Moscow (11 September/ 33.33).

Russia waged a 2-year war of aggression against its neighbor, the Ukraine. Two years on, hundred thousand of deaths, families destroyed, Russia is no where near its 3-day goals of occupation. The Russian army slugs on, mile for mile, killed for killed. Vladimir Putin and his Siloviki continues a red army model. Heavy artillery, wave of men urging forward. The result, mass casualties. Total loss of life, and equipment.

What does Russians do if in trouble. Reversing to its all bag of tricks. Spies and sabotage. Recent Russian sabotage operations across Europe were “reckless”, Moore said, describing Russian intelligence as “having gone a bit feral”. But “in the UK that is not new”, he added, referring to the attempted assassination of Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in 2018.

Asked if Russian intelligence might be conducting similar sabotage operations against the US by abetting illegal migration across the Mexico border, Burns said: “It’s something we are very sharply focused on. Part of that is a function of so many Russian agents [being] kicked out of Europe. So, they are looking for somewhere to go instead.”

But these sometimes child like operations cause blowbacks. Operations and governments getting increasingly more sophisticated in exposing the intelligence operations and their agents.

Bangladesh, Laos, Sri Lanka are countries who are exposed to Russian interests. However, Russians have very little to offer.

The post Russian response slow, inefficient and repelled appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Speculations over what American foreign policy under the potential leadership of Kamala Devi Harris might look like have begun in earnest, now that US president Joe Biden – who announced recently that he would not be seeking re-election – has officially endorsed his vice president as his heir apparent in the race for the presidency. Although many Democratic Party leaders and supporters have joined the president in coalescing behind Harris, the official nominee of the Democrats will only be chosen at their party’s national convention in Chicago next month.

Should Kamala Harris, if confirmed as the Democrats’ standard bearer, triumph over Donald Trump when Americans take to the ballot box this November, what can we expect from the foreign policy of a Harris administration towards the Indo-Pacific region? Would she prove a “weak” leader – as Beijing’s state-backed news outlet Global Times has insisted – whose presidency is unlikely to pose a threat to China?

Shaky Start

Having carved a niche as the state of California’s top law enforcement official and subsequently its junior senator, Harris stepped into the vice presidency with little foreign policy experience. Her initial foray into US diplomacy began with a stumble: her proposal to work with Central American nations to address the root causes of illegal immigration into the United States was quickly lumped with the related issue of the security of America’s southern border, which she – as in the case of a clumsy interview with the US news outlet NBC News – tried unsuccessfully to avoid. Nor did the initial turmoil among her staff do her reputation any favours.

However, things have markedly improved since those rough beginnings, with seasoned Washington operators like Philip Gordon and Rebecca Lissner being enlisted to advise the vice president on foreign policy and national security matters. According to US congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Harris’s performance at this year’s Munich Security Conference making a case for America’s role in Ukraine and NATO indicates that she has been “stress-tested” and found credible.

Staying the Course

Given her inexperience as an international leader, it is highly likely that Harris, as US president, would continue the Biden administration’s foreign policy, at least until such time as she has a firmer grasp on world affairs. Under her leadership, the United States is likely to continue supporting Ukraine and NATO while adopting a firm line against Vladimir Putin and Russia. Given her strong stance against Israel’s handling of the Gaza conflict – which she has referred to as a humanitarian catastrophe for innocent civilians – it is possible that her Israel policy may prove less fixed and intransigent than Biden’s. Indeed, she is on record for having called for a “temporary ceasefire” to the Gaza conflict well before her boss publicly did.

But far as the Indo-Pacific goes, it is unlikely that Harris would stray from extant US policy. As noted, many Chinese seem to think that Harris would prove weaker than Biden in dealing with China. As a US senator, she co-sponsored a bill promoting human rights in Hong Kong and supported another on the rights of Uyghurs in Xinjiang; in both cases, the bills included sanctions against those deemed responsible for human rights abuses.

China

As vice president, Harris has underscored America’s support – “consistent with [the US’s] long-standing policy” – for Taiwan’s self-defence and decried Chinese intimidation and coercion against Philippine vessels in the waters surrounding the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.

In an interview with CBS News last year, Harris advocated a firm stance against China, calling for “de-risking” from Beijing – a policy that aims to reduce the extent to which the US and Western economies depend on China. “It’s not about pulling out [from China], but it is about ensuring that we are protecting American interests, and that we are a leader in terms of the rules of the road, as opposed to following others’ rules”, Harris explained in that interview.

Harris’s remarks on China strongly hint at the influence of Rebecca Lissner, who currently serves as deputy national security adviser to the vice president. In her 2020 book An Open World: How America Can Win the Contest for Twenty-First-Century Order (co-authored with Mira Rapp-Hooper), Lissner argues that China constitutes America’s “chief antagonist” to an open world through Beijing’s determined efforts at forming exclusive territorial and technological blocs. Against such opposition, Lissner advocates a new vision and approach for America, one that allows it to de-risk itself while working with like-minded allies and rebuilding what she considers outmoded international institutions to set rules that ensure and enhance global openness. Lissner is adamant that the United States and the West should not pursue regime change around the world, but counter authoritarian competitors by preventing the rise of closed spheres of influence and preserving open access to the global commons.

Such an openness strategy is also in line with Harris’s criticism of the Trump administration’s inconsequential efforts to engage North Korea and rein in its nuclear ambitions, which do not close Northeast Asia off as much as create undue uncertainty and apprehension in the region. This is not to imply that Lissner’s ideas would form the blueprint for foreign policy under a Harris administration. At the very least, it suggests that Beijing’s hopes of a weak and unfocused America under Harris may be premature, perhaps even unfounded.

ASEAN

Under Harris, the United States is also likely to stay the course taken by Biden in its ties with ASEAN and Southeast Asia, a region hotly contested by both Beijing and Washington. But whether Harris would do better than Biden at reassuring and improving the region’s perceptions of America remains to be seen. According to a 2024 annual survey conducted by the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, when asked who they would prefer to align with in the ongoing China-US rivalry, slightly more Southeast Asian respondents reportedly sided with the Chinese (50.5%) than with the Americans (49.5%). That said, a Harris-led America would presumably play the kind of international leadership role ASEAN desires of the United States than a Trump-led one is likely to furnish. While ASEAN leaders would no doubt redouble their efforts to keep a mercurial and capricious Donald Trump happy and engaged (were he to return as US leader), a President Harris is more likely to show up for ASEAN meetings in person – the high-mark of ASEAN summitry success – than a President Trump ever did or would.

Southeast Asians have had a couple of opportunities to see Kamala Harris up close. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2021, Harris, in her capacity as US vice president, visited Singapore and Vietnam to strengthen her nation’s security partnerships and to expand economic cooperation with two of America’s critical Indo-Pacific partners. Attending the 2023 ASEAN summit held in Jakarta in Biden’s stead, Harris – in her fifth visit to the Southeast Asian region – engaged with leaders of the ASEAN member states as well as Australia, China, Japan and South Korea. Notably, as a senator, Harris was active in legislating against human rights abuses in Myanmar – a concern she has repeatedly raised during her visits to Southeast Asia. Welcomed or otherwise, ASEAN could expect a greater focus on Myanmar from a Harris administration than it ever did from the Biden – and, for that matter, the Trump – administrations.

Conclusion

Should a Harris foreign policy adopt the contours and course of a grand strategy akin to what Lissner has counselled, it would probably surprise no one if China – still designated as America’s chief antagonist – were to resume its age-old accusation against America over the latter’s ostensible “Cold War” fixation with alliances and partnerships aimed at (in Beijing’s view) encircling and counterbalancing China. In this regard, it is unclear whether Harris might tap into her part-Indian heritage – her late mother was from Tamil Nadu – to enlist India (as a member of the Quad) in checking an assertive China: she has come across as ambivalent towards India. All things considered, the prospect of a Harris presidency is not the worst thing that could happen for the Indo-Pacific region.

See Seng Tan is President and CEO of International Students Inc. (ISI) in the United States and concurrently Research Adviser at RSIS and Senior Associate at the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) at NTU.

See Seng Tan

The post What Might a Harris Foreign Policy Bring? appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

He noted that the “first and only time” NATO’s Article 5 was invoked was after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. Article 5 sets out that an attack on one member of the NATO military alliance is an attack on all.

“NATO stood by us,” he says. “We’re going to stand by NATO”.

Looking forward, Austin said the US will “not be dragged into Putin’s war of choice”, although it will continue to stand by Ukraine and strengthen the NATO alliance.

“NATO is now larger than ever,” he adds. “Putin’s war is not the result of NATO enlargement. Putin’s war is the cause of NATO enlargement.”

The post Putin’s war is the cause of NATO enlargement appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

The successful phasing-out of gas imports from Russia risks making Europe dependent on liquified natural gas (LNG) imports, according to a report published by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) today (June 24).

Between 2021 and 2022, LNG imports increased from 80 billion cubic meters (bcm) to 120 bcm — reflecting an increase from 22% to 34% of total gas imports including from Russia and pipeline — according to the ECA. By 2023, the largest LNG global exporters to the EU were Norway (30%), the US (19.4%) and North Africa (14.1%), Russia was still responsible for 6.1% of LNG imports alongside 8.7% via pipeline, according to EU data.

The risk of LNG dependency was considered by the European Commission when modelling the impact of cutting back Russian gas supplies in 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea, the EU auditors found.

But the EU executive “never modelled or estimated the extent of such LNG price increases or their impact on consumers and competitiveness”, ECA auditors said.

“Given the EU’s dependence on foreign gas, it can never be complacent about its security of supply. And consumers do not have any affordability guarantees in the event of a major future shortage,” said Joāo Leāo, the ECA member responsible for the audit.

Subscribe here to stay informed on the latest EU policy development with our newsletter, “The Policy Briefing”, your weekly insight on European rulemaking, key events and data trends.

The EU imports over 80% of its natural gas and Russian gas accounted for 45% of all EU gas imports in 2021, the last year before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, creating a supply crisis that led to an affordability crisis — gas prices reached a peak of €339 per megawatt-hour (MWh), compared to €51 per MWh, in August 2022 and the same month in 2021, ECA figures revealed.

Prices stabilised at an average of approximately €45/MWh in late 2023, ECA said, still at double pre-crisis levels. Nonetheless, ECA found that the EU’s work to ensure a secure level of gas supply to be “unequal” across member states and that the results of crisis-response goals “often cannot be demonstrated”.

Today’s 14th EU package of sanctions against Russia targeted Russian LNG, but only where imports are transited on for resale.

“This covers both ship-to-ship transfers and ship-to-shore transfers, as well as re-loading operations, and does not affect import but only re-export to third countries via the EU,” according to an EU Council press statement. 

• Watchdog urges caution on reducing Russian LNG imports to the bloc

Carbon capture

ECA’s report also recommends the EU to come up with decarbonisation measures for carbon capture storage and utilisation (CCUS) in light of the energy and climate transition, as EU auditors expect the EU to still need “substantial amounts of natural gas in 2040 for energy-intensive industries” and to date has identified only four commercial CCUS projects operating in the EU with an output of 1.5m tonnes of CO2 captured annually.

EU auditors also called for “improved transparency” in the way energy infrastructure projects connecting EU countries with each other — the so-called Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) — are selected, describing them as “complex”, with “many assessments and steps” and “various investors”.

A total of €1.6 billion was awarded to 40 gas PCIs between 2014 and 2020, 18 of which received funding for construction, according to ECA.

“We found project outcomes to be unclear, making it difficult to assess the implementation rate of PCIs and the added value of a project being a PCI… We found a number of issues with this process, from which lessons can be learnt for the future selection of hydrogen PCIs,” the report found.

The post Auditors warn of LNG dependency after Russian sources cut off appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Colonel Yuri Ivanov, the commanding officer of the Steel Wolves, surveyed his men with steely determination. These were the best of the best, handpicked for their courage, skill, and unwavering loyalty to Ukraine. They had been fighting tooth and nail to slow the Russian advance, launching daring raids and ambushes against overwhelming odds.

But despite their valiant efforts, the tide of the war seemed to be turning against them. Russian tanks rumbled through the streets, their tracks crushing everything in their path. Buildings lay in ruins, and the once-thriving city had been reduced to a ghost town.

“We can’t hold them off forever,” one of the soldiers muttered, his voice heavy with exhaustion and despair.

Colonel Ivanov’s jaw tightened, his gaze flickering with a fierce resolve. “We may not be able to win this war,” he said, his voice low but resolute. “But by God, we can make them pay for every inch of ground they take. We will fight on, even if it means sacrificing everything. We will give Putin’s troops hell.”

A murmur of agreement rippled through the ranks as the soldiers squared their shoulders, their eyes burning with defiance. They knew the risks they faced; the odds stacked against them. But they also knew that they were fighting for something greater than themselves—for their country, for their freedom, for the future of Ukraine.

As dawn broke over the horizon, casting a golden light across the ravaged landscape, the Steel Wolves prepared to once again venture into the heart of the battle. They were outnumbered, outgunned, but they refused to back down. For as long as they drew breath, they would continue to fight. And in that moment, amidst the chaos and destruction of war, they found a strength that transcended fear—a bond forged in the crucible of combat, a brotherhood that would endure until the end.

As the sun rose higher in the sky, casting long shadows over the war-torn landscape, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stood before a podium in the heart of the capital city. His voice was firm, his resolve unyielding, as he addressed the nation.

“My fellow Ukrainians,” he began, his words echoing through the streets, “we find ourselves in the midst of a struggle unlike any we have faced before. The forces of tyranny seek to crush our spirit, to extinguish the flame of freedom that burns within each one of us. But we will not cower in the face of oppression. We will stand tall, united in our defiance, and we will fight until our last breath.”

The crowd erupted into cheers, waving Ukrainian flags and chanting slogans of resistance. Among them stood the members of the Steel Wolves, their faces grim but determined.

President Zelensky’s gaze swept over the crowd, his eyes alight with determination. “I have deployed our fearsome special forces team, the Steel Wolves, to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies,” he declared. “They are trained to hunt down and eliminate the Russian invaders with ruthless efficiency. They will be our sword and shield in this dark hour, our beacon of hope in the midst of despair.”

A ripple of applause swept through the crowd as President Zelensky raised a clenched fist in defiance. “To those who seek to conquer us, I say this: you may have the might of an empire at your disposal, but you will never break the spirit of the Ukrainian people. We will fight on, even if the war is lost, to give Vladimir Putin’s troops hell!”

The cheers grew louder, echoing through the streets like a thunderous battle cry. The people of Ukraine had made their choice—to stand and fight, to resist tyranny with every fibre of their being. And as the Steel Wolves prepared to once again venture into the heart of the conflict, they knew that they carried with them the hopes and dreams of a nation.

For in the face of adversity, in the crucible of war, they had found a strength that could not be broken—a strength born of sacrifice, of courage, of an unbreakable bond between brothers-in-arms. And as they marched into the fray, they knew that they would do whatever it took to defend their homeland, to protect the values for which they stood, and to ensure that the flame of freedom continued to burn bright in the land of Ukraine.

The battle ahead would be long and arduous, filled with hardship and sacrifice. But if they stood together, if they fought with every ounce of strength in their bodies, they knew that victory was not only possible—it was inevitable. And so, with heads held high and hearts ablaze with determination, they marched forward into the unknown, ready to face whatever challenges lay ahead.

As the conflict raged on, the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) proved to be a formidable adversary to Vladimir Putin’s troops. With each passing day, their tactics grew more daring, their strikes more precise, as they inflicted heavy casualties on the advancing Russian forces.

Colonel Yuri Ivanov, the leader of the Steel Wolves, coordinated their operations with ruthless efficiency. Every move was calculated, every target carefully chosen to maximize the impact on the enemy. And as the Russian casualties mounted and their supply lines were stretched thin, the tide of the war began to turn in Ukraine’s favour.

But it was not just their military prowess that struck fear into the hearts of the Russian invaders—it was their unwavering determination, their refusal to back down in the face of overwhelming odds. Despite the grim reality of the situation, the members of the Steel Wolves fought on with a fierce resolve, fuelled by a sense of duty to their country and a desire to protect their loved ones from harm.

As the days turned into weeks and the weeks turned into months, the SOF launched a series of daring raids behind enemy lines, seizing vital strategic positions and disrupting Russian communications. They became ghosts in the night, striking swiftly and silently before melting back into the shadows, leaving chaos and confusion in their wake.

But as the war dragged on, the toll it took on the members of the Steel Wolves became increasingly apparent. They had endured sleepless nights, relentless combat, and the constant threat of death looming over them like a shadow. Yet still, they pressed on, drawing strength from the bonds of brotherhood that united them as one.

And amidst the chaos of war, amidst the smoke and the gunfire and the cries of the wounded, they found moments of camaraderie and solidarity that kept them going through the darkest of times. They laughed together, they cried together, they shared stories of home and family, clinging to the memories that reminded them of what they were fighting for.

But even as they celebrated their victories and mourned their losses, they knew that the war was far from over. The Russian army still loomed on the horizon, their thirst for conquest undiminished by their losses. And so, with hearts heavy but spirits unbroken, the members of the Steel Wolves prepared to face whatever challenges lay ahead, knowing that their fight was far from over.

For as long as they drew breath, they would continue to fight—to give Vladimir Putin’s troops hell and to defend their homeland to the last.

As the conflict escalated, the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) found themselves at the forefront of the battle, their efforts crucial in slowing down the Russian advance. With each passing day, the SOF’s effectiveness became increasingly evident as they inflicted heavy casualties on the invading Russian forces and seized control of vital strategic positions.

Colonel Yuri Ivanov, the seasoned leader of the SOF, orchestrated their operations with precision and cunning. His tactical brilliance, combined with the unwavering commitment of his men, proved to be a formidable force against the Russian aggressors. Every successful mission further bolstered the morale of the Ukrainian forces and struck fear into the hearts of their adversaries.

But it wasn’t just their military prowess that made the SOF stand out. It was their ingenuity and adaptability in the face of overwhelming odds. As more and more of Vladimir Putin’s weaponry fell into their hands, they quickly learned to repurpose and utilize it against their enemies. Russian tanks became Ukrainian barricades, enemy drones turned into reconnaissance assets, and captured ammunition became the lifeblood of their resistance.

Amid the chaos of war, the SOF became a symbol of hope for the Ukrainian people—a beacon of defiance against the forces of tyranny. Their bravery inspired others to join the fight, swelling the ranks of the resistance and strengthening their resolve to defend their homeland at all costs.

But as the conflict dragged on, the toll it took on the SOF became increasingly apparent. The constant stress of battle, the loss of comrades, and the never-ending cycle of violence weighed heavily on their shoulders. Yet still, they fought on, driven by a sense of duty to their country and a determination to protect their loved ones from harm.

And amidst the devastation of war, moments of camaraderie and solidarity emerged among the members of the SOF. They forged bonds that transcended rank and nationality, finding solace and strength in each other’s presence. In the darkest of times, it was these connections that kept them going, reminding them of what they were fighting for and giving them the courage to carry on.

As the conflict reached its climax, the SOF stood ready to face whatever challenges lay ahead. Theirs was a fight not just for territory or power, but for the very survival of their nation and the values it stood for. And though the road ahead would be fraught with danger and uncertainty, they knew that if they stood together, they could overcome any obstacle and emerge victorious in the end.

For the work of Ukraine’s Special Operation Force (SOF) could not be understated—it was the backbone of the resistance, the vanguard of freedom, and the hope of a nation determined to defy the odds and forge its own destiny.

The origins of the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) traced back to the dark days of Russian aggression in the Donbas region. Formed in 2015 as a direct response to escalating tensions, this elite unit quickly became a thorn in the side of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions.

Comprised of 2000 highly trained soldiers, the SOF was equipped with the latest weaponry and technology, courtesy of heavy investment from the United States. This support allowed them to stand toe-to-toe with the Russian invaders and defend their homeland with unmatched ferocity.

From the outset of the conflict, the SOF proved their worth on the battlefield. Their guerrilla tactics, ad-hoc counterattacks, and mobile defense strategies disrupted Russian advances and inflicted heavy casualties on their forces. They became a symbol of resistance, a beacon of hope for the Ukrainian people in their darkest hour.

But it wasn’t just on the battlefield where the SOF made their mark. They also waged a relentless campaign against Russian sleeper cells embedded throughout the country. Using their superior intelligence-gathering capabilities, they rooted out and neutralized these threats, striking fear into the hearts of their adversaries.

In an ironic twist of fate for Vladimir Putin, the success of the SOF was made possible by the very country he saw as his greatest adversary—the United States. Heavy investment from Washington provided the Ukrainian forces with the resources they needed to hold their own against the Russian military machine.

As the conflict raged on, the SOF continued to be a thorn in the side of the Russian forces. Their determination, skill, and unwavering commitment to their cause ensured that they would not be easily defeated. And though the road ahead was fraught with danger and uncertainty, they remained steadfast in their resolve to defend their homeland and protect the values for which they stood.

For the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF) was more than just a military unit—it was a symbol of defiance against tyranny, a testament to the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of adversity.

The extent of US investment in Ukraine’s defense became increasingly apparent as the conflict unfolded. From 2015 to 2020, Ukraine saw a staggering increase in its defensive budget, bolstered by billions of dollars in aid from the US and the UK, according to reports from the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

But it wasn’t just financial support that Ukraine received. As part of the deal, the US went a step further, offering a CIA-led training program for Ukrainian forces. This program, shrouded in secrecy, aimed to transform the Ukrainian military into a formidable fighting force capable of repelling Russian aggression. According to one trainer involved in the program, the goal was clear: to train soldiers who were prepared to “kill Russians” in defense of their homeland.

The impact of this investment was profound. The Ukrainian military underwent a radical transformation, evolving from a struggling force into a well-equipped and highly trained fighting machine. At its helm stood the Ukrainian Special Operation Force (SOF), a fanatical and devoted group of soldiers who had pledged to fight on even if the war was lost.

In an interview with Vice News, a member of the SOF spoke candidly about their mission. He revealed that the group was prepared to unleash hell on the Russian invaders, using their training and expertise to wreak havoc behind enemy lines. But their mission went beyond just combat—it also involved rooting out Russian sleeper cells that had infiltrated Ukrainian territory before the war even began.

The existence of these sleeper cells added another layer of complexity to the conflict, as Ukrainian forces fought not only against the Russian army but also against clandestine operatives lurking in their midst. But the SOF was undeterred. With unwavering resolve and a relentless determination to defend their homeland, they continued to hunt down and neutralize these threats, striking fear into the hearts of their adversaries.

As the war raged on, the SOF remained a force to be reckoned with—a symbol of Ukrainian defiance against Russian aggression. And though the road ahead was fraught with danger and uncertainty, they stood ready to face whatever challenges lay ahead, knowing that if they drew breath, they would continue to fight for freedom, for justice, and for the future of their nation.

The post Ukraine’s special forces trained by US will fight on appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Brussels/London (16/6 – 33.33) The defeat of the Russian Federation is a foregone conclusion. It is a reality. It is a must. Victory for Ukraine is non-negotiable. It is an absolute necessity. As ironclad as Brussels, London, Berlin or Washington. As ironclad as the Normandy battlefield, Waterloo, Verdun, or many other spots on the planet.

We, the ones living in this generation that saw the war erupted right in front of our eyes, owe it to the young men and women in the Ukraine who gave their lives for this conviction. An excessive number of sceptics advocate for surrender. We have succumbed to the mindset of defeatism. Europe cannot tolerate this culture of apparent defeat.

It seems that the Europeans have lost their capability to win wars. The military leaders are merely overweight theorists. Our economies are still gearing towards a situation of a so-so war. Our politicians are populists, administrative pencil-pushers. The context of war has given way to fears.

We Are At War!

It is the reality in the European Union that we are at war. The French belief of “if you are in combat, you better pray that you have an American on your side” does not hold true any longer.

Americans are the fair-weather friends; and what looks like it, now NATO is more than the US. Regardless of the internal squabbles of political morons or not.

Here is where the grievance from Putin takes hold. Stability talks, sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan walks. It gotten under the skin of Putin. And he says so. The consequence: 13 Marines dead and millions of Afghans living under Taliban rule again.

But NATO has an obligation to respond if Article 5 is called. Like it or not. Before Trump withdrawal from NATO happens, he must convince the U.S. congress to withdraw from a treaty agreement. And that’s a long way off. So, we must calm ourselves and Keep Buggering On, a phrase made famous by Sir Winston Churchill.

Expert assured the U.S. president can’t do anything, realistically that is likely, however realpolitik will determine the future. We must beat the Russians. Even if it irks us that the investment is massive. Defense is not free, neither it is for the Ukrainians. Many of U.S. compatriots are complete anti-Ukraine. A common misperception in the current political climate of rumours and counter-rumours. An anti-Ukrainian policy has swept the Americans off their feet.

In the interwar years we seen similar trends. Strong anti-European, pro-Hitler movements. Today, it’s the same. The Republican base is completely mesmerized by the idea Russia is not “their” war. Nothing further holds true. Its idiotic, it really is, notion that Russia is not their enemy coming from the academic side of the school of international affairs has its roots in the interwar period.

President Woodrow Wilson was able to navigate neutrality in World War I for about three years, and to win 1916 re-election with the slogan “He kept us out of war.” The neutrality policy was supported by the tradition of shunning foreign entanglements, and by the large population of immigrants from Europe with divided loyalties in the conflict.

Senator Hiram Johnson, of California, denounced the League of Nations as a “gigantic war trust.”. Most of the sentiment bore a reassertion of nativist and inward-looking policy. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany. In the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported “arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble”, and that 71% favoured “the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men”.

Life wrote that the survey showed “the emergence of a majority attitude very different from that of six or even three months ago”. A same defeatist culture has entered the political discourse in Europe and the United States in 2024.

Trump, a transnational short term, “Mr. Fix-It” has negotiated a 2% GDP increase for defense spending. However, his political rhetoric will be put in a firm place by the boys with the big pants, like Putin, President Xi from China, or others. Polls indicate growing impatience among Americans with the war in Ukraine with 2023 polls showing just 17% of Americans think their country is “not doing enough” to support Ukraine. This percentage is the lowest since the war began. Trump is riding high on this public sentiment.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Republican Party has been divided on Ukraine’s aid, believing that it is not in the interests of the United States to get involved in a “proxy war” against Russia. Former President Donald Trump has called on the United States to push for peace talks rather than continue to support Ukraine.

Who lies better?

Remember the phrase “Not one inch” expansion eastwards? Currently whenever the Russian Federation needs a bogeyman it blames the United States. But after examining the historical facts the situation is more complicated.

It is fact in 2001 Vladimir Putin spoke in the German Bundestag and consider joining NATO. But the slippery slope was the invasion of Iraq. For the Russians this was the red line not to be crossed. But it was.

Munich followed and the rest is the proverbial history. The Lithuanian prime minister Kalla was quoting Soviet-time foreign minister Andrei Gromyko, and she noted that he had said negotiation tactics of the Soviet Union involved three things.

“First, demand the maximum,” she said. “Do not ask, but demand something that has never been yours. “Second, present ultimatums. “And third, do not give up one inch in negotiations because there will always be people in the West who will offer you something. “And then in the end you will have one third or even half of something you didn’t have before. So, we have to keep that in mind all the time.”

The peace offer, if we like to call it as such, from Vladimir Putin instructing senior diplomats on June 14, 2024, in Moscow speaks from conditions. And here is where it gets tricky. Demanding the NATO to halt the Ukraine to join will be rejected. And, demanding now four (4), not two (2) provinces will be equally dead in the water.

Nobody has yet asked the hard question. Why does Russia need this land? Creating a security buffer can be done on the inside your own territory. Hence the narrative the Kremlin put out is short lived. Truth be told, Moscow was hoping to annex the rich pickings of the Ukraine. Coal, water, “black soil” rich on minerals are just some of the resources in the region that was fought over already by the Germans.

We Must Win!

It is therefore clear; we must adopt a culture of winning. It is costly, but we must win. Many young men and woman will be laid to rest for the concept of defending their land. But the Ukraine Must Win.

The post We must win. Ukraine will win appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Xi’s strategy is as meticulous as it is bold. He has purged opposition within his ranks, securing a loyal cadre committed to his vision of Chinese supremacy on the world stage. His deft handling of relationships with giants like the US, India, Japan, and Russia has redefined traditional alliances and rivalries. For those watching, there’s a palpable sense of urgency – a recognition that we are witnessing the dawn of a new global order where China’s influence is inescapable and undeniable.

Meanwhile, the stage is set in India for a political showdown as the Lok Sabha Elections close. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is poised to secure a third consecutive term with his charisma (for his critics – an engineered charisma) and steadfast leadership. Despite murmurs of an upset from the Opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), Modi’s decade-long tenure has undeniably transformed India into a formidable force on the global stage despite growing dissent, frustrations, and inequality in the constituency. 

Under his watch, India’s economy has flourished and its population of 1.5 billion stands as its greatest asset, driving innovation and growth. As the election results loom, the world watches closely, recognising that India’s trajectory under Modi’s continued leadership could redefine the balance of power in Asia and beyond.

China and India hold the key to unlocking the full potential of Asia, bearing the hopes and aspirations of 4.5 billion people in the region. This is undeniably Asia’s century, a period marked by rapid growth, technological innovation, and unprecedented influence on the global stage. As China leverages its economic clout and India capitalises on its vast human resources, both nations are poised to lead Asia into a new era of prosperity and power. The world can no longer deny these two giants’ pivotal role in shaping Asia’s future and the world. 

Anti-Modi narratives

Focusing on the Indian elections, many predicted an easy victory for Modi, yet doubt crept in during the campaign trail with various narratives at play. A section of Western media and their proxies crafted stories forecasting Modi’s downfall, challenging his bid for a third consecutive term. 

Historically, Western media narratives have often been critical of Asia’s rise and this election cycle was no different. For decades, one of Asia’s finest, Lee Kuan Yew, showcased the hypocrisy of Western media with one-sided narratives and it was the turn of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to turn the heat on the Western press this time.

Hundreds of op-eds and articles from around the globe were critical of Premier Narendra Modi, and the BJP mushroomed during the campaign trail. Some projected Modi as a face and Home Minister Amit Shah as everything else. It would have been a tremendous and balanced story if they had also mentioned the Bush-Cheney and Blair-Mandelson combinations without projecting only in Asia, as these things occur. Politics is universal; no one has a monopoly on the power play.

However, dissent is reasonable as it allows you to recreate your narrative compellingly, if necessary; otherwise some of it can be ignored. Premier Modi and the Opposition leaders, such as Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal, all faced cyberbullying and hate from millions of social media critics. 

Dhruv Rathee, a young Indian YouTuber with 20.8 million subscribers, was adored by the anti-Modi section and hated by the Modi lovers. On average, his videos had 15 million views; some reaching 25 million views based on controversial subjects. Some of my colleagues who held independent or anti-Modi sentiments wanted to end Modi rule. Some were fearless and some were fearful. Young Rathee has shown the price of being daring, taking on a “tyrant,” as he narrated. Some enjoy money, some want fame, and some want power. Some want all three.

In our digital age, anti-Modi sentiments were widely disseminated and consumed. However, the impact on India’s 960 million voters will only become apparent in a few days as the world watches to see if these narratives swayed the electorate.

Modi and BJP campaign

The Modi and BJP campaign was bolstered by a decade of tangible successes, earning credibility despite facing numerous challenges and frustrations. Modi was presented as the definitive leader, synonymous with India’s recent economic strides and global presence. 

In contrast, the Opposition’s campaign lacked a singular anchor, relying instead on a collective team effort. Going up against a worldwide brand like Modi, with his track record of economic achievements, demanded a monumental and unified Opposition strategy. As election results loom, the question remains whether this collective effort was enough to challenge the incumbency and sway the electorate.

Modi projected himself as a divine gift to rejuvenate India and secure its rightful place on the global stage. This ‘messiah’ narrative is a familiar trope in political communications, evoking a sense of destiny and inevitability. 

The Opposition needed another charismatic leader or a robust alternative policy, action plan, and narrative to counter such an influential figure. However, Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi, the latest torchbearers of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, were criticised for their lack of imagination and coherence in their campaign. As a result, their efforts struggled to gain traction against Modi’s well-crafted persona and proven track record. 

It is seldom that a leader can blow his own trumpet. You need your allies to project how great you are. However, Modi said he was a godsend and gifted and his team said he was a godsend and gifted. It was missing in the Rahul and Priyanka duo. INDIA leaders like Kumar, Banerjee, Kejriwal, Yadav, Stalin, and Pawar seldom backed an anchor in cohesion. It’s understandable; all the above political brands are too big to sing hosanna for someone else. The fragile egos, personal interests, and political empires do not allow you to be united. Even in sports, all-star teams end up faring poorly. 

Modi, the saviour

Modi’s projection of himself as India’s saviour draws parallels to historical figures like Ashoka, Napoleon, and Alexander the Great, who also cast themselves as divinely-ordained leaders. After his transformative embrace of Buddhism, Ashoka positioned himself as a benevolent ruler destined to bring peace and prosperity to South Asia. Similarly, Napoleon portrayed himself as bringing order and reform to post-revolutionary France. At the same time, Alexander the Great saw himself as a destined conqueror, spreading Greek culture across the known world. 

In the book ‘Discovery of India’ (written in 1946), the great Jawaharlal Nehru (first Prime Minister of India from 1947 to 1964) writes: “Often, as I wandered from meeting to meeting, I spoke to my audience of this India of ours, of Hindustan and of Bharata, the old Sanskrit name derived from the mythical founder of the race. I seldom did so in the cities, for their audiences were more sophisticated and wanted strong fare. But to the peasant, with his limited outlook, I spoke of this great country for whose freedom we were struggling, of how each part differed from the other and yet was India, of common problems of the peasants from north to south and east to west, of the swaraj that only could be for all and every part and not for some. 

“I told them about journeying from the Khyber Pass in the far northwest to Kanyakumari or Cape Comorin in the distant south and how everywhere the peasants put me identical questions, for their troubles were the same – poverty, debt, vested interests, landlords, moneylenders, heavy rents and taxes, police harassment, and all these wrapped up in the structure that the foreign government had imposed upon us – and relief must also come for all. 

“I tried to make them think of India as a whole and even to some little extent of this wide world of which we were a part. I brought in the struggle in China, Spain, Abyssinia, Central Europe, Egypt, and the countries of Western Asia. I told them of the wonderful changes in the Soviet Union and the great progress made in America. The task was not easy, yet it was not so difficult as I had imagined, for our ancient epics, myths, and legends, which they knew so well, had made them familiar with the conception of their country. Some there were always who had travelled far and wide to the great places of pilgrimage, situated at the four corners of India.”

I quote him again: “Sometimes I reached a gathering, a great roar of welcome would greet me. ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ – ‘Victory to Mother India’. I would ask them unexpectedly what they meant by that cry: who was this ‘Bharat Mata,’ Mother India, whose victory they wanted? My question would amuse them and surprise them, and then, not knowing exactly what to answer, they would look at each other and me. I persisted in my questioning. At last, a vigorous Jat, wedded to the soil from immemorial generations, would say it was the ‘dharti,’ the good earth of India, that they meant. What earth? Their particular village patch, or all the patches in the district or province, or in the whole of India? And so question and answer went on till they would ask me impatiently to tell them all about it. 

“I would endeavour to do so and explain that India was all this that they had thought, but it was much more. The mountains and the rivers of India, and the forests and the broad fields, which gave us food, were all dear to us, but what counted ultimately were the people of India, people like them and me, who were speared out all over this vast land. ‘Bharat Mata,’ Mother India, was essentially these millions of people, and victory to her meant victory to these people. You are parts of this ‘Bharat Mata,’ I told them, you are in a manner to yourselves ‘Bharat Mata,’ and as this idea slowly soaked into their brains, their eyes would light up as if they had made an extraordinary discovery.”

Rahul and Priyanka, the great-grandchildren of the great Jawaharlal Nehru, were leading the anti-Modi campaign. The above paragraph could have been their campaign narrative, but it was Modi’s campaign line for the last 10 years – and for the next five years, if he succeeds in securing a third successive term on 4 June. 

Religio-political wars

‘Bharat Mata’ was the underlying campaign theme for Modi 3.0, which took Nehru’s ‘Bharat Mata’ concept to a different level. Nehru was widely regarded for his stand for secular India but there are severe questions and critics of Modi’s path for India – weaponising Hinduism for political power. In India, approximately 80% of the population by religion are Hindus and 14% are believers of Islam as per the 2011 census. As per census reports, a 1951 to 2011 comparison shows a 5% reduction of Hindus and in the same period a 45% growth of believers of Islam. 

The religious political wars have become the norm again; even the rise of Muslim political leadership in the United Kingdom has been the talk of the town recently, with Sadiq Khan holding onto the Mayorship of London since 2016. In Indonesia, vote bank politics are shaping up, with Islam as a shield; in Russia, the orthodox church plays a role in politics; and in the US, Christian nationalism is on the rise. 

Unfortunately, over centuries, humankind has been divided by religion. Instead, can religion unite people? Can a rejuvenated Bharat show the way for tolerance, diversity, and harmony to the world? 

In the last 30 years, India rebranded its main cities from colonial names to national names. Today, Bombay is Mumbai, Calcutta is Kolkata, Madras is Chennai, Bangalore is Bengaluru, Poona is Pune, and Banaras is Varanasi. If Modi succeeds in securing his third successive term on 4 June, will we see Bharat instead of India? Bharat will be Modi’s Ashoka moment. If that occurs, this will be one of the most significant brand changes in humanity’s history.

Xi and the ‘Chinese dream’

Like Modi, Xi crafted a narrative positioning himself as the chosen one, uniquely destined to lead China into a new era of greatness. Xi didn’t rely solely on revolutionary or economic credentials like Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping. Instead, he blended these legacies, portraying himself as the leader who could fulfil China’s historic rejuvenation mission.

Just as Ashoka, Napoleon, and Alexander the Great used the mantle of destiny to consolidate their power, Xi presented himself as the harbinger of a ‘Chinese dream’ – a vision of national renewal and global prominence. Through sweeping reforms, an assertive foreign policy, and strategic purges within his party, Xi solidified his position, projecting an image of stability and certainty.

These modern leaders harnessed historical narratives of messianic leadership in China and India, crafting personas destined to elevate their nations. Modi and Xi’s stories underscore a timeless political truth: when a leader casts themselves as a divinely favoured saviour, it becomes a formidable task for any opposition to mount a practical challenge without an equally compelling vision or figurehead. As a result, their nations stand at the forefront of Asia’s rise, shaping the region’s destiny in profound and lasting ways.

Enter Arvind Kejriwal

In China, the one-party rule under Xi ensures a controlled political landscape. However, in India’s vibrant democracy, winning a third successive term is an uphill battle for any leader. Modi’s stature and the BJP’s well-oiled political machinery present formidable challenges. Yet, amidst this daunting scenario, INDIA began to find momentum in the middle of the campaign. 

Emerging against all odds, this coalition started to resonate with voters, presenting a united front capable of challenging Modi’s dominance. Its late surge introduced an element of unpredictability, with many fearing an upset. The alliance’s ability to galvanise support and craft a compelling narrative in the final stages underscored the dynamic and resilient nature of Indian democracy, where even the most entrenched leaders can face significant challenges.

Not many would agree with me, but the Arvind Kejriwal fiasco and his subsequent jail term significantly disrupted INDIA’s momentum. Suddenly, amid a carefully orchestrated campaign, the focus shifted entirely to Kejriwal. This unplanned and unwarranted incident highlights how fragile political campaigns can be. 

In the high-stakes arena of political campaigning, unexpected events can swiftly derail even the most well-planned strategies. INDIA, which had begun to find its footing and generate genuine enthusiasm, was blindsided by the controversy surrounding Kejriwal. Instead of pushing forward with its collective message, it was forced into a defensive position, grappling with damage control and standing for Kejriwal.

Power struggle on the cards

If Kejriwal survives his legal battles and Modi secures another victory, the political arena is set for a dramatic power struggle. Kejriwal, driven by boundless ambition and armed with a reputation for grassroots activism, could challenge the leadership of Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi within the Opposition. His relentless focus on anti-corruption (but he is booked for corruption now) and governance reforms resonates strongly with urban middle-class and disenfranchised voters, positioning him as a compelling alternative to Modi. 

This rise would inevitably clash with the Gandhis, who have long been the faces of the Congress Party and national politics. As Kejriwal’s influence grows, a fierce battle for dominance within the Opposition is likely to unfold, with his soaring ambitions threatening to overshadow the traditional leadership of the Gandhis. This internal struggle could redefine the dynamics of Indian politics, with both sides vying for the mantle of a chief challenger to Modi’s BJP.

‘Messiah’ narrative

The ‘messiah’ narrative is not confined to Asia. Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency in 2017 was a masterclass in creating a narrative more significant than life itself. With his ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan, he cast himself as the saviour of a nation that, in his telling, had lost its way. This powerful, emotionally-charged message resonated deeply with many Americans who felt left behind by the political establishment.

Trump’s unconventional, often irrational approach allowed him to dominate the news cycle and overshadow his opponent, Hillary Clinton. While Clinton campaigned on experience and policy, Trump ran circles around her with his relentless energy and brash rhetoric. His ability to tap into the fears and hopes of voters, combined with a relentless focus on his narrative of national rejuvenation, ultimately won him the day. Despite his unpredictability and contentious style, Trump’s message struck a chord, propelling him to a victory that defied conventional political logic. 

Trump vs. Biden in 2024 will be a great watch. The US needs a strongman at the negotiation table with Xi, Modi, and Putin. If the former President runs, he will inevitably invoke ‘Make America Great Again’ with more vigour than in 2016. The US is not Reagan’s US anymore. It’s easier to talk about the inner core desires of Americans for pride. The pride they grew up with is slowly vanishing by the day.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It’s not for the faint-hearted. It’s a blood sport. It’s all about the art of possibility. It’s about capturing power and, most importantly, sustaining power. The below from ‘The Panchatantra’ sums up the world: ‘All things in the world live off one another, using many different strategies to do so, some peaceful, others not so peaceful. Think.’

Rulers live off their lands,

Physicians off the sick,

Merchants live off the consumers, 

They learned from fools;

Thieves live off the unwary,

Almsmen off householders;

Harlots off pleasure seekers,

And workers of the whole world.

Snares of many sorts are carefully set;

Day and night, they lie in wait, watchful,

Surviving by sheer strength – fish eating fish. 

Fish eating fish — for survival. Once in power, you would not want to leave. Politics is a microcosm of human life. ‘Messiahs’ are not immortal and there is a downside. The sustainability of the narrative depends on not only the leader’s code of conduct but also his followers and the machinery. 

In the midst of this, Asia is rising. There is hope for the world.

By Saliya Weerakoon

The post Asian roar appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

France and the United Kingdom (UK) have jointly made a request in favour of Sri Lanka to the court of the Southern District of New York, for a six-month freeze on any litigation in the Hamilton Reserve Bank case until Sri Lanka’s external debt restructuring is completed, the Financial Times reported.

Accordingly, last week the two countries filed a joint “amicus curiae” to the New York judge hearing the case, arguing in favour of Sri Lanka’s request for a six-month freeze on any litigation.

The co-signatories in their “amicus curiae” want the judge to grant Sri Lanka the six-month stay it has requested, because they worry that the lawsuit by Hamilton Reserve Bank/Benjamin Wey could wreck ongoing restructuring talks.

France and UK have jointly made a request to the court of the Southern District of New York, for a six-month freeze on any litigation in the Hamilton Reserve Bank case until Sri Lanka’s external debt restructuring is completed.

“A judgement in favour of the plaintiff before the completion of the debt restructuring process would risk disrupting the ongoing negotiations by creating an incentive for holdout creditors, thereby jeopardising the comparability of treatment between different categories of creditors,” the filing said.

It also said that the relevant principle is at the core of all sovereign debt restructuring processes, as it is key to securing the consent of all creditors, and that disruption would lead to delays in the negotiations, delaying the cash disbursement by the International Monetary Fund to the debtor country and resulting in significant costs for Sri Lanka and the official creditors’ taxpayers.

France is naturally interested in the Sri Lanka lawsuit as it hosts the so-called Paris Club, where government-to-government debts are restructured. The UK is part of the Paris Club but presumably cosigned the amicus brief because it historically oversaw the London Club, the less formal group for private creditors to negotiate with sovereign borrowers.

Last month, the Financial Times also reported that the United States (US) Government has also intervened in the matter where “the US is actively considering whether to file a Statement of Interest with respect to the pending motion to stay”.

The Hamilton Reserve Bank vs. Government of Sri Lanka case was filed in June 2022 after Sri Lanka declared bankruptcy and defaulted on $ 1 billion of this particular bond issue, of which Hamilton Reserve Bank holds $ 250 million.

Source : The Morning

The post France, UK Jointly Ask US Court to Freeze Litigation on Sri Lanka appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Brussels (21/08 – 30)

US President Joe Biden invited Central Asian leaders to a summit in the US. The American leader expressed hope to discuss the continuation of joint work and common goals in the second half of September.

“I look forward to the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly, where we will make progress on the most important issues in the lives of our peoples,” Biden wrote in the invitation letter.

President Joe Biden invited leaders of Central Asia, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to a summit in the US. The American leader expressed hope to discuss the continuation of joint work and common goals in the second half of September.

Within the framework of the UN General Assembly, a summit of the leaders of the countries of Central Asia and the United States (CA5 + 1) is planned, in which the United States, as well as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan take part in.

Source

The post Biden Invited Central Asian Leaders to US in September appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

A special session was held to assess the opportunities, legal framework and cooperation platforms for the U.S.-Canadian companies doing or considering doing business in the mining sector of Kazakhstan, including Hatch, Cameco Corporation, Barrick Gold, Arras Minerals, Nutrien, Teck Resources, B2Gold. 

It is reported that the U.S.-Canada hub will offer guidance and support for the businesses in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries as a first step in the mining sector and serve as a vital platform for direct dialogue between North American businesses and the host government and state-owned enterprises. 

“These collective efforts position Kazakhstan as an attractive investment destination, promote international collaboration and foster a thriving mining sector that upholds the highest global standards,” reads the release. 

The Canadian representatives positively assessed the progress of Kazakhstan’s subsoil use reforms and the government’s efforts to develop the geological industry. 

“The resource potential of Kazakhstan has not been fully exploited and Canadian companies, with their substantial experience and advanced technology, can assist in this process,” said Canadian businesspeople. 

Kazakhstan has been improving its mining sector since 2018 through the enactment of the Code “On Subsoil and Subsoil Use”. New legislation has made the Kazakh mining industry more appealing by aligning the national regulatory framework and industrial policy approach with leading mining jurisdiction benchmarks, ensuring competition, transparency, clear and straightforward expenditure commitments, and implementation of the international standards for reporting mineral exploration results, mineral resources and reserves, in line with the Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards (CRIRSCO). 

Source: The Astana Times

The post Kazakhstan, Canada discuss Central Asian mining hub  appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.