Tag: Russia

  • Georgia Stays Committed to Russia

    Georgia Stays Committed to Russia

    Georgia, facing serious geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, has chosen to support the ruling party, Georgian Dream, and its soft Euroscepticism in the parliamentary election held on October 26. This election and the subsequent incidents have attracted significant global media attention due to ongoing regional power struggles and large-scale participation in anti-government protests. The landslide victory of Georgian Dream is undeniably remarkable. The ruling Georgian Dream party, which has been in power since 2012, secured more than 50% of the vote and won 89 of the 150 parliamentary seats.

    However, the opposition, along with Europe and the U.S., has rejected the results, calling the election illegitimate and fraudulent, and accusing the ruling party of malpractice. While these election results reflect a clear direction, pro-European sentiment dominates the capital, whereas residents in villages and smaller cities continue to support the conservative, Orthodox-aligned Georgian Dream party and maintain pro-Russian sentiments.

    While the opposition takes a tougher stance after the disappointing election—such as boycotting the new parliament and receiving support from Western media—the published results feature a significant win for the Georgian Dream party under the leadership of newly appointed Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze. The party, which mimics Russian politics and caters to Orthodox interests, presents challenges for the country’s strategic direction as it drives its campaign. They have promised to fully pass the Protection of Family Values and Minors bill, which they previously initiated in the Georgian Parliament. The bill, intended to ban LGBT propaganda, has been justified by the ruling party as necessary to prevent the spread of pseudo-liberal ideology from outside Georgia.

    Georgian Dream accuses the opposition of being puppets of the West. They frame the opposition within a narrative of war versus peace, traditional values versus moral degradation, and subservience to external powers versus an independent and sovereign state. The Georgian Dream party pledged to ban the former ruling United National Movement party upon winning office, accusing it of various crimes against the Georgian people during its rule, including pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008 and attempting to embroil Georgia in a second front of the Russo-Ukrainian War. A narrative Europe doesn’t like and Russia loves. 

    While the opposition accuses the election and its results of being unfair, there were a lot of setbacks on their side as well. First of all, they were largely split and could not initiate a common drive, and they were poorly connected to rural areas. The opposition coalition, such as Unity – National Movement (U-NM), comprising the United National Movement, Strategy Agmashenebeli, and European Georgia, and the Coalition for Change (CC), which includes Ahali, Girchi – More Freedom, Droa, the Republican Party, For Georgia (FG), and Strong Georgia (SG)—all advocating for pro-Europeanism—could not agree on a common minimum program before the election. The split vote and changing coalition instabilities rewarded victory for the ruling Georgian Dream alliance.

    In the capital, Georgian Dream received 42% of the vote, while the four major opposition coalitions combined received 46%, plus an additional 5.3% from the libertarian Girchi party. This split indicates that the opposition, despite having a clear upper hand, failed to capitalize on their support. According to the current results, the Coalition for Change (CC) came in second, increasing their 2020 election tally from 2 to 19 seats. Unity – National Movement suffered a significant loss, dropping almost 23 seats to reach a total of 16. The Strong Georgia alliance came fourth with 14 seats, while Gakharia For Georgia secured fifth place, winning 12 seats in their first election. All other parties and alliances that had representation in the previous parliament, such as the Georgian Labour Party, lost their representation entirely.

    The future of Georgia looks troubled, particularly after the parliamentary election. The country is deeply divided between conservatives with Orthodox foundations and strong connections to Russia, and Europhiles who are deeply irritated by the ruling party’s Rusophilia. The country will witness more protests against the government, at least in Tbilisi. The choice of the Georgian Dream party will align the country with Russia’s orbit and free it from further trouble with the Kremlin. Georgia appears to benefit from the Russia-Ukraine war, as capital and manpower flow from Russia. It seems that the government and businesses in the country are choosing to capitalize on this opportunity, and the divided opposition is certainly helping the government achieve this.

  • BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    There are many multinational alliances in the world today, such as the European Union, NATO, the GCC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. Most of these are regional organizations focused on enhancing cooperation and elevating the importance of their respective regions. However, BRICS stands apart as a unique entity—neither regional nor military like NATO. Instead, it is an international body created as an alternative to the dominance of the United States. BRICS, originally formed as BRIC in 2009 with the addition of Brazil to the team of Russia, India, and China—four of the world’s top 10 economies—was later joined by South Africa. The group initially aimed to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and U.S. technology while boosting investment opportunities. Now in its 16th year, BRICS has become an increasingly significant geopolitical bloc. They are currently holding their 16th summit in Kazan, Russia, chaired by Vladimir Putin, a leader ostracized by the West, with more than 36 global leaders in attendance. The summit underscores the group’s independence and its indifference to the United States and the West.

    Beyond the typical photo shoots, the 16th summit in Kazan showcases the unity of its members. Several meetings are planned among various state leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This summit also marks the debut of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The expanded membership suggests a shift toward alliances reminiscent of the Cold War era, when states formed strong, politically driven partnerships. Despite economic threats from the United States, all participants are eager to cooperate, and Putin is using the occasion to assert Russia’s enduring global relevance. The summit can be viewed as a personal success for Putin, as he has brought together nations like China and India, which were previously on the verge of conflict in a way that questions the existence of the bloc.

    The meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi takes place after five years as part of the summit. The relationship between China and India was very strained, following deadly fights at the border. Emerging reports indicate that China and India are actively working to resolve their border disputes and are ready to cooperate as they did in earlier years. This development poses a significant setback to U.S. efforts to divide the coalition and pull India to its side.

    Russia is also using the Kazan BRICS summit to push de-dollarization as a key agenda item. With Western sanctions severely impacting its businesses, Russia is seeking alternatives, and China, with its expansionist ambitions, is also anticipating potential sanctions. Iran, a new BRICS member, has likewise suffered under U.S. sanctions. Together, these countries are advocating for a faster transition to de-dollarization, increased use of local currencies in trade, and the strengthening of financial institutions as alternatives to U.S.-controlled banks. However, there is some resistance from India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are hesitant to accelerate the process despite their shared goal of finding an alternative to the dollar.

    The summit is expected to yield agreements on expanding trade routes and enhancing cooperation. Strengthening trade ties has been BRICS’ biggest achievement to date, helping Russia and Iran maintain relatively stable economies despite harsh Western sanctions. If India and China can rebuild their cooperation, the group’s economic power will grow significantly. Russia is working hard toward this goal, and key meetings and important decisions are anticipated at this iteration of the BRICS Summit.

    Most people in the West may not even be aware of BRICS, but it’s evident that something significant is brewing in the East that could counterbalance the United States. BRICS+ now boasts a larger GDP than the G7 or the EU, and its banks and institutions prioritize equal participation, unlike those dominated by the U.S. While Russia and China have demonstrated their capacity to challenge American influence, the inclusion of members like India, Iran, and Brazil suggests the group is poised to push further against U.S. interests. Although still in its early stages, BRICS has already proven capable of bypassing strict U.S. sanctions through enhanced cooperation. Politically, the 2024 BRICS Summit presents a challenge to U.S. dominance in global politics and represents a pivotal moment for Putin, signaling his and Russia’s resurgence on the global stage.

  • Why Is Putin Seeking Mediation from China and India in the War?

    Why Is Putin Seeking Mediation from China and India in the War?

    The Russia-Ukraine war is now in a stalemate, with neither side able to advance. Russia, once seen as the Goliath aiming to capture Ukraine, is now humiliated, unable to move forward, while Ukraine has even crossed into Russian territory. What many expected to be an easy victory for Russia, with the war ending in a few months, has turned into a protracted conflict, and no one expects a quick resolution – unless Putin resorts to nuclear weapons, launching the endgame. This unexpected prolongation is a challenge for all involved, but it affects Russia more than Ukraine.

    Ukraine has already endured massive losses, with many of its men killed, its women fleeing to the West, and its buildings reduced to rubble. However, they remain resilient, bolstered by Western money and munitions. Russia, on the other hand, is under heavy Western sanctions and losing its strength. While not fully economically collapsed, its economy is suffering and becoming increasingly reliant on China and other allies. Meanwhile, countries that once followed the Kremlin are now recognizing its weakness and beginning to distance themselves. All of this highlights that Russia is the biggest loser in this war, and though they need to end it, their pride remains an obstacle.

    Extensive discussions were held between Putin and Western leaders to avoid war. However, a confident Putin seemed intent on humiliating them, and we all remember how Macron was belittled during his meeting with Putin in Moscow. Putin initiated the war, but no one anticipated this outcome. Ukraine is fighting fiercely, and Western nations remain steadfast in their support.

    Initially, Putin disregarded peace talks and negotiations, but now he appears ready to end the war. Interestingly, he is not engaging with Western leaders, but instead reaching out to countries like Brazil, China, and India – key BRICS nations, except for South Africa – who are attempting to establish an alternative power bloc. Putin mentioned a preliminary agreement reached between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators in the early weeks of the war during talks in Istanbul, which was never implemented, as a potential basis for new negotiations. However, it seems neither side is proposing a realistic plan they can agree on, raising doubts about Putin’s true intentions.

    Zelenski is now more confident and is reportedly planning larger operations following the incursion near Kursk. It is expected that the current U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris, will become the next president, so there will likely be no significant policy change regarding support for Ukraine. Putin’s recent moves may be aimed at shifting the narrative, portraying Ukraine as the aggressor and Russia as willing to settle.

    China’s involvement will not be effective with Ukraine, as China remains firmly aligned with Russia and the Kremlin won’t find much common ground with Brazil despite its leftist president. India, which maintains strong relationships with both Russia and the West, is another potential mediator suggested by Russia. India has shown its neutrality through visits by Prime Minister Modi and other officials to both Russia and Ukraine. Modi’s criticism of the war during his visit to Moscow was well-received in the West. However, the chances of India intervening are slim, as India is one of the few countries benefiting from the war, securing cheaper oil and gas from Russia. India’s foreign minister has stated that this is a bilateral issue, and India would only help with peace talks if requested, otherwise it will not interfere.

    So, It is clear that neither China, India, nor Brazil are likely to intervene. Putin is likely aware of this, making his actions a strategic move to convince both the Russian public and the world that Russia is not responsible for prolonging the war and is willing to negotiate.

    As the war stretches into its third year, the Russia-Ukraine conflict increasingly resembles a personal battle between Putin and Zelensky. Both leaders, unwilling to compromise and driven by their egos, seem inclined to prolong the war, despite the suffering and losses on both sides. Peace talks could tarnish their images, and Putin cannot imagine conceding to Zelensky. However, as Russia begins to suffer more, they may deflect blame and place it on Ukraine. The invitations to India and China can be seen as part of this strategy to shift the narrative.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Does Georgia Help Russia Bypass Sanctions?

    Does Georgia Help Russia Bypass Sanctions?

    It is dubious that, while people in Georgia aspire to European integration, politicians are not taking significant action toward this goal. Instead, they are drafting laws like the foreign agents bill, which make the country increasingly authoritarian and similar to Russia in terms of governance and media control. This situation is largely attributed to the significant business ties between Georgian politicians, businesspeople, and their Russian counterparts. Although Georgia was expected to align with Ukraine, given its own loss of substantial territory to Russia in the 2008 war, it is now accused of circumventing Western sanctions imposed due to Russia’s war with Ukraine – an accusation that could jeopardize Georgia’s European aspirations.

    The investigative outlet iFact recently published an article revealing troubling patterns. Journalists posing as parties interested in shipping dual-use goods to Russia found that sending items like drones and computer processors faced few obstacles. The report acknowledged existing inspection protocols designed to prevent illicit goods from crossing the Georgia-Russia border but pointed out that the effectiveness and thoroughness of these checks can vary. Moreover, couriers could potentially bypass Georgian restrictions by routing goods through Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Central Asian countries before reaching Russia. This pattern suggests that such circumvention is unlikely to occur without some level of cooperation from Georgian authorities.

    Georgian government officials have yet to directly address the report published earlier this month. Instead, their focus has shifted to other allegations linking them to Russia. Recently, the ruling Georgia Dream party has been preoccupied with damage control following an August 9 OCCRP investigation into the property holdings of Honorary Chairman Bidzina Ivanishvili’s family in Russia. Georgia’s Revenue Service has rejected the report, claiming that this is not the first instance of investigative journalists making baseless accusations about uncontrollable entry of sanctioned goods into Georgia and their subsequent export to Russia. Georgian Dream Party leaders have previously denied allegations that Georgia facilitates the shipping of sanctioned goods to Russia, citing a lack of conclusive evidence. Former Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili asserted in June 2023 that the government is absolutely transparent and declared with full responsibility that no evidence has been presented showing that Georgia has helped anyone evade sanctions. However, this claim remains hard to believe.

    Georgia has not joined Western nations in sanctioning Russia since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, citing concerns that such measures would severely impact its economy. Businesses often exploit loopholes to circumvent sanctions, a tactic historically common through rerouting trade via allied or neighboring countries. Georgia has been accused of such practices, along with other countries close to Russia like Kyrgyzstan, despite its recent protests against Russia and aspirations for EU membership. 

    Georgian leaders insist that the country is not being used to bypass Western sanctions. However, dual-use goods, such as certain mechanical and electronic components, are among Georgian exports to Russia, despite limited production capacity in Georgia. iFact’s report suggests that the presence of these goods indicates exploitation of legal loopholes and logistical routes to support Russia’s war effort. While some argue that sanctions circumvention is minimal, as shown by trade data, and that stricter restrictions could harm Georgia’s economy, others believe that Georgian authorities, closely linked with Russia, are deceiving both Western nations and their own citizens for business interests.

  • Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    Why Doesn’t the Islamic World Have a Superpower to Challenge Israel?

    The conflict between Muslims and Jews has historical roots extending over centuries, primarily driven by religious differences rather than just territorial disputes. This is why the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict attracts worldwide attention and involves Muslims and Jews globally. Social media is abuzz with propaganda from both sides. However, on the ground, Israel has a significant advantage as a sovereign state with advanced project management, while Hamas, which governs Gaza and initiated the fresh wave of conflict with terrorist attacks in Israel, finds itself on the defensive with only weakened support from Iran. The conflict appears to be heavily skewed in favor of one side, with the Hamas side suffering greatly.

    In terms of international politics, Israel receives support from superpowers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, while countries like Russia, China, and India maintain a more neutral stance. This support provides Israel with a substantial advantage. On the other hand, Hamas and Gaza mainly receive backing from Iran, whose capabilities are in question. This raises the question: why are there no superpowers in the Arab or Muslim world capable of challenging Israel?

    The answer lies in U.S. supremacy in a unipolar world. Although there is widespread anger and calls for solidarity with Hamas across the Islamic world, which stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, these are largely limited to public statements. This situation represents a clear victory for U.S. diplomacy, which has either aligned powerful countries with U.S. interests or severely weakened others. A powerful or superpower country typically has strong leadership, economic influence, political influence, strong international alliances, and a strong military, but few countries in the Islamic world possess all these features combined. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey are considered powerful countries within the Islamic world today, but they are all aligned with the United States. Turkey is a NATO member with tight ties to the U.S., while Saudi Arabia and the UAE are highly reliant on business with the U.S., and their leadership maintains strong connections with U.S. diplomats. They also have military defense pacts with the U.S. Qatar, one of the wealthiest Islamic countries, also maintains a close relationship with the U.S. Despite their connections with Islamist leaders and organizations, and their roles in mediating with groups like Hamas and the Taliban.

    All the countries that previously challenged Israel are now weakened and humbled by U.S. strategies and diplomacy. Egypt, home to the largest army in the Middle East and the leader of last century’s Arab movements against Israel, along with Libya, Iraq, and Syria – countries that once challenged Israel—have lost the leadership capable of making such decisions. They are experiencing severe economic decline and face significant domestic challenges. Now, it seems that the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently the only major power from the Muslim world still challenging Israel. However, Iran has also been economically weakened by strong U.S. sanctions and faces serious domestic issues. Iran has been stunned and humbled by Israel through severe attacks. While Iran has vowed revenge, it has not taken any significant actions that are visibly effective. Nonetheless, Iran has not completely withdrawn from its ideological commitment to opposing Israel, unlike other states. Iran continues to fund organizations fighting against Israel, and Qatar is also reported to be providing support. Despite these efforts, no one is currently able to effectively challenge Israel, highlighting the weakness of the Islamic world outside of its elaborate organizations.

    As Israel is not ready for a truce, it seems likely that Gaza will be systematically annexed by Israel. This outcome appears inevitable. The stance of Islamic countries, which avoids a regional war, may bring peace, but it is clear that the position of Muslim governments does not reflect the sentiment of their populations. This could lead to a revival of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the Islamic world, which would bring more challenges in the region.

  • Is Russia Going to Lose the War?

    Is Russia Going to Lose the War?

    While Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, following a series of military operations that had previously annexed significant parts of Ukraine and involved multiple instances of intimidation, everyone expected that the mighty superpower, Russia – the heir to the great Soviet Union – under the strong leadership of Putin, would complete its objectives in a matter of months. It was widely assumed that they would overthrow the Zelensky government and erase any trace of Ukrainian identity from the earth. The initial momentum seemed to confirm this, as almost the entire coast of the Black Sea and the capital, Kyiv, were severely struck, with buildings reduced to rubble, people dying, and many fleeing the country. When the western cities of Ukraine were also attacked, many predicted that Russia’s victory was inevitable and Ukraine was doomed.

    However, the Ukrainian soldiers, along with the government led by Zelensky, a former comedian determined to defy Putin’s ambitions, resisted fiercely. With full support from the United States and Europe, in the form of money and weapons, Ukraine forced Russia to retreat from the captured territories, including areas near the capital. Now, Russia finds itself confined almost entirely to the areas it had seized before 2022. In a remarkable turn of events, and perhaps the biggest blow to Russia, a superpower once considered capable of challenging even the United States, Ukrainian forces have begun entering Russian territory and capturing land. This has become a major humiliation for Russia. And yet, it still seems unbelievable – could Russia actually lose this war?

    Ukraine’s top commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, reports that his forces have captured 1,000 square kilometers of Russia’s Kursk region, a strategically important area for Russia. Footage has surfaced showing Ukrainian troops waving their flags on Russian soil, delivering a significant humiliation to the once-mighty Russia – Goliath brought low by David. After initial confusion, Russia acknowledged the attack. Alexei Smirnov, the acting regional governor of Kursk, estimated that Kyiv’s forces had taken control of 28 settlements in an incursion approximately 12 kilometers deep and 40 kilometers wide. While this is less than half of Syrskyi’s estimate, Smirnov’s statement represents a notable public admission of a major Russian setback more than 29 months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The claims made by both sides could not be independently verified.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged the situation and vowed a strong response to the attack, ordering his troops to dislodge the enemy from Russian territories. However, a week into the surprise assault, Russia is still struggling to repel the Ukrainian forces. Kyiv’s strategy of maintaining silence stands in sharp contrast to last year’s counteroffensive, which was widely anticipated for months and ultimately faltered against Russia’s defensive lines.

    It is certain that Russia will fight back with all its force to reclaim its territory and will likely launch further attacks in Ukraine to restore its strong image. Although Russia is a nuclear power with a strong arsenal, it seems that something is amiss in the Kremlin. Decisions are not being made swiftly, and there appears to be a lack of planned moves or coherent strategy from the Russian side. The Kremlin seems confused and not in a sound state of decision-making. Wagner’s who made initial momentum are sidelined after they attempted a coup, leading to the death of their leader, and the shortage of weapons and manpower on the Russian side has become evident, while Ukraine continues to advance each day.

    Even though we can’t predict who will win the war, analyzing the current situation suggests that the Ukraine war increasingly looks like a major blunder by Russia. Their economy has stalled, businesses have suffered, their superpower status is being questioned, and it now seems like Goliath is being humbled by David. From now on, Russia may need to respect Ukraine as a Slavic power capable of challenging the Russian Federation. Putin might start seeking a peace deal because they lack the manpower to deploy more troops to Ukraine and need to protect their vast country. Additionally, they don’t have enough funds to sustain the war effort indefinitely. If Ukraine continues to advance further, the Russian sphere of influence could collapse. There may even be secessionist movements within Russia if Moscow weakens, which would be easier in such a large country. Crucial times lie ahead for the Kremlin, and it is likely that the ongoing war will have a greater impact on Russia than on Ukraine.

    The chances of an all-out war, as anticipated by Russophiles, now seem to be simmering down. It appears that Putin doesn’t have strong support from Russian authorities, and the image of Russia has been damaged. Kyiv’s current actions seem to be aimed at gaining a stronger negotiating position in potential talks to end the war and halt Moscow’s offensive in eastern Ukraine. However, one thing is clear: the United States and NATO’s strategy has proven effective. They avoided a world war and further empowered Russia, but Russia has been humbled. While Russia will not surrender, as doing so would mean the loss of its superpower status, it is now being forced into negotiations.

  • Iran Is Forced, But Are They Capable?

    Iran Is Forced, But Are They Capable?

    Iran is deeply humiliated by Israel’s killing of the Hamas chief in Tehran. Although it was anticipated that Israel might target him, the attack did not occur while he was in Gaza or Qatar. Instead, Israel chose to act when he arrived in Iran for the new president’s inauguration. As a major player in the Islamic world and the only country actively opposing Israel, Iran views this as a significant humiliation. This incident is not unprecedented; Israel has previously targeted several high-ranking Iranian officials, and some experts even speculate that Ebrahim Raisi might be a target. Iran’s regime feels compelled to retaliate to maintain its strong image domestically and its status as a defender of Islam globally. While previous responses have involved ceremonial missile launches, such a response may no longer suffice. But are they capable?

    Iran is undeniably a superpower in the Middle East, boasting a formidable military force. As of 2024, the Iranian Armed Forces are the second-largest in the region, surpassed only by the Egyptian Armed Forces in terms of active troops. Iran’s military consists of approximately 425,000 active-duty personnel and an additional 100,000 reserves and trained personnel available when needed. These numbers do not include the Law Enforcement Command or the Basij. Despite its numerical advantage over Israel, Iran faces more challenges than opportunities. 

    Most of Iran’s imported weapons are American systems acquired during the shah’s regime before the Islamic Revolution. Following international sanctions, Iran initiated a strong domestic rearmament program, resulting in an increasingly indigenous military inventory. By the 2000s, Iran had become an exporter of arms, although the effectiveness of its domestically manufactured items remains. The country has invested significantly in an ambitious ballistic and cruise missile program to enhance its mid-range strike capability, though updates on its progress are scarce. Additionally, Iran produces a variety of arms and munitions, including tanks, armored vehicles, drones, and an array of naval assets and aerial defense systems, which could be crucial in a conflict.

    Iran has purchased some munitions from Russia in addition to its indigenous weapons. However, since Russia is currently at war, it cannot meet Iran’s demand. It is uncertain whether other superpowers in Asia, such as China and India, will supply munitions to Iran. Supplying munitions would likely invite U.S. sanctions, so Islamic countries will probably refrain from doing so.

    The biggest challenge for Iran is that it does not share a border with Israel, so the size of its army does not provide an advantage. War through waterways is possible, but on all the routes through land and sea, U.S. allies are present and will likely stop them. Through the air, missiles are available, and they have been launched at Israel before, but Israel successfully blocked them. The only way that might work for Iran now is a joint attack with its allies in the region. However, there are doubts that these countries will cooperate with Iran now because they would suffer more than Iran if they intervened. However, it is certain that militant groups in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen will fight alongside Iran, and a joint attack with them is the only possibility for Iran. Iran is trying its best to partner with Islamic countries.

    Iran has called in foreign ambassadors to Tehran to assert its moral duty to hold Israel accountable for what it views as provocations and violations of international law following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Tehran has also requested an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on Wednesday to seek backing from Arab states for potential retaliatory measures against Israel. Many Gulf leaders have expressed their condemnation of Israel’s actions but are advising Iran to show restraint.

    Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s Security Council Secretary, arrived in Tehran on Monday for talks with Iranian leaders, including President Masoud Pezeshkian. While discussions are advancing quickly, it remains uncertain how many countries will support Iran in its war against Israel.

    Experts suggest that Iran is striving to maintain its image. To potentially promote peace, the U.S. might indirectly assist Iran by allowing a token attack, enabling Iran to claim retaliation. Iran could then shift blame to other Gulf states. At this stage, a full-scale war seems unlikely, as Iran recognizes the significant challenges and potential internal problems that such a conflict would create. Although missile strikes or proxy attacks might continue, the likelihood of a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel remains low.