Category: World

  • Will Pager explosions escalate tensions in the Middle East?

    Will Pager explosions escalate tensions in the Middle East?

    Lebanon was rocked by a series of explosions that seemed straight out of a Hollywood spy thriller, with pagers used in a meticulously coordinated attack targeting Hezbollah leaders and Iranian diplomats. While Israel has not publicly claimed responsibility, the precision and scale of the operation bear unmistakable signs of Mossad’s involvement. In what appears to be an intelligence-driven strike, thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah members were detonated simultaneously. Early reports indicate at least twelve deaths and around 3000 injuries across dozens, if not hundreds, of explosions. The attack highlights a relentless drive to strike at Hezbollah, which had adopted pagers as a less traceable communication tool, avoiding the location risks posed by mobile phones.

    Diplomats, netizens, and Iranian officials are certain of Israel’s involvement in these recent attacks, viewing them as part of Mossad’s ongoing campaign against high-profile targets. Initial reports indicate that the pagers, a new model possibly compromised during the supply chain process, were also intended for use in Europe – further evidence pointing to Israeli intelligence. Such tactics are not without precedent. In January 1996, a rigged mobile phone was used to assassinate Yahya Ayyash, Hamas’s chief bomb maker, in Gaza City. Since Israel’s renewed conflict with Hamas, efforts to eliminate militant leaders have intensified. In August, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, was killed by a short-range projectile in Tehran, prompting Iran to warn of direct military retaliation against Israel.

    As Israel’s war in Gaza approaches its second year, the conflict has expanded beyond Hamas to include the wider “Axis of Resistance”, which encompasses various Iran-backed militias. Bombings, missile strikes, and targeted attacks have become routine between these factions, with increasing clashes along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, home to the Iran-supported Hezbollah. While a full-scale regional war involving Arab nations, including Lebanon and Iran, seems unlikely, many experts believe the chances of a conflict like the previous Arab-Israeli wars are low. However, Israel’s intensified targeting of key leaders is becoming a major concern for the axis of resistance. The recent pager attack highlights Israel’s capabilities and the opposition’s vulnerability, leaving Hezbollah and others under pressure to restore their standing in the Islamic world. Failure to act could lead to an existential crisis for these groups, as their legitimacy is tied to their fight against Israel. Many predict a potential full-scale war between Hezbollah and Israel, with Hezbollah nearing a possible endgame. Israel’s demands for peace will not be met by eliminating Hamas alone, as Hezbollah continues to pose a similar threat from the north. The likelihood of war appears increasingly imminent, while international negotiations remain ineffective, with the U.S. downplaying the severity of the situation.

    If Israel’s involvement in recent events is confirmed, it would represent a major escalation. Further attacks in Lebanon seem likely, given Israel’s apparent determination to eradicate the threats it faces, potentially targeting Hezbollah as well. With Hezbollah pressured to respond, Israel appears ready for their counteractions. Additionally, Houthi forces and Syrian militants might also need to be cautious of Pagers.

  • How Will the U.S. Election Impact the Israel-Gaza Conflict, and Vice Versa?

    How Will the U.S. Election Impact the Israel-Gaza Conflict, and Vice Versa?

    Israel’s war on Gaza shows no signs of ending soon, and countries around the world seem unwilling to intervene. The only country outside of Israel with the capacity to meaningfully intervene is the United States. Despite being the world’s most powerful country, capable of diplomatic and military operations anywhere, the U.S. appears constrained in acting against Israel’s will, a nation it holds dear. With a sizable Jewish and Muslim population – both of whom are divided over the Israel-Gaza conflict – the U.S. presidential election is also expected to be influenced by the situation. In response to growing negative sentiment and campus protests in solidarity with Palestine, the U.S., along with its Arab allies, has attempted to broker a ceasefire and develop a solution, but these efforts have not succeeded. With Biden stepping away from the presidential race, the U.S. now awaits the upcoming contest between hard-right Republican Trump and left-leaning Democrat Kamala Harris to see how future intervention in the Israel-Gaza conflict will unfold.

    While both candidates follow core U.S. policies in the Middle East, their approaches to resolving the conflict differ. Kamala Harris has not outlined detailed plans but remains firmly committed to Israel, continuing the U.S.’s long standing support for the nation. She reaffirmed her backing of Israel, emphasizing the need to secure the release of hostages, while advocating for a two-state solution to provide both Palestinian sovereignty and security, which conventionally the US does not endorse. 

    Harris advocates for a ceasefire, conditioned on Hamas releasing the hostages taken during the October 7 attack and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. She was among the first Western leaders to call for a ceasefire in early March and has been more outspoken than President Biden regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel’s military actions in Gaza. However, she has yet to make progress in advancing negotiations on this issue. Despite her reported disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu over his handling of the war, she has not proposed any actions that would directly affect his government. Notably, she skipped Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in July but met with him privately during his visit to Washington. Harris’s positions can appear inconsistent or impractical, raising questions about the feasibility of her approach.

    Donald Trump, the former president, has clearly stated his position on the Israel-Gaza conflict and claims to have a resolution plan. He has pledged to resolve the issue quickly if re-elected. However, he has not provided specifics on how he would negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas to achieve a ceasefire and secure the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

    Trump has consistently supported Israel’s war on Gaza, urging the country to conclude the conflict swiftly due to diminishing international support. Although he was initially critical of Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence for being unprepared for the Oct. 7 attack, he quickly retracted those comments and reaffirmed his strong alliance with Netanyahu, with whom he had a close relationship during his presidency. During his time in office, Trump released a peace proposal he called a blueprint for a two-state solution. However, this plan did not propose a fully autonomous Palestinian state and was perceived as heavily favoring Israel. Trump’s administration strongly backed Netanyahu’s government and endorsed hard-liner Israeli policies previously rejected by the U.S. His presidency also saw a significant warming of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, highlighting his skills as a negotiator and businessman.

    Criticism of the current U.S. government’s actions is likely to target Kamala Harris, as American activists have reported on the ongoing casualties from the war. Traditionally, Muslim and Arab voters lean toward the Democratic Party, but dissatisfaction with the current administration’s handling of the situation and its stance on Israel has caused frustration. Additionally, many liberals and anti-war advocates within the Democratic base are unhappy with the government’s response. While Trump is unlikely to gain favor from these groups due to his pro-Israel stance, many believe he might be able to end the conflict with his negotiation and problem-solving skills, which previously helped improve relations between Arabs and Israelis during his tenure. A ceasefire before the election seems unlikely, as the outgoing president, who is not running for re-election, would not gain any political advantage from such a deal.

  • Why Mongolia Ignored the ICC Verdict and Welcomed Putin

    Why Mongolia Ignored the ICC Verdict and Welcomed Putin

    Mongolia, located between Russia and China – two major adversaries of the West – maintains good relations with Western nations and Japan and is a member of several international organizations that Russia and China oppose. Although often overlooked by global media, Mongolia attracted significant attention when Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to visit. Such a visit might normally be overlooked due to their extensive cooperation and Mongolia’s high reliance on Russia. However, the visit gained prominence because Mongolia is one of the few Asian members of the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin and calls for his detention.

    Vladimir Putin received a warm reception on Tuesday during his state visit to Mongolia. He engaged in discussions with President Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh, a influential political figure who has previously served as Prime Minister and chairman of the ruling Mongolian People’s Party. Upon his arrival in Ulaanbaatar, Putin was greeted by an honor guard, including some on horseback, wearing traditional uniforms reminiscent of those worn by Genghis Khan, the legendary 13th-century Mongol ruler. President Khürelsükh praised the visit, and Putin noted that the relationship between the two countries is progressing across all areas. The visit was expected to focus on energy cooperation, as Mongolia lies along the planned route of a Russian pipeline designed to transport 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from Russia’s Yamal region to China.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) – the sole permanent tribunal entrusted with prosecuting individuals for crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression – issued an arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin last year, holding him accountable for his actions in Ukraine. This warrant, a formal directive to the ICC’s 124 member states, including Mongolia, mandates that they apprehend Putin and transport him to The Hague should he set foot within their borders. As Putin prepared for his visit to Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, Ukraine, alongside leading human rights organizations, urged the Mongolian authorities to detain him upon arrival. Yet, Mongolia’s deep-seated dependence on Russia for nearly all of its petroleum and its hesitance to criticize Moscow’s invasion into Ukraine cast doubt on the likelihood of any such action. 

    Mongolia’s choices are limited by its geographic constraints and its borders with only China and Russia, making its economy, military, security, and political landscape heavily reliant on these two giants. Lacking seaports, Mongolia depends on road and rail connections to Russia and China, and any disruption in these links could precipitate economic turmoil and severe daily hardships. Historically shaped by Sino-Russian tensions, the sparsely populated nation has long acted as a buffer zone between these two powers. Should Mongolia choose to comply with international rulings and attempt to detain or arrest Putin, it risks retaliation from Russia and intensified pressure from China. Furthermore, aligning with other international actors, such as Japan, might provoke a significant backlash from both Russia and China, potentially leading to grave consequences for Mongolia. Thus, in navigating these treacherous waters, Mongolia may well opt to align with Russia, particularly in light of the already diminished authority of the International Criminal Court.

    Mongolia, endowed with mineral wealth and cultivating stronger ties with global powers, risks losing momentum through its current actions. Yet, aside from Ukraine, global attention on the conflict and associated sanctions remains relatively muted. Nations such as India, Kazakhstan, and the UAE – each maintaining cordial relations with Russia and Putin while pursuing substantial business engagements with the West – exemplify this broader trend. Mongolia can follow this precedent. Despite significant criticism from both the West and Ukraine, it remains impractical for this landlocked country, nestled between Russia and China and heavily dependent on Russia, to oppose Moscow or obstruct Putin.

  • Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Israel’s retaliatory actions against Hamas are now expanding to cover the entire Palestinian territory, including the West Bank – a region governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, and recognized by many countries worldwide. While the global Islamic community and anti-war supporters express solidarity with Palestine and condemn the civilian casualties, Israel continues to cite the October 7th attack, a clear act of terrorism by Hamas, as justification for its actions. Interestingly, this stance has effectively silenced much of the international community.

    However, with rising tensions in the West Bank – a region crucial for establishing an independent Palestine – it is worth considering that Israel may be pursuing a broader strategy aimed at eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state, rather than solely targeting Hamas. While Israel claims to be focusing on militants, including senior Hamas officials, its actions suggest a more extensive plan.

    The death toll among Palestinians in the West Bank is rising rapidly following two days of Israeli attacks involving helicopters, drones, and ground forces. Between 2020 and October 2023, only six Palestinians in the West Bank were killed in airstrikes. However, this week, the UN reported that since October 2023, 136 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed in Israeli airstrikes – a sharp and alarming increase. Israel justifies its actions as necessary for self-defense, claiming it is responding to attacks allegedly carried out with Iranian-supplied weapons. However, the bombing of civilians from the skies increasingly appears to be an attempt to terrorize the population into submission – a strategy that is intensifying.

    Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank is rapidly increasing as the state seeks to consolidate control over more land. Much of this territory, initially arid and inhospitable, has been transformed into livable space by settlers, yet it remains designated under international agreements, including the Oslo Accords, as part of a future Palestinian state. Fueled by substantial investments and growing political pressures, Israel’s commitment to advancing these projects is unwavering, rendering any withdrawal from them highly improbable and impractical. The challenge of evacuating 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005, which faced intense opposition, stands in stark contrast to the nearly 90 times as many settlers now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jewish dominance is increasingly apparent in many areas of the eastern territory, and Israel perceives it as both a duty and a moral obligation to protect its citizens. In this context, the current conflict may serve Israel’s strategic interests by diminishing remaining opposition and facilitating further territorial expansion under the guise of wartime necessity.

    Despite facing a severe blockade, Gaza remains a separate territory with its own government. Israel argues that a similar situation in the West Bank, should it withdraw, would pose a significant security risk, a concern heightened by Hamas’s actions. Although there is still hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly just one day before the historic ICJ opinion to pass a resolution—co-sponsored by parties within Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition and supported by both right-wing and centrist opponents – rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state. This context clarifies that the ongoing attacks in the West Bank is not simply about targeted attacks akin to those in Lebanon or Iran. 

    The world’s major powers, including the United States, and Islamic countries that have long used the issue of Palestine to evoke Islamic solidarity, have struggled to reach an agreement to end the ongoing bloodshed. Without a resolution, confidence in global institutions, which have so far proven ineffective, risks fading. Hamas has demonstrated that a long-term resolution can only be achieved through diplomacy, allowing both peoples to coexist peacefully. However, it must be noted that either Israel has seized the opportunity, or Hamas has made Israel’s objectives achievable.

  • South Korea’s Top Court Rules for Stronger Climate Action

    South Korea’s Top Court Rules for Stronger Climate Action

    Climate laws aimed at curbing global warming, ensuring carbon neutrality, and accelerating the transition to green energy are facing significant backlash from various groups. There are calls from right-wing politicians, activists, and conspiracy theorists on social media to scrap these laws, arguing that they negatively impact businesses and burden taxpayers. Meanwhile, another group is pushing for even stricter climate regulations, despite potential consequences for businesses and daily life. These opposing views have led to clashes online, spilled into the streets, influenced political debates, and are now being contested in the courts.

    South Korea’s Constitutional Court has sided with those advocating for stronger climate measures, ruling that parts of the nation’s climate law do not adequately protect the constitutional rights of future generations. This decision, described by local activists as groundbreaking, reflects a similar verdict in Germany and concludes four years of legal disputes, establishing an important precedent for climate litigation in the region. The court found that the lack of legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2031 to 2049 violates the constitutional rights of future generations and fails to fulfill the government’s obligation to protect these rights. The court stressed that the absence of long-term targets places an unfair burden on future generations and has ordered the National Assembly and government to revise the law to include these targets by February 28, 2026. As a result, the government is now under pressure to act.

    South Korea’s Carbon Neutral Act, established in 2010, initially aimed to cut carbon emissions by at least 35 percent by 2030 from 2018 levels. The government has since raised this target to a 40 percent reduction. However, critics contend that this revised goal remains inadequate for effectively addressing climate change. Since 2020, the Constitutional Court has been evaluating complaints from over 250 individuals; one-third of whom were children or teenagers at the time of filing – who claim that the government’s greenhouse gas reduction targets and strategies are partially unconstitutional and inadequate to safeguard the rights of citizens, especially future generations.

    South Korea’s climate litigation began in March 2020 when Youth 4 Climate Action, the Korean branch of the global school climate strike movement, filed the first lawsuit. Activists, including Kim Seo-gyeong from Youth 4 Climate Action, see the court’s decision as the beginning of a renewed push for more ambitious climate action. Kim emphasized that addressing the climate crisis requires reducing its risks, managing factors that could worsen the situation, and establishing safety nets to support life and society. 

    However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the government’s 2030 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2018 levels, as set out in the country’s carbon neutrality act, violated constitutional rights. The court considered this near-term goal sufficient but found that the law’s lack of specific emission reduction targets for the years between 2031 and 2050 – when the country aims to achieve carbon neutrality – violated the constitutional rights of future generations.

    On Thursday, South Korea’s Ministry of Environment announced that it respects the court’s ruling and will take appropriate follow-up actions. Sejong Youn, a solicitor representing all four litigation cases, emphasized that the core issue of unconstitutionality stemmed from reduction targets that imposed an excessive burden without adequately considering the rights of future generations. He stressed that a revised greenhouse gas reduction plan addressing these concerns must be presented within the timeframe set by the court.

    This landmark ruling is poised to reverberate far beyond South Korea’s borders, potentially shaping climate litigation and policy across Asia, with countries like Japan and Taiwan already grappling with similar legal battles. One might observe that, for now at least, climate activists appear to be gaining the upper hand in the courtroom, outmaneuvering their climate change-denying counterparts.

  • How Afghanistan Still Impacts U.S. Presidential Campaigns

    How Afghanistan Still Impacts U.S. Presidential Campaigns

    Afghanistan is indeed considered one of the biggest blunders in United States foreign policy. This state, with a distinct identity deeply influenced by Persian and Indian cultures, often seen as a mix of both, was infused with extremist Islamic ideology by the United States, with the help of Pakistan, once their biggest ally in the region, to counter the Soviet Union. The notorious Islamic extremist organization, the Taliban, was nurtured with U.S.-supported funds, but they eventually became foes, leading to the famous U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which overthrew the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate that had become a threat to humanity. After the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban’s reestablishment of the Islamic Emirate in 2021, strict Islamic Sharia law was reimplemented, women were banned from public life and schools, ancient cruel punishments became common, and Islam permeated all aspects of the state.

    The United States chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to enormous spending and the loss of American lives. The U.S. allowed the Taliban to take over the country, orchestrating meetings in Qatar, the Taliban’s biggest ally, and even releasing Taliban terrorists to facilitate the coup. Afghanistan is now under Taliban control, and though the U.S. has been absent for three years, the situation still impacts American politics. It remains a significant talking point in the ongoing presidential clash between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris.

    The United States’ operation in Afghanistan spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations, making both parties equally responsible for the war and the resulting deaths of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians. Although the issue had nearly faded from American consciousness, it has resurfaced in the mainstream as former President Donald Trump on Monday linked Vice President Kamala Harris to the chaotic Afghanistan War withdrawal. This occurred on the third anniversary of the suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members, an event Trump called a humiliation. Trump also laid wreaths at Arlington National Cemetery to honor Sgt. Nicole Gee, Staff Sgt. Darin Hoover, and Staff Sgt. Ryan Knauss, who were killed, along with more than 100 Afghans, in the suicide bombing at Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 26, 2021.

    President Joe Biden’s administration was actually following a withdrawal commitment and timeline that the Trump administration had negotiated with the Taliban and Qatar in 2020. A 2022 review by a government-appointed special investigator concluded that decisions made by both Trump and Biden were key factors leading to the rapid collapse of Afghanistan’s military and the Taliban takeover. However, Trump accused Biden and Kamala Harris of causing the humiliation in Afghanistan, claiming it triggered the collapse of American credibility and respect worldwide. In his speech to the National Guard in Detroit, Trump stated that leaving Afghanistan was the right decision but criticized the poor execution. While the Taliban’s resurgence and the U.S. withdrawal were planned, the execution was a significant failure that severely damaged the United States’ image and cost many lives.

    Kamala Harris largely dismissed Trump’s remarks about the poor execution of the Afghanistan withdrawal. In her statement marking the anniversary of the Kabul airport attack, Harris expressed her mourning for the 13 U.S. service members who were killed, stating that her prayers were with their families and loved ones, and that her heart broke for their pain and loss. She also honored and remembered all Americans who served in Afghanistan. Harris reiterated that President Biden made the courageous and correct decision to end America’s longest war. She mentioned that over the past three years, the administration had demonstrated that they could still eliminate terrorists, including the leaders of al-Qaeda and ISIS, without deploying troops into combat zones. Harris emphasized that she would never hesitate to take whatever action was necessary to counter terrorist threats and protect the American people.

    Under Trump, the United States signed a peace agreement with the Taliban aimed at ending America’s longest war and bringing U.S. troops home. Biden later used this agreement to shift blame for the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, contending that it required him to withdraw troops and set the stage for the subsequent chaos. The Biden administration’s review acknowledged that the evacuation of Americans and allies should have started earlier, blaming delays on the Afghan government and military, as well as U.S. military and intelligence assessments. The top U.S. generals overseeing the evacuation criticized the administration for inadequate planning. Gen. Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers earlier this year that he had recommended keeping a residual force of 2,500 troops for support. Instead, Biden chose to maintain a much smaller contingent of 650 troops, solely for securing the U.S. embassy.

    While Harris emphasizes American lives and Trump focuses on American pride, the plight of Afghan citizens, who have suffered under the Taliban’s medieval rule, is largely overlooked by U.S. presidential candidates. There has been little offered in terms of help for the suffering Afghans, a situation also exacerbated by the United States. The success of the Taliban has aided many extremist organizations in spreading their vision across various countries, which could eventually pose a significant threat to the U.S. Meanwhile, without addressing these core issues, presidential candidates are focusing on the emotions of American citizens.

  • Putin Still Seeks to Mediate Peace in the Caucasus

    Putin Still Seeks to Mediate Peace in the Caucasus

    A notable shift in sentiment is occurring among the populations of former Soviet countries, commonly known as the Russosphere. Younger generations, largely unexposed to Soviet propaganda, are increasingly influenced by Western ways of living. Eastern Europe, with the exception of Belarus, which still has a pro-Russian government, appears to be slipping away from Russia’s influence. Russia now fears it may lose its grip on the Caucasus next. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has exposed Russia’s weaknesses, leading many to question its ability to act as the heir of the Soviet Union. Despite initiating the war two years ago, Russia has struggled to invade Ukraine and achieve its objectives, facing repeated humiliations. The Caucasus, a compact yet geopolitically pivotal region bridging Asia and Europe, once firmly under Russia’s sway, is now drifting towards Europe. In Georgia and Armenia, a growing Europhile sentiment is visible, as the people increasingly look westward, aligning their aspirations more closely with Europe Any significant move in this direction could pose a serious challenge to Moscow. Putin and the Kremlin seem to have recognized this changing mood and appear to be taking steps to address it.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent two-day visit to Azerbaijan makes it clear that he intends to maintain his role as a powerbroker in the Caucasus. However, whether he still has the influence to do so remains uncertain. Putin’s trip to Baku on August 18th and 19th occurred against the backdrop of Russia’s deteriorating strategic partnership with Armenia, where Yerevan has increasingly strengthened its political and security ties with the West, and a continuing Ukrainian offensive in Russia’s Kursk region. Despite these challenges, Putin adopted a business-as-usual attitude throughout his visit, highlighting the economic advantages of the Declaration of Alliance between Russia and Azerbaijan signed in 2022, just days before Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine. Putin mentioned that cooperation could extend beyond energy to include industrial collaboration, transport, logistics, and light industry. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, in turn, highlighted Azerbaijan’s commitment to preserving and promoting the Russian language, noting that over 160,000 students were enrolled in more than 300 Russian schools in the country. He also acknowledged Russia’s peacekeeping role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

    With Russia’s strained relations with Armenia, the central question during Putin’s visit was whether Moscow could still play a meaningful role in brokering peace between Baku and Yerevan. Putin certainly seems eager to try. At one point, he expressed to Aliyev his willingness to facilitate efforts to delimit and demarcate the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, as well as to broker a peace deal. Putin clearly does not want to see himself-or Russia-sidelined in the peace negotiations.

    Even though Russia can influence Armenian politicians with business ties to Moscow, significant discontent remains among the Armenian population. Many Armenians view the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh as a betrayal by Russia, believing that Russia now favors Azerbaijan, thus undermining their historical Orthodox alliance. It is important to recognize that public sentiment may differ from the views of their politicians. Putin and Russia have a vested interest in Azerbaijan due to its rich natural resources and its strategic position as a route from Turkey and the Middle East to Russia for money and investments. This interest aligns with Putin’s ambitious North-South Corridor project, which aims to boost direct trade with Iran and India, bypassing intermediaries. This initiative could help offset the loss of business with Europe and reduce Russia’s current overreliance on China, which greatly benefits from this dependence. Thus, Azerbaijan is a top priority in the Caucasus for Russia, even though Moscow does not want to lose Armenia entirely. If Russia cannot settle its issues with Armenia, it is likely that Armenia will turn more towards the West. With both Georgia and Armenia moving away from Russian influence, Russia faces severe security risks.

    Russia’s historical involvement in the South Caucasus underscores the necessity of its participation in the peace process. However, Armenian officials, who have accused Moscow of failing to uphold security guarantees during the Second Karabakh War, appear reluctant to accept further Russian involvement. On August 19, a representative from the Armenian Foreign Ministry criticized Russian diplomats for making biased and disrespectful remarks about Armenia and questioned Russia’s commitment to fostering constructive engagement between Armenian and Azerbaijani officials. It also seems that as countries increasingly challenge Putin and Russia in the region. On this occasion,  Putin is attempting to maintain a presence and their importance through his diplomatic meetings in Baku.

  • Significance of Narendra Modi’s Visit to Ukraine

    Significance of Narendra Modi’s Visit to Ukraine

    There was significant uproar from the Western world when India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Vladimir Putin in July, despite his bold criticism of Russia’s actions during the meeting. The Indian opposition also condemned Modi, viewing the visit as a clear departure from India’s long-standing non-alignment strategy, upheld since the Cold War. However, Modi defended his decision, stressing the importance of the India-Russia relationship and highlighting several agreements that would benefit the Indian economy. By choosing Russia for his first bilateral meeting after securing his third term as Prime Minister, Modi underscored the significance he places on this relationship, but it drew heavy criticism from Ukraine and the Western world.

    As a counter to his trip to Russia, Narendra Modi made a historic visit to Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, on Friday. During the visit, he assured Volodymyr Zelenskiy of his readiness to act as a friend in facilitating a peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. Modi’s visit has sparked hope among peace advocates, as he is seen as having significant influence with Vladimir Putin, unlike other Western leaders who have previously attempted to broker a peace agreement.

    This trip marks the first visit to Ukraine by an Indian leader since the country gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. It comes after a period of strained relations, as Zelenskiy had criticized Modi’s recent visit to Moscow, which coincided with a Russian missile strike on a children’s hospital in Kyiv. During his visit at Kyiv, Modi expressed respect and support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, calling it India’s highest priority. He also emphasized that he had told Vladimir Putin during their July meeting that problems cannot be resolved on the battlefield and that the war could only be ended through dialogue and diplomacy.

    Zelenskiy warmly embraced Modi and described his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty amid Russian aggression as critical. Zelenskiy posted on X that history was made with Modi’s friendly and symbolic visit, which coincided with the eve of Ukraine’s Independence Day celebrations. The two leaders stood together in front of a memorial dedicated to Ukrainian children killed by Russian missiles. During their official talks, they discussed Zelenskiy’s 10-point peace plan, which he has presented to the international community, according to India’s foreign ministry. The plan includes the withdrawal of Russian troops from occupied territories, reparations, and war crime tribunals for Russian generals and political leaders. Ukrainian officials are also preparing to organize a second peace summit this year, with Saudi Arabia being considered as a possible venue. Ukraine views building effective relations with countries of the global south as crucial, believing that a just resolution to the war is in everyone’s interest.

    Reports indicate that Indians have been recruited from both sides to fight in the war, with casualties reported. With high unemployment remaining a significant issue in the overpopulated country, more Indians are reportedly ready to join the conflict. However, India’s economy has benefited substantially. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent Western sanctions, India has imported large volumes of discounted Russian oil, which has been processed by Indian refineries and sold globally.

    Although India has gained economically, Modi has consistently sought to portray his government as a neutral peace broker. Critics accuse India of merely performing a balancing act with Russia, provoking considerable anger among Western countries. Nevertheless, some political analysts believe that India’s actions are a strategic response to the Kremlin’s growing partnership with China, India’s primary geopolitical rival, leading to a reassessment of its foreign policy.

    Modi’s visit comes as both Russian and Ukrainian forces are making notable advances. Recently, Ukraine launched a surprise incursion into Russia, and its forces now control a 1,250 sq km area within Russian territory, around the town of Sudzha. Around 130,000 Russians have fled the region, with fierce fighting continuing in Korenevo and other frontline villages. This incursion – the first by foreign troops into Russia since World War II—has been more successful for Kyiv than expected. The Russian military’s response to the Kursk incursion remains unclear. As the conflict escalates into a new phase, Modi’s visit to Ukraine is likely to have a significant impact on India’s relations with both Russia and the West.

  • China-European Union Trade War Heats Up

    China-European Union Trade War Heats Up

    Europe has finally taken action to shield its market from the influx of cheap products that have devastated its industries. European-made goods have struggled due to fierce competition from high-quality U.S. and Japanese products, as well as the low prices of Chinese goods in the global market. Despite its high purchasing power, Europe has faced challenges in protecting its own domestic market. Consequently, European powerhouses have been overshadowed by producer countries, resulting in the closure of domestic industries, job losses, and deteriorating living conditions. These problems have fueled the rise of far-right movements, which pose a threat to the stability of the European Union.

    Though belated, Europe has started to act to restrict cheap and technologically advanced Chinese products to protect its domestic businesses, launching investigations that could lead to higher tariffs. At the same time, China, the target of Europe’s actions, is facing its own setbacks from declining demand following similar strategies implemented by the U.S. and its allies. In response, China has begun to counter Europe’s actions with its own investigations, mirroring the European Union’s tactics.

    As part of initial measures that could escalate into a broader trade war, Europe is targeting the Chinese government’s subsidies to certain industries, which have resulted in cheap products with strong research and development backing. Chinese-made electric vehicles, popular among European consumers for their low prices, have benefited from these substantial subsidies. After an investigation, the European Commission found that Chinese authorities had provided extensive subsidies to electric vehicle manufacturers at every stage of production, making these cars so artificially cheap that European competitors might eventually be forced to close factories and lay off workers. By the end of October, Chinese carmakers that fail to cooperate with the EU’s investigation into electric vehicles could face tariffs of up to 36.3%, in addition to the existing 10% EU duty on cars.

    For China, this is a significant setback, as the country aspires to achieve global dominance in the electric vehicle (EV) industry. In response, Chinese authorities have initiated an anti-subsidy investigation into European dairy imports. According to the China Chamber of Commerce to the EU, Beijing launched the investigation following a complaint from its dairy industry on July 29, with consultations with the EU taking place on August 14.

    China’s investigation will focus on 20 subsidy programs that support the production of milk, cream, and cheese in eight EU countries, including subsidies for dairy storage, young farmers’ allowances, and supplementary income schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy. The countries targeted in the investigation include Ireland, which receives subsidies for dairy equipment, Austria and Belgium for loan schemes, Italy for livestock insurance and dairy subsidies, Croatia for livestock producer subsidies, Finland for three types of farming support, Romania for livestock subsidies, and the Czech Republic for a subsidy scheme related to farm damage. Of these, Ireland is the largest dairy exporter to China, with €423 million in sales in 2023, including dried milk for infant formula, according to Irish government data.

    China’s commerce ministry announced the investigation on Wednesday, just a day after the European Commission revealed revised duties on Chinese electric vehicles as part of its investigation into what it sees as artificially cheap cars that threaten jobs in Europe’s automotive industry.

    The EU Chamber of Commerce in China remarked that the investigation was expected following the EU’s actions against Chinese electric vehicle exports. It seems more investigations are on the horizon, as EU officials have also launched separate anti-dumping inquiries into other renewable industries, such as Chinese-made solar panels and wind turbines. This week, EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, stressed the need to avoid a systemic confrontation with China, though he acknowledged that a trade war might be inevitable. In response, Beijing has initiated retaliatory investigations into politically sensitive European imports like pork and cognac. As with any trade war, both sides are likely to suffer, but China may be the most affected, given the current trade balance, which favors China.

  • Are We Really Approaching a Ceasefire in Gaza?

    Are We Really Approaching a Ceasefire in Gaza?

    A ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict is now a demand from the United States as Americans head to the polls to choose their next president in November. Neither Hamas nor Israel seems particularly interested in this. Israel does not feel the need to stop the war at this point because they have successfully framed Hamas as their biggest threat following the October 7th attack. Meanwhile, in Gaza, a Hamas-controlled territory, a severe humanitarian crisis is unfolding, with over 40,000 deaths reported by local health authorities and critical issues such as famine and a lack of drinking water. This situation only strengthens Hamas’s image as a martyr organization within the Muslim world, which aligns with the group’s objectives. For outsiders who do not view this as a holy war, a ceasefire is their primary demand. The UN’s influence seems limited, and the U.S. is seen as the only power that can make a difference. Secretary Blinken’s visit raised some hope, but the situation still appears to be in limbo, with talks expected to continue.

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the urgency of securing a ceasefire in Gaza as he concluded his Middle East tour, with an agreement between Israel and Hamas still out of reach. He stated that the deal needs to be completed soon, ideally within the next few days. Blinken urged Hamas to accept a bridging proposal that Israel has already agreed to and encouraged both parties to work toward finalizing it. Blinken, along with mediators from Egypt and Qatar, is focusing on this bridging proposal to narrow the gaps between the two sides in the 10-month-old conflict. Despite last week’s negotiations pausing without a breakthrough, the U.S. expects ceasefire talks to continue this week.

    However, analysts believe that achieving a ceasefire will not be easy. Hamas is not directly participating in the negotiations and has expressed concerns that the latest proposal on the table leans too much toward Israel’s demands. On Tuesday, the militant group responded to comments by U.S. President Joe Biden, who suggested that they were backing away from an agreement with Israel, calling these remarks misleading. The proposed plan calls for a six-week ceasefire, during which a limited number of female, seniors, and sick Israeli hostages would be freed in exchange for Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. The ceasefire could be extended indefinitely while negotiators work on a second stage, which would include the return of soldiers and bodies, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and the return of displaced Palestinian civilians to their homes in the northern part of the strip.

    A key obstacle to reaching an agreement has been Hamas’s long standing demand for the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from all areas of Gaza, which Israel rejected without any doubts. When asked in Qatar about the terms of Israeli troop withdrawals within the ceasefire framework, and about a report in the U.S. publication Axios that quoted Netanyahu as saying he might have convinced Blinken that Israel should keep troops in the Philadelphi corridor, a strategic strip on the Gaza-Egypt border, Blinken responded. He stated that the United States does not support any long-term occupation of Gaza by Israel. He also clarified that the agreement is very clear on the schedule and locations of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrawals from Gaza, and that Israel has agreed to those terms.

    Concerns about regional escalation have persisted since Hezbollah and Iran vowed retaliation after an attack last month, blamed on Israel, which resulted in the death of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. However, the likelihood of widespread conflict now seems to be diminishing, as the countries that threatened war are now worried that it could further weaken them and lead to internal unrest and civil protests.

    Many believe that U.S. politics are influencing the ceasefire efforts both positively and negatively. There are conspiracy theories on X suggesting that Donald Trump might be delaying the truce with his friend Netanyahu to avoid benefiting Kamala Harris in the election, though no evidence has been reported. However, it is clear that there is now a push for a ceasefire from the U.S. government, as it could provide a significant boost to Democrats in the presidential election. Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza remains a severe humanitarian crisis. A ceasefire would be a notable humanitarian achievement for these politicians.