#Sovereignty and borders in the Russia-Ukraine conflict

[breaknewsnow]

Russian Missile Strike: 30 Dead in Apartment Building Attack - Breaking News

[dontforgetukraine]

1000 days of full-scale invasion. At 1,000 days, the russo-Ukrainian war is not just a regional conflict; It's a frontline defense of democracy, sovereignty, and international law. russia's unchecked aggression risks a world where borders shift by force, endangering global security. For the US, Europe, and beyond, supporting Ukraine is about upholding these values and securing a future where peace and rule of law prevail.

[mariacallous]

Americans on November 5 will be electing a wartime president. This isn’t a prediction. It’s reality.

Neither candidate has yet spoken plainly enough to the American people about the perils represented by the growing geopolitical and defense industrial collaboration among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This axis of aggressors may be unprecedented in the potential peril it represents.

Neither candidate has outlined the sort of generational strategy that will be required by the United States to address this challenge. Irrespective of whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris is elected, this will be the unavoidable context of their presidency. One will become commander-in-chief at the most perilous geopolitical moment since the Cold War—and perhaps since World War II.

In that spirit, Washington Post columnist George F. Will this week compared the 2024 US elections to the 1940 US elections, when the United States hadn’t yet formally declared war on Imperial Japan, Hitler’s Germany, or Mussolini’s Italy.

What was different then was that one of the two candidates, incumbent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, sensed he was about to become a wartime president and was acting like it. FDR, wrote Will, “was nudging a mostly isolationist nation toward involvement in a global conflict” with his 1937 “quarantine speech” on aggressor nations and through his subsequent military buildup.

FDR’s opponent was Republican businessman Wendell Willkie, who like FDR was more internationalist than isolationist, in the tradition of his party’s elites of that time. “In three weeks,” Will writes, “Americans will not have a comparably reassuring choice when they select the president who will determine the nation’s conduct during World War III, which has begun.”

The point is that just as World War II began with “a cascade of crises,” initiated by the coalescing axis of Japan, Germany, and Italy, so today there is a similar axis—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Will reckons our current global crisis began no later than Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea.

This isn’t the first time that I have quoted diplomat-historian Philip Zelikow in this column. Writing in Texas National Security Review this summer, Zelikow reckoned that the next president has a 20-30 percent chance of being involved in worldwide warfare, which he differentiates from a world war in that not all parties will be involved in every aspect or region.

Zelikow, who recently expanded on these ideas among experts at the Atlantic Council, reckons that the next three years mark a moment of maximum danger. Should the United States navigate this period successfully, alongside global allies and partners, the underlying strengths of the American economy, defense industry, tech, and society should kick in and show their edge over those of the authoritarians.

The problem in the short term is that the United States is facing challengers in Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who may see a window of opportunity in the United States’ domestic distractions, a defense sector not yet adequate for emerging challenges, and an electorate that questions the value and necessity of US international engagement. Both leaders might calculate that acting more forcefully against Ukraine and Taiwan now could produce a greater chance of success than a few years in the future.

Wrote George Will: “From Russia’s western border to the waters where China is aggressively encroaching on Philippine sovereignty, the theater of today’s wars and almost-war episodes spans six of the globe’s 24 time zones.” He says this is what “the gathering storm” of world war looks like, borrowing the title of the first volume of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs.

Will charges the two presidential candidates with “reckless disregard” for failing to provide voters “any evidence of awareness, let alone serious thinking about, the growing global conflagration.”

If that sounds like hyperbole to you, it’s worth reading FDR’s third inaugural address in January 1941, almost a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which prompted Congress to declare war on Japan the following day.

“To us there has come a time,” said Roosevelt, “in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock—to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. If we do not, we risk the real peril of isolation, the real peril of inaction. Lives of nations are determined not by the count of years, but by the lifetime of the human spirit.”

War isn’t inevitable now any more than it was then. When disregarded, however, gathering storms of the sort we’re navigating gain strength.

“In the face of great perils never before encountered,” Roosevelt concluded, “our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy. For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.”

[hey-pretty-mama-its-johnny-bravo]

If you don’t feel like you can vote for one of the presidential candidates, vote for Ukraine. If you feel like your vote can’t save Palestine, vote to save Ukraine.

It may be hard to justify voting in this year’s presidential election, but if you want to do some good and help people with your vote, their is a very clear option.

Ukraine has been in a war for its survival for more than two years now. Casualties in the conflict so far have likely surpassed half a million and continue to grow with each passing day.

Since the beginning, Russia has repeatedly targeted civilian infrastructure with missile strikes. A report from June 2024 gave a figure of 11,126 civilians killed and 21,863 wounded since the beginning of the invasion in February 2022.

Since the early days of the invasion, experts have made reports accusing the Russian state of genocidal acts in occupied Ukraine.

In 2023, Russia pulled out of the grain deal that allowed the export of Ukrainian grain, which accounts for about a tenth of the global supply and is especially vital for food-insecure nations. Though grain exports from Ukraine have recovered, this can be accounted mostly to Russia’s inability to effectively prevent them, and they have bombed grain storage infrastructure that supports these exports. There is no strategic excuse for such actions.

For now, the war is grinding on with little hope of an end any time soon. Ukraine, understandably, is not willing to cede its sovereignty, its territory, and many of its people to Russian oppression. They have fought on against incredible odds, but they are extremely reliant on foreign support, be it financial, humanitarian, or military to continue and make progress in their battle for survival.

The aid that Ukraine needs has been repeatedly blocked by Republicans. It would be dishonest not to mention that these aid packages have also included funds for Israel’s actions in Gaza, which are as terrible or worse than those prosecuted by Russia. But the two can and should be separate, and Republicans have certainly treated them as such.

Donald Trump has frequently complimented Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and was famously impeached (the first time) for reportedly threatening to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president provided dirt on Biden’s son.

Statements by two of Trump’s key advisers show that, if elected, he would withhold further military aid from Ukraine unless the country entered peace talks with Russia. Thus far, Russia has refused to consider any terms that would include a withdrawal from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. The plan also includes a “ceasefire based on prevailing battle lines during peace talks.” Effectively, Ukraine would be pressured into a ceasefire that leaves its territory under the Russian boot.

It’s important to note that the United States is not the only country providing aid to Ukraine, military or otherwise. But there is no other country that can provide military aid at the same level. There simply is no one else that can make up the difference. For Ukraine to go on the offensive and liberate their territory from foreign occupation, there simply is no other alternative to what the United States can provide.

Without continued aid, the war in Ukraine will continue to stagnate. Casualties will continue to mount. The people of Ukraine will continue to suffer as power infrastructure is destroyed by Russian missile strikes. Russian civilians will continue to suffer as their sons are conscripted (disproportionately from rural areas and ethnic minorities) to die for their oligarchs in a war that never needed to happen.

If you don’t feel like you can vote for anything else, vote to give Ukraine what it needs to defend itself and its people. The alternative is genocide and the legitimation of conquest and annexation.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[CFTNI was established by Richard Nixon]

For over two decades, Ukraine has firmly stood by Azerbaijan in support of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. This unwavering stance, which has become more robust and consistent since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, is a reflection of Ukraine’s understanding of the importance of preserving internationally recognized borders in the post-Soviet space.

Furthermore, Ukraine’s refusal to recognize self-proclaimed states, such as Kosovo, is a strategic move aimed at protecting its own sovereignty and territorial integrity[...]

Ukraine’s 2020 national security strategy, [...] declared Azerbaijan a strategic partner on par with Poland, Lithuania, and Georgia. Turkey, which is actively participating in the current conflict on Azerbaijan’s side, also has a strategic partnership with Ukraine.

In contrast, Armenia, a member of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), has traditionally supported Russia in all votes on issues related to Crimea and Donbas. On the other hand, Azerbaijan has consistently voted in favor of Ukraine.

Given its foreign policy priorities and ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine has expressed support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [...]

Since 2014, the UN General Assembly has adopted nine resolutions related to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the human rights situation in Crimea, and the region’s militarization. But, Armenia has voted against all nine resolutions on Crimea. Armenia has used this support for the concept of “self-determination” in Crimea as a justification for a similar process in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, this approach has moved further away from a peaceful settlement and has drawn Armenia closer to its main ally, Russia. [...]

For over two decades, Ukraine has stood as a steadfast ally of Azerbaijan, consistently supporting its territorial integrity [inclusion of Artsakh] since the first ceasefire in 1994.

21 Feb 23

[lunarsilkscreen]

On Terrorists Cells

So I talked before how there's Trolls in the hacker community trying to sow Discord among nations (Not the App).

And this is important for the idea we have in America about decentralized terrorist cells.

This comes from our understanding of Gang-warfare. We may have also used similar tactics to throw decades worth of tea into the harbor called "Guerrilla-Tactics".

Yup, that concept is taught to us in elementary school. We know our historic warfare tactics better than our times-tables.

And the evidence we've had to go on at the time identified similar ideologies, speech patterns, and gang tactics that we're used to.

What this has resulted in in the "real-world". Is a conflation with unaffiliated cells, civil unrest, and multiple separate groups identified as parts of the same terrorist organization.

In corporate terms, we'd call this "A Conglomerate."

And it's led to mass recognition of Hamas, Al-Queda, ISIS, ISIL, the Iraq and Iranian militaries, and many more as parts of this same groups.

There were so many potential Paramilitaries that we had trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

With so many different governments for the various areas; our citizens had trouble telling the actual scale of the various conflicts.

Tiny; like football teams and city mayors going to war with each other.

Not the same as a conflict between, say, Ukraine and Russia. Which is closer to what we might call a civil war.

With all the history and all our perceptions; Russia is definitely a seemingly purposeful Bully. So we must consider exactly what this conflict is really about. If it's simply territory; the easiest solution is form conglomerations.

Which is where we as outsiders must make certain we don't make petty escalations the problem of neighboring Territories. "Neighbor Hoods" or "Towns" or "Cities".

And in the case of Migrant Tribes.... Like the Romani; we have to take care we don't tip the scale with our big elephant foot to someone else's Stag Beetle.

In America we caused attrocities to our own Migrant Tribes; what we refer to as "Native Americans" only because they were here before the white people.

If you're really having trouble on such a small scale; you can't stand a chance against our very large scales.

And this can apply to a lot of what America does; warfare can decimate local militia. Aid can destroy local businesses and disrupt small economies, which are inextricably linked to our global economy.

We've become masters of Guerrilla-Tactics from both sides. *We* should know better.

But we became fearful of our enemies; Germany, China, Russia, Mexico, tiny little ol Cuba.

When people were persecuted we found somebody in charge of the whole thing to arm so they could "Take care of themselves".

This brings me to Israel.

Knowing whatever I've told you already + your misconceptions, stereotypes, any added information.

What do you think of the situation?

Israel is the only tiny little places in the world with as much authority as a Nation like China or the U.S. despite still being in that "Mayor" mindset.

How can we expect such a small place to defend itself against the entire world?

It's just that tiny.

Our attention gave them authority over the other people around them; and other similar sized leaders; like Mayors. Became enemies.

Israel is a single State and not as United as our States are.

They need to understand that they are now responsible for the lives of all the people around them; especially ones outside their borders. The same kind of responsibility only we have known for quite some time.

No offense China. Our Unity is quite different from yours.

As Scary as it may seem; Israel has been chosen to lead a unification process, but abused it in fear for their own sovereignty.

Well, we can't go back on word now. But we must remember; they can be bullies to the Jews outside their borders, just like we can be to Mexico and Canada....and the whole world really.

Just because the Sun rises in Israel, doesn't mean it should set over Palestine.

And so we must be sensitive to what damages even our "Friendly Gestures" might cause.

So the question to Israel; is this *really* an "Us or Them" situation? Or are you exiling Jews as you've done before?

Strength is in uniting with your neighbors in beneficial ways for all.

But fear gets the best of us.

Fear for our God given Lives. If life is a gift, and we should be thankful for it. It's not in service to a single man.

Better understanding of your own local laws, even from "outsiders" is key.

But here's the thing that all men can understand;

Most laws can be boiled down into one Law; "Don't be a [big meanie]".

If you want to split them into ten; following the commandments might as well be good enough for any place in the world.

If you're not Religious you can replace [no God's before me] and [not to worship idols]

With [separation of church and state] (don't bring up religion because then they'll counter with theirs)

And [Celebrities are not the Law]. Politicians, people, whatever.

And "Stick to those rules before being told anything else is allowed."

You know; entrapment and all that.

Because; which laws aren't covered here? By these ten, even if you ignore the God part.

Just Remember; Taylor Swift fans comprise twice the population of Israel. That's the kind of difference in scale we need to take into account.

[workersolidarity]

Watch "Putin shows 'draft peace agreement' with Ukraine to African leaders in meeting" on YouTube

With the African Delegation first visiting Kyiv and then visiting Moscow with the hope of beginning discussions for a ceasefire or peace agreement, Vladimir Putin used this opportunity to showcase Ukrainian obstinance to enforcing any agreement.

Putin produced a copy of the agreement negotiated by Turkey, Ukraine and Russia during the early days of the war, some time around late March 2022.

The agreement covered all the major issues surrounding the conflict, covering issues such as how many troops the two countries could place on their borders and other military and political differences.

The Kyiv delegation even initialed and signed the document, as Putin shows to the African delegation. After the documents were signed, the Ukrainian delegation went back with the agreement to Kyiv to begin ratification.

Meanwhile, to showcase their commitment to the peace agreement, as the Russians have been explaining to the world ever since, Putin pulled back troops fighting near Kyiv.

Again, Putin didn't pull back troops because they were supposedly losing the battle, an absurd notion especially now almost a year and a half into the war. No, Putin pulled back the troops fighting near Kyiv as a show of good faith in light of a possible negotiated settlement.

Here's a headline at the time:

But then as we all remember, Boris Johnson made an urgent trip to Kyiv where he urged Zelensky and the Ukrainian government to rip up and throw out the agreement, which they promptly did.

The new documents President Putin showed to the African delegation is the first we have seen of the actual documents in the agreement.

It's just more evidence that NATO are really the ones in charge of Ukraine, not Ukrainian elected officials, if any legitimately exist.

Any kind of peace agreement, ceasefire or political settlement of the conflict must be negotiated between the Russian Federation and the UNITED STATES and NATO, not Ukraine. Pretending Ukraine has any sovereignty whatsoever to negotiate a settlement in this war will do nothing to put an end to the bloodshed.

[sevaghves]

I see some misunderstanding among Armenians about the capabilities our state, the Republic of Armenia, has had in the last two decades.

The corruption of the previous governments left the army in a really bad shape. Their incompetence and subjugation to Russia lowered our position in the Karabakh negotiations to 0. Same about relationship with the West. US and EU were very favorable to Armenia in late 1990s but grew to mistrust us due to Sargsyan and Kocharyan's loyalty to Putin.

Russia has been arming Azeris more heavily than us for over a decade. It is no secret that Putin's plan is to recreate the Russian empire and the only reason Putin isn't touching Azerbaijan is that it already belongs to Turkey.

In these circumstances, we entered the 2020 war without the things we needed the most: a well-armed and trained army, and good relations with world powers.

Nikol Pashinyan's government was well aware of Russia's intentions and pledged to maintain the same foreign policy as the previous governments to prevent bloodshed in Artsakh. It didn't work because Putin already knew how weak our country was. Why negotiate with someone you can easily outpower? The West didn't react to Pashinyan's signals, because they had a bad experience in Georgia and didn't want to interfere if things went south again in the South Caucasus.

After the 2020 disaster, Pashinyan's government faced the same external threats, but with even less resources. In the negotiations, every independent move that protected Armenia's sovereignty was punished by Russia through Azeri attacks on our borders.

The war in Ukraine changed a lot. The West grew very concerned with territorial integrity of states. Azerbaijan couldn't make more land grabs without consequences. Artsakh thus remained the only leverage Russia had on Armenia, which gave Armenians hope that the ethnic cleansing of 2020 would not resume as it would mean the end of legal Russian presence in this region.

For the West, it is far more convenient to work with Armenia without Artsakh. Russia's apparent betrayal is also in the West's favor.

Could Pashinyan's government have done more?

The problem isn't that they aren't making reforms and correcting the foreign policy. The problem is that they are too slow and they lack political foresight to be proactive. Unable to fight for Artsakh now, they seem to have chosen to let the ethnic cleansing happen to justify severing ties with Russia and turning towards the West.

This government chose to fight in 2020 when they had no chance of winning. They chose not to repeat that in 2023. Only the lack of a coherent and competent political force that could compete with this government in the elections has kept Pashinyan in power. Everyone else is just worse than his team.

But we as citizens must admit our own share of blame. We underestimated the danger. We didn't prepare for war. We put all responsibility on the government we knew wasn't effective enough.

This is our chance to unite and reunite as a nation. Train and prepare for conflicts. Be better educated about foreign affairs. Demand higher standard from politicians. Stop criticizing each other for having a different opinion. Work together to become stronger and produce a better political elite.

[babylon-crashing]

The following opinion piece was written by Mark Gavoor in the Armenian Weekly and I am reprinting it here because it sums up better than I can do many of the conflicting emotions I am feeling right now:

Like most everyone who reads this, I am feeling very sad and helpless.  Armenians around the world knew it was likely this day would come, when our enemy would begin a military offensive to take Artsakh. We knew this was more likely than a favorable outcome for the Armenians. We have felt this way since the blockade of the Berdzor (Lachin) Corridor started over nine months ago. We have felt this way since Aliyev began referring to the Republic of Armenia as Western Azerbaijan. We knew, but felt helpless to do anything about it. The government of the Republic of Armenia seemed unable to do anything either. The Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan recognized Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan earlier this year. Many in Armenia and the diaspora were appalled by this announcement and accused him of caving in, but no one offered any viable alternatives.  Sadly, an alternative based on self-determination required the Armenians in Armenia or Artsakh to have a military capable of providing a military defense. The days of grabbing a rifle or pitchfork and heroically defending the homeland are well behind us. The only other option was to wait for another country to step in and make Azerbaijan and Turkey agree to terms favorable to the Armenians. Who would do this? Russia, the U.S., France or India?  Countries rarely act on altruism. Look at the news. Our story is buried on page six, if anywhere. It is not the lead story. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressing the U.N. is a top story. The U.S. giving $24 billion in aid to Ukraine is a top story. We are an afterthought or no thought at all. The U.S. still gives aid to Azerbaijan. Yet the U.S. State Department made a statement: The United States is deeply concerned by Azerbaijan’s military actions in Nagorno-Karabakh and calls on Azerbaijan to cease these actions immediately. These actions are worsening an already dire humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and undermine prospects for peace. Nice words. I can’t imagine they will have any more impact on the outcome in Artsakh than the words I am typing here.  What is the best we hope for now? Will the U.S. and France provide evacuation and resettlement aid for the people of Artsakh? A guarantee of the sovereignty and borders of the Republic of Armenia? Who can possibly make and back-up such a guarantee? Does Armenia become a vassal state of…you tell me? I am not a diplomat, in the leadership of any government or political party, or an expert in international affairs. What do I know? I know that Artsakh is Armenian. We all know that to the core of our beings. Yet we seem to be the only people in the world to believe that. Borders were drawn a century ago, and everyone but us believes that land is now part of Azerbaijan. We cannot do anything to change that or what is happening in Artsakh.  Armenians are in a very precarious position. What is the future of our homeland, our self-determination? I am not sure we even have a paper ladle these days.

Mark Gavoor

Mark Gavoor is Associate Professor of Operations Management in the School of Business and Nonprofit Management at North Park University in Chicago. He is an avid blogger and oud player.

[felipeandletizia]

December 24, 2022: King Felipe Christmas Message

Good evening.

I am very glad to be able to be in your homes and continue this tradition of sending you my best wishes, especially of peace, on Christmas Eve, and also to share with you some thoughts on the most notable events of the year now ending.

2022 has been, and still is, complicated and difficult. Just as no recent years have been easy. Just when we thought the worst of the pandemic was over — certainly the best news of the year — in February Russia invaded Ukraine, and since then we have witnessed ten months of a war which has caused levels of destruction and ruin hard to imagine in our everyday reality. We have felt the suffering of the Ukrainian people, and we still feel great sadness for the loss of thousands of human lives.

To the Ukrainian refugees in our country and all their compatriots, you are in our hearts, especially today.

We are here, with a new war in Europe, at the borders of some of our European partners and allies, and therefore close to us; and which affects not only Ukraine, but has a global impact.

And this has also affected our security. As well as strengthening our collective defensive capacity with our allies, Spain has joined the vast majority of the international community in supporting Ukraine, and restating our commitment that the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States are essential principles of an international order based on law and which must always seek peace.

Spain’s NATO summit, which was held here in Madrid, helped reinforce the unity of all members of the Alliance, and of the European Union.

This war, together with the effects of the pandemic, is obviously having a profound impact on the economy; it has led to an energy crisis with serious consequences for industry, trade, transport, and particularly, household economies.

Rising prices, especially of food, have meant insecurity in our homes. Everyday actions like turning on the heating or the light, or refuelling the car, have become a cause for concern, and in many cases have meant important personal and family sacrifices. Because there are families who cannot deal with a situation like this for long, and need continuous government support to mitigate its economic and social effects.

All of this new scenario we are living through - the war, the economic and social situation, instability and tensions in international relations, are naturally causing great concern and uncertainty in our society. We cannot ignore the seriousness of these problems, but we also cannot give up the possibility that things can change and improve.

First, once again, we must trust in ourselves as a nation. The transformation and modernisation of Spain over the last four decades, thanks to the success of our transition to democracy and the approval of our Constitution, justifies that trust. As does the way we have overcome our other economic, social and institutional crises; most recently, that of Covid. We are a country which has always rallied, even through difficulty and sacrifice, to cope with all its challenges, which have been many over the years.

As well as believing in ourselves, in our capability, more than ever in these difficult times we need everyone to be more committed than ever to our democracy and to Europe, the European Union, the two pillars on which our present and future rest.

● The world’s democracies are exposed to many dangers, which are not new; but the risks of today have a particular intensity. And Spain is no exception. But there are three dangers I want to examine, because I think they are very important: one is division; another is the deterioration of cohesion; the third is the erosion of institutions.

A country or a society which is divided or in conflict cannot advance or make progress, resolve its problems properly, or create trust. Division makes democracies more fragile, but unity strengthens them.

In Spain we know this from experience. Our Constitution, the fruit of dialogue and understanding, represents the unity achieved by the people of Spain, as a commitment to the future, to diversity and harmony, for a young democracy. Today, after all these years, our constitutional values are firmly rooted in our society, and are now the point of reference where Spaniards must find the unity which ensures stability, cohesion and progress, and the harmonious coexistence which, as I have often said, is our greatest heritage.

A coexistence which requires our collective life to fully recognise our freedoms alongside respect and consideration for other people, their beliefs and their dignity. It must be guided by reason; it demands putting the will to integrate above the desire to exclude.

In this task, we need to strengthen our institutions. Robust institutions which protect the people, respond to their concerns, guarantee their rights, and support families and young people in overcoming many of their everyday problems. Institutions which reflect the public interest and perform their tasks with dedication, with respect for the Constitution and the law, and are an example of integrity and honesty. And this is the standard to which all our institutions must always be committed.

I think that at this time, we must all take personal responsibility and think constructively about the possible consequences of ignoring these dangers for our unity, our cohesion, and our institutions.

We cannot take everything we have built for granted. Nearly 45 years have gone by since the Constitution was passed, and of course many things have changed and are still changing. But the spirit that created it, its principles and its foundation, which are the work of all of us, must not be undermined or forgotten. They are a unique value in our constitutional and political history which we must protect, because they are the place where the people of Spain recognise ourselves and accept each other, despite our differences; the place where we have lived and continue living in freedom.

● Europe is the second commitment I wanted to talk about. For Spain, Europe has always represented freedom. It contributed to the consolidation of our democracy, strengthening our economic growth and social development.

Today, we share many of its problems and we contribute to its decisions with our own personality and our own interests. The shared challenges we face, from healthcare to finance or those relating to our energy and environmental models, receive solutions which form part of the common framework of the European Union. So the decisions made in the Union every day can be felt in the everyday life of everyone in Spain. This is reality.

We are Europe, but we also need Europe, our major political, economic and social framework, which also offers us certainty and security. I am sure that Spain’s commitment will be reinforced when we take up the rotating Presidency of the Union next year.

I said at the beginning that these are times of uncertainty. But if the success of a nation depends on the character of its citizens, and on the personality and spirit which drive its society, we must have reasons to look to the future with hope.

We are one of the world’s great nations, with many centuries of history, and the people of Spain must continue deciding our destiny, our future, together. Taking care of our democracy; protecting our cohesion; strengthening our institutions.

We must continue sharing goals, always with a spirit of renewal and adapting to changing times. With confidence in our country, in a Spain which I know well, brave and open to the world: a Spain that seeks serenity, peace, tranquillity; a Spain which is responsible, creative, vital, and generous. That Spain is what I see, what I hear, what I feel in many of you; and it is what, once again, will move forward. It’s up to all of you.

And finally, on this special night, thank you so much for listening. The Queen, our daughters Princess Leonor and Infanta Sofía, and I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Feliz Navidad, Eguberri On, Bon Nadal, Boas Festas.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 17, 2023 (Thursday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Philip Stephens of Financial Times today pointed out how much global politics has changed since 2016. That was the year of Brexit and Trump, when those calling for national sovereignty and iron-bound borders seemed to have the upper hand, and it seemed we were entering a new era in which nations would hunker down and international cooperation was a thing of the past.

But now, just seven years later, international cooperation is evident everywhere. Stephens pointed out that a series of crises have shown that nations cannot work alone. Migrants fleeing the war in Syria in 2015 made it clear that countries must cooperate to manage national borders. Then Covid showed that we must manage health across political boundaries, and then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine proved that European nations—and other countries on other continents—must stand together militarily in their common defense. 

That embrace of cooperation is in no small part thanks to President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who have focused on bringing together international coalitions.

The new global stance is on display in the U.S. right now as President Biden hosts the first-ever trilateral summit with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan and President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea. This is not an easy meeting—Japan and South Korea have a long history of conflict—but they are working to mend fences* to stand firm against North Korea, including its missile tests, and to present a united front in the face of Chinese power. 

Secretary Blinken noted for reporters on Tuesday that the world is currently being tested by geopolitical competition, climate change, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and nuclear aggressions. “Our heightened engagement is part of our broader efforts to revitalize, to strengthen, to knit together our alliances and partnerships—and in this case, to help realize a shared vision of an Indo-Pacific that is free and open, prosperous, secure, resilient, and connected,” he said. “And what we mean by that is a region where countries are free to chart their own path and to find their own partners, where problems are dealt with openly, where rules are reached transparently and applied fairly, and where goods, ideas, and people can flow lawfully and freely.”

Cooperation between Japan and South Korea “helps us promote peace and stability and furthers our commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It advances our shared values and helps uphold principles of the UN Charter like sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity. It allows us to even more expand opportunity and prosperity.”

Blinken addressed Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion, backed by an international coalition, and reiterated that Ukrainians are upholding “the basic principles—sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence—that are vital to maintaining international peace and security.”

In squeezing Russia, international cooperation has again been vital. The Swiss corporation Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiqes (SITA), which is responsible for booking, flight messaging, baggage tracking, and other airline applications, announced in May that it will leave Russia this autumn. Russian carriers are scrambling. 

Blinken also confirmed that the Biden administration last week achieved a deal with Iran over U.S. prisoners. Iran moved four dual citizens from the infamous Evin Prison to house arrest, and the U.S. is working to get them, along with one more who was already under house arrest, home. In exchange, the U.S. will release several Iranian prisoners along with $6 billion of Iranian oil revenue currently held in South Korea.

Several Republicans have opposed that deal. The senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James E. Risch of Idaho, said that the “unfreezing” of funds “incentivizes hostage taking & provides a windfall for regime aggression,” and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) called the money “ransom” and said it was a “craven act of appeasement.” 

But in an op-ed on the national security website Defense One, Ryan Costello, the policy director for the National Iranian American Council, called the deal a win-win. The Iranian money will be released to Qatar, which will release it for purchases of food and medicine, which are not sanctioned. Medicine is desperately needed in Iran, and as Biden said in 2020: “Whatever our profound differences with the Iranian government, we should support the Iranian people.”

In his remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Blinken defended the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan almost exactly two years ago, saying the decision to withdraw was “incredibly difficult” but correct. “We ended America’s longest war,” he said. “For the first time in 20 years, we don’t have another generation of young Americans going to fight and die in Afghanistan. And in turn, that has enabled us to even more effectively meet the many challenges of our time, from great power competition to the many transnational issues that we’re dealing with that are affecting the lives of our people and people around the world.”

He noted that the U.S. continues to be the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, contributing about $1.9 billion since 2021, and that the U.S. continues to work to hold the Taliban accountable for the rights of women and girls. 

In Niger, a key U.S. ally in Africa against terrorism, military forces took power from the democratically elected president on July 26, and now the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a regional union of fifteen countries, has said it will intervene militarily if diplomatic efforts to restore President Mohamed Bazoum to power fail. Army chiefs met today in Ghana to discuss creating a standby force. Nigeria’s chief of defense staff, General Christopher Gwabin Musa, told the meeting: “The focus of our gathering is not simply to react to events, but to proactively chart a course that results in peace and promote[s] stability." 

Blinken said Tuesday that the U.S. strongly supports the efforts of ECOWAS to restore Niger’s constitutional order, but the African Union apparently opposes intervention out of concern that such intervention might trigger a civil war.

Meanwhile, in Sudan, where the Biden administration hoped working with two rival generals would pressure them to restore civilian democracy, the country has been torn apart as those two generals now vie for power. Days ago, the U.S. government warned of corruption and human rights violations in South Sudan, with one of the rival military forces, the Rapid Support Forces, apparently engaging in widespread targeted killing and sexual violence in the western Sudan region of Darfur.

Yesterday, the State Department called for the two factions to stop fighting. “Every day this senseless conflict continues, more innocent civilians are killed, wounded, and left without homes, food, or livelihoods. The parties must end the bloodshed. There is no acceptable military solution to this conflict,” it said. 

—

*The expression “mending fences” appears to come from U.S. Senator John Sherman (R-OH), who in 1879 told reporters he had to go home to take care of his farm (including mending his fences) when everyone had a pretty shrewd idea he was trying to repair political relationships to shore up support, hoping for a presidential nomination. (It didn’t work: his chief manager was Representative James A. Garfield (R-OH), who ended up getting the nomination himself.)

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[nicklloydnow]

“The Kremlin’s vaunted military machine became mired in thick Ukrainian mud before having to surrender most of its initial gains. The repercussions are being felt everywhere. In Moldova, the government has openly condemned a Russian coup plot. In the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, Russian peacekeepers have been standing by helplessly while Azerbaijan reinstates its sovereignty over the disputed Karabakh region. Russia has been forced to inform its longtime Armenian allies that they must accept that Karabakh Armenians live in Azerbaijan. In Kazakhstan, the government has broken from Moscow, signaling its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The effects are nowhere stronger than in Europe, where Poland now aspires to become the next military superpower, the Baltic states welcome a permanent NATO presence and Germany has promised to rearm against the menace in the East.

The most cataclysmic changes for Russia have been north of the Baltic Sea, where the neutral countries of Finland and Sweden flew into the arms of NATO and its Article Five protections. Putin claimed that Ukraine’s NATO pretentions were an existential threat to the Russian Federation — Kyiv is, after all, only an 11-hour drive from Moscow. But Putin now shares a NATO border with Finland, a mere five-hour drive from Saint Petersburg.

(…)

The biggest wildcard now is China. After declaring its relationship with Russia as something closer than an alliance, China announced that it would not provide lethal aid to Russia. Now it has gone a step further, declaring that it will ban the export of its dual-use drones.

On balance, America is backing the winning side in this global competition. Despite the Russian/Chinese propaganda that America is a nation in decline, it still maintains the greatest conventional military in the world. Its nuclear arsenal is only matched by Russia’s; its economy is the marvel of the world. And Russia has almost single-handedly done something the United States could not do: expand and reinvigorate the American-led NATO alliance.

(…)

Putin’s worldview, however, visible to all since the 2007 Munich Security Conference, is that America is an implacable enemy that must be stopped from imposing its values on the Russian world. Negotiations cannot alter this perception — they can only give Putin time to rearm and renew his struggle with the West.

The U.S. should continue to support Ukraine in its struggle for independence from its northern hegemon. At the same time, it should look to other fronts that will weaken the Kremlin’s desire to continue fighting.

Renewed ties with China will go a long way toward stymying Moscow. America should also help other countries facing Russian occupation. Moldova would like to restore its sovereignty over its territory; Armenia and Azerbaijan do not need Russian troops on the border; Georgia should not be bound by a unilateral renunciation of force that Russia has never reciprocated.

It is time for the U.S. to stop looking toward the next election drama in Washington, D.C., and reclaim its title as leader of the Free World.”

[williamkergroach55]

Saved by the Russians

Located in the Caucasus, Abkhazia is a region with multiple influences that has experienced a tumultuous history, including foreign conquests, ethnic tensions, and struggles for independence. Today, Russia remains its only bulwark against Washington's attacks.

The Origins of Abkhazia: A Greek and Roman Region In the 6th century BC, the Greeks established commercial outposts in Abkhazia, then called Colchis. The city of Dioscurias (now Sukhumi) became a prosperous commercial center. The Romans fortified the city in the 1st century BC. This period was marked by the cultural and commercial influences of two Greek and Roman empires. In 523 AD, Abkhazia became part of the Byzantine Empire and adopted Christianity. The Kingdom of Abkhazia prospered and extended its influence over much of western Georgia. From the 10th to the 13th century, Abkhazia was united with the Georgians in the medieval kingdom of the "Sovereigns of Abkhazia and Georgia." This period is considered the golden age of Abkhazia.

Ottoman and Russian Invasions In the 14th century, part of Abkhazia was under the dominion of the Mingrelians of Georgia. The Abkhazian dynasty Chachba drove out the Mingrelians in the 15th and 16th centuries and established the southern border that still exists to this day. In 1578, Abkhazia was invaded by the Ottoman Empire. In the 18th century, Abkhazia, allied with Georgia, tried to drive out the Turks. In the early 19th century, Abkhazia came under Russian domination. In 1864, it was forcibly annexed to the Russian Empire, and half of the Abkhazian population fled to Turkey and the Middle East.

Georgian Supervision In 1921, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Mensheviks in Georgia, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia, led by Nestor Lakoba. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia was established independently of Georgia. After signing the formation of the USSR in 1922, Abkhazia was reduced to the status of an autonomous republic within Georgia in 1931. On the orders of Georgian Stalin and Mingrelian Beria, the Abkhazians then underwent a policy of "Georgianization." Many Mingrelian Georgians settled in Abkhazia, depriving the Abkhazians of their language and culture. In 1978, Abkhazian intellectuals protested against this policy, leading to concessions such as the opening of the Abkhazian State University and the weekly television broadcast of a 30-minute program in Abkhazian.

Contested Independence In 1990, Abkhazia declared its sovereignty, but it was quickly revoked by Georgia. In 1992, Abkhazia declared its own sovereignty and proposed a federative treaty to Georgia. Georgian troops then suddenly invaded Abkhazia, triggering a 13-month armed conflict. The war caused about 260,000 people to flee, mostly families attached to Georgia. Since then, Abkhazia's population has been divided by half. The majority of Abkhazians are Orthodox Christians, representing about 75% of the population. Abkhazian historian Stanislav Lakoba, when asked about Abkhazia's religion, replied that Abkhazians are "80% Christians, 20% Sunni Muslims, and 100% pagans!"

Many families actually observe both Christian and Muslim, Orthodox, or pagan holidays. In 1993, Abkhazian forces, supported by the Confederation of Peoples of the North Caucasus, finally drove Georgian troops out of their territory. In 2008, Russia recognized Abkhazia as an independent state, as did Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, and Syria.

A fragile peace Since the 2007 elections, tensions with Georgia remain present. Georgia has begun to strengthen its army near the border, purchasing modern equipment from Ukraine and hosting American and Israeli military instructors who are eager to destabilize the region. The Abkhazian government, for its part, continues to confirm its ties with Russia.

Russia, supporter of Abkhazia Russia is the main supporter of Abkhazia. The distribution of Russian passports to nearly 80% of Abkhazians guarantees their protection from Moscow. Under Article 65 paragraph 2 of the Russian constitution, Moscow has the obligation to assist its citizens wherever they are in the world. Thanks to Moscow's protection, Abkhazia now has the attributes of an independent state. Its capital, Sukhumi, a renowned seaside resort, has become the center of its political power. Russia has established an air base in Gudauta, and the naval base in Novoazovskoye, located in the city of Oust-Louga. The Gudauta air base is a former Soviet base and has been used by Russian forces for their operations in Abkhazia since the 1992-1993 conflict. The Novoazovskoye naval base is a recent base built after Russia's recognition of Abkhazia in 2008 and has become an important base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the region. The Russian military presence strives to guarantee the sovereignty and security of the Abkhazian republic, against the secret maneuvers of Washington.

Renewed stability Abkhazia is beginning to regain a peaceful and serene life. Primarily rural, the country has a variety of abundant agricultural natural resources, mainly citrus fruits, tobacco, tea, and wood. The country also has some energy resources with coal mines and hydroelectric power plants. Above all, Abkhazia, rich in fresh water, could become one of the world's largest exporters. With peace, tourism in Abkhazia is also on the rise, with around 1.5 million visitors in 2022. Abkhazia's economy, using the ruble as currency, primarily looks to Russia as an export market, trade partner, and investor. But Turkey is also becoming another discreet major economic partner of Abkhazia. Intelligence services involved in tensions Unfortunately, Abkhazia is in the Caucasus, a region that the enemies of Russia and American intelligence services in particular want to destabilize. NATO forces and the CIA intervened to support Georgian forces during the war. They also conduct disinformation operations to influence world public opinion against the small Abkhazian republic. The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) are therefore facing off against the Georgian Ministry of State Security (MSE), the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the Polish Military Intelligence and Counterintelligence Service (SWKW), which trains and equips the Georgian army. Since its independence, the Abkhazian territory has been the scene of a deadly shadow game between enemy intelligence services, as in the times of the Cold War.

The Caucasus, a strategic region Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, defined Washington's objectives in the Caucasus. He considered the Caucasus region a key element in global geopolitics. For him, the Caucasus was a pivot region between Europe and Asia, between the former Soviet world and the boiling Muslim world, and between the vast energy resources of the region and the global powers that depend on them. In his book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" published in 1997, Brzezinski emphasized that control of the Caucasus was essential for global powers due to its energy resources, especially its oil and gas reserves. He also noted that the region was an important crossroads for commercial routes linking Europe and Asia. Brzezinski named ethnic and religious tensions, geopolitical rivalry between Russia and Turkey, and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism as levers to be exploited to destabilize the region. The control, or destruction, of this region was therefore crucial for the United States. Brzezinski defined the Caucasus region as a key zone in the struggle for global influence between great powers. That is why the geopolitics of the region, and the fate of Abkhazia, have become an important issue for major powers such as the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and Turkey. Attempted color revolution in 2020 In 2020, political tensions emerged in Abkhazia. The conflict erupted in January 2020 when protests broke out against Abkhazia's President Raul Khajimba, who had won the 2019 elections. Protesters accused the president of election fraud and demanded his resignation. The conflict culminated in May 2020 when opposition militants barricaded themselves in an administrative building in Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia. Security forces besieged the building, but the militants refused to surrender. Tensions escalated, and demonstrations in support of the militants broke out in the city. The conflict was defused when the militants agreed to surrender in exchange for security guarantees. President Khajimba resigned the following month and was replaced by interim President Valeri Bganba. The involvement of NATO secret forces in these political tensions in Abkhazia was evident to insiders. The United States immediately took a position in favor of the "protesters," calling for respect for human rights and democracy, etc. This attempted color revolution bore the mark of the CIA. But Moscow was watching. Presidential elections were still held in March 2020. They were won fairly by Aslan Bzhania, under the watchful eye of international observers. Bzhania appointed former President Alexander Ankvab as Prime Minister. The American destabilization operation failed this time. The situation in Abkhazia, while improving, remains concerning today. While Abkhazia is now a de facto independent state with a desire for peace from a war-weary population, the country remains an issue between Russia and the United States. The shadow games of intelligence services playing out there are dangerous for democracy and the security of the country. In this context, it is difficult to predict the future of Abkhazia, as well as all the countries in the Caucasus. The US deep state still looms, always eager to follow the geostrategic objectives given by Brzezinski, one of the main "sorcerers" of the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, founded by David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

[mariacallous]

Authoritarian states’ traditional approach to conflict outside their borders is to choose sides—supplying political-diplomatic support and military muscle to their allies—or to freeze the conflict while keeping a hand in to stir the pot and shape possible outcomes. Russia has done both: the first by backing Syria’s Bashar al Assad against various rebel movements, and the second by trying to dominate the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Authoritarians are not known for expending resources on peacemaking ventures with uncertain outcomes. Nor do they focus on good governance norms after a settlement. They are often content to consolidate the power and standing of local authoritarians.

Yet that pattern seems to be shifting. Today, we are witnessing a number of authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states engage in mediation, and conflict management. China has mediated between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Qatar has led talks between Israel and Hamas, and Turkey has done the same between Russia and Ukraine leading to the Black Sea Grain deal that lapsed last year.

In an attempt at heavy-handed conflict management, Russia tried to freeze the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and sent in peacekeepers in 2020 but  stood  aside when the Azerbaijani forces took decisive action to seize the disputed territory three years later. Such activities are pursued by a wide range of nominal and quasi-democracies, military governments, presidential one-party states, and monarchies.

The impact of this surge in authoritarian peacemaking gets less attention than it deserves. Authoritarian states are buffeting the peacemaking diplomacy of Western states, blocking or undercutting Western initiatives and challenging Western leadership of the global peacemaking agenda. The most obvious impact has been the global polarization that creates gridlock in the U.N. Security Council, undercuts support for U.N. peace operations and saps coherence around critical norms such as human rights and individual freedoms.

This pattern constrains what the U.N. can do in conflict management, mediation and peacebuilding. It also directly challenges the ability of NGOs to work for dialogue and reconciliation in fragile and war-torn places such as Georgia where pro-Russian parties are imposing Russian-style controls on the activity of NGOs that receive external support. Such action undermines the unofficial playbook for peacemaking and good governance.

By pushing back against Western conceptions about managing conflict, authoritarian peacemaking is part-and-parcel of a more general global backlash against intrusive and interventionist western policies that may undercut the perceived authority and legitimacy of incumbent regimes.

This backlash privileges state sovereignty against notions about “global” norms relating to rights and governance. Sadly, the U.S. government has made the undermining of international norms easier by adopting double standards on civilian protection and human rights law in Ukraine and Gaza. Such conduct actually helps China attack American soft power in Africa and undercuts U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.

But the authoritarian surge is not necessarily either effective or coherent. Consider, for example, the difficulty experienced by Egypt’s military regime and Qatar’s monarchy in bringing Hamas and Israel to a deal, even with strong backing from the U.S. and other Western and Arab states. Regional authoritarians have not been notably successful in bringing about peace and stability in Libya and have aggravated rather than alleviated its internal clan and tribal factionalism.

They have failed to cohere effectively for peace in Yemen. Regional authoritarians made Syria’s tragic civil war divisions worse before ceding the field to the Russians. In all these cases, the authoritarians ran into the hard realities of intractable conflicts where the local parties have plenty of weapons and have not yet exhausted their unilateral options. In some cases, they made the problem worse.

At first glance, it might appear that authoritarian states bring certain advantages to the table. One attribute is internal unity of command and policy coherence at the level of the individual state. Unlike liberal states, they can potentially bring not only a whole of government approach but also a whole of society focus in their strategy for dealing with conflicts. Messy internal policy debates do not bother them. Authoritarians generally place top priority on achieving stability and creating a favorable context for advancing regime interests, and their policies are best understood as transactional.

In practice the record of their approaches is quite mixed. In one model, for the transactions to succeed, it is necessary for the existing regime or the “winner” in a civil war to be capable of being a reliable partner to the external authoritarian conflict manager. In a second model, the authoritarian goal is to back a factional side—either to exploit natural resources or block an adversary or rival state, or perhaps both.

The idea of a negotiated settlement may not be a priority or be viewed as less desirable than some degree of continued instability. This scenario can slide into a third model in which rival authoritarians seek to impose a favorable outcome on the country and compete with rival external powers through the provision of military and political support. While authoritarian states may have internal coherence, they are often in conflict with other states.

It is not clear that any of these models is good for peace or for the lives of ordinary civilians. In the case of Syria, Russia prevailed by applying the first model, carpet-bombing cities to help the local authoritarian prevail, imposing a very cold peace. But it is not clear that authoritarian states will be successful in imposing outright victories in many other situations.

The case of Libya provides a vivid illustration of what can happen with the second model when outsiders pile in to pursue their varied agendas: In this case Egypt, Russia, the UAE, and the Saudis (to say nothing of the French) decided to support Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s designs against the U.N.-recognized unity government in Tripoli, backed by Turkey, Qatar, Italy, and the United States.

Commercial, strategic, and ideological agendas coursed across the strife-torn land, leading a succession of U.N. special envoys to resign in frustration, blaming the Libyan factions (rather than their backers) for a lack of political will to work for reconciliation and create conditions for holding elections. Libya’s disorder does not remain in Libya, as the neighboring Sudanese can attest.

In the case of the Ethiopia-Tigray civil war in 2020 to 2022, the Ethiopians enjoyed military support from the authoritarian regime of Eritrea as well as Turkey, Iran, and the UAE. But it was the African Union-based mediation of former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo supported by former Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and senior envoys of the U.S. and South African governments negotiated an end to the fighting. This followed the Ethiopian government’s ability to impose itself militarily on Tigray at a key moment in 2022 thanks to Turkish drones—though the country is still facing insurgents in other regions.

But it is clear that Sudan is not endowed with such resources for conflict management, despite the high hopes generated by the internationally celebrated Juba Accord of October 2020 between its transitional government and a range of rebel movements. Two and a half years later, the current civil war erupted, causing the gravest humanitarian crisis in the world, affecting some 6.6 million internally displaced persons and 2 million refugees fleeing into neighboring countries.

Rival military factions are tearing the country apart while attracting external authoritarians like flies to flypaper. The Saudis and the United States continue to host peace efforts, but Sudan’s military leaders enjoy widespread backing from authoritarian states: The regime’s forces are aided by Egypt, the Saudis, and Iran while the rival Rapid Support Forces are allied with Libya’s Haftar, the Chad regime of Mahamat Deby, plus the Russians, the UAE, and an assortment of allies in neighboring states. This is the second model with a vengeance, and it looks increasingly like it is sliding into the third model of authoritarian rivals pushing their proxies to the finish.

Spectacles like these do not seem to augur well for the peacemaking business. They undercut the potential for international organizations to play their traditional role. The Security Council regularly takes up the Sudan file but is prevented by gridlock from naming names and using serious pressure to stop the fighting. The UAE strenuously denies its role in fueling the fighting in an unholy alliance including Haftar and Deby, and the western permanent members of the Security Council are well aware they cannot ignore likely vetoes from China and Russia.

At the regional level, African Union members are divided, and the Gulf Cooperation Council is hampered by the intense feuding between the Saudis and the UAE. Sudan is a laboratory case of how warring factions export their divisions to external sponsors who return the favor by exporting their own divisions back into the conflict.

At first glance, all of this may look bad for the United States and, more generally, the West because it points to the erosion of the West’s hard and soft power. High-minded efforts at conflict management and good governance contend face-to-face with the most cynical practitioners of transactional statecraft. However, U.S. diplomats need a closer look at peacemaking cases to understand how U.S. statecraft can sometimes be effective in corralling recalcitrant antagonists, operating behind the scenes or employing more of an invisible hand.

When necessary, the United States is capable of standing back and advancing its interests by empowering others, sharing credit, and borrowing leverage and even credibility from other players, including the transactional authoritarians, however unprincipled they are.

During the Balkan wars of the 1990s, it fell to the U.S. government to knock mostly authoritarian heads and impose a stop to the fighting. Representatives of the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the European Union attended the Dayton peace conference. In the case of Colombia’s long civil conflicts, Washington first deployed diplomatic leadership via Plan Colombia and helped shape the balance of power between the government and the Marxist rebels of the FARC.

In the next phase, the U.S. government operated more indirectly via a special envoy who participated discreetly in a process led by Cuba and Norway with facilitator countries Venezuela and Chile, all loosely coordinating with major European and neighboring states, the U.N., and the E.U., leading to the 2016 Colombian peace accords. Washington played its hand decisively but less visibly in the Northern Ireland process leading to the 1998 Good Friday agreement.

This less direct public face of peacemaking has a history. In 1905, Theodore Roosevelt indirectly maneuvered Tsarist Russia and imperial Japan to terminate a hugely costly war, leaving the visible negotiation to the direct parties. He never personally visited the conference table in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, but actively communicated with relevant governments and, in effect, borrowed leverage from authoritarian and democratic states alike, while blocking alternative approaches. The process required Roosevelt to navigate the politics of two authoritarian regimes which could not admit their need for his help.

Fast forward to the 1980s and 1990s when U.S. negotiators borrowed leverage from allies and erstwhile adversaries in bringing authoritarian regimes to make peace in Southern Africa (working with the British, Portuguese, and other Western allies as well as the Soviets, Cubans, Zambians, Congolese, Cape Verdeans, Mozambicans and the U.N. Secretariat), and to avert civil war in Ethiopia (working with Sweden, Britain, the Soviets, Israel, Sudan, and the Marxist-oriented rebel Eritrean and Tigrayan movements).

This is not a brand-new way of operating but one that could become more common in an age of multiple overlapping alignments where other states are partners on some issues and troublesome obstacles on others. It could also be less of a drain on the political capital available to presidents and secretaries of state. To work, it requires top level officials to delegate and a willingness to work closely with friends, partners, and other parties they wouldn’t want to bring home for dinner.

[astropithecus]

Just sort of a brain dump - there's an additional layer of complexity here: Russian political forces generally view the Israel/Palestine issue as the inevitable outcome of Western imperialism (which, in fairness, is an uncomfortably difficult position to refute) and side with Palestine.

With Israel being counted among America's allies (and America providing a lot of the 'muscle' behind the establishment of Israel after WWII), Palestinian leaders are understandably mistrustful of America's ability to fairly mediate negotiations between Palestine and Israel, and Palestine's ties to Russia reach back to the Soviet era. So for decades, Palestine has depended on Russia's cooperation to secure their place at the negotiation table in regard to Israel's borders. Even before the Hamas attack that Israel used to justify this latest series of war crimes, the conflict between Palestine and Israel has served as sort of a proxy war between Russia and the United States, really since the 1950s or 60s.

During the cold war, Americans looked at the American economy versus the Soviet economy as the proving grounds for the superiority of Western "imperio-capitalism." This is why so many boomers interpret the fall of the U.S.S.R. as primarily an economic failure instead of a political one. They want the moral of the story to be that America was right about state economies. The real moral of the story is that racism will tear any country apart, but that's a different post.

In the same way, though, Israel/Palestine has turned into the new proving ground. There are a lot of Americans on both sides of the aisle that side with zionists because a free Palestine would mean Russia "wins." It'd mean America can't just use the threat of our military to overrule other nations' sovereignty. It's an idea that sums up something like "if America is the world police, a free Palestine means turning in our gun and badge." And you know how the average voter feels about defunding the police.

Negotiations between Israel and Palestine were deteriorating leading up to the Hamas attack, I'm inclined to believe that's because Russia's highly-visible blunders and underfunded presence in Ukraine undermine their ability to be a sufficiently intimidating Palestinian ally - Israel and the U.S. aren't scared of them anymore. China backs Russia, which means even with egg on Putin's face the US won't risk open hostility with Russia directly, but China's a lot more divided than Russia on topic of Israel/Palestine. It's not a sure thing China would defend Palestine on the ground, even if Russia decided to. That's apparently enough uncertainty that America's comfortable providing the munitions for Netanyahu's genocide.

So in short, people are dying on the Gaza strip because the cold war never ended. The American status quo position remains "we're on whatever side Russia's not." From that "world politics" viewpoint, if you support both Ukraine and Palestine, as one country Russia is (directly) attacking and one country Russia is (indirectly) defending, you're on two different sides of the issue.

Me personally, though, "incongruous views on world politics" is a much more acceptable character flaw than "doesn't see the problem with a civilian massacre." But I'm just a guy that sends emails for a living, I guess.

democrats and republicans just voted together to censure Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American serving in the US federal government, for calling out the Israeli government��s genocide of Palestinians and Biden’s complicity. you can read her statement here.

they fear us. they know most Americans are calling for a ceasefire. they know the real power lies in the hands of the people. don’t stop talking about Palestine, boycotting, protesting. free Palestine.

[marketsndata]

Global Arms and Ammunition Market Assessment 2031

Global arms and ammunition market size was valued at USD 62.25 billion in 2022 and is expected to reach USD 96.63 billion in 2030, with a CAGR of 5.65% for the forecast period between 2023 and 2030. In today’s contemporary era, characterized by expanding global economies and dwindling resources, nations fortify themselves to protect their interests, fostering peace internally and externally. They aim to secure their nations’ prosperity, survival, and continuity. The 2023 Global Peace Index, an annual publication from the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), reports a 0.42 percent decline in the average level of global peacefulness, marking the ninth consecutive year of deteriorating global peace.

The arms and ammunition market is experiencing significant growth due to rising global conflicts, resource constraints, and political instability. Security concerns drive this growth as nations strive to maintain sovereignty and peace. The industry is an economic driver, with imported arms often costing high and requiring licensing and permissions. Countries continuously enhance their capabilities, forging alliances, and invest in advanced technologies to create more durable and efficient weapons and ammunition. The market is not limited to lethal weaponry and includes non-lethal and non-tactical ammunition for crowd control and managing internal conflicts. Rising crime rates contribute to the market’s expansion.

Escalating Global Conflict Escalate Use of Arms and Ammunition

Geopolitical tensions have led to conflicts in various nations, with major powers seeking to extend their influence by supporting opposing factions through troop deployment and arms supply. The 2022 Global Peace Index shows a shift in the global conflict landscape, with major conflicts in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia decreasing and tensions increasing in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Since 2019, conflict intensity has increased, with a 45% increase in fatalities in the year preceding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It has led to a surge in demand for arms and ammunition, driven by geopolitical and economic reasons.

In 2022, Algeria procured arms, including recoilless rifles and grenade launchers from Bulgaria. North Africa, despite appearing stable, deals with underlying insecurity stemming from political, social, economic challenges, democratic deficits, extremist groups, and international rivalries. Algeria justifies its robust military posture due to its precarious neighborhood. It shares borders with unstable neighbors like Libya, which is affected by groups such as “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” and Tunisia, marked by post-2011 political unrest. To the west, border tensions with Morocco are fueled by the Western Sahara conflict. Extensive frontiers with Mali and Niger, known for separatist and terrorist activities in the African Sahel, underscore the importance of military readiness.

Non-Lethal Ammunition Spurs the Market

Governments bear the responsibility of preserving internal peace and security. While protests are a natural part of global socio-political dynamics, they can sometimes escalate into violence. Unfortunately, the institutions meant to safeguard the populace might find themselves compelled to employ force against their citizens. In 2022, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project noted a substantial increase in political violence amid reduced demonstration activity. This escalation was evident worldwide, particularly in Europe and Central Asia, with political violence surging by 27% compared to 2021 while demonstrations fell by 12%. Incidents of violence targeting civilians grew by 12%, becoming deadlier with a 16% increase in fatalities from direct civilian targeting.

Protests, driven primarily by economic grievances like inflation, have escalated significantly. In September 2022, Sri Lanka witnessed violent confrontations as authorities dispersed demonstrators protesting for several months due to severe economic challenges. Additionally, unjust actions could trigger civil unrest, exemplified by France’s deployment of over 40,000 police officers in July 2023 to quell urban riots following fatal police shooting incident. The growing trend has spurred a heightened demand for advanced riot control equipment, crowd dispersal tactics, rubber bullets, and tear gas, propelling the global arms and ammunition market.

Rising Civilian Arms Purchases Boost Arms and Ammunition Market

The 2023 Global Organized Crime Index shows a rise in global criminal activities, with an average rating of 5.03 out of 10, indicating 83% of the global population lives in countries with high crime rates. Despite this, resilience across various factors remains relatively stable. The arms and ammunition market is expanding due to a surge in civilian firearm acquisitions, driven by concerns about rising crime and personal safety. However, the increased accessibility of firearms raises potential risks, as they can be misused for violent purposes.

In the United States, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to hold arms, with 40% of adults living in households with firearms and 32% personally owning one. A significant portion of gun owners, 72%, cite protection and self-defense as major reasons for firearm ownership. The increase in gun accessibility coincides with a significant rise in gun violence in the USA in 2022, with over 600 mass shootings contributing to the highest firearm-related deaths in nearly three decades. Firearms manufacturers like Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. reported substantial earnings, with net sales of USD 593.3 million linked to their firearms operations.

Technology Breakthroughs Propel the Global Arms and Ammunition Industry Forward

Technological advancements propel the global arms and ammunition market, especially in small arms and rifles. Manufacturers are incorporating state-of-the-art optics and accessories, including night and thermal vision capabilities, to enhance the performance of these firearms. Concurrently, there’s a notable increase in the production of advanced, compact, and lightweight assault rifles designed for counter-terrorism operations and urban warfare, featuring quick target acquisition and reduced recoil. Additionally, adjustable stock systems are gaining popularity, enabling shooters to customize their rifles for comfort and precision in extended engagements. These innovations empower military forces and contribute to the industry’s sustained growth.

In June 2023, Israel entered a contract with Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) to procure an additional 2,800 Micro-Tavor assault rifles for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to be delivered by 2028. As Israel went to war with Hamas in October 2023, it initiated a fresh order for 10,000 rifles to equip civilian security teams primarily stationed in towns near Israel’s borders.

North America Maintains Market Leadership: Rising Defense Expenditures and Advanced Weapon Procurement Propel Dominance

North America maintains its market leadership. This dominance is primarily driven by the region’s escalating defense expenditures and the heightened acquisition of advanced weapons and ammunition by the United States and Canada. The United States has consistently been at the forefront of light weaponry, solidifying its position as a global military powerhouse. The United States Department of Defense (DoD) has significantly increased its investment in advanced weapon systems due to the evolving nature of warfare. Rigorous testing ensures reliability and assesses the performance enhancements associated with new integrated design changes.

In February 2023, the United States entered a USD 520 million contract with Northrop Grumman Corporation and Global Military Products to produce artillery ammunition for use by Ukraine. This underscores the region’s commitment to equipping its armed forces with cutting-edge weaponry.

Governments Regulations

Global regulations are essential for preserving domestic and international peace and security. They effectively curb conflicts, limit illicit arms trade, and prevent weapons from falling into the wrong hands, promoting stability and safeguarding human rights. International arms control agreements, like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) adopted in 2013 and enacted in 2014, govern the global transfer of conventional arms, including small arms and light weapons. The ATT addressed the transfer of small arms to non-state actors, such as armed groups and terrorist organizations. Other international agreements, like the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, play significant roles in regulating the trade and use of small arms and armaments, promoting global peace and security.

In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to comprehensively combat the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons. Member states were urged to strengthen their national laws and regulatory frameworks, increase collaboration with other nations, and support developing countries. In 2023, the European Union implemented a regulation to enhance firearms traceability and prevent their acquisition by criminal elements and terrorist organizations, thereby advancing security and public safety. These international frameworks collectively contribute to responsible arms trade, accountability, and the pursuit of global peace.

Impact of COVID-19

The arms and ammunition market has shown resilience despite the global economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) found a 1.3% increase in arms sales among the top 100 companies, indicating enduring demand driven by political and strategic motivations. Major arms manufacturers have used their financial influence to influence defense policies, sometimes accelerating orders to access funds ahead of schedule. The arms industry tapped into a growing South Asian market, with countries like India and China expanding their small arms production, catering to domestic and international exports. The resilience demonstrates the market’s adaptability to economic challenges and evolving geopolitical dynamics.

Impact of Russia-Ukraine War

Russia, a significant global arms supplier, saw its defense production capacity strained after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, along with subsequent sanctions that affected its arms industry’s reputation and complicated payment options for existing customers.

The conflict has heightened the demand for military equipment and ammunition in Europe. Global supply chain disruptions, such as shipping interruptions and semiconductor shortages, have impacted arms sales, particularly in Western countries with intricate global supply networks. Giving other countries opportunities to step in and fill the gap, for instance, since the war, Poland became a major supplier providing a significant share of major arms deliveries to Ukraine and NATO forces. Moreover, it has exposed contradictions in the global order, as business interests often trumped calls for peace, with certain EU member states continuing to export military equipment to Russia, amounting to 30 billion despite ongoing embargoes until 2021, according to Investigate Europe’s data analysis.

Global Arms and Ammunition Market: Report Scope

“Arms and Ammunition Market Assessment, Opportunities and Forecast, 2016-2030F” is a comprehensive report by Markets and Data, providing in-depth analysis and qualitative & quantitative assessment of the current state of the global arms and ammunition market, industry dynamics, and challenges. The report includes market size, segmental shares, growth trends, COVID-19 and Russia-Ukraine war impact, opportunities, and forecast between 2023 and 2030. Additionally, the report profiles the leading players in the industry, mentioning their respective market share, business model, competitive intelligence, etc.

Click here for full report- https://www.marketsandata.com/industry-reports/arms-and-ammunition-market

Latest reports-

Contact

Mr. Vivek Gupta 5741 Cleveland street, Suite 120, VA beach, VA, USA 23462 Tel: +1 (757) 343–3258 Email: info@marketsandata.com Website: https://www.marketsandata.com