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.

The general air of frustration and resentment wafting up from Washington is a reflection of the mood of the nation – in tune with the eternal and accurate appraisal of the federal government as “out of touch” with the mood and concerns of the people.

The electorate expresses its disgust with Congress by giving it an approval rating that any executive in the business world or show biz egomaniac “celebrity” would get them ousted. All through the past  year the answer to “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?” has hovered around 20% – with a DISapproval rating of 78%, indicating that few Americans do not hold a strong opinion on the matter.

Yet the voters keep voting the bums back in, even when they are clearly senile, incompetent or corrupt – simply because at election time the politicos can deliver “defense” or other “government” contracts, signifying jobs, to their district. A legal version of bribery – the people being bribed with their own money. If it is not a factory in their district building bombs, then it is another federal pork-barrel gush of money – even when it clearly does not contribute to the common good of the nation. How about a submarine base in … Oklahoma?

It is eerie to reflect on the similarities of the US Congress and the Roman Senate during the era of the Empire’s long decline (200AD onwards): the senators rich yet fearful, quarreling and conspiring with little regard for the “majesty of the law”. Candidates owning little more than a home and small business ending up as multi-millionaires a couple of terms after “serving” in Congress. True power residing in the “Administrative State” (aka “Deep State”) – unelected bureaucrats, a counterpart of the Prætorian Guard. The borders of the Empire crumbling, in a cascade of unwinnable wars; an invasion of hungry, resentful, alien barbarians; the coin of the realm debased (US$ 31 trillion and counting in national debt – the government can’t even pay interest on it at the moment). The masses placated with bread and circuses (NASCAR, NFL, internet pornography, drugs and junk food) but bewildered, jobless and aimless. A nation drifting.

The latest sacrificial victim in an intensely unhappy and fearful Congress is California Republican Kevin McCarthy who, if you recall from some months back, really, really, really wanted the job of “Speaker of the House”. Now, for the first time in history, a Speaker has been bounced – mostly by Democrats but with the support of seven so-called “conservative” Republicans. Kevin has failed to fulfill impossible expectations.

The two-party system is clearly not working, and the ouster of McCarthy, after fierce quarreling distracted the lawmakers from making laws to solve problems, is an example of how the “Uniparty” that the US Government has become is turning on its own, like a mad dog biting itself. The glorious campaign for victory in Ukraine (a corrupt money-sinkhole that has historically been one of the world’s big losers) is going badly. Russia, the last standing opposition to the “full-spectrum global dominance” of the Pentagon, is not collapsing. The People’s Republic of China is not being obedient and subservient, in spite of the swarm of military threats displayed against it in the South China Sea. The USA talks tough to China, but imports 80%+ of its antibiotics medications from that “trading partner” (along with most every other manufactured item), so good luck with that plan.

Even Europe is unhappy, strangely enough, with the lifeblood of cheap energy from Russia handily clipped off (nobody is fooled about the ones who destroyed the Nordstream pipeline, with losses in the billions to German and other investors). The third world is finally presented with a credible commercial alternative, in BRICS+, although that tempting offer may eventually degenerate into “frying-pan-into-fire”. 

The last time there was a vote on a motion to dethrone a Speaker was in 1910; it was unsuccessful. Now, by House rule, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has been declared “Speaker pro tempore”, to serve until the election of a new speaker. The House is in recess, licking its wounds.

McCarthy had plenty of vigorous support before the fatal vote. Rep Tom Cole (R-Okla.) led the debate in favor of Mr. McCarthy, saying, “Whether or not we agree on the speaker, he did the right thing. He did the right thing … for this institution. He showed it could function in a time of crisis. And finally, I think he did the right thing for our party.

“He made sure that we can continue to negotiate and achieve [conservative victories] in a divided government, which calls for some degree of ‘give and take’. So I’m very proud of this speaker. I’m very proud to stand behind him.”

A number of Republicans argued passionately in favor of Mr. McCarthy, affirming his character and leadership and asserting that he has greatly improved the transparency in the way the House operates. [Refer to “approval rating” as delineated above.] 

Others urged caution in rushing to remove the speaker, warning it would plunge the House into chaos when it desperately needs to focus of completing the appropriations process.

“Speaker McCarthy has been leading at the top level to make sure that we have the tools to do our jobs in a different way than the House has done it before,” Mr. Scalise added, urging members to stay focused on their mission.

At the conclusion of the debate, the vote was taken by calling the roll. That did the job on the Californian.

Quo Vadis, USA? Look at all those little, insignificant countries of Africa, Asia and Latinoamerica – they fear you no longer. And you don’t have the same bag of candy to bribe them with, so why should they play along with you?

The post Kevin McCarthy Gets the Boot appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

During the working trip to Washington, D.C., Minister of National Economy Alibek Kuantyrov met with the leading experts of the World Bank on taxation, human capital development, infrastructure, fair economic growth and green economy, for discussing the areas of further joint work, Azernews reports, citing Kazinform.

Director of Strategy and Operations for Europe and Central Asia region at the World Bank Carolina Sánchez-Páramo noted the importance of the joint work of the Kazakh Government and the World Bank on achievement of sustainable development of the economy of Kazakhstan and Central Asian region by implementing various reforms and implementation of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route project, the press service of the Ministry said.

In turn, the Kazakh Minister noted that the priority areas of cooperation determined by the World Bank’s 2025 Framework Partnership Strategy for Kazakhstan comply with the strategic vision of development of Kazakhstan until 2050.

«As a result of implementation of the Framework Partnership Strategy, we will be able to create necessary conditions for the development of private sector, boost the transformation of agriculture and develop required infrastructure,» Kuantyrov added.

Besides, the experts of the World Bank held workshops for improving tax policy, developing alternative energy and tariff policy as well as for achieving carbon neutrality.

Source: Azer News

The post Kazakhstan, WB discuss new areas of cooperation appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

The United States and Uzbekistan recently concluded the second meeting of their Strategic Partnership Dialogue. As Uzbekistan is the most populous country in Central Asia and borders Afghanistan and the four other Central Asian states, U.S. policy regarding the republic is likely to be Washington’s blueprint for the region. As part of the dialogue, the Uzbek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vladimir Norov, and his delegation had productive meetings with leaders of the State Department, the Defense Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and with the U.S. Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom.

The official U.S. policy objective in Central Asia is to support “Central Asian states’ sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity.” In day-to-day practice for U.S. officialdom, this means:

1. Limit Russia’s commercial activity and energy trade in the region.
2. Limit local participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative in favor of Western projects such as the not-fully-funded Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.
3. Unseat the Taliban and install a complaisant government in Kabul.

All well and good, but what’s in it for Central Asia?

The region lives between Russia and China, borders Afghanistan, and feels the tremors of events in Iran and Pakistan. What sounds like a good idea in far-away Washington and Brussels, may falter once on the ground in Central Asia because the five republics, and Russia, China, et al, are “neighbors forever” and have little margin for error.

Likewise, should the U.S. appoint any country, notably Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, its “deputy marshal” in the region, an act that will compromise the leaders (unless that is the plan?) Being anointed as the U.S. deputy sure didn’t help the Shah of Iran so if Washington learned anything from that sorry episode it should apply it here.

Russia is regularly ranked as a top trade partner of Uzbekistan, and Russia and the Central Asian republics have been connected since the then-Russian Empire conquered the region in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Despite their long-standing links, the Central Asian republics are trying to create some daylight between themselves and Moscow and, in response, Russian President Vladimir Putin visitedall five republics in 2022, unlike the American president and whomever it is who speaks for Europe. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have voiced support for Ukraine in its fight against Russia, and have also supplied non-lethal aid to Kyiv. And Tajikistan’s President, Emomali Rahmon, in a recent face-to-face meeting with Putin, demanded the Russian treat his country with respect.

Russia’s sudden announcement of a gas sale partnership with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan aggravated Tashkent as the idea was not first informally proffered and, as a result, Moscow looked amateurish and desperate to make any deal.

Despite deep business links between Uzbekistan and Russia, only one Uzbek firm appears to have violated America’s secondary sanctions against anyone supporting Russia in Ukraine. And while the war has slowed economic growth worldwide, Uzbekistan still expects its GDP to grow at 5.3% in 2022 according to the World Bank.

Washington will have to make fine calculations about the economic health of Russia’s neighbors, such as Uzbekistan, that both rely on the Moscow trade and want to hedge their bets by deeper links with the U.S., Europe, China, Turkey, Iran, and India. One way Washington can do so is by coaching Tashkent through the World Trade Organization accession process. Uzbekistan has created a WTO Working Party to ensure orderly progress, and the U.S. should provide needed technical assistance to help Tashkent succeed.

One big ask for Uzbekistan is most-favored-nation status with the U.S. which, it believes, will put on an irrevocable path of reform, help make up lost ground due to sanctions on Russia, which have raised local business compliance costs, and have complicated supply chains for the double-landlocked country, just as it was emerging from the pandemic slowdown.

China, via its Belt and Road Initiative, has invested in the region and is cementing its brick-and-mortar projects by education projects such as scholarships, academic exchanges, and the establishment of Confucius Institutes. In turn, Uzbekistan is “leveraging its partnership with China” to address its geographic isolation by projects such as a five-year trade and investment cooperation deal, a revival of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan (CKU) railway, and it may soon turn to Beijing for funding for the Termez-Kabul-Peshawar railway.

And the flurry of projects was buttressed by personal interaction between the leaders of China and Uzbekistan. Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev made a state visit to China in 2017, and Chinese President Xi Jinping likewise visited Uzbekistan in 2022.

National leaders must make decisions based on an unemotional consideration of the national interest, but a face-to-face meeting with another leader can smooth over problems or make clear one side’s concerns that can be muddled by functionaries. What is clear to the Uzbek public is that that Xi – the leader of the world’s biggest country – visited their country, but no U.S. leader has ever bothered to visit Central Asia. And now may be the time in order to recognize that Uzbekistan has recently registered gains in development and governance indices, such as rule of law, press freedom, and e-government.

But in the meantime, China is pushing on an open door.

A Central Asia Barometer survey found 70% of Uzbeks polled answered that they have great or some confidence about China’s investment when asked “How much confidence do you have that China’s investment in our country will create jobs in our country for our citizens?” That positive public sentiment, plus China’s status as a top trade partner, Uzbekistan’s large and growing population, that 5.3% GDP growth in 2022, and reforms such as selling off state-owned enterprises which dominate some sectors of Uzbekistan’s economy, may see the way clear for a greater Chinese role in the region.

But China will have to adjust its model and provide intensive training for local citizens and not default to its standard practice of importing its workforce. Securing local buy-in will create a constituency for economic reform, and a bank of goodwill for the Tashkent administration that will courage further economic liberalization – a key U.S. interest.

And as China hopes to stabilize Xinjian by creating prosperity in the region, so will creating prosperity near Afghanistan help stabilize that forlorn place and thus open the door to more regional economic engagement. That said, Washington will be wise to not badger Afghanistan’s neighbors to take up its crusade to install a compliant regime in Kabul, either by granting it base rights for military and intelligence units, for arming Afghan resistance groups based in the republics.

Uzbek law bans law bans foreign military bases on its territory, and the revised constitution that will be up for a referendum in the Spring of 2023 reportedly makes the ban permanent, thus tying the hands of outside powers (I’m looking at you Washington, D.C.) that would be tempted to use the country as a platform for action in Afghanistan.

And speaking of Afghanistan…

Uzbekistan first publicly hosted a Taliban delegation in 2018 and called for intra-Afghan negotiations to end the civil war. Since then, Tashkent has maintained high-level links with the Taliban, and in June 2022 hosted US-Taliban talks on the economic challenges facing Afghanistan after the Western retreat from Kabul in August 2021.

Uzbekistan has provided Afghanistan with steady electricity supplies, despite late payments by Kabul, and promoted a project to connect Central Asia to the Indian Ocean, via Pakistan and Afghanistan, which will boost regional economies and enhance Uzbekistan’s regional leadership.

Tashkent wants to draw closer to America but it will have to do so judiciously if it also wishes to engage with Kabul, and also become a meditator of regional disputes, but it won’t happen if the Taliban suspect everything they disclose in confidence will soon be winging its way to America.  Washington’s compulsion to securitize all relationships, and its “with us or against us” attitude, may limit Tashkent’s maneuver room as it strives to secure its southern border, avoid the grasps of China and Russia, contribute to regional connectivity, and grow its economy in a post-pandemic, high inflation environment.

And Tashkent can’t ignore the physical risk that comes with the neighborhood. In July, the border city of Termez came under fire by projectiles apparently from Afghanistan. No culprit took responsibility but IS-K claimed to be the instigator of an earlier rocket attack on Termez in April. Uzbekistan has recently concluded investment deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and Russia and China, and may become a target-rich environment for future jihadis with additional diplomatic complications if foreign nationals are killed in attacks.

The Uzbeks do not want a repeat of the Summer 2004 bombing campaign by an Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan splinter group that hit the US and Israeli embassies, and the office of the Uzbek prosecutor-general. The attacks left 33 militants, 10 policemen, and four civilian dead.

The American ambassador to Uzbekistan recently declared, “We want to see Uzbekistan continue to strengthen as a democracy and respect human rights. We don’t have a particular vision for how Uzbekistan should go about this. That’s up to Uzbekistan and Uzbek people to decide.” Of course, the U.S. also said something similar before the 2006 elections in the Gaza Strip then refused to recognize the result when the “wrong guys” won.

Political scientist Stephen Walt has observed that for the U.S. “restraint will always be a contradiction in terms.” What Professor John Mearsheimer calls America’s “crusader impulse” may see a resurgence in Central Asia if the U.S. decides to use it as a tool in its campaigns against Russia, China and Afghanistan, though many observers will note the impulse never went away and, in fact, has amplified since 9/11.

Washington’s blueprint for Central Asia may succeed as it is influential yet geographically removed and entertains no local territorial claims.

But first it will need a post-Afghanistan strategy for the region and not the boilerplate “we will continue to support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Central Asia” from the current National Security Strategy,   in which Central Asia on only mentioned twice and in passing. (And it’s also time for a U.S. trade mission as the last one visited in 2018. A new visit would ensure the American business community has up to date information and can meet the new leaders of the Tashkent administration, most of whom were not in their current jobs in 2018.)

The people of the region see much to admire in the U.S., but Washington will have to show some respect local culture and social organization, which has survived czars, commissars, khans, and satraps before achieving independence in 1991. Take China: it declares it is a Communist country but it doesn’t try to export Communism.

Can the U.S. exercise such self-restraint, or will its future policy be the victory of hope over experience?

Its two-decade, $2 billion project in Afghanistan to forcibly change Pashtun culture was a bust, and the world watched the live-streamed denouement.

A wise Washington will be ready to offer technical assistance when needed, making a priority of WTO accession, ensure local infrastructure projects have more than one financing option, and allow the local governments – that will suffer the consequences of bad choices – to set the pace of regional integration, which will include Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan, which aren’t foreign interlopers but part of the rich history of the region.

So, what will be the U.S. model: Cooperation or compellence?

The post Is Washington’s Uzbekistan Strategy A Blueprint For Central Asia? appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.