Category: Uncategorized

Though President Trump refused to travel to New York to attend the UN Assembly, he made sure his thoughts were heard by all. In his speech, Trump made sure to highlight the U.S’s contribution to addressing COVID through several clinical vaccine trials. He then proceeded to directly blame China for the virus, brought attention to China’s high pollution, and hinted at human rights violations in China. Trump then listed “superior outcomes” the U.S. accomplished during his administration. In his address, Trump only highlighted his “America First” foreign policy without addressing the theme for the event: “Reaffirming our (the UN’s) Collective Commitment to Multilateralism”.

Meanwhile, in his address,  President Xi chose to speak mostly on COVID and seemed to dismiss President Trump’s blame on the “China virus” saying “Any attempt of politicizing the issue or stigmatization must be rejected.” Jinping addressed the UN with much more grace and even pledged aid in reference to COVID.

In this strange take on the blame game, Trump appears to use the UN assembly as a way to shift the blame of COVID onto China while reminding  (convincing?) the world of what he believes he has achieved so far while in office. Meanwhile, he completely neglected to even approach addressing the theme of the assembly this year. It was surprisingly difficult to find articles analyzing or even addressing these two speeches and I wonder why that might be. Trump blatantly chooses to use his address as a bit of free coverage for his presidential campaign while neglecting to mention any plan that might progress actions within the UN. Though Jinping chose to not pinpoint Trump or the U.S., he definitely did address the humanitarian issues trump had cited. I think these addresses can heighten tensions between the nations as it appears Trump will do anything to keep “America first”.

Normally around this time of year, New York City is usually in a high state of business due to the United Nations General Assembly in town. Well, due to obvious reasons its quite different in 2020. For the first time in the 75 year history of the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly has been absent of political leaders, as the Covid-19 pandemic has made the UN General Assembly its victim alongside other events and more, as instead of of physical gathering that locks New York City down for weeks, the world leaders sent their speeches via prerecorded videos. One or two people for each of the 193 member states were permitted with mask wearing and socially distanced in the UNHQ, as the normal festivities of the UN General Assembly are placed on hold, for this years session at least.

However despite the new changes happening in this years session, it does not to any degree take away from the intensity that is normally seen when leaders of the world speak and clash with other world leaders. One perfect example of this is this past Tuesday, between the United States and China. In a recent article from the New York Times, a prerecorded speech from President Trump sees the President blowing his own trumpet about his own actions in the Covid Pandemic, and even further calling out China on the global stage by telling the UN to hold accountable as he put it “the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world.” He spoke about other topics such as isolating Iran, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, and the peace deal between Israel and the two Gulf Arab, but the dominant aspect of the speech was blaming China for the covid pandemic even mentioning it as the “China virus” and covering up the virus.

President Xi Jinping of China followed with a prerecorded speech of his own, stating that the pandemic crisis is a shared one by everyone and denounces any politicization and stigmatization of this global crisis. In addition, he also took jab at the US according to a BBC News Article, that without naming the US, Xi stated “no country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others, or keep advantages in development all to itself”, which coincidently China has been accused of also. Ironically both leaders fail to come into reckon with their fallacies as Trump goes on to state how the US will lead the charge against the pandemic by developing treatment, vaccines, and going further to say “We will end the pandemic, and we will enter a new era of unprecedented prosperity, cooperation and peace,” which is ironic is because the US currently has far more confirmed cases than anyone else close to 7 million and over 200,000 deaths. Meanwhile President Xi describes his fellow China as “described China as a benevolent power that does not wish ill on anyone” which is ironic given China’s behavior in the South China sea, the detentions in Xianjiang, the issue with Taiwan and Tibet, and the political repression in the Hong Kong region. He also swiped at Trump at his isolationist approach to diplomacy and trade even describing what Trump is doing as “trying to fight it with Don Quixote’s lance” and failure to go with history.

The US-China faceoff took center stage if the GA session, as there clearly was clearly rifts between the two superpowers which has some concerned that such rhetoric posed by the two leaders will lead to a new cold war on the horizon, with the UN of course looking lost in this situation as two powers standoff to each other in a verbal war. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that this divide is a very dangerous situation that must be avoided at all costs between the two powers as it is evident many global consequences are on the verge of manifesting should things intensify.

My personal thoughts are that fuel is currently being added to the fire from both leaders in this case as both leaders had colorful things to say against each other that made it the center of attention for the assembly. The US is making efforts to stay the leader of the world order, however China is making its claim to be a superpower to rival with the US in every aspect. Trump and Xi’s showdown at the UN definitely will raise eyebrows on what’s to come for both nations, and the world following suit. Is another cold war truly on the horizon? It may be the case as relations between the two are stagnant and looks to be that it may get uglier depending on what goes on in the future. Only time will tell of course.

The author in this article gives an overview of Russia’s history stating that it has always been considered the weak super power. He points out to the fact that with the breakup of the Soviet Union, Moscow lost 2 million square miles of sovereign territory equivalent to the entire share of the European Union. He then continues that Russia considers itself as an exceptionalism and that its foreign policy revolves around this idea of having a special mission and that it has to be treated in a special way. And this is why post-Soviet Russia precluded to join Europe and also forming an unequal partnership with the United States. I liked the part that the author mentioned that Russia is not putting its aspirations in alignment with its capabilities, and I think this is one of the most important traits that a successfully ‘developed’ nation- state should have because it leads to political stability and one that is really noticeable within its international relations. Even more important than the GDP of one country. Russia is still not accepting post war settlements or the idea of global rivalry that it lost on a multidimensional level and could still wait for the best time to annex small countries around instead of having diplomatic relations.  Russia need to get over the past and start redefining the notion of exceptionalism and start working with other countries even if they are small ones in Europe to fit its global role.

Throughout much of the third wave of globalization (beginning from 1989 to the present), China has amassed much of its geopolitical sphere of influence through its lateral economic partnerships with many Global South countries, resulting in much financial strain for investors and governments alike. Extracting a few examples of this commercial trend, particularly in Ecuador and Kenya, China’s indubitable force of financial dominance has contributed towards the construction and upkeep of many transportation, healthcare, and telecommunications infrastructures; However, much of this so-called bilateral economic integration has come at the expense of governments receiving loans and not being able to follow through with repayment installations. 

The Ecuadorian government has been involved in a slew of scandals since the inception of many infrastructure projects financed by the Chinese government. One project in particular, the Coca Codo Sinclair Dam, was constructed by the Sinohydro Corporation at the price tag of $2.25 billion USD. Considered the largest energy project in Ecuador’s history, the government soon realized that settling the loan required granting 80% of the country’s most valuable export to China as a method of repaying contracts – Oil. This practice of ceding control of Ecuador’s oil supply chain to Chinese companies has led to increased deforestation of the country’s most biodiverse regions. This scenario has not only played out in South American countries, but also in nations along the East African rift, with Kenya having received much financial assistance from the Chinese government and not much support from domestic partners. 

 

Kenya’s bilateral relationship with Chinese investors is attributed to Beijing’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project aimed at improving land and maritime transportation routes between China and Europe, Asia and Africa. However, financing the project has been deemed too expensive by Parliament following the raising of the government’s debt ceiling to $87 billion USD, as well as the increasing in government spending up to approximately 55% of the nation’s GDP. Many analysts contend that the nation may not recover from its negative-sloping debt-to-income ratio, with President Uluru Kenyatta now banking on future investors to set up shop along the railway’s newly-built transportation hubs. 

 

[1]https://archive.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/About-Nordregio/Journal-of-Nordregio/2008/Journal-of-Nordregio-no-1-2008/The-Three-Waves-of-Globalisation/index.html

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/world/americas/ecuador-china-dam.html

[3]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-railway/kenya-opens-1-5-billion-chinese-built-railway-linking-rift-valley-town-and-nairobi-idUSKBN1WV0Z0

 

 

Russia’s relationship with its neighbors has long been tensional. From Georgia in 2008, to Ukraine in 2014, to Syria in 2015, Putin has always laid the blame for Russian aggression squarely at the West’s feet. Historically, and before the collapse of the soviet union in 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers during the world war II. However, the relationship between both did not end well. As a result of years of tensions, the soviet union collapsed and nations within it declared their independence; and the Baltic states sought an international recognition. As a result, a new leader came believing that  the empire’s collapse was a “geopolitical catastrophe.”

According to the reading, “The Return of Geopolitics Past” Russia had long functioned as a “dark double” to the United States in its self-definition as a world power. Under the presidency of  Vladimir Putin, the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula  from Ukraine in early 2014 was the most consequential decision of his 16 years in power. The invasion in Crimea tends to be very crucial in determining the motives. The question of why invading neighboring territories tends to be more historical, post cold war and the collapse of the soviet union. The goal might be to gradually recapture the former territories of the Soviet Union and by that expand  Russia’s borders or simply because of geopolitical ambitions.

As a student of international affairs, I think about why events occurring in one country affect outcomes in another country or region. Sometimes, at first appearance, the significance of events unfolding in one region seem obscure or unrelated to the developments in a different region, but in the hyper-interconnected global economy of the 21st century; what happens in  country (A)  impacts country (B) at a greater magnitude than at any other point in modern history.  Edward Lorenz’s theory might even hold up to scientific scrutiny in the decades ahead, as further advances in AI and the Internet of Things come online.

Recent events across Eurasia has me wondering how Moscow and St. Petersberg might respond. For example, the independent states of Serbia and Kosovo recently normalized economic relations. They formally agreed to a one-year suspension over recognition claims – Serbia agreeing to stop claims that Kosovo does not exist as a sovereign state.

Although measuring the outcomes of normalization requires time, the ability of Serbia and Kosovo to engage in open cross-border commerce will likely have immediate positive economic benefits for both states. For example, removing Kosovo’s 100 percent tax on  Serbian goods will likely benefit the Serbian economy. Moreover, Serbia and Kosovo have mutually agreed to recognize professional licenses and educational certificates from doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Before normalization, academic certificates from Kosovo were not recognized in Serbia and visa versa. The removal of this restriction is likely to have immediate benefits. Moreover, economic normalization might encourage further discussions between the European Union, Kosovar leadership, and Serbian officials regarding the EU accession process, which both states have sought after for years. Finally, Kosovo has agreed to formally recognize Israel and move its embassy to the capital, Jelersiurm, becoming the first Mulsim majority state to do so.

So what does this mean for Russia, and how are the Russians likely to respond?  Provided Serbia’s strong affinity for Russian culture, what impact will this agreement have on Russia – Serbia relations?
What impact, if any, does this have on Israeli – Russian relations?

This week’s reading by Gerard Toal offers a useful framework to approach these questions. Toal’s Geopolitical culture construct provides an interpretative analysis of Russian geopolitical motivations by addressing three distinct fronteers— who are the Russian people, how does this narrative survive, and what does prosperity look like in the Russian context.

Developing these constructs further, Toal describes three Ideological networks, resulting from economic drivers towards modernization, collective national identity narratives that centralize authoritative power, and state-level security capabilities. Held together, Toal’s geopolitical assessment appears to suggest that Russian state actions are driven by the preservation of their national identity coupled with an ambition towards economic modernization.

Assuming Toal’s Geopolitical culture assessment of Russia is accurate, we can begin to build a forward-looking analysis that as the Kosovar and Serbian economies normalize, Russia will likely attempt to pull their economic activity closer towards its orbit.

We can observe a similar occurrence happening in Belarus, where  Russia’s little green men have arrived.  Putin’s commitment of military support for Lukashenko has been widely reported in the last few weeks. It’s reasonable to conclude that backing Lukashenko serves the strategic geopolitical objective of Putin, or what Stephen Kotkin refers to as Russain exceptionalism and the sense of a special mission to correct perceived historical wrongs. As Kotkin points out, as a result of  Russian defeats in the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, and the Cold War, the Soviet Union lost approximately 2 million miles of territory.  This history continues to impact the Russian psyche and what Kotkin calls a sense of perennial vulnerability, humiliation, and a feeling of betrayal at an international scale.

This historical perspective might also give credence to O’Hanlon’s argument that under Putin’s leadership, Moscow and St. Petersberg will likely pursue a geopolitical strategy to recapture post-Soviet space. For example, Russia’s invitation of George and annexation of Crimea might inspire the future playbook whereby the Kremlin attempts to expand territorially inside Baltic states on the assumption that NATO partners will not respond militarily from fear of risking military escalation to a nuclear conflict. And what about the Balkans? Is Russia preparing to reclaim post-Soviet space with an eye on Moldovia, Romania, or even Serbia?

Answers are uncertain, however as international events and new power balances continue to unfold across Eurasia, gauging Russia’s response will remain a key priority to U.S. national security interests. 

In the part of Europe where I grew up, there was a bitter joke about the Soviet armed forces in the 80s of the past century, which were ubiquitous in all Warsaw Pact countries. It went like this: How often does the Red Army get a leave from their camps in Europe? The answer: Every 12 years. 1956 to Budapest (suppression of the Hungarian uprising), 1968 to Prague (intervention of the Prague Spring), and 1980 to Gdansk (suppression of Solidarnosc and the Polish uprising). The joke about the joke was that everyone knew: it wasn’t a joke.

My generation (born in 1968) was perhaps the last to experience one or more of this demonstration of Soviet power – so far, the censored state media has allowed. (The Yugoslav war in 1991 did not fit into this line, nor were the interventionist the same or did they come at the right time.) Reading the Toal piece “Why Does Russia Invade Its Neighbors?”[1] this joke came into my mind.  But while the Soviet Union as a quasi-colonizer of the Eastern Block´s countries ruled with an iron fist to keep the status quo, Russia, is trying to recover it´s “lost world”. Quoting Toal:

Many groups experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union as liberation, but for others, it was a disaster of violence, displacement, and economic ruin.

Speaking of the occupied nations like the above-mentioned ones it was a liberation for sure. The problematic part was that the West (like these days again) was not able to understand the needs of a disintegrating great power and the consequences, and also ignored the advances made by Putin in his earlier years. The West has also failed in offering a functioning social model and a sustainable partnership. A vacuum of ideals and forces has arisen. Nature doesn’t like the vacuum, politics even less. Quoting Putin Trenin describes it in his piece about “Russia´s Breakout from the Post-Cold War System”:

Post-Christian Europeans embraced equality of good and evil, and they distinguished themselves by moral relativism, a very vague sense of identity, and excessive political correctness. European countries have begun renouncing their roots, including Christian values, which underlie Western civilization.[2]

Governing conservative parties in the Central and Eastern parts of Europe follow the same pattern, not without success while keeping up religious values and condemning political correctness as the reason for laming governance and an increasingly apolitical and disinterested population in the west.[3] Creating a modern Russian nation and identity after 70 years of the totalitarian ruling is not something that can be completed overnight and needs an ideological filling.

At this point, I wanted to quote Stephen F. Cohen. We should remember him, one of the best experts on Russia. Far better than me in his book “Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia” (2000) he describes exactly the role and the blame of the United States on the destabilization of post-communist Russia. Prof. Cohen died with 81 this Friday in New York[4]. RIP.

[1] Toal, Gerard. “Why Does Russia Invade Its Neighbors?” Near Abroad: Putin, the West, and the Contest Over Ukraine and the Caucasus. Oxford UP, 2017, pp. 17-54.

[2] Trenin, Dmitri. Russia’s Breakout from the Post-Cold War System: The Drivers of Putin’s Course. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – Moscow Center, 2014, pp. 1-22. ProQuest.

[3] During a meeting with Hungary´s PM Orbán President Putin put it in simple words: “We are not talking about agreements, you just need to help save, restore shrines and parishes” (Pеч не идет о соглашеиях нужно просто пoмоч сохраниться, востановить святыни и приходы) Russkaja Gazeta, 10.30.2019

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/books/stephen-cohen-dead.html

Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved to silence political dissonance with impunity throughout his time in power. The attempted assassination of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a Novichok attack is the most recent and perhaps most dramatic instance of this. Described by the Wall Street Journal as “the man Vladimir Putin fears most,” Navalny plans to return to Russia from Germany once his recovery is complete. This comes as new reports suggest that Putin will again attempt to assassinate him upon his return.

The revelations – which reportedly come from three NATO intelligence sources – claim that Navalny may believe that his back will be shielded by German threats to end its gas pipeline deal with Russia if Navalny’s safety is not guaranteed. However, this judgment may be naive. NATO members have a history of responding in an underwhelming manner to Russian security threats. This trend will likely be exacerbated in the face of Trump’s ever-heightening desire to maintain amicable relations with Putin and the Kremlin.

Last week Microsoft issued a warning that the same Russian military intelligence unit that had attacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 is once again back at it and hacking campaign staff members on both sides of the aisle. The fact that a company, Microsoft Corporation, is the one to make this information public and not our own federal intelligence agencies also brings the question- do they not know, or do they simply don’t want it to be public knowledge? Brian Murphy, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence division who is now considered a whistleblower, has stated the White House and the Department of Homeland Security withheld information of Russia’s continual interference because it “made the president look bad.”

Judging by the cyber attacks by China and Russia the reports seem to conclude Chinese leaders prefer Biden over Trump. If it is in the best interest for China for Joe Biden to be the next president of the United States, they may not understand how our current president operates. Simply by China trying to assist in somehow disrupting Trump’s campaign lobs a softball over the middle for Trump to attend all his rallies and shout from his soapbox ‘Look how badly China wants me gone.’ Over the past 4 years as Trump oddly touts his friendships with dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-Un, he continually used his rectotic to paint a picture of China as against the American people. 

While Russia’s motivations were not made clear by Microsoft, they said it is the role of U.S. intelligence officials to figure out what information may have been stolen, and for what reason. It certainly feels like no matter what information may have been stolen, nothing will be able to deter Trump supporters from voting for him on November 3rd, but for those still on the fence Russia and/or China may be setting Biden up for the 2020 version of Hilary’s “but her emails” situation. 

 

Sanger, D., & Perlroth, N. (2020, September 10). Russian Intelligence Hackers Are Back, Microsoft Warns, Aiming at Officials of Both Parties. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/us/politics/russian-hacking-microsoft-biden-trump.html

In August, the NYTimes published an article on the almost 1,000-page report by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The panel spent three years investigating the manipulation and agreed that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win as they viewed his campaign easy to manipulate. The report describes Trump’s campaign as filled with “businessmen with no government experience… working at the fringes of the foreign policy establishment.” However, the Senate did not agree that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in a “coordinated conspiracy”. This is despite the report showing evidence of communication between campaign advisers and people tied with Russia. President Trump has called the matter a “witch hunt” as it appears this bi-partisan decision decidedly agreed in his favor – that no evidence of an agreement between the Russians and the Trump campaign to work together was found. The NYTimes article explains the problem with the committee: “even though the investigation was carried out in bipartisan fashion, and Republican and Democratic senators reached broad agreement on its most significant conclusions, a partisan divide remained on some of the most politically delicate issues.”

Nonetheless, the Senate is Republican-controlled which I believe makes it easier for them to conclude that there was “no collusion” in 2016. A more recent NYTimes article reported F.B.I director Christopher Wray’s warning that Russia “as actively pursuing a disinformation campaign against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr”. Wray said the reasoning behind this misinformation campaign is Russia thinking that VP Biden is anti-Russia. Wray said the intelligence community has reached a consensus that Russia’s interference in the election is to target Biden. Meanwhile, Trump continues to make light of these warnings and dismisses Russian inference altogether.

As we approach Trump’s potential re-election, it is only too easy for Russia to once again meddle within a group though to be “easily manipulated”, but this approach is interesting and does make sense strategically. Of course, all eyes will be on Trump’s campaign management this time – why not take on a different approach?