The Warsaw Institute Review qr.4/2022 no.23

Dear Readers,

Iam

giving you the last quarterly of The Warsaw Institute Review this year. The theme of the last issues was definitely dominated by the war in Ukraine and its impact on global geopolitics. This magazine will be no different.

At a time when Ukraine is fighting the Russian occupier, we are discussing not only the general course of this conflict, but also its impact on Washington-Moscow relations. This case is undoubtedly the main theme of this issue. Our magazine also hosts two eminent guests who have introduced their perspective to our readers.

In our expert activities, we also do not forget about issues covering a wider range of topics. You will read about Polish-Hungarian relations, as well as about India’s foreign policy and a summary of the Taliban’s year of rule in Afghanistan. I hope that these topics will be not only interesting reading for you, but also a supplement to the leading theme of this issue.

I wish you all a pleasant reading and a merry Christmas, Jan Hernik

Jan Hernik Editor-in-Chief

The Warsaw Institute Review

The Warsaw Institute Review

© Copyright 2022

The Warsaw Institute Review Warsaw, Poland

Editor-in-Chief Jan Hernik jan.hernik@warsawinstitute.org Translations Aleksandra Iskra Aleksandra Tomaszewska DTP and Printing www.sindruk.pl

Publisher Warsaw Institute Wilcza 9, 00-538 Warsaw, Poland www.warsawinstitute.review www.warsawinstitute.org

The opinions given and the positions held in the materials published in the Warsaw Institute Review solely reflect the views of the authors and cannot be equated with the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland and Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of the Republic of Poland.

ISSN 2543-9839

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Jack Kakasenko

US-Russia tensions

INTERVIEW

Jan Hernik

Clifford Angell Bates Jr.

A vision of the war in Ukraine and prospects for the countries of NATO's Eastern Flank

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Istvan Nagy Friends Forever?

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Jack Kakasenko US-Russia tensions

WAR IN UKRAINE

Jan Hernik

Prof. Clifford Angell Bates Jr. The American Approach to the War in Ukraine

INTERVIEW

Jan Hernik

Billie Flynn

A vision of the war in Ukraine and prospects for the countries of NATO's Eastern Flank

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Szymon Polewka

Understanding Russia

POLISH-HUNGARIAN RELATIONS

Istvan Nagy Friends Forever?

INDO-PACIFIC Benedek Sipocz Indian Foreign Policy and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue

MIDDLE EAST Kinga Szurc Taliban Crackdown On Women Rights After August 2021

US-RUSSIA TENSIONS

Jack Kakasenko

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States perpetrated by the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, the mindset of the United States shifted drastically towards one of counterterrorism. The United States initiated the Global War on Terror (GWOT), which sought to eliminate terrorism and secure the United States from any future terrorist attacks. American troops and military equipment were swiftly deployed to several Middle-Eastern countries. With the painful memories of the September 11th attacks still fresh in the mind of the American public, president George W. Bush addressed the issue during his inauguration speech, “states like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these states pose a

grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” The United States had undertaken a massive war effort, however, would come to learn that major geopolitical and strategic issues were underestimated on different fronts.

While the United States and its army were preoccupied in the Middle-East, the growing imminent threat of Russia and President Vladimir Putin were disregarded. Despite several Russian invasions and military operations, the United States discredited the issue of the growing imperialist ideology of the Russian Federation. While American efforts were tied up in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, Russian aggression towards

neighboring countries were frequently underplayed and left unpunished. This was demonstrated with the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, a neighboring country once under the control of the Soviet Union. The United States’ response to this aggression was mild, and the U.S. military did not send significant. Persistent invasions from Russia would continue and Washington would continue to downplay the issues in the region. This would be demonstrated again with the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. While the United States would apply financial sanction against Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, Washington resisted applying tighter and more restrictive financial sanctions. Military aid to Ukraine was few and far between, and the U.S. was careful with donations. Even with repeated aggression from the Russian Federation, American foreign policy was

heavily tilted towards the Middle East, while mounting concerns with Russia were downplayed. Former 2012 presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, took a very different stance, however. He argued that, “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.” Meanwhile, former President of the United States, Barack Obama, in a presidential debate with Romney, was quoted saying, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” In fact, Mitt Romney’s interpretation of the Russian strategic threat was anything but outdated. This would be shown time and again in the coming years, while the United States remained entangled in a long-lasting war in the Middle East. The deemphasized stance of the United States on Russia would create a political and strategic threat. This will be discussed further.

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF RUSSIA

DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN THE REGION (RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN THE REGION):

With over 3.5 million active duty soldiers, Russia has the largest army in Europe. Globally, Russia’s military ranks amongst the largest and most powerful. However, the influence that the Russian Federation has over Europe is much deeper than military power. In 2021 alone, total trade between the Russian Federation and the European Union was valued at 257.5 billion Euro. Of which, Russia exported over 158 billion Euro worth of goods to the European Union, and approximately 98 billion Euro of which consisted of fuel and mining products.1 The tremendous role that Russia plays in the European arena creates a strategic risk in the region and could undermine the security and stability of Europe as a whole.

This was demonstrated following the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, when Germany and fellow European countries found themselves heavily reliant upon Russian fuel. In the past decades, Germany has expanded its dependence on foreign imported fuel, while making little progress in developing fossil-fuel infrastructure domestically. In a bid to transition to renewable fuels, Germany further rejected the use of nuclear energy. This came with the 13th amendment to the German Atomic Energy Act, which emphasized the phasing out of civil atomic energy production. Nuclear energy is set to be completely phased out from the German economy by the end of 2022. 2

1 European Commission “EU trade relations with Russia. Facts, figures and latest developments.” Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/ eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/ countries-and-regions/russia_en#:~:text=In%20 2020%2C%20the%20EU%20was%20Russia%27s%20 first%20trade,the%20EU%20and%20Russia%20 amounted%20to%20€257.5%20billion. Accessed October, 2022

2 Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

Russia plays a powerful and authoritative role in Europe, and this cannot be fully credited to them. In May 2018, Germany granted permission for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to increase the imports of Russian gas into Germany. 3 Yet in 2018, defense expenditure as a share of GDP and annual real change from Germany was only 1.24%, falling behind the 2% target specified by NATO.4 This sparked controversy amongst many, including former President of the United States Donald Trump, as he was quoted in a meeting with fellow NATO representatives, “So we’re supposed to protect you against Russia but they’re paying billions of dollars to Russia and I think that is very inappropriate.” He further added, “Now, if you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia because they got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear plants. They are getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something NATO has to look at.”

Further, Russian oligarchs use European financial hubs to hide their assets and funds. London is amongst one of the most notorious safe-havens for the elite of Russia with anonymous identities and shell companies. Transparency International, an anti-corruption campaign group, identified 150 land titles with a value of 1.5 billion Pounds Sterling owned by Russian individuals who have ties to the Kremlin or illicit

“German Atomic Energy Act (Atomgesetz)”

Available at: https://www.nuklearesicherheit.de/en/ licensing-and-supervision/the-legal-framework/ german-atomic-energy-act/ Accessed October, 2022

3 Reuters Staff “Timeline: Twists and turns in Russia’s Nord stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany” October 7, 2020. Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters. com/article/us-nordstream-poland-timelineidUSKBN26S2AW Accessed October, 2022.

4 North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Defense expenditure of NATO countries (2011-2018)” July 10, 2018. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/ natohq/news_156770.htm. Accessed October, 2022.

activity. Using tax havens and off-shore shell companies, Russian oligarchs are able to hide and transport funds while avoiding sanctions and other financial restrictions. 5 The United Kingdom’s visa regime made acquiring residence in the UK effortless for Russian oligarchs. From 2008 until February 2022, a person could acquire British residence under the condition that they invested 2 million pounds sterling or higher. While Western countries had enacted sanctions for years against Russia, oligarchs and wealthy individuals were still able to access London’s financial and real-estate markets, transporting billions of dollars of potentially illicit funds.

In addition to the economic might of Russia, the military might is equally as worrisome. President Vladimir Putin’s repeated aggression in Europe has proven Russia to be a hostile state. Further, Russia has heavy control over the neighboring former Soviet republic, Belarus. Together, these two countries pose a stark risk to regional European safety. For instance, the 2021 Belarussian orchestration of a migrant crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border in an effort to undermine the security of Poland and Eastern Europe. President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, closely tied with President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, aimed to manufacture a border crisis to destabilize the region and provoke neighboring countries.

PUTIN’S IMPERIALISTIC DRIVE:

Vladimir Putin’s deep imperialistic drive continues to compromise the security of the world as a whole. His reminiscence of the Soviet Union is shown with the repeated invasion of neighboring

5 Transparency International UK “Transparency measures must be fast-tracked to kick start dirty money crackdown” February 22, 2022. Available at https://www.transparency.org.uk/russia-sanctionsUK-latest-news-property-dirty-money-suspectwealth Accessed October, 2022

countries, and his reference to the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

The claims and justifications of Russia’s numerous invasions have varied, however, usually they pertain to installing a pro-Russian leadership in a neighboring country. The Kremlin has consistently worked over the 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union to ensure that its neighboring states have pro-Russian leadership that will cooperate on all fronts with Moscow. Countries aiming to establish democratic and western-friendly leadership are seen as a threat by the Kremlin. History has proven this the case numerous times. The 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia was claimed to be an operation to protect Russians in the region, as well as undermine any chance of Georgia joining NATO. Similarly, Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, claiming to protect ethnic Russians. Ultimately, Russia held an illegitimate referendum to vote on the cessation of Crimea from Ukraine and to join Russia.6

Russian leaders seek to undermine the peace and stability of their neighboring nations to destroy any pro-democratic uprising or culture. Vladimir Putin himself views NATO as a threat to Russian security, and he continues to make bold statements regarding the Eastward expansion of NATO. In a phone call with French President, Emanuel Macron, Vladimir Putin claimed that one of the main justifications behind invading was to ensure its neutral status and

6 European Union External Action “Seven years since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea” February 25, 2021. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/ seven-years-russia’s-illegal-annexation-crimea_en Accessed October, 2022.

denazification of Ukraine.7 Allegations of Ukraine being a Nazi state have been widely discredited and disproven by the West. Since the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has perpetuated baseless narratives to smear the Ukrainian government and justify the so-called “special military operation” in the Donbass. Evidence of atrocities committed by Russian troops continues to mount, including killing and torturing of civilians, and attacking of civilian infrastructure. 8 Regardless, Russia insists that its military does not target civilian or civilian infrastructure, and that any apparent atrocities in Ukraine are staged.

THE ROLE UKRAINE PLAYS AS A SAFETY BUFFER BETWEEN RUSSIA AND NATO:

Ukraine has historically and currently played the role of being a borderland between two global powers. The name

7 President of Russia. “Telephone call with President of France Emmanuel Macron.” February 28, 2022. Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/ news/67880 Accessed October, 2022

8 United Nations. “Plight of civilians in Ukraine” May 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/ en/press-briefing-notes/2022/05/plight-civiliansukraine#:~:text=Since%2024%20February%2C%20 the%20United,may%20amount%20to%20war%20 crimes Accessed October, 2022

“Ukraine” (Ukrainian: Україна), refers to the Slavic word for borderland. Ukraine has been stuck in a political grid-lock for years, as foreign powers have been working to assert dominance over the region. The Kremlin, however, has been keen to see that Ukraine fall to Moscow’s sphere of influence.

Following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Putin claimed that the West’s interest in expanding NATO’s territory onto Ukrainian land threatened Russia’s national security. Despite NATO not reiterating these claims, Ukraine’s buffer status was called into question globally. Since the beginning of the invasion, NATO has walked the fine line between supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while also not provoking war between the West and Russia.

How exactly does a country acquire NATO membership? An aspiring NATO member state must meet certain criteria to be able to join. First, an aspiring member state must be in Europe. Additionally, all prospective member states must be aligned with democratic principles. Finally, the state must be willing to consistently contribute to NATO. If a prospective member meets

© Source: Wikimedia Commons UKRINFORM TV

these criteria, it can be invited to join the Member Action Plan (MAP). The plan will provide support and create a unique plan for membership. The member state. Following this, discussions are held where states agree to the terms of NATO membership. For a country to pass any further, each current NATO member state must ratify their proposed NATO membership. This is often a strenuous and controversial task. Lastly, a country must adopt a bill of ratification following its own democratic procedures.9

While interest domestically exists in Ukraine to join NATO, member states have voiced doubts about letting Ukraine join while actively at war. Former Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, reiterated her 2008 stance on the blocking of Ukraine from joining NATO.10 Corruption is a common concern among NATO member states with regard to the admission of Ukraine to NATO. While the potential for Ukraine to join NATO exists, it would require willpower and decisiveness amongst all 30 member states. This, in the near future, is an unrealistic prospect.

The repercussions of granting Ukraine membership status are alarming. NATO Article 5 states that, “that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”11

9 North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Enlargement and Article 10” July 6, 2022. Available at: https:// www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212. htm#:~:text=NATO’s%20“open%20door%20 policy”%20is,a%20say%20in%20such%20 deliberations Accessed October, 2022.

10 France24. “Merkel defends 2008 stance to block Ukraine from NATO.” April 4, 2022. Availible at: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukrainefrom-nato Accessed October, 2022.

11 North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Enlargement and Article 10” July 6, 2022. Available at: https:// www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.

With Russia actively engaging in war against Ukraine, membership status would warrant full scale intervention from every member state. This prospect, for many, is stark and the will to engage in a full scale war against Russia is minimal. From the standpoint of the United States, a war of this scale would be detrimental. With the withdrawal from the 20 year military presence in Afghanistan in 2021, the United States is wary of provoking a potentially much larger war.

PERCEPTION/INTEREST IN THE US

The full scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has been met with denunciation and condemnation in the United States. President Joe Biden and his administration maintain their position, recognizing the sovereignty of Ukrainian territory, while condemning the unlawful occupation by the Russian military. On the day of the Russian invasion, President Biden, in a speech to the American people, said, “The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity.” He would continue on to condemn the Kremlin’s invasion, while expressing support for the Ukrainian people. However, Biden was quick to address the issue of NATO troops in the region, saying, “Our forces are not and will not be engaged in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight in Ukraine but to defend our NATO Allies and reassure those Allies in the east.”12

htm#:~:text=NATO’s%20“open%20door%20 policy”%20is,a%20say%20in%20such%20 deliberations Accessed October, 2022 12

The White House “Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.” February 24, 2022. Available at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speechesremarks/2022/02/24/remarks-by-president-bidenon-russias-unprovoked-and-unjustified-attack-onukraine/ Accessed October, 2022.

Financial and military aid has been at the forefront of US foreign policy with Ukraine. As of August 24, 2022, the United States has committed over 13.5 billion US dollars in security assistance to the Ukrainian army. This includes over 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft systems, over 8,500 Javelin anti-armor systems, over 27,000 other anti-armor systems, 16 105mm Howitzers and 108,000 105mm artillery rounds, and much more. These weapons are designed to thwart attacks and help regain Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by Russian forces.13

While the United States continues to send substantial military aid to Ukraine, the Biden administration has made it clear that American and NATO troops will not be involved in a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. President Biden has reiterated that the United States will, if such a situation were to arise, meet its Article 5 commitment to NATO, stating that an attack against any NATO state is an attack against all NATO states. As President Biden remarked, “As I made crystal clear, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.”14

The United States, along with its European allies, has worked to isolate the Russian economy by imposing strict financial sanctions. Major Russian banks are now unable to make or receive international payments using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial

13 United States Department of Defense “Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine.” August 24, 2022. Available at: https://media.defense.gov/2022/ Aug/24/2003063760/-1/-1/1/UKRAINE-FACTSHEET-AUG-24.PDF Accessed October, 2022

14 The White House “Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.” February 24, 2022. Available at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speechesremarks/2022/02/24/remarks-by-president-bidenon-russias-unprovoked-and-unjustified-attack-onukraine/ Accessed October, 2022.

Telecommunications (SWIFT). While the movement of funds without the use of SWIFT is theoretically possible, it is still detrimental to the Russian economy to not have access to such financial resources. Further, the European Union has prohibited all transactions with the National Central Bank of Russia with regard to the management of its reserves and assets.15

Imports and exports to Russia have also been strictly sanctioned, restricting Russia’s economy and further removing it from the global stage. By decree of U.S. President, Joe Biden, the United States has banned the import of oil, liquified natural gas, and coal originating from Russia.16 Similarly, the European Union has made plans to phase out the importations of Russian fuel, however, fuel exports to several member states have been entirely suspended. Additionally, Western allies have sanctioned the export cutting-edge technology, luxury items, and aviation goods and technology to the Russian Federation.17

President Joe Biden has maintained his policy of supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, while also not provoking a war with Russia. It is in the

15 Council of the European Union “EU sanctions against Russia explained.” Available at: https:// www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/ sanctions-against-russia-explained/ Accessed October, 2022.

16 The White House “FACT SHEET: United States bans imports of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal” March 8, 2022. Available at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2022/03/08/fact-sheet-united-states-bansimports-of-russian-oil-liquefied-natural-gas-andcoal/ Accessed October, 2022

17 Council of the European Union “EU sanctions against Russia explained.” Available at: https:// www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ restrictive-measures-against-russia-over-ukraine/ sanctions-against-russia-explained/ Accessed October, 2022.

broader interests of the United States that Ukraine remains a peaceful and prosperous state, as President Biden was quoted, “We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.”

While the United States sends substantial military aid, spending for humanitarian aid to Ukraine has also increased since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of August 29, 2022, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has financed over 1.5 billion US dollars of humanitarian aid to Ukraine. These funds are working towards food security, heath services,

logistics and relief commodities for the nearly 17.7 million people in need of humanitarian assistance in Ukraine.18

SUCCESS/FAILURE OF ABOVE

The United States’ military and financial contributions to Ukraine have played a positive role in the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine continues to receive financial and military aid that thwarts Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory. Territory that was once occupied by Russian military forces is now falling back under the control of

18 USAID “Ukraine – Complex Emergency” August 29, 2022. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/2022-08-29_USG_Ukraine_ Complex_Emergency_Fact_Sheet_27.pdf. Accessed October, 2022.

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

U.S. ARMY PHOTO

Ukraine. The Kremlin, at the beginning of the invasion, believed that Kyiv would quickly fall under Russian control within mere days. These erroneous expectations were soon proven to be false, as Russian forces were unable to occupy Kyiv.19

In recent days, Ukrainian forces have been able to liberate Russian occupied territory in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine, pushing them back towards the Russian border. However, territory in the East of Ukraine is still predominantly under Russian control. Cities such as Mariupol, Donetsk, and Luhansk have faced severe Russian bombardment and are still under Russian control. Efforts are

PERCEPTION/INTEREST IN RUSSIA

The perception of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is difficult to gauge amongst the Russian population. Following the February 24, 2022, invasion of Ukraine, the Russian state Duma has invoked new supposed anti-treason laws. Now, “dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of Russian Armed Forces,” is a criminal offense in Russia. Russians are now punished for so much as wearing blue and yellow clothing, holding blank posters, and private conversations against the war in Ukraine. Thus, Russians have been dissuaded from vocalizing their stance on Ukraine. 20

Russian state media continues to propagate misinformation regarding the

19 Griffiths, Brent D. “CIA Director Bill Burns says Putin ‘is losing’ the information war of Ukraine.” Business Insider. March 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-director-saysputin-is-losing-information-war-over-ukraine-20223?IR=T Accessed October, 2022

20 Human Rights Watch. “What can get you in trouble for anti-war speech in Russia” Available at: https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/ interactive/2022/08/22/what-can-get-you-troubleanti-war-speech-russia Accessed October, 2022

invasion of Ukraine in Russia, playing a major role in public opinion domestically. Just as individual citizens are prohibited from publicly opposing the war, media organizations are forbidden from spreading information that differs from the official stance of the Kremlin. 21 Journalists who do not abide by such regulations face censorship and risk their everyday livelihood. The Russian government has notoriously attacked journalists who oppose the party line. One of the most prominent journalists to be assassinated by the Russian government was Anna Politkovskaya. Politkovskaya was a Russian journalist and writer, known for her criticism of the Russian war in Chechnya and her opposition to Vladimir Putin. She was shot dead in her Moscow apartment building on October 7, 2006, which also happened to be Vladimir Putin’s birthday. It is suspected that her assassination was a contract killing with potential links to the Kremlin. 22 Later that year, Alexander Litvinenko, a critic of Vladimir Putin and his administration, was poisoned by a radioactive substance. He would soon pass away as a result of acute radiation syndrome. The European Court of Human Rights would soon find the Russian Federation guilty for the crimes committed against Litvinenko. Russian journalists are faced with the constant threat of repercussions for speaking against the Kremlin, making media opposition very rare in Russia. 23

21 The Federal Service For Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media. “To the attention of the media and other information resources.” February 24, 2022. Available at: https://rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/ news74084.htm?utm_source=time.com&utm_ medium=referral&utm_campaign=time.com&utm_ referrer=time.com Accessed October, 2022.

22 BBC News “Chechen war reporter found dead” October 7, 2006. Available at: http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/europe/5416218.stm Accessed October, 2022

23 European Court of Human Rights. “Case of Carter vs. Russia” September 21, 2021. Available

REPERCUSSION FOR RUSSIAN ATROCITIES

Since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has consistently denied that its troops have committed atrocities in Ukraine. Russia maintains its stance that only military infrastructure is targeted, and that civilian infrastructure would not be a target in military operations. However, evidence has shown, time and again, that Russia has committed atrocities in cities across Ukraine. Leaders from around the world, including Ursula Von Der Leyen, Nancy Pelosi, and Boris Johnson. President of the European Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, was herself taken to Bucha, Ukraine, the site of mass atrocities and graves.

Over the course of the war in Ukraine, evidence of inhumane and barbaric acts of Russian soldiers has been found. The International Court of Justice is actively investigating such evidence, as countries continue to call on Russia to cease all military occupation in Ukraine. One of the most prominent sites of Russian atrocity is the mass graves discovered in Bucha, Ukraine. Satellite imagery of Bucha, as well as countless videos and photographs, show civilians’ lifeless bodies laying on streets after Russian occupation.24 On several occasions, homes, basements, and other places of civilian dwelling were found to be used a torture chambers for innocent Ukrainian civilians.25 Evidence continues to mount regarding Russian troops committing

at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext% 22:[%22Alexander%20Litvinenko%22],%22item id%22:[%22001-211972%22]} Accessed October, 2022

24 BBC News “Bucha Killings: Satellite image of bodies site contradicts Russian claims.” April 11, 2022. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/ news/60981238 Accessed October, 2022

25 Shuster, Simon “A visit to a crime scene Russian troops left behind at a summer camp in Bucha.” TIME. April 13, 2022. Available at: https://time. com/6166681/bucha-massacre-ukraine-dispatch/ Accessed October, 2022

crimes against humanity in Bucha. On September 23, 2022, a top United Nations human rights inquiry confirmed that war crimes had in fact been committed in Ukraine. 26

CONCLUSION

The United States and Russia have a long and tense relationship. At times relations appear to be improving. Recent acts of aggression in Ukraine have fomented political unrest, as the United States has scrambled to enact sanctions and other restrictions against the Kremlin. The U.S. is at a strategic crossroads with the war in Ukraine. As Russian aggression pushes closer to the border with NATO, the security of the alliance is being called into question. American or NATO soldiers on the frontline in Ukraine would cause a rapid downward spiral in relations between the nations, potentially causing a full scale war between multiple nuclear nations. On the flip side, allowing Russia to disregard the territorial integrity of a neighboring sovereign nation could threaten the security of Europe as a whole.

While keeping regional security interests in mind, the U.S. walks a fine line between supporting Ukrainian efforts, while not further provoking the Kremlin into further aggression. Along with its partners, Washington has sent billions of dollars of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. While American troops have not been deployed, Ukraine plays a major role in the overall security of Europe and NATO as a whole. It is in the United States’ best interests to insure that Ukraine remains sovereign and free from Russian interference.

26 United Nations “War crimes have been committed in Ukraine conflict, top UN human rights inquiry reveals.” September 23, 2022. Available at: https:// news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1127691 Accessed October, 2022

Jack Kakasenko December 2022

THE AMERICAN APPROACH TO THE WAR IN UKRAINE

The invasive war of the Russian Federation in Ukraine has been going on for almost a year. During this time, the many imperfections of the Russian army have been revealed, and international opinion saw the determination of Ukrainians to fight for their homeland. In an interview with Jan Hernik, Professor Clifford Angell Bates, a political scientist and expert in the field of geopolitics, summed up the course of this conflict and pointed out the realities of American aid to Ukraine.

Jan Hernik’s Interview with Professor Clifford Angell Bates Jr

JAN: THE FIRST THING THAT WE WILL DISCUSS TODAY IS THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE. THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE ON AIR WAS A WEEK BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR. BACK THEN, YOU WERE SKEPTICAL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ESCALATION. ON THE DAY WE RECORD THIS INTERVIEW, WE ARE EIGHT MONTHS INTO THE WAR IN UKRAINE.

Professor: I was taking kind of a conservative view. I did not think he (Vladimir Putin) would do it simply because it was too risky, and I thought that Putin was not that stupid. He has always been able to get the things he wanted through the use of threats and intimidation, as well as other means. In other words, he was good at the use of perception of force and relied on that. My knowledge of the Russian

government always led me to believe that the Russian army was incapable of doing anything real. It could intimidate others with threats ofits vast large force, do limited special operations, and rely on mercenaries and professionals, as well as contract soldiers to do limited engagements, but a real war was simply beyond their capacity.

HOWEVER, THE WAR IN UKRAINE HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY IN INTENSITY...

Exactly. What Putin relied on was the fact that his forces outnumbered the enemy, but it does not matter if they’re disorganized, poorly led, or undisciplined, in other words, if they’re still Soviet-style troops. It means they are led by a very top-down command structure. There are no real NCOs

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE FROM УКРАЇНА

(non-commissioned officers). Junior officers are nothing but whips to keep the soldiers obeying, whereas senior officers are doing the work of junior officers. Even divisional commanders are doing the work that would be typically that of the battalion or company commander. The question was whether Ukraine modernized since 2014. The perception in many people’s minds, given perception of wild-spread corruption, they did not. . But the war has changed everything. It changed the perception that Ukrainians were incapable of waging war and capable of fighting a modern (NATO style) war.

THERE ARE NO DOUBTS THAT THE WAR HAS BEEN WAGED FOR YEARS AND NOT ONLY SINCE FEBRUARY 2022, OF COURSE, WITH CONTINUED MILITARY SUPPORT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES,

the Orange Revolution back in 2004. We should remember that the 2014 events happened when Civic Platform (PO) was in power in Poland. This party was lukewarm to the incidents at Maidan. An example of this was Radosław Sikorski (the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland) shouting at the organizers of the Maidan protests that they were stupid and that the Russians were going to slaughter them and they needed to be more moderate. People have a short memory of the 2014 events. But even under the PO government, there were active assistance to Ukraine in recreating and modernizing its military (as well as giving its militia units modern NATO style training [mostly done through special forces style units]).

Well, we have to understand that Poland played a role in shaping this even before. The 2014 annexation of Crimea erupted, and you must also remember the role of

We must distinguish between the Biden administration and the White House. It is a complicated problem. Biden uses the fear of Russia, especially Russia’s supposed

BUT UKRAINE HAS ALSO BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. HOW DO YOU ASSESS THIS?

THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THE LARGEST PORTION OF MILITARY HELP TO UKRAINE. HOW DO YOU ASSESS THIS ASSISTANCE FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION?

role in the manipulation of our elections, as a very important narrative that the Democratic Party has embraced. So, he needs Russia presented as a ‘monster’ to show that the Republicans have close ties with the aggressor.

It is the same thing in Poland. That the ruling party, Law and Justice (PiS) is nothing but a Putin-owned government. This narrative is a very important political tool for domestic politics. But to achieve Biden’s goal with Iran, and to restore Obama’s attempt to get a nuclear deal with Iran, requires Russia’s cooperation. Western powers have no connection with Iran. Since Iran is relying on Russia for its nuclear capacity, Russia plays a very central role. That’s one thing.

However, the US has become reliant on Russia, like Germany, to meet its energy needs. Again, this is because the Russians have been very good at funding environmental groups and other political advocates who captured many of the parties and got them to engage in a policy of being increasingly dependent on Russian energy. Again, the Democratic Party does not intend to be dependent on Russian energy, but because of their green energy policies, and the economic reality of needing resources such as oil, that has been the ultimate result. Yes, there was aide by the US following events of 2014 and the Obama/Biden administration offered assistance to Ukraine, mostly non-lethal and not enough. It was under Trump did the US start sending leathal system and more advanced training for the Ukranians. The Biden administration in Feburary 2021 halted of it and quit cooperation upto just prior to the Russian invasion in Feburary 2022. But They did not give equipment until after the Russians attacked. They engaged in the idea that any assistance to Ukraine would be an escalation in tensions. The

Biden administration has been operating on the premise that we cannot scare Putin.

ISN’T THIS BECAUSE BIDEN UNDERSTANDS THAT THE US NEEDS RUSSIA IN THE FURTHER GEOPOLITICAL GAME?

First, let us have no foolishness about Russia’s nuclear capacity. It is more of a danger for Russia than it is for the Americans, because given the likelihood of their repair and maintenance; given what we know about corruption in the Russian military, do you think they have maintained or updated their nuclear arsenal in any way? No. Their nuclear force is probably no better than it was under the Soviets.

Given the reality of corruption and lack of care and maintance, Russian nuclear stockpiles have not been really maintined as is required. Given there has not been the real investment in updating lanch platforms, most of the Russian nuclear platforms remain Soviet stock (barely maintained). Thus, the Russian strategic nuclear force is more of a treat to Russia than others. And while their tactical and intermediate Nuclear forces were better maintained, these weapons systems also mostly remain versions of Soviet Era weapons and not significanlly modernized to deal with the new AGM environt of the past 20 years.

A past KGB report brought to light the consequences of a nuclear strike by either party, particularly if the Russians

WELL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF THEIR EQUIPMENT STEMS FROM THE SOVIET UNION. THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NEW EQUIPMENT, UNLIKE THE UNITED STATES OR ITS WESTERN ALLIES…

The American Approach to the War in Ukraine

instigated it. It reported that the nature of American society is that if major American cities were exterminated, it would not harm the long-term future of American interests. In other words, the Russians determined that the American urban centers are more mechanisms of constraint of American power and that, by potentially eliminating cities, Russia would make a stronger and more dangerous America. Whereas, if Russian cities are eliminated, Russia disappears. Therefore, from the Russian perspective, a nuclear attack is unthinkable. I do not believe that colonels and the majors who would be responsible for launching an attack order will comply. Also, I do not think anybody believes that the Putin regime is worth Russia ceasing to exist.

MILITARY MOBILIZATION? DOES THIS MEAN THAT RUSSIANS DON’T WANT TO DIE FOR PUTIN’S WAR?

Yes, and particularly of the upper-class, and the wealthier. The Russians know that nuclear confrontation with the United States would be detrimental for both parties, but more to Russia. American geopolitical experts do not want to talk about this because it calls into question urban cities and the problems that they pose, and therefore it is politically incorrect. Biden’s team is terrified because they do not understand that you have to call bluffs, particularly the nuclear bluff. We must show their regime that we pose a much larger and more stark nuclear threat than them.

WAS THAT WHAT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO DO WHEN HE HELD THE OFFICE?

That’s exactly what Trump was trying to do. What should be happening now is increased nuclear drills. Nuclear

SUMMING UP ALL THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED, IS THIS WHY WE SEE A MASS EXODUS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FOLLOWING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PARTIAL

©

Source: Wikimedia Commons

PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY OFFICIAL WEBSITE

The American Approach to the War in Ukraine

forces should be doing daily nuclear drills to show Russia that we are ready. Moving nuclear-capable F-35s would also be critical. Under Boris Johnson, the British stationed weapons in the Arctic. Those ships carried about over 30 F-35s. That was done for one purpose, to show Vladimir Putin that we could sooner strike Moscow than they would have time to respond. From where they were stationed, they could have easily targeted Moscow or St. Petersburg. In the case of the F-35s, the Russians would not be able to detect their presence. They would be unaware of an attack from them until it already happened. You could take out major political hubs. The British could do that.

AS WE MENTION THE US, RUSSIA, AND THE UK, I RECALL THE COMMITMENTS OF THE 1994 BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM. IT SUPPORTED UKRAINE’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BROKE THESE AGREEMENTS, BUT THERE IS STILL NO CLEAR REACTION FROM THE OTHER STATES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE PACT. HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND IT?

You must remember that it was a British conservative government that signed on to that, and then later the Blair government upheld it. However, the Clinton administration made it as weak as possible so that it would not have to go to the Senate. It is designed to convince the Europeans and particularly the Ukrainians that it was a treaty when, in effect, it does not perform the functions of a treaty.

HOWEVER, ISN’T IT CLEAR THAT THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BROKE THIS AGREEMENT? WHAT ABOUT THE REACTION OF OTHER STATES THAT

PARTICIPATED IN THAT PACT?

Yes, they broke the agreement. However, previous American administrations, namely the Obama administration, underplayed this. Obama had very soft words about this.

WHAT WAS THE REACTION OF OTHER STATES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THAT PACT, IF THERE WAS ANY?

Remember there are only four real parties involved: the Ukrainians, the Russians, the British, and the Americans, and all of the powers gave their guarantee. Of course, this was not a real treaty, because it is not enforceable as treaties are. However, the argument is if the Ukrainians had nuclear weapons, they would be able to defend themselves. The problem here is more about failing to honor the agreement. This is what the Americans did in 2014. They insisted on not interfering with Russians directly, only gesturing, because it is not worth it for American interests to go to war with Russia. That was the gist of the Obama position. That signaled to the rest of the world that some countries had been relying on American protection. It now appeared that American protection was worthless. These countries began considering developing weapons themselves. Therefore, Obama’s administration destroyed the nonproliferation regime. The whole reason behind the Budapest memorandum was the non-proliferation of weapons. They (the signatories of the Budapest memorandum) were worried about Ukraine’s instability and the potential for weapons from Ukraine to be sold on the international market. Therefore, in the name of nuclear nonproliferation, we needed to have those weapons destroyed. In the 1990s and 2000s, the view of Putin was that he was a stable leader who could ensure the nuclear nonproliferation of Ukraine. Nonproliferation was driving

War in Ukraine

western security views. This is where Obama destroyed that with his behavior in 2014. We have not yet recovered from the consequences of his decisions. In my opinion, what we are seeing with Ukraine aid is a bookkeeping trick from the Biden administration. Money that is being directed for Ukraine aid is in effect not being sent to Ukraine (at least most of it) but being used to nominally buy existing weapons stockpiles of older weapons that will be sent to Ukraine and the money will be used to replace those weapon and platforms with newer weapons and platforms. This ultimately is a budget trick to allow them to achieve their goals of replacing older systems without asking for congressional appropriation. This is a moment where the Deep state worked against the true intentions of Democratic Party controling Congress and the Biden administration. Much of Biden’s Ukraine policy is that they’re just being dragged on by bureaucracy and by powerful voices among the Senate Republican leadership.

LET ME NOW MOVE ON TO THE US MIDTERM ELECTIONS. THE ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD IN LESS THAN TWO WEEKS FROM THIS CONVERSATION. RIGHT NOW, REPUBLICANS HAVE THE UPPER HAND IN MOST POLLS FOR THE MIDTERMS. BY THE TIME THIS INTERVIEW IS PUBLISHED, WE WILL HAVE KNOWN THE RESULTS, BUT I THINK THAT OUR READERS WILL BE INTERESTED IN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN THE US. WHAT IS YOUR STANDPOINT ON THAT?

Let me talk about the elections. Every poll now shows between a + 4 and a + 6 lead for the Republicans, but that could change. Right now, 30% of voters will be voting before Election Day. All the trends are saying that it is going to be a sweep, many say it is because of the economy, Biden’s

age, mental condition, or his bad perception. In other words, he looks like he is incapable of leading. He appears to be a frail elderly person who invites other nations to take advantage of us. But what are they strong on? They are strong on the notion that Trump is the biggest threat. For example, on January 6th, and the media continues to harp over it. Given that they have not put similar BLM rioters in prison, I think that you would argue for unequal treatment of justice here. In my opinion, any convictions would be overturned. Therefore, the Democrats are relying on creating this hysteria about Trump.

The Democrats’ only hope right now is that the Black and minority vote does not leave them and that they can attract enough White women, that is the strategy. For instance, that is why abortion is again an issue. Biden is relying on Trump and abortion to save him. Ironically, Trump does better with Black and Hispanic men. Therefore, the use of Trump is not necessarily helping them with any of their minority strategies, it’s helping them with their women base. The abortion argument has been elevated recently. I think there is an increasing prevalence in the Black community of seeing abortion law as means for the White establishment reducing the Black population. This is a popular narrative that’s out (i.e., Kanye West and others Black performers). In the Black community now, abortion is seen as a White privilege and a weapon of White social control. Whatever your stance on abortion is, you must understand how Black advocates are perceiving it now. Male Black elites have always favored abortion, as did women elites in the Black community. But the entire community, including the churches, never did. Therefore, the Democratic Party have always had to buy out the churches to keep them silent on abortion. The possible danger here is

The American Approach to the War in Ukraine

that the churches are being bypassed by new activists.

On the other hand, inflation is at almost 20% now and getting higher, and its causes include COVID spending, and the quantitative easing in 2008 of the banking markets. We did not see inflation because it effects of quantitative easing tended to inpact capital assests (hence the increased cost of assests over the past decade), not retail prices. Only with the beginning of the COVID shutdowns did we see the full effect of inflation on our day-day living.

PUBLIC DEBT IN THE UNITED STATES IS RISING ALONG WITH THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND INFLATION. REPUBLICAN MINORITY LEADER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES KEVIN MCCARTHY INDICATED IN A RECENT INTERVIEW THAT HOUSE REPUBLICANS WILL NOT WRITE A ‘BLANK CHECK FOR UKRAINE’ IF THEY TAKE CONTROL OF THE LOWER CHAMBER. HOW DO YOU ASSESS HIS STATEMENT?

McCarthy is in a very tenuous position, with may so-called MAGA candidates pleged to remove him from his leadership position. The thing that most Americans do not realize is that most foreign policy aid is contingent on that country buying American goods that are produced ideally in the United States by American workers, this is particularly the case in the defense sector. We must remember that the decline of the American lower working class came with the end of the Cold War with the drastic demise of the defense industry. You must understand that the World War II booms created much of the prosperity of the American working class and that, therefore, once that ended with the Cold War, all of this ceased. When deindustrialization occurred, our defense capabilities came down with it. This heavily affected the

working classes in America. I call it the “dumb Republican problem.” Lowinformation voters don’t necessarily understand this phenomenon (of where Foreign Aid is really spent), they just go by symbols and things like that. Everyone looks at the disaster and the mismanagement of the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq and suggests that we should have never done it in the first place. It is an example of ignorance rather than trying to understand what went wrong. We must distinguish between things that are done for the right reasons but are poorly executed and things that were correctly executed but for the wrong reasons. I would argue that both Iraq and Afghanistan were donefor the right reasons, but we they were overly conducted was done rather badly. In other words, what should have been a limited military operation with clearly defined and obtainable goals. But what happed was vauge and broad goals and mission-creep, that suddenly includeda lot of social engineering (i.e., brining gender studies to Kabul, etc.). Again, in the political landscape of the past 30 year, to sell anything to the Democrats, you need must bring social issues into it.

Instead of gauging in direct military conflict, the United States began engaging in social issues. The goal of the US military was to defeat the enemy and not to engage in social issues. Until Iraq and Afghanistan can create a civil society, the only way you can hold them together is by force. In other words, democracy is only possible in a civil society. We cannot spread democracy to every country in the world. What should have been done in Afghanistan was the integration of tribal leaders into the central government, and not forcing liberalism on them. The history of every society rests on establishing order through legitimate and represenative leadership.

AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT, IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, UKRAINE WOULD BECOME THIS CIVILIZED SOCIETY AND COUNTRY BY FIGHTING FOR ITS INDEPENDENCE?

Yes, what Ukrainians are going through now is the same thing that the American revolutionaries did in 1775. If during the years of the American revolution, foreign governments did not aid The United States militarily, we would not have been able to gain Independence from Great Britain. What’s happening in Ukraine is the birth of civil society and a new nation. Ukraine has always had a Christian culture fundamentally separated from Russian culture. The events of 2014 redefined the identity of Ukrainians. It became less of an ethnic identity and more of a political identity. Ethnic Russian people in Ukraine began turning against Russia as they saw atrocities unfold. Putin’s position was that the ethnic Russians and Jews would outnumber the ethnic Ukrainians and that, therefore, it would be an easy war. He believed that ethnic Russians and ethnic Jews would support Russia. The hypocrisy of Russia is that it fuels nationalism in the West. This war created a new civic identity amongst Ukrainians. This is the idea of civic nationalism.

NOW WE’RE SEEING THIS CLEAR PARALLEL WITH THE US. DO YOU EXPECT YOUR PREDICTIONS TO COME TRUE IN THE NEAR FUTURE WITH REGARD TO THE CIVILIZATION OF UKRAINIAN SOCIETY?

Compared to Russia, it is already completely civilized and Westernized. You can see it in the way they are fighting, not fighting in a way the Soviet soldiers fought. Even the way their territorial units are fighting is much different from the way the Russian territorial units are fighting. It is night and day. You see dispersed control and consensus-based decisions. Zelensky is also lucky to have a number of very competent and well-qualified military officials and generals. Moscow has a top-down control system, and the military has no autonomy to make decisions. What you see with Putin is wasting of military infrastructure on civilian targets that ultimately have no endpoint. Ukrainian troops have been trained by many foreign competent militaries in the West and are becoming more advanced.

Jan Hernik

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

LORIE SHAULL FROM ST PAUL, UNITED STATES

A VISION OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE AND PROSPECTS FOR THE COUNTRIES OF NATO'S EASTERN FLANK

Jan Hernik’s Interview with Billie Flynn

The outbreak of the war in Ukraine provoked a NATO response. Despite the fact that the alliance did not engage in direct combat with the Russian Federation, many actions were taken to secure the countries bordering the region of direct threat. Lieutenant-colonel Billie Flynnretired RCAF Combat Commander and an expert in the field of military strategy told Jan Hernik about his vision of the war in Ukraine, NATO’s response and the strengthening of the Polish air force.

War in Ukraine

211006-D-XI929-5009/ U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

JAN HERNIK: LIEUTENANT COLONEL BILLIE FLYNN, WELCOME TO WARSAW INSTITUTE. OUR GUEST TODAY IS AN EXPERIENCED MILITARY PILOT WHO, DURING HIS 23-YEAR SERVICE FOR THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE, TOOK PART IN MANY COMBAT MISSIONS AROUND THE WORLD. AS WE SPEAK, WE ARE ON THE 231ST DAY OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU FOR A GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE COURSE OF THIS CONFLICT WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON THE ROLE OF AIR COMBAT.

Lt Col. Billie Flynn : First of all, thank you for having me back. I find this topic very interesting. I believe that after 250 days of this war, we are all surprised that

it has gone on this long. I think that, at the beginning of the conflict, we underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainian defense forces and then, we misunderstood and miscategorized the ability of the Russian forces. As did they. Our assumptions of what was needed for aircover over Ukraine have come and gone. And it is now a different, longdrawn-out war. What I see of late with the barrages of cruise missiles suggests to me that in this new phase, Russia is depleting its war stocks which is not sustainable. No air force, even in the western world has war stocks to launch the kind of salvos that we have seen in the recent past , sustained over time. Russian forces are exhausting their own war stocks, which suggests that their forces are running out of options. When I look at the role of airpower and how it

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

could have changed the war up to this point, and historians will spend a lot of time over the coming years assessing this, there were clearly missed opportunities on the western side, Ukraine’s side. They had the capability to really crush Russian forces in the initial invasion, and then do even more damage. It is a ground war now, not an air war. And what we see in the air is, other than ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and the occasional drone effort, not a sustained air campaign like we would have expected from the West. The capability is not there, and the surfaceto-air missile threat even from Russia remains lethal enough that Ukrainian forces have not been able to assemble themselves, repopulate the armament, and fly credible air cover or any kind of air battle that we would imagine in the western world. It’s going to be a longdrawn-out war, and so now I believe that the long game is to look at repopulating the pilot forces in Ukraine, training on different platforms, and, at some point, introducing different aircraft into their military that are not in their use right now. That, by the way, is not an easy task. You do not just show up with introducing F-16s or some other platform to the air force. It will not immediately transform pilots into those trained combat ready fighter pilots ready to go to war. We know, in the military, how long and how hard the training process is to build a warrior. There is no magic to that. It takes a long time to create a seasoned pilot who understands how to fly an aircraft in a high-threat environment and survive. So, this is the long game, and it is time to start working on it.

THERE ARE 850,000 ACTIVE PERSONNEL, RUSSIAN TROOPS, AND 250,000 RESERVE PERSONNEL. SO, YOU SAID THAT THIS WAR IS RATHER A GROUND WAR, BUT WOULD IT CHANGE, FOR EXAMPLE, DURING WINTER, OR POSSIBLY SPRING NEXT YEAR. THE ICE WOULD MELT, AND IT WOULD LACK THE MOBILITY OF MANY VEHICLES ON THE GROUND. WOULD YOU EXPECT THIS WAR TO TRANSFER MORE INTO AIRSPACE OR OTHER AREAS?

I certainly see the coming of winter grinding both sides down, and it will be particularly hard for the invading forces trying to find comfort. It is going to be as cold as we have it in Canada in the winter months, and it will be beyond miserable for troops on the ground. If morale is low already, just imagine how difficult it will be for those troops when they are not properly fed, are not properly clothed, not properly heated, and they have to live far from home for a long period of time. I mean, if there is discontent already, those winter months are going to make it extraordinarily difficult. And remember, they do not have the same resolve as the Ukrainian forces. They are not defending their homeland. The Russian troops, professional or not, are a long way from home, already in extended deployment, and it is going to be difficult to imagine that they will make impressive advancements in that period. Come springtime, I think we will see something different. Now, does that leave something open for airpower? I still think you cannot fly even over abandoned places with comfort and safety as Ukrainian military aircraft with the ongoing surface-to-air missile threat that Russia has. In that sense, I do not think defenses have been taken down. There is no credible suppression of enemy or defense capability in the

A vision of the war in Ukraine and prospects for the countries of NATO's Eastern Flank

YOU HAVE MENTIONED THAT RUSSIA HAS POTENTIAL IN TERMS OF ARMAMENTS BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE GLOBAL POWER RANKING,

War in Ukraine

Ukrainian military. With no ability to deplete the missile defenses that are on the ground right now, I don’t see much of a change in the air war in that sense.

WE WILL ALSO GET A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC OF ANTIAIRCRAFT WEAPONS BUT LET ME NOW MOVE TO NATO. DUE TO THE THREAT, THE COUNTRIES OF NATO’S EASTERN FLANK WERE SUBJECT TO INCREASED PROTECTION FROM THE MAIN MEMBERS OF THE ALLIANCE. WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ADDITIONAL RELOCATION OF AMERICAN TROOPS AND DEFENSE SYSTEMS TO POLAND. THE OFFICIAL NATO COMMUNIQUÉ INDICATES THAT SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE, THE AIRSPACE OF THE ALLIED COUNTRIES OF THE EASTERN FLANK IS BEING PATROLLED AT ANY TIME BY AS MANY AS THIRTY COMBAT

I think that it is very clear that the NATO deterrence is effective, that Putin understands that he cannot cross past those boundaries and head further west and that any notion of mobilizing beyond Ukrainian borders is probably off the table now. Look, at the beginning of the conflict, NATO forces scrambled to establish themselves, but we are more than 250 days into this war. Everyone understands how to manage the rotations, what kind of personnel are needed, what kind of equipment on the ground, and in the air, and how to manage the patrols. U.S. Defense Secretary Austin was recently yesterday reaffirming the resolve for Article 5 of NATO and the United States’ support in Ukraine. No one

FIGHTERS / PATROL JETS. AND SO, IT IS THE ALLIANCE WORKING IN THIS RESPONSE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN’S WAR?

vision of the war in Ukraine and

NATO AFTER 1997. HOW ABOUT THIS IDEA OF POLAND POSSIBLY JOINING THE NATO NUCLEAR SHARING PROGRAM? COULD IT BE BENEFICIAL FOR POLAND AND THE ENTIRE EASTERN FLANK?

I certainly think that nuclear sharing in Poland would strengthen the NATO alliance as it fortifies its eastern boundary, which is not what it was historically, right? We have redrawn the boundaries, and NATO is committed to maintaining those. And so, it is plausible to imagine that NATO would or should have nuclear war stocks in Poland. It is very clear in the capability of the Polish defense forces just how accelerated their overall capability has become in the last couple of decades. I am talking about the integration of the F-16 and the incoming F-35, and improvement of defense forces, westernization of the Polish defense. There is a very strong resolve to become an extremely capable military. If we add nuclear sharing on Polish soil as part of that, I see a very westernized stance from Poland and an acceptance overall from other NATO members of Poland’s capability now.

Flank would imagine that we, in the West, will lose our resolve to protect our borders, and the border of the NATO countries, and to prevent further incursion into Ukraine where we can help.

IN OCTOBER, THE TOPIC OF POLAND JOINING THE NATO NUCLEAR SHARING PROGRAM ALSO APPEARED. IT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE SHELLING OF UKRAINIAN SOIL. IT WAS ALSO ONE OF THE TOPICS OF THE TALKS BETWEEN PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND ANDRZEJ DUDA, BUT THERE WERE NO DETAILS OF THIS, IN THIS REGARD. LATER, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESPERSON, VEDANT PATEL, INDICATED THAT THE U.S. DID NOT PLAN TO DEPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ANY COUNTRY THAT JOINED

SOME EXPERTS SAY THAT POLAND, BEING A PART OF THIS NUCLEAR SHARING PROGRAM WOULD TURN INTO SOME KIND OF AN ESCALATION TOWARDS RUSSIA. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SUCH OPINIONS?

I think that we are always worried about what the other side thinks. We are always worried about what Putin thinks. At some point, we need to decide whether we are strong enough to protect our alliance, and we do not need to be wary of Putin’s opinion. We have already given him far too much slack over the many years leading up to Ukraine, and at some point, we are worried about our

prospects for the countries of NATO's Eastern

ELLSWORTHSK ,

own safety, not what he thinks and what Russia thinks of us. So, do I think it is escalation? No. I think it is increasing our resolve to protect the borders of NATO countries.

YOU MENTIONED F-35S, THE AIRCRAFT YOU KNOW PERFECTLY. YOU ALSO SAID THAT POLAND IS GOING TO RECEIVE SOME OF THEM, 32 5TH-GENERATION F-35S, TO BE PRECISE. ON JANUARY 31ST, 2020, THE POLISH MINISTER OF DEFENSE SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR THESE AIRCRAFT FOR THE POLISH AIR FORCE. THE ARRIVAL OF THE FIRST AIRCRAFT IS EXPECTED AT THE TURN OF 2025 AND 2026. I ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE SPENT MULTIPLE HOURS IN THIS JET, SO WHAT COULD

YOU TELL OUR READERS ABOUT IT?

When we say that the F-35 is transformational, we need to define that better. It changes everything that we understand about airpower and capability in the sky. You can debate how stealthy an aircraft is, but the reality is, it is essentially undetectable when it flies when it chooses to be undetectable. Its ability to gather global, situational awareness when it flies and share it amongst the formation and other aircraft in its data-link network, gives a picture on the ground that is unmatched by any other platform. It is essentially an ISR platform everywhere it flies. So, it flies unencumbered, gathers data, is enormously effective, and is extremely lethal when it flies. It is an astonishing

deterrent to Russia. The reality is that NATO has fielded F-35s on the Eastern flank during this conflict, and they fly without being noticed, yet understand everything about the battlespace. When we introduce that aircraft into the Polish air force, it will be a complete change in how fighter jets are used and how the entire defense of Poland is managed. The Polish defense forces are not going to change what the F-35 does, the F-35 is going to change what the Polish military does, integrating air, ground, and sea assets from this point forward. And that is already understood by the Polish Ministry of Defense.

I BELIEVE THAT AFTER PURCHASING F-16S, WE UNDERSTOOD IN POLAND THAT THESE ARE THE JETS THAT WE NEED – LOCKHEED-MARTIN PRODUCED AMERICAN FIGHTER JETS. BUT ALSO IN TURN, IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, MARIUSZ BŁASZCZAK, SIGNED A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE POLAND WITH 48 KOREAN FA-50 COMBAT AIRCRAFT. THEY ARE TO REPLACE MIG-29S IN OUR MILITARY. MANY EXPERTS SPOKE ABOUT THE GENERATIONAL LEAP IN THIS REGARD. ARE THEY RIGHT?

What an astonishing capability the FA-50 has. It would be unfair to label it as a mini-F-16, but essentially that is what it is. FA-50 is an enormously capable, now mature, platform sevenand-a-half G, supersonic fighter, and that flies just like an F-16 that is codeveloped by Lockheed-Martin and the Korean Aircraft Industries, an enormously capable airplane, flexible, and adaptable in the missions that it can accomplish. It is a huge step forward. It goes further to ensure that the entire Polish air force has been westernized. In

Poland, the capability of pilots was hindered by the platform of the MiG-29 and the Soviet-era platforms. Once they are retired and replaced by western designed aircraft, then we have an entire air force, flying at the same level, with the same capability, and the same knowledge of tactics. A homogenized air force will make everyone a significantly more capable, effective, and ultimately lethal force.

DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE USED IN A POSSIBLE BATTLE OR ARE THEY MEANT TO BE TRAINING JETS? FOR EXAMPLE, USED TO PREPARE FUTURE FIGHTERS TO FLY F-16S OR F-35.

The T-50 was transformed in the TX competition for the United States Air Force next generation trainer. Ultimately Boeing won that competition with the T-7, but the T-50 was shown to be an incredible platform as a training mechanism for future pilots, including fifth-generation pilots. Configuring cockpits that look like an F-35, for example, to get everyone into the mindset of how to manage data, is essentially what we are doing with F-35s. As a training platform, FA-50/T-50 will be an exceptional tool to prepare pilots for fifth-generation capabilities, more than just an aircraft that has great kinematics and is interesting to fly.

THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU WOULD DEPART A LITTLE FROM THE TOPIC OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE. I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE ARCTIC BECAUSE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PLACE WILL INCREASE IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE MELTING TIMES AT THE NORTH POLE. RECENTLY, THE UNITED STATES ANNOUNCED A NEW ARCTIC STRATEGY IN WHICH THEY TRY TO RESPOND TO THE

A vision of the war in Ukraine and prospects for the countries of NATO's Eastern Flank

GROWING THREATS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THIS REGION OF THE WORLD. THE U.S. INTENDS TO IMPOSE A NUMBER OF PATROLS AND EXERCISES IN THIS PLACE. WILL THE PERMANENT U.S. AIR FORCE BASE IN KEFLAVIK RETURN TO ICELAND? AT THE MOMENT, THE UNITED STATES ONLY PATROLS THE AIRSPACE IN THIS AREA. WILL THERE BE, IN YOUR OPINION, ANY MORE U.S. OR CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC RIGHT NOW OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

The Arctic has been a significant area of concern for all the Arctic Council nations, if we looked at the North Pole looking down, we would start with Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the United States, and then Russia and China. Russia has, for the past couple of years, refurbished and rejuvenated its bases in the Arctic, including bases that run 365 days of the year, full-on, day and night, all seasons. The recognition is that, under the ice cap, there are natural resources that have never been accessible, yet with global warming, with climate change, are soon to be accessible. That is not just petroleum, it’s rare earth minerals. Russia recognizes that, and by the way, China, a non-Arctic nation, has a significant number of ice-breakers capable of accessing the arctic. Canada has always recognized this but without investing in it. The United States, I think, has finally come to terms with just how valuable Arctic territory is, and the threat that Russia and China are to this area. The reinvestment or rejuvenation of funding by the Canadian military towards NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) modernization, is a key indicator of just how important the Arctic is going to be. And the modernization of NORAD is to be able to deter Russia, and by the way, China from accessing airspace and territory in Canada

and the U.S. This is a significant step in that direction. As an example, we now see aircraft deployed to Thule, Greenland, an airbase on the Northwest side of Greenland an airbase that was not used for a long time. Back in the Cold War days, it was a place of strategic utility, and now American and Canadian fighters are again. All of that proves that we, the West, need to protect the Arctic from Russia and China.

FOR THE UNITED STATES PRIMARILY, IN MY OPINION, THE INDO-PACIFIC, TAIWAN, AND THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOREIGN POLICY MATTERS. THEN OF COURSE THERE IS WAR IN UKRAINE, CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE, AND HERE, THE PLACE OF CONCERN ALSO FOR THE UNITED STATES, WHERE THEY LOCATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS RIGHT NOW TO HELP UKRAINE. THEN, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE AND MORE COMPETITION IN THE ARCTIC REGION. AND MANY OTHER SMALLER PLACES WHERE THE U.S. IS INVOLVED, THE MIDDLE EAST ALSO, IN A WAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU THINK THAT THE U.S. CAN HOLD THE POWER IN ALL OF THESE PLACES? ARE THEY MILITARILY CAPABLE OF HOLDING IT IN ALL OF THEM, TRADE ROUTES, OR OTHER STRATEGIC TOOLS WITHIN THEIR CONTROL? DO YOU THINK THAT THE U.S. HAS THE CAPABILITIES RIGHT NOW TO STILL BE “THE POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD”?

This is a really salient question. How can the United States manage the China threat, the Arctic threat, and the Eastern flank of NATO capability, plus whatever else comes along? In Poland, in Western Europe, in Canada even, the threat seems to be Russia in Ukraine. We are all pointed to the East to recognize that threat. But that is not the

existential threat to the United States. To the United States, China is the threat. Russia does not have the capability to truly threaten this country but China does. Against the vast numbers that America would face, fighting a war thousands of miles from home, winning a conflict would be an extremely difficult endeavor. And the more aggressive China gets, the more everyone in the United States military clearly recognizes that China is a growing threat, and at some point, there may be a conflict that nobody wants. They will outnumber us, and we will have to fight a long way from home, which will be extremely difficult, regardless of the enormous capability of the American forces. Fighting a long way from home and being outnumbered does not make that an easy task. Russia and its incursions and its ambitions in the Arctic can be controlled through the Arctic nations. Certainly with the refurbishment and regeneration of the Canadian Armed Forces, Royal Canadian Air Force F-35s, plus the 54 F-35s based in Fairbanks, Alaska, and the F-22 Raptors base at

Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska will be significant deterrents China needs to remain the focus of the American military as the US Air Force builds back up, purchases new fighters, new bombers, new tankers, and rejuvenates itself from the old inventory it has now. And then obviously, there are naval forces that need to be plussed up, to gain the capability to fight a long way from home. Focus on China, less on Ukraine, and less on the Arctic, is really where the United States military has turned its gaze.

Jan Hernik December 2022

A vision of the war in Ukraine and prospects for the countries of NATO's Eastern Flank

YES, THIS IS WHAT INTRODUCING THE 2011 PIVOT TO ASIA MEANS, FOR THE UNITED STATES AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR EXPERTISE ON THE WAR IN UKRAINE, AND ALL THE TOPICS WE HAVE COVERED TODAY.

Nice to chat again. Good to see you!

© Source: Robert Sullivan Flickr

UNDERSTANDING RUSSIA

Szymon Polewka

Winston Churchill once described Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. This truth describes not only Russia but the entire Eurasian Plate that stretches between the West and Asia. Living in the Western world, we cannot forget the bellicose East, which crashes into Europe every hundred years. At the contemporary center of all this confusion is the Russian Federation, which, despite its great backwardness, scares us with almost half of the world's nuking potential. The cold nature of the East

To understand the processes taking place in the East we need to, first of all, understand the complicated nature of the people. The narrative created in the Kremlin promotes a vision of pan-Slavism that seeks to unite Slavic lands under the banner of the biggest Slavic nation, Russia. The main problem, however, is that what has formed the Russian mentality as we know it today is a long-forgotten event in Russian history. Russia is the region worst affected by Mongolian domination. The Mongols slaughtered a large part of the population, imposed terrible taxes, and devastated the region economically, isolating it from the rest of Europe. Lasting from the early 13th century until 1480, Mongolian rule periodizes Russian history into what came before and after the Mongols.

Authoritarianism, which is identified with Russia, remains a natural consequence of the oppression of the Mongols, who were so evil that people were able to sacrifice freedom at any cost just to be safe from the military. Combined with the orthodox position of the Tsar, the Mongolian heritage laid the foundation for modern Russian political and social philosophy, which was

strengthened by the communist collective dictatorship. Fear of repeated domination caused future Russian elites to shift borders as far away from Moscow as possible. Over the centuries, this created a large land empire with all its problems as we know them today.

IMPERIAL POWER

What remains interesting is how modern authoritarianism overlaps with the borders of the past Mongolian empire. Amid this legacy is the Russian Federation seeking to reunite the lands of the former USSR under a common banner. It is one of the last breaths of a pulsating empire that has grown steadily to gargantuan proportions over the past centuries, only to collapse under its size over and over.

The main ingredients for the success of the various variations of the Russian Empire were:

• A vast territory full of rich minerals, fertile lands, and navigable rivers.

• Huge rapidly recovering human resources.

© Source: Pavel Kazachkov Wikimedia Commons

While the first territorial pillar of the Russian Empire remains relevant despite the significant diminution of its territory, the second population pillar, along with the ineffectual economic system, is becoming a tremendous burden on Putin’s entire imperial project. Understanding the pressing problems of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin is trying to bring about another expansion of his country before it is too late.

AN ENDLESS DECLINE

One of the more surprising events of the 21st was the collapse of the USSR. After the downfall of the Soviet Union, the newly formed countries, except for the Baltic states, remained within the sphere of influence of the Russian Federation. Russian influence in the post-Soviet area was visible in various types of international organizations, the most important of which were the Commonwealth of Independent States (Russian: Содружество Независимых Государств) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russian: Организация Договора о коллективной безопасности). At the turn of the twentieth-first century, it seemed that the erosion of the Russian world had been halted. Yeltsin’s Russia tried to fit into the globalizing world of the end of history by implementing Western Capitalism.

The turn of the century was also a period when the dissolution of the Russian Empire took a new shape. It started with the wars in Chechnya and the Caucasus. The ultimate confirmation of Russia’s resurgent position came with Putin’s rise to power. The progressive Putinization of Russia was

tantamount to the end of the liberalcapitalist experiment. Importantly, Russia is the country, in which communism has lasted the longest. Russian Federation’s inability to find its way in the globalized world, combined with nostalgia for its Soviet heritage, has brought it back on the road to imperialism.

DOOMED TO LOSE?

Despite its desire to remain a global superpower, Russia is in a very disappointing condition. It has a smaller economy than five times less populated Canada. In addition, it remains neither politically nor culturally attractive. Even before the mass exodus of the youth associated with the war in Ukraine, the Russian intelligentsia was already trying to emigrate as soon as possible. Even within the elite itself, little faith in Russia is evident. This country has never developed any institution, not even a military one, which could testify to its strength.

Ukraine’s detachment from the Russian mir has resulted in Putin’s last attempt to expand the borders of the Russian world. The final act we observe reflects the disintegration of Putin’s project. The last pulse of the Russian Empire. Persisting in self-destruction is devastating for Russia and the whole world, which is losing the enormous potential it could develop in cooperation with this country. Russia has produced many eminent personalities, from artists, and philosophers to writers, and definitely has still a lot more to offer.

Szymon Polewka

FRIENDS FOREVER?

István Nagy

The Prospects of the Hungarian-Polish Relations after the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Eight months ago, only a handful of experts dared to say it out loud, although everyone feared it, and yet, we are still in shock. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, after decades of peace, war has come back to Europe, and its shockwaves are felt all around the continent, from the frontlines near the Dnieper River, through the Alps, to the stone of Gibraltar.

Because of the Russian aggression, many countries are facing moral, economic, and diplomatic challenges. New alliances are created, and old griefs are forgotten, but in some cases, historical friendships become endangered. Such is the case with Hungary and Poland. The reason is that the two countries chose a contradictory approach to this crisis. While the Poles immediately condemned the Russian aggressor to have been proactively pushing for more and more actions since the first days of the war, Hungary chose a softer approach, although Prime Minister Orbán also condemned the actions of the invader. This created a seemingly unprecedented strain within the Hungarian-Polish relations, that raised the following question: will the two historical friends find a way to overcome this crisis?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE POLISHHUNGARIAN RELATIONS

Pole and Hungarian brothers be, good for fight and good for party, says the old proverb about the relationship between

Poland and Hungary. And for a time, it could not be more right. The two countries share many similarities in culture, society, and most importantly, in tory. And there is so much more to it than our common rulers. Both of our countries were occupied and oppressed for many centuries by foreign powers, yet our nations have always managed to survive and rebuild. These stark trials of our histories formed a strong bond between the two states, which only got stronger after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Hungary and Poland, along with Czechoslovakia, were able to conduct successful negotiations so they could advocate together for the sake of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon. This cooperation was reflected as part of the predecessor of the Visegrad Group (Gazdag, 2021), an international cooperation between Poland, Hungary, newly-formed Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, to prepare these four Central European countries to join the institutions of the Euro-Atlantic cooperation.

© Source: Wikimedia Commons GOVERNMENT OF POLAND

But the common fate of these nations did not end there. The day after the Western enthusiasm dissolved surrounding the system changes, fears appeared that instead of the end of history, the conflicts of the 20 th century between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will rise again. There were also uncertainties concerning reunited Germany, namely that its size and its economic power could upset the balance of power in Europe. Because of these factors, the region had become geopolitically critical. This importance had only become bigger after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. These were the main reasons that, on the eve of 1994, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary, which did not even border the Alliance, became candidates for NATO membership (Jeszenszky 2005).

Although after achieving the EU and NATO memberships, the momentum of the V4 slowed (Hamberger 2004), the Euro-Atlantic integration of the four countries has been achieved, and the cooperation between the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary continued. This was especially true during the migration crisis when all four countries of the V4 rejected both the idea of the mandatory distribution of migrants by quotas and the direction of the German Wilkommenskultur. At their meeting on September 5, the leaders of the V4 countries declared that they will not accept any long-term binding quota system (Gazdag 2021).

THE DISSIDENTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Despite the seemingly undivided alliance between the V4 countries, the Poland-Hungary tandem still managed to stand out somehow, especially after right-wing governments came to power in both countries, in Hungary in 2010 (Fidesz) and Poland in 2015 (Law and

Justice, PiS). These governments received much criticism concerning two major accusations: the dissolution of the rule of law (Dirnóczi and Bien-Kacala 2019), authoritarianism (Freedomhouse 2020a), governmental control of the judiciary system (Freedomhouse 2020b), cesarean politics (Sata and Karolweski 2019). The anti-migrant stance was what particularly came under fire. The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union even said that the two countries broke the EU law by refusing asylum seekers during the crisis of 2015 (C-715/7, C-718/17, C719/17. Opinion of AG Sharpton, 2019). Some authors even theorized that the two countries defied so many EU rules that they would withdraw from the European Union (Hillion, 2020).

It did not help to ease the criticism when both Hungary and Poland started introducing laws that their respective governments justified with supporting families or protecting their Christian traditions. Many people, mostly representing the progressive political spectrum, referred to these laws as “misogynistic” or “homophobic”. They included tightening the abortion law in Poland and introducing the “anti-LGBT law”, officially called “Act LXXIX of 2021 on taking more severe action against pedophile offenders and amending certain Acts for the protection of children”, in Hungary. The latter was met with especially harsh criticism, with sixteen EU countries, excluding most of Eastern Europe, denouncing it.

DIFFERING APPROACH TO THE EASTERN NEIGHBORS

No friendship could go without disagreements. The same goes for Polish-Hungarian relations too where there are currently two problematic questions, namely the relations towards Ukraine and Russia. Although solving this dilemma has not been easy from the

start either, the Russian invasion did not make it more convenient either. So, what went wrong?

To understand why this question caused a near-complete breakdown of the friendship between Poland and Hungary one must examine again the histories of these countries.

First and foremost, it must be established that both countries suffered greatly because of the imperialistic ambitions of Russia, yet it should not go without mentioning that one of us is more than the other. Although the traumas of communist rule still live on in both nations, I as a Hungarian will probably never be able to understand the centuries-long Russian oppression that the Polish had to endure. A scar like that overwrites any kind of so-called Realpolitik and will never let the distrust dissolve towards the Russian foreign policy. Because of that, it is no surprise that after the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula the historical instincts turned on in Poland. And although the UkrainianPolish diplomatic relations were not without issues either, these issues had not proven to be deep enough to prevent Poland from

becoming the second most significant arms supplier of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, with the value of the delivered weapons exceeding 1.6 billion USD (Szopa 2022).

The attitude of the Hungarian foreign policy has been so unambiguous neither towards Russia nor towards Ukraine since the beginning of the 21st century.

The source of the disputes with Ukraine is the status of the Hungarian minority living in Transcarpathia. A former part of the Kingdom of Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon, the settlements of this part of the Carpathians still host a significant amount of Hungarianspeaking population. Although they have never been ‘actively oppressed’, their minority rights were significantly curbed with the education law of 2017 and the language law of 2019. The former regulation made Ukrainian the obligatory language of instruction in state schools from the fifth grade on and the latter made the Ukrainian language mandatory in practically all spheres of public life, restricting the use of minority languages to the private sphere and

religious ceremonies. Although neither of these laws was directed against the Hungarians living in Ukraine, they negatively affected them, which worsened the already cold relationship between Hungary and Ukraine. Indeed, after the introduction of the language law of 2017, that practically forced schools in Hungarian-majority areas of Transcarpathia to stop teaching in the Hungarian language, and Minister of Foreign Policy Péter Szijjártó announced that Hungary would block all further integration of Ukraine into NATO and the European Union.

Concerning Russia, the reason for Hungary’s policy is different from Poland’s lies in the field of pragmatism or Realpolitik. Firstly, the question of energy supply has always been cardinal in Hungary since this country, unlike Poland, has virtually no natural resources. To overcome this predicament, the most convenient solution was the Russian import. It simply was the closest and cheapest option. Because of that, Hungary became heavily reliant on Russian energy imports, with around 80% of natural gas and 60% of crude oil coming from Russia. This process started before 2010, but certainly did not end after the inauguration of the second Orbán administration in that year. After 2012, Orbán announced the policy of ‘Eastern Opening’ (Keleti Nyitás), the beginning of a new era in bilateral relations with Russia. According to Orbán, Russia was to play a special role in the recovery of the Hungarian economy in the energy sphere and as a destination for Hungarian exports. In December 2013, Hungary also signed a contract with Rosatom for the construction of two new blocks at the Paks nuclear power plant. These policies have already caused divergences among the members of the Visegrad cooperation at the time of their introduction (Marušiak 2015), which certainly did not cease after

the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and especially after the Russian invasion in 2022.

AFTER THE WAR IN UKRAINE

As mentioned in the introduction, although there was news about Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022, there was no political analyst and no politician who would be prepared for such an escalation. And for a while, the skeptics seemed to have it right: at the dawn of the “original” date for the invasion, not one Russian soldier crossed the Ukrainian border. Then, at the dawn of 24 February, the citizens of Ukraine were awakened by the noise of gunfire and explosions.

The news of the invasion came as a shock to European leaders, even those who visited President Putin before the war. But after this geopolitical surprise, a seemingly unified Western reaction followed – a general condemnation of the Russian aggression. Then again, diplomatic problems started to escalate after this declaration.

The tone of Budapest and Warsaw concerning the war in Ukraine is different in practically all aspects (excluding hosting Ukrainian refugees as both countries admitted many of them). From the beginning of the war, the Polish government has been the staunchest and most solid supporter of every action aiming to destroy the Russian war machine, believing that otherwise, Putin’s imperial ambitions would not stop at the western borders of Ukraine. In contrast, the Hungarian government announced on the first days of the invasion that the country wanted no part of this war, declaring that it would not send weapons to Ukraine, nor would it allow such supplies to go through its borders. Later, Hungary became one of the, although only rhetorical, opponents of the economic sanctions

against Russia, stating that they cause too much harm to the European Union.

The difference between the approach to the war of the two countries resulted a drift in their diplomatic relations. At first, there were only minor signs of this. For example, on March 15, no Polish representative showed up in Budapest at the event of Fidesz organized to celebrate the remembrance of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. In contrast, former Polish President Donald Tusk held a speech at the event of the Hungarian United Opposition on the same day. Not long after, Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of the ruling party (Law and Justice, PiS) in Poland commented on Prime Minister Orbán’s attitude towards the war that he was “not happy” about it.

Diplomatic relations hit the rock bottom in the summer of 2022. On 29 July, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said that the paths of Hungary and Poland had diverged indeed. This came as a reaction to Prime Minister Orbán’s speech at the Bálványosi Festival, where he said that the war in Ukraine shocked PolishHungarian alliance, and that, while the goals of the two countries remain the

same, the Hungarians view the Russian invasion as a war of two Slavic nations, so the Poles “feel that they are also fighting in it”.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE BRING?

The invasion started more than eight months ago. The dreams of Russia’s leaders of a quick victory and the total capitulation of Ukraine collapsed. Putin may be able to present the annexation of South-Eastern regions as a success, but the Ukrainian Army has gained many advances during the fall of 2022.

Meanwhile, the West seems to be more united than ever. Arms supplies are flowing into Ukraine, and the European Union keeps introducing more and more sanctions against the Russian economy, although with mixed results.

The relationship between Poland and Hungary seems to start becoming cordial again. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz. Morawiecki said in an interview that his with is for the V4 countries to start working together again. Concerning the issues with Hungary, Morawiecki said that he was going to work out a solution.

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

ANDREW SHIVA / WIKIPEDIA / CC BY-SA 4.0 GODOT13

Clearly naming the discrepancies and respecting the sensitivity of the Ukrainians, cooperating within the V4, and conducting joint activities with allow Polish-Hungarian relationships to come back to their previous condition.

The cooperation between Poland and Hungary have remained unbroken is one thing, namely the question of the EU funds. As mentioned before, Hungary and Poland received many criticisms because of some decisions that some consider authoritarian. Not every criticism is without weight, however, because one of the many critics is the European Commission, which threatens both countries with the freezing of the EU funds. The reason for this is that the European Commission believes that the Fidesz in Hungary and Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland have broken down the pillars of the rule of law, so they must not receive any money until they address this issue. In contrast, both governments state that this is unacceptable since Poland and Hungary are entitled to those funds. As EU countries not far from the war in Ukraine, Poland and Hungary could definitely use that money.

In conclusion, if any reconciliation between the two countries is possible, it will start on the grounds of European policymaking. Poland and Hungary have been loyal to each other in almost every aspect, and hopefully, this cooperation will not cease, despite all the strains that the relationship suffered during the war. After all, we are talking about a friendship that lasted for centuries and overcame obstacles that were bigger than that. Hopefully, we will overcome this intermezzo, too.

REFERENCES:

Dirnóczi, Tímea and Bień-Kacała, Agnieszka, Illiberal Constitutionalism: The Case of Hungary and Poland. German Law Journal, vol. 20 (8). December 2019, pp. 1140–1166.

Freedomhouse, 2020a, Hungary: Freedom in the World 2020 Country Report. https://freedomhouse.org/ country/hungary/freedom-world/2020.

Freedomhouse, 2020b, Poland: Freedom in the World 2020 Country Report. https://freedomhouse.org/country/ poland/freedom-world/2020.

Gazdag, Ferenc, Három évtized Magyar külpolitikája (1989–2018). Ludovika Könyvkiadó. Budapest, 2021.

Hamberger, Judit, A magyar–szlovák viszony új esélyei. Külügyi Szemle, 3. (2004), pp. 1–2, 28–48.

Hillion, Christophe, Poland and Hungary are withdrawing from the EU. Verfassungsblog, April 27, 2020, https:// verfassungsblog.de/poland-andhungary-are-withdrawing-from-the-eu/

Jeszenszky, Géza, Tanulmányok a szuverén Magyarorszzág külpolitikájáról. Külügyi szemle. Spring-Summer, 2005, pp. 274–290

Marušiak, Juraj, Russia and the Visegrad Group – more than a foreign policy issue. International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs, vol. 24 (1–2), EUROPE AND RUSSIA (2015), pp. 28-46.

Sata, Robert and Karolewski, Ireneusz Paweł, Caesarean politics in Hungary and Poland. East European Politics, 36:2, 2020, pp. 206–225.

Szopa, Maciej, Polish Weapons Defending Ukraine [Analysis]. Defence24.com, May 24, 2022, https://defence24.com/ industry/polish-weapons-defendingukraine-analysis.

Istvan Nagy December 2022

INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY AND THE QUADRILATERAL SECURITY DIALOGUE

Benedek Sipocz

Contemporary Indian foreign policy can be divided into different stages, during which the country steadily transitioned from an idealistic to a more pragmatic foreign policy1. The first stage came after decades of colonial rule, as India became independent following the British withdrawal in 1947. Lasting from 1947 to 1962, the first stage of India’s foreign policy was marked by idealism. It was during this period that India sought to strengthen its newly-gained sovereignty and was introduced to the world of multilateral diplomacy and the objective of peaceful coexistence of states. It was also during this period that

the international power balance became bipolar, namely between the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR). To stay out of the competitive rivalry between the two blocks, the so-called non-alignment became the foundation of India's foreign policy. It meant not joining any alliances of two great powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Being among the first countries to gain independence, India was one of those leading the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Its members believed in staying out of the competition of the two rival blocs in the Cold War, preserving their independence and developing their economy without becoming affiliated.

1962, however, marked a new chapter in Indian foreign policy. Following the military defeat against China, India’s leadership in NAM and its foreign policy were questioned. The war with China embarrassed India. One-on-hand Indian diplomacy could not forestall an armed conflict with its neighbor. On the other hand, its armed forces suffered a defeat due to inadequate preparation and equipment1. The next phase of Indian foreign policy, which lasted until the fall of the Soviet Union, was marked by a focus on national security, with Indian diplomacy becoming more pragmatic to safeguard its security. This period saw a more assertive foreign policy, wars with Pakistan, and the signing of the IndoSoviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation 2 . The signing of the treaty

1 Ibidem.

2 Kumar, Rajan. “India’s Multilateral Foreign Policy Strategy: Phases of Its Evolution.” The Round Table 111, no. 3 (2022): 426–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 358533.2022.2082769

meant a clear shift from the previous policy of non-alignment. However, due to Pakistan’s close ties to the United States and China, India had no choice but to get closer to the Soviet Union. Stemming from the humiliating defeat in 1962, the security dilemma from the alliance of Pakistan with the United States and China, and China’s nuclear test in Lop Nor in 1964, India conducted its nuclear explosion test in 1974. The test sought to deter as well as showcase India’s independence.

Another shift in India’s foreign policy came with the end of the Cold War. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the strongest state in the ‘unipolar’ world. For this reason, India reconsidered its foreign policy. The new one sought to strengthen bilateral and multilateral relations with the West, whilst maintaining relations with its former

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

partners. As India’s Minister of External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar argued, the idea of the independent mindset that was reflected in the policy of non-alignment today could be better reflected and “expressed in multiple partnerships”3. This essentially means the previous policy of non-alignment is reflected in a policy of multi-alignment. Through a pragmatic foreign policy approach, today’s India builds ties with all, for example with the United States, Russia, China, Iran, and the European Union. Through the multi-alignment policy of fostering closer relationships, it emphasizes balance. Contemporary Indian foreign policy seeks cooperation where its interest is reflected. For example, India is a member of the G20, the BRICS formation, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad). The simultaneous alignment is part of a calculated policy to maintain an independent mindset. What meant no alignments during the Cold War now implies numerous alignments. With such foreign policy orientation kept in mind, India’s role in the Quad and the Quad’s offer to India, will be analyzed.

WHAT IS THE QUADRILATERAL SECURITY DIALOGUE

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprises four countries: Japan, Australia, the United States, and India. The countries first came together to coordinate the response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004. Having been called the Tsunami Core Group, their cooperation was set up to coordinate the responses to the humanitarian challenges posed by the crisis 4 . This coordinated approach, however, came to an end once the humanitarian efforts have been concluded. In 2007, following

3 Ibidem.

4 Grossman, Marc. “The Tsunami Core Group: A Step toward a Transformed Diplomacy in Asia and Beyond.” Security Challenges 1(2005): 11–14. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/26459016

the initiative of Shinzo Abe, the newlyelected Prime Minister of Japan argued for an enhancement of a more valuebased cooperation, thus formalizing the Quad 5. This saw the four countries discussing possible enhanced cooperation on the side of an ASEAN summit as well as a joint naval exercise the following year, drawing harsh criticism from Beijing. Abe’s initiative, however, did not last long as neither India nor Australia wanted the Quad to impact their relationship with China. For the next ten years, therefore, no enhanced multilateral cooperation took place.

Over the next years, however, China’s foreign policy evolved significantly, prompting members to adopt their strategic thinking, and bringing back a demand for the Quad in 2017. It was also until that year that the United States shifted its focus to Asia as part of its Pivot to Asia policy. China’s continuing rise on a global and regional level coupled with an assertive foreign policy meant the four members rethought their stance on the Quad and their increased cooperation. Between the ten years of leaving Quad behind and returning to it, all members’ foreign policy and security have been impacted by the evolving Chinese foreign policy. The very thing that caused disagreements among the members to enhance their cooperation in 2008 was the cause for their increased interest in Quad in 2017.

Today, the members cooperate in several fields, such as diplomacy, economy, or defense. They aim to create a resilient, free, and open Indo-Pacific region6 . The

5 Tanvi Madan, “The Rise, Fall, and Rebirth of the ‘Quad’,” War on the Rocks, November 16, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/rise-fall-rebirthQuad/

6 “Quad.” Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Accessed November 4, 2022. https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-

strategic cooperation, therefore, indirectly aims to balance the rising power of China economically, politically, and militarily in the Indo-Pacific region. For example, this includes keeping vital sea routes free of external influence or decreasing dependence on the Chinese supply chain. Overall, the new spirit and cooperation of the Quad aim to limit and counter Chinese foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific region. Just like during the first run of the Quad, China has voiced criticism of the cooperation. The language of such criticism, however, has come to be toned down due to the unclear cooperation strategy 7

INDIA IN THE QUAD

Ahead of the Quad’s most recent leaders’ summit, the Quad Leaders’ Tokyo Summit 2022, the Indian Ambassador to Japan outlined India’s stance on the Quad. Responding to a question about whether issues related to China would be the main source of attention during the summit, Ambassador Sanjay Kumar Verma argued for the importance of having a peaceful and stable Indo-Pacific region8 . The response showcases and encompasses the history of Indian foreign policy, as well as India’s stance on multilateral cooperation. It demonstrates a foreign policy of cooperating for something specific rather than against something. In this regard, for India, the Quad is not a cooperation aimed against China but rather a tool to achieve a peaceful and stable region. When the impetus of Indian foreign and security policy is to

relations/regional-architecture/Quad.

7 “Defining the Diamond: The Past, Present, and Future of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.” Defining the Diamond: The Past, Present, and Future of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue | Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accessed November 2, 2022. https://www.csis.org/ analysis/defining-diamond-past-present-and-futureQuadrilateral-security-dialogue

8 https://twitter.com/ANI/ status/1528303342052872192

counter the rising power and influence of China in the Indo-Pacific region, it is not a policy directed against China, but rather a policy created for a specific reason, in which China is in the way. Stemming from the historic policy of non-alignment and its contemporary vision of multi-alignment, the Quad is a way for India to achieve such a balance. The Quad serves as a tool to balance multilateral cooperation whilst also achieving foreign policy interests.

For India, China is a strategic rival. The policy of India towards China, however, differs from this of the other members of the Quad. As the geographical proximity of India to China is significantly different from that of the other members, so does India’s cautious foreign and security policy. Being the only one in the Quad to border China, India is determined to maintain peace along its borders 9. The very border which, as history has showcased with the war in 1962 or the recent clashes in 2020, is rather tense. It is therefore in the interest of India to prevent the Quad from only discussing securityrelated matters and becoming cooperation directly aimed at countering China. The latter would antagonize China, thus increasing the possibility of conflicts within its neighborhood. As a dedicated member of the Quad, India seeks to maintain a calculated balance between cooperating on matters that further its foreign policy goals and causing a conflict with China. Therefore, whilst regarding China as a strategic rival, India is careful to prevent the Quad from becoming an anti-Chinese alliance10 .

9 Ranade, Akshay. “How India Influences the Quad.” The Diplomat, June 6, 2022. https://thediplomat. com/2022/05/how-india-influences-the-quad/. 10 Kumar, Rajan. “India’s Multilateral Foreign Policy Strategy: Phases of Its Evolution.” The Round Table 111, 3 (2022): 426–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358 533.2022.2082769

Complemented by the rivalry with China, as the strategic relations between Pakistan (one of India’s foreign policy priorities) and China are strengthening, for example through the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor, India is seeking to forge strategic partnerships of its own. Cooperating within the Quad enables to counter the relationship between Pakistan and China. The Quad ensures the strengthening of relations with the United States, Japan, and Australia on both a bilateral level with each of the respective countries and a multilateral level. These strategic relationships are, therefore, important for checking the strategic partnership of Pakistan.

Overall, whilst India considers China a strategic rival due to its war in 1962,

unsolved border disputes, and Chinese assistance for Pakistan, India maintains a special relationship with China. A relationship that is rooted in the multialignment policy and aims to strike a balance in foreign affairs. India, therefore, participates in the Quad to cooperate and check the rising power of China, whilst making sure to prevent antagonizing this country. India’s participation in the Quad showcases the country’s balanced and calculated foreign and security policy.

INDIAN RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA

As the foreign policy of multialignment indicates India is seeking to balance the complexity and number of its partnerships. India is a member of the BRICS formation (Brazil, Russia,

India, China, and South Africa), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the G20. These partnerships, however, especially those with Russia or China at times generate tensions within Quad, mainly between India and the United States. In the case of both countries, India has refrained from condemning the countries. For example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s response to protests in Hong Kong, or the handling of the information regarding the outbreak of COVID-1911. These tensions within the Quad prevent the enhancement of cooperation, and, at times, raise questions about the actual objectives of India regarding Russia and China.

INDIA-RUSSIA RELATIONS

The relations of India with Russia are both historic, with elements of cooperation stemming from the Cold War, and contemporary. Today, their cooperation encompasses a number of issues, especially in defense and trade. However, the relationship is not without its flaws, which challenges Indian diplomacy to balance it appropriately.

The defense cooperation between India and Russia goes back many years. During the Cold War, in a move that advanced the transition of Indian foreign policy to a more practical one, the two countries signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation. This cooperation has been maintained throughout and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Over the years, Russia has sold some sophisticated military equipment and technology to India, making it the most significant arms supplier of India12 . The continuous delivery of arms to India has

11 Jagtiani, Sharinee L., and Sophia Wellek. “In the Shadow of Ukraine: India’s Choices and Challenges.” Survival 64, 3 (2022): 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 396338.2022.2078045

12 Ibidem.

created a path of dependency for both states. A positive experience from deliveries and trust developed over time and encouraged India to continue importing, and the availability of a reliable buyer prompted Russia to increase sales13. At present, the Indian armed forces are predominantly equipped with technology or weapons imported from Russia, with Russian technology constituting a crucial part of many of its divisions14 . This huge dependence on Russian-imported weapons and technology prompted India to diversify the importers of weapons and defense technology. Since its efforts to diversify suppliers, the percentage of Russian imports has decreased, with India now also importing French and American technology15. As Craig Hooper writes in Forbes , it is estimated that the tendency will continue. The war in Ukraine revealed that Russian-made weapons are not as effective as they were thought to be, signaling to India to need to revise its strategy in arming its military and decrease dependence on Russian technology16

The relations also extend into the realm of trade, especially in energy. The trade between the two countries is on a growing slope, with the two countries

13 Vasudeva, Sameer Lalwani;Frank O’Donnell;Tyler Sagerstrom;Akriti. “The Influence of Arms: Explaining the Durability of India–Russia Alignment.” Air University (AU), n.d. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/ JIPA/Display/Article/2473328/the-influence-of-armsexplaining-the-durability-of-indiarussia-alignment/.

14 Andrew S. Bowen, ‘Russian Arms Sales and Defense Industry’, Congressional Research Service, 14 October 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/ product/pdf/R/R46937

15 “India Is amongst the World’s Largest Arms Importers.” Civilsdaily, April 30, 2022. https://www. civilsdaily.com/news/india-is-amongst-the-worldslargest-arms-importers/

16 Hooper, Craig. “Reforms Will Keep India’s Russian-Built Arsenal Relevant ... for a While.” Forbes Magazine, October 17, 2022. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/craighooper/2022/10/17/new-reforms-will-keepindias-russian-built-arsenal-relevantfor-a-while/

announcing in December 2021 the goal of reaching 30 billion USD traded annually17. Energy constitutes a large portion of trade between the two nations. For example, Russia plays an active role in India’s nuclear energy supply, and as European states are aiming to decrease the import of Russian oil, India is buying more discounted Russian oil18 .

17 Jagtiani, Sharinee L., and Sophia Wellek. “In the Shadow of Ukraine: India’s Choices and Challenges.” Survival 64, 3 (2022): 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00396338.2022.2078045.

18 Menon, Shruti. “Ukraine Crisis: Russian Oil and Gas Turn to Asia.” BBC News. BBC, September 30, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asiaindia-60783874

The complex relationship between the two states, however, is not without challenges to India. First of all, as highlighted above, the overreliance and fear of operational difficulties prompted India to diversify its defensive imports. Furthermore, as the relationship between Russia and China is becoming stronger, as well as the one between Russia, China, and Pakistan, Indian diplomacy has to maneuver appropriately in its relationship with Russia. Whilst following the policy of multi-alignment and continuing to work closely with Russia on a range of issues such as defense and energy, India may see no choice but to enhance its relationship and cooperation with the Quad.

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA

The relationship between India and China fits perfectly within India’s multi-alignment policy. On one hand, India’s cautious and calculated foreign policy seeks to check the rising power of China in the Indo-Pacific region, while working together with this country. Whilst the unresolved border dispute between the countries overshadows the relationship, India and China have good trade relations and cooperate in space and security. Overall, the relationship is marked by caution and cooperation.

The bilateral trade between China and India is growing. Each year, China and the United States, India’s two biggest trading partners compete for the top position of the biggest trading partner. Last year, it was China19. Besides the excellent trade relations, China and India cooperate within BRICS and as part of bilateral relations as well. For example, in a move that best showcases the policy of multi-alignment, days after the Quad summit in Japan, the BRICS announced India would become a part of the BRICS’ remote sensing constellation program in space20

The relationship between China and India is, therefore, very pragmatic. Whilst the two countries continue to increase trade relations and cooperation within the BRICS, the relationship is overshadowed by the border disputes and China’s support for Pakistan. For India, this means making the most out of the good trade relations and

19 Ravi Dutta Mishra, Dilasha Seth. “China Beats Us to Re-Emerge as India’s Top Trading Partner.” mint, September 16, 2022. https://www.livemint.com/ economy/china-beats-us-to-re-emerge-as-india-stop-trading-partner-11663267543382.html.

20 Singh, Sushant. “India’s China Policy Is Confused.” Foreign Policy, June 14, 2022. https://foreignpolicy. com/2022/06/14/india-china-policy-ladakh-borderclash-quad-modi/

cooperation from BRICS, whilst being a committed member of Quad.

CONCLUSION

For India, staying out of the rivalry of blocks has become an integral part of its foreign policy. It has been reflected in the non-alignment policy during the Cold War and the multi-alignment policy afterward. Both policies keep an independent approach and foreign policy for the relations between great rising power. However, as the rise of China continues, complemented by evolving relationships between China, Pakistan, and Russia, India will seek to enhance cooperation within the Quad, whilst maintaining the policy of multialignment. The geographical proximity of India to China means its policy towards China will differ from that of other Quad members. Whilst India will increase its commitment to the enchantment of the Quad’s cooperation, Indian diplomacy will have a challenge not to antagonize its neighbor. At times, this maneuvering creates tension within the Quad, as the policy of other members towards China, is becoming tougher. The challenge for India, therefore, is to prevent its multialignment policy from backfiring and generating conflict between both sides.

The lessons drawn about the Russianmade military systems, the strengthening relationship between Pakistan, Russia, and China, and unresolved border disputes will propel India to strengthen relations and enhance cooperation with the Quad. This does not mean, however, that India will discard the policy of multialignment, but will rather continue developing closer relations with the United States and the Quad.

Sipocz

Benedek

TALIBAN CRACKDOWN ON WOMEN RIGHTS AFTER AUGUST 2021

TALIBAN RETURN

Kinga Szurc

The Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in August 2021 as foreign troops left the country. Since then, the regime has launched a brutal crackdown on girls and women in particular. The Taliban have further curbed women's rights despite the country's constitution that enshrines gender equality. Women have been banned from using public transportation unless accompanied by a close male relative.

The nationwide system of support built up by women’s rights activists has collapsed. Shortly after the Taliban takeover last August, threats have been made against relief institutions1. Many fighters perished in a protracted war, leaving wives and children. Single and married women are a burden for their families, which makes them vulnerable to violence2

In a press conference, the Taliban announced that women and girls in Afghanistan must now cover up from head to toe when they leave their homes3

Amid a devastating humanitarian crisis, ever more parents are turning to the tradition of marrying off their teenage

1 Where we empower women: Afghanistan, https://medicamondiale. org/en/where-we-empower-women/ afghanistan

2 Afghanistan: Taliban Blocking Female Aid Workers, https://www.hrw.org/ news/2021/11/04/afghanistan-talibanblocking-female-aid-workers

3 Diana Hadid, Taliban declares women and girls must cover up from head to toe in public, https://www.npr. org/2022/05/08/1097458605/talibandeclares-women-and-girls-must-coverup-from-head-to-toe-in-public

daughters in return for a dowry, mostly in rural areas. Women get married to avoid persecution from Taliban militants 4 . The decisions to sell off girls for marriage are made by men. Teenage girls––usually aged 15––give birth as a consequence of early marriage and often die of causes related to pregnancy. The chair of the United Nations taskforce on early marriage works closely with communities, religious leaders, and youth in some provinces in Afghanistan, where it leads grassroots campaigns among a wide, largely illiterate audience, using cartoons to talk about the risks of early marriage5 .

The opportunities for young Afghan women to study are also extremely restricted. The Taliban have effectively banned girls from secondary education in some Afghan provinces. Women can only attend seminars if their university offers gender-segregated instruction6

4 Where we empower women: Afghanistan, https://medicamondiale. org/en/where-we-empower-women/ afghanistan

5 Child marriage, https://afghanistan. unfpa.org/en/node/15233

6 Where we empower women: Afghanistan, https://medicamondiale.org/en/where-weempower-women/afghanistan

©

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Keeping girls out of schools will exert a terrible economic impact of this decision on the country’s GDP, according to UNICEF. One consequence of denying girls access to education could consist in upcoming shortages of female teachers, doctors, and nurses. Afghanistan will lose millions of dollars in women’s labor7. Many well-educated Afghan women fled the country. A large group of women activists in Kabul staged a protest rally against the expulsion of dozens of female students from a Kabul University dormitory for violating university regulations. The demonstrators chanted “Education is our red line” and “silence is treason8 .”

Taliban authorities in Afghanistan have imposed wide-ranging restrictions on free speech. Many female activists staged rallies to openly protest their growing discontent. A group of Afghan women gathered in Kabul in support of protests in Iran over the death of a young woman, Mahsa Amini, while in detention by morality police in Tehran for failing to properly cover her hair with a hijab. Female activists gathered outside the Iranian embassy chanting, „Women, life, freedom,” „Iran has risen. Now it’s our turn!” and „From Kabul to Iran say no to dictatorship!” Taliban security forces started firing in the air to disperse the rally 9. Afghan women have

7 Depriving girls of secondary education translates to a loss of at least US$500 million for the Afghan economy in last 12 months, https://www.unicef.org/ press-releases/depriving-girls-secondaryeducation-translates-loss-least-us500million-afghan

8 Ayaz Gul, Afghan Women Protest Expulsion of Female University Students, Curbs on Education, https://www. voanews.com/a/6794650.html

9 Ayaz Gul, Taliban Disrupt Afghan Women’s Rally Supporting Iran Protests, https://www.voanews.com/a/

taken to the streets in groups large and small to protest against the Taliban regime’s new curbs on their rights. Some women held signs with a question in English: „Why the world is watching us silently and cruelly?” Others held up signs for freedom. In response, the Taliban have at times used force— wielding whips or beating women with batons so that they feel scared10

The Taliban has systematically excluded Afghan girls from public life. After foreign troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, many Afghan women held prominent offices in the judiciary and politics. The Taliban also abolished the country’s Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Women who hold public offices are now at huge risk. Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers set up a ministry for the “propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice.”

There are still significant challenges for women accessing healthcare in Afghanistan. Only about half of all births are supervised by midwives or doctors. Afghanistan still has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world11 Women often bleed to death after giving birth at home. Clinics are often located in remote places. There are no cars nor proper roads to take women to the hospital. Many women die due to complications in childbirth in hospitals that are generally poorly equipped12

taliban-disrupt-afghan-women-s-rallysupporting-iran-protests-/6768633.html

10 Hannah Bloch, Photos: Afghan Women Are Protesting For Their Rights, https:// www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035214735/ women-afghanistan-protest-taliban

11 Where we empower women: Afghanistan, https://medicamondiale. org/en/where-we-empower-women/ afghanistan

12 Tan Ee Lyn, Death in childbirth: A health scourge for Afghanistan, https://www. reuters.com/article/us-afghan-health-

Women have also been banned from appearing in television dramas in Afghanistan under new rules imposed by the Taliban government13. Female TV presenters are forced to cover their faces when going on air. The presenter Farida Sial told the BBC: „It’s OK that we are Muslims, we are wearing hijab, we hide our hair, but it’s very difficult for a presenter to cover their face for two or three hours consecutively and talk like that.” „They want to erase women from social and political life,” she said. She said she wanted the international community to put pressure on the Taliban to reverse the edict14.

While initially, the Taliban promised that women would be able to “exercise their rights within Sharia law”15, these mothers-idUSISL31813620080430

13 Afghanistan: Taliban unveil new rules banning women in TV dramas, https:// www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59368488

14 Joseph Lee, Afghanistan’s female TV presenters cover their faces, https://www. bbc.com/news/world-asia-61541064

15 Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab, One Year under The

promises were merely empty words while the crackdown on Afghan girls and women continues.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite initial promises, girls and women in Afghanistan are being discriminated against by its new government, with their rights and freedoms curbed. Women have been excluded from education or transport while struggling to receive decent healthcare. Women are now considered the property of men. The fate of Afghan girls and women remains the same as long as the Taliban regime is in power. Afghanistan is desperate for outside aid efforts to ensure decent living standards for people. The country is on the brink of extreme poverty that drives families to sell their daughters into marriage.

Kinga Szurc December 2022

Taliban Rule: Situation of Wolej And Girls In Afghanistan, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ ewelinaochab/2022/08/16/one-year-underthe-taliban-rule-situation-of-women-andgirls-in-afghanistan/?sh=4b9b94dd7a60

© Source: Wikimedia Commons

RAWA

JACK KAKASENKO

Jack is working towards his BS degree in Aerospace Engineering and Russian Studies at North Carolina State University. He is interested in the political and historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia, and it’s role in international affairs.

PROF. CLIFFORD ANGELL BATES JR. is an American political scientist specializing in the history of political philosophy/theory, especially comparative politics, international relations, literature and politics, American Constitutional Thought, and Institutional History. He published two books, “Aristotle’s Best Regime” (LSU, 2004) and “The Centrality of the Regime for Political Science” (WUW, 2016). His interests include the intersection between human biological nature, human institutions, and environmental forces that shape the political and social forces of humanity. He is now working on two projects: the question of the formation of state structures (and concepts) and their viability over time and his exhaustive commentary on Aristotle’s Regime Science.

JAN HERNIK

and strategic levels in the Canadian Armed Forces, the US Air Force, and industry.

SZYMON POLEWKA

student of international relations at the Jagiellonian University, specializing in the history of international relations, the Eurasian area, DACHL countries, intercultural relations and energy.

ISTVÁN NAGY

p. 16 p. 16

He is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of the influence of religion, race, and ethnicity on political choice in the US presidential elections. His research interests also include US activity in the Arctic and Indo-Pacific regions. Currently, he is completing postgraduate studies in geopolitics and geostrategy at the Academy of Applied Sciences and at the Caucasian International University.

BILLIE FLYNN

He is a former F-35 Lightning II Senior Experimental Test Pilot. Billie Flynn is also a Global Strategic Advisor and Consultant in Advanced Aviation Technologies and Strategies. He is a retired RCAF Combat Commander delivering expertise and insight garnered over 4 decades working at the tactical

BENEDEK SIPOCZ

p. 26 p. 38

p. 35

He is a fifth year law student at Pázmány Péter Catholic University and the member of the Mathias Corvinus Collegium Law and Society Research Center. Currently, he is conducting research at the Warsaw Institute on the legal and political connections between Hungary and Poland after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Previously, he attended the EPLO Migration Summer School of 2022 and the Instytut Felczaka Summer Academy of 2021.

He is an undergraduate student of International Relations and Organisations at Leiden University, in The Hague. He is interested in transatlantic relations, European politics, and the foreign and security policies of countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Currently he is an Associated Fellow Intern at the Warsaw Institute, contributing to the creation of articles and analyses on geopolitical matters in Central and Eastern Europe, and the implications of European and Transatlantic politics on the region.

KINGA SZURC

p. 6 p. 45 p. 53

holds a Bachelor's Degree in International Security and Diplomacy. She pursues a Master's Degree in National Security at the War Studies University. In June 2021 she defended a thesis on U.S-Afghan Taliban negotiations in 2001–2020. Her research interests include terrorism, special services, the Middle East, and South Asia. She is a member of two student scientific associations in special forces and national security.

SUPPORT US

JOIN US ON SOCIAL MEDIA