Connect with us

Eastern Europe

‘Attic Standard Zone’, Eurozone and Georgia: Historical Comparative Analysis

Published

on

Authors: Prof. Dr. Tedo Dundua, Dr. Emil Avdaliani

If you cross the state borders freely, seeing all the cargos moving without delay, money standard and the name being identical everywhere, that means you are in Eurozone. The reality has its remote pattern, Athenian (Attic) case with Colchis (Western Georgia) being involved. If Colchis was in “Attic standard zone”, why to deny Eurozone to Georgia? Below Athenian and modern European cases are discussed.

“If anyone mints silver coins in the cities and does not use Athenian coins or weights or measures, but foreign coins, weights and measures, I shall punish him and fine him according to the previous decree which Klearchos proposed” (A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. To the End of the Fifth c. B.C.  Edited by R. Meiggs and D. Lewis. Oxford. 1969. Printed to the University 1971, p. 113; Chr. Howgego. Ancient History from Coins. London and New York. 1995, p. 44).  This is what a secretary of the Athenian Council (Boule) had to add to the Bouleatic oath from the famous Athenian decree enforcing to use the Athenian coins, weights and measures within the Athenian Alliance. The Athenian officials in the cities were responsible to carry out the decree, and the local officials too (A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. To the End of the Fifth c. B.C.  Edited by R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, p. 113). The date of this decree is problematic, but still between 450 and 414 B.C. (A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. To the End of the Fifth c. B.C.  Edited by R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, pp. 114-115; C. G. Starr. Athenian Coinage. Oxford. 1970, p. 68 n. 15; Chr. Howgego. Ancient History from Coins, p. 44).The text was carved on stelai and set up at Athens and the other cities – members of the League. Seven fragments of this text have been already discovered in various places (A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. To the End of the Fifth c. B.C. Edited by R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, p. 111; “Athenian coinage decree”. J. M. Jones. A Dictionary of Ancient Greek Coins. London. First Published in 1986). There are several attempts to interpret the decree. One thing is clear – this decree is imperialistic in tone, and if some of the cities within the Athenian “Empire” were still supposed to issue own money, only Attic weight coins had to be used. Electrum staters remained popular (A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. To the End of the Fifth c. B.C.  Edited by R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, p. 113). Later this decree is parodied in the “Birds” of Aristophanes (C. M. Kraay. Coins of Ancient Athens. Newcastle upon Tyne. 1968, p. 5).

The decree seems to be very comfortable for trade and taxation – indeed, Athenians were scrupulous while collecting taxes within the League.

The whole story about the Greeks shaping Europe has been already told. Macedonia contributed much as a recruitment area, but earlier Athens had been thought to be a leader. It was merely a frustration – indeed, if the best city had to be stripped from a population, nothing would be created at all. While the Greeks still in this mistake, Athenians made a good deal – seizing the markets and imposing taxes.

Athenians cared much for the Black Sea areas; and Pericles even launched a special expedition (Plut. Pericl. 20). Then the numismatic visage of Colchis (Western Georgia) was changed as Athenian tetradrachms came in sight together with the Attic ceramics (G. Doundoua, T. Doundoua. Les Relations Économiques de la Colchide aux Époques Archaïque et Classique d’après le Matériel Numismatique. La Mer Noire. Zone de Contacts. Actes du VIIe Symposium de Vani. Paris. 1999, p. 111 №23; Очерки истории Грузии. т. I. ред. Г. А. Ме­ли­киш­ви­ли, О. Д. Лордкипанидзе. Тбилиси. 1989, p. 228). Moreover, Milesian, Aeginetan and Persian standards used for the autonomous coin issues of Phasis (modern Photi, Western Georgia) now disappear and Attic standard becomes unique.

 Dioscurias (Modern Sokhumi, Western Georgia) was a splendid Greek city dominated by a mercantile oligarchy, a foundation of Miletus, sometimes – being troubled by the natives from the hinterland. Then it seems to be completely assimilated. History of Dioscurias is full of tremendous events and clashes. And the clashes were back again in the summer of 1993 as the civil war broke out in Abkhazia. Still one missile was especially lucky as it buried itself deep in the earth and showed a coin-shaped white metal. The description is as follows: weight – 300.37 gr. d=70 mm. Head of Athena wearing a crested helmet (the fashion is that of “old-style” coinage)/Owl. Obviously Athenian weight, it was offered for sale to Simon Janashia State Museum of Georgia.

The greatest number of the marked weights found in the Agora are small roughly square lead plaques. Sometimes these official weights are marked with the same symbols as the coins – head of Athena/owl (The Athenian Agora. v. X. Weights, Measures and Tokens by M. Lang and M. Crosby. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Part I. Weights and Measures by M. Lang. Princeton. New Jersey. 1964, p. 6). Large circular stamp with helmeted head of Athena appears on the lead weight of the Roman time (The Athenian Agora. v. X. Weights, Measures and Tokens by M. Lang and M. Crosby, p. 31 pl. 9 LW (lead weight) 66).  Bronze weight too of some 69.9 gr. has an owl incised. This seems to be a coin weight, 1/6 of mina (The Athenian Agora. v. X. Weights, Measures and Tokens by M. Lang and M. Crosby, p. 26 pl. 1 BW (Bronze weight) 5). Even countermarks for the weights represent double-bodied owl and helmeted head (The Athenian Agora. v. X. Weights, Measures and Tokens by M. Lang and M. Crosby, p. 28 pl. 6 LW 26, p. 30, pl. 8 LW 46). The dry measure also has two stamps: the double-bodied owl and helmeted head of Athena (The Athenian Agora. v. X. Weights, Measures and Tokens by M. Lang and M. Crosby, pl. 14 DM (dry measure) 44, 45; pl. 18 DM 44, 45).

The Athenian coin mina, consisting of 100 drachms, weighted approximately 436.6 gr. There was also another mina, used for weighting market produce, equal to 138 coin drachms, or 602 gr. (“Mina”, “Attic weight standard”. J. M. Jones. A Dictionary of Ancient Greek Coins).  

So, the piece from Dioscurias should be considered as Athenian trade-weight – half mina.

What conclusions are we to draw from all this?

1) Dioscurias had to receive or was glad to receive the official Athenian weights as the city became a subject of the Alliance.

2) And Phasis should have accepted even a coin mina and Attic standard too while already in the Alliance. Was there any legislation in favour of democracy; what does a maintenance of “Archaic smile” on the Athenian (“Old Style” coinage) and Phasian coins mean? We shall never know.

3) One thing is clear – Attic standard was installed in Colchis between 450 and 414 B.C. And the effect was similar to the modern introduction of euro across much of the European Union.

From Ancient Period to Modern Europe

Creating a common economic space was a recurring ambition throughout European history. The above-discussed “Attic standard zone” was one of the pertinent examples from Ancient history. From modern period the best example perhaps is the European Union (EU) which from the late 1960s aimed at coordinating economic and fiscal policies. It also included the establishment of a common monetary policy as well as the introduction of a common currency. The principal arguments in favor of its adoption were economic stability and unencumbered cross-border trade.

In 1979 the European Monetary System (EMS) was launched. Later on during the European Council session in Maastricht, 1991, the Treaty on European Union, which contained various provisions necessary for successful implementation of the monetary union, was agreed upon (https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/euro/history-and-purpose-euro_en).

Then came the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) which aimed at step-by-step economic integration of a number of countries. EMU was designed to support sustainable economic growth and a high level of employment. This specifically comprised three main fields: 1. implementing a monetary policy that pursues the main objective of price stability; 2. avoiding possible negative spillover effects due to unsustainable government finance, preventing the emergence of macroeconomic imbalances within Member States, and coordinating to a certain degree the economic policies of the Member States; 3. ensuring the smooth operation of the single market (https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/economic-and-monetary-union/what-economic-and-monetary-union-emu_en).

It was not however until 1999 that a common currency – the euro – appeared with 11 countries – Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain – fixing their exchange rates and creating a new currency with monetary policy passed to the European Central Bank.

For the first three years euro did not exist as it essentially was an “invisible” currency. It was used mainly for accounting purposes. In 2002, however, first euro coins and banknotes were introduced in 12 EU countries thus ushering in, arguably, the biggest cash changeover in history. Nowadays, the euro is in circulation in 19 EU member states. There are a number of advantages attached to the use of the euro: low costs of financial transactions, easy travel, increased economic and political role of Europe on the international arena (https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/euro/which-countries-use-euro_en).

Parallel to the creation of the unified economic space ran the establishment institutionalized freedom of movement within most of the European states. The treaty came to be known as the Schengen Agreement signed on June 14, 1985, which led most of the European countries towards the abolishment of their national borders. The concept for free movement between the European countries is very old and it can be found through the Middle Ages (https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/eu-countries/).

As was the case with the “Attic standard zone” modern Georgia aspires to become an economic part of Europe, its monetary system, unified currency – euro. Major steps have been made to this end since the break-up of the Soviet Union. The current EU-Georgia close relationship is based on the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. More importantly, the latter involves a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), which came into force in mid-2016 and along with closer political ties aims to achieve deeper economic integration between Tbilisi and the EU (https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/georgia/).

Simultaneously with Georgia’s slow and steady economic integration into the EU economy, the country has also started to enjoy the benefits of institutionalized free movement of citizens across much of the European continent.

Thus there is a long history of Georgian economic and territorial integration into the European models of unified economic spaces. The above examples of the “Attic standard zone” as well as the modern European Union prove this point.

Author’s note: first published in Georgia Today

Prof. Dr. Tedo Dundua is the Director of the Institute of Georgian History, Faculty of Humanities, at the Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.

Continue Reading
Comments

Eastern Europe

The new border geopolitics of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Azerbaijan

Published

on

Borders are spatial-political phenomena that have a prominent importance and place in the global political sphere because they have divided the world arena into countries and put them together as actors. This importance and prominent position of borders has caused various fields of study such as political science, political geography, international law, etc. to study them from their point of view and continuously to follow and monitor their developments and changes. In the meantime, it seems that after the acceptance of the ceasefire between Azerbaijan and Armenia along the northwestern borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, some developments have happened that need to examine. So, we examine these developments with a geopolitical perspective. The geopolitical attitude towards the border developments of Iran and Azerbaijan can analyze in the form of the following angles:
Border geopolitics in terms of location is the knowledge, acquisition, exploitation and preservation of geographical sources of power in border areas and related areas in transnational, national, regional and global relations. In other words, designing and reviewing the strategies of actors to achieve benefits and goals based on the geographical resources of power in the border areas called border geopolitics. The developments along the Iran-Azerbaijan border after the ceasefire show these developments cause the geographical sources of Iran's power: alliance with Armenia; severance of Iran's position as Azerbaijan-Nakhchivan communication bridge; reducing Azerbaijan's dependence on Iran for access to the high seas; reducing the possibility of transferring Iranian gas to Europe, etc. that along the borders should significantly reduce. On the other hand, the increase of geographical sources of power: increasing the size of the territory; establishing a connection with the Nakhchivan sector; forming a new opportunity to connect with the high seas through Turkey, etc. has brought about for the country of Azerbaijan. Based on this, it seems that in designing the forthcoming strategies of Iran and Azerbaijan, we will see changes in the geographical sources of power due to these changes.
 
Border geopolitics from a functional point of view is the knowledge, acquisition, exploitation and preservation of geographical sources of power in transnational, national, regional and global relations to achieve protection, control, management, security and other objectives in the length of borders and border areas. In other words, designing and reviewing the strategies of actors to achieve protection, control, management, security and other goals based on the geographical sources of power in the border areas called border geopolitics. If we examine the developments along the Iranian-Azerbaijani border after the ceasefire from this point of view, we will see that the importance and value of Azerbaijan's geographical resources along the border with Iran is increasing compared to Iran's geographical sources of power. It seems to put more effective and successful strategies in front of Azerbaijan to achieve goals such as control, security, etc. along the common borders. On the contrary, it will change the strategies facing Iran to some extent.

Border geopolitics from a player point is the knowledge, acquisition, exploitation and preservation of geographical resources of power in the border areas of the two countries, by Iran and Azerbaijan to achieve their goals and aspirations in transnational, national, regional and global. In other words, the use and exploitation of the geographical sources of power in the common border areas of Iran and Azerbaijan to achieve their goals and aspirations in transnational, national, regional and global relations called geopolitical borders.If we examine the developments along the Iranian-Azerbaijani border after ceasefire from this point of view, we will see that these changes have made Azerbaijan, as a geopolitical player compared to Iran, more powerful than geographical sources. On the other hand, variety of actors such as Turkey, Russia, etc. are present directly along the borders of the two countries.

In general, the changes that have taken place along the borders of Iran and Azerbaijan from a geopolitical point of view of the border seem to have been in favor of Azerbaijan and the geographical sources of power along the border between two countries in favor of this country. It has changed and thus increased the efficiency of the strategies facing Azerbaijan against the strategies of Iran based on the geographical sources of power in the border areas.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

The Emerging Nakhchivan Corridor

Published

on

As the details of the Karabakh deal are being fleshed out, the stipulation on the new corridor through Armenian territory has caused great debate. Beyond the signatories of the deal, Iran and Georgia are particularly worried as any meaningful change to the connectivity patterns in the South Caucasus could harm their transit capabilities.

The 2020 Karabakh war ended with major Russian diplomatic success on November 9 when a tripartite agreement between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia was signed. The surrounding seven regions were to be returned to Baku, while Russian peacekeepers would guarantee the security of the truncated Nagorno-Karabakh. Though the exact role is yet to be confirmed, based on the rhetoric from Ankara and Baku, some sort of direct Turkish military involvement on Azeri soil is likely to materialize. 

More importantly, however, Turkey gained a land corridor to Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhchivan. The stipulation in the document reads: “Armenia guarantees the security of transport links … for unimpeded movement of citizens, vehicles, and cargo in both directions” between mainland Azerbaijan and the exclave of Nakhchivan, which are separated by Armenian territory. Moreover, “Transport control is exercised by the Border Service of the Federal Security Service of Russia. By agreement of the parties, the construction of new transport communications connecting the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and Azerbaijan’s western regions will be provided.”

The stipulation is a major breakthrough for Turkey as it would allow the country to anchor its influence on the Caspian Sea and perhaps, in the longer term, look even further towards its Central Asia kinsmen. 

This would create a major dilemma for Iran and Russia, as Tehran and Moscow have historically perceived the Caspian Sea as a condominium between themselves (plus the littoral states since the end of the Soviet Union). Potential Turkish involvement could disrupt this equilibrium and especially Iran’s standing. However, this is highly hypothetical. After all, it would need years if not decades for this scenario to be realized and even then Turkish influence could not be as large as Chinese or Russian – two major forces in the region.

What bothers Iran is a potentially major shift in the region’s transportation routes. For decades Azerbaijan has been dependent on Iran for transiting energy and other supplies to Nakhchivan. The new Karabakh deal could change it. Armenia will now guarantee the opening up of a corridor through its territory to allow Azerbaijan to transport goods directly to Nakhichevan. Quite naturally, this limits Tehran’s leverage over Baku.

However, Javad Hedayati, who heads transit operations in the Iranian transportation ministry, announced that Iran is likely to stay a favorable route for trade despite the planned opening of the new corridor. “It is likely that this corridor will merely accommodate local traffic between the Republic of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan,” said Hedayati.

Ankara has long been working on using the Nakhchivan corridor for geopolitical purposes. This is proved by the quickness with which the Turkish government announced the plans to build a railway to Nakhchivan following the November agreement. This comes on top of an earlier announcement of a gas pipeline construction to the exclave, and underlines the seriousness behind the Turkish intention, at least regarding the section from the Turkish territory to the exclave itself.

Much, however, remains unclear about the new corridor on the Armenia territory itself. First of all, will the road be used by the Turks and Azerbaijanis only? Considering the level of mistrust in Ankara and Baku towards Moscow, whose forces will be controlling this corridor, it is highly unlikely that Azerbaijan and Turkey will be willing to commit large financial resources to rebuild links on the Armenian land. After all, will the corridor be the Armenian territory, or will it fall under the tripartite administrative regime? These are arguably the defining questions which remain unanswered. One could also imagine constant incidents along the corridor as Armenia will remain unhappy with the stipulation. Transit fees could soften Yerevan’s position, but why should Russia be interested in the operation of the corridor? If the corridor is operational, these troublesome questions will have to be managed between the two sides sharing no trust in the other. These dilemmas were well summed up in the words of the Iranian official Hedayati. He stressed that Armenia could prevent Turkey’s access to the corridor for transfer of freight or passengers through Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan and further to countries to the east of the Caspian Sea.

Georgia is worried

One country which is particularly worried with the potential development of the new corridor is Georgia. Various pipelines, roads and a major railway transit the country from Azerbaijan on to Turkey. This has been a backbone of Georgia’s regional importance since the end of the Soviet Union and indeed served as a major attraction for larger players such as Europe and the US.

Quite naturally many in Tbilisi have begun to think whether this enviable position could be challenged. The consensus thought is that in the short and medium term no reshuffling in the region’s connectivity patterns is likely to take place. Even in the longer term, if the above mentioned uncertainties around the new corridor are resolved, many still believe that Baku and Ankara would not trade the already built and functioning railway and pipeline infrastructure, which runs through Georgia, for the Nakhchivan alternative. Perhaps the corridor will serve for ensuring local connections, perhaps limited trade (though highly unlikely).

After all, Georgia has been officially engaged in the trilateral partnership with Turkey and Azerbaijan for nearly a decade. The endurance of the format has been tested by changes of governments and region-wide geopolitical transformations over the last decade. Each country of the three needs the others. Turkey wants a more stable Georgia with deeper economic and energy relations, while Azerbaijan needs Turkey’s backing. Georgia, under pressure from Russia and, given that it is located between its two fellow members of the cooperation, dependent on transit, in turn needs both Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Georgia also sees its position as straddling between two large regions – Europe and Central Asia. The 826-kilometre Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway unveiled in 2017 enables the delivery of cargo between China and Europe with a haulage duration of approximately two weeks. Up to eight million tons of cargo may be carried via the railway by 2025.

Abandoning this transit corridor would undermine the efficacy of the South Caucasus transportation and energy corridor. This makes the extent of the Nakhchevan corridor quite limited. Perhaps, what the region is likely to see is the growing interconnectedness of the exclave with the Turkish territory. The emergence of a major corridor through the Nakhchivan is likely to happen if, at minimum, a meaningful improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations takes place. 

Author’s note: first published in caucasuswatch.de

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

«Crimean Platform»: Kiev set on opening a new diplomatic front

Published

on

Even though the so-called “Crimean Platform”, as a new unrealistic project to retrieve Crimea, arouses no questions and the  agenda of the Kiev initiators is clear, further  developments require a close scrutiny, the more so since the  political situation is versatile, given the impact of presidential elections in the  USA and the activity of Turkey. Although the «Platform» will do nothing to translate the declared agenda into life, it will contribute to finding solutions to a number of issues on Kiev’s diplomatic agenda, or so they hope .

Kiev’s plans for the “platform” are extensive enough – it will operate on different levels. The first level is a high  one with the participation of heads of state and government, the second level embraces foreign and defense ministers, the  third- incorporates interparliamentary level, the fourth – brings together non-governmental experts.

Kiev is planning to re-set former initiatives and create a new instrument of pressure on Russia, this time against the Russian status of Kiev.  

Among the most significant details is that the “platform” was launched by the  Kiev Mejlis of Crimean Tatars (banned in Russia). For  those lost in contemporary Mejlis policy the Crimean Platform is a new pillar and an upcoming political springboard which will make it possible for Kiev to boot its international activity.

A statement about the project was made by Ukraine’s First Deputy Foreign Minister Emine Djaparova, a  de facto Mejlis representative, and possibly, a creation of the Turkish lobby. She is now presenting the “platform” in the media, having proclaimed the key agenda – “to return the issue to thehigher level of international attention”.  What is behind such wording?

The Crimean Platform is yet another distractor from the Minsk Agreements, which  Kiev has no intention of implementing. All these games – the change in the composition of the three-party contact group, injections of some ideas, even armistice – all these go into use but have nothing to do with promoting and fulfilling the  agreements, since nothing has been put into practice of the agreements of the Normandy Four summit in December 2019. For this reason, there  can be no meeting in the Normandy format, without which the Minsk process will be stuck and will not move towards implementing the  agreements. According to Ukrainian political analyst, Ruslan Bortnik, the current situation has certain bonuses for Zelensky: «Yes, there is a steady armistice inside Ukraine, which the authorities are trying to sell as peace. I think that the authorities are quite content about this situation, that is, freezing of conflict for the  Zelensky team marks huge  success. On the one hand, this means absence of war, which draws a heavy burden on the public conscience, on the other hand – this is no-return of the disloyal electorate of Donbass in case of reintegration». In the opinion of the expert, this situation suits Europe as well. How interested Europe is in delaying the Minsk process will become clear by its activity within the  Crimean Platform, which is why the project deserves attention.

But the most important thing why it all came into being is, to my mind, Kiev’s need for a new platform in order to see its old dream come true – to drag the USA into the participants in the proceed. Washington, if it is quick enough to  return to international politics, which will be the  case if Joe  Biden wins, will likely be  interested in  taking a closer look at Russian interests, the  more so in  the  Black  Sea Region, possibly in cooperation with Turkey. It’s in this way  that the project may allow Kiev to guarantee the inclusion  of  countries such as Turkey and the USA – something the Minsk format will never endorse.

Kiev has already announced the  approximate date of the Crimean Platform big summit. Not accidentally, the event has been set for May 2021, Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba said, adding that involvement in the Platform of the USA is a key issue, but while elections in the USA are still under way, Washington’s vision of Ukraine is unclear. In case of Biden’s victory we can expect a renaissance of American attention to Ukraine, while Trump may  remain pragmatically indifferent. The possible summit, its forma and participants will become the first indicator of the level of the Platform, though the prospects for this project, considering the position of Russia,  are more than vague.

It is interesting to know what issues the participants in the Platform will raise.  Even though the main points could be predicted right now, it is interesting to know  how the participants in the Platform will formulate the water blockade of Crimea. Above-menioned Djaparova, speaking on October 21 at an international conference on “the issues of water supply and use of water resources of Crimea in the eonditions of Russian occupation”, coined an incredulous explanation to the water genocide: “Deputy Minister reported that Crimean ran into water shortages because of militarization of the peninsula following the occupation, and also, the artificial change of demographic composition. Due to the arrival of Russian troops and ordinary Russians, she said, the demand for freshwater increased dramatically. As a result, the existing resources were used up in 6 years».A unbelievably cynical statemenet!

Meanwhile, Ukrainian experts are already pointing to risks and the uselessness of the project.

«The first of the risks stipulates that this Platform may turn into Crimean “Minsk” – a useless and ineffective venue» (but who can stop Kiev from making it effective?)

«The second risk is a complete loss of Crimea in a third country, for example, in Turkey. Ukraine and Turkey share their interest in terms of liberating Crimea, but they may overdo it and Crimea may  find itself a Turkish metropolis and part of Ukraine». Here comes the  importance of Mejlis  again. If Kiev takes the Turkish  threat seriously, which will see Mejlis as an instrument of fictitious transformation of Crimea into a Turkish metropolis, we will witness one of the lines of struggle inside the Platform. Part of this struggle will be efforts to reduce the influence of Mejlis and the blockade  of Turkey.  

The Third risk is formulated in the following way: If Zelensky starts to aggressively advance in the direction of implementation of the project, there is a threat of new combat operations in Donbass. A strange assumption, but let it be on them.

The fourth  risk – the Platform will become yet another venue maintained by the Ukrainian side the only outcome of its work being the creation of certain information. In my view, this is the most realistic scenario.

To expect that the Crimean Platform will help Ukraine retrieve Crimea is unrealistic, to say the  least. But at the  same time, it could serve as a political instrument, in case of support of the EU, Turkey and the USA, which could create extra tension on the border between Russian Federation and Crimea.  

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Green Planet1 hour ago

Climate Change – call for a united front

“Nature bears long with those who wrong her. She is patient under abuse. But when abuse has gone too far,...

Energy News4 hours ago

$600 Million ADB Loan to Expand Energy Access in Eastern Indonesia

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has approved a $600 million loan to help the State Electricity Corporation (PLN), Indonesia’s state-owned...

Human Rights5 hours ago

Urgent action to end ‘pandemic of femicide and violence against women’

COVID-19 is overshadowing what has become a “pandemic of femicide” and related gender-based violence against women and girls, said independent UN human rights expert Dubravka Šimonović on Monday, calling for the universal establishment...

EU Politics7 hours ago

Inclusion for all: Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027

Commission is presenting the action plan on Integration and Inclusion for the period 2021-2027. The action plan promotes inclusion for...

Defense9 hours ago

Biden, Modi and the Malabar Exercise 2020

So lastly, the reluctant President Donald Trump, keeping the value of the verdict, allows the GSA to begin the transition...

Reports11 hours ago

Lithuania: COVID-19 crisis reinforces the need for reforms to drive growth and reduce inequality

Effective containment measures, a well-functioning health system and swift public support to firms and households have helped Lithuania to weather...

Russia13 hours ago

Sirius Focuses on Talents and Success of Russian Youth

Russia’s youth is Russia’s future. Russia has been building its youth and offering them diverse opportunities and support. “Within this...

Trending