According to some international press and media sources, China is investing significant sums of money in some dual-use technologies – i.e. both civilian and military at the same time – which would have powerful innovative effects, both in the commercial and in the defence sectors.
This is the result -i.e. the sequence of investment – of President Xi Jinping’s now old request of 2017for the complete renewal of the People’s Liberation Army by the end of 2035 – a project that implies the one of China’s new global military relevance within 2045.
With a view to following Xi Jinping’s policy line, China has recently increased military spending by 7.5% and funding for “dual” research by as much as 13.4%.
According to the US intelligence, the sectors recording the largest investments would be those of Artificial Intelligence, the enhancement of the e-computation tools and their technical substrates and finally quantum technologies and hypersonic weapons.
There are also research projects on new materials and alternative energies.
With specific reference to military Artificial Intelligence, China is currently studying the new techniques for the Recognition and Selection of Targets, as well as the deployment of mines and, in particular, the automated land and sea attacks.
For all major States, contemporary war is labour saving and soldier saving, as it happens with the same advanced technologies when they are used in a civilian context.
Fully automated vehicles, drones and submarines, equipped with a semi-autonomous analysis of the area of operations, so as to relieve the Chief of Staff from simply tactical issues – which are often not completely matched with updated data -and to concentrate instead on strategic equilibria.
With the arrival of new hybrid operations for everybody, the Chinese battlespace with simultaneous and multiple dimensions will have a dimension and a series of cascade effects that will make necessary an AI and quantum computerized analysis at a high level of complexity and simultaneity.
This also applies to the civilian political and strategic decision-making process, which is ever less distinguishable from the military one and, above all, it is a management capable of avoiding those paradoxes of choice that have characterized all contemporary political regimes.
In other words, the incorrect or excessive evaluation of a particular detail, the wrong analysis of timing, as well as the study – this time accurate and correct – of the effects and their specific areas. All man-made errors, often inevitable for the human mind, that AI and quantum computing can avoid.
Whoever has worked on these platforms, even as an international manager, can understand what I mean.
As for the Made in China 2025 project, which aims at freeing China from its ancillary role as economy hosting all the mature industries of the world, China will deal mainly with advanced semiconductors.
As early as September 2014, again upon President Xi Jinping’s recommendation, the China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund was set up. This entails that, if all goes well, China will very soon have semiconductors for IA machines and for advanced systems. For the civilian economy or for military systems, assuming that a difference can be made between them.
In China’s planning, quantum mechanics applications have their origins in the Five-Year Plan which began in 2016.
Since then a megaproject has been in place, which is expected to lead to IA quantum communication and to the operational quantum computer by the end of 2030.
In a brief essay on its corporate blog which, by chance, disappeared shortly after its publication, Google has finally declared it has reached global quantum supremacy, with a new supercomputer capable of solving, in three minutes, a computational problem that the most powerful computer currently available would solve in 10,000 years.
However, what is the point for the geoeconomic and, above all, technological struggle between China and the United States, the two real future competitors for world leadership? In fact, this is the real competition between the two countries.
The competition on quantum and AI technologies is needed to be the strongest in the world in the field of frontier innovation and technology, i.e. of all the devices for coordinating and interconnecting data that will revolutionise, in particular, all future economic, political and administrative processes, including financial ones.
The processes of a new finance, which currently can only be glimpsed on the horizon.
Now it is still the last phase of “hard” and information technology and later there will be the further phase of frontier innovation and technology at biological and biochemical levels.
With innovations that will make the current quantum and IA revolution pale into insignificance, but will be based precisely on these technologies.
As mentioned above, a quantum computer is above all a hardware platform for applying and creating quantum deep learning algorithms, i.e. the algorithms that currently contain mainly Artificial Intelligence techniques.
Hence of complete simulation – just to use the mentality of the military Chiefs of Staff.
The quantum computer initially exploits Richard Feynman’s idea, i.e. the exploitation of the properties of the particle wave or, rather, of the subatomic particle when it presents itself as a wave.
Therefore, the quantum computer can break the limits imposed by Moore’s Law, which provides for the doubling of transistors in circuits every 18 months.
Hence, in the quantum computer, there is no longer an objective and physical limit to the miniaturization of circuits.
Just think of the ability – for those who can develop such technologies – to defend themselves from computer attacks, and to develop complex and verifiable scenarios without social experiments in corpore vili.
An unimaginable theoretical and political revolution.
The only exception to the Sino-American duopoly is Israel, with a consortium of companies and State agencies studying civilian and military AI and quantum security.
Furthermore, in addition to quantum computing, Israel has a specific interest in quantum communication, but also in advanced encryption and in the evolution of high specificity sensors.
Other geopolitical needs, other technological choices.
Nevertheless China, too, is developing quantum radars, hyper-specific sensors, new tactical and strategic AI and quantum imaging, new meteorology and automated navigation techniques.
Once again we can guess China’s interest in dual-use quantum technologies, especially in view of China’s already announced economic shift towards Blue Economy and environmental protection.
China has already launched Mucius, a quantum satellite put into orbit by a “Long March” missile in August 2016 – a satellite that allowed a quantum phone call between the space and three Chinese ground stations.
As early as 2012, again upon President Xi Jinping’s order, the Quantum Experiments of Space Scale (QUESS) was funded.
In China the QKD quantum cryptography is already a reality and is physically inviolable.
Financial analysts maintain that the next market for quantum computing – which will not have, if not in an unspecified future, a very large retail market as happened for laptops – will be worth as much as the current market for “classic” supercomputers, namely 50 billion US dollars while, as early as this year, the market for the traditional products of advanced but not quantum commercial computing will be worth 1.2 trillion US dollars.
The first quantum computer suitable for the public will probably appear in 2030 but, in the early twenties of the third millennium, the market for computing machines with a first level quantum technology will be worth over 500 million a year.
Nowadays we have to do with government quantum computers of 19 or 20 qubits.
Someone even announced quantum computers of 50, 72 and 128 qubits, but there is no evidence of that.
It should be recalled that, unlike the traditional bit, the qubit can be worth both “one” and “zero”. It is a mathematical vector that, in theory, can take up all the information available in the world.
Nevertheless, on a strictly military level, quantum computing is currently essential for developing and reaching global hegemony.
The aforementioned Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) is capable of making all strategic communications safe, while the quantum cryptoanalysis and the creation of “covert” languages is an intrinsically offensive practice.
There will no longer be agents capable of opening a safe when an Ambassador is absent – just the launch of a quantum frequency from an AI computer will be enough.
In the future, the war will be totally offensive in all its phases and it will serve to defeat, destroy and integrate – into its value chain – dangerous technologies and the most important data of the enemy.
Probably the population will not even realize it, as happened at the beginning of the October Revolution when – as Curzio Malaparte told us – the Bolsheviks conquered the basics of power (energy, light, phones, etc.) while the people, unaware, were dining out or went to the movies.
In principle, the QKD works by sending photons superimposed on the normal encryption.
According to Heisenberg’s principle, whereby we cannot determine all subatomic quantities simultaneously, the QKD photon states are indeterminate until they have been isolated and measured.
Again with the QKD, this enables us – inter alia – to understand whether the message has been intercepted and by whom.
As stated in the State Council Document of July 2017, for China Artificial Intelligence is the new primary goal of international competition and “the new engine of economic development”.
Moreover, AI offers “new opportunities for social construction” to China.
For the civilian sector, IA and quantum supercomputers will be useful for social planning, especially in a phase of economic maturity and of necessary accurate distribution of resources and potentials. In this regard, just think of the pension and health systems.
In a key sector for future development, namely the military one, China is thinking about the use of AI and quantum computing to fully automate the battlefield, but above all to combine it with the accurate calculation of resources, with their protection from cyberattacks and with the integration between civilian economy and military operations.
Therefore, AI and quantum computing are mainly used “to integrate China’s economic, social and national defence”.
In the planned time schedule, China will develop its own quantum and AI strategy in three phases. Firstly, to synchronize the current general technology and the widespread AI application – at world standard level – by the end of 2020.
Secondly, to create a new generation of Artificial Intelligence theory and technology.
This means possible Chinese hegemony in Big Data Intelligence, Cross-Media Intelligence, Group Intelligence, Hybrid Enhanced Intelligence and Autonomous Intelligent Systems.
Cross-media intelligence means content analysis, media monitoring and creation of semantic online search keys.
Group Intelligence means consensus decision-making, halfway between socio-biology, political science and crowdsourcing IT applications.
Hybrid Intelligence is the effective synthesis between man and machine. The Autonomous Intelligent Systems are systems that learn from reality and process it according to enhanced models, deriving from human learning, multiplied by many times.
Hence, again according to the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, it is necessary to develop – at first – a system of Big Data, and later an IT theory of cross-media perception, as well as a theory of hybrid artificial intelligence, with an improvement and refinement of the man-computer symbiosis, but also with new models for the evolution of knowledge and of the hybrid enhanced intelligent learning, i.e. the man-machine one.
Thirdly, to soon develop – for the Chinese leadership – a new heuristic and quantum theory of intelligent computing.
And again, IA Group Intelligence.
Hence Advanced Learning, with the study of statistical learning innovative technologies.
All this is a technological and political model that must be interpreted according to the current doctrines of the Chinese PLA.
For China, the international military and economic forces have strongly accelerated their differentiation, especially between advanced and developing countries.
Strategic competition is on the rise.
However, the Chinese Armed Forces’ policy line – also at technological level – can be summarized as follows: a) to resist and stop – at first and on the borders – any external aggression; b) to reject any “areas of influence” logic, which would close China into a peripheral area; c) to adhere to a military logic of territorial defence and of protection of the primary interests abroad, but always jointly with other States; d) to fully mechanize/automate the Armed Forces in 2020; e) to maintain a state of average efficiency and of very high speed of response; f) to pursue anti-terrorism and the defence of China’s foreign interests; g) to establish a new relationship between politics and the defence system, not based on mere dependence.
In the doctrinal history of the Chinese Armed Forces, everything began – in recent times – with the 2015 document on the “Chinese Military Strategy”.
In particular, enhancement of the role played by the Technical-Scientific Committee of the Central Military Commission, as well as careful protection from the danger of the “technological and strategic surprise effect”, and a radical innovation of the doctrines for the use of the Armed Forces.
This will be the new level of strategic and political thinking of the Chinese Armed Forces.
However, with a view to being crystal clear on the matter, what is a quantum computer?
It is a computing machine using the laws of quantum mechanics to solve problems and make calculations.
The traditional computers are based on the binary digit (bit), i.e. the minimum amount – between 0 and 1 – of binary information needed to discern between two equally probable events.
The quantum computer uses the qubit, an overlapping of quantum states that can be 0 and 1 at the same time and in several layers.
For example, if I look for the word “China” in a text, the traditional computer proceeds at maximum speed, but line by line, to search for that word.
Conversely, the quantum computer has all the pages available at the same time. This is exactly what the aforementioned qubit is from the operational viewpoint.
How Mercenaries in Nagorno-Karabakh can destabilize the situation
It is almost a month now since two of the former Soviet countries pitting against each other, The orthodox Christian Armenia and Muslim majority Azerbaijan. So far many casualties have been reported from both the side, however, what drew the attention and need to address soon is the involvement of the mercenaries in the conflict.
Historically mercenaries were used by many historic kingdoms to fight on their behalf or protect themselves from outside attacks for example the group called The Ten thousand a mercenary unit mostly consisted of Greeks who were hired by Cyrus the young to fight against his brother.
Then in the 14th Century came the famous John wood’s “The White Company“. An English Mercenary group consists of people of English, German, Hungarian origins. This group was famous for its expedition in Italy
Similarly, during the infamous raids by the Ottoman king Mahmud the II on the Byzantine Empire, the defence of the walls was handover to a famous Italian Mercenary Giovanni Guistiniani, who was given the task of defending the walls of the Kingdom with his army of Mercenaries. Throughout the raid, he and his mercenary army were able to hold up the post until he was shot and wounded during the last raid.
In the modern era, the mercenary fight was seen during the world war when few American volunteer pilots who called themselves The American Volunteer Group later were known as the infamous The Flying Tigers. Fought along with the Chinese against the Japanese forces in Burma (Myanmar).
Due to changes in the War and international Scenario, countries started hiring people for their conflicts so that anonymity can be kept. From Afghanistan to Syria the concept of mercenaries can be seen. But due to the complex international structure, the use of Mercenaries has become a debating topic for many reasons.
Destabilizing and international issues related to the hiring
Any military has to follow the basic rules of engagement that protects those combatants who were injured during the conflict and civilians who had to face the wrath of the conflict so for better understanding the International Humanitarian law had categorized the conflict into two areas a) International armed conflict b) No international armed conflict.
As per the Geneva Convention 1949 Article 2, the international armed conflict is when two ‘High contracting parties’ are involved. So technically it means in an international Armed conflict only military combatants of the states will be used however the situation with mercenaries is very different. The definition provided in the Additional protocol I suggested six-point that makes a party or individual a mercenary and as per IHL Database Customary IHL, the group had to meet all the six points provided in the definition to be claimed as a mercenary.
However, the problem arises when foreign Mercenaries started to enter into the war as many countries like Italy, France, and even Additional Protocol I does not acknowledge the mercenaries as a combatant or POWs that means any involvement of mercenaries will not just destabilize the situation more but it will cause great human rights violation
The legal Status of Mercenary is again something that causes a major issue in the international arena for example Under International Humanitarian Law being a mercenary is not seen as a crime and they had to be treated properly according to the fundamental guarantees under Article 75 whereas under two International conventions one is International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training of Mercenaries adopted in 1989 and second is African Union, the Convention for the Elimination of Mercenaries in Africa both deem the use of mercenary as a crime.
Another important aspect brought into the light was the fact that these groups function anonymously and secretly and because of their secret nature it becomes hard to trace their origins as we have seen in the case of 2014 “The little Green man” incident was Russian involvement was alleged however the government denies any involvement with the incident, similarly the recent news of Turkey sending ex Syrian fighters to fight along with Azerbaijan was also denied by Turkey despite recent Reuters report of two Syrian fighters agreeing to the fact that they were sent by Turkey. Due to the clear deniability of the host nation, it became tougher to implement international law on them which lead to more human rights violations.
Human rights Violation
As the conflicts are becoming more private with the hiring of mercenaries the chances of human rights violations are also increasing and to address such issues Resolution 7/21 by Human Rights Council suggested the creation of The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. But it was the Nisour Square Massacre 2007 by the employees of “The Blackwater” PMCs that forced the international community for having a strong global regulation for mercenaries or PMCs.
Mercenaries in Nagorno-Karabakh has a greater impact not only on the disability of the region but also might cause human rights issues, as mercenaries are notorious for committing heinous crimes like Drug trafficking, rape, murders, etc there are high chances that the hiring of Syrian mercenaries will lead to a humanitarian issue as the majority of the Syrian fighters who previously belonged to the Anti-government rebel faction called the Free Syrian Army is being used in the conflict, though Turkey denied their involvement in hiring however many reports suggests that at least twenty of the soldiers belong to the Syrian rebels were killed in action who were hired by Turkey. As per the Guardian article written by Bethan Mckernan suggest that Turkey was paying the soldiers of the Murad division with almost 10,000 Turkish liras to protect the Azerbaijani Oil refineries.
The Mercenaries are always convicted of committing human rights violations like Murder, Drug Trafficking, Rape, etc. So far it is not exactly clear which group is being used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region but as per the news reports, the fighters mostly belong to the Turkish-backed Murad division and Free Syrian Army. Interestingly the members of the groups were involved in the recent Syrian crisis were as per the United Nations the same rebels were involved in many human rights violations like execution, torture, etc. that mostly went unnoticed in the similar lines an article in Business insider suggests how the Free Syrian Faction started involving in crimes like smuggling, Kidnapping, etc even Amnesty International on War Crimes in Syrian Conflict reported the human rights violation committed by the members of the Free Syrian Army.
Similarly, Murad Division has a history of attacking and torturing the members of the People’s Protection Unit (YPG). The division was also accused of committing violence in the parts of Afrin a Human Rights Digests published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights pointed the violence like theft, harassments, murder and other abuses were committed by this group in the Northern Syrian region.
As there are no reports of hiring procedure there is a high chance that some criminals might have been hired in the conflict and might commit the same level of crimes they had committed during their days in Syria.
Paving way for terrorism and more conflict
Mercenaries have a history of committing crimes especially Transnational in nature and that is something even Antonio Guterres the current Secretary-General of United Nations had mentioned during his meeting summoned by Equatorial Guinea.
The usage of Syrian mercenaries will not only create a way for terrorism in the region but might lead to more sectarian and proxy conflict. As historically in many conflicts world has seen ex-terrorist being hired as a mercenary force in different battles for example Chechen rebels have been fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan similarly many Yemeni mujahedeen fighters went to Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet fight who later became the reason for the creation of Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula. Similarly, recent reports on ex ISIS fighters are being hired and sent to Nagorno-Karabakh is not only alarming information but this might also lead to the rise of the declining Islamic State of Levant- the Caucasus.
The historically Caucasian region was never free from insurgency and extremism the North Caucasian region was always infested with terrorism from groups like Al Qaeda, Jaish al-Muhajireen Wal- Ansar, Islamic Djamaat of Dagestan, and most importantly the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant – who involves a large number of foreign fighters for their fights. During the First and Second Chechen War, the region had seen a huge influx of Arab fighters participating in war similarly the group Jaish al-Muhajireen Wal and the Islamic States also believes in hiring foreign fighters for their cause and this is what makes them more troublesome in the region and involvement of Ex Islamic State fighter in the battle will open the Pandora box.
With Azerbaijan having their band of mercenaries fighting for them, reports also suggest that Armenia is also hiring Kurds especially Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and The People’s Protection Unit (YPG) to train the Armenian Militias to fight the war against the Azerbaijani forces and also the infamous Armenian Secret Army for the liberation of Armenia, fighters allegedly being hired to fight on their behalf. Kurds had a history of fighting on the behalf of Armenia as this is not the first time that Armenia had hired Kurds as their mercenaries, in 1923 – 1929 Armenia supported the Kurds group to form what previously was known as Kurdistansky Uyezd. This is the same group that is being designated as a terror outfit by Turkey, United States and even by the European Union, however, Armenia does not deem them as terror outfit this will create an issue for the international community to decide who is a terrorist and who is not and whom to put under trial as International Humanitarian law suggests that these mercenaries can only be prosecuted under the national laws, so if Armenia denies their involvement they might escape the trial and continue their fight and with such complexity in the international law famous dilemma of one man’s Terrorist Another Man’s freedom fighter will again arise and make this situation more tricky.
As Kurds, Free Syrian Army, Turkey getting involved in the fight this will surely push the parties into a different sectarian war as Kurds had an old rivalry with the Turks and Syrian rebels, similarly, the fighters of the Armenian Secret Army for the liberation of Armenia had a history of attacking the Turkish interest in the 1980s. With Pro – Armenian groups arriving to fight against the Turkish backed Azerbaijan, and countries like Russia coming into play this will increase the insecurity of Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan which might push Erdoğan towards recruiting more no-state actors to achieve its dream of spreading its power and with insecurity more international state and non-state actors in the conflict might arrive which will make the issue more violent and complicated.
As the world becoming more privatized, countries are trying hard to make the war privatized as well by hiring mercenaries to protect their interest. Due to the lack of a proper international framework for mercenaries identifying the crimes committed by mercenaries is becoming hard and with such complexity bringing Mercenaries by both parties not only pave way for more insecurity in the region but also opens the door for more human rights violation.
It is high time that international parties especially Armenia and Azerbaijan should pledge to remove all the mercenaries form the current conflict so that proper international mechanism can be used to create peace among the parties
European defence still matters but not for Lithuania
European countries have different points of view on the issue of the EU collective defence and security. These views divide the European Union and continue to weaken the organization.
Some of the EU member states realize the need to turn the EU into a real global military power.
European experts believe, that in order for European countries to be able to defend themselves and choose their own course independently, a consolidation of national defence industries is urgently needed. For this, the EU needs to create a real European Defence Technological and Industrial Base, which can only take shape through the incentives and projects conducted within the European Union.
The EU nations must have defence industries that are capable to allow EU to reduce its dependence on American or Chinese technologies.
Researchers found out that by doing so, member states would avoid losing between €25 billion and €100 billion every year due to their lack of cooperation, and could save 30% of their annual defence expenditure by pooling procurement.
Defence budgets had already been severely impacted by the 2008 crisis, as well as COVID-19, making EU countries more dependent on NATO to ensure their security. As a consequence, safeguarding the investments made in the EU defence and industry sector appears to be a matter of real urgency and a vital issue in terms of the sovereignty of European nations.
Other European countries such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia which are not ready to make their own sufficient investment in the European defence, prefer to completely rely on NATO and the U.S. The Baltic states cannot imagine their security without the United States’ involvement, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda says.
“All Baltic states are very clear that the United States’ involvement in our collective defense system is a critical factor and we can hardly imagine our 100 percent security without the United States’ involvement,” the president told journalists in Rukla.
In his words, Lithuania does not see the aspiration for Europe’s strategic autonomy as “some sort of competition with the US’s involvement in NATO activity”.
“Lithuania sees it as NATO capability’s complementary factor, and in no way there can be any opposition or competition between these two things as, otherwise, NATO’s ability to properly do its mission would be affected,” he said.
The Lithuanian leader also said he told that to French President Emmanuel Macron visiting Lithuania.
Taking part in a discussion with students of Vilnius University earlier, in his turn, Macron said Europe should be more sovereign and invest more into technology, defense to reduce its dependence on the United States and China.
“European defense is a phrase one could not utter five or ten years ago. We imagined that we can put our defense into the hands of NATO, but now we have already established a fund for the implementation of joint programs and we have structural cooperation on defense,” Macron said.
“We cannot always rely on the power that is on the other side of the Atlantic, which is probably focusing more on China and cannot give us so much attention. Therefore, it’s very important for us to be able to protect ourselves,” the French leader said.
The opposite positions could lead to a greater gap between European countries and dissatisfaction with existing frame of the organization.
Who Needs A Proxy War In The Caucasus?
All proxy wars are, by definition, delusional. Usually, two client-states wage a war, one against another, while, actually, their war advances interests of some other states, commonly their sponsor-states. The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh is not a simple proxy war: its proxiness and delusional character exponentially grow as the conflict unfolds on the ground.
For, it is conceived as a war that was supposed to draw two major regional powers, Russia and Turkey, into a mutual conflict, on the assumptions that Russia is going to act as Armenia’s sponsor-state, ready to enter the war on the side of its presumed proxy, and that Turkey is going to act as Azerbaijan’s sponsor-state, ready to enter the war on the side of its presumed proxy. Yet, as the conflict unfolds, it becomes transparent that these assumptions were deeply wrong and that the proxiness and delusional character of this very war are skyrocketing beyond the absurd.
Turkish rapprochement with Russia, which is a logical consequence of Turkey’s geopolitical reversal caused by its failure to become a candidate for membership in the European Union after so many years of begging, has not remained unnoticed by relevant circles in the West. While the United States has tried to persuade the Turks to remain its most reliable ally and refrain from turning towards Turkey’s natural geopolitical environment, that is, towards other Eurasian powers, France’s foreign policy, with a British support, has chosen a different strategy.
Assuming that the close encounters between Russia’s and Turkey’s troops on the soil of Syria and Libya were an expression of a true potential for their mutual conflict, rather than a careful choreography conceived by these two powers to deceive their potential adversaries in the Euro-Atlantic bloc, France and Britain have created a strategy to draw Russia and Turkey into a mutual conflict through their presumed proxies, Armenia and Azerbaijan. For this purpose, they used the traditional bonds between France and Armenia, based on the presence of the numerous Armenian diaspora in France. Due to these historical bonds, it was not difficult for France to persuade the Armenian leadership to fall into a trap of a new war with Azerbaijan, as France’s (and Britain’s)de facto proxy. However, the basic assumption was that in the further development Russia will automatically take Armenia’s side, as it once did, in the times of Boris Yeltsin. In other words, Armenia was pushed into the war by France (and Britain), so as to make it seem as if Russia did it, in order to eventually draw Russia into a conflict with Turkey, which was assumed to be on the side of Azerbaijan in case of Armenian attack. A cunning plan, isn’t it? Yet, these assumptions, as well as the strategy derived from them, have proved to be a farcical failure.
For, Putin’s Russia is not Yeltsin’s Russia. Yeltsin allowed himself to be drawn into a geopolitical game constructed for Russia’s ultimate destruction, the game of creation of ethnically exclusive territories, like Nagorno-Karabakh, or South Ossetia, to be followed by their secession from the states to which they originally belonged and annexation by the states with which they shared common ethnic identity. In other words, this game was a game of endless ethnic cleansing and creation of ethnically exclusive territories, which would eventually destroy not only Russia with its numerous ethnic minorities, but also the entire zone of Eurasia with its numberless ethnic groups. This was a recipe for the ultimate destruction of the entire Eurasian space, carefully planned in the inner circles of the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment, and recklessly adopted by Yeltsin and many other post-Soviet politicians. However, Putin is not Yeltsin, and he did understand the destructive potential of the concept of ethnically exclusive territories when applied to the post-Soviet space: if every ethnic group were to claim its own exclusive territory, and then unification with its ethnic kin in other states, there would be no more territorially compact states in Eurasia, including Russia itself.
A similar pattern was previously applied to the Soviet Union, when its republics were stimulated to claim independence on the basis of ethnic identity and presumed right to self-determination. This process ended up with the total dissolution of the Soviet Union. Of course, full application of this pattern generates a process of endless dissolutions: for, all ethnic minorities within these newly-proclaimed states may well claim secession from these states, since the underlying assumption, adopted by many local ethnonationalist leaders, is that these ethnic groups’ survival is possible only within their own ethnically exclusive statelets. To put it briefly, it is a pattern of geopolitical fission, with the consequences similar to those of nuclear fission. Among other destructive processes triggered in the post-Soviet space, this pattern also led to the Armenian invasion of Azerbaijan’s territory and creation of the ethnically exclusive territory of Nagorno-Karabakh for Armenian ethnic minority in Azerbaijan, with the ultimate goal of its secession from Azerbaijan and annexation by Armenia.
The same pattern was also promoted in the Balkans, again by Britain and France, in their initiatives for ethnic partition of Bosnia in the 1990s and annexation of its territories by Serbia and Croatia, and recently, for exchange of ethnic territories between Serbia and Kosovo. The concept of ethnically exclusive territories as the only safe environment for survival of ethnic groups, therefore, is not the invention of some ‘wild tribes’ in the Balkans or the Caucasus. It is a premeditated strategy for permanent destabilization of any geopolitical zone, wherever applied. Its authorship needs to be finally attributed to those who are always present in their application – the British and French foreign policy establishments. Yet, this time, in the case of the second Armenian-Azeri war, this hook has not been swallowed by its main targets, Russia and Turkey.
Having been aware of the fact that the Armenian attack on Azerbaijan was generated by some other players, who were not even too careful to hide its role in it (such as President Macron of France), and that the very concept of ethnically exclusive territories has served as a tool for permanent destabilization of both Russia and the rest of Eurasia, Russian foreign policy reacted in a way that was precisely the opposite from the reaction of Yeltsin’s foreign policy in the case of the first Armenian-Azeri war. Instead of automatically taking Armenia’s side and further promoting the concept of ethnically exclusive territories, as designed by the Anglo-French axis, Russia took a neutral position and thereby has practically given a green light to Azerbaijan to regain control over Nagorno-Karabakh and restore its full sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this way, the very concept of ethnically exclusive territories has been delegitimised, not only in the Caucasus, but also in the entire post-Soviet space. Yet, it remains to be delegitimised in the Balkans.
Russia has probably made such a radical geopolitical turnover in tacit agreement with Turkey, so as to be safe about its outcome and the foreseeable consequences. Their rapprochement has thus been elevated to a level of potential strategic alliance. At the same time, Turkey has strengthened its credibility in the post-Soviet space and the rest of Eurasia, but not in the conflictual mode against Russia. This improvement of Turkey’s international standing has been based on its principled defence of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, that is, principled respect for international law, not on an aggressive implementation of a pan-Turkic programme that would eventually include all Turkic peoples, including Azeris, into some imagined Greater Turkey. The same applies to Russia and its abandonment of presupposed pan-Orthodox sentiments in the case of Armenia, although these have yet to be abandoned in the Balkans, in the case of Russia’s flirting with the Greater Serbian programme of ethnically exclusive territories.
In any case, both Russia and Turkey have thus made an important step out of the straitjacket tailored for them when the concept of ethnically exclusive territories was inserted into Eurasian geopolitical space. In that way, they have also created a geopolitical framework for Armenia and Azerbaijan to make a step out of their proxy roles, in which they were given a task to inscribe their respective ethnically exclusive territories. In other words, what has been generated is a geopolitical potential for peace between these two countries and their reconstitution along civic-inclusive, instead of ethnic-exclusive, lines.
Rokeby Manor springs right from a fiction book
I visited Rokeby Manor in Mussoorie earlier this year. The property springs right out from a fiction book. Each room...
A New Turn to the Indo-French Relations
Hudson Institute’s researcher, Aparna Pande called France as “India’s new best friend” in 2019. Fast forward to present day, France...
From China, A Plan For The Future
On October 26, the fifth plenary session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China opened in...
Global foreign direct investment halved amid pandemic, but China remained resilient
Foreign direct investment (FDI), a bellwether of globalisation and economic confidence, fell by 49 per cent to $399 billion in the...
To Better Address the COVID-19 Crisis, Niger Should Focus on Health Measures
According to the World Bank’s latest Economic and Poverty Update for Niger published today, the COVID-19 pandemic has a significant...
The 2000 Declaration on Strategic Partnership between India and Russia
On October 3, 2000, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Vladimir Putin cemented India-Russia bilateral ties with the signing...
Advancing the EU social market economy: adequate minimum wages for workers
The Commission today proposes an EU Directive to ensure that the workers in the Union are protected by adequate minimum...
Science & Technology3 days ago
Rachel Lyons: Shaping the future of humanity in space
Economy3 days ago
Financial Bubbles in the Coronavirus Era
Energy3 days ago
Nord Stream 2: Who Benefits From the Navalny Affair?
Reports3 days ago
Recession and Automation Changes Our Future of Work, But There are Jobs Coming
Finance3 days ago
Going Digital is Necessary for Small Businesses to Survive
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Armenia: Lies and realities
Defense2 days ago
How Mercenaries in Nagorno-Karabakh can destabilize the situation
Defense2 days ago
European defence still matters but not for Lithuania