Connect with us

Eastern Europe

Caspian Roadmap: Back or wreck to the future?



Recently, I came across an interesting outlined roadmap for Caspian countries, written in 2010 with predictions for 2025. 5 years down and 10 years to go, let us review the scenarios and elaborate on which one is the most eligible for the future of the Caspian Sea region.

It is year 2025 and the Caspia Inc. is in formation. We are witnessing a multi-polar global world order with multiple regional power- centers, where economic competition is much more highlighted than the old geopolitical one, sort of reminiscent of the cold-war era. Great powers of the world are cooperative instead of competitive in the world affairs. Caspian Sea region is a globally recognized and significant oil and gas exporting region while Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are enjoying the most FDI- friendly profile and a semi- democratic regime. When it comes to foreign interest in the region, Western and Russian entities are dominating over the others.

Apart from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, geographically and resource- wise Turkmenistan is also a significant part of the Caspian Sea region. Due to the long, dark years of authoritarian regime and isolated style of governing, the country is unable to attract significant FDIs and stretch its outreach of influence. Another troubling sign are the instabilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, having a spillover effect on other Central Asian border countries. The regime in Turkmenistan is weak and with practically no popular support, therefore susceptible to social uprisings. The opium trade, originating in Afghanistan, is booming.

Russia is still the biggest power in the region, but showcases no interest in reinstating its former control over Central Asia. The most prolific trading exchange is still between Russia and Kazakhstan, although relations with the EU are also at the highest level. Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey are now all member states of the EU and integrated in the European common market. Apart from Russia, another major force in the region in China, serving as a trading partner for the Central Asian authoritarian regimes, including Turkmenistan. Same goes for Iran which is not actively involved in the region, apart from gas collaborations with Turkmenistan and occasional cooperation with Armenia. The US is less important than the other outlined players.

Trans- Caspian pipeline has not (yet) been constructed. Azerbaijan is mostly capitalizing on the BTC and the new Nabucco pipeline, also pumping Russian gas. Turkmenistan is mostly transiting its gas to China, although Russia and its Gazprom is also still an important partner. Kazakhstan is mostly reliant on the CPC pipeline and the gas pipeline to China.

Because the world economic crisis has been combated on every level with much international cooperation in the global community, there are no negative effects and over-politicizing of economic and other affairs. China and India are the main generators of growth. Oil price is stable and the LNG market has expanded to the level that makes gas an increasingly global commodity. Henceforth, geopolitical competition has become obsolete; however, there is still competition at the company level.

In this overview, the world in 2025 in my opinion looks like the scenario everyone pacifistic and optimistic at heart dreams of, but not something that is likely ever to happen, let alone in 10- years time.

Realistically speaking, the most viable part of the forecast, judging from the current situation in international politics, is the part on the multi- polar world order; we see signs and struggles for it on a daily basis. From the collaborations within the BRICS format, clearly underpinning the American dominance, Asia rising and Latin America moving further away from the dominance of the Northern Hemisphere, and to many other numerous regional outlets gaining momentum and credibility (such as, for example, the ASEAN common market initiative), the world is clearly escaping the reins of the leftovers from the cold war era and the supporting premise of the lone superpower. I believe that these trends will become even more vibrant and affective in 2025, with:

– fully working and prolific BRICS bank and monetary fund, successfully overshadowing the current dominance of IMF and the World Bank;

– integrated and economically more efficient South- East Asia (The US`s foreign policy feature “pivot to Asia” will likely become a global redirection);

– strong regional hegemons instead of one world superpower and much more vibrant and balanced world politics.

I also think that the prediction for Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan sustaining the high momentum of foreign FDIs is likely to be true in 2025 as it is in 2015. Additionally, as the current trends show, countries are very likely to have escaped the Dutch disease due to the establishment of stabilization oil funds. In Azerbaijan, growth of the non- oil sector has surpassed the growth of the oil sector for the first time in 2012, signaling the success of such policies. Of course, such directions and policies can be subject to change in the future, depending on the governmental preferences, world economic situation and energy trends of the future (green vs. fossil fuels).

When it comes to Turkmenistan, the new president Berdimuhamedov seems to be redirecting the country onto a different course. With an enhanced relationship with other Central Asian nations, Russia and many high- level visits to China, the country seems to be opening up. The most significant investments are made from Saudi Arabia and Iran, but these have to be carefully balanced in order not to spill over the stronger and more significant religious standpoint to otherwise very secular Turkmenistan. But the data from the country does not seem to match these efforts and many fear that a lot of it is just smoke and mirrors. In 2014, overview of the country`s economic freedom showed a small decline from the previous year. It showed no significant gain in the FDIs to the country`s economic sector, which matched the still present relative disengagement from the international community, apart from the gas trade. With the recently erected avant-garde monuments for the president, the country seems to have fallen back to its old trail.

Highlighting the destabilizing factors in the near vicinity of the region, the authors of course could not predict the two major ones: the Ukrainian crisis, poisoning the inter- state and inter- continental relations, damaging the overall economic progress and stability, and the rise of ISIS; the latter has been caused by the security loophole, left by the American forces in the Middle- Eastern region, and fueled by various extremisms, resulting from the overall failed western policies in this part of the world. Afghanistan of course is not to be neglected, the country is still very volatile to changes and the concerns over the overall rise in the international terrorist activities, many of which is supported and organized by ISIS, are also worth every consideration.

When it comes to the overall relationship between Russia, Caspian littoral states and the EU, the scenario is utterly wrong. Unfortunately, due to the Ukrainian crisis, the relations between Russia and the West are at its worst since the fall of the Berlin wall. The current trends seem to indicate a stronger Russian turn to Asia, again supporting the theory of a multi- polar world order, gaining in credibility, man power and capital. Additionally, the vision of Turkey and Azerbaijan being part of the EU common market seems outrageous for the moment, especially with the increased Islamophobia in Europe.

When it comes to pipelines, the prediction of the Caspia, Inc. scenario definitely has some misperceptions. Although BTC will stay an important infrastructural pathway, Nabucco pipeline and the Russian counterpart, South Stream, were both cancelled and future projects are manifold and depending on the at-the-moment political support. Since the Trans- Caspian pipeline largely rests upon the potentially resolved issue of the status of the Caspian Sea, it is hard to tell what will happen in the upcoming 10 years. The last major breakthrough was reached last year, when all the Caspian littoral states agreed to lock foreign (military) vessels out of the Sea, therefore not fully applying the UNCLOS anytime in the future. This was a great strategic victory for Iran and Russia and it makes one wonder what can be found between the lines of this agreement. It might be possible that both, Russia as well as Iran, will agree on the border limitations sooner than expected as a compensation for this agreement, therefore granting full access to hidden natural resources to all the littoral states for exploitaton. Such silver lining makes it easier to understand why the newcomers to the Caspian club, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, would agree to such terms in the first place, especially considering how some of them, namely Azerbaijan, were lobbying for the complete application of UNCLOS for the Caspian. But there are no clear signs on the agreement for the Caspian Sea status just yet, but these recent events show it might be one of a kind, sui generis status.

The cancelation of the Nabucco pipeline project meant new life for the Azerbaijan/Turkey financed Trans- Anatolian pipeline, with the Baku- chosen Trans- Adriatic pipeline to serve as the western leg of the project to Europe. Recent events show greater tendency of Caspian littoral states and Turkey to serve as major energy/ transportation players and therefore gaining more independence and profit from this status. It might happen in the future that the new pipeline infrastructure to Europe will be neither Russian nor European, but Central Asian.

Therefore, we can conclude that the scenario of Caspia, Inc is not likely to ever fully realize because the relations in the international community are what they are. Although the cold war is long over that does not mean the old geopolitical rivalries are likely to be forgotten anytime soon. And while the Caspian littoral countries are seemingly headed into a more independent and successful future, there are still many obstacles in the way regarding economy and internal politics and all have to be considered with great care. The future of the Caspian therefore seems less harmonious, especially when considering the international community as a whole, and not surprisingly, much more susceptible to political and economic realities to come.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

An Impending Revolution



Large crowds have demonstrated their anger at the results of the presidential election in Belarus. Photo: Kseniya Halubovich

Even on the end note, the year contains surprises enough to deem it as a year of instability and chaos given every nook and cranny around the globe is riddled with a new crisis every day. Latest down in the tally is the country of Belarus that has hardly streamlined over at least half a decade but now is hosting up as a venue to rippling protests in almost all the districts of its capital, Minsk. The outrage has resulted from the massive rigging imputed on the communist party in ruling for almost three decades since the split of Soviet Union in 1994. With Europe and Russia divided on the front as the protests and violence continue to rage: a revolution is emerging as a possibility.

The historical map of Belarus is nearly as complex as the geographical landscape which might only stand next to Afghanistan in terms of the intricacies faced by a landlocked country as such. Belarus is located in the Eastern European region bordered by Russia to the north-eastern perimeter. Poland borderlines the country to the West while Ukraine shares a border in the South. The NATO members, Lithuania and Latvia, outskirt the borders of Belarus in the Northwest, making the region as a prime buffer between the Russian regime and the western world. As Belarus stands as a junction between the European Union (EU) and Russia, the proximal nature brings about interests of either parties in the internal affairs of Minsk. However, the nature of the bond shared between the trio is by no means a triangle unlike other former soviet nations since Belarus has casted its absolute loyalty to Russia since the split of Soviet Union and ultimate accession to power of president, Alexander Lukashenko, the leader of the Communist Party of Belarus. Along with the alliance, however, came the unwanted dependency since over the 26-year rule of Lukashenko, he crippled the economy and the political writ of Belarus, using every last ounce of authority to subdue the opposition and the democratic mechanism of the country, earning him the nefarious title ‘Europe’s last dictator’.

The outburst of protests today stems from this very problem that is more deep-rooted than what comes across as apparent. The excessive and draconian use of power and autonomy has invalidated the independence of Belarusians and turned them haplessly at the mercy of Russian aid and support while blocking out any western support in the name of guarding national sovereignty. The ongoing surge of dissent was triggered earlier in August when the elections turned about to be absurdly rigged in favour of Alexander Lukashenko, granting him an indelible majority of 80% of the total vote count along with a lifetime of rule over the country despite his blatant unpopularity across the country. The accusations were further solidified when one of the popular opposing candidates, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, casted a complaint with the authorities regarding the falsification of election results. Instead of being appeased, she was detained for 7 straight hours and was even forced to exile to the neighbouring country of Lithuania. This resulted in major tide of riots and protests erupting all across Minsk, preceding over 3000 arrests over the election night.

On the official front, however, an aggressive stance was upheld along with a constant refusal of Lukashenko from stepping down from the long-held office or even considering a review of the polls counted despite exorbitant reports of unfair results. Heavy use of rubber bullets and tear gas was an eccentric protocol adopted by the local police force which instead of placating the rioters, further ignited the protests in more districts of the capital city. The anti-government relies also entitled ‘March of Neighbours’ transitioned into a high scale protest with many of the state employees resigning from their positions to stand upright against the long overdue corrupt regime. With the protests raging over months and the Lukashenko government getting more and more aggressive with their policies, the fear that once sparkled in the eyes of the natives is dwindling exceedingly and is turning into a cry for an outright revolution, which would be a ground-breaking one ever since the revolution of Iran back in 1979.

European counties have taken their conventional passive position in the crisis sinceEU is well aware of the Russian influence in Belarus and does not want to interfere with a probability of a direct conflict with Russia. However, they did call out their protest over the rigged elections, slapping sanctions over Belarus yet have not accused Lukashenko directly but instead have proposed a thorough international dialogue. Russia, on the other hand, faces a complex position since the dependence of Belarus bought Moscow a base against the West along with other regional rogues like Ukraine. However, high scale protests and rising chances of a full-blown revolution is hardly the choice Russian intends to opt. As the situation continues to unfold, economic reforms, as promised by Lukashenko, appears to be the only option that both EU and Russia could encourage as a bipartisan plan. Despite that, with six months of protests erupting as an outrage over a tyranny of 26 years, the reform-offering might be a bit late an offer since its no more about the country anymore, it’s about a struggle between a liberal or a communist Belarus.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

The 44-Day War: Democracy Has Been Defeated by Autocracy in Nagorno-Karabakh



The people of Artsakh are seen as pro-Russian. Is this Pro-Moscow assessment of people of Artsakh accurate, and why Russian peacekeepers are welcomed in Nagorno-Karabakh?


The Republic of Artsakh and its people developed the nation’s democracy for approximately three decades. Back in 1991, Artsakh held a referendum on its independence, as well as democratic elections under a barrage of Azerbaijani rockets. The people of Artsakh accomplished this step by themselves, being convinced that without freedom of the individual, there is no freedom for the country. The Artsakh National Liberation Movement was nothing but a struggle for freedom and the right to decide one’s own destiny.

The development of democracy was not easy for a war-torn country with ade-facto status, limited resources, lack of institutions, combined with the threat of resumption of hostilities and the temptation of using elements of authoritarianism in governance as well as in the public mood. 

Nevertheless, during the last three decades, the people of Artsakh have managed to develop working democratic institutions, ensure political pluralism, and form effective human rights institutions. The vivid examples thereof are the 2020presidential elections held on a competitive basis, a 5-party Parliament, and the constitutional mechanisms for the separation of powers.

It is noteworthy that the full spectrum of democratization in Artsakh has been carried out by the country alone, without the direct support of international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and despite the numerous appeals by the civil society of Artsakh made to them.

However, Artsakh’s democracy has been highly regarded not only by parliamentarians, politicians and experts who have visited Artsakh, but also by the international organizations, such as Freedom House in its Freedom in the World annual reports. In these reports Artsakh is on the list of partly free countries, making progress in ensuring political and civil liberties each year, while Azerbaijan holds on to a not free status all the while making regressive steps in every aspect.

The people of Artsakh believed that the development of democracy would inevitably strengthen the position on unimaginability of any vertical relationship with dictatorial Azerbaijan. The people of Artsakh believed that they were keeping the eastern gate of the European civilization and its set of values. The people of Artsakh believed that those in West involved in the conflict settlement process, particularly France and the United States would view the Artsakh struggle with an understanding that it was created by their examples and ideals of freedom.

And what did the people of Artsakh receive as a result of believing in the West? They faced a new war and a new bloodshed unleashed by the same Azerbaijan. They also faced a harsh reality in the form of gross violations of human rights, war crimes and destruction of their cultural heritage. The principle of equality and self-determination of peoples in general, and the notions of freedom and human rights in particular completely collapsed before the eyes of the people of Artsakh.

One doesn’t have to be a military expert to understand that Artsakh, a small country with limited resources and capabilities, could not on its own resist Turkey-backed Azerbaijan for long, especially given the direct involvement of Turkish command staff and thousands of mercenaries from the Middle East terrorist organizations in the conflict, and the use of advanced military technology likethe banned weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

What did the people of Artsakh need to prevent this war? The answer would have been the de jure recognition of Artsakh that at least would have dampened the possibility of a new war, put an end to the century-old conflict, and establish long lasting peace and security in the region.

Instead of recognizing their unalienable right to self-determination, a new war was imposed on the people of Artsakh. As a result of this war, the people of Artsakh were left with a devastated country, thousands of dead and wounded compatriots, a new generation of refugees and IDPs, dependence on the peacekeeping mission for physical security, a “neither peace nor war” situation, as well as an uncertain future.

Russia wanted to come to Karabakh and so it did. Russia is in Artsakh not because the people of Artsakh were dreaming of weakened sovereignty while they continued to think of what West would do, but Russia came to Artsakh because Russia, unlike the West, acts rather than speaks. When on the one hand there are European and American concerns expressed in empty statements and on the other hand there are Russian peacekeepers and tanks, there is no room left for thinking long.

Let’s look at the values in which European Union, United States, Canada, and the rest of the so called “civilized world” believe in: the ideas of human rights and freedoms which they been advocating for years across the world. Now let’s try to see what is left from them all. Maybe once can find an inspiration for writing new books and sharing ideas about the future of humanity vis-à-vis the civilized world. Perhaps, in the European Union, in the United States, in Canada, and in the rest of the so called “civilized” world, their population may enjoy the ideals of human rights, but the people living in small and unimportant countries are often deprived of such rights. Perhaps the Western intellectuals and authors will write books on how the West left the faith of the people of Artsakh to the hands of the terrorists while empowering the Turkish-Azerbaijani dictators with their indifference and inaction. Indeed, for the West, the lives of the people of Artsakh are not valuable just because they are from a ‘gray’ zone, because they live in a country that doesn’t officially ‘exist’. These discriminatory phrases are definitions time and again used by the Western officials. It is what it is. The West, however, should not forget to celebrate Zero Discrimination Day and quote articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Later, when Turkish expansionism and terrorism will knock on the Western doors, the West will remember those unimportant people from an unrecognized country that absorbed the first blow. At that juncture, the West will also remember how it admired the people of Artsakh’s endurance and collective resistance, but at the same time left them alone in their fight against terrorism and modern military technology. Perhaps, for the West it is just like watching a fun action movie with popcorn and cola.

Having 193 or 194 member-countries in the United Nations (UN)as a result of recognition of Artsakh would not change the existing international legal order, however, it could serve a textbook example for rising democracies and a lesson for the dictatorships and international terrorism. By not recognizing the right of the people of Artsakh to self-determination, the West is burying the concepts of human rights, freedoms, and democracy, thereby paving a way for the next military-political adventures of dictators. The West should decide. The longer the West spends on thinking without any concrete action, the further the region will move away from it.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

NATO invented new threat in the Baltic States



It seems as if NATO has changed its priorities in the Baltic States.

It is well known that NATO member states agreed at the 2016 Summit in Warsaw to enhance NATO’s military presence in the eastern part of the Alliance.

So, the arrival of the multinational Allied battlegroup in Latvia in June 2017 concluded the deployment of forces under NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltic States and Poland, thereby implementing the decisions made at the NATO’s Summits. Since than NATO has been actively enhancing its military capabilities in the Baltic States. It increased the number of troops and deployed heavy weapons including tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery. Canada is the framework nation for the battalion-size NATO battlegroup deployed to Latvia.

It was said that NATO’s enhanced forward presence is defensive, proportionate, and in line with international commitments.

Though it was absolutely evident that NATO pursues not only the stated goals, but some hidden ones. Among them are convincing of the need to increase defence budgets of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, political support at all levels, loyalty to all decisions made by leading NATO member states.

The more so, NATO invented new threat in the Baltic States. All of a sudden the Baltic States have been turned to the drone test site. In order to justify NATO new interests, it was said that unmanned aerial vehicles are an emerging threat to NATO soldiers deployed around the world, and especially in the Baltic region.

The leadership of the enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group in Latvia even held a symposium in Camp Adazi in November to talk about how to deal with the drone threat.

Latvia’s Battle Group Commanding Officer Lieutenant Colonel Trevor Norton said that NATO recognized this threat as they prepared to deploy to Latvia, and made it a priority to come up with solutions.

“When I was looking at our adversaries and the way in which they have conducted recent operations around the world, it was obvious that they used UAS to great effect,” he said. “I determined that if we were to continue to be successful in deterring foreign aggression, we must demonstrate the ability to counter the threat of UAS. This is what led me to the idea of running a counter-UAS symposium and exercise.” In his turn Latvian Minister of Defense Artis Pabriks acknowledged that “the Latvian Defence Department has taken into account the lessons learned from the use of drones in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”

It should be said that this conclusion looks more than odd. Does Pabriks consider Armenia and Azerbadzan as adversaries?

The symposium combined presentations by experts from the United Kingdom and Canada with open discussion between members of all nine nations of the Battle Group as well as members of the Latvian National Armed Forces about the capabilities they have in Adazi, and how they could use them to minimize the UAS threat. Finally, they tested some of their weapon systems in shooting down target drones at the Camp Adazi range. And, probably, this was the main goal.

Major Matt Bentley, the organizer of the symposium, stressed that this is a complex problem that will not be solved with one symposium. He said it was an important first step in the process of developing practices and capabilities that can defend Allied soldiers from drones while defending Latvia. Following the symposium, the Battle Group drafted a service paper to send to all sending nations for each ally to consider as they develop ways to defeat this threat.

According to LCol Norton, as Allied nations develop ways and means to combat the threat posed by UAS, the Battle Group will be in a good position to test them in a multinational context. In the meantime, the Battle Group will continue to build and refine tactics, techniques and procedures using the tools at hand to mitigate the threat. So, NATO invented new threat in the Baltic States to convince these countries in need to pay more and to deploy more foreign troops on their territory. And all this against the backdrop of a pandemic and an acute shortage of funds for medicine in Latvia.

Continue Reading