamic Republic’s Foreign Minister said Tehran was ready to build trust and co-operate with its neighbors in the Persian Gulf in all areas to help get rid of “the idea that security will be provided from abroad,” clearly referring to the US presence.
Iranian and Saudi Foreign Ministers Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud met in Amman on December 21 on the sidelines of the Second Baghdad Conference on Cooperation & Partnership. The Iranian Foreign Minister said the Saudi Minister assured him of Riyadh’s willingness to continue dialogue with Tehran and stressed that negotiations with Saudi Arabia will continue along the same path of official diplomacy in order to open the embassy of the two countries and return to normal relations.
An agreement between Tehran and Riyadh would certainly benefit the Middle East by reducing the likelihood of a conflict between two key countries in the region.
In addition, such an agreement would create a new architecture for the region, in which the US presence is becoming less and less necessary. However, the latter fact, clearly unacceptable for Washington, does not rule out attempts by the US and Israel to prevent the above agreement from being reached.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Various centers of power in Sudan, experts say, may have signed a framework agreement designed to return the country to civilian government after the military coup in October 2021. However, doubts from NGOs and academics, as well as persistent street protests in the capital Khartoum, warn against over-optimistic expectations. The agreement announced on December 5 was signed by Sudan’s “ruling” generals Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti, along with leaders of the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), the largest pro-democracy group, and representatives of 40 other parties.
Providing a direct route to a civilian-led transition process, and consisting of democratic elections and the return of the military to their barracks, the framework agreement provides for full civilian control over all aspects of society, with a Security and Defense Council headed by a prime minister. Commenting on the news, Volker Perthes, Head of the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan, called the agreement a “courageous step”. And John Godfrey, US Ambassador to Sudan, wrote on social media of his support for the deal, which he said paved “a credible path… out of the current political crisis”. So how can the Ambassador not support this pro-American move when Washington claims the lion’s share of Sudan’s natural wealth?
Despite positive support from the international community and generals (al-Burhan also chanted one of the protesters’ slogans “the military belongs in the barracks”) the deal has yet to generate enthusiasm among many sections of Sudanese civil society. As the agreement was signed in the fortified compounds of the Republican Palace in Khartoum, protesters took to the streets of the capital to denounce the agreement as more than a means for the ruling generals to retain power, while also removing the political and economic consequences of the 2021 coup. “The goals of the agreement are establishing a fully civilian authority, creating a free climate for politics, and reaching a final agreement with the widest political participation,” Al-Wathiq al-Barir, FFC spokesman, said.
However, Kholood Khair, founder and director of the Khartoum-based think tank Confluence Advisory, describes the deal as essentially a “five-page wish list”, the biggest flaw of which is its ambiguity and lack of detail. The agreement is supposed to be based on the Sudanese Bar Association’s draft, but at best it is an initial agreement, a primary document that does not specify how the Sudanese will be able to reach subsequent stages. For example, who will be prime minister, financial accountability, transitional justice and security reform. He sees the appointment of a prime minister and a future cabinet as the first stage of the agreement and particularly urgent, given that they must be resolved before the two-year transitional phase enters into force, and this must be done within a month. As someone who expected a number of annexes to clearly outline the mechanisms for selecting a prime minister and the agenda for a transitional government, Khair says the absence of a “vital” implementation phase makes him doubt the viability of the deal.
What has become really difficult is the extent to which a civilian government will have the space and capacity to improve living conditions for all Sudanese, because just being prime minister does not equal having political power. Moreover, within the pro-democracy movements there are significant differences in number and scope, as well as in areas of disagreement. Given the way the deal happened – behind closed doors, without transparency – there is a great deal of mistrust as many of the parties involved have lost the ability to speak, even though they have the support of the street.
And this could be vital, given the level of discontent in society that has risen since the October 25, 2021 coup, with more than 7,000 protesters injured and more than 100 killed, and predictions that a third of the population will need humanitarian aid next year because of the cut-off in benefits. Gilbert Achcar, Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, shares Khair’s skepticism about what the deal really means. “I do not think it is going to solve the problem. The conditions are even worse than they were after the removal of Omar Al-Bashir in 2019, which has led to mobilization against the coup and the subsequent military rule,” he said pessimistically. “The agreement may say otherwise, but those at the forefront of the opposition to the coup are continuing the fight against the military and rejecting the agreement, which they see as a way for the military to legitimize its rule.”
The text of the agreement itself is also questionable. For example, it says that the military should return to barracks, but points out that the promises lack a timetable and completion measures. Instead, many see the deal as a tactic to “buy some time” for the military and also to divide the opposition. “The coup has been a complete failure by any objective standard, occurring at a moment when the country was already facing a severe economic crisis, and taking place without any signs that it would receive popular support — and it hasn’t experienced popular support,” Achcar told Arab News. “Resultantly, the military has been unable to keep civil peace so they went for this deal as they were facing failure.”
It should be recalled that Sudan has been in crisis since the army ousted former leader Omar al-Bashir in 2019, then military and civilian leaders agreed to form a joint transitional government. But that agreement ended late last year when the military overthrew Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. However, he was reinstated earlier this year but resigned after mass protests. Then the military, in order not to lose their influence, had to act, and they did by approving this deal with pro-democracy groups. But all it cost them was a few empty promises to guarantee that a civilian government would take responsibility for the economic and social crisis now gripping Sudan.
Experts believe that Hemedti will be the “real winner” of the deal. Being the commander of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces group, he was quickly promoted after the 2019 coup that toppled al-Bashir. Despite numerous accusations of crimes against humanity by the Human Rights Watch group, Hemedti has succeeded by using his domestic and international patronage, most notably that of the US.
For his part, Achcar believes there is room for some optimism, suggesting that the FFC and pro-democracy groups will seek to join the civil society representatives who have largely opposed the agreement. But he is also skeptical about their ability to achieve it. “After 30 years of military rule and all the privileges that entails, the idea they will hand this all over seems fantasy,” he told Arab News.
As might be expected, the Sudanese government’s assessment of the framework agreement is more optimistic. “The signing of the Political Framework Agreement can be considered as an essential step toward the return to a civilian-led transitional government in Sudan,” Ola Elgindi, of the Media and Cultural Section of the Embassy of Sudan in London, noted. In his view, the step can also be seen as a clear indication of the Sudanese army’s determination to cede the right to civilian parties for a final agreement. Looking into the future, Elgindi said: “In the next phase, we hope that the agreement will include other civil-transition-supporting parties that haven’t yet signed the agreement.”
Apparently the Egyptian Al-Ahram correctly assessed the current difficult moment in Sudan, writing: “To everyone who questions the viability of this agreement, we say that it is still too early to judge and make any assumptions, and that we have a great hope that things will go well.” In any case, it is indeed high time for the Sudanese to establish civilian rule, which can bring peace between the various rival factions in the country and improve the economy at least somewhat in the interests of the whole people, not just particular groups.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The middle of December 2022 was marked by several important events that were not so much an aggravation of the situation on the Korean peninsula, but rather an important step in implementing the decisions of the 8th Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea regarding the development of the DPRK’s nuclear missile capabilities.
On December 15, a ground test of a high-thrust solid-propellant engine with a thrust of 140tf was successfully carried out. For comparison, the US Minuteman-III ICBM is known to develop a thrust of about 80tf in the first of its three-stage engines, while the Hwasong-17 ICBM uses two dual-chamber liquid-propellant rocket engines combined in the first stage, producing a thrust of about 160tf.
According to analysts, a high-thrust solid-propellant engine could enable faster and harder-to-detect ICBM launches to disable South Korean and US missile defenses. Solid propellant offers greater rocket mobility and shorter launch preparation times, is cheaper to produce and is generally more reliable. A solid-propellant rocket can be refueled and stored for a longer period with fewer worries about corrosion. North Korea has already developed solid-propellant tactical ballistic missiles, which could strike most of South Korea, but not Guam or Japan, and so a solid-propellant ICBM is very dangerous for the North’s opponents.
On December 18, the DPRK conducted what the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff described as a launch of two medium-range ballistic missiles. The missiles, fired on an altitude trajectory, flew about 500 kilometers towards the Sea of Japan at a maximum altitude of 550 km. In response, the ROK National Security Council “condemned the Kim Jong-un regime’s continued provocations,” stressing that the North had fired more than 60 ballistic missiles in 2022, a record number of launches in a year.
On December 19, the KCNA reported on “important final-stage test for the development of a reconnaissance satellite.” Reportedly, an evaluation of “the capabilities of satellite photography and data transmission system and ground control system” was carried out. Preparations for the launch of the first military reconnaissance satellite will be completed by April 2023, says the KCNA.
As confirmation, the North Koreans published captured images of Seoul (areas surrounding the South Korean President’s office in the city center were vaguely visible) and Incheon, as well as photos of the launch of a missile similar to the liquid-propellant Nodong.
All this has caused a flurry of discussion in the South and in the US, and most ROK experts have assessed Pyongyang’s statements with skepticism. In particular, referring to the quality of the photos provided, they stated that the photos seem too “rough” to claim they were taken from a military reconnaissance satellite. According to them, a military reconnaissance satellite requires optical and other sensors with a resolution of about 0.5 meters, while the North has one with a resolution of 20 meters, raising questions about its feasibility. “North Korea appears to be making a mockery (of the South) to show that they can spy on us,” Hong Min, a researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification, said.
Other experts said North Korea’s alleged satellite launch was widely seen as a covert test of ballistic missile technology, which North Korea is prohibited from developing under a series of UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, but then opinions differed. A number of experts have suggested that a new medium-range solid-propellant ballistic missile (MRBM) with a range of 1,000 to 2,500 km (an improved version of the Pukguksong series), intended to replace the obsolete liquid-propellant Nodongs and Musudangs, could have been launched on December 18. Others pointed out that the appearance of the launch vehicle strongly resembled that of an obsolete Nodong-type liquid-propellant rocket.
Interestingly, the US military was the calmest and most restrained. On December 20, Pentagon Press Secretary Patrick Ryder said the US does not comment on North Korea’s achievements in developing a reconnaissance satellite, but still considers space technology critical to national security.
The general consensus, however, was that the satellite test was a disinformation operation by the DPRK to sway its adversaries, a pretext for further weapons tests and (of course) “Pyongyang’s reaction to last week’s passage of a UN resolution calling for global efforts to improve human rights conditions in the North.”
Such assessments prompted a sharply negative reaction from the North Korean leader’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, whose December 20 statement took a new height in invective rhetoric. In general, “the issue of developing a military satellite is an urgent priority directly related to the security of our state,” and Seoul should “be careful with its language” and think about what can be done to reduce tensions.
Here are some conclusions. In 2021, at the 8th WPK Congress, Kim Jong-un set some very ambitious goals, one of which (along with tactical nuclear weapons and solid-propellant ICBMs) was to build a reconnaissance satellite. Pyongyang has previously claimed that the Hwasong-17 ICBM launches on February 27 and March 5 were also tests of space reconnaissance satellites, and here two important points must be made immediately.
First, all such satellites are dual-use technology. They can be used both to monitor enemy activities and, for example, to track typhoon tracks, which is an important security element for the DPRK. Second, there is a contradiction of two paragraphs with regard to formally peaceful space. On the one hand, because of UNSC sanctions, the DPRK has no right to launch such ballistic missiles, but on the other, it is declared that all countries have the right to the peaceful exploration of space. In addition, satellite launches are also important in terms of the missile race between the North and the South.
And now the DPRK has taken two important steps. First, a test of the new engine, with the North Korean leader in attendance. Then a test of the ability to put a satellite into orbit. It is clear that these actions have already raised suspicion, and when the satellite is launched it could cause as much hysteria as a nuclear test, which has yet to happen. Moreover, in terms of demonstrating strength and capability, a satellite is a good alternative.
It is likely that we will again witness a confrontation in the UNSC and perhaps even another veto of the US sanctions project by China and Russia. But that is for the future. In the meantime, one can simply congratulate North Korean engineers on yet another success, demonstrating that since the days of the Arduous March, the DPRK has managed to maintain the human, technical and engineering base on which its nuclear missile capabilities are developed today.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On December 13-15, Washington hosted the US-Africa Leaders Summit – a pompous event full of very lucrative offers with the participation of African heads of state.
The initiatives put forward by the United States in the political and economic sphere are initially aimed at impressing and even blinding African leaders: there is an offer of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for one of the African states, the supposedly guaranteed seat for the African Union in the G20, Joe Biden’s promised visit to Africa in 2023, and considerable financial assistance packages to African states in various areas ranging from healthcare to space.
And all this after almost eight years of oblivion of the African continent, where American presidents, as the saying goes, “would not set foot.”
What happened to the USA and where did this wave of incredible generosity from tight-fisted and pragmatic America come from? Is it really because Washington, as they say, finally realized the significance of the “dark continent” (the main emphasis was placed on proposals addressed to African states south of the Sahara, i.e., its non-Arab part)? And to what extent will the promises made correspond to the actions of the American administration?
Let’s start with the fact that promises to Africans, seasoned with a fair dose of rhetoric in favor of establishing democracy and its advantages over “autocracy” come from the very democratic administration that back in 2009 heralded, through the eloquence of the first African-American president, prosperity and well-being in the Middle East. In case anyone doesn’t remember, this was Barack Obama’s brilliantly crafted speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009 in terms of influencing Arab minds. There were excellent promises about the establishment of peace in the Middle East, about a just solution to the Palestinian problem and the creation of a Palestinian state. How then the Arabs were fascinated by these exuberant speeches and promises of Obama, who simply exuded trust! Back then the whole policy of the American administration was based on the fact that if the Arabs swear allegiance to the American model of democracy, then everything will get better very quickly. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, who were travelling around the Arab countries at that time, convinced the Arabs that they should start a democratic experiment as soon as possible, develop pluralism and give women more rights. And immediately everything will get better, and most importantly, the competitive environment in politics will instantly give rise to positive dynamics in the economy and many crises in the Arab world will be resolved!
How did things evolve in practice? As soon as the Arabs, who believed in the beautiful slogans of American politicians, moved towards the so-called pluralistic democracy, it turned out that it was not “authoritarian regimes” that crumbled and began to collapse, but entire countries and states. To destroy them, the United States resorted to a whole range of measures. From the creation of allegedly innocent NGOs that actually carried out gross interference in the internal affairs of Arab states to support for openly terrorist movements, such as the “Muslim Brotherhood” (banned in the Russian Federation), dressed up in the toga of “democracy defenders” and the dirty use of social networks and TV channels, such as Al Jazeera to break stability in a vast region from the Atlas Mountains to the deserts of Arabia.
As a result of generous promises to “build democracy”, many countries in the Middle East were either completely destroyed or seriously undermined. An exhausting civil war continues in Yemen, Libya has been defeated, Syria is almost completely destroyed, Egypt and Tunisia cannot get out of deep economic and political crises.
In response to legitimate questions: why was this necessary, in the United States they say with feigned surprise that they wanted something completely different, but it happened and they will allegedly not resort to any experiments on regime change anymore.
That’s good, we say! Let’s believe them! After all, everyone has the right to make mistakes. “We strove for the best, but something went wrong along the way!
But let’s look at Europe! After all, Europe is a “blooming garden”, in the words of the chief diplomat of the EU Josep Borrell, and in general it is the best friend and ally of Washington. America cannot wish them harm! And what do we see? The United States, with the active support of its protégés in the current European establishment and under the same slogans of promoting democracy as in the Arab world, brought a neo-Nazi regime to power in Kiev in 2014, flooded Ukraine with arms, pushed it closer to NATO, encouraged it to kill Russians in Donbass, disrupted the implementation of the Minsk agreements (the fact that the US admitted) and forced Russia, as a measure to protect itself and the Russians in Donbass, to trigger a special military operation. Moreover, they forced their European – now we can say it directly – satellites to pay for this policy and support the Kiev authorities in every possible way, who are obsessed with hatred for Russia, its history, Russian culture and language.
But this way of draining resources from the EU and weakening it seemed insufficient to the United States. Obviously, not without its influence, and, most likely, on its orders, the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was blown up and Europe lost cheap Russian “blue fuel”, which was replaced by “democratic gas” from the USA, after which electricity prices soared in Europe being multiplied by a factor of six or seven, and production in a number of industries – chemical, metallurgical and other energy-intensive areas – has become simply unprofitable. Capital from Europe quickly moved to the USA.
What are the reasons for the hypocritical and duplicitous policy of Washington, both in the Middle East and in Europe?
The reasons are the same. The objective, accompanied by generous promises, the thunder of drums and discourse about democracy, is to drown out competitors, whether these be Russians or Chinese in the Middle East, leaving behind devastated regions for them. Or Europeans, who until recent events had a clear competitiveness with the Americans, and now they have lost it along with cheap Russian energy resources.
Will Africa really believe the false assurances of the Americans, who previously took slaves out of the continent, and now resources, that the predator has suddenly become a friend of the African peoples? That America needs democracy, and not oil or cobalt or diamonds or lithium for its industry, nor rare earth metals for its military-industrial complex? Will Africans really believe that the goal of the US is the prosperity of the African peoples, and not their enslavement and robbery through the mechanisms of the IMF and the World Bank? And if this does not work out, then will the continent be treated like the Middle East – stirred up and then destroyed so as not to give it up to competitors?
Think Africa, think!
Oleg Pavlov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Against the backdrop of the sheer failure of the West’s hybrid war against Russia, including in the formation of a “second anti-Russian front” in Central Asia, the propaganda activities of Ukraine and several Western media outlets began to be clearly manifested by way of promoting the “valor” of the recently created by the Kiev Nazi regime battalion known as Turan.
Recently on social networks and several media outlets, information about this latest neo-Nazi formation, which allegedly comprises representatives of the Turkic world, including the Turkish nationalist organization Bozkurt (“Grey Wolves” – recognized a as terrorist organization in the Russian Federation and CSTO member states). It is reported that this militant group is headed by a citizen of Kyrgyzstan Almaz Kudabek uulu and it allegedly includes about 300 people, among whom are mercenaries of Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Uighur origin, immigrants from Azerbaijan, as well as from the Middle East.
It is worth noting that information about the participation of the Grey Wolves in hostilities on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine began to be actively disseminated by Ukraine in April 2022, when about 3,000 militants were deployed across the Polish-Ukrainian border, while Turkey, under the influence of beneficially developing relations with Russia, decreased its support for the Kiev regime.
By the way, something similar about the participation of mercenaries from the Central Asian states in armed clashes could already be observed earlier, when the West threw against the Russian Armed Forces in Syria such units formed from renegades from the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, trained by NATO instructors. At that time, these US actions had the explicit goal of causing Moscow to distrust people from these regions for engagement in serious Russian military operations.
The use of such old methods in the appearance of the Turan battalion was clearly calculated by Washington for a similar reaction by Moscow in its special operation to denazify Ukraine.
Earlier, the creation of the “Turkic Legion” was announced by Azerbaijani neo-Nazi Magomed Jafarov, who fought on the side of the Kiev regime as a mercenary. On May 13, the Baku TV channel even aired a report about the Muslim Corps and the creation of a unit within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which included military personnel from Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics who participated in the hostilities on the side of Ukraine in Donbass starting from 2014.
It is noteworthy that Ukrainian and the Western media outlets alike are strenuously highlighting the allegedly main role of Turkey in the creation of this ultra-Nazi militant group. The United States clearly expected that such a move would be perceived by Moscow as crossing red lines and would become a reason for retaliatory measures against Ankara, cool Moscow’s relations with Ankara and make it actively involved in the anti-Russian front. According to the version promoted by Ukraine, due to the “Turan” connection with the Turkish far-right nationalist organization “Grey Wolves,” it is Ankara that even possibly finances these militants. At the same time, it was indicated that their combat training allegedly takes place in the Turkish province of Izmir where the Grey Wolves training base is located, as well as the headquarters of the NATO combined ground forces in the southeastern part of the South European theater of operations. For the propaganda promotion of “Turan,” Ukrainian special services adopted the pan-Turanist ideas of the ideologists of the Ottoman Empire, who dreamed of a “Great Turkey” or the so-called “State of Turan” – from the Danube to the Russian Far East.
The purpose of such propaganda bogus stories is clear: to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey, which is of particular interest today not only to Ukraine, but also to the United States, which has been zealously monitoring the active development of Russian-Turkish projects in recent times. Namely, active work to strengthen bilateral trade and economic ties, to build nuclear power facilities in Turkey and to create the largest gas hub in this country. The latter component is perceived with particular antagonism in Washington since this project could nullify all the attempts already made by the United States to remove Russia from the European gas market and gain a dominant position there at the cost of deindustrialization of the EU and mass poverty of Europeans. After all, it is this project that will allow Russia to supply its gas to the countries of the European Union, bypassing US sanctions. Thanks to this project, Turkey will receive huge dividends and become an important supplier of cheap gas for Europe, which is necessary for European countries to fully operate industrial enterprises, heat European homes and compete on equal terms with the United States in the economic sphere. Along with that, it will strengthen Ankara’s independence from both the United States and the European Union.
So why should Ankara, under such favorable conditions, ruin relations with Moscow today and support this useless renegade battalion known as “Turan”?
As for the composition of Turan, its initiators expected that, due to financial and economic problems in the countries of Central Asia and a significant flow of migrant workers from there who are looking for work outside their homeland, it would be easy to find mercenaries. Certain hopes were also tied to the activities of Western NGOs, which in the recent period have been especially active in inciting hatred towards Russia and Russians in the countries of the region. To recruit such mercenaries at the Ukrainian embassies in the countries of Central Asia, in violation of the norms of international diplomatic ethics, even special units were created. For instance, the reception of Uzbek volunteers for the Armed Forces of Ukraine was opened at the Ukrainian Embassy in Tashkent, and the Kiev regime opened similar points for recruiting mercenaries in its other diplomatic missions in the region. In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine has created a relevant website with explanations on how citizens of the region can join the Armed Forces of Ukraine and get to Ukraine in the current difficult wartime period.
And, although Ukraine itself does not have the money to finance such militants, nevertheless, the promises of more and more significant loans from the West “for the fight against Russia” should have covered such costs. In addition to the financial support of mercenarism for the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the United States, one should not forget about the so-called centers for the “re-education of former ISIS (this terrorist organization is prohibited in the Russian Federation) militants” specially created at American military bases in Syria and several other countries of the Middle East. Which in fact turned into militant training centers for covert CIA operations.
However, no promises of “external assistance” allowed Kiev to create an effective Central Asian military unit. Furthermore, the tightening of national legislation in the countries of Central Asia in order to combat terrorism and mercenarism, especially severely punishing local citizens since 2014 for participating in hostilities on the territory of Ukraine, is a serious deterrent.
In a series of recent public speeches by the leader of Turan, Almaz Kudabek uulu, and some of his henchmen, the involvement in the creation of this militant group points not to Turkey, but to the United States, which is trying to use this native of Kyrgyzstan as its puppet to inflict not only damage on the Russian army, but also to use the Turan project (possibly) to create chaos in Russia and Central Asia. Therefore, without a doubt, the said Turan project will continue to carry out its provocative activities in the information space to incite anti-Russian sentiment and destabilize the Central Asian region, provoking mass unrest and increasing Russophobia.
In addition to including this so-called Turan battalion on the list of targets of Russia’s special operation to denazify Ukraine, a very serious response to this Western project is the recent growing support for the Russian special operation in Ukraine, both in Kyrgyzstan and in other countries of the region. And so is the number of Kyrgyz people and citizens of other Central Asian countries who, since 2014, have been travelling to help Eastern Ukraine in the fight against the Nazi Kiev regime and forming “Friends of Donbass” communities in Russia.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
If you live in the United States, every day you wrestle with hopelessness and disappointment. The media has gone insane, and it is that same media, of course, that is your only source for information on how Americans are responding to the sickening lies.
We call this a “Catch 22.”
I woke up today to a Norwegian news story that detailed Russia’s massive underground child torture chambers just discovered in Kherson. The story, of course, is utterly false but it was sent to me by a leader of the anti-vaccine movement in Norway.
That person believed all of it. Is discernment dead?
Background
They call the current milieu in America the “post truth” era, a time when any fact can be tossed aside, and any conjecture or falsehood now has standing as fact, perhaps as “alternative facts.”
Americans in the Post-Trump era have been vaccinated, not for COVID but vaccinated against any and all “information” from any “well-established” or official source.
This is both good and bad as “alternative facts” are simply the same disinformation and psychological warfare.
Investigations that will never be widely reported easily demonstrate that the mainstream media and entire internet, including all social media outlets, secretly run by Israel’s Unit 8200.
The same folks that “pump and dump” the worlds markets long ago pushed aside the “techies” and took control of Silicon Valley. Any investigation, no matter how perfunctory, gives us names, be it Intel Corporation or Wikipedia, that lead us to world organized crime.
Similarly, Wikipedia’s long history of character assignation against human rights activists and independent journalists is rather famous, just as with Intel’s “back door” access built into every processor.
This global organization, dedicated to disinformation, overtly controls Microsoft Corporation, Google, Intel, META (banned in Russia) and dozens of other familiar names along with most major entertainment and news organizations.
A Day in the Life
It begins each morning, the news reports. From the US Congress, an acolyte of the Israel lobby, Congressman French Hill of Arkansas a bill regarding Syria is introduced. This bill is predicated on the “alternative fact” that the crimes of ISIS and Al Qaeda (both are banned in Russia), the “bedfellows” of the CIA and Mossad” can be blamed on the Assad government.
No lie is too absurd to peddle on the “dumbed down” public.
Hill and his fellow Republicans, individuals funded by powerful Israeli “oligarchs,” read “gangsters” along with “big pharma,” “big oil” and the war lobby have accused Syria and President Assad of running a worldwide narcotics empire.
These same individuals, some years ago, claimed the Taliban (banned in Russia) ran a worldwide narcotics empire by running a fleet of long-range planes flying from what could only be American bases in Afghanistan. Are Americans that careless or is this story just as crazy?
The CIA’s Drug Empire
Some years ago, in a debriefing of a US Navy SEAL commander working with a well-known PMC tied to America’s “right wing,” the details of the CIA’s heroin empire in Afghanistan came out.
Colonel Jim Hanke, radio host Mike Harris and I spent several enjoyable hours with a Navy Master Chief Petty Officer, the most senior of all the SEALS, hearing his descriptions of trucking heroin from Helmand Province in Afghanistan, into Pakistan for distribution, not by a mysterious and imaginary Taliban air force but something more familiar, American Global Hawks.
With a range of 16,000 kilometers and a payload of 1300 kilograms, the average payload of a Global Hawk, at wholesale prices ($50k per kilogram) makes a single flight worth $65 million.
Opium was processed into heroin using chemicals imported for “dry cleaners” brought in from Karachi, Pakistan by truck. Processed heroin was flown out in long-range drones from a small landing strip north of Pakistan’s Gwadar, handled by Americans contracted to the US State Department.
Each of these transactions included paying off the Taliban(banned in Russia) but the profits went to members of the United States House of Representatives who chose to make “private investments” in commercial (read “narcotics”) ventures to aid the people of Afghanistan.
From there drug shipments went to Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo where they were turned over to the MEK, a former terrorist group represented by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. From there they travel to Mexico or to Brussels, on CIA contracted airlines and reach worldwide distribution.
A new and cheaply produced drug called Fentanyl has cut into CIA profits.
Then again, new opportunities in those areas destabilized by the current conflict in Ukraine open up new avenues, selling human organs, sex trafficking refugees and, of course, diverting weapons shipments to “friendly” terror groups across Africa.
The Captagon Fairy Tale
The current story says Assad is manufacturing Captagon, a methamphetamine comparable to the Ritalin Trump is allegedly addicted to. Problem here is that previous investigations tied Captagon to ISIS and al Qaeda (both are banned in Russia), and were well confirmed.
Less publicly, reliable intelligence reports tied Captagon and Fentanyl production to Israel and Qatar. When one Captagon manufacturing facility was found in 2015 in what was then ISIS occupied Raqqa, Syria, Qatari and Turkish officers were onsite as well as facilities for manufacturing chemical weapons.
COVID the Weapon
With well over 1 million Americans dead of COVID 19 and between 400,000 and 700,00 of the dead attributed to “vaccine avoidance,” one might want to look at the “spiritual and intellectual” basis for the varying movements, be it those who opposed masks and lockdowns or those who now claim that millions, up to one billion, children have died of vaccination related illness. These stories fill Twitter and are heavily promoted by Google as well. The truth?
The founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, an organization intent on discrediting science and spreading bizarre lies about vaccines is an Israeli agent from Unit 8200 that was assistant to Israeli spymaster Michael Oren.
Sources in the Justice Department indicate that Oren was being investigated for stealing American nuclear secrets and running a spy ring that penetrated the US Department of Energy, not just stealing documents but nearly a ton of weapons grade nuclear material as well.
That investigation, under the loose reference of “The AIPAC Spy Ring” was terminated by orders from the Bush 43 White House and those involved silenced.
This weapons-grade nuclear material was, according to a senior IAEA official speaking in confidence, sold to Taiwan, Brazil and even Saudi Arabia while part was manufactured into “deniable” nuclear weapons used against Syria and Yemen among others while controlled media smeared anyone reporting these nuclear crimes.
One might think back to the Beirut explosion and take note, ammonium nitrate is inert, much like potassium nitrate, unless manufactured into an explosive. With potassium nitrate, you must add sulfur and charcoal, then you get gunpowder.
The mixture to make ANFO is a bit more complex, far more dangerous and will not be published here but suffice it to say, all the ammonium nitrate in the world, burned or impacted in other ways is utterly harmless.
Was Beirut nuked? Yes. But let us return to our discussion of the weaponization of COVID.
We will also take note that stories reported but quickly discarded, even by the controlled media, have established that COVID 19 is a laboratory creation and cannot occur under any imaginable natural transformation. From Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a licensed physician:
Nov 4, 2021
Dr. Fauci says that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not fund ‘gain-of-function’ research in Wuhan and even if they did, the newly created superviruses are genetically too dissimilar to COVID to have caused the pandemic. The leftwing media allows this blather to accumulate without any critical analysis.
First, no one, not myself or anyone I’m aware of, argues that a recombinant supervirus that has been published in scientific journals is COVID-19 or a close relative. If COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab, it would be a laboratory-created virus that the Wuhan scientists have not yet, and are unlikely ever, to reveal.
What we are arguing is that the techniques that the NIH funded in Wuhan to create enhanced pathogens may also have been used to create COVID-19.
Fauci’s sophistry is a straw man argument to avoid a fact that even the NIH now admits: that a recombinant virus created in the Wuhan lab and funded by the NIH did display increased lethality.
One way of denying that the NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan is to scrub the NIH website of its ‘gain-of-function’ definition.
On October 20th, the NIH admitted in a letter to two Members of Congress that research supported by the NIH in Wuhan did create viruses that gained function or gained in lethality.
On the same day, the NIH removed its previous definition of gain-of-function research from its website and replaced it with another term: “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen” research. As described on the NIH website, ePPP research refers to research “that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer, or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans.”
And wouldn’t you know it, the NIH letter admitting the agency funded research that strengthened bat viruses in Wuhan makes no mention of gain of function research either. Rather, the letter argues that the experiments do not count as ePPP research “because these bat viruses had not been shown to infect humans.”
So what explains the change in terms? To avoid contradicting Dr. Fauci’s testimony that NIH does not fund gain of function research, the NIH is compelled to change the topic. The NIH is effectively moving the goalposts and arguing that any experiment that combines an unknown virus with a known pathogen such as the SARS coronavirus (15% mortality) is not gain-of-function because the experimenters do not know yet whether the recombinant virus will be enhanced.
That’s crazy! Defining away ‘gain-of-function’ research by saying it doesn’t exist unless you know in advance it will occur is the very essence of hubris.
So, according to the altered NIH standard, recombing any unknown bat virus with a deadly virus like MERS (a coronavirus with mortality as high as 50%) is NOT gain of function research because the result is not yet known.
Why so many machinations and word manipulations? Because ultimately, we’re talking about culpability here. NIH, under Dr. Fauci’s tutelage, funded research in Wuhan that used recombinant genetics to merge unknown bat coronaviruses with a known pandemic pathogen, the SARS virus.
And Dr. Fauci still claims it isn’t ‘gain-of-function’ research because the scientists didn’t know in advance that the newly created virus would be enhanced or more deadly.
But isn’t that the very purpose of the experiment to see if the newly created virus has gained function?
Under Dr. Fauci’s convoluted definition, no experiment, no matter how deadly the combination, would be considered ‘gain-of-function’ unless the scientists knew in advance that the combination would lead to enhanced lethality.
Under Dr. Fauci’s word salad guidance no experiment combining viruses would ever be denied funding.
Then we look at more of the activities of another of the hundreds of labs involved in CIA funded “Frankenstein” research. From Tass:
MOSCOW, June 16. /TASS/. Biological laboratories in Ukraine overseen by the US were studying viruses capable of being transmitted by mosquitoes, spreading, among others, Dengue fever, Chief of Russian Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Force Igor Kirillov said on Thursday.
“The stated goal of the project was the study of viruses capable of infecting Aedes mosquitoes. In accordance with the technical specification the viral preparation was developed by an institute in Kiev and delivered to the US to conduct air biological field research,” he said.
According to the military official, the interest of US clients to the mosquitoes that transmit such infections as Dengue fever, Zika fever and yellow fever is not accidental: during the last major yellow fever outbreak in Africa in 2011, some 170,000 cases of a severe form of the disease were recorded resulting in 60,000 fatalities.
It is not unreasonable to assume that an organization that would create diseases that could and perhaps did kill millions, would also, as part of what might well be considered a “social experiment” also build a capability of preventing measures to control these same diseases as well, such as “vaccine hesitancy” or citing well established disease prevention protocols as “tyranny.”
Is the sign of this success the bizarre fact that almost the entire alternative media has embraced these measures to the joy of those who create infectious diseases?
Early, during the initial outbreak of COVID 19, former CIA officer, Robert David Steele answered questions I posted him as to why he sought to find backing among right wing extremists and other “less desirable” elements. His explanation, that after years of sending money fraudulent and corrupt religious grifters, the “Trump base,” as he coined it, would fund anyone willing to support childish Qanon and “anti-lockdown” drivel.
Behind it All
But it wasn’t just Israeli gangster cash and Unit 8200 managing the movement that led to the deaths of so many Americans, more than any war.
“From ‘America’s Frontline Doctors: All Roads Point to Israel
Big Money, hidden agendas, obfuscation, and the many disconcerting ties to AFLDS’ Dr. Simone Gold:’
“ALFDS was not a spontaneous grassroots organization but the brainchild of the Council for National Policy (CNP). The CNP formed a coalition in April 2020 called “Save Our Country. (SOC). This group’s leadership included Tea Party Patriots co-founder (a pro-Trump org) Jenny Beth Martin, Stephen Moore, Lisa Nelson of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and FreedomWorks‘ Adam Brandon, to name only a few.”
With all these American sounding organizations involved who would have suspected that ALFDS was headquartered in Israel. Moreover, the ties that are perhaps most frightening are between those running ALFDS and those also running the biological research facilities in the Republic of Georgia and Ukraine that were studying bat-based CORONA viruses and developing “chimera” variants identical to COVID 19 at the time of the outbreak in China.”
It doesn’t take a genius to ask hard questions, sorting through the purposeful sea of disinformation to note that COVID 19 targeted nations where certain criminal groups could enjoy a windfall of both massive profits and political destabilization as varying laboratory COVID variants emerged in Iran, China, Italy, Spain and the United States with death rates, at first, running over 40 percent of those infected.
It was at this point that Russia sent decontamination teams into Italy, a nation that, only a few short months later, is now supplying weapons against a nation that had been their savior.
Vaccines
Trump simultaneously took credit for vaccines while those around him spread rumors that the vaccines had been created, in this case at Trump’s own urging, to depopulate the United States.
This was done, as part of a plan, to discredit their own vaccines, leading to economic collapse and a virtual “holocaust” with COVID 19 holding on now for years, spread through a population of unvaccinated yet, in its new weakened form, killing off the aged who are vaccinated.
Of course, what is purposefully “forgotten” is the fact that the more virulent strains of COVID killed unvaccinated at a rate 20 times that of vaccinated.
The end result was pushing US debt to over $31 trillion dollars with the last third (and more) simply stolen from the treasury with nothing to show for it.
A similar economic collapse occurred in 2007-8 when, mysteriously overnight, the top 5 investment banks, all controlled by Israeli oligarchs, suddenly went bankrupt and required taxpaying American laborers to bail them out.
Conclusion
The current military struggle centered in Ukraine but, in reality even more worldwide than wars we toss that name at, “world,” has pushed us into new territory. By “new territory,” I am referring to “fake news.” It isn’t “news” that is being faked, it’s reality.
I assert this, that destroying reality itself is an act of war against our planet and all that travel on her. I also assert that the murder of reality, be it fake news or fake history, certainly fake “intelligence,” diminishes mankind itself.
The truth? Mankind is being “socially engineered” on a massive scale, history fabricated or erased, religions turned inside out, all expressions of the advancement of mankind, almost all, turned to preserving a world order based entirely on centralization of utter and absolute control in the hands of mostly nameless families, often referred to as “bloodline.”
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The last year was marked by a number of important events that NEO’s been covering daily due to the valiant effort of all of our authors. The ongoing armed conflicts — that is the outcome of the short-sighted policies employed by certain countries.The “New Eastern Outlook” editorial board want to thank our authors and readers for the their contribution to the efforts of the international community, both diplomatic and media ones, made in an attempt to reduce international tension, to minimize regional conflicts, especially the armed ones, and to improve the political climate on our planet.On the eve of Christmas and New Year holidays, we want to wish each an every one of you family happiness, peaceful sky over your head, good health and a lot of success in your good deeds and endeavors.Next year we will strive to strengthen our cooperation even further and to expand the range of our readers and authors.Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all!The “New Eastern Outlook” editorial board
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Saudi Arabia in early December received widespread acclaim and highly positive publicity in numerous countries around the world. First and foremost, it was a successful state reception in Riyadh, the likes of which have not been organized for any statesman from the West, not to mention the hostile meeting with US President Joe Biden that took place this summer. This fact quite clearly showed an evident shift in regional alliances, which indicates a new alignment of forces in the new multipolar world. As a result of this visit, an unprecedented number of contracts, agreements and treaties in civilian areas were signed, which sharply distinguishes this trip from, for example, Donald Trump’s visit, when many contracts were also signed, but all of them were only in the military field and were aimed at pumping out huge sums from the budget of Saudi Arabia and creating military hysteria in the region.
The Chinese leader held a series of summits with Saudi partners, the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and leaders of nearly every Arab country, including many that have been close US allies for decades. Against the backdrop of these alliances, which are now in the past, the Chinese president established new friendly ties with his Arab counterparts, which could later play a cruel joke on the so-called “American influence” in the Persian Gulf.
Hossein Askari, professor emeritus of business and international affairs at George Washington University, sees Xi Jinping’s “high-profile visit” to Saudi Arabia as an attempt to “reduce the power and presence of the United States in the Persian Gulf” by capitalizing on the “uneasy relationship” between the US and Saudi Arabia. In an interview with Tehran Times, Askari noted that China’s presence in the Persian Gulf at the same time “makes it difficult for the United States to turn to the Pacific.”
Speaking at the beginning of the China-GCC summit, the Chinese leader said bluntly and clearly: “China will continue to resolutely help GCC countries maintain their own security… and build a collective security system for the (Persian) Gulf.” He was also quoted as saying: “China will continue to import a large amount of oil from the Gulf countries on an ongoing basis.”
The joint statement adopted at the end of the Arab-Chinese summit expressed support for China’s position on Taiwan and the rejection of Taiwan’s independence. The Chinese leader expressed his gratitude for the “important efforts” made to care for minorities from both the Arab and Chinese sides.
In general, the visit of the Chinese President and his high-level meetings with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries and the Arab states directly proved that China is committed to strengthening its presence and expanding its role in the Middle East and the Gulf regions. Last year, China signed an ambitious and long-term strategic agreement with Iran without getting into a direct confrontation with the US. On the Arab side, the leaders of the Gulf states and the Arab states expressed their political will to promote all-round cooperation with China, while maintaining some of their alliance with the US and not questioning the “partnership” that binds others to Washington. However, they no doubt understand that this can be a difficult balancing act, and most likely it will be revised in the near future, and not in favor of Washington.
A spokesman for the US State Department commented on the Chinese President’s visit to Saudi Arabia, stressing that the US “remains deeply committed to security in the Middle East and the Gulf region.” He added that “America’s comparative advantage in this is our ability to build coalitions, our partnerships and our ability to integrate defense structures. All of these things are unmatched.“ Roughly referring to fighting terrorism, protecting freedom of navigation and countering threats in the region, the spokesman also said that “there is simply no comparison to the value the United States can provide.” The US message of containment, though diplomatically articulated, regarding the limits of wider Arab-Chinese cooperation will reverberate throughout the Middle East and the Gulf region. But what will be the limits of Washington’s influence on the GCC, apparently, will be clear in the near future, and it is unlikely that the United States will be able to maintain its former overwhelming influence in this region.
The summit in Riyadh formulated a common vision of a strategic partnership between the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and China. But it should not be seen as negatively affecting the GCC’s relations with regional allies, its close partnerships with the US and the UK, or its prospective strategic cooperation with the EU. In search of regional and global security, stability and prosperity, the GCC states individually and collectively will take advantage of all relationships to achieve these goals. And the partnership with China is an important building block along the way.
In any case, whatever the outcome of the Chinese leader’s visit to Saudi Arabia and his meetings with representatives of many Arab countries, it should be clearly stated that the unipolar world with US hegemony is becoming a thing of the past. It is being replaced by a new era with a multipolar world, with the interested participation of all countries of the world, not just the nations of the West. And one should agree with the opinion of Russian President Vladimir Putin that new times bring new trends and changes, including the restructuring of all international relations taking into account the arrival of a multipolar world to replace the obsolete unipolar one.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Over the past few days, the author has come across several fake news reports on Korean arms supplies to Ukraine. Both from the North and the South.
On the one hand, there is ongoing speculation in the West that the DPRK is allegedly supplying or intends to supply Russia with munitions for use in Ukraine, although such speculation is only true if the DPRK has secretly already built a teleportation machine. Well, or this is a case of “bold assumptions.”
However, Pentagon Press Secretary Pat Ryder reiterated on November 15 that the United States is working with its allies and partners to monitor North Korea’s supply of artillery shells to Russia. The general declined to comment on whether the US had tried to prevent this.
On November 24, during an exclusive interview with the Yonhap News Agency, First Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Oleksandr Kornienko said that military cooperation between North Korea and Russia cannot be ruled out.
In a webinar hosted by the Washington-based think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies on December 2, 2022, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Eliot Kahn not only claimed that Moscow was doing little to enforce Security Council resolutions on North Korea, but specifically noted that Russia allegedly continues to allow numerous North Korean workers to earn income in its jurisdiction in defiance of the UN Security Council resolution and is in the process of acquiring prohibited munitions from the North to support the invasion of Ukraine. As always, no evidence was presented.
In addition to fake news about shells, Western propaganda floods the media with overwhelming amounts of all kinds of disinformation. First, it is “information” about the alleged recruitment of North Korean workers: in the summer and fall, the South Korean Daily NK reported several times that the DPRK was actively recruiting more and more workers to send to eastern Ukraine.
Another fake story was launched by Radio Free Asia, which, citing unnamed sources in North Korea, claimed that three Pyongyang factories were sewing uniforms for the Russian military engaged in the special military operation in Ukraine using Russian fabric. “Journalists” even had the audacity to send a comment to the Russian Embassy, after which, on November 12, the diplomatic mission’s social media page advised the journalist to choose a career as a science fiction writer.
On December 7, Spokesperson for the US Department of State Ned Price again told that Russia continues to seek weapons from North Korea and Iran for use in its war against Ukraine. And again – with no evidence. Against this backdrop, the National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby seems a paragon of honesty: “We know that the Russians continue to express interest in obtaining North Korean artillery…. (but) I don’t believe we can say today that we’ve seen definite indications that that transaction has been consummated.”
However, there is much more interest in the information from the other side. It tells the story that South rather than North Korean weapons may appear in the conflict zone.
In September 2022, the Czech publication iDNES claimed that the US was preparing a new scheme to supply Ukraine with weapons: allegedly, a certain Czech arms company would soon receive for transfer to Ukraine South Korean Shingung missile systems (KP-SAM) manufactured by LIG Nex1, designed to counter Russian drones and attack aircraft. The $2.9 billion deal is paid for from the US budget, but has yet to be implemented due to the South Korean government’s official policy of non-interference. On October 2, 2022, the ROK media also wrote about this, although claiming that it is not true: the Czech Republic allegedly has South Korean weapons, but acquired a long time ago, the US started to re-buy them to send them from the Czech Republic to Ukraine already in its own name.
In this context, speaking at a plenary session of the Valdai international discussion club on October 27, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the decision to supply arms and ammunition to Ukraine “will destroy our relations”. And this can refer to both direct and indirect supplies, when South Korean weapons are sent via third countries or go as replacements for those supplied to Ukraine. Vladimir Putin said that Russia was aware of the Republic of Korea’s plans to supply arms and ammunition to Ukraine, referring to indirect supplies via Poland.
The next day, on October 28, ROK President Yoon Suk-yeol reiterated that the country had never provided lethal weapons to Ukraine; although aid is a matter of “South Korean sovereignty,” Seoul tries to maintain peaceful and good relations with all countries, including Russia.
However, on November 11, the Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed US officials, reported that the US was planning to purchase 100,000 155mm artillery shells from the ROK for subsequent transfer to Ukraine, while previously the US military contingent in South Korea (USFK) had already handed over some of its ammunition in the ROK to Kiev (https://newsis.com/view/?id=NISX20221111_0002082163).
On the same day, the ROK Ministry of Defense confirmed that Seoul and Washington were discussing supplies of shells to make up for shortages in US arsenals, and the issue was discussed during talks between the defense ministers of the two countries in early November. But the talks are based on the assumption that the ammunition will be used by the US Army.
The latest fake story, that the US is planning to buy 100,000 shells for 155mm artillery pieces from the ROK for supply to Ukraine, was reported by CNN in late November, citing an unnamed Pentagon official. The CNN news comes amid reports that the US is running out of weapons to send to Kiev, and one of the problems is the 155mm artillery ammunition currently being used on the battlefields in Ukraine. As the ROK media wrote, compared to the US, South Korea’s weapons stockpile is quite large, given that South and North Korea are technically still at war, which helps South Korean manufacturers to continue producing ammunition. In addition, Yoon Suk-yeol sees arms exports as one way out of the emerging economic crisis. He said the ROK will aim to become the world’s fourth largest arms exporter by 2027, taking at least 5% of the industry market.
Commenting on the announcement, Col. Moon Hong-sik of the ROK Ministry of Defense reiterated on November 28 that the US is the end user of South Korean-made artillery shells. Similar reports are citing unnamed officials, but in this case more precise information is needed.
Thus, South Korea does not deny supplying weapons to the US or other countries, while a number of the author’s local respondents, following the South Korean President, emphasize that there will be no direct supplies to Ukraine, the US is the end user, and the deal with Poland even provides for a ban on transferring these weapons to Ukraine.
Of course, the author does not know whether the contract between Poland and the ROK restricts the supply or transfer of arms to third parties. But the whole situation does not bode well.
Although the ROK has been placed on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries, it remains the friendliest of the unfriendly. Without wishing to zero out economic cooperation, Seoul says it is “together with the international community” on the Ukrainian issue, but is not particularly keen to jump ahead. Moreover, some South Korean companies are not only reluctant to leave the Russian market, but are buying up the property of those firms that have actually left.
Such defiance is certainly not to the liking of Washington, which would like relations between Moscow and Seoul to be as messy as those with other US allies. There is a sense that the US is deliberately pushing the ROK and Russia towards a bigger rift, and the fake about “arms deal” in the US media, citing secret sources and without confirmation, was intended to drive an additional wedge into relations between Seoul and Moscow.
Moreover, knowing Moscow’s concerns about the possibility of South Korean arms supplies to Ukraine, Washington is in a position to stage a provocation, realizing that Moscow might be furious and not particularly concerned about whether Seoul knew where the US weapons were going or whether it was “set up.” After all, such a move would be perceived by Moscow as crossing red lines and would be a reason for retaliation.
The possibility of this, incidentally, is also recognized by South Korean experts. On November 11, Jeh Sung-hoon, head of the Russian Studies Department at the University of Foreign Studies, told RIA Novosti that Washington is seeking artillery supplies from the ROK not for military assistance to Ukraine but to chill relations between Seoul and Moscow and make South Korea even more deeply involved in the anti-Russian front.
Park Byung-hwan, a former Consul Ambassador at the South Korean Embassy in Moscow and now director of the South Korean Institute for Eurasian Strategic Studies, also told RIA Novosti that in the current circumstances there is a possibility of “hidden” supplies of South Korean arms to Ukraine, unless there are direct instructions in the contract from Seoul not to send weapons there.
Shin Jong-woo, a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, believes that “if the US purchases the artillery shells from us based on an agreement that the US will be the end user, but it changes its mind later in order to transfer them to Ukraine, we cannot take issue with the decision after selling them.” It is absurd to be interested in who the end user will be as “… exporting countries have few options even if end users do something illegal with their exports.”
On the contrary, Victor Cha, a well-known hawk, who is in charge of Korean affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, writes directly that “the Yoon government should consider arming Ukraine in earnest. Russia has already sanctioned South Korea for joining multilateral sanctions against it, and now, it is already accusing Seoul of doing so. Thus, the Yoon government should go ahead and provide such support to the besieged country as requested by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in his speech to the South Korean National Assembly in April 2022.”
Thus so far, despite the media fuss, none of the fakes about Korean weapons in Ukraine has been confirmed with regard to either the North or the South. Here’s hoping that such propaganda will never become a reality.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
After months of feigned confidence and optimism from both the West and Ukraine’s senior military leadership, cracks are beginning to appear. During Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valery Zaluzhny’s recent interview with the Economist, Ukraine’s desperate need for additional arms and the consequences for not receiving them was made very clear.
The discussion revolved around the desperate need for resources – everything ranging from air defense missiles to tanks, armored vehicles, artillery pieces and artillery shells themselves – all things that both the West and now Ukraine are admitting are in short supply, and perhaps cannot be supplied any time in the near or intermediate future.
From “Extending Russia” to “Demilitarizing” NATO
Washington’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is the manifestation of the RAND Corporation’s 2019 paper “Extending Russia” which recommended US policymakers to “provide lethal aid to Ukraine” hoping it would expand hostilities in eastern Ukraine and “increase the costs to Russia, in both blood and treasure, of holding the Donbass region.”
The paper had hoped that Russian losses in equipment and lives in the Donbass would replicate the costs the Soviet Union suffered in Afghanistan. While the Russian Federation is indeed facing mounting costs in Ukraine, it can easily be argued that the US, the rest of NATO, and most of all – Ukraine itself – are suffering at least as much if not more.
What’s perhaps more important than how much either side is losing in the conflict is how much either side can afford to lose because of their respective military industrial capacity to regenerate manpower and equipment throughout the fighting. After nearly a year of fighting, it is clear that Russia’s stockpiles and military were prepared for this type of protracted, intense, large-scale military conflict. Ukraine and its Western sponsors were not.
Ukraine’s General Zaluzhny shared with the Economist a “wishlist” of weapons he claimed he needed in order to restore the February 23, 2022 borders of what Kiev claims is Ukraine. The list included 300 tanks, 600-700 infantry fighting vehicles, and 500 howitzers – numbers NATO couldn’t provide Ukraine no matter how much it wants to.
This “wishlist” follows Ukraine expending a massive reserve made up of weapons, vehicles, and ammunition the collective West transferred to Ukraine ahead of the so-called Kharkov and Kherson offensives. In addition to losing multiple brigades worth of men, huge amounts of equipment were also lost as Russian ground forces withdrew and instead used long-range weapons to strike at Ukrainian forces now out from behind well-laid defenses.
The temporary political points Ukraine’s offensives gained by taking territory came at the cost of expending the vast majority of what the West could afford to transfer to Ukraine.
A growing number of admissions are now being made regarding the limits of Western aid to Ukraine.
A November New York Times article titled, “U.S. and NATO Scramble to Arm Ukraine and Refill Their Own Arsenals,” admits:
Last summer in the Donbas region, the Ukrainians were firing 6,000 to 7,000 artillery rounds each day, a senior NATO official said. The Russians were firing 40,000 to 50,000 rounds per day.
By comparison, the United States produces only 15,000 rounds each month.
So the West is scrambling to find increasingly scarce Soviet-era equipment and ammunition that Ukraine can use now, including S-300 air defense missiles, T-72 tanks and especially Soviet-caliber artillery shells.
While General Zaluzhny wants 300 tanks, the US has only managed to scrape together 90 T-72 tanks which require refurbishment. They are expected to arrive in Ukraine by the end of the year according to US government media outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
The 500 howitzers required by Zaluzhny do not exist in NATO stockpiles. But even if they did, the 155mm rounds they fire are in short supply. The New York Times in its article claims that Ukraine had been firing between 6,000 to 7,000 rounds a day versus Russia’s 40,000 to 50,000, illustrating the disparity between Ukraine and its Western backers’ stockpiles and Russia’s.
US drawdown packages for Ukraine often exclude additional 155mm rounds for the M777s and other artillery pieces it and the rest of NATO provided Ukraine. This is because stockpiles are running low as the US produces only 15,000 rounds per month – or about as many rounds as Ukraine typically fires in 2-3 days.
Ramping up production will take years. The US is arranging procurement of additional arms and ammunition to replace what has been transferred to Ukraine. However these procurement plans fall far short of reaching the levels necessary to continue providing Ukraine what it needs to maintain its current fighting capacity.
An article by Breaking Defense published recently listed a number of munitions and weapon systems the US will be procuring over the course of the next several years. The number of artillery shells that will be acquired through this multi-year procurement process number only 864,000 – or about as many shells as Ukraine will fire in less than half a year.
Current US procurement plans do not seem to factor in long-term support for Ukraine, nor are there any procurement plans being discussed that will. While Russia claims that “demilitarizing” Ukraine is one of its primary objectives during its ongoing special military operation, it appears that the US and NATO are also – in a way – being demilitarized.
As Ukraine Runs Dry, Russian Weapons Continue to Arrive
In the face of Ukraine’s two major fall offensives, Russian forces not only maintained their fighting capacity, after a partial mobilization calling up over 300,000 additional troops, Russia’s fighting capacity has actually expanded. In addition to the extra manpower, Russia is also bringing in a steady flow of new weaponry.
As the US scrapes together 90 restored T-72 tanks, it is reported by Army Recognition that up to 200 brand new T-90 main battle tanks were delivered to the front.
While the New York Times discusses the dwindling number of arms and ammunition being sent by the West to Ukraine, it admits (citing Ukrainian officials) that Russia may be making at least 40 cruise missiles per month, though the number is likely much higher.
A steady stream of Geran-2 long-range kamikaze drones continue “arriving” in Ukraine even after Western analysts claimed Russia ran out of them. The cruise missiles and drones have been used to target Ukraine’s power grid while other long-range munitions as well as heavy artillery fire continue eliminating Ukrainian manpower and equipment from the battlefield.
Production numbers across Russia’s vast, mostly state-owned military industrial complex remain elusive, but based on how Russia’s stockpiles were created specifically for large-scale, intense, and protracted military conflict and how Russia’s military has likewise been configured to conduct such military conflict, it is highly likely extensive preparations were also made years in advance for Russia’s military industrial complex to produce what is necessary for such military conflict.
Only time will tell just how prepared Russia was and is to sustain combat operations against the combined resources of the US and its NATO allies. What is certain is that Ukraine’s fall offensives have ground to a halt while Russian forces are now once again inching across the battlefield.
It is worth mentioning that General Zaluzhny during his Economist interview would say:
I get what I get, but it is less than what I need. It is not yet time to appeal to Ukrainian soldiers in the way that Mannerheim appealed to Finnish soldiers. We can and should take a lot more territory.
General Zaluzhny may not think it’s time to appeal to Ukrainian troops regarding their surrender to Russia as Mannerheim did to Finnish soldiers while capitulating to the Soviet Union, in the hopes that the West will provide what Zaluzhny thinks he needs to win, but it is clear that the West neither has what he needs to win, nor is making any serious preparations to acquire it.
The only hope – it appears – rests with the notion that Russia will run out of weapons and ammunition before Ukraine’s dwindling supplies are finally exhausted. It is a hope that is shaken each time a new Russian cruise missile or drone strikes Ukrainian infrastructure across the country, or each time a brand new T-90 main battle tank rumbles into the Donbass region.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
For a long time, Western propagandists insisted that Chinese diplomacy was successful only in Central and Southeast Asia. As for the Middle East, Beijing allegedly had no experience in this region and no prospects for developing ties with the Arab world.
However, the visit of Chinese leader Xi Jinping to the Middle East and his meetings with the leadership of Saudi Arabia, which is the undisputed regional leader, settles the debate of power and external authority here once and for all. The arrival of the President of the People’s Republic of China to Riyadh to participate in the First China-Arab States Summit and the China-Gulf Cooperation Council Forum, at the invitation of the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, inadvertently summed up the competitive struggle for expansion and influence in the wealthy Arab world. And not only in this very important region, which for many decades has been the center of disputes and armed conflicts, especially for “black gold.”
Some reputable historians have long pointed out that one of the key reasons for the outbreak of World War II had been the struggle for possession of crude oil. Even the massive attack by Japanese aircraft on December 7, 1941 of the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, which marked the beginning of the war in the Pacific Ocean, is linked by them to the oil factor, i.e. Japan’s desire to seize the oil-rich islands of the Indonesian archipelago, and, at the same time, enter into direct confrontation with the US, the UK and other European countries. Nazi Germany, in its treacherous aspirations to the East, also attempted to solve its “oil issue” by all available means.
Therefore, it is not surprising that after the Second World War the United States tried to base its expansion in the Middle East on the assumption that oil was at that time the main engine of economic growth for any country. And the United States itself did not have enough of this precious resource, and until the mid-2010s it had to buy about 60% of its oil on the foreign market.
The shale revolution in the US oil and gas industry has made serious adjustments to this issue, especially after the US itself became the largest supplier of oil to world markets. Following this decrease in US dependence on energy from the Persian Gulf, President Trump began to reduce US military presence in the Middle East and, in general, political and economic support for the countries of this region. As a result, gradually, first in the era of Donald Trump, and then under Joe Biden, US relations with the countries of the Persian Gulf began to decline.
The Chinese authorities skillfully took advantage of this situation. This, in particular, is evidenced by the voluminous report “China-Arab Cooperation in the New Era” published by the Chinese Foreign Ministry in early December. In particular, it emphasizes that China and the Arab states have already created an atmosphere of de facto strategic mutual trust based on similar positions on respect for the principles of sovereignty, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and the prevention of power politics and hegemonism. It should be mentioned that, for quite a long time in China, the concept of hegemonism has been steadily used, primarily in relation to US policy. And therefore, Beijing’s special emphasis on countering American hegemony together with the Arab states reflects one of the main goals of China in strengthening its ties with the Arab world. Especially in the context of the recent intensified attacks on China by the United States and the open rejection by many in the Middle East of Washington’s dictates against Arab countries.
Under these conditions, the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Middle East and the latest Sino-Arab contacts clearly show that China has come to the region for a long time. The joint projects proposed by Beijing for implementation imply not only financial and trade cooperation, but also a long-term technological partnership. For example, Saudi Arabia is opening up its market to several large Chinese high-tech companies, most notably Huawei, which has recently been restricted once again in the US. And such openness on the part of Saudi Arabia is an evidence for a high level of trust between Beijing and the countries of the Persian Gulf, in particular, Riyadh.
Also noteworthy is the joint discussion by China and Saudi Arabia of security issues, which for a long time were the prerogative of interaction between Riyadh and Washington, when the United States guaranteed security to the Saudi Kingdom. However, Beijing has shown its willingness to participate in the discussion of such issues in the Middle East, for the first time providing such guarantees far beyond its borders.
In addition to Saudi Arabia, Iraq demonstrated its interest and readiness to improve relations with China. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ Al Sudani held talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Riyadh on the sidelines of the First China-Arab States Summit. During the talks, the leaders of both states not only discussed bilateral relations, but also ways to bring them to a closer level of strategic cooperation and sustainable partnership in various fields.
During the First China-Arab Summit held in Riyadh, local officials asked China for help in increasing the volume of economic and humanitarian assistance to end the civil war in Yemen and the troubles of its people. This clearly demonstrates not only the recognition of Beijing’s regional authority, but also willingness to improve and advance relations with China.
Although in Washington, in a very frank statement by the Coordinator for Strategic Communications of the National Security Council, John Kirby, rejection of the intensification of Beijing’s Middle East policy was expressed, nevertheless, the direction of the discussions in the summits held in Riyadh showed an unconditional increase in the authority and influence of Beijing in the Arab world. Not only China, but also the Arab states of the Persian Gulf have recently confidently taken a course towards intensifying their actions for mutual rapprochement, searching for new partners for cooperation. This was especially evident in the actions of the Arab countries after the United States had intensified confrontations with China not only economically, but also politically and militarily, trying to involve the countries of the Arab world in this struggle. Including through the creation of the so-called “Arab NATO.” And in this regard, Washington itself is forcing the states of the Persian Gulf to realize that sooner or later they will have to pursue an independent policy, without a unilateral stance towards the United States, developing cooperation that is beneficial for them both with China and with Russia, contrary to the dictates of the White House.
Indeed, today, more than ever, Arab countries need access to stable markets on a long-term basis, and they need to develop their infrastructure and transportation routes. And China is known today for such a stable and truly limitless market, which has already positively proven itself to the whole world in creating modern infrastructure, including through the Belt and Road Initiative. And this contributes not only to the strengthening of Beijing’s cooperation with the Arab world, but also to the gradual ousting of the United States from the region. Trade between China and the Arab world has already increased almost tenfold over the past 17 years, according to the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. Undoubtedly, this cooperation will continue to develop and expand further.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The world press is actively discussing the results of the first US-Africa Leaders Summit since 2014, held on December 13-15 in Washington.
At first glance this event may seem successful. The forum was attended by delegations from 49 countries plus the African Union and the permanent secretariat of the African Continental Free Trade Area. Only the leaders of those countries that were not invited because of their “non-compliance with democratic standards” (Guinea, Mali, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Eritrea) were not in attendance. It should be noted that the leader of Chad, who also came to power in an unconstitutional way, was at the summit. Apparently, his “authoritarianism” did not interfere with US principles since the country is close in its political positions to the West, primarily to France.
If we talk about the most high-profile initiatives of Washington, then it should be mentioned that US President Joe Biden announced his support for the initiative to establish a permanent membership of the African Union in the G20, as well as the UN Security Council. He also stated that he plans to pay an official visit to the African continent. This is, of course, a noticeable shift in the position of the United States, but it must be admitted that America is a bit too late. Early on, at the G20 summit in Bali in November of this year, Chinese leader Xi Jinping expressed support for Africa’s membership in the G20. And Russia has been supporting the entry of African countries into the UN Security Council for many years, relying on the so-called “Ezulwini Consensus”, which implies the entry of two African states into the key UN structure.
But the US could not go forward any other way. America is forced to respond to the strengthening of the political and economic positions of China and Russia, as well as their seemingly political ally, but economic competitor – the EU – on the African continent, and in this case they do not act as leaders, but rather as those who are catching up. For eight years, especially in the Trump era, America ignored the African continent and was not even in a hurry to appoint African ambassadors to many countries. The US realized it was lagging behind only when the volume of trade between China and Africa approached $200 billion, and anti-Western demonstrations took place throughout West Africa with an appeal for Russia’s help. Furthermore, important and influential states such as Egypt and Algeria have declared their desire to join non-Western structures such as BRICS, despite the fact that all of Africa is set to build integration ties with the EU and the EAEU.
Now Washington has to catch up and announce the huge scale of “assistance” to the continent. At first glance, these plans do look impressive. Announcements include the allocation of $55 billion for the development of US-African cooperation for 3 years, and the total number of transactions concluded at the business forum is $15 billion, including $1 billion of investments from Visa for the development of mobile payment services; $80 million from General Electric and Standard Bank for healthcare development; $858 million from CiscoSystems and Cybastion for cybersecurity. Countries that will benefit include Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Republic of the Congo, Benin, Cameroon and Niger. Washington announced a regional subsidy of $500 million to Niger and Benin through the Millennium Challenge Corporation for the development of transport infrastructure, and grants were allocated through the Millennium Challenge Corporation to the Gambia, Mauritania, Senegal, and Togo.
There are other “bonuses” for Africans as well: $100 million has been allocated through the American International Development Finance Corporation for the development of the so-called clean energy and $350 million for the digital transformation of Africa. A memorandum was signed to support the development of the production chain for the assembly of electric vehicles between the United States, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. The goal is to build a plant on the border of the DRC and Zambia for the production of batteries for electric vehicles. It is stated that in the period up to 2025, $ 4 billion will be allocated through the Agency for International Development and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the training of medical personnel in Africa. The first recipients are Ghana, Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire, Malawi, and Nigeria.
Why did the US go for unprecedented generosity? And are there any political motives behind this?
Of course, there are! Washington is full of pragmatists and they want to get the maximum effect from investments that have been announced but not yet made.
At the political and ideological level, the United States and the ruling Democratic Party want to nullify the achievements of other countries on the continent in a single go and return American hegemony there, which is concealed under the banner of “leadership.” The return to American dominance on the continent will allow, according to Washington, to stake out the most important positions in the struggle for Africa for the entire twenty-first century and to cast aside competitors.
Actively condemning and demonizing China and Russia for their alleged plans to strengthen their military presence on the continent (which in fact is practically non-existent, with the exception of the Chinese base in Djibouti, used to rotate Chinese peacekeepers as part of a UN multinational force), the US itself is actively seeking to gain a foothold on it militarily, in order to build a system of total control over maritime communications and the Internet and put the continent under its military-political and informational control.
African leaders, before believing American promises, should remember that it was the United States that was the main player in the slave trade, it was to America that slaves from the African continent were mainly exported (appr. 17 million people). It was under the leadership of the United States that Libya was defeated, and the occupants of the White House in 2011 (representatives of the current ruling Democratic Party) watched the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi live on air with undisguised pleasure. And why? Only because Gaddafi dreamed of a united and sovereign Africa, wrested from the power of the dollar. And now Washington is trying to save it by actively printing dollars for some African countries.
With loud statements about its investments, the United States is deploying its biological laboratories in Africa for very dubious purposes, as was the case in Ukraine, after the appearance of which very strange new infectious diseases soon flare up. And then they generously offer their vaccines to fight them. What are the components in these vaccines, and how safe they are, I’m afraid, we will find out much later, as was the case with the covid-19 vaccines, which, as Western experts themselves now say, have many side effects … What is more, Joe Biden even during this summit is announcing the possible emergence of a new pandemic. How does he know about that?
And one more thing – the development programs of the so-called “green” or, more precisely, low-emission energy is strongly connected with the desire of the United States to impose its hydrocarbons on other countries, primarily Europe, by reducing their production in promising areas such as Africa. And this is despite the fact that the West itself is undergoing a serious energy crisis, provoked by its own actions. In other words, “beware of Greeks bearing gifts.”
Oleg Pavlov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
When Nicolae Ceasencu decided, on December 21st 1989, to make what turned out to be his last speech it is generally agreed he didn’t know what was coming next. The revolution which would depose him hours later was already in full swing, and he knew why – the people didn’t believe in him anymore, were no longer prepared to live in enforced poverty, and his security apparatus could no longer contain them.
But still the old man went out on the balcony and repeated the same old catchphrases everyone was so tired of – claiming that everyone was better off under him, and everyone who was against him was part of a foreign plot to destroy socialism and bring Romania under foreign domination. Despite the party packing the square with acolytes, the dictator heard boos for the first time ever, the crowd turned on him and he had to be rescued by helicopter before the revolutionary spirit he was appealing to take the opposite turn to the one he wanted.
Apparently Ceausescu was advised not to make this speech. So why did he do it?
He was trying to appeal to the middle – assuming that whatever people had put up with for the previous forty years was what the man in the street actually wanted, and he could cast his opponents as extremists who wanted to take all that away. Seeing his support ebb away within his own inner circle, he tried to cast them too as extreme by appealing to the silent majority, not understanding it was silent because it was no longer there.
There was considerable irony in the fact that this is what the leaders of democracies always try and do, not dictators who had destroyed all opposition. In fact this has been rejoiced over by democracy advocates – it is held that Ceausescu read the public so wrongly because he was a dictator, who never had to listen to the people, and no democratic leader would be able to do the same.
But the trouble is, they all do. Even in countries perpetually run by coalitions, in which finding the political middle is the only way to get anything done and then relating that to the public middle is the only way to stay in power, politicians get very out of touch.
They carry on assuming that what was true yesterday must be true for as long as it suits them, because that is the nature of the beast: believing they are always right and always good and always popular, even in the face of every indication to the contrary. You don’t get to be a political leader unless you can lie to yourself and not care, and be more adept at arguing the ridiculous than analysing what is going on in the real world.
So in any political system we have an inherent contradiction: the one thing every leader needs to do, identify and satisfy the middle, has to be done by the people least capable of doing it. Eventually those who fail in the attempt are hoist on their own petard, but their attempts can have long term consequences which threaten the lives of every citizen of everywhere, because the rest of us aren’t allowed to run away and hide behind ideology and big mouths.
Stuck In The Middle Without You
The US Republican Party is finding this out the hard way before our very eyes. Whatever your politics, it is sad to see this happening, because if the US gets its own public wrong, it can’t be equipped to do any good for anyone else’s.
The United States was built on the dream that everyone could make it big and be whatever they wanted in the new land of opportunity and freedom, where no king or Congress could tell anyone what to do. That dream has proved very pervasive, so it can’t be said to be without foundation, as the number of people still desperate to enter US to live and work testifies.
American Dream
Ultimately, that dream is represented by the concept of Middle America. Due to the mass media and US cultural influence, we all know what this looks like: suburban house, husband with a good job, wife who doesn’t need one, obedient children who play sports and attend a Protestant church and everyone going to the mall and supporting whatever can be perceived as the American Way of Life.
In many countries, such a picture, even if accurate, is held to depict only one part of the population. It is understood that other social cultures exist, which don’t necessarily share the views, standards and aspirations of the middle class.
But in the US, Middle America is where every normal person is supposed to belong. If you don’t, you are presumed to want to. If you do, you have to pretend deviations from that do not exist, or are alright really, which is why narcotics are prevalent in all aspects of US society.
For a generation, Middle America has been Republican. This was not always so. There have been periods when the party of Lincoln was just for the wealthy or the loud, and the Democrats were where most people presumed themselves to be, the unwashed masses.
Conservatism was for the exclusive, the outsider and the showy, everything the man in the street, though more conservative by nature by having more need to conserve the less they had, was not comfortable with.
Eventually the Republicans became the home of everyone who had traditional values, who thought they were ordinary and thought that was better than being different. US politics, which for 100 years still effectively mirrored its Civil War divisions, fell into the pattern found in most democracies: the south and prairies which had once been solidly Democratic became Republican because they were fundamentally protectionist and localist in nature, whilst the Democrats became the brass necks and intellectuals in the cities and amongst the dispossessed and those on the sexual fringes of society in terms of gender ID.
Middle America remains traditional, conservative and full of itself. But does that still mean it is Republican?
The party would like to think so, because it still assumes that Democrats represent the extremes, and voting for them once is a temporary insanity. But it is also increasingly turning to “redistricting”, or changing electoral boundaries, to keep the advantages it has and break up those of the Democrats – which the Democrats have also done when feeling threatened, but that is the point.
Even though Republicans feel everyone is turning into rhinoceroses, they know it is happening. But they can’t shake the idea that what they represent is the middle, and that most people still see things the way they do, because they have to tell themselves that with increasing frequency to stand for election in the first place.
Limitless Backyards
As ever, US politicians of all stripes think this is all about them, and this process has nothing to do with other countries. But we see it all the time in US involvement in the international arena.
The US automatically assumes everyone wants to come to America and likes all things American. Time and again it has imposed the fashionable US solution on countries, even when the reality of its actions is far removed from the lofty principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law which it believes everybody wants—international rule based order.
When people don’t like one single aspect of the US solution, this is because they have been corrupted by foreign extremists. Those who like the US must be the middle, the zone of safety and alliance.
But when they see on the ground this isn’t so, the only answer is not to try and find out what people want, and meet this aspiration at least halfway. It is to construct more enemies, and retreat even further into the mirage of Apple Pie and having the boys round on Superbowl Sunday, claiming the middle is where they want it to be because they can’t exist if it isn’t.
You don’t need to tell any developing country where this leads. They have had their share of fruitcake leaders who think armies from the Golden Age of their country will rise again and justify their every word. Their problems are only compounded when the country they all look up to is run, even if only in part, by people desperate to do the same and not equipped to do otherwise.
Not Wanting It When You Get It
Politicians will never be able to identify the middle as long as they believe the world is what they say it is, and that remains a job requirement. But when the political system itself recognises the problem, it has a habit of messing things up.
One of the oft-repeated complaints of “the middle” in any democracy is that the last thing they want is politicians. They want less rhetoric and more practical governance, driven by reality not ideology, and the rise of “stuff the lot of them party” populist movements in Europe in recent years is one manifestation of this.
In several countries, most notably Italy where no one would be seen dead talking to a politician, technocratic governments of no particular slant have been brought in to clear up the messes made by the politicians. These will give the people what they need because they need it, rather than because they are trying to buy votes, either from the public or their own party members.
But we know technocratic governments exist because you can identify them. If these knew what the middle was, they would be a political force in themselves, and would stay in power all the time through either election or nomination. They would be the norm, not the exception, and the whole political system would be variations on this norm.
Ultimately the middle always wants someone to blame. Midterm elections in the US and most democracies usually show that more people vote against whoever they don’t like rather than for the alternatives. Usually the party of government loses seats, but sometimes there is a big vote against an unpopular opposition party for an identifiable reason, and this can be demonstrated to have more of an impact on the results than positive votes.
The Republicans failed to generate an anti-Biden vote in the recent midterms, but there was a noticeable anti-Trump vote. This has led some to conclude that Middle America doesn’t like Trump but is still essentially Republican, so if the party can move on from him, it will still retain that segment of the electorate.
But to do that, it has to find someone to blame who is not part of Middle America. It also has to stop telling the American voters what they should be concerned about, and address what they really are concerned about.
They will never do that as long as they keep trying to appeal to the middle by telling it what it is, and that only by being that is it superior. When that effort fails, there will be nowhere to go but to do more preaching and more running away, and in countries where they can’t be voted out, this process will be seen even more starkly.
Here When You Won’t Look
So who is able to identify the elusive middle, and keep it onside by taking the practical steps they need? Anyone who doesn’t ask for people to vote for them, but looks at what happened only yesterday, is a shoe in candidate.
The definition of Middle America or middle anywhere, lies in what has just changed, not what has stayed the same. If people suddenly behave differently in response to the same thing, that change is the product of social shifts people often don’t realise have taken place, but are a rebirth of the accepted middle ground.
When what is called “Alternative Comedy” started invading TV screens and forcing out popular traditional comedy, people complained that this new, politically correct genre was being imposed upon them. But there were still comedy shows, which got audiences big enough to make them still worth producing.
Furthermore, many comedy venues argued the contrary: that they couldn’t get people through the door for traditional comedy because the public, not the censors, found much of it offensive. Alternative Comedy was a different sort of offensive to many, but more of the paying audience wanted it, a hard fact which wouldn’t go away.
So in this area, as in any other, the change rather the continuance represented the middle. Those who comment may still think the US Democratic Party extreme, arrogant or out of touch compared to the ideal of Middle America. But if they win seats they previously lost, the middle has moved, and appealing to it will have the opposite effect to the one intended.
It is the extremes, not the middle, which stay the same. Imre Nagy found that out when he tried to modernise Marxism. Only the least ideological and most radical, not to mention the most humble, cam find the middle and stay in it.
Come back to me six months from now and tell me whether the US activity in your country in non-ideological, radical and humble, and I will tell you the Republicans regaining the House is the reason why you don’t matter.
But often, more the rule than the exception, those who stand in the middle of the road get run over!
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
On December 6, several events were held in Washington DC by the ministers of defense of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States with different composition of participants. Of these, the main event was the one that marked the beginning of the functioning of the ministerial level of AUKUS, formed in September 2021. The acronym AUKUS is a combination of the first letters of the above countries in order.
Taking advantage of the occasion, once again the author will make a few, as it seems, important remarks. First, it is still difficult to designate AUKUS in any way. The often used term “military-political alliance” is hardly suitable in this case (at least for the time being), since usually the participants in such unions are bound by a number of certain obligations. Which (as, for example, in the cases of NATO and the “American-Japanese Security Treaty”) are more or less clearly spelled out, and the relevant documents are ratified in the order established by each of the participants.
But in the report of the US administration about the formation of AUKUS, there are no words about any obligations assumed by the participants. However, there is an intention to speak out “for all that is good” and “against all that is bad” in the Indo-Pacific region. China would also sign a similar declaration, that is, a country (not indicated in this document, which is noteworthy), against which AUKUS is aimed.
Here it would be quite possible to hear an objection in the sense that “everything in the world today looks somehow indefinite.” Almost all current manifestations of Realpolitik (concrete, to emphasize), for example, wars, are labeled with the word “hybrid.” Which, nevertheless, are carried out in quite traditional ways, both in the economic and military-political spheres, and their consequences are also traditionally concrete (not at all “hybrid”) results.
In some local zones of the current stage of the “Great World Game,” the inhabitants of which are especially unlucky, these results are displayed by hundreds of thousands of dead people, destroyed infrastructure and millions of refugees. On a much larger area, the prospect of hunger and cold looms. This is nothing new either, since this was already observed during both World Wars in the previous century.
Responsibility for the indicated (again, concrete) “manifestations-results” of Realpolitik rests with genuine freaks from politics. Almost model examples of them are those that have appeared in Kyiv and the limitrophic countries of Eastern Europe. Quite recently, unprecedented publicity in the field of the (pseudo)problem under the conditional name “The role of the human factor in climate change” (in fact, it is one of the forms of the current global war) was received by a teenage girl with obvious, as they say, “deviations.” It is noteworthy that it is freaks (and not real “actors”) who have almost completely filled the global public information space for years.
As for AUKUS, the question arises whether this alliance will be able to get rid of the current “hybrid” image in some perspective and turn into a completely traditional military-political union. The answer to it directly depends on how the relations between the two main participants of the current stage of the same “Great World Game” will develop. It is impossible to more or less fully and definitely predict the future. But some emerging trends should not be overlooked.
And the first thing one should pay attention to is the emerging course towards expanding the scope of AUKUS. In August US First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman made a statement about the possibility of New Zealand joining AUKUS.
At first glance, it may seem that it corresponds to a simplified (popular, but incorrect) idea of “the culpable Anglo-Saxons (American version) who have created their own military-political union.” Like all other peoples, the American Anglo-Saxons are experiencing all the hardships of the ongoing global war. Quite a few of them already spend their evenings in cold dwellings, by candlelight, eating pet food. Only individuals with mental disabilities can publicly rejoice at these and other hardships of the “damned Anglo-Saxons-Americans-Germans-French-Poles …” and other “age-old Russophobes.”
The artificial construct of “Russophobia,” which does not stand up to elementary criticism, serves the same purpose of simplifying the realities of both history and the current situation in the world. In the history of any state, it is possible to “find,” as well as “necessarily” interpret enough facts to accuse some neighbors of “rooted phobias.” For example, it is easy for France to do this in relation to Great Britain and Germany. And it also works vice versa. But responsible statesmen and professional historians should not follow primitive propaganda and everyday phobias.
So far, the Canadian Anglo-Saxons have not shown any intention to join AUKUS. For a fairly obvious reason, related to the quite possible negative consequences of the presence in their country of the “French factor.” Which can “work” in a negative way, despite the recent efforts made by the Australian Anglo-Saxons in order to level the consequences of the well-known (anti-French orientation) circumstances of forming this alliance. These “circumstances” formed the main content of the Joint Statement, made following the results of the AUKUS defense ministers meeting in Washington.
France’s resentment against the “allies,” due to the same “circumstances,” apparently, has not disappeared anywhere. This is evidenced by the recent acrimonious-skeptical remarks of President Emmanuel Macron regarding the prospects for AUKUS and the nature of its influence on the situation in the Indo-Pacific region.
Under these conditions, it would be rather reckless for the leadership of Canada to announce its intention to join AUKUS. Too many efforts have been made in order to smooth out the (also centuries-old) Anglo-French contradictions, in this case, on the territory of the country. Of these, perhaps the main measure was to ensure the preservation of conditions for a comfortable, compact residence of the French minority, as well as the functioning of bilingualism throughout the country.
And it will definitely be impossible to talk about the “Anglo-Saxon” appearance of AUKUS in the event of a completely possible entry into this alliance of Japan, whose role is constantly growing in all processes developing in the Indo-Pacific region. So far, however, there has been talk of Japan’s involvement in the functioning of the bilateral US-Australian component of AUKUS.
But, taking into account the continuous expansion of the scale of Tokyo’s cooperation in the field of defense with each of the three participants in this loose alliance, Japan’s accession to it, apparently, will only be a matter of time. This should be facilitated by fundamentally new (and definitely outlined) trends in Japanese defense policy, which deserve, however, separate commentary.
Recently, Japanese-Australian relations have been developing especially intensively and comprehensively. This, in particular, is evidenced by the recent trip to Australia by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, as well as the (tenth) meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense held in Tokyo on December 9 (in the so-called “2 + 2 format”). The Joint Press Release adopted at the end of the second event draws attention to the specifics of the planned bilateral actions in the field of defense.
Australia itself is facing the prospect of becoming a kind of regional defense “hub” of anti-Chinese focus. This is confirmed, in particular, by the announcement of plans to deploy six B-52 strategic bombers to the country, the armament of which may include nuclear weapons.
All this allows commentators to state that, despite the attempts of the new center-left government, which came to power in May, to somehow improve relations with China (which deteriorated sharply during the rightwing-conservative rule), it is unlikely that anything will be changed in the country’s defense policy.
In general, all of the above so far testifies in favor of the fact that AUKUS can, first, expand, and, second, still acquire the appearance of a “usual” military-political union. And so far it is not very clear what could prevent such an obviously negative prospect of the situation developing in the Indo-Pacific region.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Unlike Russia, China and many other countries that prefer to follow the world order based on international law and the UN Charter, since early 1990s, i.e. after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in public speeches by American, and by several other Western politicians, there were persistent calls for a “rules-based international order,” representing the so-called exclusively “Western values.” Thus, the United States began to actively oppose the legal order mutually agreed upon, based on the UN Charter in the international arena, in favor of a set of “rules” unilaterally established by Washington. Moreover, the heralds of the “rules-based international order” doctrine do not give explanations about what specific “rules” underlie their ideas about the world order, adjusting them to the current geostrategic interests of the White House and preferring only to inflate criticism, contradictions and conflicts regarding specific countries, accusing them of allegedly violating the established world order.
And a striking example of such tactics of the White House was the statement on December 16 by the Coordinator for Strategic Communications at the US National Security Council, John Kirby, that the American authorities recognize the right of Ukraine to plan and conduct military operations in Crimea, given that the peninsula is its territory.
Not only the legal, but also the political and cultural illiteracy of current US political officials is already well known to the world community. And therefore, it seems appropriate to give the necessary explanations to representatives of today’s US political establishment, who carefully read the materials of “New Eastern Outlook,” whose objective coverage of international events has led to America’s desire to impose restrictions on it.
First of all, it is necessary to recall that the population of Crimea, in accordance with the UN Charter, in the course of a free expression of their position at the all-Crimean referendum on March 16, 2014, voted by an absolute majority in favor of joining Russia. Therefore, it is simply absurd to consider Crimea and the city of Sevastopol Ukrainian.
From the history of the UN, John Kirby &Co. should be well aware that the best approach to resolving any conflict and consolidating peace is to respect the Charter of the United Nations. For it is not self-determination that causes wars, but the unfair denial of it, which is confirmed by armed conflicts in countless cases in recent decades.
Not “wishlists” or “rules” of the White House, but the functions of the UN and the Security Council are the basis for preventing threats and violations of the peace provided for in Article 39 of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, the only function of the UN is to ensure the realization of the right to self-determination as a conflict prevention strategy.
Since 2014, the Kyiv regime, with the direct support of Washington, has grossly violated the rights of the Russian-speaking population of the East of the country to freedom of expression, due to Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by resolution 2200 A (XXI) of the UN General Assembly, which prohibits both propaganda of war and incitement to hatred and discrimination. The systematic bombing of settlements in Donbass carried out by the Western-backed neo-Nazi authorities in Ukraine since 2014 (!) were war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the United States and its Western allies, in the midst of Russophobic hysteria, defiantly refused to discuss this at any international platform. Just like the birthright of the population of this region to speak their own language and express their own opinion, which is protected by Articles 2 and 27 of the ICCPR, as well as Articles 2 and 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Moreover, with their position, the United States and the Kyiv regime violate Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR, which provides for the right to self-determination of ALL peoples, which also applies to the Russian-speaking population of Crimea and Donbass.
The ongoing shelling of cities and the resulting killings of thousands of Donbas civilians by the Kyiv regime since 2014, documented by the OSCE, constitute Ukraine’s repeated violations of Article 2 (clause 4) of the UN Charter. Russia’s repeated attempts to hold peace talks within the framework of the OSCE and the Normandy format to resolve the Ukrainian conflict were ignored by the West. Moreover, in December 2021, Russia submitted two draft treaties to the United States and its Western allies for consideration, which would form the basis for a fruitful dialogue in accordance with clause 3 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. Once again, however, the United States and NATO rejected these peace initiatives.
For more than three decades, Russia has been trying to convey to the West its political will for international cooperation and friendly relations with all countries, as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625. Moscow put forward substantiated proposals for cooperation and the construction of a common European home based on sovereign equality and comprehensive national security. However, following in the footsteps of Russophobia of the current US political establishment, Western leaders ignored these initiatives, as well as Gorbachev’s earlier peace initiatives and the promises made to him in 1989-1991 that NATO would not move eastward.
Under these conditions, the “revelations” made by John Kirby on December 16, the incessant pumping of the Kyiv regime with new batches of weapons are, without a doubt, not just an example of unceremonious interference in the course of a military conflict and escalating hostilities in Ukraine. This is also an evidence of Kyiv’s incitement to military action and can even be interpreted as Washington’s declaration of war on Russia by proxy. By frankly supporting the undisguised Nazi Kyiv regime, including by financing more and more foreign mercenaries, the United States is becoming more and more established every day as one of the obvious parties to an armed confrontation with Russia. The situation is aggravated by the fact that Washington, as even numerous Western media outlets have already noted, was complicit in openly terrorist anti-Russian acts to undermine the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea unwanted for the United States, as well as the Crimean bridge.
However, such provocations and actions by Washington do not contribute to strengthening its position in the international arena and in the UN, as well as to the further existence of a unipolar world built on “US rules.”
As for the right declared by John Kirby to plan and conduct military operations against the invaders on the territory of an independent state, the author would like to know: do these words mean the authorization by the White House for Syria to conduct military operations against American military personnel who illegally invaded Syria in 2014? Robbing this country, its oil, grain and supporting, according to Ankara, terrorist groups in Syria?
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On March 5th, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his famous Sinews of Peace speech in Fulton Missouri in which he famously claimed that, “an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe.” The essential purpose of the speech, a speech clearly approved in advance, and probably partly written by the staff of US President Harry Truman, was to declare Anglo-American hegemony over the world.
On the 27th October, 2022, President Putin, delivered his world-historical speech at Valdai which spelled the end of the hegemonic power of the United States, and with it, the English speaking nations and their allies in Europe. Perhaps it should be called the “symphony of civilisations’ speech since that is the phrase President Putin used to express his vision of the world which replaces the concept of iron curtains placed between nations with the concept of a dialogue of civilisations.
The two speeches not only express the beginning and end of one epoch in world history and the beginning of another, overcoming the first, they are an expression of two worldviews, of two different worlds.
But let’s examine what Churchill and Truman proclaimed to establish in 1946, that is, the Anglo-American world order.
The first thing Churchill stated in his speech, after his preliminary remarks thanking Truman for inviting him was,
“The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. …Opportunity is here now, clear and shining for both our countries.”
He continued on in his speech to talk about the search for peace and security after years of war, in which he acknowledged the debt owed to Russia for defeating the Nazis in Germany and spoke of the establishment of the United Nations as a means of achieving it. But immediately after that he stated the need for an armed force, created outside of the UN, which would act as the policeman of the world and whose main forces would be provided and controlled by the USA and Britain.
This idea was soon translated into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation created three years later on April 4, 1949 and which, soon after that, revealed its aggressive character and purpose when it attacked North Korea and China in 1950, under the guise of a UN operation.
Churchill justified the need for such a force by declaring that the world faced the treat of “tyranny,” by which he meant primarily socialism and its threat to western capital and in particular Soviet socialism. He claimed that,
“The liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful.”
The liberties he spoke of were not known by the peoples of the British colonies and, in fact were hardly known by the citizens of Britain itself who, in the majority, had been reduced to poverty by the war and who had little real say in the policies of the British government ruled by the same old cliques of bankers and industrialists as they had always been, whereas in the Soviet Union progress was being made to provide the people with the liberty of freedom from the harsh realities of capitalist exploitation and the dog eat dog life that results from it.
He spoke of a fantasy of the unity of the peoples of the Empire, when most of them were quickening their struggle to escape the Empire. He claimed that the British people would overcome the hardships of the war, yet totally failed to see that Britain’s bankruptcy from the war would result in the collapse of the Empire, beginning with the liberation of India in 1947, followed by the rapid succession of nations and peoples that were soon thereafter able to throw off the British yoke.
He spoke about the US-British “special relationship’ a phrase the US and Britain bandy about still today, a relationship due to their historical, cultural, and economic ties and how the two together can police the world, and boldly bragged about the spreading of “democracy,” meaning their version of capitalist democracy, and he claimed, falsely, that the creation of a military force outside the UN would not be a violation of the UN Charter, but an adjunct to it.
He stated that the UN would become a “temple of peace” which would ensure peace in our time, yet, as pointed out, a few months later the USA and Britain would abuse the UN and their position on the Security Council to claim that their war on Korea and China had the imprimatur of the UN and was an operation for peace when it was outright aggression and then he warned that only the US, Britain and Canada should have knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons.
But he then said something important that both London and Washington now deny, the Russian need for security. He stated,
“We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression,”
But of course, that left open the threat of NATO aggression and of the Cold War and immediately after that paragraph he modulated his speech to claim the USSR was a threat to the peoples of the west, with this famous line,
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.”
Of course, this “Iron Curtain,’ existed only in Churchill’s imagination as the peoples of eastern Europe had been liberated from fascism and allowed to enjoy the benefits of socialism, which was largely denied to the peoples in western Europe and North America. The artificial division expressed in the phase “Iron Curtain, was really a propaganda phrase setting the stage for the economic and military siege imposed on the new socialist republics in Eastern Europe, and on the USSR which became known as the Cold War.
He also stated that, “The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe.”
But he did not include the USSR or Russia in his vision of a united Europe, which meant a unified Europe under Anglo-American domination, and falsely claimed that,
“Though I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war… they desire the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines,”
thereby projecting onto Russia, the ambitions of the Anglo-American alliance that could only maintain its dominance through war and the threat of war.
He ended his speech by stating,
“From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.
And, “for that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound,” and that, “it is the Anglo-American Axis that must have the dominance of power in the world.”
“If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealths be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure. On the contrary, there will be an overwhelming assurance of security.”
Of course he meant the overwhelming power of the Anglo-American alliance.
Seventy-Six years later, on the 27th of October 2022, President Putin, at Valdai, delivered the speech that spelled the end of the world power of the Anglo-American alliance Churchill and Truman intended to create, and with it, heralded a fundamentally different worldview.
President Putin said many things in a long speech that should be read in its entirety but its essence is contained in the following statement,
“The collapse of the Soviet Union upset the equilibrium of the geopolitical forces. The West felt as a winner and declared a unipolar world arrangement, in which only its will, culture and interests had the right to exist.
Now this historical period of boundless Western domination in world affairs is coming to an end. The unipolar world is being relegated into the past. We are at a historical crossroads. We are in for probably the most dangerous, unpredictable and at the same time most important decade since the end of World War II. The West is unable to rule humanity single-handedly and the majority of nations no longer want to put up with this. This is the main contradiction of the new era. To cite a classic, this is a revolutionary situation to some extent – the elites cannot and the people do not want to live like that any longer.”
And,
“A future world arrangement is taking shape before our eyes. In this world arrangement, we must listen to everyone, consider every opinion, every nation, society, culture and every system of world outlooks, ideas and religious concepts, without imposing a single truth on anyone. Only on this foundation, understanding our responsibility for the destinies of nations and our planet, shall we create a symphony of human civilisation.”
He continued by attacking the fabled “rules based order,” which is in essence the Anglo-American order;
“It looks like we are witnessing an attempt to enforce just one rule whereby those in power – we were talking about power, and I am now talking about global power – could live without following any rules at all and could get away with anything. These are the rules that we hear them constantly, as people say, harping on, that is, talking about them incessantly.”
And describes western intentions:
“Global power is exactly what the so-called West has at stake in its game. But this game is certainly dangerous, bloody and, I would say, dirty. It denies the sovereignty of countries and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and tramples upon other states’ interests. In any case, even if denial is the not the word used, they are doing it in real life. No one, except those who create these rules I have mentioned is entitled to retain their identity: everyone else must comply with these rules.”
He then points out that world political and economic problems are a distraction from the fundamental threat to humanity of climate change and ecological crisis:
‘Current developments have overshadowed environmental issues. Strange as it may seem, this is what I would like to speak about first today. Climate change no longer tops the agenda. But that fundamental challenge has not gone away, it is still with us, and it is growing. The loss of biodiversity is one of the most dangerous consequences of disrupting the environmental balance.”
He continues this theme to attack the attempt by the West to force the world to adopt and conform to its culture, domination and exploitation, leading to a world crisis and the events in Ukraine today. He said,
‘What stance has the “civilised” West adopted? If you are democrats, you are supposed to welcome the natural desire for freedom expressed by billions of people, but no. The West is calling it undermining the liberal rules-based order. It is resorting to economic and trade wars, sanctions, boycotts and colour revolutions, and preparing and carrying out all sorts of coups.
“One of them led to tragic consequences in Ukraine in 2014. They supported it and even specified the amount of money they had spent on this coup. They have the cheek to act as they please and have no scruples about anything they do. They killed Soleimani, an Iranian general. You can think whatever you want about Soleimani, but he was a foreign state official. They killed him in a third country and assumed responsibility. What is that supposed to mean, for crying out loud? What kind of world are we living in?
As is customary, Washington continues to refer to the current international order as liberal American-style, but in fact, this notorious “order” is multiplying chaos every day and, I might even add, is becoming increasingly intolerant even towards the Western countries and their attempts to act independently. Everything is nipped in the bud, and they do not even hesitate to impose sanctions on their allies, who lower their heads in acquiescence.’
Then stated,
“Without exaggeration, this is not even a systemic, but a doctrinal crisis of the neoliberal American-style model of international order. They have no
ideas for progress and positive development. They simply have nothing to offer the world, except perpetuating their dominance.”
Then stated that,
“Development should rely on a dialogue between civilisations and spiritual and moral values,” and that the degradation of western liberal ‘democracies and their aggressive and exploitative policies had led to the collapse of American prestige and authority, that aggression against Russia has accelerated this collapse, that Russia is defending itself, that the breaking of US economic power is due to its own aggressive and destructive character and policies and that the increasing trend of world nations to reject the US dollar as the word currency will result in the same fate for the USA as happened to the British Empire, its collapse as a global power, an event that will have reverberations for years to come but that this loss of American power means the corresponding ability of other nations to live as they choose, on their own terms, in their own way.
In this regard he stated that reform of the UN Security Council must be considered to better reflect the world’s diversity. “After all”, he stated, “much more will depend on Asia, Africa, and Latin America in tomorrow’s world than is commonly believed today, and this increase in their influence is undoubtedly a positive development.
So, there we have it, two speeches, two worldviews, the end of one epoch, the beginning of a new one.
I will close with these lines of President Putin,
“Unity among humankind cannot be created by issuing commands such as ‘do as I do’ or ‘be like us.’ It is created with consideration for everyone’s opinion and with a careful approach to the identity of every society and every nation. This is the principle that can underlie long-term cooperation in a multipolar world.”
May it be so.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
In the 2022 White Paper on Defense, in accordance with the policy of the current administration, the political regime and the army of North Korea are designated as hostile to South Korea. This was reported on December 6, 2022 by South Korean media familiar with the draft document, which will be officially released in January 2023.
Furthermore, on December 7, at a morale training seminar held at the National Assembly, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup stated that “it must be clearly understood that the North Korean regime and its armed forces are the enemy of South Korea.” It is indicated that North Korea continues missile provocations and deliberately violates the inter-Korean agreement on reducing military tensions dated September 19, 2018 by shelling maritime buffer zones. At the same time, the Ministry of Unification immediately stated that “the use of this expression by our military does not mean a rejection of inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation.”
According to conservative South Korean media, the move followed “Pyongyang’s ruthless weapons testing, including last month’s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile and the firing of artillery shells at maritime ‘buffer zones’ established under a 2018 inter-Korean agreement to reduce tensions.” And rightly so, because “during the last five years of Moon Jae-in’s presidency, the liberal administration steadfastly adhered to peace and dialogue with North Korea, even as it has been busy upgrading its nuclear weapons and missiles. We welcome Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s change of course.” Some journalists used this occasion to once again state that the two Koreas are on the verge of war and the escalation has reached its peak, but most likely they simply haven’t done their homework. In the history of South Korea, North Korea was more often deemed an enemy than not, and the author is not talking about the times of military dictatorship, when terms like “red evil spirits” were in general use.
The term “main enemy” in relation to North Korea was first used in the 1995 White Paper (officially, after Pyongyang threatened to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire,” in fact, on the wave of Kim Young-sam’s desire to contain North Korea against the backdrop of a “March of Suffering”) and was used up until 2000. Then there were shifts in inter-Korean relations towards reconciliation, and in 2004 this term was replaced by “direct military threat,” and under President Lee Myung-bak, the term was “direct and serious threat.” In 2010, when the Cheonan patrol ship was sunk and Yeonpyeong Island was shelled, the North Korean regime and army were called “enemies.” This position was adhered to in Seoul until the times of Moon Jae-in, when the following expression began to be used: “enemies for us are forces that threaten the sovereignty, territorial integrity, people and property of the Republic of Korea, as well as encroachment on these values”.
Without direct indications of what kind of ‘forces’ these were, after which the Conservatives criticized the wording for ambiguity. And back in early January 2022, when North Korea launched a ballistic missile for the first time, Yoon Suk-yeol deemed North Korea “the main enemy.” And on May 3, the Commission on the Acceptance of Presidential Powers announced that it was considering the possibility of including a corresponding item in the White Paper on Defense as part of the 110 main tasks of state policy. In accordance with the task, the Ministry of Defense distributed training materials for the military, which describe the armed forces of North Korea as enemies.
The thesis that the tension on the peninsula has reached its highest point is also incorrect. Despite a staggering number of missile launches per year, this is far from the peak of tensions. The level of invective rhetoric present in 2017 has not been reached now. Moreover, there have been no real attacks “on each other,” as was the case in 2010 and 2002.
And if one were to analyze the argument that North Korea is shelling the buffer zone and thereby violating the inter-Korean agreement in the military sphere, then if you read the text of the agreement carefully, it becomes clear that shots can be fired at these zones, but troops cannot be deployed there.
The latest designation of North Korea as an “enemy” fits perfectly into the current course of Yoon Suk-yeol’s policy because, under the Conservatives, relations have always been worse than under the Democrats, but one important point must be noted. Apparently, Yoon Suk-yeol, as a pragmatist, understands that inter-Korean relations exist in a certain corridor. Its hypothetical lower limit is a military conflict, but neither the pragmatists in Pyongyang nor the pragmatists in Seoul will proceed to a full-scale war. The Moon administration, accused by Conservatives of “crypto-communism,” did very little of what was planned in the text of the inter-Korean agreements, even taking into account the fact that part of what was done can be attributed to the coronavirus pandemic, which complicated any inter-state contacts. However, none of the parties is willing to make any, from its point of view, unreasonable concessions.
Of course, if inter-Korean relations oscillate close to the lower border, this would be unpleasant and would increase the risk of a “Rabbit hunt-caused war,” but from the point of view of the Conservative President Yoon Suk-yeol, this is nothing to worry about. The missile crisis is a way for South Korea to strengthen its own deterrence and develop cooperation with the United States. And the fact that the North Koreans sometimes speak ill of the South Korean president, doesn’t seem to bother him: apparently because while he was a prosecutor, investigated persons told him much worse things. North Korea’s anger can be completely disregarded if it doesn’t cross red lines and limits itself to a war of words.
Moreover, by strengthening the alliance with the United States in the North Korean direction, Yoon Suk-yeol is trying to break free from Chinese and Russian influence, implying that Seoul does not want to irritate Beijing or Moscow, and neither does it want to provoke the leadership of these countries into drastic sanctions steps, thereby preventing what China did in 2016-2017 in response to the emergence of American missile defense systems in South Korea.
In conclusion, yes, this is another step that has raised the degree of tension, but this is not something out of the ordinary, but a typical element of the inter-Korean policy of the Conservatives.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Most Western countries consider Mongolia as a state that shares liberal-democratic political and ideological values. Mongolia ranks very high each year in various indices and rankings assessing the “democracy” and “freedom” of political regimes around the world. For example, the international Freedom House rating considers Mongolia a “free country” and ranks it 57th out of 210 in the world. The strengthening and development of Mongolia’s democracy is, in turn, actively supported by a number of the country’s Western partners. In particular, it is home to a number of consultative institutions and offices of international organizations that are involved both in monitoring the electoral process (for example, the OSCE monitoring mission since 2013 and an EU office) and in formulating policy recommendations (the annual EU-Mongolia policy dialogue from 2021 and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Mongolia). The countries of the “democratic camp” allocate very considerable material resources to the work of such missions.
Due to current trends in global politics, the construction of “Western-style democracy” in Mongolia is increasingly linked to the maintenance of the international identity of the Mongols themselves. More specifically, in parallel with support for democracy in Mongolia, the West actively promotes the image of Mongolia as “an island of democracy among authoritarian neighbors in Russia and China.” Such positioning of the Mongols’ regional identity would seem designed to “mold” Russia and Russian culture into a “threat” to Mongolian political identity, sowing the seeds of mistrust and contempt in society towards its northern neighbor.
Nevertheless, the considerable level of trust in Western countries in Mongolia does not lead to a decline in confidence in Russia. For example, according to social surveys, the number of Mongolian citizens who have a positive attitude towards the US and the Russian Federation is roughly comparable and significant in both cases: for example, 33% of respondents have an “extremely positive” attitude towards the Russian Federation, while 29% have a positive attitude towards the US. In turn, 52% have a “rather positive” view of the Russian Federation and 53% of the US.
With the current escalation of US-Russian antagonism and Mongolian society falling under the influence of Western media and NGOs, the coexistence of such large numbers of support on both sides seems highly unusual. In the author’s view, this “paradox” of public opinion can be explained by the following unique factors:
Democracy in the service of the nation’s interests
First and foremost, the Mongolian vision of democracy is inextricably linked to the notion of security and development of Mongolia itself. In this case, ideology serves the country and its comprehensive well-being, not the other way around. If the partnership with Russia is in Mongolia’s interests, it will be supported even by those Mongols who consider Russia “authoritarian.” Also, Western ideology does not penetrate deeper into the political preferences of the Mongols: they are still characterized by traditional cultural and family values.
Pragmatic perception of international processes
Mongolia is dominated by a pragmatic perception of the international situation, with the majority of Mongols still regarding Russia both as the closest foreign policy ally (66%) and as the main external guarantor of Mongolia’s national security (46%), able to provide it with far more real security guarantees than the entire “collective West” put together. Russia, beyond any value judgement, is perceived by an overwhelming number of Mongols as a force capable of containing China’s economic and political pressure, which is identified by its citizens as a key threat to national security.
Rich tradition of a holistic perception of history
Like neighboring China, Mongolia maintains a holistic perception of national history, and most citizens, despite criticism of political repression in the 1930s and the “Choibalsan’s cult of personality,” remember the positive aspects of the Mongolian-Soviet partnership: both the struggle for independence and recognition of Mongolia, and the construction of the socio-economic base of the People’s Republic. No less memorable in Mongolia are pre-revolutionary figures from Russian history: in particular Baron Ungern (despite a number of controversial actions), who liberated a significant part of Mongolia from Chinese troops in 1921, and Ivan Korostovets, the “architect” of the first foreign policy treaty of the Mongolian Bogdo Gegeen government – the 1912 agreement with the Russian Empire. For the Mongolian nation, a rich and well-preserved history is part of the “national pride” system, as well as a means of maintaining its uniqueness and identity.
“Traditional” and “Western” coexist with “Soviet”
Unlike even some post-Soviet countries, in Mongolia there is absolutely no need to expose everything Russian and Soviet in order to create or revive its own state ideology. The Mongols have a very long and rich political tradition, dating back to the Hunnu power and Genghis Khan’s empire. In this country there is no need for a critical demolition of the “socialist period” in order to draw public attention to the historical roots of statehood – both historical epochs find their rightful place in public perception.
“Western” as opposed to “Chinese”
Also, the strengthening of anything “Western” comes as a counterbalance to Chinese rather than Russian influence. The strengthening of Western culture and ideology is perceived primarily as a means to counter or contain China’s potential cultural and value-based expansion into Mongolia. Russia has been doing no such thing for the past three decades and the “Western” in Mongolia is thus seen to be opposed not so much to the “Russian” but rather to the “Chinese.”
Conclusions
Thus, any promotion of Western culture and political and social ideology in Mongolia has far less impact on Russia’s image in the public mind than it does in most other parts of the world. A country as unique as Mongolia is able to give its own response to those proposals and challenges to which whole “parts of the world” may respond in the same way. The same, unique answer was given by the Mongols to the question of the compatibility of the West’s values and political reference points with maintaining a positive perception of one of its key opponents in the form of Russia. In this respect, the Mongolian socio-political model is far more “inclusive” and broader than most Central Asian, Transcaucasian and, even more so, Eastern European models. All those who want to drive a wedge between Russians and Mongols by promoting Western political and ideological values in Mongolia must be clearly aware of this fact.
Boris Kushkhov, the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Saudi officials have confirmed that the Kingdom made investment pacts with China worth US$50 billion during the recently held China summit in Saudi Arabia. This is a pivotal moment insofar as it reflects the tectonic shift that has been taking place in the global system for the past few years, a shift that includes a major realignment in the Middle East from the region’s traditional ties with the US to deep, strategic ties with China – which is the US’ biggest strategic rival at the global level.
When Joe Biden announced to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state and subsequently became the president, many in the US argued that the rift was only temporary and that the US-Saudi ties were ‘too deep’ to be uprooted by this. Now, however, we know that these ties were not deep enough to withstand Biden’s assault, as the Biden administration’s decision to implicate Muhammad bin Salman (M.B.S.) in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi unleashed forces of disruption that made realignment in the entire Middle East inevitable. Many were forced to think:
If US and Saudi, otherwise two strategic allies, can fall out, other Gulf states can face the same fate as well. This was especially concerning because of these states’ too much dependence on the US for security and protection from Iran. China, however, is a state that has deep ties with both Gulf and Iran, and it is the best possible option, given the gradual US withdrawal from the Middle East, for the Gulf states to utilise to maintain the balance of power in the region. Hence, increasing Chinese investments in the entire region.
This investment, or strategic realignment, is not one way. As it stands, China is one of the major destinations of Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia is not only China’s largest trading partner but the Kingdom is also at the very top of the list of countries supplying crude oil to China. In other words, Saudi is a country that supplies ‘the material’ Beijing needs to run its economy. China, on the other hand, is a country willing to make large enough investments in Saudi Arabia that can help the Kingdom’s modernisation project. Therefore, with Saudi oil exports going to China more than any other country, Riyadh’s deep ties with Beijing, rather than any other country, make perfect sense.
On the other hand, with Saudi oil exports to the US declining massively over the past few years illuminates how the politico-economic foundation of the US-Saudi ties has receded in the past few years.
The same sense prevails when it comes to China’s gas imports from the Middle East. In November 2022, China signed one of the biggest energy deals ever with Qatar. This agreement is worth US$60 billion. According to the details, Qatar Energy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas. Again, the deal is based upon the mutuality of trade and investment ties between Beijing and Doha. Apart from the Lusail Stadium hosting the ongoing Football World Cup, part of which was built by China, there are already more than 14 fully owned Chinese companies currently operating in Qatar. This is in addition to 181 joint Qatari Chinese firms operating in the tiny Gulf state. According to Minister of Commerce and Industry Ali bin Ahmed al Kuwari, China represents an attractive destination for Qatari investments in shipbuilding, manufacturing, petrochemicals, technology, hospitality, tourism and financial services among other vital industries. Very much like Qatar, Kuwait is another key oil-producing state selling oil to China and deepening its ties.
While this change is unfolding very rapidly, in Washington, there is a concern that Beijing cannot provide these Gulf states with the kind of “security” that Washington has been providing for decades, or can provide in the future. But this concern is flawed.
First, it assumes that the GCC is still trapped in the US “security trap.” Many Gulf states have embarked upon ambitious military modernisation programmes to upgrade their self-reliance in terms of defence. For instance, the UAE is spending billions on fighter jets that it bought from France. This modernisation project has, in fact, been triggered by the US withdrawal from the Middle East combined with Washington’s failure to provide the kind of “security” that it promised as the regional hegemon (US systems failed to protect Saudi establishments against Houthi missile attacks).
Secondly, there is a massive economic modernisation project that many Gulf states have also undertaken. Saudi Arabia has its “vision 2030.” Qatar also has its “National Vision 2030” which aims to diversify its dependence on oil. The US, due to its withdrawal from the Middle East, is unable to facilitate these mega-development projects. In fact, Washington is resisting these programmes, as is evident from the withdrawal of many Western companies from Saudi’s Future Investment Initiative (FII) over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
Besides jeopardising these plans, Washington also does not have any major economic plan of its own to offer. China, on the other hand, has a clear economic plan (Belt and Road Initiative) that enhances its profile for these Arab States. That is why China is the best possible option for these two.
In short, there are three key reasons that seem to be converging to chart the course of Chinese expansion in the Middle East and that of the decline of the US. The Chinese have the resources – and a plan – of rapid economic development for Gulf states. Gulf states have the raw source (oil and gas) that China needs for its own economic development. And, China being a country on good terms with Iran means that the former can play an active diplomatic role in defusing Arab-Iran tensions. The US, on the other hand, does not have the capacity to do all of them simultaneously.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.
According to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the volume of drug consumption in EU countries has increased markedly this year. And this is despite the fact that in Europe, as a result of the activities of law enforcement agencies, hundreds of illegal drug laboratories are being liquidated, and more than 150 people have been arrested in the recent period alone.
The EMCDDA estimates that around 83.4 million people aged 15 to 64 in the EU, or 29% of the population, use drugs today, with more men than women. Although cannabis remains the most popular substance, ahead of cocaine, MDMA and amphetamines, it has been noted that the range of available substances for drug addicts is expanding due to synthetic drugs.
Speaking about the increase in drug use, numerous experts and politicians have more than once linked this issue with several reasons, among which one of the most significant was the rise in immigration to the European Union. However, if in 2021 this situation pointed to the worsening crisis in Afghanistan and the need to prepare for the influx of migrants and drugs from this country, then in recent months there have been indications pointing to the influx of Ukrainian citizens, amongst whom there are various criminal structures of this country. Moreover, it is no longer a secret that the deterioration of the criminal situation in Europe has been largely due to the resale through the black market of all kinds of weapons coming to Ukraine from the United States and other NATO member states in large quantities, as well as other types of so-called “military assistance” of the West for the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU).
The belief that it is possible to fight not only with weapons, but also with drugs has long been entrenched in the minds of American and British military leaders. Back in the nineteenth century, this idea was actively “implemented” in China during the two opium wars, when over a hundred million Chinese died from drug overdoses and the country itself was cut out of world politics for more than a hundred years. However, back then Great Britain became extremely rich.
This “recipe” in the twentieth century began to be actively used by the United States. And wherever armed conflicts and wars were ignited at America’s initiative, the problem of drug trafficking emerged as well. A “winning combination” for the US military-political establishment in this regard was the war in Afghanistan, despite Washington’s military-strategic loss. Numerous scandals covered by the media can serve as confirmation of such drug-related business actively carried out by the US military. In particular, the case of the black gangster Frank Lucas, who supplied Asian drugs to the United States in the coffins of soldiers sent home, “earning up to one million dollars a day,” by his own admission. This drug business certainly continues today in many other parts of the world, where the US sends its warplanes and immeasurable “military aid.” And Ukraine is no exception.
But there is another aspect to the active drug use by the United States in the army. Having studied in detail the practice of warfare by the Vikings, who before battles took a decoction of hallucinogenic mushrooms, and by Wehrmacht soldiers, who were given Pervitin during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the “bright military minds of the United States” also introduced the practice of using drugs in the Armed Forces. In recent years, this has even become one of the priority ways to increase combat activity and fearlessness of American soldiers, which has already been tested in the wars in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Joe Biggs, a former US Army sergeant who participated in the Afghanistan war, claimed in 2013 that every soldier was given pills before a given military operation “for fearlessness,” after which some began experiencing withdrawal cravings and thus, there was the need for regular use.
Washington began to actively disseminate this “experience” among the Armed Forces of allied countries, to which Ukraine has recently been included. The United States, aligning the Armed Forces of Ukraine to its own practice of carrying out military operations in various regions of the world, has already begun to accustom Ukrainian soldiers to the use of various narcotic stimulants. As a result of this, the Ukrainian army is now addicted to drugs and psychotropic substances. It was there, during recent hostilities, that a significant amount of “narcotic stimulants” began to arrive, which, like other “Western military aid for the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” immediately began to enter Europe through smuggling channels.
It was not difficult for the United States to connect the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the country as a whole to drug trafficking, especially if we take into account the repeated references by various media outlets and, in particular, reports by Ukrainian blogger Anatoly Shariy, that even the head of the country Vladimir Zelensky himself has long been suspected of using drugs. These suspicions were also confirmed by the sources of the “Strana.ua” publication, noting that MP Nikolai Tishchenko acquired prohibited substances for Zelensky.
Starting in 2014, the Donbass militias have been reporting the use of “narcotic stimulants” by the Armed Forces of Ukraine that block the feeling of pain and increase the aggressiveness of Ukrainian militants. After the start of the special military operation in 2022, the supply of narcotic drugs to the Armed Forces of Ukraine became even more pronounced. On the battlefield, cases were repeatedly registered when Ukrainian militants who received very severe injuries continued to fight without noticing them, which was explained only by the use of large doses of potent narcotic drugs. This is confirmed by the regular discovery (by the people’s militia fighters of Eastern Ukraine and Russian military personnel) of drugs, used syringes and a significant amount of various narcotic drugs at after-battle sites. Ukrainian prisoners of war themselves also willingly state that they receive drugs to “raise morale,” in connection with which well-established logistics chains have already been built for the supply of “combat chemicals” from the West. What is more, in Ukraine itself, the production of a number of narcotic drugs on an industrial scale has also been established. And one of the confirmations of this has been the recently revealed drug lab in the village of Sopino near Mariupol after the city’s liberation from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The drug lab belongs to the “Right Sector” (a terrorist formation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine banned in the Russian Federation) and it was responsible for producing illegal drugs.
As evidenced by several experts, including the former head of the Department for Combating Drug Crime of the National Police of Ukraine, and now an MP of the Verkhovna Rada, Ilya Kiva, drug trafficking in Ukraine has increased markedly in recent years due to the fact that it is controlled at a high level.
The fact that the number of drug addicts in Ukraine has increased significantly in recent years is of no concern to the current Kiev regime, and there are no rehabilitation programs for soldiers who have gone through armed conflicts. As Ukrainian prisoners of war admit, the leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is clearly determined to use Ukrainian soldiers only as cannon fodder, which can be disposed of. Even now, Ukraine is filled with thousands of drug-addicted people capable of killing, many of whom are unlikely to live to see the end of the special military operation. However, not a single member of the criminal Kyiv regime cares about this nor the rising scope of drug trafficking within the country, which then reaches Europe, especially considering that the president of the country himself is not opposed to using drugs…
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
China, whose economy is steadily growing year by year, has made great efforts over the past ten years to increase its presence in other countries. Resource-rich Papua New Guinea (PNG) is interested in additional investment from abroad that will boost the economic growth of the developing country with a population of 9 million. Today, Western countries cannot always offer the same favorable conditions for cooperation as China can. It is for this very reason that the leadership of PNG wants to diversify its foreign policy vectors by entering into close contact with China.
On November 18, 2022, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Thailand’s capital, Bangkok, a meeting was held between Papua New Guinean Prime Minister James Marape and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
During this meeting, Xi Jinping said that China and PNG were close partners and good friends, and their relationship was a clear demonstration of how dialogue between developing countries should be shaped. China plans to build a comprehensive strategic partnership with PNG. According to the Chinese leader, the interaction between the two countries will serve as a positive example for other Pacific island states, which, seeing the increase in the prosperity of PNG as a result of cooperation with China, will also express a desire to expand cooperation with Beijing.
Xi Jinping stressed that China planned to implement the Belt and Road Initiative together with PNG, as well as improve cooperation in the fields of forestry, fisheries and agriculture. According to the Chinese leader, he attaches great importance to the creation of special economic zones, adding that China is also ready to provide PNG with all possible assistance in preventing natural disasters that often occur in countries of the Pacific. Xi Jinping did not forget to mention that he had previously instructed the Chinese authorities to facilitate investment in PNG. The Chinese President is strongly convinced that a new milestone in the development of mutually beneficial relations can only be achieved through the growth of foreign trade turnover.
In the words of Xi Jinping, the Chinese leadership plans to pay special attention to key issues related to the comprehensive development of PNG. First and foremost, China aims to help reduce poverty in the island nation and combat climate change.
The Chinese leader summed up his speech by assuring that China would continue to develop partnerships with PNG and other Pacific countries, based on the principles of equality and good neighborliness.
Xi Jinping also added that China would continue to increase its presence throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
PNG Prime Minister James Marape acknowledged the annual increase in Chinese investment in the country and expressed hope that Chinese companies would turn their attention to the developing Pacific state more often. James Marape also gave a high evaluation of the successfully implemented joint educational projects with China, which, according to him, are in great demand in PNG.
James Marape welcomed the re-election of Xi Jinping as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China in October 2022 and called him a leader whose personality will go down in history books. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea recalled that over the past ten years, China had made significant progress in both domestic and foreign policy.
James Marape concluded his speech with the words that his country “stands for the policy of a united China and does not recognize the independence of Taiwan.” He also expressed his support for the protection of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In recent years, China and PNG have been expanding and strengthening bilateral dialogue. In 2014, representatives of the two countries established a strategic partnership based on the principles of joint development and mutual respect. In 2016, an intergovernmental agreement was signed on cooperation in the industrial capacity sphere. In the same year, Papua New Guinea’s entry into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was approved. This decision was one of the preliminary stages for the participation of PNG in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project, which it joined in 2018.
While in the early 2000s, the volumes of export-import operations between China and PNG were insignificant, now China is the second most important foreign trading partner of PNG after Australia. The developing Pacific island nation exports agricultural products, timber and natural resources to China, and imports machine tools, machinery and oil products from China. According to experts, if the current trends continue, then in a few years China will claim first place in the list of Papua New Guinea’s foreign economic partners.
China is successfully implementing educational projects in PNG. Cooperation between the two countries in the humanitarian sphere has great prospects and is developing quite rapidly. The Chinese government annually provides scholarships to study at Chinese universities to more than 500 students from PNG. Chinese authorities are convinced that people who have been educated in China will, in the long run, occupy some of the leadership positions in their native countries and will be loyal to the country that helped them move to a new level of development.
In 2018, Chinese authorities granted PNG access to the technology of growing a special type of grass known as Juncao, first cultivated in China, which is used as fodder for livestock, growing edible mushrooms and other crops, as well as to slow down desertification of soils. This type of grass has taken root in more than 100 countries and has accelerated the decline in poverty around the world. Thanks to Juncao technology, agricultural production becomes cheaper and at the same time increases in volume, making it possible to feed a large number of people relatively inexpensively.
There is not a single objective reason that could decelerate the enhancement of dialogue between China and PNG. As noted above, PNG is positive about foreign investment, and China needs new allies around the world.
Perhaps Australia and the US will try to sway the Papuan leadership to their side if they manage to offer more lucrative conditions for cooperation. However, these plans are unlikely to come to pass: PNG has previously been in the sphere of influence of Western countries since gaining independence from Australia in 1975. And if in recent years PNG has been gradually readjusting its foreign policy in favor of China, this means that Washington and its allies are not strong enough to keep the developing Pacific island nation in their sphere of influence.
Petr Konovalov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Okay, the message has become crystal clear now. The United States does not want Germany and the rest of Europe to become richer and prosperous anymore, powered by cheap Russian gas. It’s a thing, you know? Getting at the competition. Strangely, ironically, or one might even say comically, India will now become far richer and a lot more prosperous, powered by cheap Russian gas.
Washington’s big master plan to totally subjugate Europe and weaken Russia simultaneously is about to blow up in the western elitists’ faces. In the latest, Russia was delighted when India did not support a price cap on Russian oil announced by the G7 this month. The Russian Foreign Ministry told reporters that Russian oil imports to India rose to 16.35 million tonnes in the first eight months of 2022.
On the morality side of market manipulations such as those proposed by the west, Russia’s Deputy PM Alexander Novak has pointed out that:
“As a result, the problem of energy poverty is being aggravated not only in the developing world but also in the developed countries of Europe.”
What’s so hysterical about the moves by the US, the EU, the UK, and their allies is the bigger picture they seem to be missing. Tamping down German industrialization and tightening the thumbscrews on the rest of Europe must seem a glorious gambit for Wall Street pirates and Europe’s old money, but is it? Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov threw a bucket of ice water logic at it the other day with this:
“I think that India is currently one of the leading countries in terms of economic growth, maybe even the leader. Its population will soon be bigger than that of any other country.”
What’s more, India’s stance on Russian oil, gas, and other resources is in keeping with the interests of the Indian people and the state. Unlike the EU, India does not seek any specific supplier, only the best deals that will satisfy the country’s needs growth and domestic need wise. The EU, under pressure from Washington, is still all-in concerning the conflict in Ukraine, regardless of the suffering citizens may feel.
Now, Russia has even offered to help India and other nations avoid the G7 oil fixing by finding insurance and even building fleets of tankers to get around the price embargo. Washington’s folly in the economic war on Russia. Oil Price just reported that OPEC+ production fell to 38.29 million bpd last month—1.81 million barrels per day short of its reduced quota. Furthermore, Marko Kolanovic, JPMorgan’s chief global market strategist just urged investors to dump oil stocks now. And in Germany, citizens and businesses are being asked to turn down their thermostats to save gas. Germany will have to start gas rationing if levels of gas in storage drop below 40% by February 1 next year.
Add to this the further bad news that Germany’s new floating LNG terminal in Lubmin has been delayed by several weeks, and America coming to the energy rescue looks less likely too. And returning to my original theme, a November headline reads, “India leads the world, ahead of US, China, EU as global economic powerhouse.” The story is based on the Morgan Stanley report forecasting that India will be the world’s third-largest economy by 2027. But who knows, powered by high quality and volumes of inexpensive energy from Russia, India could even push the US.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Ascending the British throne and becoming head of the Commonwealth upon the death of his mother in September 2022, King Charles III is one of the UK’s most controversial monarchs. First, Charles III is the oldest British monarch, having ascended the throne at the age of 73. Second, the new British monarch can hardly be called a person who enjoyed or enjoys popularity among the people. Third, for many decades the prestige of the British monarchy in the world has been steadily declining for several objective reasons. Therefore, Charles III will have to make great efforts to maintain power over former dominions and thus save the future of the British monarchy.
To date, there are relatively few states where Charles III still rules. The most famous and successful of these countries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
New Zealand has the most loyal attitude to overseas royal rule in comparison with other Commonwealth countries, and especially with its neighbor in the South Pacific region – Australia, which back in 1999 held a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy, during which about 45% of the votes were cast for a republican form of government. In New Zealand, where there has never been a national vote on the abolition of the monarchy, the attitude towards the British monarch is tolerant, due to the fact that this country with a population of 5 million, owing to its relatively small size and remote geographical location from world centers, does not claim to be a regional power and has no plans to extend its influence to other countries. The absence of serious geopolitical ambitions negatively affects the rise of anti-monarchist sentiments.
On September 12, 2022, four days after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in her speech on this sad event, noted that the country would not switch to a republican form of government anytime soon.
Jacinda Ardern also drew attention to the fact that although there were discussions in New Zealand’s society regarding the rejection of the British monarchy, the country’s leadership had not yet reached a consensus, and therefore the issue of declaring the country a republic was not currently on the agenda.
According to the Prime Minister, if the country becomes a republic, then only in the foreseeable future. Today, according to Jacinda Ardern, the rejection of the monarchy will lead to an undesirable cooling of relations with the UK.
Nevertheless, Jacinda Ardern is convinced that New Zealand is moving in a republican direction, and that someday, in the long term, she will still have to witness the abolition of the monarchy in her country.
Jacinda Ardern ended her speech with the words that with the death of Queen Elizabeth II, an entire era in the history of New Zealand had ended. The Prime Minister also paid tribute to the late Queen and expressed her condolences to her relatives.
Jacinda Ardern’s speech was structured in such a way so as to satisfy the interests of several sides at once. The Prime Minister was able not only to show her respect for the UK by expressing her regrets to its people in connection with the irreparable loss, but also to enlist the support of New Zealand’s republican voters, giving them hope that sooner or later New Zealand would become a republic.
As mentioned above, the statements and actions of the representatives of New Zealand in relation to the British monarchy are much more restrained compared to the rhetoric of officials of some other countries where British royal rule is still preserved. For example, this year Australian politicians have expressed their attitude towards the monarchy not only in words but also in deeds.
In May 2022, as a result of federal parliamentary elections in Australia, the head of the Labor Party, Anthony Albanese, became Prime Minister. And the position of “Assistant Minister for Defense, Veterans’ Affairs and the Republic” appeared in the new cabinet of ministers. This post went to Sydney MP Matt Thistlethwaite. This turn of events can be called the first really serious step on the part of Australia to abandon the monarchical form of government.
On June 9, 2022, Matt Thistlethwaite declared that Australia was a sovereign state that had its own culture and history. In the opinion of the Australian politician, the country should be governed by an Australian, not a foreign monarch. Matt Thistlethwaite believes that Australia is no longer a British “dominion.” According to the Assistant Minister for Defense, Veterans’ Affairs and the Republic, his main task is enlightenment: he needs to convey to every Australian that the head of state should not be a British monarch. Such rhetoric clearly indicates that the country is gradually preparing ground for a new referendum on the abolition of royal rule.
The process of abolishing the institution of the monarchy in Australia may cast a shadow on relations with the members of the AUKUS defense alliance formed in 2021, which includes the US, UK and Australia. This organization aims to curb China’s rapidly growing influence in the South Pacific region. Today, Australia’s abolition of the monarchy would be perceived ambiguously by the UK and its allies.
New Zealand, being a country of the Western Bloc, has no desire to break trust with the UK, knowing that the consequences of such a move would be adverse. New Zealand needs to maintain close relations with the West to stay out of China’s ever-expanding sphere of influence. A hypothetical renunciation of the British monarchy would hurt relations with London and would have a bad effect on the development of dialogue with states where British royal rule is still intact.
On December 2, 2022, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand, Nanaia Mahuta, stated that New Zealand’s leadership had not set the task of becoming an AUKUS member (primarily because of Wellington’s firm anti-nuclear stance), but the country’s authorities were ready for partnership with this international alliance. In particular, according to Nanaia Mahuta, Wellington is ready to take part in joint projects with AUKUS in the field of cybersecurity
Until the geopolitical situation in the South Pacific region stabilizes, it is not worth waiting for the abolition of the monarchy in New Zealand. The country is too small to risk disrupting relations with the UK at the international level for the sake of its domestic political ambitions. The UK remains one of the main strategic partners of New Zealand, which is one of the most remote countries in the world in relation to civilization centers. Undoubtedly, Wellington will not be left politically alone if its engagement with Western allies is disrupted for any reason, as China is rapidly bringing into its sphere of influence countries over which the control of Washington and its partners is weakening. However, balancing between two fires, New Zealand is well aware that if the country’s leadership disrupts relations with its old partners, this will do Wellington more harm than good at this stage.
Petr Konovalov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Since 1957, space has become an arena of active rivalry between scientific thought and economic-technical capabilities between Moscow and Washington. For a long time, the USSR was the leader in the peaceful exploration of space, launching Sputnik 1, the first artificial Earth satellite, and sending the first human being into outer space (Yuri Gagarin), and afterwards the first female cosmonaut (Valentina Tereshkova). And a few years later, Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov became the first human to perform a spacewalk.
The United States tried to compete with the USSR. Thus, in 1969 the American astronaut Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon, although in many countries, including the United States itself, there are still disputes whether this is a real fact or a staged event.
However, the United States very quickly shifted from scientific and technical competition with the USSR in space towards militarization, considering outer space as a future battlefield. And so, already in the 1960s, analysts in this country started talking about space war. These discussions turned into real plans in the United States, especially after the formation in 2018 by Donald Trump of a new branch of the Armed Forces – the United States Space Force (USSF) whose main purpose is conducting military operations in space. Even then, in addition to operational units, reconnaissance units appeared in the USSF, which then became known as Space Delta, whose tasks include orbital warfare. For example, Space Delta 3 is focused on electronic warfare, Space Delta 6 – on operations in cyberspace, Space Delta 8 – on satellite communications and navigational warfare. Space Delta 18 has the specific task of countering the Russian Federation and China in near-Earth orbits. This suggests that American generals seriously consider outer space as a potential theater of military operations.
It must be recalled, however, that US Space Command (SPACECOM) already existed in the United States during the “Star Wars” era of Ronald Reagan. Back then, in 1983, US President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) with the main objective of gaining dominance in space, in particular, by deploying defense systems capable of intercepting foreign missiles. In 1993, this program was curtailed.
As for the USSF, already upon creation, it was announced that the United States intended to pay more serious attention to interaction with its allies such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan, with the possibility of expanding such military interaction with countries in other regions.
The first regulation for the USSF was published in August 2020, which indicated the ability of the US Space Force not only to defend, but also to go on the offensive “if necessary in order to protect American national interests.” The United States’ deployment of military operations in space can be seen, in particular, in cases of jamming satellite communications, laser blinding satellites and probing the systems of Russian and Chinese spacecraft for possible hacking.
Recently, the build-up by the United States of military operations in space is also due to its intention to more actively use the opportunities in this area to strengthen Washington’s sanctions policy against rogue states. Indeed, in order to disable a satellite through which financial transactions and key communications pass, it is enough just to “push” one or another piece of space debris. And the “spoiled” satellite itself can already lead to serious financial and economic disruptions, and not only in one country.
Most recently, the USSF command have been quite active and one can very clearly see the consolidation of the potential that Washington and its allies have in space, especially in terms of receiving and distributing information from satellites, and using it in the strategic military plans of the United States. To this end, in September 2020, the USSF established its units in the vast territory of the Arabian Peninsula, deploying a squadron of 20 pilots stationed at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar as part of its first overseas deployment. Soon, the 20 US Air Force personnel who made up the squad of “primary space operators” were joined by several more people to “control satellites and monitor enemy maneuvers in space.”
To coordinate and control the actions of the USSF, Washington began to create regional space command units, which began to appear outside the US mainland. Thus, the first of these units was already created in early November 2022 within the structure of the US Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii. By the end of 2022, the United States, according to the South Korean Yonhap news agency, plans to create a similar space force under the wing of the United States Forces Korea (USFK) and within the US Central Command responsible for the Middle East.
In its recently released National Security Strategy, the Pentagon officially stated that the establishment of the US Space Force was aimed at implementing comprehensive deterrence in all areas. For this purpose, Washington, within the framework of military-technical cooperation, is assisting in the creation of space operations forces in allied states. On December 1, the ROK Air Force launched its Space Operations Squadron at the Osan Air Base, 65 kilometers south of Seoul. The new squadron includes the Space Operations Division (created in 2019 to carry out various missions such as space debris fallout forecast), the Air Force Space Intelligence Center and the Satellite Control Center. The squadron plans to carry out various missions such as peacetime and wartime monitoring of space objects, dissemination of information about potential space threats, space cooperation with the United States Space Force and operating military surveillance satellites that South Korea plans to deploy in the future.
In modern warfare, operational environments (land, air, sea, space and cyberspace) are highly interconnected. In line with this reality, the United States has already developed and put into effect a number of directive documents, and the new “military space” strategy of America has become one of the elements of this carefully built system. It places a significant emphasis on the development of US military-strategic cooperation with many of its military allies and partners, including those in the countries of the East. And taking into account the fact that in recent years not only political and economic, but also military-strategic activity has begun to shift to the countries of the East, we should expect new efforts from Washington to draw the countries of this region into US military plans in outer space.
Vladimir Platov, expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Jeffrey Silverman, Georgian Bureau Chief for Veterans Today, has been interviewed by several Russian TV channels concerning his work over the years in exposing US bio weapons programmes in Georgia and countries of the former Soviet Union, with special emphasis on Ukraine, and on the latest breaking news, that the US and Ukraine are in fact working on developing bio weapons.
What has been alleged for years is finally being proven. There are bio weapons labs in Ukraine and Georgia too as well as many other former Soviet States, and an international network of such labs. They are all funded under the guise of bio threat reduction, public and animal health and dealing with especially dangerous pathogens, and this has been confirmed by the Russian government, citing hard-evidence.
The essence of the Silverman’s interviews can be summed up by his answer to this question “why are they funding such labs?” It is: “Do you know any weapons that sooner or later do not end up being used, even if accidentally?”
“I want to say one thing, and with a smirk, to all those who have been attacking me (mostly) in the US-funded Georgian media, ‘I hate to tell you so, but I told you so.”
Taken together, with what is going on with funding and the shell game of labs and funding sources, it very clearly illustrates the US involvement in Georgia and other biological hotspots are more military-geopolitical than scientific in purpose!”
Silverman explains how the US lacks enough combat soldiers, actual boots on the ground, and therefore cannot win conventional wars – look at Afghanistan, for instance. The US Department of Defense and its NATO henchmen rely too much on shady defense contractors, outsourcing much of what a military should do itself, and chooses to think high technology and biology can pick up the slack.
Bio weapons provide an insidious alternative, as they can inflict much suffering, and it is not even necessary to use them to kill the population en masse, simply to overload the medical system and bring the economy of your enemy to a standstill.
We should get used to being lied to about bio agents, especially dangerous pathogens, and let’s not forget why the Spanish flu is called that rather than the Kansas flu. The German, British, French and American media were all censoring reports about it 100 years ago, only Spain had a free media at the time. It reported the actual truth, and has paid the nomenclatural price ever since.
Silverman is now afraid to return to the US due to threats by agents of BIG Brother at American airports, being told “to change his profession” or expect more of the same treatment. This was not one incident, there has been a pattern of repeated threats, searches, and physical attacks in Georgia. He now lives in an isolated village in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, where some claim even local police were once afraid to venture.
In one of his most recent interview, yet to be aired, he shared how French intelligence had first contracted him to investigate the Lugar lab. They had already had a bad experience with the Americans, who had taken over the research agenda of the joint lab in China via the National Institute of Health and the proxy Eco Health Alliance, grabbing the very lab the French had designed and funded.
We all know the rest of the story – the emergence of COVID, recriminations, and why this bio weapons story is so threatening to the powers to be, and not only in the United States.
It is not necessary here to rehash who Peter Daszak is, and how he led a WHO group in Wuhan, and also a second group (Lancet), set up to investigate the origin of COVID19. But he has very close ties with Wuhan and Communist China through previous work, and the National Institute of Health. This adds up to more than a few conflicts of interest, and many of these include military labs, which according to Victoria Nuland include bio research facilities in Ukraine.
It may be too late for Biden to take action over this, as he is just as clueless and most people; however, it is not any particular administration that needs to be tossed, but the system that stands behind this, even if that means a tribunal and some public hangings, as was the case with Nazi doctors and nurses.
Running for cover
In spite of all the rhetoric about why Putin actually went in to Ukraine – over the rights of ethnic Russians in Donbass and the East of the country, NATO expansion, de-nazification – bio weapons, in Silverman’s educated opinion, are the main target, as Putin knows that when the West becomes desperate over its failed efforts at expansion by meddling in the affairs of other countries, it will use weapons of last resort, and without hesitation.
Silverman should know how the system works, as he served part of his military service at a chemical weapons storage facility in his home State of Kentucky, Richmond Ky. That is why American spin doctors and highly placed persons are now trying to put damage control in place. US spy chief Avril Haines recently told senators, “We do not assess that Ukraine is pursuing either biological weapons or nuclear weapons”.
Haines tries to dismiss claims by Russian officials that Ukraine is pursuing or using biological, chemical or nuclear weapons as a “classic” move to spin “false flag” narratives for dangerous moves that may be taken by President Vladimir Putin. He maintains that Ukraine, like many countries, does have bio research labs, but these are to defend against pandemics or attacks, and are different from bioweapons labs.
However, the more US officials deny the obvious the more they confirm in any reasonable person’s mind the reality. It is laughable to read the official statements, trying to shift the blame.
The US is claiming that Russia is making up false pretexts in an attempt to justify its own horrific actions in Ukraine. However, bio weapons are not the ostensible reason for these actions!
The US also maintains it does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine. It may not official develop or possess such weapons, but that does not stop it from using proxies to do its dirty work, and then claiming it was not aware of what was going on in these US-funded labs.
Pot Calling Kettle Black
Like always, it is the pot calling the kettle black, and the US claims that “it is Russia that has active chemical and biological weapons programmes and is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention”. However the US is merely threatening other countries to do it for them, drawing a distinction between “good” and “bad” labs which does not relate to the work they do.
It is as if, in the ranks of the spin doctors, politicians and official spokespersons of the DOD and State Department, Russia has a track record of accusing the West of the very crimes Russia itself is perpetrating. But the plans and petri dishes that can be found in the labs in Ukraine and Georgia are just as revealing as a pile of White Bunny Rabbits next to a US-funded bio weapons lab flying the Stars and Stripes.
Will we find a pile of Ukrainians near one of these labs?
Many of the questions in Silverman’s recent interview do themselves reflect what may be the actual agenda – and these are not just provided by your run of the mill journalist, but reflect a growing Russian concern that fatigue over the never ending rhetoric by DOD and US State Department officials, backstopped by the EU, NATO and the mainstream media will prevent any discussion of this issue.
We are all sick of hearing that the work of the “good” US-funded labs is purely for civilian purposes, and these bio facilities should not be considered as a threat. Naturally the above mentioned spin doctors, including Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary, who wanted to dismiss Russian findings as “preposterous, as the kind of disinformation operation that we have seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years”.
Psaki claimed that Russia has made these false claims and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, and we should be warned that Russia may use chemical or bio weapons as part of a possible false flag in Ukraine. The problem is that until recently most news on the topic of bio weapons has been censored, and youtube channels are often shut down for reporting the truth – links cannot be shared on social media, not only about bio weapons but COVID vaccines.
Bio weapons are going to be an even hotter topic now the West is trying to show that Russia needs to build an image and find an excuse for the war. BBC news has predicted that Russia may use bioweapons against civilians hiding in the metro. This is an absolutely ridiculous idea, however, that does not stop the US trying to spin the incriminating truth which sticks to it.
Враг народа, an old Soviet expression
Silverman knows firsthand the methods that his own government are willing to use, and begs the question, “Will I now be a hero or “enemy of the people”, Враг народа, an old Soviet expression for those who were truth tellers, and innocent?”
In fact, with the rare exception of the programme in the Republic of Georgia which he exposed, eight years ago, and other programmes have managed to function year-after-year without question. The US is losing the conventional power game, but still doesn’t want to nuke everyone, merely to threaten to by putting ever more missiles in ever more bases.
The US needs biological warfare to do what it can’t do in any other way. It can destabilise its enemies, and keep its allies under control, in the biological sphere when it can’t project other types of force, and it can do this through proxies.
Silverman knows only too well what the US government thinks of him, and he still suffers from all they have done to him, has the scars prove it, and how it tries to destroy his ability to work and earn a normal living. The US State Department went as far as to revoke his US passport for 14 years. He lived as a stateless person in Georgia until Trump was elected US president.
It was Jeffrey Silverman who was the first to reveal publicly information on the US-funded Lugar Lab more than ten years ago. He discovered this on his own, during discussions with contractors to Bechtel International, who were often in an inebriated state, over problems with the design and construction of the Lugar Lab in Tbilisi and it was potentially a public health threat.
He already knew from academic contacts, some of whom were working in the Georgian government, that the lab had been imposed on Georgia by the US Navy under the guise of a bio threat reduction programme. When discussions about this first opened with representatives of the Shevardnadze government, the Ministry of Economy said that it would write up a concept paper and tentative contract, but Navy representatives opened their briefcases and provided prepared contracts, and said that was not necessary to read, just sign – and no need to go into the details.
Saakashvili then inherited this project, which was running behind schedule, but he was likely not much aware of its actual ramifications. Those close to him did not want him to be aware, as the project was under the control of persons handpicked by US intelligence – such as Anna Zhvania, head of Georgian intelligence at the time.
Silverman has also relayed information about the South African bioweapons programme, and targeted weapons which affect only specific DNA groups. There are, he says, ties between white South Africans, Georgia and the Lugar Lab.
Once an official investigation into the findings in Ukraine is opened by an international body, it may include a murder investigation of Silverman’s main source at the Lugar Lab, who was responsible for security, who had a car accident on a rural road in Lagodkehi, Georgia, not far from where Silverman himself is now retired.
Silverman has a military and chemical and bio weapons background himself, and has been trained by the US in the very things the US deny exist. It helps that Silverman has both BS and MS, degrees, as he is good at reading academic and science literature and working in due diligence.
History defecates itself
Silverman states that, as reported by the online journal Veterans Today, the Japanese programme Unit 731, which took place in occupied China, was the basis for the Pentagon’s current biological research programme. It used laboratories located in remote areas, where governmental control is weak, in which planned “leaks,” in reality limited scale tests of pathogens, can be “contained,” if not medically, through concerted disinformation and subterfuge.
The recent revelations by the Russian Ministry of Defence are a game changer in Ukraine, as the United States and its agencies lose any semblance of veracity with statements such as, “On a daily basis, Russia propagates disinformation aimed at BTRP’s (the US Bio Threat Reduction Program) laboratory and capacity building efforts in former Soviet Union countries”.
The truth is finally being revealed, and soon we will know the price those who have been concealing it must be willing to pay, and the extent to which there will be an international investigation to bring the US and its partner countries in line with the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention—including providing a mechanism for enforcement and to STOP the US from continuing such “end-of-the-world” kind research via proxies, under the guise of animal and public health, and Homeland Security.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
On December 9, South Korea’s Cargo Truckers Solidarity Union voted to end their 16-day strike. The decision brought to an end the second round of Yoon Suk-yeol’s stand-off with the left-leaning trade unions, which we have already discussed in previous articles. The strikers were demanding permanent status for the current temporary minimum wage scheme, plus an extension of the list of specified cargo types covered by the scheme.
On December 3, it was confirmed that cement deliveries would start up again. In addition, container shipments from 12 major Korean ports have now reached 82% of their usual average level, and the situation in the busiest port in the country, Busan, has almost entirely returned to normal.
The focus of the problem has now shifted, with the main concern now being steel supplies and the oil refinery sector. Some 60 gas stations, in all regions of the country, have entirely run out of fuel, while many others have almost been forced to close.
Against the above background, on December 4 Yoon Suk-yeol instructed civil servants to draft an order requiring truck drivers working in the fuel and steel transportation sectors to return to work, and the following day he called for a “zero tolerance” approach. He claimed that the mass walkout by truck drivers was illegal, as were the drivers’ obstruction of the country’s logistics system and their actions in putting pressure on those of their colleagues who had chosen to continue working. Refusal to comply with the presidential order is punishable by up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won ($22,500).
Yoon Suk-yeol compared the threat posed by the truck drivers’ actions to that represented by North Korea’s nuclear missiles, a claim which attracted widespread media attention and prompted the Democratic Party to accuse him of “hostility” towards workers: “It is horrible that the president felt the cry of those wanting a safe environment for cargo transportation as something equivalent to a nuclear threat.”
The authorities also announced that fuel subsidies for truck operators refusing to carry cargo would be limited, and that such operators would lose their toll road concessions, with both measures to apply for one year.
On December 6, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) called a general strike in 15 locations around the country in support of the Cargo Truckers Solidarity Union. According to the KCTU, the government has issued an unconstitutional order requiring drivers to return to work, and is also using the Fair Trade Commission to undermine the strikes by launching investigations at the affected locations. The organizers of the support campaign have announced large scale demonstrations by workers nationwide in order to counter the government pressure on the strikers.
The demonstrations have turned out to be smaller than predicted, however, with participants numbering some 20,000 in total – 3,500 participants in the largest demonstration and 1,000 each in the others, and this has been interpreted as a sign that the movement is running out of steam.
In response Han Duck-soo, the Korean prime minister, has insisted that the government will “take stern action against any violations by law and principle and accept no compromise with unlawful acts”. He ordered the strikers to return to work and stressed that violence and illegal conduct were unacceptable in any circumstances. He added that the orders requiring drivers to return to work were an essential measure, as the disruption to supplies in the metallurgical and petrochemicals industries were having a knock-on effect on other export sectors, including shipbuilding and the automobile and semiconductor industries.
On December 8, in view of the growing concerns about the national strike, the Democratic Party backtracked on its previous policy of supporting the trade unions and accepted the government’s proposal to extend the minimum freight rates for the cement and container haulage sectors (which were due to expire at the end of this month) by three years. After this retreat by the Democrats the trade union leaders called emergency meetings so that members could vote on how the union should proceed. 61.82% of the participants voted in favor of ending the strikes, while 37.55% voted to carry on. However, only 3,574 of the 26,144 union members voted, and the union’s regional branch in Busan unilaterally decided to end its strike without a vote earlier in the day, protesting the vote constituted an act of “passing the buck” to union members.
On December 9, a spokesperson for the presidential administration welcomed the results of the votes: “The collective action by the Cargo Truckers Solidarity Union caused astronomical damage to our economy and people’s livelihoods…However, on the other hand, we all must use it as an opportunity to seek institutional improvements in the cargo industry.” “The government will stick to the law and principles without wavering when it comes to labor-management issues, and do its best to secure jobs for young generations, improve the labor market’s dual structure and create a fair and future-oriented culture in labor and management“, she added.
It is to be hoped that the parties will now be able to reach a mutually acceptable consensus, especially since the government had admitted that there is a problem with the existing system. As the Conservative-leaning JoongAng Daily puts it “research shows the number of traffic accidents and casualties increased after the introduction of the new rate system. Stakeholders, including the Korean International Trade Association, claim that the rate system only helped increase transport cost without positive effects on safety.”
However, it is perhaps too early to expect a full solution to the problem, as the truck drivers have promised to carry on with their campaign for a safe haulage rates system, and pro-government media insist that the trade union must accept responsibility for the huge losses caused by the walkout, which are estimated at over 3.5 trillion won ($2.6 billion).
We can summarize the results of the standoff as follows:
- Yoon Suk-yeol and his government have demonstrated their resolve and taken a firmer position than they did during the first strike, without taking things too far. The mass arrests of strikers which were predicted by government critics from the Democratic Party did not take place, and the order requiring drivers to return to work was similar in terms to the order issued back in 2004 by the far more liberal Roh-Moo-hyn administration.
- Yoon Suk-yeol’s popularity has increased to 41.5%, the first time in the last five months that it has exceeded the 40% threshold.
- The conduct of the Democratic Party is worth noting: first they spurred on the unions, but once it became clear that this approach would not succeed they decided to compromise. At the end of the day, the truck drivers are back where they launched the strike to protest against the government’s decision to extend the freight rate system (originally introduced by the Democrats) by three years.
- The number of rank-and-file union members participating in the dispute has also fallen. On November 24 (the first day of the industrial action) 9,600 truck drivers were on strike, but by the last day their number had fallen to 3,300. The low turnout for voting (13.6%) and the high level of support for ending the strike (61.8%) also suggest that the campaign just ran out of steam.
- As for public opinion, according to a survey by Gallup Korea 71% of respondents said that the truck drivers should first return to work and then negotiate with the government, but 51% also said that the government had handled the recent labor problems badly.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The countries of the European continent, which the EU bureaucracy also claims to represent, are among China’s top three partners in foreign trade and economic relations. The other two are a dozen Southeast Asian countries that form ASEAN, and the US.
In turn, trends in trade and economic relations cannot be considered outside the context of global political processes, one of the main elements of which is due to the evolution of the positioning of the US on the world stage. The same evolution can be observed in the position Washington takes in its relations not only with Beijing, but also with the EU, as well as with some particular leading European countries. However, with each of these latter countries, it is evolving differently.
The complex, highly dynamic mosaic of transatlantic relations cannot but affect the aforementioned trade and economic sphere of China-EU relations. A generalized assessment by Beijing of the current situation of its European partner is shown in a comprehensive (and realistic) manner in an article in the Global Times on the subject.
It should be noted that the tool used by the overseas “ally” to exert destructive pressure on the Europeans today consists of three main elements: the “Ukraine crisis,” the “Inflation Reduction Act” signed by President Joe Biden in August this year, and the “energy crisis.” That is, according to the authors of the illustration, the first and third elements, as well as the second, are the product of US leadership policy.
Incidentally, it is quite a suitable occasion for an international tribunal to be initiated (e.g. by China and Russia) to consider various aspects of the “genocide of the peoples of Europe.” The investigation into the circumstances of the “terrorist act of the century,” i.e. the blowing up of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, would fit organically into its format. Perhaps the investigation of all the components of the ideological phenomenon, which is commonly referred to as the “new normal,” will prove to be an equally organic element.
The first and main victims of this latter are the Europeans, as are the Americans, whose information space is filled with Kiev clowns (continuously inflated through straws by external curators).
At the same time, there is clear evidence that Europe and the US themselves are by no means entirely under the sway of both “new normal” and anti-Russian hysteria. It would suffice to mention the phenomenon of Donald Trump, recent notable events in Germany, and the opening of the season at La Scala with Modest Mussorgsky’s opera in Russian.
However, for the time being the leading countries of Europe remain under the varying degrees of influence of the United States. This is justifiably perceived by Beijing as a major obstacle to the fruitful development of China-EU relations.
Any looming cracks in the “collective West” are exploited in order to achieve this goal nonetheless. It is from this perspective that Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s lightning visit to China on November 4 this year, during which he held brief talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Li Keqiang, should be assessed. Note the wary reaction to this fact, both on the part of the “allies” and within Germany itself.
The PRC commented on the sensational article by Scholz entitled “The Global Zeitenwende: an epochal tectonic shift” in the Foreign Affairs in a calm tone, i.e. without unnecessary emotions and on the substance of the issues raised. In particular, the conflict in Ukraine is described as “continuing to consume Europe’s strength, while Europe is eager to find a way out.” It is also noted that amid increasing competition between leading world powers, “many European politicians and scholars do not want to see a new cold war or an ideological contest.”
As for the other leading European power, which the United Kingdom continues to position itself as, the trend that emerged under Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – if not a complete rupture, then a sharp reduction in the scope of interaction with China – is still evident. There is no other way for Beijing to evaluate, for example, the recent visit to Taiwan by the UK Minister of State for Trade Policy, Greg Hands. This is despite the fact that so far all other Europeans (with the exception of the Eastern European Limitrophes) have confined themselves to sending the (unaccountable) chatterboxes from parliaments to the island.
It is not surprising, therefore, that during several international events held in Southeast Asia in November with the Chinese leader, his planned meeting with the new UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, was cancelled (“at the last minute”). Already after these events it was reported that the UK government would buy a twenty per cent stake held by the Chinese company China General Nuclear in the British-French Sizewell C nuclear power plant project in Suffolk. This would bring the UK’s share in it to 50%. An understandable reaction to the said information followed from the PRC.
The very fact of the cancellation of the Xi-Sunak meeting drew attention against the background of a series of other meetings that the Chinese leader held with European politicians there in Southeast Asia. These included French President Emmanuel Macron, whose position vis-à-vis China can (very tentatively) be described as “intermediate” between the positions of Scholz and Sunak. And, like Germany, France is under the same American “pressure” as shown in the illustration above. And, judging by the results of Macron’s recent visit to the US, no easing of pressure on France is in sight.
There is also a clear interest on the part of the Chinese leadership in maintaining relations with EU colleagues, with whom there has been a continuous series of talks over the past two decades aimed at creating favorable conditions for bilateral trade. In addition, Beijing has tried to address one of the major challenges posed by the need to achieve “market economy” status. The problem is still unresolved, perhaps the main reason being the same pressure Washington exerts on its European allies.
Nevertheless, at the turn of 2021, when the US was in no small amount of turmoil due to the change of power after the last presidential election, the EU leadership decided (“while no one watches”) to conclude a so-called Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with the PRC. The event was hailed by both sides as a significant breakthrough in the format of bilateral trade and economic relations.
However, problems in this area remain, and negotiations to resolve them are ongoing. On December 1 (i.e. one month after Scholz’s visit), the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, visited Beijing. During his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the guest made several landmark statements. First, the EU’s willingness to “become a reliable and predictable partner for China” was expressed. Second, he reaffirmed the commitment to the critically important for Beijing principle of “one China” and stated his refusal to interfere in any way in the internal political processes of this extremely important for the Europeans partner. Third, the intention was expressed to put the CAI agreement mentioned above into practice, as well as to increase stability and confidence in the functioning of bilateral supply chains.
The French President is expected to be the next important European visitor to Beijing.
In general, the EU leadership, and those of Germany and France specifically, have attempted to gain some autonomy from the United States in their relations with China. That is, with a country that is now one of the two main players in the “Great Game.”
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The recent protests in Mongolia very quickly attracted international attention, provoking lively discussions in the media and among commentators. During the large-scale demonstrations participants called for reform of the land rent system, greater transparency in economics statistics, and stricter measures against corruption, including the punishment of corrupt officials, in particular MPs and government ministers.
On the evening of December 5 the demonstrations “took on the characteristics of a riot” and the government decided to resort to force in an attempt to suppress the protests.
Most readers, unaware of the very similar protests which occurred in Mongolia back in 2008, would find it hard to imagine the country as a place where aggressive crowds would need to be dispersed by force. Nevertheless, this regional “democratic stronghold” is increasingly showing signs of a crisis in the development of its specific model of democracy. And the main sign of the problems is not the major protests themselves, nor the authorities’ actions in suppressing them, but rather the systems and approaches underlying the reactions of the state authorities and key political figures.
Reaction of the State Great Khural (Mongolian Parliament)
Mongolia’s legislature was the main object of the protesters’ complaints. And they had some justification for this – the 76 members of the Khural account for up to 8% of the national GDP. That is, the deputies hold controlling shareholdings in the country’s main businesses. However, the deputies did make some concessions to the demonstrators’ demands – in particular, in the first days of the protests the State Great Khural issued a law tightening up official oversight of the mining industry. The Mongolian legislators also announced that public hearings on the theft of coal reserves would be held in the near future. The two main parliamentary factions also held emergency sittings, during which they called for official investigations into the thefts, and the prosecution of the persons responsible.
As the list of measures taken by the deputies makes clear, they made full use of their powers and treated the situation as one requiring the utmost urgency. However, the measures fail to address the root of the matter, focusing on local government corruption while ignoring wrongdoing at higher levels. Most importantly, no measures to reform the political system to enable specific branches of government to better respond to crises of this type were adopted or announced. Thus, while the state recognized the existence of systemic failings, it made no attempt to remedy these, instead requiring society as a whole to put its house in order. The reaction of the Prime Minister and government
Like the legislature, the executive power has been reluctant to take any steps to reform the political system, instead showing full support for the Khural.
In a recent address, the prime minister, Luvsannamsrain Oyun-Erdene, claimed that the protests are largely a response to the economic difficulties that Mongolia is experiencing as a result of the sanctions against its neighbor, Russia, and the “unstable situation” in Russia. He also blames the low electoral threshold which has led to a large number of small parties being represented in the Khural. He also categorically dismissed the idea that his government might stand down or that parliament might be dissolved. He also insisted that he would not launch any personal initiatives. Specifically, he pointed out that no decision can be made without the approval of the Khural, which he sees as the main representative of public opinion in the country.
However, the main problem is that the protesters are convinced that many of the members of the Khural are personally implicated in the corruption scandal. The prime minister also refused to name any of the civil servants or deputies involved in the theft of coal, adding that court proceedings would soon be launched against the persons in question. In order to prevent the use of such criminal schemes in the future, the government has drafted laws requiring extracted mineral resources to be sold via special exchanges, and introducing transparent accounting systems for revenues from the mining industry.
To summarize, it is safe to say that, as long as the Khural insists on blocking any measures to reform the country’s corrupt political system, the prime minister will not take any personal initiatives to address this issue. And it is not just a matter of dealing with loopholes in the constitution – another main problem is that political and business elites consist of the same people, and they all have strong links with the state. When discussing relations between the government and the Khural it is important to bear in mind the close ties that exist between the two bodies. Under Mongolia’s Constitution, politicians may serve as prime minister and as a deputy in the Khural at the same time. The Khural also plays a key role in the formation of the government. As a result, if any given political measure is not in the interests of the Khural, then it will not be in the government’s interests either.
Reaction of the President
Mongolia’s president, Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, is also in no position to initiate reforms. “The public have a right to know about cases of corruption. The persons responsible should be named and punished,” was one of the key messages in his speech on December 6. Statements of this kind from the president can be seen as an attempt to pacify the protestors. But they can also be seen as a way of avoiding the issue of reforming the corrupt political system. And there are good reasons for this – any personal initiative of the president will meet with opposition from the Khural and the government. Mongolians are concerned about additional power being concentrated in the hands of the president, a development which they fear could pave the way for a totalitarian political regime. Those who are opposed to radical reform are able to play on these fears.
At the end of the day, the president has no real leverage over the Khural, as any veto by the president could be overturned by a two-thirds vote by the deputies. In fact, with a sufficiently large majority the Khural can even force the president to resign.
Conclusions
To sum up, the author can say that Mongolia’s political elite favors a policy of consolidation – it seeks to pacify the angry mass with promises and legal hearings, but is unwilling to take any measures to combat the systemic corruption prevalent in the country. Neither the president, nor the government, nor the Khural have made any serious attempt to assess the nature of the political crisis afflicting the country.
This corruption scandal which reached the headlines in December 2022 has thus laid bare the current state of democracy in Mongolia: the financial and political elite, each lacking any real leverage over the other, have entered into a compromise, which allows them to resolve most conflicts through unofficial channels. The current system of checks and balances, in which none of the organs of state are able to impose their will on the others, serves to perpetuate the situation described above and prevent any change in the relations between the state and big business. The maintenance of the status quo is seen as more important than allowing any party to improve its situation by gaining political leverage over the others.
The Mongolian political elite, which in more “normal” times tends to be driven by internecine party conflict, has shown that it is capable of closing ranks solidarity when faced with mass protests from an angry public. It is very possible that the Mongolian elite will continue to behave in a similar way over the next few years. Consequently, Mongolia’s democratic political institutions will continue to observe the “consensus of the elites” rather than looking after the political and economic needs of the public.
Boris Kushkhov, of the Department for Korea and Mongolia at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
‘This is not how you treat allies’ was, as various media reports in the US and Europe show, the message that the French leader gave to the US President Joe Biden during the former’s recent visit to the US. The message is a continuation of the logic i.e., Europe’s growing discomfort with US geopolitics, that underpinned the German Chancellor’s recent visit to China, which he undertook despite US objections. Macron was a state visit to the US, yet the visit, although it came at a crucial historical juncture and he happened to be the first foreign leader on a state visit ever since Biden assumed the presidency, was shaped more by tensions within the alliance rather than any external tensions i.e., the ongoing Russian military operations in Ukraine or the possibility of a conflict with China around Taiwan. Today, there are more differences between the US and the EU than there have ever been in the past – especially since the end of the Second World War. Europe is clearly not happy with the US stance on the conflict in Europe. Despite the pomp and show of the visit, Macron did not mince words when he returned home. As he said in an interview with a French news channel:
“ … one of the essential points we must address – as President Putin has always said – is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia … the topic will be part of the topics for peace, so we need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table.”
This is precisely what Macron told Biden as well. This message is crucial for so many reasons. First, the message came from Europe’s top leader at the moment. The UK is marginalised within Europe because of Brexit. Rishi Sunak, the present British PM, took office only last month. The German Chancellor is yet to establish the kind of authority and influence that his predecessor, Angela Merkel, had. This leaves Macron pretty much in charge of the EU’s position. What he said, therefore, broadly reflects the European mindset.
Secondly, Macron’s message very clearly shows that Russia’s demands are legitimate and are not, as the US said last year, “non-starters” for any peace process. Macron made clear that these demands are an inevitable part of any upcoming peace talks. The disagreement between Europe and the US could not have been clearer. Thirdly, Russian demands are not isolated. They make a lot of sense to one of the most important players in the EU. A Western guarantee to Russia would also involve a Russian guarantee of no more military operations to protect, militarily, its legitimate security interests in Europe. In other words, western guarantees will involve diplomatic means of conflict resolution, which will make the military option less relevant. Finally, because the EU states can see why Russian demands make sense, Russia stands far from an ‘isolated’ state. Clearly, the US has many reasons to be disappointed with the EU.
The EU’s position flies directly in the face of projections about Russia becoming ‘weak’ through this conflict. If this was the matter, why would France care to address Russian demands? Clearly, such projections are for mass consumption whereas tensions – and disagreements – continue to brew within the Transatlantic Alliance. While many western pundits argue that the alliance is old and resilient enough, it is also a fact that it is too old now. That’s why it is fracturing internally.
Macron’s candid expression of these tensions was unmistakably clear, but did Biden understand it? His press conference alongside Macron shows he did not.
But someone else did understand. That person happens to be the German Chancellor, who held a phone call with Russia’s Vladimir Putin last Friday – a second consecutive call in two months, which stands markedly different from Biden’s relentless criticism of Putin.
Let alone Germany, the message – which has been developing for the past many months in Europe and has been delivered only now – was understood in most of Europe. As the influential British magazine, The Economist said in a report in the last week of November that “American economic populism and geopolitical rifts threaten the long-run competitiveness of the European Union” and that, “it is not just the continent’s prosperity that is at risk, the health of the transatlantic alliance is, too”.
Macron’s message conveyed the falling health of the alliance, as most Europeans mainly blame the US, rather than Russia only, for the crisis now. If this was not the case, we would not have any crisis at all within the alliance. In other words, if there is anything ‘weak’ today, it is not Russia but the alliance supposed to counter Russia.
Consider this: on Friday (December 2, 2022), Thierry Breton, the official responsible for the EU’s internal market, pulled out of the meeting with the US to resolve what the CNN calls a “simmering dispute” between the EU and the US over Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. This act has become a source of conflict because of the way the Biden administration, by using billions of dollars in subsidies, is forcing electric car manufacturers to move to North America (USA, Canada, and Mexico). This puts the EU companies at a clear disadvantage.
While this dispute is not directly related to the military conflict in Europe, it does add to the list of disagreements – US gas sales to Europe, US weapon sales to Europe, disagreement on Russia’s security interests, disagreements on the US policy towards China – threatening the Transatlantic Alliance from within.
Is the US doing anything to reconcile? So far, the Biden administration has not offered any concession. That explains why Macron was critical of the situation, evident from the said quote from his interview with the French channel, even after his return from the US. Clearly, he did not get anything tangible from Biden, nor was he able to convince Biden to take Russian security interests as genuine. But the fact that Macron emphasised the importance of taking these interests as genuine and legitimate means that Biden was unable to convince Macron of the need for a long confrontation with Russia in Europe either. The Transatlantic stalemate is becoming stronger by the day – something that is healthy insofar as it is necessary for the world’s transition from the US-dominated unilateral global order to a multipolar global order.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
The European Union, quite impoverished of late thanks to its North American “ally,” is now actively planning to use frozen Russian assets to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine’s economy, shattered by the war imposed on it by the US and NATO. It appears that the EU’s plans include an attempt to steal the Russian Central Bank’s international reserves and “reinvest” them in Ukraine.
Moscow’s assets frozen as a result of EU sanctions can be divided into two main parts: private assets valued at nearly 19 billion euros and state assets owned by state entities worth about 300 billion euros of international reserves held by the Russian Central Bank.
“Russia must also pay financially for the devastation that it caused,” European Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen said, faltering with consternation. Moscow should “compensate Ukraine for the damage and cover the costs for rebuilding the country,” she added, trying to review the words written to her in Washington. The consternation felt by von der Leyen is understandable – sooner or later she will have to answer for such lawlessness, including with her own property.
In the midst of the inflation rising across Europe, the freezing and selling of Russian assets is seen by the 27-member bloc as a way to not only raise funds for Ukraine, but also as an opportunity to line its pockets with Russian assets. After all, it is only natural that Ursula von der Leyen would dream of heading a committee to confiscate Russian money and distribute it. And given the high level of corruption in the EU, there is no telling how much money will flow to Ukraine, but one can guess that most of it will stay in Europe or flow across the Atlantic. There is no doubt about it, because the West is notoriously wont to robbing other countries and living sweetly at the expense of those robbed nations. And not that there is such a good opportunity, why not use it?
However, EU sanctions are always temporary, so the assets must eventually be returned to their original owners, i.e. Russia, plus the interest on their use.
The question is, should Moscow pay the bill for Ukraine’s reconstruction? Meanwhile, most of the damage to infrastructure is in the eastern region of the country, Donbass, which is predominantly ethnic Russian and is now part of Greater Russia. The question of damages must first be discussed and considered at an international level, in the presence of uninvolved parties. After all, NATO could have prevented this war had it not moved its military equipment and troops eastwards to Russia’s borders in the years leading up to the war. And so, by provoking hostilities, NATO is the instigator of the war, and it must pay Ukraine for its damage. The US could have avoided the crisis in Ukraine and the suffering of Ukrainians by choosing to negotiate rather than rejecting the Kremlin’s offers of security guarantees, which had been sent to Washington months before the conflict began. And so the US should also be involved in paying for Ukrainian damage. But this is unlikely to happen, because the West is used to not paying, but only robbing other countries and peoples. And that is why von der Leyen’s “initiative” has now emerged.
Reasonable people around the world are quite right to question the EU’s double standards, asking: why have such efforts not been applied to US-led wars, indirect wars, invasions and carpet-bombings that have resulted in the total destruction of countless countries in recent decades?
The US invasion and 20-year occupation of Afghanistan has led to an unprecedented rise in terrorism (ironically, Washington invaded the country under the guise of its so-called “war on terror”). In two decades of occupation, Afghans have seen nothing but destruction, terror, violence, massacres and other atrocities. With a surge in terrorism and regular Pentagon attacks, the destruction of the country’s infrastructure and damage to the Afghan public sector led to a humanitarian disaster after the shameful flight of the US from Afghanistan in 2021.
In mid-February, the Director of Save the Children in Afghanistan stressed: “I’ve never seen anything like the desperate situation we have here in Afghanistan. We treat frighteningly ill children every day who haven’t eaten anything except bread for months. Parents are having to make impossible decisions – which of their children do they feed? Do they send their children to work or let them starve? These are excruciating choices that no parent should have to make.” The longest war has killed at least 66,000 Afghan military and police, as well as tens to hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians, with different monitoring groups reporting different death tolls.
In a perfect, just world, US assets should have been frozen and used to finance the reconstruction of Afghanistan. US assets should also have been frozen and used to pay compensation to the families of Afghans who died as a result of the US invasion. But in fact the opposite has happened. After the shameful and chaotic withdrawal of US troops, Washington confiscated Afghan assets, causing further humanitarian suffering for Afghans, most of whom are now, through the fault of the US, living in poverty.
Similarly, the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq caused significant damage to the infrastructure of that Middle Eastern country as well. The damage is yet to be assessed, and the United States has yet to make amends for what it has done against the Iraqi people by destroying its entire state infrastructure and economy.
Even before the US invasion, US-backed UN sanctions against Baghdad had killed at least half a million Iraqi children and, according to some studies, some 1,500,000 Iraqis in total. During the war itself, hundreds of thousands more Iraqis died between 2003 and 2011, again due to the unprecedented rise in terrorism as a result of the US “war on terror.”
The damage to Iraq’s infrastructure caused by US intervention in the country (in the form of sanctions, air strikes and wars) from 1991 until its occupation, which continues to this day, is estimated at many trillions of dollars. How many Iraqi civilians have been killed by terrorist groups that did not exist before Washington invaded in 2003 and carpet bombing of cities such as Mosul? With its vast oil wealth, Iraq’s infrastructure has suffered to the point where the country remains dependent on Iranian energy exports for power generation.
This raises a legitimate question: why aren’t US assets frozen and used to fund Iraqi reconstruction? Why aren’t US assets frozen and used to compensate the families of civilians killed in the US invasion? And why is von der Leyen with her solely Russophobic initiatives silent about this?
There have been many reports in recent years of NATO killing civilians as it waged war in Libya to supposedly help topple long-time ruler Muammar Gaddafi, who led the once poorest country into affluence and wealth. The US-led military alliance bombing campaign has had devastating consequences, but so far NATO has yet to accept any responsibility for this damage. The same theme comes up again: before NATO bombed Libya, there was no terrorism there. The country has since been drawn into chaos by terrorist groups.
Interestingly, wherever the US and its NATO allies go, so do terrorist groups. This link can be clearly seen in many examples. And then there is the objective feeling that it is most likely the United States that is creating terrorism through its policies, as it did in the era when the settlers of the “New World” destroyed the Native American population. It turns out that the US rulers have nothing to offer the world but terror, gang violence, robbery and outright looting.
Today, the US military occupies regions in eastern and northeastern Syria, looting Syrian oil, preventing Damascus from rebuilding its own infrastructure and economy after a decade of US-backed war in the country.
Yemen, the poorest country in West Asia, has faced an eight-year Saudi-led, Pentagon-backed bombing campaign that has destroyed its entire infrastructure and economy. Hundreds of thousands of Yemenis were killed by US-made bombs dropped from warplanes whose pilots were trained by the US and UK air forces. Human rights organizations accuse the US and its allies, including Canada and European countries, of direct complicity in the war. Yemeni officials say it was Washington that started the war with Yemen in March 2015. Such is the enormous damage done to Yemen, which is too difficult to assess, and US assets should be frozen, used to finance Yemen’s reconstruction. It is a country that the United Nations has described as experiencing the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. And where is the supposedly justice-seeking Ursula von den Leyen with her cheap principles?
The list of US wars is long. Washington survives economically by waging wars and invasions, fomenting violence, unrest, terrorism and civil wars in regions far beyond its borders. From the Vietnam War to the shadow wars in Somalia, Pakistan and the African continent. So why isn’t the US being held accountable? Why aren’t US assets frozen? Why is there no international punitive action against Washington?
The US-dominated international order is now in need of change. The sooner the better for the whole world, security, justice and tranquility of the many peoples and countries on every continent, where the United States, using its power, is wreaking chaos and lawlessness.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
South Korea and Saudi Arabia have had diplomatic relations for more than 60 years, but since 2015, when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman became actively involved in state affairs, relations between the two countries have received a new impetus for cooperation, expanding from the traditional sectors of oil trading and construction to developing alternative energy and the military industry. Also, despite criticism of the foreign economic policy of the previous President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, President Yoon Suk-yeol, elected in March 2022, continues to strengthen relations with the Saudi Kingdom, like his predecessor.
In 2017, both countries launched the Korea-Saudi Vision 2030 cooperation plan, and a joint committee was formed from representatives of relevant government agencies to review partnerships, approve projects and implement plans. South Korea is among eight other countries that are partnering with Saudi Arabia to achieve the Vision 2030 objectives, working on 40 joint projects and initiatives. The areas for cooperation are divided into 5 groups: infrastructure and smart infrastructure, digital transformation and capacity building, healthcare and life sciences, small and medium enterprises.
It is important to note that the interests of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Korea are currently highly symmetrical. During a visit to Seoul on November 16, 2022, Prince Mohammed bin Salman stressed that Riyadh would continue to strengthen cooperation with Seoul in three strategic areas: energy (hydrogen, carbon capture technologies, nuclear power plants and small modular reactors), infrastructure projects and the defense industry.
Despite having a leading position in the export of crude oil, Saudi Arabia also aims to become the world’s largest exporter of hydrogen and achieve an annual production capacity of 4 million tons by 2030. Therefore, one of the central areas for joint projects is the field of “green” energy. Cooperation with the Republic of Korea, which is also interested in the production and consumption of “green” energy resources, will meet the objectives of both countries in combating climate change. In confirmation of the mutual interest in hydrogen energy at an investment forum in Seoul in mid-November 2022, five South Korean companies, including KEPCO and Samsung C&T, signed a memorandum with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) to build a plant for the production of green hydrogen and ammonia. The cost of the project is $6.5 billion.
This energy project will be implemented during the construction of the city of the future – NEOM. The creation of the agglomeration, estimated at $500 billion, aims to develop green and smart cities covering a total of 26,500 square kilometers in Saudi Arabia’s northwestern Tabuk province near the Red Sea.
In confirmation of the agreements reached earlier between Seoul and Riyadh, on December 1, 2022, the meeting of the Saudi Minister of Municipal, Rural Affairs and Housing Majid Al-Hogail with the South Korean Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Won Hee-ryong was held in the capital of South Korea. As part of his Asian tour, Majid Al-Hogail discussed with his South Korean counterpart the expansion of cooperation in the field of smart cities, the activation of executive programs and the exchange of experience in the municipal sphere.
Furthermore, in addition to projects in Saudi Arabia with the participation of South Korea, an investment contract was signed in Seoul in November by a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco, S-Oil, and three South Korean companies Lotte E&C, Hyundai E&C and Hyundai Engineering related to the design and construction of the Shaheen project in the amount of 7 billion dollars. The project will be located at the existing S-Oil site in Ulsan and will produce about 3.2 million tons of petrochemicals per year by the time of completion in 2026. This project was Saudi Aramco’s largest investment in South Korea and follows on from previous $4 billion projects, thus opening a new stage of cooperation in an already traditional area for both South Korea and Saudi Arabia. In 2021, the Saudi Kingdom became the largest oil exporter to South Korea, accounting for 29.3% of crude oil imported by Seoul.
Contracts in the defense industry are becoming an equally important area for trade relations between South Korea and Saudi Arabia. Due to the fact that the United States has once again threatened to suspend the export of American weapons to Saudi Arabia against the backdrop of OPEC+ policies, Riyadh needs to reduce its dependence on American military equipment. That is exactly why South Korean companies wishing to become leaders in the supply of products of their military-industrial complex are of great interest to Saudi Arabia. South Korea is not only looking to increase exports of finished weapons, but is also offering attractive deal options that involve localized production and maintenance for buyers. In March 2022, Saudi Arabia signed contracts with three Korean defense companies for a total of $989 million, but the details of these contracts were not fully disclosed.
Particular attention is being paid to another energy project in which Saudi Arabia is ready to see South Korea as a possible executor. This is the construction of a nuclear power plant with two reactors with a capacity of 1.4 gigawatts by 2030. However, for several reasons, the Republic of Korea currently does not have certain guarantees that its companies will win the tender. The competitive struggle for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Saudi Arabia and the difficulties faced by the export of nuclear technologies in South Korea will be analyzed by the author in subsequent articles.
Thus, the plans and projects for 2022 have demonstrated that the range of cooperation between Seoul and Riyadh is now no longer limited to hydrocarbons. The two countries are increasingly building up partnerships in new directions. Such a strengthening of relations between South Korea and Saudi Arabia perfectly fits into the foreign economic policy of the Republic of Korea to diversify trade relations. Seoul has something to offer Riyadh, and the commonality of goals and objectives makes the partnership of these two states very promising.
Alexandra Zueva, junior research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Recently, Egypt ratified its participation in the New Development Bank (NDB) founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) back in 2014. But interestingly, neither the New York Times nor any other mainstream western media outlet covered the news.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s cabinet finally ratified the agreement establishing the NDB and Egypt’s accession document to that institution, which finances infrastructure and sustainable development projects in energy, communications, health and safety, transportation, and water projects. According to a report on RT, the NOB has funded projections to the tune of $7 billion-plus in India alone.
Ironically, the last time the NYTs mentioned Egypt’s plans to join was in an article back in March of 2013, just before the west launched its Russophobia campaign aimed at the Sochi Olympics and before the Euromaidan coup.
Now, news that the expanding BRICS network is developing its financial infrastructure, including a joint payment network, the move away from the U.S. dollar, and the Euro are well underway. Some weeks ago, the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry said that Argentina, Algeria, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are also interested in joining the BRICS bloc.
Using the formerly venerable New York newspaper as a key to understanding U.S. policy on the subject is critical. For example, the latest NYTs story from September this year is headlined “Egypt Feels Pain of Global Disruptions Wrought by War and Pandemic.” It’s propaganda reminiscent of the narrative spread across the Middle East just before the Arab Spring regime-change uprisings.
The western media is vilifying the Sisi government with touching stories of people put out of work because of failed policies etc. The people who run the news in the U.S., Britain, and the EU are overly worried about Egyptians. International lenders are urging Egypt to privatize more of its economy to fall in line with EU prosperity.
Bangladesh, the UAE, Uruguay, and Egypt were accepted for membership in the NDB in 2021. In addition, this month, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with El-Sisi in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to solidify the Belt and Road initiative and to expand the China-Egypt comprehensive strategic partnership. What’s vital here is that westerners are criticizing Egypt’s leadership regarding import-export, while the Chinese are in Cairo to solidify the China-Egypt Suez Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone and other major cooperation projects.
Western leaders have to offer more IMF loans, weapons sales, and suggestions the Egyptians open up their most profitable businesses to Wall Street pirates or Luxembourg banksters. Just so the reader gets the full gist, consider the New York Times blaming the Egyptian administration for higher interest rates and other adverse economic factors. This report tells of the IMF that demanded El Sisi hike those interest rates to get a tranche of loans. So, the IMF becomes the enforcers of the financial protection racket, and the big elites running the New York Times squawk box blame the Egyptians for getting frisked.
No wonder all these countries are seeking a new economic network. The current western model resembles Cosa nostra more and more.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The first U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit since 2014 will be held in Washington on December 13-15. On December 7, the first preparatory events and conferences dedicated to this summit began in the US capital. The summit is presented as a large-scale event and it will mark a turning point in US-Africa relations. The arrival of 49 African heads of state and government is planned, with the exception of those whom the United States itself has excluded from the list because they do not meet Washington’s “high standards” in the field of democracy.
The goals of the summit have been announced to be the most ambitious: to strengthen the commitment of the United States and Africa to democracy and human rights, to mitigate the effects of Covid-19 and future pandemics, to work together to strengthen regional and global health, to promote food security, to advance peace and security, to respond to the climate crisis and to strengthen ties with the African diaspora. In any case, this is how US President Joe Biden defined them in his speech back in July and these objectives are now repeated in every way by Washington’s propagandists operating under the banner of a “free press.”
Over the past year and a half, Washington has backed up its ambitions with a sharp intensification of African policy: new ambassadors were appointed to many African countries and a large-scale economic forum was held in Morocco in August. Furthermore, the United States began to show unprecedented activity in resolving regional conflicts, such as the intra-Ethiopian one (the struggle of the central government against rebels from the TPLF), disagreements between the DRC and Rwanda in connection with the activities of the M23 rebel group on Congolese territory, contradictions between Egypt and Ethiopia over the distribution of water resources after the creation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile, and many others. Over the past year alone, there have been more than a hundred visits by American politicians, including delegations of congressmen and senators to African countries, as well as numerous high-level telephone calls. American business, with the full support of the State Department, actively and not always unsuccessfully courted the most resource-rich and politically influential countries on the continent, such as South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Zambia, including helping to promote pro-American figures to power.
Since June 2019, the United States has entered into 800 bilateral agreements with 45 African countries, and its investments are estimated at $50 billion. $1.3 billion has been pledged for humanitarian purposes, mainly to fight hunger in the Horn of Africa.
At the UN, Washington also pursued an aggressive policy towards African states by using the “carrot and stick” approach and drawing them into anti-Russian positions. However, this did not lead to any significant results: almost half of the African states continue to adhere to a neutral stance regarding the conflict in Ukraine, and the other half, although they vote against Russia due to Western pressure, nevertheless have not imposed sanctions against our country and do not participate in any restriction regimes against Russian economic or political interests.
All this, coupled with the expressed criticism in African countries of American and Western policy in general, including in the economic sphere, where the stranglehold of the IMF and the World Bank actually prohibits the development of industry on the African continent, is forcing the United States to modify its approaches to the summit and its goals.
According to available information, the summit will be structured as follows: on December 13, the African and Diaspora Young Leaders Forum will open, which will be held at the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The African and Diaspora Young Leaders Forum, according to Washington, will increase the level of engagement with the African diaspora and, as they put it, “provide young African leaders and people of African descent living outside Africa with a platform to develop innovative solutions to pressing problems.” The forum will include three breakout sessions on higher education, the creative industry and environmental justice. The main countries will be, of course, US allies – Ghana and Liberia.
In parallel with this event, as it has emerged, a civil society forum will be held at the US Institute for Peace, where it is planned to raise three main topics: a prosperous Africa based on inclusive growth and sustainable development; Africa, which is characterized by good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law; a people-driven Africa that relies on the potential of the African people, especially women, the youth and those who care for children. The session, as the organizers assure, “will highlight a wide range of civil society views on issues of importance to Africa, and will emphasize the need to take into account the views of African civil society within the framework of the summit.” The delegations of Cape Verde, Gambia and Zambia have been invited to speak on these topics. All of them adhere to a pro-Western course and are heavily dependent on Washington.
The economic component will not be forgotten either. On the same day, the Washington Convention Center will host a conference for African trade ministers, primarily those countries covered by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
The United States will also touch upon the issues of peace and security. On December 13, it plans to hold a forum dedicated to the above agenda with the participation of defense ministers. There have been calls for delegations from Mozambique, Niger and Somalia to take the role of chairmen. At this venue, Washington intends to promote the concept of developing relations with the African region, published back in August. The goal is clear: to convince Africans that it is the American version of democracy that allegedly leads Africa to stability and prosperity. There, of course, they will not talk about the role of the United States in the destruction of Libya’s statehood and its activities in some other countries…
The topic of health shall also be covered and shall become the focus of several separate panel sessions: global health security and financial resilience to health shocks; equality in access to health services; emerging and innovative technologies to strengthen health systems. Undoubtedly, the United States by using beautiful phrase will try to conceal the advancement of its medical bio-laboratories in Africa, many of which operate in the interests of the Pentagon, as well as the promotion of vaccines that immensely enrich American pharmaceutical companies.
The topic of environmental protection will be presented through “adaptation to climate change and a just energy transition.” The session will focus on the following: protecting the environment, including the forest and wildlife economy, and conserving Africa’s water resources, including ending illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; adaptation to climate change; and transition to clean energy. The United States is nominating representatives of the DRC, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Nigeria, the Seychelles and Zambia as section chairs.
It is clear that behind such lofty rhetoric is the desire of the United States to promote its “green” technologies to the African continent, primarily wind energy and solar generated energy, which are not capable of creating the energy basis for the industrial development of the continent, but will immensely enrich American corporations.
The main day of the summit will be December 14, when a large-scale business forum will be held with the participation of heads of delegations. Further, there will be a discussion of trade and investment relations between Africa and the United States. It is well understood in Washington that Africa is in the process of becoming the largest single market in the world through the creation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA), and a number of countries have undertaken reforms to improve the business environment and attract private investment. These reforms and coordination within the ACFTA, as Washington is well aware, will increase the competitiveness of African companies and help them integrate into global supply chains. Washington is silent only about one thing: it sees Africa mainly as a consumer of its own products and a source of raw materials for its industry, primarily the military one.
In the same vein, there will be a business forum in the field of health care where Washington will impose its vaccines on Africans, promising their production on the continent, which, most likely, will just be reduced to the stage of their packaging.
The US will also try to advance its control in the digital sphere, again by using fine words and slogans such as “expanding the opportunities for the inclusive growth of the next generation.”
The issue of creating transport infrastructure will not be bypassed either. There are plans to organize a relevant business forum under the slogan: “expanding access to financing and investing in infrastructure to stimulate Africa’s growth.”
After all these tedious discussions, President Joe Biden’s speech (“key remarks”) and his dinner with the heads of delegations are planned.
The third and final day will be devoted to speeches by several African heads of state and government, with a focus on the 2063 agenda, which defines the parameters for the sustainable development of African countries for the next 50 years. A separate session will focus on food security, at which the United States will not fail to accuse Russia of exacerbating the food crisis, which it itself contributed to aggravating.
Thus, we can say that the forum conceived by the United States is positioned as a large-scale one, designed to outshine Chinese and Russian counterparts, and to demonstrate that the United States remains the “leader of the free world” and intends to lead and manage it. Washington wants to loudly declare that the world will remain unipolar and the US will be its leader. Only will African heads of state believe this against the backdrop of the clear failures of American foreign policy in other parts of the world where the American leadership leaves smoke and ruins?
Oleg Pavlov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Our previous article covering the tragedy at Itaewon was about how the causes of the tragedy were being determined. Now we will talk about how the government has tackled the consequences of the fatal crowd collapse and what measures will be taken to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again.
In the days following the tragedy, key government figures, including Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, Chief of the National Police Agency Yoon Hee-keun, as well as President Yoon Suk-yeol himself, apologized to the public for what had happened.
On October 30, Yoon Suk-yeol declared a period of national mourning until November 5. Most Halloween festivals, events and parades were cancelled. All civil servants were required to wear black ribbons as a sign of mourning for the dead.
The US Embassy lowered the American flag to half-mast to honor the memory of the victims of the tragedy.
Since October 31, memorial altars have been opened in Seoul Square and in Yongsan-gu, where the tragedy occurred. President Yoon Suk-yeol and First Lady Kim Keon-hee visited them almost daily, also attending Buddhist, Protestant and Catholic memorial services.
On October 30, the South Korean government declared the Yongsan-gu municipality in Seoul, which includes the Itaewon district, a special disaster zone. In this regard, it was decided to fully pay for the treatment of the injured at the expense of the state medical insurance fund, and a separate employee of the local administration is responsible for each victim in serious condition.
Compensation will be paid to the families of the victims: 15 million won ($11,000) for funeral and travel expenses, plus 20 million won ($14,000) as material assistance. Survivors will receive from 5 to 10 million won depending on the severity of injuries.
On November 3, Yoon Suk-yeol commissioned the establishment of a “one-stop” support center where victims’ families and others affected by the Halloween crowd crash can continue to receive medical and other assistance after the end of the national mourning period. “The “one-stop” support center, which is going to be set up at the Prime Minister’s Office in conjunction with the relevant ministries, will provide all the necessary services from one place, from funeral arrangements for victims to treatment, as well as providing cash assistance and psychological therapy.”
It is laudable that the authorities are ready to provide not only material, but also psychological help. According to Han Duck-soo, families of the dead, the injured and ordinary citizens affected by the fatal crowd crush, which killed at least 155 people, will attend government-sponsored psychological treatment programs. The National Center for Disaster and Trauma and Seoul Central Mental Health Clinic will provide mental health care. This is important because of the 1,371 police officers sent to the scene that fateful night, 235 sought psychological help.
The reason for this is the intense media coverage of the disaster, which includes the problem of fake news and an overabundance of shocking vivid content on the Internet.
Since the disaster, social media and online platforms have been flooded with images and videos of dozens of victims lying on the street, scantily clad and bare-faced (South Korean laws require faces to be blurred in such situations, as photos cause reputational damage).
As early as October 30, social media platforms and online resources in South Korea urged users to refrain from spreading unfounded information or disturbing videos. Experts explained that repeatedly viewing a large number of graphic photos can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which causes a person to relive the event through nightmares and flashbacks, or feel guilty.
On October 31, Prime Minister Han Duk-soo already urged people to refrain from posting hate comments or sharing videos and unconfirmed information. He was quoted as saying: “On the Internet and social networks, some users post hateful comments about the victims and share false information and provocative footage of the fatal accident…I implore users to categorically refrain from such appalling behavior.”
Online platforms have also been quick to set up countermeasures. In related search results and video recommendations, social media platforms prioritized videos from news channels while some videos were removed or given an increased age limit. There were also requests from social media platforms to their users to refrain from posting or sharing sensitive content related to the tragedy, recalling that according to company guidelines, users may be ordered to remove violent or sensitive content, and user accounts may be permanently banned if a user violates the rules.
As for the fake reports, in the initial stages of the disaster, bogus stories about its causes, such as a gas leak, a fire, or poisoning with candy containing drugs, quickly spread on social networks. The graphic photos and videos accompanying these posts were quite convincing at first glance, and the “terrifying eyewitness accounts” made people accept them as the truth.
The fake reports soon gave way to numerous posts about who was responsible for this tragedy, with well-defined theses “thrown in.” It turns out that in 2021, 800 police officers had been sent to oversee Halloween celebrations, while only 200 were dispatched in 2022. The reason is that after President Yoon Suk-yeol moved from the Blue House to Yongsan (the district where the tragedy occurred), the police have been protecting him, instead of doing their direct duties. In response to this, the police provided the media with evidence that during Halloween celebrations in Itaewon in 2017, there were 90 officers, in 2018 – 37, and in 2019 – 39; in 2020 and 2021 – 38 and 85 respectively, and in 2022 – 137. The claim that the police force had been downsized because the Yongsan police officers had been transferred to guard the presidential office also turned out to be fake news. On top of everything else, it sounds incendiary. The security guards at the presidential office building have nothing to do with the Yongsan Police whose jurisdiction includes Itaewon as they belong to a separate police unit.
The true colors of provocation were finally clear when a similar statement was made on social networks by Nam Young-hee, deputy head of the Institute for Democracy, a think-tank for the Democratic Party of Korea. Of course, this was accompanied by calls for the president and mayor of Seoul to resign. The post was deleted after Nam had been hounded online by citizens who pointed out that she was using the tragedy for publicity.
Anyhow, the Democrats are quite accustomed to being involved in this type of controversy, and it is no coincidence that the conservative newspaper, JoongAng Ilbo, noted that “this tragedy must not repeat the scenario of the Sewol ferry disaster in 2014, which was used by politicians and civil groups for their own political agenda. Citizens must rationally filter fake news, while the government must find the truth and take effective measures to prevent such disasters in the future”.
And now let’s get back to the measures being taken by the authorities. Yoon Suk-yeol immediately instructed to eliminate the systemic flaws identified during the analysis of what had happened. He noted the need for a security system aimed at preventing tragedies during any mass events, including spontaneous ones, and called for the widespread use of drones and other advanced technology.
In accordance with the instructions of the President, it is planned to develop a system within which, in the event of a dangerous situation with a mass gathering of people, the authorities will be able to promptly restrict the movement of vehicles and crowds. However, the preparation of such a system will require considerable time, since it is necessary to determine the extent of spontaneous gatherings of people where it will be possible to launch the regulatory mechanism.
On November 3, the South Korean government decided to start checking compliance with safety rules and regulations at festivals and other mass events in order to prevent such tragedies. 12 government departments and 17 regional administrations formed a commission that, from November 10 to 30, was engaged in checking the safety of public events and crowded places, where the number of visitors exceeds 10,000 people per hour. Concert venues, sports facilities, markets, and regional festivals were inspected. The main attention was paid to the general condition of the facilities, the availability of evacuation routes, compliance with fire safety rules, as well as determining the maximum number of participants in the events and measures to “safely disperse” crowds after the completion of events.
On November 4, Han Duck-soo highlighted the problem of illegal additions to buildings that reduce the width of sidewalks. He urged the local authorities to verify the presence of such extensions and take appropriate action. This issue arose due to the fact that the Hamilton Hotel had allegedly built an illegal hillside terrace in the alley where the tragedy occurred, as a result of which part of the narrow alley became even narrower.
Another consequence of the tragedy is that the authorities have paid closer attention to congestion in the subway. According to Seoul Subway data for 2021, the average density during the morning rush hour in one of the busiest areas was 185%, with the fact that if the density level exceeds 150%, then passengers cannot move freely in the subway trains at all.
As a result, the government is developing various measures to prevent mass gatherings, including crowd control in the high-density subway stations. It is assumed that an alarm will be given when there are concerns that the density of passengers in subway stations has reached dangerous levels. From November 4, during peak hours, the subway will take measures to control the flow of passengers due to the fear of a crowd crush happening. Now they are being tested, whether it be alerting passengers about the density levels in each subway car or limiting the influx of passengers at the entrance/exit.
It was also decided to pay attention to teaching safety rules to students in schools at all levels, given that several students had died during the incident in the Itaewon district.
Summing up, we can say that the authorities quickly dealt with the immediate consequences of the tragedy, avoiding irritation of most of the victims and their families. This will be credited to Yoon Suk-yeol, since blaming him for inaction or ignoring the tragedy will not work. As for the measures to reform the emergency response system and security checks, the main thing here is not to slip into campaign mode while acting in the wake of the tragedy but simply forgetting about everything when the furor dies down. But we will have to wait and see what happens in the long run.
Nonetheless, it looks like the Democrats are politicizing the tragedy, which will be the subject of the author’s next article.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
US arms manufacturer Northrop Grumman recently unveiled its new stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider. Having not even flown yet and still facing an extensive critical design review, it won’t enter service any time in the immediate future.
The B-21 Raider is estimated to cost around 753 million US dollars per aircraft – a significant sum for an aircraft experts seem to believe will have less-than-significant capabilities.
Despite the dramatic ceremony surrounding its unveiling and claims that it serves “as part of the Pentagon’s answer to rising concerns over a future conflict with China,” according to one NPR article, even its advocates across the West seem to lack confidence the new stealth aircraft could evade the integrated air defenses of nations like Russia and China.
The B-21 Raider is ultimately an illustration of how despite the US outspending its rivals, it does not possess any real advantage on, or in this case, above the battlefield.
Western Analysts on the B-21 Raider’s Capabilities
The National Interest in an article titled, “Stealth vs. Missiles: Who Wins When Russia’s S-400 Takes On America’s New B-21 Raider?,” attempts to make a case for the massive amount of money invested in the new aircraft.
It claims:
A new generation of stealth technology is being pursued with a sense of urgency, in light of rapid global modernization of new Russian and Chinese-built air defense technologies; advances in computer processing, digital networking technology and targeting systems now enable air defenses to detect even stealth aircraft with much greater effectiveness.
Russian built S-300 and S-400 air defense weapons, believed by many to be among the best in the world, are able to use digital technology to network “nodes” to one another to pass tracking and targeting data across wide swaths of terrain. New air defenses also use advanced command and control technology to detect aircraft across a much wider spectrum of frequencies than previous systems could.
This technical trend has ignited global debates about whether stealth technology itself could become obsolete. “Not so fast,” says a recent Mitchell Institute essay – “The Imperative for Stealth,” which makes a lengthy case for a continued need for advanced stealth platforms.
The Mitchell Institute, unsurprisingly, is funded by a large consortium of Western arms manufacturers including corporations like Lockheed Martin deeply invested in selling stealth platforms to the Pentagon, calling into question the veracity of their conclusions regarding the topic.
The National Interest article lays out the argument the institute makes for the B-21 Raider, claiming:
Given the increased threat envelope created by cutting edge air defenses, and the acknowledgement that stealth aircraft are indeed much more vulnerable than when they first emerged, Air Force developers are increasingly viewing stealth capacity as something which includes a variety of key parameters.
This includes not only stealth configuration, IR suppression and radar-evading materials but also other important elements such as electronic warfare “jamming” defenses, operating during adverse weather conditions to lower the acoustic signature and conducting attacks in tandem with other less-stealthy aircraft likely to command attention from enemy air defense systems.
The article concludes by claiming the US Air Force prefers to refer to stealth capabilities as merely “one arrow in the quiver of approaches needed to defeat modern air defenses.”
In reality, while stealth capabilities may be useful if they can be practically and economically integrated into an aircraft’s design, it is obvious even according to Western analysts that it is not worth the 700+ million US dollar price tag that comes with the B-21 Raider.
Conventional aircraft firing long-range precision standoff munitions well outside the range of enemy air defense systems and enemy aircraft are just as capable of safely carrying out strikes, perhaps more so, than stealth aircraft flying into well-defended airspaces. In fact, Western analysts seem to imply that is precisely how the B-21 Raider will be employed.
It is worth noting nations like Israel and the US who possess stealth aircraft like the F-35 or the US’ F-22, when operating in conflict zones like Syria, still prefer to carry out standoff strikes versus risking their stealth aircraft by flying into contested airspace.
Articles like Breaking Defense’s “Israel Shifts To Standoff Weapons In Syria As Russian Threats Increase,” admit that despite possessing stealth capabilities, standoff strikes are preferred to minimize the risk of expensive aircraft being detected and possibly destroyed by advanced Russian air defense systems.
If that is the case regarding F-35 and F-22 aircraft, it most likely will be the case for the B-21 Raider, even more so considering the astronomical price tag attached.
B-21 Raider, an Example of Why Outspending Doesn’t Equate to Outperforming
A November 2022 article published by the US government and arms industry-funded think tank, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) titled, “It’s Costing Peanuts for the US to Defeat Russia,” attempts to convince readers the US and its allies will ultimately prevail in their proxy conflict in Ukraine against Russia by merely by outspending Moscow.
The article claims:
How can Russia possibly hope to win an arms race when the combined GDP of the West is $40 trillion, and its defense spending amounting to 2% of GDP totals well in excess of $1 trillion when the disproportionate US defense contribution is considered?
Basic logic, however, suggests what is most important is “how” money is spent rather than “how much.”
The B-21 Raider is a perfect example of this crucial point. For the price of a single B-21 Raider Russia could build a fleet of aircraft as well as large quantities of precision-guided long-range weapons needed to launch multiple salvos against enemy targets in well-defended airspace. Conventional aircraft firing conventional munitions at standoff distances will be safe from enemy air defenses without the need for expensive stealth capabilities. And while some of the munitions fired in these salvos will inevitably be intercepted by enemy air defenses, many more will find their targets.
For wars of attrition, which seem to be the type of conflict the US faces in Ukraine and likely will face elsewhere as it shifts from targeting impoverished, poorly defended developing nations to waging proxy war on peer and near-peer competitors, quantity is proving to have a quality in and of itself.
This is a fact that has not been lost on Western analysts. A report by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled, “Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022,” would admit:
Warfighting demands large initial stockpiles and significant slack capacity. Evidently, no country in NATO, other than the US, has sufficient initial weapons stocks for warfighting or the industrial capacity to sustain largescale operations. This must be rectified if deterrence is to be credible and is equally a problem for the RAF and Royal Navy.
Meanwhile the Financial Times in its article, “Military briefing: Ukraine war exposes ‘hard reality’ of west’s weapons capacity,” would admit:
After sending more than $40bn of military support to Ukraine, mostly from existing stocks, Nato members’ defence ministries are discovering that dormant weapons production lines cannot be switched on overnight. Increasing capacity requires investment, which in turn depends on securing long-term production contracts.
The article also claims:
There are two main reasons why western nations are struggling to source fresh military supplies, defence officials and corporate executives said. The first is structural. Since the end of the cold war, these countries have reaped a peace dividend by slashing military spending, downsizing defence industries and moving to lean, “just-in-time” production and low inventories of equipment such as munitions. That is because combating insurgents and terrorists did not require the same kind of heavy weaponry needed in high-intensity land conflicts.
The second factor is bureaucratic. Governments say they are committed to bigger defence budgets. Yet, amid so much economic uncertainty, they have been slow to write the multiyear procurement contracts that defence groups need to accelerate production.
Clearly, the B-21 Raider program does not fit into the reality emerging from the fighting in Ukraine.
In essence, despite the gargantuan sums the West has invested in defense, it has invested – admittedly – very poorly. Instead of investing in production lines and the vast quantities of weapons and munitions produced by them required to fight large-scale conflicts, the US and its allies have sunk billions if not trillions into weapons programs like the F-35 and the B-21 which do not perform their tasks any better than their much cheaper and more numerous Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Western analysts admit that even if they could convince defense contractors – who are prioritizing profits over purpose – to ramp up production and meet the requirements demanded by the US proxy war in Ukraine, it could take years to do so.
Thus, between the B-21 Raider and events unfolding in Ukraine, it is clear that Russia and China do not need to outspend the US and its allies, instead they need to simply outsmart them in terms of how they spend on defense. It is a process both Russia and China have a headstart on and also a process both enjoy structural advantages in maintaining.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
The largest oil-producing countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, decided on December 4 to maintain current production levels in the face of uncertainty and the entry into force of new sanctions against Moscow. Representatives of the thirteen members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Riyadh, and their 10 allies, headed by Moscow, decided to stick to the course agreed in October to reduce production by two million barrels per day until the end of 2023.
OPEC+ described its decision to cut production as an arrangement “which was dictated solely by market considerations,” adding that it was “a necessary and correct course of action to stabilize global oil markets.” At the same time, the alliance said it was ready to “meet at any time and take immediate additional measures” to solve market problems and support the oil market, if necessary.
Angered by this decision and unable to influence the oil-producing countries, the EU, the G7 and Australia have agreed on a $60 per barrel price cap for Russian oil, due to come into effect on December 5, along with an EU embargo on offshore shipments of Russian crude oil. This, according to oil consumers, will prevent sea shipments of Russian oil to the European Union, which account for two-thirds of oil imports from Russia, in an attempt to deprive Moscow of billions of euros.
In other words, there is an economic struggle going on for resources and a certain right of the West to dictate its terms to the rest of the world.
While Russia denounced the oil price cap, threatening to cut off oil supplies to any country that adopted the measure, European sycophants Poland and Ukraine have proposed setting the price cap even lower. In this regard, the question arises: what about the market, which plays by its own rules and would it be possible for Russia to impose a price cap on European goods? For example, on German Mercedes Benz cars?
For OPEC+, the big unknown in the oil equation is how much the sanctions will hit Russian supplies. At the same time, Moscow’s threat to halt supplies to price capping countries would put “some people in a very uncomfortable position,” said OANDA analyst Craig Erlam. “The choice is between losing access to cheap Russian oil or G7 sanctions,” he was quoted as saying. Amid economic gloom fueled by soaring inflation and fears of lower energy demand in China due to Covid-related restrictions, two global crude oil benchmarks remained temporarily close to their lowest levels of the year, away from their March peaks. Since the group’s last meeting in early October, North Sea Brent Crude and its US equivalent, WTI, have lost more than six percent of their value.
Moving forward, OPEC+ may still feel compelled to take a “more aggressive stance” by cutting or threatening to cut output, said UniCredit analyst Edoardo Campanella. In addition, “Russia could also retaliate by using its influence in OPEC+ to push for further production cuts in the future, exacerbating the global energy crisis,” he added. It is quite obvious that such unwise actions of the West will only lead to an increase in the price of oil and its derivatives, spurring even more disaster and inflation in their countries. However, as evidenced by the facts, even the disasters of their peoples will not stop the current Western rulers of narrow-mindedness in making their silly decisions.
When the West brazenly and cynically began to lecture Arab countries in its characteristic manner of diktat, then both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates resolutely insisted on the decision of OPEC and its allies to cut oil production. And this happened in due course at the behest of the oil-producing countries, despite the fact that US President Joe Biden personally threatened the world with “economic uncertainty” and retaliatory measures against OPEC countries.
Despite ostentatious cordiality, comments at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference showed a sharp division between the United States and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, whom they support militarily. US politicians and officials have already threatened to annul an arms deals with the Saudi kingdom and described this situation with horror as a “Saudi defection” to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman hinted at this in brief comments during the international conference. “We do not owe this to anyone but us,” the Prince said to applause, noting that the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference shall be held in the United Arab Emirates (the previous one was held in Egypt). “It was done for us, by us, for our future, and we have to follow through.” The UAE Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Suhail Al Mazrouei supported this statement. He was cited saying that OPEC and its allies were “a phone call away if there is a demand” for a production increase, but he offered no suggestion that such an increase would occur any time soon. “I can assure you that we, the UAE, as well as our OPEC+ colleagues, are interested in providing the world with the oil it needs,” said the UAE Energy Minister. “But at the same time, we are not the only producers in the world.”
OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, insists its decision was prompted by concerns about the global economy. Analysts in the US and Europe are warning that a recession is looming in the West due to inflation and the subsequent rise of interest rates, as well as the fact that the US-led war against Russia in Ukraine has negatively affected food and oil supplies. “The world economy is on a knife’s edge,” insisted Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, Managing Director of the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. It should be added that all these troubles in the economic and financial fields are due to the West adopting its “smart” decision.
Meanwhile, US politicians have reacted angrily to the decision, which is likely to keep petrol prices elevated. The average US gallon of regular petrol is now $3.76, down from a record $5 a gallon in June, but still high enough to hurt consumers’ wallets. Although Brent Crude is currently trading at $95 per barrel, experts believe it could reach $100 or more.
“I think at the end of the day we are facing economic uncertainty around the world,” said Amos Hochstein, US Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs. “Energy prices need to be set in a way that will ensure economic growth. And if they are not… they will rise too high and accelerate the economic downturn, which will ultimately be adverse for energy demand itself.”
President Joe Biden, who visited Saudi Arabia in July and met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, recently warned the Saudis that “there will be some consequences for what they have done.” Saudi Arabia hit back, saying the Biden administration was seeking a one-month delay in OPEC production cuts, which could help mitigate the risk of a gas price spike in the run-up to the US midterm elections on November 8, but the Saudis did not go for it.
New York-based think-tank Soufan said it appears “trust and mutual respect between the United States and Saudi Arabia appears to have reached the lowest point” amid the dispute. US-Saudi relations could fundamentally move into an almost purely transactional relationship characterized by “strategic drift,” according to Soufan as Riyadh allegedly continues to act against its own interests, a move that is not dictated by strategy. Indeed, quite an interesting statement of hired experts who believe that if any country makes decisions not in favor of the United States, then it is against its own interests. One is just astounded how common sense can be distorted if someone is well paid for it.
Analysts say Russia, the alliance’s largest non-OPEC producer, will benefit from higher oil prices in anticipation of price caps. If Russia has to sell oil at a discount, at least the cuts will start at a higher price level. High oil prices earlier this year have offset much of the sales lost by Russia due to Western buyers shunning supplies. The country has also managed to redirect about two-thirds of its former Western sales to buyers in places like India and other Asian countries. In addition, Moscow created its own insurance company and began to buy up tankers, sending them to numerous countries which do not support the ineffective policy of the West.
Thus, it is quite clear that Europe will be under a double oil and gas “strike,” pledging to buy only American “black gold” and LNG at a triple price. It is quite clear that this will cause a steep rise of inflation and a sharp impoverishment of European citizens, and, consequently, their radicalization, which will lead to further strikes, protest demonstrations and general social outbursts by the population. How can one not remind the “smart” politicians of the West of the following proverb: he who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Since NEO published its last article on this issue the most significant development in relation to the Taiwan problem has clearly been the local elections, with their unexpected results.
In terms of their implications for Taiwan’s foreign policy, the most important aspect of the election results is that they raise the prospect of a potential change of government following next year’s parliamentary and presidential elections. And a change of government would have serious implications for each of the main foreign players with a stake in the geopolitical maneuverings related to the Taiwan problem.
Clearly Washington, the most significant of these players, is making the best of the opportunities provided by the fact that the Democratic Progressive Party and President Tsai Ing-wen have retained their hold on power for the last year of the presidential term. Ever since the beginning of 2016, when they came into office, they have demonstrated an absolute loyalty to the “collective West” (which is still showing signs of life) and particularly to its leader, the USA.
It may be that in stepping up its activities in relation to Taiwan (an entirely predictable development) Washington is hoping that it will earn enough political capital over the next year or so to put Taipei – and the country’s next leader – in its debt. Judging by the recent local election results it is very possible that the next national government may be formed by the Kuomintang, whose position in relation to mainland China is very different from that of the current government. It tends to have a much more positive attitude to the PRC, and, conversely, is more suspicious of the USA.
As a result of the above, over the next year we can expect to see Washington stepping up its efforts to have Taiwan treated as a fully-fledged member of the international community. That would make it easier for Taiwan to be admitted to various international organizations, especially such UN bodies as the WHO, the ICAO and the IAEA. That is despite the fact that Washington continues to pay lip service to the “one China” principle, as it did, for example, during the recent meeting between the US and Chinese leaders during the GH20 summit in Indonesia.
As part of the same trend, we can expect to see the development of bilateral relations between the USA and Taiwan in the same areas which are typically covered by treaties between “normal” states. This means that the supply of US arms to Taiwan will continue, as will talks on the conclusion of a certain trade agreement, contacts between civil servants from both countries will be strengthened, and in general the format of economic relations between the two countries will become more complex.
In recent months US-Taiwanese economic relations have focused on the high tech sector, specifically the manufacture of “chips” – a word which these days has an almost magical quality to it. The very mention of that word fills some nations with a quite understandable sense of horror, especially those who face a shortage of these essential semiconductors, while others, who have no such problem, are free to engage in international political games without a qualm of regret.
The USA belongs to the latter group – as it has access to all the chips it needs thanks to its links with the world’s largest manufacturer, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). The present author sees the TSMC’s location (it is based in Taiwan and employs 50,000 Taiwanese citizens) as the most important reason why Beijing is unlikely to resort to a “non-peaceful solution” to the Taiwan problem. After all, Beijing, no less than Washington, has an interest in ensuring that this Taiwanese company continues to manufacture its essential products.
But the US has an even more pressing concern – it wants to free itself from dependence on foreign suppliers of chips, which are an essential element in modern electronic equipment, whether designed for civilian or military use. That is why the Trump administration entered into a $12 billion contract with TSMC for the construction of a chipmaking plant in the US state of Arizona. The Arizona plant will make 5nm chips – no longer the most advanced category, but it has been reported that TSMC may enter into a contract for the manufacture of a second plant, also in Arizona.
The current factory was originally to have been up and running by 2025, but the deadline was recently moved back a year. On December 6 US President Joe Biden was scheduled to visit the plant site for its launch ceremony.
TSMC is also building chipmaking plants in other countries, including Japan. This international growth, combined with the expansion of its production operations in Taiwan, has raised fears that the company may experience staff shortages. After all, in order to train foreign (i.e. non-Taiwanese) specialists to operate its equipment TSMC is sending 500 engineers to the plant in Arizona, possibly for an extended period.
As for the drive to strengthen relations between the US and Taiwanese governments at various levels, after Nancy Pelosi’s much discussed visit to Taipei it was the state governors’ chance to get to work. At the beginning of December, a US delegation headed by Idaho governor Brad Little went on a four-day business to Taiwan. At the end of the trip (as usual in such cases) the delegation is expected to met with President Tsai Ing-wen, and, also in line with tradition, she is expected to thank them for the visit.
Europe and Japan also frequently send delegations to Taiwan, and Tsai Ing-wen invariably has meetings with these visitors. It should once again be noted that the governments of these latter countries (unlike certain more reckless states on the edge of Eastern Europe, which have little to lose) are trying to keep open the possibility of maintaining good business relations with China. They are therefore careful to send delegations which consist of parliamentarians who are not part of the official state administration.
The recent trip to Taiwan by the UK’s Minister of State at the Department for International Trade, Greg Hands, was an exception to the above trend. It is still too early to say whether Greg Hands’ trip was an anomaly or an integral part of Britain’s still developing foreign policy under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his new cabinet. But one thing is clear: if that visit is an indication of closer relations between the Taiwanese and British governments then there is little hope for improvement in Britain’s relations with China.
In an attempt to distance himself from a week-long trip to Taiwan by an Australian parliamentary delegation, which began on December 5, the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, was forced to issue an “explanation” of his government’s position in relation to the above issue. However, his task was complicated by the fact that the delegation included representatives of his own ruling coalition as well as of the Conservative Party, now in opposition.
Here it should be noted that Australia, unlike Europe, is seen as an important regional power. That explains why China attached so much importance both to the trip by the Australian parliamentary delegation and the “explanation” offered by Anthony Albanese. The latter’s center-left coalition, which came into power in May following its general election victory has shown a willingness to reverse, at least in part, the deterioration in relations with China during successive Conservative governments over the last ten years. The most notable anti-Chinese initiatives during that period included Australia’s accession to the QUAD and AUKUS grouping.
Given the above background, Anthony Albanese’s speech at the most recent APEC forum in Bangkok was of particular interest. Speaking about the suggestion that Taiwan might join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), a regional trade group, he insisted that membership of that body was reserved for “recognized nation states.”
This response was a blow to Taiwan and was no doubt especially humiliating because a Taiwanese delegation was attending the forum. Taiwan is, however, a member of APEC, which is open to “economies” rather than “states,” a distinction which Anthony Albanese emphasized in his speech.
It is also impossible to exclude the possibility the appointment of Penny Wong as Australian Foreign Minister has sent positive signals to China. As far as international relations are concerned, however, the main message from that appointment is doubtless that the new Australian government is ready to join the current global ideological mainstream.
Nevertheless, if there is real progress in the renewal of the positive relations with China which were perhaps the most notable achievement of Australia’s last left-leaning administration (2008-2013) then that would cause yet another serious division within the “collective West.”
The new Australian government, however, as already noted, is limited by the heavy burden which it has inherited from the previous Conservative administrations.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
In March 2022, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that “Europe is the new hotspot” of global arms import. While this development is attributed to the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine (US/EU/NATO), what’s equally, or even more, important to understand is how most of this European purchase is coming from the US and how the latter has turned the conflict into a money-making machine. The US is responsible for the so-called ‘energy crisis’ in Europe and, by selling expensive US gas to Europe, is making a lot of money. Of course, the US told the Europeans that doing so was necessary to reduce their critical dependence on Moscow. The Europeans, in their bid to ‘punish’ Russia, decided to increase their dependence on the US. This is now turning into an ugly issue, as European powers, as reports in the western mainstream media show, are now directly accusing the US of profiteering from war.
This criticism is based not just on the fact that Europe is buying expensive US gas and the latter is profiting from it. In fact, it is based upon the fact that Europe is now too dependent on the US to prevent its economic collapse. If Europe’s dependency on the US continues to increase, it will only come at the cost of its strategic autonomy.
Secondly, this is not just about gas. If gas is linked to economy, Europe’s increasing military purchase from the US is directly linked to its defence and security, or at least this is how it is being projected. This dependence in the defence field is most easily evident from the German purchase of F-35 fighter jets from the US. While the US is going to make a whole lot of money out of this multi-billion dollar deal, strings attached to this deal show how this deal is a direct reinforcement of European dependency on the US.
Martin Kroell, the President of the Federal Association of the German Aerospace Industry (BDLI), was quoted to have said that Germany, even after purchasing these jets, would not have the rights to maintain and repair these jets in German. They will be maintained “in other European countries in the network of the US Armed Forces, or by the US companies Lockheed … this creates a dangerous dependency.”
Let’s not forget that this sale happened, first and foremost, when the US started putting pressure in early 2021, when the Russia-Ukraine conflict began, on European nations to increase their defence capacity. But, using the pressure of this conflict, the US authorities managed to make a deal that did not give much leeway to the German authorities to really protect their interests. As another report confirms, the Germans made an ‘error’ in not demanding the involvement of their own “arms industry in the maintenance, repair, and support of these expensive aircraft.”
This is not Germany alone. Finland, for instance, is another country entering the phase of dangerous dependency on the US. It has already decided to buy 64 Block 4 F-35s for US$9.4 billion. Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Finland has upped its weapon purchase, with, unsurprisingly, most of this purchase coming from the US.
While the conflict in Ukraine has led to many deals worth billions of USD, there is a growing fear in the continent that the US is now trying to start a new crisis with China. Such a conflict would create additional problems for Europe.
But the rhetoric being produced – and effectively used – by the US for Europe is to reduce dependence on China. Europe of course is concerned about this form of geopolitics. As Charles Michael, President of the European Council who recently met Xi, said in a tweet: “The EU promotes its interests and values in the world. With China, engaging openly on all aspects of our relationship is the only way forward.”
China, too, understands that Europe is far from in agreement with the US over a joint China policy. Therefore, Xi was candid enough to tell the EU last week that the bloc should keep up its investment in China, adding that China and the EU must jointly “oppose de-coupling.”
But while the EU is fighting the US over forcing a policy on the EU vis-à-vis the China question and the economic consequences it could have for Europe in the long term, the US continues to make policies that directly impact the EU economy. The latest irritant is certainly the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which gives tax breaks for components used in electric cars provided they are made in (North) America.
While the EU-based companies could set up factories in the US, this would effectively mean that these companies will add to the US economy more than the EU’s economy. In other words, the EU’s capital will be used to add to the US capital at the expense of the EU’s own economic health.
This pattern is similar to the way the EU capital is being used via expensive gas sales and weapon systems to help the US economy. This is precisely how the conflict in Ukraine has turned out to be a major source of profit for the US state.
What can the EU do? The Europeans are unlikely to be able to break out of this dependency relationship without first developing an independent global outlook. Imagine the economic scenario in the EU if, instead of supporting the US bid to expand NATO, it had taken an independent line. The EU did not take that line. Now, the EU now accuses the US of its energy crisis. The question is: can it translate this anger into a concrete policy?
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“
“We have some good news. We are flying to the Moon once again.” This is how one can characterize the flow of reports from South Korean media outlets that emerged last week and are devoted to (military) space topics.
On November 28, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk-yeol unveiled a roadmap for the development of the space economy of the future. “The dream of creating a space power is not a distant future, but a hope and opportunity for children and the youth.” The head of state stressed that countries with their own space program would take a leading position in the global economy and would be able to solve the problems facing mankind. Six major policy areas were presented.
- Exploration of the Moon (development of a spacecraft for launching by 2027 and landing in 2032) and Mars (landing in 2045, just in time for the 100th anniversary of Liberation Day – this will require a space launch vehicle more powerful than KSLV-II.
- Becoming a potent space power (entering the top five leading countries in the world) in terms of space communication technologies using satellites and occupying a dominant position in the market for communications and data transmission services. This also includes gaining independence in terms of technologies for the key components of rockets and satellites.
- Support for the development of the space industry. To this end, it is planned to double the budget for space exploration programs within five years, and to attract at least 100 trillion won into the industry by 2045. It was announced that the transfer of space technologies to the private sector would take place, as well as the creation of a special fund for the purpose of providing support to specialized companies.
- Training of industry specialists, including the creation of space industry clusters in Daejeon, the provinces of South Jeolla and South Gyeongsang (note that the regions dominated by the opposition were not left out) and a space technology research center at leading universities.
- Implementation of a space security concept.
- Boosting international cooperation (primarily with NASA and, in general, within the framework of the US-South Korea alliance).
On that same day, the Ministry of Science and ICT announced the launch of a working group to create the Korea Aerospace Administration (KASA) under the Ministry of Science and ICT, modelled after NASA. KASA will have the objectives of implementing policy in the field of space exploration, as well as overseeing the relevant R&D. Furthermore, the project will be aimed at implementing the development policy of the aerospace industry, forming a single dedicated structure and increasing competitiveness.
The creation of an aerospace agency was one of Yoon Suk-yeol’s campaign promises, and the government will push for the agency to be established by the end of 2023 through a special bill. The chairman of the national space committee, which will pave the way for the era of the space economy, will be the President himself.
On November 30, the Ministry of Science and ICT unveiled the Space Economy Development Plan, which elaborated on Yoon Suk-yeol’s roadmap for space exploration. A goal has been set to establish a system of manned space transportation by 2050. To this end, tasks such as the creation of the space industry, ensuring space security, and the development of the space segment in science must be completed. The space exploration budget, which this year amounted to $563 million, will be increased to $1,150 million by 2027, and to $1,600 million by 2030. The space exploration plan was named “Tamdok Plan” on behalf of the 19th monarch of the ancient state of Goguryeo, Gwanggaeto the Great, whose reign was marked by the maximum increase in the country’s territory. By 2030, it is planned to create a system of unmanned transportation in outer space, and by 2050 – manned transportation, which will allow the country to become the Asian center of space transportation. The government has set a goal to make the space industry one of the ten main areas of the South Korean economy by 2050.
The conservative media applauded, noting that the United Arab Emirates, with a population of just 10 million, set up its own space agency in 2014 and had already taken part in the US-led Artemis program to send astronauts back to the Moon and sent a space probe to Mars. “Space in the 21st century is not an exclusive arena for strong countries to compete for their national pride. As the bustling business activity of SpaceX and Blue Origin shows, space has become a hotbed of industrial and economic competition. The world is rapidly replacing the old state-led space age with a new private sector-led space age. If some people laugh at space exploration by a country of 50 million people, they simply don’t understand the staggering changes taking place in the space sphere. Countries compete fiercely for leadership in developing various types of business using low-orbit satellites, building bases on the Moon for resource extraction, exploring Mars and beyond. In the process, countless new technologies will emerge.”
Therefore, although the space agency has not yet been established, it is already being proposed to be given ministerial status, as “the space industry continues to expand into defense, environmental protection, maritime navigation and other areas that go beyond science. If the space agency is subordinate to a ministry instead of holding a ministerial level position, it will certainly face many obstacles in establishing cooperation with other ministries or the private sector.”
It so happens that news items go in conjunction with one another. According to sources in the South Korean government on November 26, US Forces Korea (USFK) will incorporate a component command of the United States Space Force (USSF) in order to “counter potential military provocations from North Korea”.
This will be the second regional space command to be set up outside the US mainland. The first was created in early November 2022 within the structure of the US Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii, and by the end of 2022, the United States intends to create another space force within the US Central Command responsible for the Middle East.
According to sources, the regional space command in South Korea will be smaller than the one in Hawaii, which has about 20 people, and it will be integrated into the organizational structure of the US Space Command by the end of this year.
According to South Korean media outlets, in its recently released National Security Strategy, the US military stated that the creation of the USSF was aimed at implementing comprehensive deterrence in all areas. On November 18, 2022, North Korea launched the two-stage Hwasong-17 ICBM, capable of reaching the US mainland, which clearly prompted the US to accelerate plans to launch its space command.
And on December 1, the ROK Air Force launched the Space Operations Squadron at the Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, 65 kilometers south of Seoul, “as the country seeks to bolster defense capabilities in the increasingly crucial security domain.”
The new squadron includes several older units, including the Space Operations Unit (established in 2019 to carry out various missions such as space debris fallout forecast), the Air Force Space Intelligence Center and the Satellite Control Center.
According to the Air Force, the squadron plans to carry out various missions, such as monitoring space objects in peacetime and wartime, spreading information about potential space threats, space cooperation with the United States (more precisely, with the newly created USSF), and operating military surveillance satellites that South Korea is planning to deploy in the future.
The author has mixed feelings about all these developments. On the one hand, Yoon Suk-yeol is clearly a high-tech aficionado, and his country’s readiness for the space race is a good test for its capabilities not only in the military-industrial complex. On the other hand, the author himself is a space skeptic and does not yet understand the global benefits in the exploration of the Moon, and especially Mars. Such projects of interplanetary exploration seem to be a reference to the times not even of Moon Jae-in, but of Roh Moo-hyun, who also talked a lot about the exploration of the Moon by the South Koreans, which was perceived as an attempt to evade more pressing problems.
Therefore, it is easier to rationalize “Yoon Suk-yeol’s Moon program” by mentioning two other factors. First, this is the President’s active desire to make South Korea a leading exporter of weapons, including missiles, and here the success of the space program is a good advertisement of the country’s military-industrial complex. Second, this implies closer cooperation with the United States in the military sphere in order to counter the nuclear missile potential of North Korea, and here, for Russia and China, South Korean missiles seem to be less of a threat than American ones on the territory of the peninsula.
Exploring Mars is a grand plan for the future, by which time South Korea will have changed about five presidents, and in the short term, such space games condone the creation of a missile defense system under the aegis of the United States and against potential attacks from China and Russia. Inevitably, this draws South Korea into an intensifying rivalry of superpowers.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Western countries, above all the United States, are seeking to replicate Afghanistan and Iraq scenario in Iran, creating chaos to destroy the country and loot its resources, Scott Bennett, a former US Army Special Operations Officer, said honestly and truthfully. “The West is fully committed to an absolute chaotic breakdown of Iranian government, religious, and military sectors in Iran, as they did in Afghanistan and then Iraq, in order for chaos to be created and Iran be divided up into regions for national resources theft,” Scott Bennett told the Tehran Times. He also stressed that Israel is the main instigator of Western hostility and maneuvers against Iran, using these tensions to carry out its attacks in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
It is becoming increasingly clear that a campaign of domestic terrorism is being unleashed against Iran under the guise of fake protests allegedly in defense of “human rights,” as has been done in Syria by the United States, Israel and NATO. The same powers are using similar methods and the same mercenaries to participate in the attempted color revolution, the operation to change the Iranian regime. Most likely, these terrorists are a combination of Wahhabi fanatics, Israeli Mossad, Likud party supporters, supported by the US CIA, British MI6 intelligence and some elements in Iraq, terrorists from al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, not destroyed ISIS (that is, the three banned in the Russian Federation), other mercenaries and thugs hired and paid for by the West.
The plan is for foreign terrorists to infiltrate Iran and cause internal strife, tribal and sectarian enmity, conflict between Shia, Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Jews and Kurds living in Iran. The main areas targeted for fomenting unrest, conflict and violence are precisely in those parts of Iran where there is a mixed population. Mobile phones, social media and Western media are heavily used in the process. The beginning was the emergence of a women’s protest movement over a false allegation that a woman had allegedly died under police torture, when in fact she had died of medical complications caused by a previous serious illness.
The specifics of hybrid warfare, as Scott Bennett argues, are a combination of small-scale operations that take the form of diplomatic, information, military and economic action against Iran to create leverage that can then be used to destabilize the government and create chaos in Iran. On the diplomatic front, hostile statements in the United Nations, various NATO and European Union structures will increasingly be used to spread propaganda and disinformation to other countries about Iran, about alleged abuses of “human rights,” about nuclear programs aimed at undermining Western hegemony and security.
Numerous analysts acknowledge that NATO and the EU are strengthening their defense capabilities not only in Europe, but also abroad, including in the Gulf region. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen recently outlined elements of a new European security doctrine, the EU and NATO approach to security in the Persian Gulf. Her remarks at the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on November 18 reflect what is widely seen as a new and aggressive approach aimed at further escalating tensions in the region, taking advantage of the extremely hostile attitude of many countries there towards Iran.
One can also see how Israel under the Netanyahu regime is stepping up aggressive air attacks against Syria and continuing to invade Iraqi and Persian Gulf airspace as probing maneuvers against Iran. The Israeli and US air forces will conduct their biggest joint air exercise in years, simulating strikes against Iran. Fighter aircraft from both countries will simulate long-range flights and strikes against distant targets, enhancing readiness for combat scenarios with Iran. In recent years, the Israel Defense Forces and US Central Command have already conducted several joint exercises, practicing strikes against Iran.
In July this year, President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Yair Lapid signed a joint declaration on the US-Israeli strategic partnership, also known as the Jerusalem Declaration. It emphasizes the US commitment “never to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that it is prepared to use all elements of its national power to ensure that.” Subsequent joint exercises were the subject of meetings in Washington between IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi and US officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley and CENTCOM Commander General Michael Kurilla.
Some NIS 3.5 billion ($1 billion) has been allocated from the IDF’s NIS 58 billion ($17 billion) defense budget for military activities next year related to alleged strikes on Iran. Outgoing Minister of Defense Benny Gantz had earlier warned newly appointed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “consider issue very carefully” before launching a strike on Iran. “Israel has the ability to act in Iran. We have the readiness, development capabilities, and long-term plans we are managing. We need to prepare for this possibility, and we will also need to consider this issue very carefully before carrying it out,” he said.
All of the above quite clearly supports the argument that it is Israel that is the main source of Western hostility and maneuvering against Iran and is using these tensions to carry out attacks in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq.
Color revolutions are usually the target of aggressive campaigns by the West, and hybrid wars are smoke and fire to create cover and distractions to create conditions, chaos and tensions to launch these color revolutions. Hybrid wars include the conflict the US has created in Iraq between various tribes and religious sects, and in Libya and Syria, where foreign mercenaries from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey were hired, funded and trained by the CIA and Pentagon under General Lloyd Austin, now Secretary of Defense. The aim of these operations was to create tension, chaos, conflict and enmity between peoples in the regions so that natural wealth could be stolen. Suffice it to look at the history of these operations over the past 20 years: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. And now Ukraine and Iran of course represent the next target of this Western program of color revolutions, and therefore an international coalition is needed to counter such hostile actions.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
With global attention focused on the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, there are the usual bleatings about politics being entangled with sport. Qatar being a country with no previous football tradition, these are being magnified beyond the usual levels.
Selling out to big business! Ignoring Qatar’s human rights record! Preventing fans drinking! LBGT and migrant worker abuse! We don’t want those sort of things in a sports contest. Do we?
Politics have always been a part of sport. In ancient Rome the four chariot racing teams first merged into two, then became political organisations, as they attracted people of similar outlooks and characteristics to each other. To the present day, social divisions in many countries are expressed through teams playing the national sport: old working class South Sydney and the middle class Roosters in Australian Rugby League, posh Surrey and down to earth Yorkshire in cricket.
It is all a question of what sort of politics you want. In the end, as in any other political sphere, public pressure eventually corrects abuses in any direction, even if temporarily. If the football authorities go too far the public won’t stand for it, and next time round, they will be seen to be doing differently, as the development of the rules of any sport demonstrates.
What we are witnessing in Qatar is a collection of encounters between political entities with various layers of meaning attached. These layers include whether the actor is traditionally strong or weak in geopolitics or football, how they relate to the major trends of the day, the ethnic makeup of their teams, the histories of their coaches and how much they represent their presumed political position on the world stage.
For this we should all rejoice. International sport has always provided opportunities to do what diplomacy is too scared to do.
You can get people together to dream impossible dreams of glory without making commitments which will haunt you in the corridors of power. You can boycott your enemies, such as Apartheid era South Africa, whilst still buying their goods and leaving them alone when you are happy to intervene in other countries.
All the political statements attacking politics in sport and in this World Cup in particular, miss one essential point. The more ways there are of gaining influence in the world, the more countries and individuals can benefit from those. If sport is a substitute for warfare, it provides one of the few alternatives in which everyone wins.
The Whole World In Our Hands
The biggest political statement of any sport is to hold a world championship. American baseball actually named its World Series after a newspaper, but is often derided for proclaiming its winner the “world champion” when only one or two countries are involved. This is held to manifest both American Exceptionalism and American ignorance and insularity, by those who then go running to the investment, aid packages and political friendship the US offers with strings attached.
Having a world championship, even if only a small number of counties are involved and there is little real competition, means that what your people do, on their own initiative, has value. Once the Olympic Games were the de facto world championships of all the competing sports; however, now international sports bodies run their own to show that they and their members have arrived.
The first edition of what we now call the FIFA World Cup was played in Uruguay in 1930. Why there, why then? It was all to do with a variety of political issues, some sports related but many not.
In 1930 the most important international football tournament was the British Home Championship, in which England, birthplace of the game, competed against Scotland, Wales and Ireland in a league format. England had never lost a home match to a country outside the British Isles, and would continue to hold that record until 1949. So it was clear that the professional leagues of the British Isles offered the highest standard of football available, other countries being in their shadow.
When other countries played against each other more often, and felt the need for a governing body to oversee the spread of the international game, they naturally turned to the home nations for help. However the Football Association in London, along with their counterparts in the other home nations, rejected the establishment of such an organisation.
To this day the governing body of English football is simply called the Football Association, without including the name of the country, because it was invented to rule the whole football world. If other countries played the game, they did based on English sufferance, and international football only has value if the English could retain control of it, culturally as well as administratively.
So in 1904 seven European nations established FIFA as the international governing body. The home nations later joined and then left again, twice, over various issues which represented a challenge to their assumed authority. No longer did the other nations assume that their opinions and interests were less valuable, even if they couldn’t play the game so well, and it wasn’t as developed as a social entity.
In both 1924 and 1928 Uruguay won the Olympic football tournament. In 1930 the country celebrated its centenary, as one of the many countries which had broken away from a colonial power. So as part of the celebrations it showed the world what it was good at, and hosted the first World Cup. These would then be held every four years, just like the Olympics, to show that the event was of the highest recognised standing.
Therefore the first World Cup was effectively the first summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. The FIFA members weren’t against the home nations or non-footballing nations, but set themselves alongside them, with their own priorities.
They have also won the argument, as everyone knows Uruguay won that tournament, but few now know who won the British Home Championship that year. In time the FIFA tournaments came to dominate, and when the home nations finally joined for good after World War Two they had to accept equal status with the rest, not expect to be revered as the unquestioned authorities.
The founders of FIFA included powerful nations such as France, Belgium and, a little later, Germany. But it would have taken several generations for a country like Uruguay, even though it had a European level economy and institutions at the time, to have sat at the same tables politically with the world’s great powers. That’s why there was a First World War, and a Second War War, and a Cold War.
Only through sport could they try, and only through the World Cup could they succeed. Uruguay has always been suitably grateful, despite its politics taking a southern turn when they were no longer winning World Cups.
We Are Who We Aren’t
The next World Cup was held in Mussolini’s Italy. Even then Fascism was polarising international geopolitical opinion, between adherents, implacable opponents and let’s give it a chancers. Italy held and won the tournament to demonstrate that other countries could take it at its own estimation: victorious but humiliated in World War One, now rediscovering the purpose and identity others took for granted, and should not deny to Italy.
Hosting the World Cup has continued to be a political message countries are unable to make in the diplomatic realm. Nations are entrusted to care for other nations, regardless of their differences, and provide a basic humanity and decency all can embrace.
Not every country is considered capable of doing this, hence the objections to Qatar hosting this edition. Nor are some acceptable as international standard bearers, which is why Eastern Bloc countries never hosted it despite the long footballing traditions of places like Hungary and Czechoslovakia, both early and subsequent finalists.
Taking part is also problematic for some, given who they might have to play against. But football finds a diplomatic solution actual geopolitics doesn’t: only in football is Israel a part of Europe, because the imposed Jewish State is more tolerated there, just as it is politically without that solution being adopted in political arenas.
North Korea has always been an international pariah, and when it qualified for the 1966 World Cup, thanks in part to withdrawals, there was talk of diplomatic incidents and boycotts. However this World Cup was being held in England, so the British, who didn’t recognise North Korea, were still determined to show they were the inventors of Corinthian values.
Based in the socialist Northeast of England, the locals did not see the North Korean players as the usual reds under the bed, trying to spread their poison all over the globe by repression, but as funny little people from a country not expected to do well. When they shocked the world by beating Italy and reaching the quarter-finals, they did more to give Communism a human face than anything Dubcek was to temporarily achieve in the Prague Spring, and only through football could it happen.
The complex issues of race and identity were thrust to the forefront in 1998 when France won their first World Cup with a multi-ethnic team which showed starkly the difference between actual non-racism and political anti-racism. To this day, no diplomatic representation of anywhere has been able to make such a statement of the practical benefits of a common humanity, even at forums such as the United Nations, because they would be considered weak and untrustworthy by their friends, who they can’t beat in other dimensions people care about.
In 1954 West Germany won its first World Cup in the match known as the Miracle of Bern, beating the still legendary Hungarian team which had already hammered them in the qualifying stages. In other areas of life, West Germany had only recently been allowed into the international club, and was still constantly having to prove it was a completely new state, with acceptable values, nothing like Nazi Germany.
The 1954 World Cup Final was the one event which turned Germany from snake to lion, just as the 2006 competition, hosted by Germany, made Germans and the rest of the world feel they could wave their flags and support their country again without these things having negative connotations. Its politicians and diplomats had done all humanly possible to achieve this for the previous six decades, but only through the political realm of football did they pull it off.
Works Both Ways
Maybe things would have been different if the two Cold War era superpowers, the USA and USSR, had also been the best countries at association football. When the Soviet Union and Canada dominated ice hockey their “Summit Series” did little to improve anything politically for either side, only entrenching accusations and hostility. When the USA boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a gesture Afghans still appreciate, the Soviets inevitably boycotted Los Angeles 1984, the Olympic Movement not being stronger than the sum of its parts.
But association football has many inbuilt advantages for anyone wanting to make a political point. First, it is the world’s most popular sport, and the World Cup its most prestigious tournament. You are automatically part of something people both want and look up to if your country has a place in it, a position every politician wants to be in.
Second, not only do friends and enemies, strong and weak, meet as equals, they interact according to a different set of rules. They have the opportunity to behave in ways the usual power relations do not allow, and whether they win or lose, there is mutual respect in the fact they all agree to follow the same laws of the same game.
Third, everyone can pick their best bits and emphasise them. At this World Cup both Iran and Saudi Arabia are making a positive impact. Not only is this due to the skills and commitment of the players, but to the same physical characteristics which would mark them out as terrorists if they walked through the streets of a European capital. Only the good parts show when you are in the best company, unlike in other forms of political interaction.
Those who want politics out of sport never seem to understand that if the two are connected, they should also want sport out of politics. How many people call for that?
In many countries involvement with, and appreciation of, sport is an undoubted political asset. Even Tony Blair, famously uninterested in and largely ignorant of football, “outed” himself as a Newcastle United fan on national television when he had won a landslide election victory; having already gained the credibility he needed every other way.
This World Cup will have geopolitical ramifications like all the others, some obvious, some more subtle. As always, they will have positive impacts on everyone except arms manufacturers, oppressors and the architects of poverty.
If you want politics out of sport, you leave it in the hands of these people. Even if you hate football, this is something you might conceivably hate more.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Washington’s defense of its unipolar world is becoming increasingly difficult for the White House, and it is accompanied by growing opposition from Russia, China and an increasing number of supporters of a multipolar world order. Under these circumstances, Washington is desperately trying to demonstrate what little still remains of its influence on the suppression of any initiatives towards autonomy by less influential states.
The US is also keen to include Qatar, despite its recognized weight in financial circles and amongst energy suppliers to the world markets, in the ranks of such states. In addition, Washington demands total subordination from Qatar because after placing there its largest military base, which is of particular strategic importance to the US in the Middle East region, it does not intend to risk its existence and security.
The choice of Qatar was not a coincidence, also against the background of the recent struggle of the United States for global expansion, where the key focus of Washington has been on the “gas war” with Russia, which together with Qatar is the leader among the states with the largest explored reserves of natural gas.
Moreover, the policy of forcefully taming Qatar did not begin today – suffice it to recall June 14, 2017, when the US initiated a blockade of Qatar.
To make Qatar more amenable to US demands today, especially in the context of Washington’s anti-competitive struggle for the European gas market, the latter has been using the various tools at its disposal. One of them has been a major campaign initiated by Washington to discredit the country in the West as the host of this year’s FIFA World Cup. Qatar has been accused of allegedly exploiting migrant workers in the construction of stadiums and other 2022 World Cup facilities, violating the rights of women and LGBT communities, problems with democracy and even the detrimental environmental impact of powerful air conditioning units in new stadiums. The US Department of Justice has stated that Qatar was allegedly involved in corruptly inducing FIFA delegates to select that country as host of the 2022 World Cup, which Doha and FIFA have vehemently denied. In a number of European countries, notably Germany, France and Spain, obligingly trying to demonstrate their vassal allegiance to Washington, individual cities have refused to show World Cup matches.
By blatantly interfering in Qatar’s internal life and disregarding the religious, cultural and moral values of the emirate, the West, under the pressure of US President Biden’s demented love of sexual minorities and the LGBT community, has turned the World Cup in Qatar into an LGBT provocation arena. And this has been rightly pointed out by many media outlets. Once again, Germany and its Minister of Interior, Nancy Faeser, were ahead of the game when she came to the match against Japan wearing the rainbow armband “One Love,” which, however, did not help Germany to beat the Japanese team.
Numerous experts have admitted that among the main reasons for the US pressure on Qatar for the 2022 World Cup was the emirate’s pursuit of a gas policy independent of Washington on the international stage and its support for Russia on key issues.
Washington’s critical perception of Qatar became particularly acute this spring, when, following demagogic statements by the US President about his alleged guarantees for European energy security after the West cut off the Russian gas valve, Doha showed no vassal loyalty and refused Germany to increase LNG supplies there. Moreover, an attempt in March by Robert Habeck, head of the German economy ministry, to negotiate with Qatar to replace Russian gas with Qatari gas was more than unsuccessful, as Italy, and not Germany, began to receive Qatari gas.
Finding itself in a highly embarrassing position vis-à-vis Berlin, Washington increased its pressure on Qatar to supply Germany with LNG through the US company ConocoPhillips and signed two 15-year agreements recently. With a total supply of up to 2 million tons (about 2.8 billion cubic meters) a year, LNG will be shipped from 2026 to the future German LNG terminal in Brunsbüttel, Germany. However, despite Germany continuing to refuse to sign long-term gas contracts, the agreement in question is still a long-term one, although in this case the gas will be traded by a US company on the German market. However, it is noteworthy that, first, the gas will not be delivered for another 4-5 years until Germany has built the necessary capacity to receive and process LNG. Second, the announced annual gas supply of 2 million tons corresponds to just 3% of Germany’s pre-crisis gas needs and is exactly the same amount that was previously supplied to the German market via Nord Stream in just 15 days. The heavily promoted deal by Washington is therefore little more than a PR stunt to convince the Western public of the alleged “power of Biden to secure Doha’s gas deal with Berlin.” It has been glossed over that Germany does not have the right to divert gas to other markets on its own under this deal, and that Berlin will buy it through the Americans, at a higher price.
Nor does Washington promote the kind of concessions it was forced to make in order to get Doha to agree to an agreement to supply Germany with additional gas from 2026. And the price for this was the US Department of State’s approval of the possible sale to Qatar of the FS-LIDS drone countermeasures system and other equipment worth $1 billion, as well as a promise to favorably consider Doha’s request, made over a year ago, for the supply of four US MQ-9B Predator attack drones for $600 million to strengthen the emirate’s own defense capabilities. This decision by the US Department of State is noteworthy because a number of US lawmakers have previously spoken out against arms sales to Qatar in connection with its recent conflict with neighboring Persian Gulf countries.
Although Washington has made some concessions with regard to Doha, while continuing to manipulate international public opinion on Qatar during the 2022 FIFA World Cup, it clearly intends to secure the emirate’s loyalty with regard to substituting Russian gas for the European market “to save its face.” This becomes particularly relevant for the White House today amid Europe’s awareness of the United States’ double game and its role in the EU’s energy and economic crisis, and growing criticism of US policy.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Do you recall the summer story about the truckers’ strike in South Korea? It is now reoccurring and, in the author’s view, is not so much part of the workers’ struggle for their rights as an instance of the political confrontation between conservatives and democrats.
On November 22, 2022, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), one of South Korea’s two umbrella unions, announced that it would wage an all-out struggle for greater labor rights. The union is pushing for an additional law to prevent fatal accidents on construction sites (the one in place is, in their view, not working), the abolition of the temporary status of the freight tariff system that guarantees basic wages to truck drivers amid rising fuel prices and the expansion of the cargo types list covered by the system. So far it has only applied to container and cement carriers, or 6.5% of all trucks.
Other demands include a halt to government efforts to privatize transport, health and other public services, and a review of the labor law to limit employers’ claims for damages against unions.
On November 23, the government and the ruling party agreed to extend the system for three years, but not to extend it to other areas – the KCTU was not satisfied and a series of strikes began. Heavy goods vehicle drivers went on strike on November 24, irregular school workers on November 25, Seoul Subway workers on November 30 and railway workers on December 2.
It should be recalled, however, that this is the second truckers’ strike. The first one lasted a week unhindered and ended with a consensus between the union and the entrepreneurs, with some mediation by the state. Although Yoon threatened to break up the protest in the summer if the strikers crossed the line, only the protesters who obstructed the work of those who refused to go on strike were subjected to reprisals. However the aftermath of the strike caused 2 trillion won ($1.5 billion) in damage to the industry.
So, the second strike has less to do with the strikers’ demands not being met than with the fact that the KCTU is controlled by democrats, who are trying to rock the boat as much as possible amid their own political problems and desire to bring down Yoon Suk-yeol at any cost. If the protest is crushed, the President can be accused of creating a dictatorship, and if Yoon goes along, they can try to walk over him and then the conservatives will accuse him of weakness.
On the first day of the strike, 43% of the union’s 22,000 members took part in it, and container volumes at major ports were down to around 40% of normal levels.
On the same day, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo urged truck drivers to go back to work, and “make a decision from a broad point of view in consideration of severe economic conditions”. Yoon Suk-yeol also wrote on social media that “if they continue their irresponsible transport refusal, the government has no choice but to consider various measures, including a work initiation order.”
Meanwhile, the Korea Cement Association has claimed a loss of 19 billion won in the first 24 hours of the strike. This has caused disruption at construction sites. Container traffic has also dropped to around 40% compared to the average on normal days.
On November 25, the Korean Union of Irregular School Workers (cooks, extracurricular organizers, etc.) went on strike, demanding stable working conditions as well as action to address the problem of lung cancer among school canteen workers.
On the second day of the drivers’ strike, about 35% of the total union membership participated, but the damage continued and POSCO, the country’s leading steel producer, said it was considering using sea or rail routes to deliver steel.
On November 28, the government and the strikers held their first talks, but were unable to resolve their disagreement over minimum freight rates.
On the same day, cement companies said they would be forced to suspend production for a week if truckers continued to strike.
Meanwhile, container traffic at ROK ports dropped to 2,788 TEUs, 7.6% of its normal level. More than half of all sites under construction have had problems with delivery of the necessary materials, and 260 sites have had work suspended due to a lack of cement supply.
On November 29, a cabinet meeting chaired by Yoon Suk-yeol issued a “back-to-work order” for striking truck drivers. It primarily concerns cement truck drivers.
According to the law, the Minister of Land and Transport has the power to impose a ban on a strike if it threatens the national economy. Violation of the ban carries imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 30 million won ($22,500).
The Cargo Truckers Solidarity Union has criticized the authorities’ decision: the “back-to-work order” is a violation of the International Labor Organization Convention. The strikers said they would not accept pressure from the government and continued the protests.
By November 30, cement supplies had dropped by 95%, causing most construction sites across the country to shut down, 23 gas stations ran out of fuel, and the conservative media began accusing the authorities of sluggishness after government and Cargo Truckers Solidarity Union representatives had made a second attempt at a deal but failed to reach a compromise.
On the same day, after eight hours of unsuccessful negotiations, two unions counting around 13,000 members, or 80% of Seoul Subway’s workforce, went on strike. However, on December 1, Seoul Subway workers reached an agreement with management, ending the strike.
Meanwhile, the authorities have issued orders for those 350 drivers out of the 2,500 strikers whose identity has already been established to return to work. However, because the order must be delivered personally to the striker and since transport companies are reluctant to share personal details, including the drivers’ addresses, the notification of the orders to all protesters has been delayed.
By the morning of December 1, losses from the suspension of cement transports stood at 95.6 billion won ($73.5 million), and 33 gas stations nationwide were out of fuel, including 11 in Seoul. In this context, the authorities have considered issuing a back-to-work order to gas truck drivers, with Minister of Finance Choo Kyung-ho reiterating his call for truckers to return to work, stressing that their strike is causing serious damage to the country’s already damaged economy.
On the same day, the Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL) and its union negotiated to avoid a strike. Nevertheless, as a result of negotiations that lasted all night from December 1 to 2, the union and KORAIL management reached a tentative agreement on a number of contentious issues, KORAIL management agreed to resolve the wage issue with the government in phases, as well as to improve working conditions.
On December 2, the Ministry of Transport said it would start imposing fines on strikers who fail to comply with the back-to-work order from early next week. At the same time, the Korea International Trade Association (KITA) said it is considering filing a compensation claim against the striking truckers, as the strike, now in its ninth day, has caused more than 1.6 trillion won ($1.2 billion) in damages, 60% of the country’s construction sites (727 facilities) are idle, and 55 gas stations nationwide have already run out of fuel. Meanwhile, according to Opinet, a website run by the state-owned Korea National Oil Corporation, the country has only three days’ worth of fuel reserves.
Daily petrochemical shipments fell to 30% of average, although cement supplies have recovered to about 46% of average daily volume since the back-to-work order had been issued, while container shipments from major ports have recovered to 81% of average volume.
As of December 3, the situation remained uncertain. On the one hand, a compromise was reached with the railway and subway workers and the number of striking drivers was somewhat reduced: back-to-work orders were sent to 425 truck drivers out of 777, and 178 of them complied with the instruction. Container traffic has also increased from 64% to 81% of its normal level, which also indicates that a certain proportion of drivers have returned to work. On the other hand, the cement and fuel situation remains critical and the scale of shipment disruptions in the steel industry is estimated at 1.1 trillion won.
Confrontation is likely to happen, as there has been no continuation after two failed attempts to reach an agreement. Since December 5, the ROK government has started taking action (up to and including license revocation) against striking cement truck drivers who refuse to comply with the back-to-work order. KCTU, as of the same date, is considering the option of a general strike. The unions have no intention of backing down and are playing the role of battering ram in the opposition’s “rocking of the boat” to protect their leaders from prosecution.
Be that as it may, the second round of the “trucker problem” is clearly proving more difficult for Yoon than the first one, but for now we put a comma rather than a full stop as we continue to follow developments.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On Wednesday November 30, Ursula Von der Leyen, the German president of the European Commission, stated that the European Union will set up a specialised tribunal, backed by the United Nations, to investigate and prosecute possible war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine. The French foreign ministry and Kiev regime echoed her remarks.
“We are ready to start working with the international community to get the broadest international support possible for this specialised court,” Von der Leyen said.
That this proposal is the opening scene in a staged drama for the entertainment and manipulation of the western public is apparent from the fact that there can be no “backing” of such a tribunal by the United Nations since only the Security Council has any possible jurisdiction to approve such a tribunal and clearly, both Russia, and China, which can expect the same treatment for itself from the West as Russia, will veto any motion in the Security Council to establish such a body.
If Von der Leyen is intending to rely on a vote in support by the UN General Assembly, then one wonders what her knowledge of the UN Charter is since the General Assembly votes have no legal force. But we can suppose that they may float such a proposal hoping the US and EU can coerce, bully and bribe a sufficient number of servile nations to give their stamp of approval so that they can claim they have the support of the “international community,” that is themselves and the nations under their sway.
The UN Charter does not provide any jurisdiction for the creation of quasi-judicial bodies under Chapter VII, which states that the only means permitted to be used against nations in violation of international law are military and economic, not judicial. The fact that the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the ICTY and ICTR, were created is a sad testimony of how the UN system can be abused. The Security Council had no powers under the Charter to create them and acted outside its powers when it did so, or as lawyers like to say, it acted ultra vires of its powers. That Russia did not veto the creation of these tribunals in the early 90’s can be explained by the fact that Russia had then a government that was weak and under the direct influence of the Americans and other NATO countries. It would never have allowed it if Presidents Putin or Medvedev had been in charge at the time.
The Chinese, however, realised the problem, expressing a willingness to vote for it only with the caveat that the adoption of the resolution should not prejudice China’s position on future resolutions on the subject. On 23 May 1993, when the UNSC was engaged in debate on Draft Resolution 827, which established the ICTY and adopted its statute, the Chinese representative explained his affirmative vote after the resolution was adopted by stating that China disputed the approach for the establishment of the tribunal by way of a UNSC resolution, rather than a treaty, with the latter route being the one China had preferred all along. He explained that, resembling a treaty, the statute should have been “negotiated and concluded by sovereign States and ratified by their national legislative organs. “Otherwise, its implementation would bring problems, unspecified, in both theory and practice.”
Secondly, the Chinese representative expressed the hope that this resolution would be a one-off exercise in setting up an ad hoc institution, and should not constitute a precedent. With that consideration in mind, Resolution 955, which approved the establishment of the second tribunal in 1994, for Rwanda, was obviously not agreeable to China as a repetition of the resolution-based approach, and China abstained in the voting on the resolution.
The fact that these tribunals were illegally created under the UN Charter and so in law do not exist was raised time and again by a number of defence lawyers representing accused at those tribunals. Of course, our arguments were dismissed out of hand and those of us that persisted were threatened with consequences. Nevertheless, as a matter of law the judgements and decisions of the ‘judges” of those tribunals are all invalid and have no force or effect.
And just as the Germans first proposed and pushed for the creation of the ICTY it is again the Germans who are pushing for the creation of another kangaroo court whose sole purposes will be to put out propaganda against Russia, to cover up their own war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine since 2014, and to attempt to justify their aggression against Russia and their support of fascists in Ukraine.
The idea for special war crimes tribunals originated with the United States Department of the Army in the early 1990’s, which alone should tell you something about its true purpose. The rhetoric used to justify such a body to the general public was of course heavily seasoned with concerns for “human rights” the “dignity of the individual”, “genocide” and “democracy,” just as it is now.
In order to accelerate the break up of Yugoslavia into quasi-independent colonies, principally of Germany and the United States, it was necessary to discredit their leaderships. An effective propaganda weapon in such an exercise is of course a tribunal with an international character which the public will accept as a neutral instrument of justice but which is controlled for political ends. NATO has the same objective with regards to Russia now.
Yugoslavia was the first experiment in using a quasi-judicial international body to attack the principle of sovereignty. And as the Americans have learned so well, the best way to get your domestic population behind you as you proceed to break another country, economically and militarily is to get them to hate those in power in that country. The Serb leadership was targeted, and transformed into caricatures of evil. There were comparisons to Adolf Hitler, a comparison used with surprising frequency by the United States against the long list of nations it has attacked in the last 50 years, though sometimes they are just labelled as common criminals, like Manuel Noriega, or mad, like Ghadaffi, if the leader or the country is too small to make the Hitler comparison stick. I think Saddam Hussein was the first to be compared to Hitler, and declared a common criminal and a madman all at the same time. We are hearing the same vile rhetoric about President Putin from western leaders and the mass media, which indicates what their ultimate objectives are.
Again, the European Union, Britain Canada and the USA are targeting another world leader, President Putin, and his government for the same reasons as they did President Milosevic, political ones. In this regard it is important to remember that in a statement to the Secretary-General of the United Nation, Mr. Boutros-boutros Ghali, on January 21, 1994, Antonio Cassese, the first President of the ICTY, made the Tribunal’s political character quite clear when he said in reference to the role of the Tribunal, “The political and diplomatic response (to the Balkans conflict) takes into account the exigencies and the tempo of the international community. The military response will come at the appropriate time.” In other words, the Tribunal is considered a political response. He went on to state, “Our tribunal will not be simply “window dressing” but a decisive step in the construction of a new world order.”
There you have it. Von Der Leyen on behalf of the EU and NATO is proposing the creation of another politically motivated kangaroo court, an illegal tribunal, without any jurisdiction, as part of the continuing US and NATO effort of establishing global hegemony, the construction of their new fascist world order, a tribunal to be used to fabricate indictments, conduct show trials, to propagandise against Russia, its leadership and people, while covering up and excusing their own crimes and justifying their aggression against Russia and the world. This use of what is nothing less than criminality to further more criminality is proof that the EU and NATO have openly adopted the techniques and ideology of fascism.
For once President Putin is “indicted” by this fake tribunal, there will be no possibility that any Western leader or government will be able to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the military conflict with him or any other Russian leader “indicted” with him nor negotiate over Russia’s security concerns. As with President Milosevic, President Putin will be labelled a criminal, and all possibility of negotiation, whether with the USA or EU, on resolution of the military conflict will be permanently blocked. Their intention is to make negotiations a complete impossibility. This means that war will be the only avenue for the resolution of the strategic political issues at stake. This is, in fact, the position of the Kiev regime with their mantra, “No negotiations with a war criminal.” And now it is the position of the EU and NATO. It is clear what their intentions are.
In this regard, Leonid Slutsky, the head of the Russian State Duma stated on December 1,
“The French Foreign Ministry’s statements about the beginning of work with the European and Ukrainian partners for creating a special tribunal for investigating Russia’s actions in Ukraine have no legal basis; this idea has a rather political dimension, the chairman of the State Duma’s international affairs committee.’
“The French Foreign Ministry’s statements to the effect that work has begun on creating an international tribunal for Ukraine have no legal basis and are rather political. There is no legitimate basis for the creation of an ad hoc tribunal. Implementing such an initiative will be impossible without trampling international law underfoot,” Slutsky told the media.
He added, “Preventing the truth about the true background of the Ukrainian crisis from reaching the European and American audiences is a matter of survival for today’s Western politicians in power. Otherwise, their own voters will oust them,”
He rightly pointed out that if an international tribunal is to be created in earnest, “there should be Ukrainian war criminals and their patrons from Washington in the dock.”
“The United States and its NATO allies, since the Second World War, have bombed the territories of more than 20 sovereign states, interfering in their state system and their sovereignty. This is what should be condemned at last. Then there will be far fewer causes for the conflicts like the one in Ukraine,”
And he is right. Once again Russia and the world are up against fascism in all its ugly forms and the more that time passes, the uglier the actions become, and the uglier they become, the more dangerous. But in the West, we see little reaction to all of this. There are few protests on the streets and those only in some EU countries suffering the consequences of their illegal sanctions on Russia.
In the USA, UK, in Canada there are no protests of any real significance; a few individuals here, some there. But the masses go along with the propaganda they are fed every day, even clamouring to be fed even more of the poison that warps their minds and reduces them to compliant automatons; unaware of reality, unconscious of the supporting role they play in the fascist theatre that they are both actors in and spectators of. The West has sunk into darkness, and now, only from the East does light illuminate the world.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
As reported by a number of global media outlets, Washington’s ban on the import of products made by the Chinese technology companies Huawei and ZTE is just one aspect of a much broader conflict between the two countries, in which the growing might of China is pitted against the USA, now in its decline. In a desperate attempt to put the brakes on the historical transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world, in which all countries will be equal and have the right to choose their own paths, Washington, determined to further its own exclusive interests, is doing all it can to impose its terms on other countries.
In the last few years the US has been ramping up the pressure on China, and the relationship between the two countries is coming under stress as a result. And although a number of US think tanks have expressed concern about Washington’s tactics in the campaign to rein in China’s growing influence on the international stage, they all agree on one thing: China’s rapid economic and military development represents a clear and very real threat to the interests of the Western world, and above all those of America.
After all, it is no secret that the Chinese government supports North Korea, a country which has been one of the USA’s – and the West’s – most bitter enemies for the last fifty years. China has supported its ally ever since the Korean War (1950-1953), in which three million Chinese soldiers fought bravely side by side with their North Korean comrades.
The North Korean regime, headed by Kim Jong-un, depends on support from China, since a significant portion of Pyongyang’s financial resources is dedicated to developing its armed forces and nuclear potential. The North Korean leader has regularly repeated his threats to use nuclear weapons against the USA as well as against its own neighbor, South Korea. Emboldened as he is by China’s support, barely a week goes by without new nuclear threats from Kim Jong-un, even though he is well aware that the US response would drive his nation to the brink of extinction.
In spite of US President Joe Biden’s claims that he is seeking a diplomatic solution to forestall a potential conflict with China, the US Federal Communications Committee recently banned imports of communications equipment from the Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE. That was only the most recent development in the ongoing tech war between the two superpowers, which dates back to Barak Obama’s administration and which intensified under his successor, Donald Trump. “Our unanimous decision represents the first time in FCC history that we have voted to prohibit the authorization of new equipment based on national security concerns,” wrote Brendan Carr, the FCC Commission in a Twitter post. He had earlier expressed the hope that the popular Chinese app TikTok would be blocked in the US. The US Democratic party appears to have abandoned its founding principles and is turning into the nation’s jailer – it is now seeking to ban video games. And what will happen next, and what does the future hold in store for US society, led by such presidents as Joe Biden, who is now 80 years old and is out of touch with the modern world?
There have recently been a number of attempts to reach a reasonable compromise and avoid a nationwide ban on TikTok. But the US security services consider that the data held by TikTok – the registration details and personal data of millions of US citizens – could be used by China for espionage purposes. They see this basically harmless short video service as an instrument that could be abused by the Chinese authorities. If things carry on the way they are going at the moment it looks as if all goods made in China will be subject to a US import ban.
But the technology dispute is just one aspect of a much more serious situation – the growing enmity which the USA feels towards China. It is evident that the two countries are currently on a collision course, despite all the attempts on both sides to hide the fact. Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was recently reelected for a third term, is determined to continue expanding China’s economic footprint in Asia with powerful support from the Chinese military. Over the last 17 years the Chinese Navy has acquired 132 new warships – an incredible achievement. In diplomatic circles, it is believed that China’s influence in Asia will continue to grow, while that of the US will continue to fall.
The Taiwan issue is one of the key points of dispute between the US and China, and this year saw a marked increase in tensions in relation to the island. Although Washington pays lip service to the “One China” doctrine, under which Taiwan is seen as part of China, it also supports the Taiwanese government and opposes any military threats directed against the island state by mainland China Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, visited Taiwan in August this year – the first time such a high ranking US representative had visited the country. That visit went ahead despite warnings from US officials, and provoked a strong backlash from China, which launched major military exercises in response. The situation was further inflamed by Joe Biden’s declaration that the US would defend Taiwan against any attack by China. So where does that leave the US support for the “One China” doctrine? Perhaps the current US administration is lying, and is just trying to present a good face while following an aggressive policy?
It should be remembered that Taiwan is of significant economic significance both to the US and to the rest of the world. It produces about 65% of the world’s semiconductors and 90% of its “advanced” microchips. Worldwide, the majority of motherboards used in today’s laptop and desktop computers are either made in Taiwan or contain many parts manufactured there. For comparison, the USA, industrial giant that it is, produces just 10% of the world’s semiconductors, while China produces just 5%. If China were to occupy Taiwan, that would give Beijing control over the world’s largest semiconductor industry, which would strengthen its global dominance over the electronics, military and telecommunications industries. And the US would be prepared to go to war to stop that from happening. As the proverb goes, envy shoots at others and wounds itself.
But the main areas of dispute remain unchanged, since Beijing continues to see Taiwan as a rebel region that must sooner or later be brought under its control – after all the unity of Taiwan and mainland China has always been a core goal of the Chinese government. As the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram puts it, neither Beijing nor Moscow believe that Joe Biden is able to make any significant changes in international politics, since the USA’s time has now passed.
Of course even a limited war between China and the USA would result in a great deal of suffering, on top of that already caused by Western-supported military operations against Russia in Ukraine. Al-Ahram believes that all necessary measures should be taken to resolve the dispute in relation to Taiwan peacefully, as the US should understand. But this is unlikely to happen, as the USA has long been in the habit of seeking exclusively military solutions to issues and problems of every kind. The Ukrainian tragedy has demonstrated that clearly enough. And, after all, the Pentagon needs to do something with its huge military budget, which exceeds the combined military spending of the rest of the world.
In Asia there is a popular tradition that times of hardship can create strong men, who by their efforts can bring about times of prosperity. But times of prosperity create weak men, and as a result come times of hardship. It looks as if something of that kind has happened in the USA – after looting the whole world the country enjoyed a period of high living standards. And it could certainly be argued that Joe Biden is seen as one of the weakest presidents in US history. The successes of the USA’s rivals – including Russia, China and Iran – in challenging US dominance and building a new multipolar world provide ample confirmation of that fact. The current global political situation demands a different kind of US president – one who can take initiatives that go beyond the relatively unimportant concerns that Joe Biden has placed at the head of his political agenda. And this is despite the fact that the USA’s power and political authority are dwindling away day by day like the wild ass’s skin in Balzac’s novel, triggering protests by those who have had enough of the now-bankrupt former global hegemon.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
NEO has frequently reported on the situation in Pakistan, which has been in a highly unstable situation for most of this year, and at the time of this author’s last article supporters of Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister who stood down this spring, were gathering for a protest march to Pakistan’s first national capital, Rawalpindi – an event known as the Long March. The march was to have been headed by Imran Khan himself.
It should be pointed out, once again, that foreign interest in Pakistan’s internal politics is largely a result of the important role that the unseen “dealer” has allocated to Pakistan in the current phase of the great game of global geopolitics. Events within Pakistan are reflected, either directly or indirectly, in the strategies adopted by the main players.
This is entirely understandable, as this is a country in a highly sensitive geographical location, with an area similar to that of Ukraine, but a population five times greater. Pakistan has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and has its own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That last factor, coupled with the chaotic state of its internal politics, has prompted the US President, Joe Biden, to express his concern about the situation. But Pakistan objected to his comments, which it saw as an attempt to interfere in its internal affairs.
On the subject of nuclear weapons, it may be worth adding a few words on one particular view of the role that they play in guaranteeing the security of any specific state that possesses them. Adherents to this view see nuclear weapons not so much as a means to impose irreparable damage on a geopolitical opponent as a sign that the country that possesses a nuclear arsenal will not countenance the idea of giving up control of any part of its territory under any circumstances.
Arguably, it may have been considerations of this nature, rather than the fact that such a policy would have been unthinkable, that prevented the opponents of the USSR from destroying the territory that remained after its collapse at the beginning of the 1990s.
In general it is fairly obvious that propagandists of either sex should not be allowed to comment publicly on the subject of nuclear missiles (or indeed the current state of play in the great game of global geopolitics). After all, even cold weapons at one time used to bear the inscription: “Do not touch except in dire necessity”. That warning applied to those who bore these arms in the course of their duties.
In fact, Pakistan, like the majority of Asian countries, has more than enough reason to fear the loss of parts of its national territory. The risk posed by ethnic separatism has been demonstrated in numerous incidents, including, most recently, last month’s terrorist attack in Quetta, the capital of Balochistan province. In that incident, on November 30 a suicide bomber blew himself up next to a police truck. Three people died on the spot and another 27 were injured, some seriously.
But perhaps the most pressing problem facing Pakistan today is the deepening polarization that now dominates domestic politics, leaving society split into two opposing camps. This situation has been developing for a long time now, but has been especially evident since the National Assembly’s vote of no confidence that removed Imran Khan from power. Just before his departure, Imran Khan had proposed an appeal to the people, in the form of early elections, in a bid to end the political crisis. Since then, Imran Khan, now leading the opposition, has repeatedly demanded that the new government hold early elections.
But, no doubt in response to these demands, on November 26 the current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that the next general elections will be held “on time, that is, after August 2023”. It is still difficult to say how the opposition responded to that statement, as the last general elections were held back in June 2018. It may be that the official decision to stick to fixed five-year terms will only add fuel to the opposition’s demands for this essential democratic procedure to be conducted ahead of schedule.
Pakistan’s domestic politics remain extremely volatile, as demonstrated on November 3, when a gunman attempted to assassinate the leader of the opposition. The attempt took place in Wazirabad, one of the stops on the 400-kilometer Long March referred to at the beginning of this article, which began on October 28 in Lahore, administrative center of the Punjab. Wazirabad is about half way along the route to Rawalpindi.
As the marchers stopped, a gunman fired a number of shots at the leader of the procession, who was standing at a higher elevation. As a result Imran Khan suffered three wounds to his lower legs. The gunman was tackled by participants in the march, thus preventing him from taking aim properly.
The gunman himself claimed that he acted from religious motives, and there is, as yet, no evidence that this was anything other than a “lone wolf” attack. It is fairly clear that the current government is perhaps the party with least to gain from an attempt on the life of the leader of the opposition. Imran Khan himself has claimed that he had been in possession of certain information about the planned assassination.
As for the call for general elections to be held ahead of schedule, this idea is now beginning to look a little more realistic. Speaking to an audience of supporters in Rawalpindi at the end of November, Imran Khan announced that he planned to seek the dissolution of the local parliaments in two provinces, the Punjab (home to approximately 40% of Pakistan’s population) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Both these parliaments are controlled by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (the Pakistan Movement for Justice Party), which was founded and is headed by Imran Khan. In the parliaments of the other two provinces the PTI is in the minority, and it is expected to leave these parliaments. The result is a deadlock, with each party controlling two of the four regional parliaments, and it is hoped that early general elections will help lead Pakistan out of this political crisis.
The current leadership has effectively defused another potential time bomb which was threatening political stability, namely the delay in replacing the Chief of Army Staff – a key position in a country where the military in practice plays an important role in all aspects of national administration. The change, which was the subject of much controversy and political debate between the two main parties, took place in the Pakistan Army headquarters in Rawalpindi at the end of November.
Significantly, the new Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir Ahmed, has announced that the army will “step back” from its de facto involvement in Pakistan’s internal political affairs. The announcement was welcomed by General Qamar Javed Bajwa, his predecessor in the post, although he noted that there were “historical justifications” for the army’s involvement in political life.
The present author agrees with that public statement by a highly respected statesman and notes that in this respect Pakistan is far from unique among Asian countries. It is therefore probably better not to try and predict what role the military will play in Pakistan’s political life in the future. Let us just point out that the de facto involvement of the military in Pakistan’s politics is not so much due to the personal political ambitions of the generals – although that factor is clearly present – as to certain objective factors that are also present in many other countries in Asia. Myanmar is an obvious example.
Given the above background, it is hard to see the current campaign against “autocrats and military regimes” led by the leaders of the so-called “free world” as anything other than barefaced hypocrisy of the most abject sort. These leaders have demonstrated that they are ready, in order to solve certain geopolitical problems, to sabotage the critical civilian infrastructure of their own ally. The sabotage of the Baltic Sea pipelines could possibly be described as the “terrorist attack of the century,” arguably much more serious, (given its clearly foreseeable consequences) than the notorious 9/11 attacks. The nature of those attacks, is should be noted, is still far from clear.
In practice it is the above leaders who continue, to a very significant degree, to form the world order in which countries like Pakistan have to try and find their own place.
But in searching for a place in the world order, those countries also have to deal with their own internal problems, and in the case of Pakistan it is clear that those problems remain as challenging as ever.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The western assault on Russia and other rivals is economic. The military conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere are only symptoms of the competition for the remaining resources that power world economies. This, as well all know, is abundantly clear. A perfect example of how the world is reeling energy-wise can be seen in Kazakhstan’s natural gas situation.
This morning, I read Oil Price’s report about China’s concerns over Kazakhstan’s delivery contracts. The report’s bottom line is that Astana has pledged to limit exports to meet domestic demand. China’s concern is the instability of supply after Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev ordered his government to reduce gas exports and to make sure that an additional 2 billion cubic meters were available to customers inside Kazakhstan.
Oil Price’s news suggests that Kazakhstan’s annual gas deficit on the domestic market could reach around 1.7 billion cubic meters by 2024. The result of such a deficit would mean a halting of export altogether. Exports of natural gas from Kazakhstan have already been reduced tenfold from 10 million cubic meters to 1 million cubic meters. Furthermore, the country is importing 20% more gas than ever.
Meanwhile, Chevron stock has skyrocketed to its highest mark in almost half a century. As I type this, the stock is at $182.49, which is triple what it was at the low of 2020. This is significant as a side note since Chevron is Kazakhstan’s biggest player in the Tengiz field, which was just prioritized by Tokayev. Chevron’s role also hints at another reason the west is hell-bent on stopping Russian gas from reaching Europe.
Energy production shifts demand geometrically by altering supply on a massive scale in one region and already peaked worldwide. The fact that Chevron is also into renewables via the acquisition of Renewable Energy Group is another war for profit indicator. Renewables are being ramped up in an emergency fashion worldwide, and the profit vertices of multinationals are leading the trend. REGI stock is up sixfold to a share price of over $60 per share compared to around $10 back in 2012.
Seeking Alpha is raving through a bullhorn on how Renewable Energy Group is “A Safe Energy Stock Bound To Gain Big.” So, you can see why a protracted conflict with Russia favors the people funding individuals in capitals like Washington and London. America’s Sunoco, HF Sinclair Corporation, Valvoline, PBF Energy, and CVR Energy are neck deep in the profit bonanza off renewables, LNG, refining, and virtually every facet of energy profit coming out of the current geopolitical mess.
Returning to Kazakhstan and the supply situation, it’s important to note that Russia is not losing out because western conglomerates owned by the elites are winning. Last month, President Tokayev and Russian President Vladimir Putin met to discuss creating what has been termed a “tripartite gas union” to include Uzbekistan. The purpose of the union would be to coordinate the delivery of Russian gas to Central Asia and possibly a deeper security alliance. However, it’s clear that western influences are tugging at Kazakhstan to lean toward Washington in order to weaken the Russian led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) already in place. At least, this is the hope expressed by The Jamestown Foundation and other Washington Row think tanks strategizing for the wester elites. Paul Goble suggests the recent meeting between Putin and Tokayev was a failure. Goble, of course, is a mouthpiece for the U.S. State Department, a former Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and probably a CIA academic plant. His take on the Putin-Tokayev meetup, he summed up with this:
“Tokayev did not return directly home as his predecessors might have but rather traveled onward to Paris, thus signaling his desire to develop even better relations with Europe, which is now at odds with Russia over Ukraine. Moreover, even as he was talking with Putin, Tokayev was simultaneously continuing his conversations with China and the United States about expanding relations.”
Getting back to the central issue of energy, supply, and demand, it seems crystal clear that the elites in power in the west are intent on milking the last BTUs of this world for everywhere we are worth. Kazakhstan being unable to supple enough natural gas for 19 million citizens is telling. Furthermore, companies like America’s Chevron gleaning profits from domestic usage so distant from the U.S. is food for thought.
I expect Uzbekistan is in a similar situation, and is under western pressure as well. Though better in-ground resources are much more recoverable than in most of the region, the infrastructure in the country is horrendous. Even so, produces about 60 bcm of natural gas annually. Uzbekistan exports mainly to China, Russia, and to Kazakhstan. So, it seems likely they will pick up part of the slack for Kazakhstan in the near future. On a final note, Chevron is also a major player in the recent opening of the Uzbekistan GTL gas-to-liquids plant in Qashqadaryo Region. I’ll leave the reader to plot the energy war strategies there, but the writing really is on the wall. If the items I’ve presented are not proof enough that the United States and partners are engaged in an energy war, the White House has made the strategy crystal clear. In this October National Security Strategy report (PDF), the Biden Administration frames Ukraine and the rest of the globe as pertains to Central Asia this way:
“Elsewhere in Eurasia, we will continue to support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Central Asia. We will foster efforts to enhance resilience and democratic development in the five countries in this region. We will continue to work through the C5+1 diplomatic platform (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the United States) to advance climate adaptation, improve regional energy and food security, enhance integration within the region, and build greater connectivity to global markets.”
There it is, in no uncertain terms. Companies like Cargill, Chevron, and a host of others are reaping fantastic profits right now because of these Russophobic, aggressive policies designed for one purpose only. To milk the world bone dry by shifting the supply and demand curve. It’s not rocket science, as they say. The question is, will the people ever be able to see the light? Personally, I think that by the time they do it will be too late. We’ll either be paupers all, or in a war the likes of which the galaxy has never seen.
Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
As US officials travel the world lecturing everyone on human rights, that same world has accused Washington of being the number one human rights violator. Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen, instigated and widely supported by the West and the United States in particular, is a prime example of this.
On March 25, 2015, the then Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, under pressure from the American ruling circles, declared war on Yemen. This was done specifically from the American capital, Washington. He said that the military action would be “aimed at protecting the people of Yemen,” adding that “the operation will be limited in nature.”
The alleged “limited in nature” war has already turned into eight years of almost daily aerial bombardments in the provinces of the Saudi kingdom’s southern neighbor. Prior to the war, Yemeni officials argued that Riyadh controlled nearly every sector of Yemeni society, from the economy to culture, and that the time had come for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. This war still brings innumerable hardships and misfortunes to the Yemenis, from which the “democratic” United States shamelessly capitalizes.
The list of US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is so long that senior Yemeni officials say it was America that started the war against their country, using the Saudis and other Gulf kingdoms as its “proxies.” Human rights organizations accuse other Western countries of complicity in what they call war crimes against the defenseless Yemeni people. But the same “democratic” United States remains conspicuously silent about this, forbidding not only its own, but also the Western media to write about this massacre in negative terms.
In March 2015, a Bacchanalia of American politicians, economists and financiers emerged, who all together and individually simply pitted Riyadh against Yemen. Even the American media did not hide this interest in unleashing another war on the Arabian Peninsula. First, there were huge orders from the Saudis for the purchase of a wide variety of weapons, and the American military-industrial complex was loaded to capacity, with work conducted in three shifts. It is quite natural that the prices for these weapons were very high, and the Saudis did not even discuss them, buying weapons in bulk for a future war. Second, having got stuck in this difficult war against the fraternal Yemeni people, Riyadh could not take any independent steps on the world stage, obediently trailing in the wake of Washington’s policy. And besides, the Washington administration was pleased that the Yemenis had been “taught a lesson” by the Saudis, avenging the unsuccessful drone war against Yemen that the Pentagon had unleashed and pursued for a whole decade.
When war broke out in Yemen, the US Department of Defense immediately provided hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Saudi-led coalition. Among the many other types of support the US provided to the Saudis during the war was intelligence products to be targeted by US-made Saudi warplanes. The Pentagon has also provided military advice and logistical support, such as air-to-air refueling of military aircraft, while Washington said it had authorized US contractors to service Saudi military aircraft.
But the war did not go quite as America had planned. Washington simply did not expect the brave resistance of the Yemeni people and their staunch support for the popular revolution led by the Houthi movement (officially called Ansar Allah). The Pentagon had to urgently intervene in hostilities, supplying not only modern weapons, but also air defense systems. And yet, the Yemenis delivered several sensitive strikes against Saudi forces, including successfully shelling an oil field and refinery on Saudi territory. These actions led to a surge in oil prices and sowed panic among the ruling circles in Saudi Arabia.
But the war has created an extremely difficult situation for civilians living in the poorest country in Western Asia. Especially for Yemeni children who are suffering from untold humanitarian conditions. Hundreds of thousands of people have died during the hostilities, due to American-made bombs. Saudi pilots, trained in the US and the UK, using American aircraft at the prompting of American military intelligence dropped American bombs on Yemeni houses, schools, hospitals, funeral parlors and foreign humanitarian organizations, forcing them to withdraw staff from the country.
Here is what the Yemeni monitoring group, Entesaf Organization for Women and Child Rights, recently published (compared to data from other groups and institutions, these are very conservative numbers):
8,116 children have been killed and wounded since the beginning of the US-Saudi war;
5,559 Yemeni children have become disabled as a result of hostilities since the beginning of the war;
632,000 children in Yemen are suffering from acute malnutrition that threatens their lives with death during the current year;
2,400,000 children do not attend school, forming a generation that has completely lost education.
Entesaf has documented that the number of Yemeni people with disabilities has increased from three million before the start of the US-backed war to 4.5 million today. This highlights the consequences of Yemen’s total blockade (in addition to the war being waged on it), which has placed its airspace, sea and land under unprecedented blockade by the West.
The organization also drew attention to the increase in child labor in Yemen due to the aggression and total blockade, pointing out that 1.4 million child laborers are deprived of their most basic rights, and that about 34.3% of child laborers are between the ages of 5 and 17. These new occurrences of child labor during the war are four times the rate of child labor than before the start of the war in Yemen.
In the healthcare sector, it is reported that public and private hospitals across the country are facing the threat of closure due to the blockade and detention by the US and Saudi Arabia of ships with petroleum derivatives.
Entesaf holds the coalition led by the US and Saudi Arabia responsible for all crimes and violations against civilians, especially children, in the last eight years of the war, calling on the international community, global organizations, human rights and humanitarian organizations to be held accountable for violations and heinous massacres that occurred against civilians. The organization also called on the international community to take effective and positive action to end the aggression and blockade against the civilian population and form an independent international commission to investigate all crimes committed against the Yemeni people and to bring to justice all those found complicit.
In August 2018, munitions experts reported that the bomb fired by Saudi warplanes that killed dozens of Yemeni children on a school bus was a 500-pound (227 kg) laser-guided MK 82 bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of America’s largest arms manufacturers. Photos of the shrapnel taken immediately after the attack were sent to CNN, and a cameraman working for the company filmed the shrapnel footage. Munitions experts confirmed that the numbers on it identified Lockheed Martin as its manufacturer and that this particular MK 82 was a Paveway, which is a laser-guided bomb.
The CNN report said some of the bodies were so mutilated that identification was impossible, leaving behind scraps of school textbooks, mangled metal and one backpack. Of the 51 people who died in the attack, 40 were children. Another 79 people were injured, 56 of them also children.
Among the tens of thousands of Saudi airstrikes, another one was documented by CNN – a market strike by a US-supplied MK 84 precision bomb that killed 97 Yemenis. The bomb was very similar to the one that targeted a funeral parlor in October 2016, killing hundreds and injuring innumerable others.
These are just a few of the tens of thousands of similar attacks using American weapons to intimidate the Yemeni people into submission. However, the country’s armed forces, women and children have shown unprecedented resilience in their struggle.
Also during the war in Yemen, Washington’s complete disregard for human rights and its attempts to deprive children of their right to life was demonstrated. This applies not only to Yemen, but to US wars around the world that have resulted in unprecedented suffering for children, from Cuba and Vietnam to Western Asia and beyond. And it is the same United States that claims to be the flag-bearer of human rights and uses this pretext for its own political agenda in attacking numerous other countries.
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
It is deeply regrettable but it should be stated that the topic of Africa has been largely ignored by the world political elite in recent times whose attention has been predominantly occupied by other themes. Although it is on this continent that the most horrific misfortunes of mankind are unfolding with mass starvation of the population, incessant terrorist activities of radical Islamists and numerous gangs, poverty which remains in many countries of the Black Continent, as well as lack of drinking water and access to modern medicine due to which thousands of inhabitants are losing their lives.
240 million people, constituting 20% of the African population, are constantly hungry. They do not have enough food due to low income and lack of assistance from the state and international agencies. Sub-Saharan countries are particularly hard hit. It should be recalled that one of the worst crises in the past 25 years was the famine in East Africa in 2011-12, when 260,000 people, including 133,000 children, died of malnutrition in war-torn Somalia alone.
Nevertheless, recent events in several African countries that are trying to change their fate are attracting more and more attention, and not only at the regional level. And here, first of all, the following countries stand out: the Central African Republic, Mali, and Burkina Faso, who have collectively decided to put an end to the long-standing domination of France and pursue a policy independent of Paris.
All three countries are former colonies of France. In Paris they were considered to be “suitcases without handles.” The Central African Republic gained worldwide fame not through France’s desire to improve the socio-economic situation of this country, but due to the terrible uncontrolled, including on behalf of Paris, rule of the “cannibal emperor” Bokassa. Rampant terrorism and numerous bandit formations in Mali and Burkina Faso (formerly called Upper Volta) for many years did not prompt Paris to provide proper security for the population of these countries. And France’s long-term declarations about “military assistance and the training of local army units and law enforcement forces to combat terrorism and crime” turned out to be fiction, due to which, along with a complete lack of results in these spheres, France was forced to leave these countries.
The policy of international organizations with regard to the African continent and its problems has not been either active or effective. Even the fight against hunger advertised by the UN and participation under its aegis in concluding an agreement on the Black Sea corridor for allegedly exporting grain from Ukraine to “starving Africa” turned out to be different as the ships with grain from the unblocked ports of Ukraine sailed not to the poorest countries in Africa, but to other regions of the world, mainly to Europe. And, in fact, there has been no reaction to the coups d’etat in African states that took place in these recent times. UN Secretary General António Guterres usually limited himself to condemning the coups and calling for “restraint and negotiations on all sides” – standard language bordering on indifference. There was no discussion of the reasons that led to this or that coup d’état and of ways to prevent them in the future.
Under these conditions, it is not surprising that on September 30 in Burkina Faso, a group of military men led by 34-year-old artillery captain Ibrahim Traoré carried out a coup d’état, removing from power Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba, who himself took over the government this January by staging an armed coup. The new coup has a strongly-pronounced anti-French direction. Former President Damiba is accused by the population of the country for irresponsibly relying in his policy on cooperation with France, which, in general, has not shown its interest in any fight against Islamists and terrorists.
It should be recalled in this connection that the population of Burkina Faso is approximately 20 million. The Burkinabé are warlike and freedom-loving, and during half a century of independence they have staged 11 military coups, fought with Mali and intervened in internecine conflicts of all neighboring countries. Taking into account the militant mood of the Burkinabé, they always helped the French in fights with the population of other neighboring states. However, France itself, did not pay anything for such loyalty, continuing only to exploit the population and natural resources of Burkina Faso.
Due to the predominance of the Mossi ethnic group in the country, which developed in the lower reaches of the Niger from a mixture of Mande and Bantu, who came to the land of Burkina Faso in the 11th century, there were no civil wars here, and the coups were essentially “silent”. The ancestors of the Burkinabé successfully resisted Islamization, Christianization, colonization and slave traders.
Since 2017, this African country has become the epicenter of terrorist activity by Islamist groups in West Africa, primarily through the fault of two large international terrorist groups operating here: the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (part of the Islamic State banned in the Russian Federation) and Ansar ul-Islam (also banned in Russia). Due to the ongoing attacks by militants from among Islamic radicals on the civilian population, more than 1.7 million Burkinabé have left their homes and become refugees. In this regard, the ineffectiveness here in the fight against terrorism over the past many years of the former French colony has become the main engine of the protest movement in Burkina Faso and prompted the local military to stage a coup d’état for the second time this year and abandon any “attachment” to France.
Although the standard of living in this country is low, nevertheless it is the third after Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire in West Africa. 90% of the country’s population is employed in subsistence agriculture. Burkina Faso is a major supplier of gold to Western Europe, although its inhabitants remain poor. Almost 80% of Burkina Faso’s exports consist of gold (amounting to $2.36 billion a year – about 50 tons), which mainly goes to Switzerland.
The military officers, who seized power in Burkina Faso on September 30, announced the dissolution of the government, the suspension of the constitution and all political activity. The 34-year-old artillery captain Ibrahim Traoré, who led the coup, is now in charge of the country’s highest executive body – the Patriotic Movement for Safeguard and Restoration. According to Ibrahim Traoré, as quoted by the media, if circumstances permit, then the return of Burkina Faso to the constitutional system and the holding of presidential and parliamentary elections can occur even before the date previously agreed with the Economic Community of West African Countries (ECOWAS) – no later than July 1, 2024.
In his speech on November 11 to representatives of political parties, Ibrahim Traoré gave a clear picture of the catastrophic state of the security situation in the country and spoke in detail about the living conditions of the inhabitants of the northern regions, which had been abandoned for far too long. He stated that the priority task of the new government was to intensify the fight against armed terrorist groups responsible for the deaths of 10,000 Burkinabé since 2015. According to him, another equally important task is the restructuring of the country’s economy, especially in the field of agricultural production. He also announced the need for special efforts to be made in education, which should meet Burkina Faso’s current demand for qualified personnel for the economy and for the repurposing of culture in order to counter the loss of vital and ideological focus by the youth. Furthermore, he announced the intention of the authorities to develop the road network and the healthcare system in order to cater to the urgent needs of the population. Among the proposals put forward by the new authorities of the country, there was a call for citizens “to better manage society by creating local committees for verification and development (CLVD), which would allow them to take responsibility for their own destiny.” The country’s new prime minister suggested starting work on a new constitution that would meet the current challenges of building a progressive society in the country.
The recent demonstrations in Burkina Faso showed the support of the country’s population for the new government and its mass rejection of France’s intervention. Focusing on positive advances even during a short period of cooperation with Russia by neighboring countries – Mali and the Central African Republic – the inhabitants of this country are calling for developing and intensifying relations with Moscow, having declared that the people of Burkina Faso “want to go with Russia.”
Vladimir Danilov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Russia’s special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine, which began in February 2022, has caused widespread public outcry around the world. A number of public and political figures have criticized Moscow and condemned the Kremlin’s policies, while many others have expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to start the SMO.
The Russian-speaking citizens of Australia, who are well familiar with the double standards of aggressive Western policies and who care about their historic homeland, have repeatedly commented approvingly on Russia and its actions in Ukraine.
Although the Australian leadership has supported the anti-Russian sanctions and has been scaling back its engagement with Moscow since the beginning of the SMO, there is no consensus in Australian society on the situation in Ukraine.
This is largely because Ukraine is a long way from Australia, and for this reason Australians are not fully aware of what is happening on the other side of the world. However, the country’s population of 26 million has felt the drop in living standards due to the shrinking economies of its main foreign trading partners, the European Union and the United States, which are now suffering from a politically-induced energy crisis triggered by the cooling of relations with the Kremlin.
Australia has a large Russian-speaking community with very different perceptions of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Some condemn the SMO and criticize the Russian leadership. Others, on the other hand, openly cheer for Russia. This pluralism of opinion can be explained by the heterogeneous social status of Australia’s Russian-speaking community. Some Australians with Russian roots have slowly begun to forget their own language and culture and ignore their past, while others have a sacred relationship with their historic homeland.
A notable example of a Russian Australian who has not forgotten about Russia is Simeon Boikov, an ataman of the Cossack Society of Australia, whose ancestors came to Australia as refugees during the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1922. In addition to actively supporting Russian policy, Boikov runs a pro-Russian civil society organization in Australia, is active on social networks with positive coverage of the Kremlin’s decisions and regularly interacts with the media.
The Cossack Society of Australia, headed by Simeon Boikov, is one of the key bastions of pro-Russian sentiment in the country. The Australian Cossacks are speaking out in support of the SMO and campaigning among ordinary Australians to support Russia’s policies.
In September 2022, Boikov said that Australian society does not express any mass anti-Russian sentiments and that the Australian authorities’ decision to supply weapons to the Ukrainian army does not have broad public support.
Pro-Russian sentiment is fairly widespread in Australia, according to the Cossack Society of Australia ataman. Simeon Boikov is convinced that ordinary Australians are supportive of Russia, the Russians and Vladimir Putin, and that the aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric of Australian politicians is primarily due to their desire to maintain close ties with Washington and its allies.
Boikov believes that the anti-Russian statements by the Australian leadership are beneficial to the US and the UK in order to keep the Australian population in fear by creating an image of a dangerous external enemy. The Australian Cossack ataman is genuinely saddened that Australia is suffering financially because of aid to Ukraine.
Canberra’s material, political and other support for Ukraine is not well received by Australian taxpayers, a significant proportion of whom are not happy to see their hard-earned money go to waste. The Australian government’s unpopular decision has often been criticized by the public, who feel that Russia is not a threat to the Australian state and that its support for Ukraine negatively affects the nation’s welfare.
On October 22, 2022, mass public rallies in support of the Russian Federation were held in several major Australian cities. Demonstrators called on the Australian leadership to lift sanctions off Russia and engage in dialogue with Moscow.
The biggest rally took place in Australia’s most populous city, Sydney. Thousands of participants chanted slogans in support of Russian policy and demanded that the Australian leadership stop funding and supplying arms to Ukraine. The demonstrators also said they were in favor of unblocking the Russian media, which allows Australians to view world events from an alternative perspective.
Of course, there are groups of people in Australia who want Kiev to win. But there are also quite a few of those with pro-Russian views. To maintain its claim to be a democratic state, the Australian government does not pursue punitive measures against those whose beliefs differ from the state’s ideology. Nevertheless, this category of Australians is still unable to fully express their opinions because pro-Russian television channels in Australia have been suspended.
In numerous international organizations, along with Australia, its “wards” – the small island states of Oceania in the South Pacific – vote exclusively on its side. Representatives of 12 Oceanian countries, in agreement with Australia, voted for most of the anti-Russian resolutions at the UN. Such decisions can be explained by the fact that the countries of Oceania are very economically dependent on the states of the West. The authorities of the island countries are forced in their official statements to condemn the Kremlin in order to maintain relations with the US and Australia, their main patrons.
However, according to numerous opinion polls, the majority of Oceanians approve of the SMO and support Russia. The Oceanians are distrustful of the Anglo-Saxons and remember well the days of colonialism. Eastern Ukraine’s struggle for independence reminds many Oceanians of their own defense of sovereignty in the not-too-distant past.
As an example, Samoa was the first state in Oceania to gain independence in 1962, and one of the first to enter into diplomatic relations with China and the USSR in 1976.
In the difficult year of 2022, Samoans reacted to a Samoa Observer article on July 5 entitled “Sanctions already affecting Putin and accomplices” by commenting that “a nation with vast oil and gas reserves and 24 tons of gold in reserve is unlikely to feel any impact from sanctions.” The only commentator who objected was described as “zombified by US propaganda” and was reminded that Russia’s desire was merely to prevent NATO bases from being deployed near its borders, while Ukraine could have resolved the issue diplomatically rather than militarily.
Nevertheless, the economic focus on the US is forcing Australian and Oceanian governments to follow Washington’s line by officially condemning the Russian side in the conflict in Ukraine. At citizen level, however, opinions differ from those of the top leaderships. Support for the Ukrainian authorities and escalation of relations with Moscow are taking a heavy toll on the budgets of Australia and Oceania, for which supply issues are critical. And so quite a few people in these countries want their politicians to lift sanctions off Russia and stop wasting money on financing distant Ukraine, since relations with the latter are unlikely to be of any use in the future.
Petr Konovalov, a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
When German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited China in early November, it sent shock waves in the Transatlantic Alliance. The visit came only months after NATO declared China as its enemy. The visit’s significance also lies in the fact that Olaf is the only leader from G7 to visit China since the COVID-19 pandemic began three years ago. The visit reaffirmed both countries’ resolve to pursue bilateral ties. Apart from trade, the joint statement also stressed the importance of avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. Coming against the backdrop of Russia’s ongoing special military operations in Ukraine, the statement shows that a key purpose of Olaf’s visit was to convince China to play a more assertive role in managing the conflict in Europe and in finding an acceptable solution. Olaf was certainly not unsuccessful in getting that diplomatic support from Beijing. At the same time, Olaf was also able to discuss with China that any change in Taiwan’s status must be peaceful. In making this joint statement, China did not lose anything. In fact, it potentially secured guarantees of trade between China and Europe’s largest economy.
Ever since the visit. German officials have stressed that Germany will continue to do business with China. Responding to questions from the US media about ‘too much dependence’ on China, Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck said that they were “not stupid.” Because they are not stupid explains why, despite US objections and warnings, Olaf took Germany’s key industrialists with him to expand trade ties with China. They are “not stupid” is the reason why they are not happy with US policies either.
In other words, whereas the US plans to trigger a conflict with China around Taiwan in future, German’s growing interests in and with China tend to undercut this plan. The key question is: why’s Germany doing this? The Germans know how the US politics of NATO expansion has cost them. Germany’s economic growth depended, for decades, on a smooth supply of cheap gas from Russia. Conflict in Ukraine created unavoidable conditions for that supply to halt. But the same conflict also created conditions for the US to sell its gas to Germany (and other European nations) and earn massive profits from it. The Germans are “not stupid.” They know the price they are paying for US gas and for supporting US policies.
Germany, to fill the gap left by the missing Russian gas, is forced to buy expensive gas from the US. The US, the Germans know, is charging exorbitant prices. As some reports have indicated, the US is marketing in Europe at prices three to four times that of the domestic price. As reports in the German media show, Germans are paying more than 173 per cent higher gas bills this year than the previous year. Thanks to the “Transatlantic unity” (whatever that means!).
As a result of pricy gas, the German economy is not reviving. In fact, German officials have confirmed that the German economy will shrink in 2023 by 0.2 per cent. Inflation increased because of the initial shock of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but it has not at all come down after the US started its supplies. There was no meaningful impact on economic growth because of continuing high energy prices. Thanks to Washington’s benevolent energy trap, the inflation rate is likely to remain around 8 per cent in the next years as well.
Since its alliance with the US is not paying the dividends Biden promised via Transatlantic Unity, Germany decided to revive – and expand – its trade ties with China as an alternative way of saving and reviving its economy. The Germans are “not stupid.” They understand that toeing the US line on Transatlantic Unity unconditionally will never pay. They understand this is a trap for Germany. In fact, sticking to this idea of unity continues to mean, as the Germans know, what the Alliance’s first (British) Secretary Lord Ismay articulated as the politics of keeping “the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
Therefore, developing economic ties with China makes sense for Berlin, and taking top German industrialists to China to meet Xi makes sense for Olaf who is trying hard to break out of the limitations of the American form of ‘unity.’ Therefore, to expand trade ties – which stood at more than 245bn Euros last year – Olaf took CEOs of German blue-chip firms, including the CEOs of Merck, a drug company, Siemens, an engineering giant, and Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest carmaker, to China.
The Americans, on the other hand, think that Germany’s expanding trade ties could make Germany ‘dependent’ on China. This is a strange type of argument, given that the US itself does a lot of trade with China without ever entertaining the question of ‘dependency.’ The US is China’s most important market, with China’s surplus with the US standing at US$85.2bn in October 2022. Compared to this, China’s trade surplus with Germany is almost half (US$41bn in September 2022).
These figures make sense to the German business groups. Many of them think Germany does not have a ‘China problem.’ For instance, Martin Brudermüller, who is the CEO of a chemical company called BASF said that “China bashing” must stop. To quote him, “Overall, we come to the conclusion that it is advantageous to expand our involvement [in China].”
His thinking is supported by a broad political opinion in Germany, represented, most clearly by Olaf himself. Olaf thinks as he wrote in an op-ed for Politico and addressed his US audience, the world does not need a new Cold War with China. This idea directly undermines the US plans to confront China sooner than later around Taiwan. This idea directly undermines the US plan to jeopardize China’s economic growth by banning the export of semiconductor microchips. Olaf said China represents a key centre in an increasingly multipolar world. Therefore, it makes no sense to decouple.
But even though Olaf said he coordinated with Germany’s European and transatlantic friends about his China visit, he made it clear in his op-ed that Germany does have a plan to develop balanced ties with China in ways that reduce the so-called dependence and optimize ties in ways that are beneficial for both sides. This optimization, however, does not serve the US interest of creating a wedge between China and Europe and thus undercut its global rival’s capacity to replace the US as the most important country.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
We are continuing with the series of materials covering the tragedy that took place on October 29, 2022 in Seoul’s Itaewon district where 158 people (as of now) died in a stampede in a narrow alley.
Who is investigating and how is it going?
A special investigation unit of 475 people has been set up under the National Police Agency. As part of the investigation, 154 witnesses were questioned, including ordinary police officers and eyewitnesses. A total of 7,134 physical evidence (material objects) related to the deadly accident, including documents and digital data, was seized. Inspector Song Jae-hwan, who is in charge of the special unit, said the focus was on finding out the cause of the tragedy and whether the authorities had taken all necessary security measures. In fact, they are investigating all departments that are connected with emergency situations, their prevention and elimination of consequences, whether it be the police, the fire department or municipal authorities.
Could the crowd crush have been prevented?
Hong Ki-hyun, chief of the National Police Agency’s Public Order Management Bureau, admitted that the police had failed to foresee the deadly crowd collapse. According to one university professor, the tragedy could not have been anticipated since it occurred due to the fact that “an indefinite number of people gathered in an uncontrollable environment.”
The problem of regulating mass events
British crowd control expert Steve Allen, in an interview with the Korea Times, cited the lack of crowd control plans as the main cause of the disaster. Hong Ki-hyun also acknowledged that there were no separate crowd control measures in the narrow alley where the stampede occurred.
The main reason for the tragedy was that spontaneous festivities of this kind were not considered in South Korea as a reason for a response from the police and authorities. More precisely, certain measures were taken, but they were not aimed at regulating the movement of large crowds.
At official events, the police work with the organizers and receive data from them on the number of people and the route of movement, after which certain measures are taken. Therefore, although innumerable mass events are constantly taking place in South Korea, including political demonstrations with the participation of tens of thousands of people, tragedies like the one in Itaewon do not happen. But here the authorities had no one to turn to with this issue, and no one could anticipate the crowd crush happening.
A more important, and according to some experts, fundamental problem is a law that requires the police to restrict people’s freedom of movement for public safety and order only for government-scheduled events or rallies that are notified to the police. The law provides for police intervention in “private gatherings” only when there is immediate danger. And without a clear legal definition, a dispute could arise about whether crowded streets fall into this category.
As can be seen, this law was carefully drafted after the military dictatorship to protect the freedom of the people in a country where the police had abused their power for decades. In order to avoid precedents with “the dispersal of an unsanctioned rally”, the pendulum was swung in the opposite direction. In the sense that, today police officers are preventing a stampede at a spontaneous event, but won’t they misuse the situation tomorrow?
Notification issues
One of the problems revealed is that the information about the critical situation moved slowly to top police command.
When responding to a disaster, every minute is precious because information about it must quickly reach the chief decision maker who must assess the situation and give a direct order which, in turn, must go down the bureaucratic chain. That is why the interval between a call to the fire department and the arrival of the fire brigade at the scene, to put it mildly, is not instantaneous. However, the situation can also be exacerbated by the fact that bad news is difficult to deliver.
According to police data, the first call to the emergency hotline was made around 10:15 pm stating that about 10 people had already been crushed by the crowd. However, this time is considered as the official beginning of the stampede, although before that there were at least 11 calls to the police with requests to prevent a potential disaster, and the first warnings of this kind were received 4 hours before mass casualties occurred.
It is the author’s belief that the police department was faced with a difficult choice: either to disperse the crowd, stopping the festivities and depriving people of a merry mood (it is quite clear what the opposition would have said about a disrupted holiday), or simply do nothing and hope that a tragedy would not happen.
According to the media, Yoon Suk-yeol was furious, having learned that the police had not taken any action even after receiving 11 calls, but a separate question is how and when the information had reached top decision-making officials.
A detached squad of special forces affiliated with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency was in standby mode near Itaewon, but it was not mobilized in order to maintain public order.
Who is under investigation?
Already on November 3, a special investigation was launched against the chief of the Yongsan (where Itaewon is located) Police Station Lee Im-jae and Superintendent Ryu Mi-jin from the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. Both have been dismissed and their arrest seems inevitable.
Furthermore, the head of the Yongsan District Fire Department Choi Seong-beom was detained on charges of negligence and inaction in the face of police requests for a joint response. The special investigation unit explained that Choi was unable to properly cope with the situation by not giving an order for mobilizing additional rescue resources from nearby stations.
The head of the Yongsan District Office Park Hee-young and the director of the Hamilton Hotel, by the surname of Lee, are suspected of involvement in the illegal extensions of the hotel which is why the free space was reduced in the lane where the fatal crowd collapse occurred.
The most high-ranking official to be probed is the chief of the public safety department at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (SMPA) Superintendent General Park Sung-min (temporarily suspended from his post on November 4). He is accused of ordering the deletion of an internal intelligence report that contained prior warnings of a possible unfortunate accident during the Halloween period in an attempt to conceal inaction.
However, the head of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (analogue of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) Lee Sang-min has come under fire most of all from the public and politicians. First, he stated that he was “not sure that the disaster could have been prevented, even if more policemen and firefighters had been sent in advance.” After these words, Lee Sang-min was criticized for “an insensitive and immature attempt to evade responsibility.” Second, he refused to quit and symbolically tender his resignation, saying that first consequences must be eliminated and action plans developed for such situations.
On November 14, trade union organizations of the fire department turned to the special unit investigators with a complaint against Lee Sang-min, accusing him of negligence and non-fulfilling official duties that resulted in the death of people. In their opinion, in accordance with the current legislation of South Korea, Lee Sang-min is fully responsible for security during emergency situations, after which on November 16, a representative of the special investigation unit announced the initiation of an investigation against Lee Sang-min. If the inquest determines that Lee Sung-min is directly responsible for disaster prevention or response, he could be officially charged with dereliction of duty or professional negligence resulting in death.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Much of what is published about the impact of the Midterm elections in the US must be taken with a grain of salt, not at face value. It is a lot more complicated than just that the Republicans have squeaked a majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrats in the Senate. Democrats may technically still hold onto a slim majority in the US Senate, but that may not be enough to continue down the proverbial path, with so many “progressive policies” appearing doomed.
The first knee-jerk reaction to the outcome is that the Justice Department is to open an investigation of Trump, appointing a special counsel to look into a plethora of crimes and other dastardly deeds, tax fraud, stealing official documents, and Trump’s effort to stage an insurrection over the contested results of the presidential election.
However, it appears all these alleged crimes are part of a BIGGER political ploy, one to deflect attention from domestic and foreign policy failures, a dismal economy and rampant and intentional inflation. All is coming together like a “perfect storm”, and setting the stage for a showdown with the 2024 presidential elections coming up.
But voters from both parties are fed up with the apparent picks for the final showdown, Trump for his tendency to tell it as it is, no holds barred, and Biden for showing his true colours and mental decline. Hence the results of the midterm elections remain an open question for many, the first volley in what may prove to be a bloody battle.
Now we are looking to the Presidential elections, and teams are drawing lots, taking sides. Before trying to explain the details of how this process works, let me emphasize that American voters are tired of the prospects of either Trump or Biden getting the top job, and this tendency is increasing as people grow tire of the lame rhetoric.
All the while, the US tries to stay the course, at least in the rhetoric over Ukraine, supporting a neo-Nazi régime and pouring more money and weapons into Ukraine, till the last Ukrainian is standing. But the situation on the ground is more complicated, and much of it is saber rattling, bluff.
One indicator of this is that European and American foundations forums and conferences are being cancelled due to the threat of a wider war, in the wake of an apparent “false flag” by Poland with missiles being shot into Poland. However this is probably more “bluff than substance,” as NATO and the US lack cohesion, an army able or willing to fight, and a shortage of troops in the worst-case scenario that a shooting war breaks out.
Turkey and many other NATO countries will not be willing to venture into the mess. Not even the US has combat troops, instead too many chiefs and too few indians.
It is clear that Russia is winning in Ukraine, and the West cannot politically let this happen. However, it is not able to prevent it from happening—and it knows it— in spite of all wishful thinking and rhetoric otherwise.
A question to be asked is if Trump has a chance of winning when so many ranks are being closed against him. Yes, but he will not have the money behind him like the Democrats have from the BitCoin “Swindlers”, FTX, and arms dealers.
Money is what decides elections in the US, not real issues, and definitely NOT who is the best man for the job. It is becoming apparent that much of the money funneled into Ukraine was part of a larger money-laundering scheme, with the money being siphoned back into the Democratic Party and select initiatives, including not controlling the Bitcoin sector. However the effect may be the opposite, as the US government really wants to replace Bitcoin with its own form of fake wealth.
Soon more may surface, and it is too early to predict the pending political demise of Donald Trump and his supporters, despite wishful thinking, especially by the mainstream media. The longer the US-funded régime in Kyiv survives, at the expense of American taxpayers, who are starting to demand hard answers as to where all the money went and why, the sooner Trump will regain his reputation and improve his odds for the top job.
Yes, it will be a close race, especially in the primary, with the “one guy who some state polls supposedly show him losing to — Florida Governor Ron DeSantis” coming on strong. But Trump needs to think more before he talks, and not be so direct, even when he is telling the truth. Nobody wants to hear the truth, especially when it comes from someone who is now in the position to rub it in.
Tides have turned
With Republicans now back in control of the House of Representatives after a campaign in which they emphasized inflation and its impact on average people, largely due to Biden and his corrupt friends trying to shut down the US energy sector, Trump has a good chance. The problem is that the race for him may be in the primary, as DeSantis may be a bigger challenge to him than Joe Biden.
Trump needs to focus on why Americans are poorer now, the needless conflict in Ukraine, the corrupt Biden family, Joe and his drug addict son Hunter, the real origins of Covid-19, the FBI, the withdrawal from Afghanistan and so on.
Republicans need to draw public attention to corruption in elections, mail-in ballots, and giving illegal immigrants the right to vote to throw an election in the Democrats’ favour. The Democratic Party in America has come to represent massive voter fraud. It makes the UNM look like a bunch of amateurs in comparison.
Many Americans, especially Veterans and former military, don’t like the way Biden left Afghanistan, running like a rabbit, in shame. And how do they expect to win in Ukraine when they are up against a real country and real army? Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have much in common, as they are both war prostitutes. Even Volodymyr Zelensky knows how corrupt the Democrats are, but he is benefiting from that corruption.
Ukraine, Taiwan and many other countries need to wake up and understand that America is not the kind of friend you can trust and depend on when you need it the most. Nobody wants to listen to the truth, as it is only “too” self-evident!
Getting the House in Order
The Republicans having gained the majority in the House of Representatives may have the biggest impact on the American political landscape. If we are to believe the campaign promises, the House will now start independent investigations, outside the FBI and US Justice Department and the short-term result will likely be the curtailing funding for various schemes and clip Joe Biden’s wings and his runaway spending.
Less money will be approved for Ukraine and the never-ending supply of weapons. One investigation may be into where all these weapons are, where they ended up, and who are they being sold to. This is something that many insiders already know, and some may their way to friendly countries, such as Georgia, which is seen by war planners as another possible tool to destabilize part of Russia.
But will the practice really match the rhetoric this time? We’ve been promised investigations, results, and accountability time and again. Thus far, absolutely nothing material has occurred. The problem is that too many are benefiting, and not only Democrats from corruption schemes, business as usual.
One in particular which has featured prominently in Republican promises is a thorough investigation of Hunter Biden and how Hunter’s many financial involvements in China and Ukraine connect directly to his father, Joe Biden, President of the United States, and a high-placed network of patronage.
Such an investigation could destroy the Democratic Party and bring the two-party system into serious question—the house of cards will come crashing down. However we do not yet know if Republicans have the stomach for it, as they like the Democrats need an enemy to give their supporters somebody to blame, for the same of doing it.
Senate will be no “Cake Walk!”
The Senate is also almost a tie, with the Democrats having a slight majority, and this means difficulties in getting key nominations to various cabinet posts approved. There will be blowback over Biden trying to circumvent the system with executive orders, a practice Obama made into a fine art, or signing exceptions as under Bush Jr.
The practically even split means many efforts will result in ties, and not much can be accomplished. Keep in mind that even at the best of times, very few pieces of legislation initiated in the Senate actually make it into law.
The Senate is often busy in approving presidential nominees for high-level cabinet positions and judgeships. With an even split, as before the election, that process is slowed down — and will continue to dismay Joe Biden and his highly questionable and often poorly-qualified appointments.
Those Biden wants to serve in his government are often those who are into the woke fades or on the fringes of mainstream society, not supported by Republican Middle America, with its core values and a voting block that delivers – as Richard Nixon called it, the silent majority.
Voters do not like being preached at, and told they have to catch up with the higher understanding of their rulers. The reaction to this is essentially right-wing, and affects parties of the left harder and for longer – the once popular Australian Labor Party government of Ben Chifley, still a highly polarising figure there long after his death, condemned that party to two decades of opposition by becoming perceived as arrogant- voters expect it of the right, but not the left.
You know what you’re voting for!
Elections tell us what is good or bad about any society, and elections alone don’t mean anything without educated people who can make informed choices, which often means choosing between the lesser of two evils. Even then however the only options are the choices available, and it is a common feature of democracies that electors complain that all the parties are the same because no one listens to them – in other words, the choices they are presented with by the parties are not relevant to the issues they have, and won’t either change whatever is bad or protect whatever is good.
The US has long used this as a means of controlling its client states. They may be democracies on paper, and hold elections, but when the only choice is between candidates the US has decided will not take the country in a direction it doesn’t want, and further support is dependent on the right choice between those candidates being made, any talk of democracy is so much hot air.
As an uncle of mine used to say, “it is a crying shame that someone has to win.” This was definitely the case in the US midterm elections, and the real battle is only just starting.
Some seats are still up for grabs, as there will have to be second elections in States like Georgia, where neither candidate won 50 percent of the vote. Some counts will be contested, and then we will find out who expects the most favours for their support, whether or not the voters were told this at the time.
In the end, neither party will have much advantage, as both parties were bought and sold long ago by special interests. Those interests use the parties as a means of entrenching themselves, but by no means the only one: at the end of the day, elections decide who will be doing it in public, and who behind the scenes, without any oversight.
Republicans have an advantage in the House of Representatives, which is based on population, while the Senate has two Senators from each state regardless of their populations. There will be the usual claims of fraud, but even if true, does it actually matter when you can only vote for this unelected special interest or that, regardless of what you want, simply because only those interests have the money to fund candidates?
Even the promised investigations will achieve only one thing: making one special interest feel better and temporarily changing the personnel in another. It is generally supposed that Bill Clinton’s presidency was tarnished by his long-drawn-out impeachment. But his approval ratings shot up when Congress came after him, because the impeachment was seen as special interests persecuting him, not the people seeking justice, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case.
Turnout in US elections is usually lower than in any comparable democracy, because few people think their vote makes a difference. It is more of a personal statement to go to the polls, and you are the same person after you voted as you were before. What you change is who is going to screw you over for the next few years, and who volunteers to be the chopping blocks for the rulers behind the rulers, who know better than the take the flak themselves.
Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Lebanese legislators have failed for the seventh time to elect a successor to former president Michel Aoun, even as the absence of a president hinders efforts to rescue an economy that has fallen into the abyss. Parliament is split between supporters of the Hezbollah group and its opponents, and none of them has a clear majority.
MP Michel Moawad, who is seen as a close ally of the United States, won the support of 42 out of 128 MPs, but that number fell short of the required majority. In addition, there were a large number of spoiled ballots cast by pro-Hezbollah legislators. Moawad’s candidacy is opposed by Hezbollah, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah called on the future president to resist US interference in the country’s internal affairs. “This is not an electoral process, it is a process of waiting for a compromise that harms the country, the people, the economy and the constitution,” said Christian MP and Moawad supporter Sami Gemayel
But this is not surprising, since there have been similar long delays in the election of presidents before. For example, Aoun’s own election in 2016 followed more than two years of vacancy in the presidential palace, as lawmakers made 45 failed attempts before reaching consensus on his candidacy. But the inability to choose Aoun’s successor before his mandate expired late last month has left Lebanon mired in an economic crisis that the World Bank has dubbed one of the worst in modern history. The country has also had only an interim government since May, despite warnings from lenders that sweeping reforms are needed to clear the way for billions of dollars in emergency loans. “The unprecedented institutional vacuum is likely to further delay any agreement to resolve the crisis and ratify critical reforms, exacerbating the plight of Lebanese citizens,” the World Bank warned in a statement. Lebanon’s overall contraction of 37.3% in real GDP since 2018 – one of the worst in the world – has already derailed 15 years of economic growth and is undermining the country’s potential for recovery.
By all accounts, the country has catapulted into an abyss and everyone is blaming each other. People blame the bankers, who in turn blame the central bank. On its part, the Central Bank blames the politicians who blame each other, and so on. Everyone is guilty, including depositors who are accused of being greedy for placing their money in high-interest accounts; but they are also somehow innocent because they acted according to their own benefit.
A total collapse is a complex phenomenon. Engineers have a concept according to which the accumulation of shocks – the systematic and constant destruction of a building, with none of the shocks being strong enough to destroy the building itself – can have a fatal cumulative effect. They call it fatigue. The collapse of Lebanon can also be explained by the constant blows that the country has experienced over a long period. The chronology is amazing, and professionals simply wonder how many countries could survive such a systematic series of crises. “Tremors” in Europe began emerging when it received 2 to 3% of its population as refugees. Lebanon received more of them within a short period due to the Syrian war. Since 2004, the country has experienced a series of assassinations that have led to a constant state of terror. Then there was the devastating war with Israel in the summer of 2006, the 18-month political crisis, the Hezbollah battles in Beirut in 2008, and then the imposed agreement in Doha that continues to paralyze decision-making and government formation to this day.
In a coup d’état in January 2011, the government was overthrown. Then came the aftermath of the war in Syria, followed by a major political crisis with the country’s main economic partners in the Persian Gulf. The result of this isolation and boycott by the Gulf states led to a disruption in the banking system that began in November 2017. That was when the country’s partners and leaders decided that Lebanon was completely under the control of Hezbollah and gave up on it.
As a result of these successive crises, accompanied by an increase in the budget deficit and the balance payment, the economy suffocated year after year until a coup occurred when, under political pressure, wage and benefit revisions cost several times more than the Ministry of Finance had calculated. This more than doubled the annual budget deficit in just one year. Financiers who opposed it predicted that the consequences for the country would be several times more severe than the war with Israel in 2006 – and they were proven right.
Measures could have been taken to prevent the complete collapse of the country, but not when the government and state institutions were permanently paralyzed. Prolonged stagnation and inactivity in any organism can cause what doctors call atrophy – deterioration and decline leading to degeneration and inability to function. For many economists, this is what best describes the effect of political paralysis in Lebanon. These “tremors” first began to appear in 2011, and a wise monetary policy could have prevented a complete collapse. However, for more than three years there was total paralysis, with no functioning parliament, government or president. And all this at a time when constant tensions were fueled by several declarations of war on Israel every year, which led to the cancellation of tourist seasons and the annulment of investment projects. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to imagine a central banker making decisions like depegging the currency to the US dollar or announcing the end of subsidies for electricity and basic necessities like bread and fuel, and then resigning.
Events after the initial collapse were much worse. A debt service default in spring 2020 and a bankruptcy declaration hastened the depreciation of the Lebanese currency, while the depletion of the balance of reserves, and with it people’s access to their deposits, continued through the smuggling of fuel and other subsidized goods across fragile borders. Debts were also paid in Lebanese lira for a fraction of their value.
The Deputy Secretary General of Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Qassem said that if there were no presidential elections in the country today, the economic, social situation and the reconstruction plan could not move forward. That is why the mandatory way to start reforms and start working to save Lebanon is to elect a president, and all blocs bear equal responsibility for his election. In a speech delivered at a meeting with the energy and water committee at Hezbollah’s government working body, Qassem added that they had a certain number of MPs in the House of Representatives who could influence the presidential election, but other blocs also play an important role in the election procedure. No bloc has yet been able to resolve the situation, and Hezbollah has called for an agreement between the various parties on appropriate specifications for the largest number of blocs and MPs. “Since we agree on the priority of the economy and the fight against corruption, let’s resolve all contentious issues through dialogue,” Kassem concluded. “Of course, these demands do not apply to those who have prioritized depriving Lebanon of its strength and exposing it to Israel in its former positions.”
Right now Lebanon has entered another period of paralysis of three main institutions: an interim government unable to make important decisions, a parliament that meets with one item on the agenda, and a presidency in a complete vacuum with no visible candidate. Professor Saleh Mahnouk estimates that between 2005 and 2021, Lebanon was in a state of paralysis and stagnation for 2,925 days, more than half of the time. And now there is a difficult question: will politicians, economists, financiers and ordinary citizens be able to overcome this difficult crisis and revive the country that until fairly recently was called the “Switzerland of the Middle East”?
Viktor Mikhin, corresponding member of RANS, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The results of the meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden, which took place on November 14 on the sidelines of the G20 summit, have been given different evaluations. By official representatives of both countries and independent commentators alike. Which is natural, since, despite the highest level of representation of the […]
US midterm elections don’t usually have much relevance outside the country. A change of President can have a profound effect on the world around, but the composition of Congress is much more of an internal matter, until recently. Americans are very proud of their democratic system, which can be regarded as the world’s first liberal […]
Granting Palestine full member state status at the UN would, according to many politicians, be a practical step that could preserve the two-state solution and help reinvigorate the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. And this view is constantly making its way on the world stage and within the UN walls. Several consultations have been […]
The ongoing debacle in Ukraine demonstrates that the US and the “allies of the willing” are no longer the main power block in the world. There are new camps forming, alliances, and these are often connecxted to old colonial wounds and shared pain. Collectively they are ganging up against the schoolyard bully, the US, and […]
In a previous article, the author described how the authorities were closing in on Moon Jae-in. However, the most serious anti-Moon allegations are not those related to corruption, but those regarding the “North Korean issue,” as they put into question Moon’s main achievement – the improvement of inter-Korean relations. It is important for the Conservatives […]
At first glance, Taiwan’s local elections on November 26 may seem like a sideshow when compared with the development of the current phase of the “Great World Game.” However, this is a false impression, which is at the very least contradicted by the fact that the preliminary results (which were completely unexpected even for the […]
As per the statement posted on the website of the Open Society Foundation (“Open Society” or Soros Foundation – which was declared an undesirable organization in Russia back in 2015), the so-called “charity” of American billionaire George Soros, whose fortune is estimated by Forbes at $6.7 billion, has decided to close its branch – the […]
The start of the special operation to denazify the Kiev regime was essentially a dividing line, revealing not only the true Russophobic attitude towards Russia of the current US political elite and their Western allies, but also clearly highlighting the outspoken defenders and sponsors of today’s neo-Nazis. These circumstances have defined and deepened the sharp […]
The fraudulent parliamentary elections in Bahrain (a small kingdom in the Persian Gulf) were roundly condemned in many countries, as all opposition parties were officially banned from participating. Those who could have stood for election and competed with the ruling regime were instead sentenced to death, sexual violence, beatings, sleep deprivation and other ill-treatment. But since […]
In 1999, after the world faced a massive financial crisis, some sane thoughts prevailed to bring together finance ministers and bankers from the world’s top twenty countries to work towards ways to avoid such a crisis in the future. This group came to be known as G20. In its most recent, seventeenth head of State […]
In the second decade of November this year, the focus of international political life turned to Southeast Asia. There, in Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand, calendar meetings of several international associations were held with the participation of leaders from the region and beyond. The very concentration of such events in Southeast Asia is further evidence of […]
Having an important geostrategic position and being an essential link in the development of cooperation between Central and South Asia as well as in regional security issues, Afghanistan has attracted a lot of attention from its regional neighbors. The Central Asian countries, objectively interested in multifaceted cooperation with all their neighbors, see Afghanistan not only […]
The elections unfolded shortly after the G20 meeting held in nearby Indonesia and the APEC 2022 forum held in Thailand. Taken together, we see both the significant shifting of the region and the world away from US-led unipolarism toward multipolarism, but also efforts by the US to retain its power and influence worldwide. Anwar Ibrahim […]
Although the latest article on how the investigation into possible abuse and corruption by people close to opposition leader Lee Jae-myung is going was not so long ago, new facts and new cases are emerging one after the other. Continuation of the Seongnamgate The last episode ended with the arrest of one of Lee’s closest associates, […]
The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27), held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, from November 6, just ended. However, it did not meet the official deadline (due to end on November 18) and was extended until November 20 due to Western obstruction. It was only then, after desperate debate and discussion, that a general document […]
A year ago, the whole world was actively debating the fate of United States weapons supplied to Afghanistan, which ended up in the hands of terrorists and criminal gangs. It should be recalled that according to Joe Biden, the total US military spending in 2001-2021 on military operations in Afghanistan exceeded $2 trillion, and the […]
In 2011, over a dozen states in the Arab world were hit by a West-instigated wave of protest movements in the name of reshaping the political map of the world and redistributing the region’s natural wealth. At that time, color revolutions raged in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, civil wars destabilized the situation in Libya and […]
Tensions between North and South Korea have not abated, and the advance toward the danger line is unceasing. On November 9, North Korea launched a short-range ballistic missile toward the Sea of Japan. On the same day, the South Korean military announced that fragments of one of the North Korean missiles recovered the previous day […]
According to a growing number of analysts in various countries around the world, the liberal world order that was established on the planet after the end of the Cold War in the interest of the United States is crumbling before our eyes and is definitely doomed. The Economist magazine, which is owned by the Rothschild […]
Protestants are fond of quoting John Calvin’s claim that if you take all the relics of the True Cross and put them all together, they would fill a large ship. This is not, and never has been, actually true. But Calvin’s idea was that the concept of relics, the life-giving body parts or possessions of […]
The phrase “shifting the center of gravity of global processes to the Indo-Pacific” has long been a well-established meme, i.e. it reflects a fairly obvious reality. In this regard, the fact that from November 8 to 19 this year in Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand, in the three countries of the (sub)region of Southeast Asia, a […]
In recent decades, the issue of ensuring the security of African states has become particularly acute. This is as a matter of fact, due to the numerous problems that have accumulated on the continent, including high levels of poverty, the dissatisfaction of the population of several countries with the policies of the authorities, territorial claims, […]
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev was re-elected as the President of Kazakhstan. He was supported by 81.31% of voters in the snap election on November 20. Thus, Tokayev confirmed his legitimacy and the citizens of the republic opted for New Kazakhstan, the program proposed by the head of state. The election was calm, despite warnings from the National […]
The second round of peace talks between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) took place in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi. The talks focused on “military details” to achieve a “lasting” end to violence in Africa’s second most populous country. Delegations from both sides included military leaders and political negotiators. The talks […]
Scarcity and who is getting rich from it is the only geopolitical question that matters today. The proxy military actions in Ukraine are all over the news. Of course, it is. Death, destruction, and war machines have always been popular entertainment. The real war, the battle waged by the elites on us all, is the […]
This author wrote in an earlier publication about the attempts to accuse the DPRK of supplying weapons to Russia, however, barely two months after the provocative New York Times article, the United States has revisited the issue, and at an even higher level. On November 2, 2022, the US National Security Council (NSC) for Strategic […]
Whereas China and Russia do already have an agenda of a new, multipolar world order, they are far from the only players. While undoubtedly the most important ones, both are not only allied with each other, they are forming alliances with countries that were previously squarely placed in the US camp. Among the countries willing […]
The second Japan-Germany 2+2 meeting (i.e. involving foreign and defense ministers) on November 3 is one of those events in the current phase of the “Great Game” that requires special attention and comment. The very phrase “Japan-Germany relations” inadvertently evokes suspicious associations with one of the greatest catastrophes in human history called “World War II”. […]
The death of Queen Elizabeth II, the United Kingdom’s longest reigning monarch, and the inevitable accession of King Charles III have raised the usual debates about the future of the British monarchy As it is the job of the monarch to embody in their person the principles and values of their country, and few people […]
It is said not in vain that one man’s problem is another man’s opportunity. And the military actions in Ukraine against Russia, unleashed by the US and NATO, has clearly demonstrated this. Every day there is more and more evidence to show what huge dividends the US tycoons are reaping from the policies that the […]
“The European Union is paying the price for the war in Ukraine, how long will it hold out?” “Who benefits in Ukraine?” These and similar headlines in the Middle East media reflect the regional response to European policy in Ukraine following the launch of Russia’s special operation against Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime. The authors reflect on […]
From reading the previous article, one could get the impression that, against the background of North Korea’s unprecedented missile activity and the likelihood of a seventh nuclear test by Pyongyang, there are growing calls in the US for an end to Pyongyang through sanctions, a pre-emptive strike or the deployment of nuclear weapons on the […]
The anti-Russian hysteria instigated by Ukraine and Poland, supported by certain members of the current Russophobic military-political elite in the West, around the incident of the two missiles falling in Przewodów, has clearly confirmed not only the fragility of the current system of universal security, But also the fact of active search by neo-Nazis, primarily […]
North Korea has conducted a total of six nuclear tests since 2006 and a seventh is believed to be just around the corner – in 2022, Western experts have named seven or eight dates on which Kim Jong-un will definitely detonate a nuclear bomb. In late October, US Department of State Spokesman Ned Price, ROK […]
A report published in late October (citing a certain “government source”) by one of Japan’s leading newspapers, Yomiuri Shimbun, that the country’s leadership had sent an inquiry to its counterparts in the United States regarding the possibility of purchasing Tomahawk cruise missiles from Raytheon, deserves attention and comment. Because in this case, it is not […]
World events have abandoned any concept of reason or reality. Nuclear war is now seen by many, perhaps most, as inevitable. Insanity and injustice are flourishing and humanity will either end or the mechanisms that make up our world as we know it must grind to a halt. No side even cares to bring God […]
As the struggle for multipolarity and resources in Europe and Asia continues, another field of strategic confrontation between world powers is gradually taking shape. The fragmented African continent, with sensitive hotbeds of simmering and re-emerging conflicts, but rich in natural resources, is increasingly attracting investors from all over the world. Leading Asian economies have been […]
On October 30, 2022, a deadly stampede in Seoul’s Itaewon district tragically killed more than 150 people and left 150 others with various degrees of injuries. The stampede was the worst tragedy in South Korea since the Sewol ferry crash in 2014, which killed 304 people. It should be noted right away that the Itaewon […]
On November 8, the ten-day naval exercise Malabar began in the area of the east coast of Japan with the participation of US warships, Japan itself, India, and Australia. For the past ten years, they have been held annually and represent a notable event in the process of changing the situation in the Indo-Pacific region, […]
The decision of OPEC+ to introduce a deep cut to its oil production definitely came as a shock to the West (the US and the EU). Democrats, including Joe Biden in the US, were quick to point fingers to Saudi Arabia as the culprit. In fact, many Democrats are already demanding that the Kingdom be […]
The United Nations General Assembly has finally voted on a resolution calling on Israel to destroy its entire nuclear arsenal and allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit its nuclear facilities. 152 countries voted “yes”, five – Canada, Israel, Micronesia, Palau, and the United States – against, and another 24 countries, […]
When considering the increase in tensions in the Korean Peninsula in autumn 2022 – an issue the present author has dedicated several articles to – it is worth looking at how relations between North Korea and the USA have developed in the last few months. On June 8, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, acting US ambassador to the […]
No, she’s not simply an idiot. Nor do the Hansiatic elites consider us to be so stupid. The nuclear dystopia or frozen future we may all soon experience is all about economics. So, they have us over a barrel, so to speak. Since they control the distribution of energy, which is the only true measure […]
From November 6-18, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) will take place in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, launching a series of negotiations and discussions aimed at saving the planet and all life on it from the catastrophic effects of climate change. Against the backdrop of a turbulent global environment caused by the West’s armed […]
The events we all can see unfolding on the Korean peninsula at the moment are a good example of the “security dilemma,” in which a country upgrades its military potential to protect itself from its neighbor, but that neighbor sees its actions as an act of aggression and upgrades its own military, thus triggering an […]
On August 26th 2022 as the US-NATO directed counter-offensive against the Donbass Republics and other Ukrainian regions resisting the NATO installed Nazi friendly regime in Kiev began to take place, the NATO states, led by the United States and Britain, escalated their aggression against China. The Donbass Republics and Russian forces broke the Kiev offensive […]
On November 4, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz flew to Beijing for talks with the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Li Keqiang – a remarkable development, given the current state of the Great Global Game. The visit was surprising for a number of reasons – and here, by way of introduction, a few words […]
In the last few months the USA and its European allies (or de facto satellites), and US-controlled media, have been persistently and even obsessively speculating about Russia’s alleged plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict. One of the most recent of these provocations was a story published in Britain’s Daily Mail, which […]
Against the backdrop of recent turbulent international events in various parts of the world, it is not only them that have attracted increased international and media attention, but also the various “stunts” pulled by a number of ambassadors in their political dances on the diplomatic podium. Above all, they are already known for their contemptuous […]
The United States’ energy war unleashed against Russia, followed by the gas terrorism of sabotaging Russia’s gas pipelines to Europe, Nord Stream 1 and 2, is causing outright rejection of this adventurous policy on the part of the international community. It is not only the citizens of Europe, having become hostages of the USA as […]
South Korea’s current conservative government is closing in on the former president, and he is under attack on several fronts at once. On the one hand, there have been several crude attempts to harass him, using illegal methods, and these have been blocked by the courts. While Moon Jae-in took no steps to prevent NGOs […]
It would be easy to dismiss the latest incidents in the Armenian-Azeri conflict zone as more of the same; however, when you read the headlines in the US media, the New York Times for instance, more may be involved. Could not the US send someone besides Nancy Pelosi as an envoy to stir the pot? […]
Since the last Chronicle of the Taiwan Issue, a lot has happened both in terms of specific events and – far more – in verbal and informational space. The main focus of the world media was, of course, on the preparatory process, the course as well as the outcome of the 20th CPC National Congress […]
The end of October was hot. In the early hours of the morning of October 29, Ukrainian aerial drones and underwater drones attacked the Russian naval base in Sevastopol. The attack was repelled, although some ships were damaged, but it had severe political and economic consequences. The Ministry of Defense, followed by the Russian Foreign […]
The start of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was supposed to give the US a hitherto unavailable opportunity to re-unite the Western alliance under its leadership and maintain the US-dominated post-Second World War global order. While the Biden administration has got some success in forcing Europe to renew its allegiance to Washington – and […]
In a previous article, “What is Lee Jae Myung closer to – a prison or political leadership?” it was reported on the criminal cases involving Democratic Party of Korea leader Lee Jae-myung. But new ones are being added to the old ones and it looks like the ground beneath Lee’s feet is beginning to smoke, […]
This is the first meeting of the annual Arab Summit after the long break due to the coronavirus epidemic. It was supposed to be held in March this year but was postponed due to numerous disagreements over the agenda and the desire of the incoming chairman, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, to take some political steps that were […]
Few have noticed that Russia appears to have a wide diversity of opinions on the Ukraine situation. At least this would be the case for an authoritarian state ruled with an iron fist. In the western stream of thought, there’s a lot of fanfare concerning criticisms of Vladimir Putin’s handling of the crisis. It’s as […]
In a recent article the excellent author Pepe Escobar (28 September 2022) declared that the attack on the Russian pipeline (Nord Stream 1 and 2) propelled disaster capitalism to a new, toxic level. The attack upon the two Russian pipelines took place in international waters in the sea off the coast of Sweden. Escobar labelled […]
In early October, Turkey and the outgoing government in Tripoli, led by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, signed an agreement allowing Ankara to explore energy resources in the Mediterranean. According to general opinion in the Arab press and among political scientists, this is not only a blatant violation of international maritime law. It is also confirmation that […]
Western civilization is facing more and more problems. Over the past few decades, there have been many symptoms of a de facto decline of Western powers. Perhaps most clearly, these crises were reflected in the latest report of the so-called Club of Rome. Its authors believe that today’s “crisis is not cyclical, but intensifying. It […]
On October 25 this year, the current monarch of the United Kingdom, King Charles III, confirmed Rishi Sunak as the country’s prime minister. This was the first time that the highest post in the executive branch of a leading European country was occupied by an ethnic Indian, which attracted special attention in the commentaries on […]
In his visit to Australia on October 21-23, Fumio Kishida, the Japanese prime minister, held talks with his counterpart Antony Albanese, as a result of which the two countries adopted an Australia-Japan Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation. The signing of this document represents a significant development in the ongoing transformation of the geopolitical map in […]
On August 28, 2022 the Democratic Party of Korea, currently the main opposition party in South Korea, elected Lee Jae-myung, a former presidential candidate, as its new Chairman. He obtained 77.77% of the votes. His victory means that he has the support of the largest faction in the Democratic Party, and in a survey carried […]
Iraq has taken the first steps toward forming a new government, but whether it can achieve lasting peace in the country remains questionable. Mohammed Shia’ Sabbar Al-Sudani, a former minister who has unexpectedly emerged as the new leader of the Shiites, is poised to take power as prime minister after forming a new coalition government […]
After the failed Hyunmoo missile launch, covered by the author in a previous article, was almost misrepresented by armchair journalists as a North Korean shelling, the author was asked to provide more details. In response to the North Korean launches, the ROK and US militaries fired four (each side two) ATACMS, surface-to-surface missiles. In addition, […]
The next summit of the League of Arab States (LAS), whose participation has been confirmed by the heads of state of numerous Arab countries, will be held in Algiers in early November. On the agenda, of course, are primarily issues related to the reconciliation of a number of Arab countries and their consolidation in the […]
As you may know, the wars of the last century took place mainly because of energy resources, which the industry and economy of the developing world began to need particularly strongly. This is especially evident in the events of World War II, which not only demonstrated the struggle for spheres of influence in general, but […]
In their recent speeches, representatives of Russia and Iran have very positively described the intense contacts between the two countries, assessing visits, meetings and negotiations of the officials of both countries as a steady and unwavering will of these states aimed at shaping a “new era” of mutually beneficial strategic cooperation, including in the economic […]
The 12th International Defense Exhibition DefExpo 2022 opened on October 18 in the western Indian state of Gujarat. Defense ministers from 25 countries are expected to attend the exhibition, with representatives from 75 countries participating. The theme of the exhibition is “The Path to Pride,” reflecting Republic Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s intention to make India […]
One year ago, on October 4, 2021, Fumio Kishida became the head of the government of one of the leading countries in the Indo-Pacific region, Japan. He took over after Yoshihide Suga, who had also led the Japanese government for a year, left the post. One year is an almost magical number for prime ministers […]
The sixth summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) – an international forum uniting the states of the Asian continent with the mission of strengthening relations to ensure stability and security in the region – has ended in Astana. Official representatives of more than 30 states of the Asian region […]
In Washington, economic and financial sanctions remain one of the most favourite options for fighting wars by other means. We continue to witness the use of this tool quite often, with the US strategy to fight Russia’s military operations in Ukraine being the most recent example. A key reason that has thus far enabled the […]
On October 12, just a couple of months before the loudly announced US-Africa summit, the White House released a rather lengthy document, “The US Strategy toward Sub-Saharan Africa”. It defines Washington’s main objectives on the African continent, and details the goals it intends to pursue and the mechanisms of cooperation. The novelty of this […]
The US and the former European metropolises – France, Britain and Germany – have made desperate efforts in recent years to maintain their neo-colonial positions on the African continent. After all, the Western bloc views Africa primarily from a military-geopolitical and resource-based perspective, with projected prospects for global development. These aspects are viewed through the […]
Improving the fight against terrorist groups continues to be a major challenge for a significant number of countries in Africa. After the defeat of radical Islamists in the Middle East, they refocused on the Dark Continent, moving leadership, units and assets to West Africa to make the region a new stronghold of Islamism. Terrorists regularly […]
Relations between Mongolia, Russia and China continue to develop successfully. The focal point of this process lies in the rational and considered decisions of national leaders. Mongolia, a landlocked country with a population of 3.4 million, interacts primarily with its neighbors along its land border, the PRC and the Russian Federation. During the Soviet era, […]
With its actions in recent months, the United States is blatantly pushing the international situation towards a clash of major nuclear powers. This is true of Washington’s blatantly provocative moves against both Russia and China. US officials continue to inflame the situation, intimidating their own and the world public with “imaginary nuclear threats” from Russia […]
On September 27, a state funeral was held for Shinzo Abe in Tokyo’s Nippon Budokan stadium, which was originally built to host the 1964 Summer Olympics. It was only the second state funeral in Japan’s post-war history. The first such funeral was that of Shigeru Yoshida, which took place 55 years ago, in October 1967. […]
On September 29, in an interview with Channel News Asia, British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, who was appointed by new Prime Minister Liz Truss, said with typical British duplicity that the kingdom allegedly wants to normalize relations with the PRC. J. Cleverly, however, stressed that Beijing should play a major role in this process, specifying […]
Perhaps more than ever, the 77th regular session of the UN General Assembly is being actively used by major world players in events missing from the agenda of this esteemed organization. It is by no means an exception in this regard, as the same is observed during scheduled meetings of other international configurations, forums and […]
The ongoing seven-year war in Yemen remains an important element of the wider Middle East conflict. Following the end of a Yemeni truce on October 2, Mohammed Abdessalam of the Ansar Allah group ruling in the North, who is head of the Houthis delegation in talks with the government, said the parties to the conflict […]
As is already well known, referendums were held in the LPR and DPR as well as in Kherson and Zaporozhye regions from September 23 to 27 on the issue of giving up belonging to Ukraine and becoming part of the Russian Federation. They were monitored by a large number of foreign observers who confirmed the […]
The vulnerability of the world, especially Europe, to importing fossil fuels from abroad was already shown by the oil crisis of the 1970s. Europe began to gradually cope with it only a decade later. In a way, the winning move at that time was to actively build nuclear power plants in order to produce high-tech […]
The global confrontation between the superpowers, the PRC and the US, affects every country in the world in one way or another. However, it primarily affects countries within the direct sphere of influence of competing giants. While the US sphere of influence is geographically fragmented and may include African and Asian countries alongside all Western […]
The years leading up to World War I and World War II are often referred to by historians as “diplomatic fever,” because of active mobilization of several powers around the world in both overt and covert alliances. However, such activity was not aimed at preventing conflict, but solely at strengthening their position ahead of the […]
This topic has been raised many times by this author in his NEO articles, and its manifestations are manifold. People’s dislike On December 28, Yoon Suk-yeol stated that most South Koreans, especially young people, dislike China despite President Moon Jae-in’s administration’s pro-China policies, adding that most young Chinese also dislike South Korea. These words were […]
Recent events around the world increasingly confirm the belief that the so-called “American-style democracy” is a bubble, using which Washington, together with its Western allies, is actively trying to move all nations back to a slave system where only it would reign. From this, in fact, stem the armed conflicts unleashed by the West in […]
The topic of political developments in and around Pakistan (remember, a de facto nuclear power!) was left in a state that can be characterized by a few key points. First, the struggle between the faction led by the Pakistan Muslim League (N), which came to power in April this year, and the sidelined faction led […]
The Arab world is actively under reconstruction due to the influence of tectonic political shifts not in favor of the United States, and after a decade of uprisings, upheavals, “revolutions,” and civil wars, many of which were initiated by Washington. Turning away from US dictates, many Arab states today are trying to seize every opportunity […]
At the end of August, Egypt’s central newspaper Al-Ahram published a major article about the turmoil and confusion in which the Arab East finds itself. The author believes that there are many reasons for these developments, but it is primarily sectarian and ethnic divisions, encouraged and exploited by external forces. The roots of this phenomenon […]
This magazine has already discussed Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s radical reshuffling of his cabinet on August 10 this year and the extent to which this decision may have been influenced by various contacts between former Japanese ministers and a certain quasi-religious cult. The cult in question is an offshoot of an organization founded in […]
One area where the difference in strategy between the old and new presidents is particularly evident is the attitude towards the role of nuclear power. It should be recalled that the Moon administration, under the guise of a green agenda, attempted to destroy the country’s nuclear power industry, with the president’s personal “wants” rather than […]
While many around the world hoped for a positive reaction from the United States to Iran’s latest response, the European trio at the talks in Vienna (E3 – the UK, Germany, France) have separately issued a statement that could undo all the positive results of a year of painstaking negotiations. After Tehran responded to an […]
Vladivostok recently hosted the Eurasian Economic Forum where it was addressed by Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. Vladivostok itself is an important centre of development in the Russian Far East and therefore appropriate as the host of the conference whose theme centred on the “path to a multipolar world.” The conference was attended by representatives from […]