#international security | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

The Tumblr office adopted Tommy, an 11-year-old Pomeranian.

#international security

tomorrowusa · 2 months

Text

Sweden officially joined NATO on Thursday. It had been neutral since 1814.

One of Putin's pretexts for his illegal invasion of Ukraine was to prevent NATO expansion. What the invasion really did was to cause NATO to become reinvigorated and expanded.

With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the land border between Russia and NATO has doubled in length. And the Baltic is now a Sea of NATO with Russia holding only a couple of relatively short strips of coastline near Kaliningrad and Saint Petersburg. This represents a spectacular strategic failure for Putin.

Sweden on Thursday formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality as concerns about Russian aggression in Europe have spiked following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Secretary of State Antony Blinken presided at a ceremony in which Sweden's "instrument of accession" to the alliance was officially deposited at the State Department. "This is a historic moment for Sweden. It's historic for alliance. It's history for the transatlantic relationship," Blinken said. "Our NATO alliance is now stronger, larger than it's ever been." Kristersson wrote in a social media post that "we are therefore a safer country." Later Thursday. Kristersson will visit the White House and then be a guest of honor at President Joe Biden's State of the Union address to Congress.

Ukraine will eventually join NATO but it probably won't happen while active hostilities continue. Expect to hear Sweden mentioned at the State of the Union address.

Biden, in his speech to Congress, is expected to cite Sweden's accession to NATO as evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin's intent to divide and weaken the alliance has failed as a direct result of the Ukraine invasion. And, the Democratic president is expected to use Sweden's decision to join to step up calls for reluctant Republicans to approved stalled military assistance to Ukraine as the war enters its third year. Biden and his NATO counterparts have vowed that Ukraine will join one day, too.

Russian imperialism of the past 300 years has caused its neighbors to seek more protection against it. Few people in Eastern Europe have fond memories of being Russian or Soviet colonies. With Putin acting like a хуйло for the past 20 years, the only safe option is NATO membership.

28 notes · View notes

wartakes · 9 months

Text

The Issue of “Negative American Exceptionalism” (OLD ESSAY)

This essay was originally posted on October 13th, 2021.

In this essay, I dig into the issue of how many other folks on the Left's foreign policy can best be summed up as "America bad" and absolutely nothing else and how that can be a problem in denying agency to other people and groups around the world who are trying to fight for better lives for themselves as well.

(Full essay below the cut).

I like to think I’ve been pretty consistent in drilling down my core beliefs in these essays since I started posting them almost a year ago. One of those central points I return to often is that war – while terrible – is sometimes unavoidable or even necessary. While I think I’ve had some modest success in convincing people of this, I am reminded daily that there is still a long way to go.

One of the common threads I encounter in the pushback to this principle is the sentiment that the United States is the root cause of essentially every military conflict, diplomatic crisis, or other negative event in international affairs – or can only make such conflicts and crises worse by its involvement. A common way you see this manifest is blaming every revolution or uprising against a government you like (or at least isn’t closely aligned to the United States) as being a CIA-backed coup, or writing off aggressive or violent acts by shitty regimes as long as they are anti-Western or anti-US and claiming that the only reason that problems are occurring is because of the United States. There are many other flavors of and spins on these types of opinions, but these two seem to be the two big ones that I run into a lot as I dredge through the morass of social media.

Now, I should say up front as always, that my goal here is not to absolve the United States of its many obvious failings and crimes throughout history. My country has indisputably done some awful, terrible shit in the past, is still doing it now, and will continue to do it into the future until we as Americans finally decide that “enough is enough” and do something to change that. My goal here is instead to show you that, while the United States obviously plays a central role in the world and its many issues – all of which are intertwined with one another – it is not the sole “protagonist of reality” when it comes to international affairs and war – rather, not the sole “antagonist of reality” in this case I suppose. Not everything begins and ends with the United States. Other countries, groups, leaders, and etc. have their own agency and exercise it upon one another and themselves, regardless of what the United States does or says. They have their own goals and interests, both for good and for ill, and will do their best to fulfill them.

I want to talk about this because the “everything is the United States’ fault” sentiments bother me for several reasons. For one, I just hate people putting out takes that are disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. But the primary reason I want to talk about them is because I think they are outright dangerous. To the extent that we are able to try and change things now, and with the hope we may be able to change things further in the future, trying to further these ideas could cause immeasurable harm down the line in multiple ways by way of our own misguided actions – or inaction. If one day we actually are able to change the system for the better, but instead choose to go down a road where we support the worst kind of regimes or simply choose to do nothing in terms of how we deal with the world, it could be a tragedy on a horrific scale. Specifically, as American leftists, we need to stop assuming attitudes that are essentially Negative American Exceptionalism, reducing every conflict in the world to something that is directly America’s fault with the solution being one that involves us either acting in a directly harmful way or not acting at all. While grappling with our country’s global legacy is no small task, it’s something we need to do thoughtfully and critically and not simply act in a knee jerk manner. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, many people will suffer or die.

You do not, in fact, have to hand it to the People’s Republic of China

A good contemporary example to use here for some context would be the current tensions that exist between the United States and its allies and partners and the People’s Republic of China. Depending on who you ask, the USA and the PRC are either in danger of falling into a new Cold War or are already in a new Cold War (I tend to believe the latter is already the case). This heightened state of geopolitical competition among great powers has made itself known in multiple areas (be they diplomatic, military, economic, legal, or what have you), and have risen over various different flashpoints and interests in Asia and beyond.

I think it’s safe to say that most regular people are not happy or excited about the prospect of a new Cold War – though I certainly know some people in my field that are seemingly drooling at the thought of it. It should be no surprise to most people that I’m in the “not excited” category. While I am no fan of the PRC and its policies towards its citizens and other countries and I also think we and others should be prepared to counter it should it act in a hostile way against its neighbors, I don’t think that stance necessitates the confrontational Cold War posture that has been assumed by the United States towards China.

But, with all that in mind, while I don’t think the United States is handling this properly, this does not mean I’m letting China off the hook for its own aggressive, hegemonic aspirations. However, other folks on the Left seem to be willing to do so, either out of a weird tankie fetishization of China, or a simple anti-imperialist “anything that owns the United States and the West is good” attitude. Too often, I see the sentiment that the reason this new Cold War has begun is entirely the fault of the United States – with no responsibility falling on China for its outbreak – and that if the United States were simply to leave Asia and let the PRC do whatever it wanted, then the region would be a freer and more peaceful place (I apologize for not really having any good sources to link back to here, but I feel like if you spend even just a little time wading your way through certain corners of Left Twitter you know what I’m talking about).

There are a lot of ways I could point out how this assumption is reductive and just plain wrong, and I struggle on where to start. So, I guess I’ll start with a good old-fashioned hypothetical. Let’s assume that tomorrow the United States pulled every last one of its troops out of the Western Pacific, closing all of its bases and ending all of its security agreements throughout the region. Following the logic of some people I see discussing this on the Left, then that would solve most if not all of the security issues that are going on in that part of the world. That the PRC would no longer have a reason to act aggressive (though some would characterize that more as an attitude of “self-defense”) and would become a benevolent, peaceful actor.

That would be great if that was the case, but I find all of that very hard to believe. The United States withdrawing from the region and writing it off wouldn’t change any of the PRC’s fundamental interests and goals, whether it be forcefully incorporating Taiwan, expanding control over most of the South China Sea, economically pressuring countries in the region and beyond, and more. The PRC would almost certainly still want to do all these things if the United States left the region. If anything, China’s leadership would likely feel that they’d have a freer hand to double down and seek these objectives with more gusto. I don’t want to go as far as to say the United States is the only thing keeping them from carrying out a lot of their plans – that would just be defaulting back to classic American Exceptionalism rather than the Negative form.

Again, I have to stress that my point here isn’t to go “see, things are better off when the United States is in charge or swooping in to be the world’s policeman” or anything along those lines because that’s just flat out wrong as well. The United States’ history in Asia is “colorful” to say the very least and we have many acts we’ll need to atone for there going into the future. My point here is to illustrate that the United States alone is not the source of all the region’s problems in this particular case. Hell, China isn’t even the source of all the region’s problems in this case (though between it and the United States they do make up a healthy percentage of them). Just based on discussions with people from the region, I’m guessing they’d prefer it if there was no hegemon at all imposing its will on the region writ large – and it is these points of view we need to be more cognizant of – which I’ll foot stomp towards the end of this essay. The main point here is that even if the United States were not involved and took a hands-off attitude, conflicts and crises would still exist independent of it. All security issues do not begin and end with the United States and its foreign policy. The world chugged along with its various problems before us, and if our country ceases to exist, it will continue to chug on without it.

Getting over and moving on

I find myself reaching the “so what”/”what can we do” section of this essay faster than I have in the last few essays (the point was fairly simple this time around I guess). So, how do we deal with this?

I feel like the answer is both very simple and also very difficult – simple in that the overall action is very straightforward, difficult in that the exact, best way to carry it out is less clear and easy.

The solution is that we – we specifically being American Leftists- need to get over ourselves and our country.

As I alluded to earlier, it feels like there’s a not insignificant amount of people on the Left in this country and elsewhere who have traded one American Exceptionalism for another. Instead of holding the traditional (flawed) view that the United States the greatest country in the world, capable of doing no wrong and essential to all things that are good and pure in the world, they believe the exact opposite (also flawed) view: that the United States is the source of all things that are awful and terrible and that the only way there can be peace and justice in the world is for us to cut ourselves off from it and/or destroy our country. These are of course, rough paraphrases and there is more nuance involved in some cases, but these are the overall sentiments as I see them (when I don’t have my head in my hands in dismay that is). I also recognize that these people are not the majority on the left and definitely not the majority in general, but they do have the potential to hold outsized influence in informing people’s opinions when it comes to foreign policy and international relations – especially if no one else is pushing back on it (hence why I think it was important enough to write about here).

Again, it is undeniable that the United States plays a central role in how the world functions – and the problems it faces. But if we’re ever going to have a constructive attitude towards the rest of the world, we need to recognize that whatever role our country plays, it is still only one part of a highly interconnected global system of various different actors. We absolutely should be critical of ourselves and definitely be critical of our government and actions overseas, but we cannot become so single minded as to think that is the only factor at play. We cannot let the attitude of American Exceptionalism that has been drilled into us since we were young simply be morphed into a new and twisted form that is just as harmful as the old – if not potentially worse. We need to assume a true spirit of internationalism and global solidarity that isn’t ethnocentric and egotistical – even if those attitudes are unintentional on our part. And this is all coming from the guy who, despite everything, holds out hope that maybe one day the United States can be a force for some kind of positive change in the world. If that day does come (and I sure hope it does and am going to try and make it happen), I don’t think that kind of change is possible unless we can act not as the exceptional, indispensable hegemon, but as one of many entities that is party of an international collaboration to better the world for its people.

And therein lies another key takeaway: the fact that we need to listen to and center the voices of people outside the United States or members of an affected diaspora when it comes to crises and conflicts throughout the world before we attempt to make a comment, pass judgement, or otherwise act upon a given situation. When talking about an issue such as the new Cold War, its easy for some to write it off by blaming the United States – or for others to put the blame entirely on China – but I only occasionally see people paying any attention to the voices of those who are caught in-between in places like Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, the nations of Southeast Asia, and more. When people look at protests and uprisings in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere, I see a lot of ranting about how its all a CIA backed op, but little investigation of what actual people in or from these places (aside from talking heads with agendas) think or what systemic factors at play that may push people to protest, riot, and rise up.

Something I am thankful as I’ve discovered myself more politically is being put into closer contact with folks overseas who bring their own perspectives to the issues that I study every day. Even when I don’t agree with them 100%, I’m thankful for the experience to help bring me out of my bubble and remember that the world does not begin and end with the United States and whoever its beefing with at any given moment. There are real people in real places caught in between in the new landscape of “great power competition” who face far greater stakes should things go pear shaped. More than anything, we need to remember that we should be striving to enable people across the world to have control over their own lives and the path that their countries and communities should take. In addition to recognizing that other states have agency and may have malicious intent separate from US actions, we need to remember the agency of nations and people who don’t wish to be subject to the exploitation and harm from any state or group – whether it be the United States, China, or whatever else.

Really, at the core of these issues, we need to recognize that the world is complicated and needs to be dealt with as such. That may be something of a cliché’, but just because something is a cliché’ does not mean its untrue (yes, that in itself is a cliché; bite me). As a country and a people, America has never been that great dealing with nuance. This is something we also need to finally get over – in addition to getting over ourselves. When I speak of this, I absolutely don’t mean seeing the world as being “complicated” in terms of who is “good” and “bad” or looking the other way when shitty things happen in the name of national interest because “the world isn’t black and white its shades of gray hurr hurr.” That’s fucking stupid; we should know bad shit when we see it. What I do mean is that when something happens in the world, we should be able to formulate a response to it that isn’t knee jerk or a binary choice between complete inaction or mounting a full-scale war. Those two options may in fact be options in some (rare) cases, but our ability to understand and response to things occurring in the world around us should not be limited to those and those alone. The answers to global issues – whether they be security related or otherwise – are rarely simple and we need to be able to work through those challenges and not reduce issues to the point they have no real meaning.

As someone who was raised in the United States and live and work here, I still sometimes fall in the trap of thinking that my home country – and by extension, myself – is the sole protagonist (or antagonist) of reality. But however key a component the United States is of the global system we live under today, as Americans we have to be able to push back on that assumption that has been instilled in us as we view the rest of the world and the events occurring in it. We need to remember that other states and nations and peoples have plans and goals – both positive and negative. As we grapple with the flaws and crimes that our country has committed and respond to what’s going on in the world around us, we need to make sure we reckon with our past in a way that isn’t harmful to the rest of the world through simplistic, reductive actions as a result of rigid ideological dogma. With how much damage one form of American Exceptionalism has already done to the world, it cannot afford to experience another.

24 notes · View notes

jbfly46 · 8 months

Text

The U.S. continues to pose the largest risk to international peace and security since WWII.

youtube

#international security #Youtube

6 notes · View notes

shreygoyal · 2 years

Text

View on Twitter

The world cannot be run using strategies from the boardgame Risk. — Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs

(Source)

#Late Stage Capitalism #jeffrey sachs #international security #Climate Change #My Tweets

3 notes · View notes

multilateralismforpeaceday · 26 days

Text

Future of multilateralism and the role of small states.

The upcoming Summit of the Future is an opportunity to turbocharge our efforts towards a more peaceful, secure and sustainable world. Discussions on the revitalisation of the work of the General Assembly and the Security Council reform can further serve as avenues towards more relevant, coherent, efficient, democratic and representative United Nations.

Objectives: The event aims to convene high-ranking UN officials, Permanent Representatives, experts and representatives of the non-governmental organisations and civil society to discuss how to reinforce the multilateral world order with the United Nations and the UN Charter at its core.

Guiding questions: To restore overall confidence in the multilateral world order with the United Nations and the Charter at its core:

How to overcome a situation when the Security Council falls short of fulfilling its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security?

How can the role of the General Assembly in matters pertinent to international peace and security further evolve when the Security Council is unable to act?

How can small- and medium-sized states reinforce the multilateral order with the UN and the UN Charter at its core?

Watch the Future of multilateralism and the role of small states!

#multilateral world #panel discussion #multilateralism #united nations charter #small islands developing states #panel discussions #UNHQ #Conference room 8 #united nations security council #international peace #international security #peace and security #non governmental organizations #un officials #permanent representative #sids #International Peace Institute (IPI)

0 notes

kevinmmiller · 9 months

Text

Global World Order: Introduction

Global World Order: Introduction The following is the introduction to an upcoming thesis about International Maintenance, and Security entitled "Global World Order" Excerpt Below:

The following is the introduction to an upcoming thesis about International Maintenance, and Security entitled “Global World Order” Excerpt Below: Introduction After studying previously disclosed, and aforementioned information in this era of Globalization, and bringing in a closer, and more introspective understanding of National Security Cultures, and the way they work and behave, I’m here…

View On WordPress

#Diplomacy #Global World Order #international security #middle-east #peace and maintenance #politics #Russia

0 notes

cambria-press · 1 year

Text

Author Highlight: Colonel Arnel P. David

In honor of Armed Forces Day & #AAPIHeritageMonth, we are proud to highlight Arnel P. David, Filipino American father and coauthor of Warrior Diplomats and Military Strategy in the 21st Century. Arnel P. David is a colonel in the US Army and a PhD student at King’s College London. He has a mix of conventional and special operations assignments with six combat tours of duty in the Middle East,…

View On WordPress

#Arnel P. David #civil affairs #Conflict and Security #International Relations #international security #military #National Defense

0 notes

nataliecandelaria · 1 year

Text

You Can't Find Better Answers About Home Security Than Those Here

If you are a homeowner, you should know the importance of being safe. Having your home destroyed is one of the worst feelings ever. You make a huge monetary and emotional investment in your home. You can do more to protect your home and its occupants by checking out the advice presented below.

The company you choose to purchase and install your home security system is important. You want to make sure the company has the most reliable system and knows what they are doing when it comes to installation. To find a good company, ask friends and families or look for online reviews

While home security systems are effective in most cases, many robberies are committed during daylight hours when the home is not vacant. In this case, the security system may not be activated so no warning would be sounded. Most burglars enter the home at some other point than the front door.

Make sure that your home security system has a backup power source. Many burglars cut wires inside home security systems before entering a home. If you have a backup source, the alarm will continue to work as it should. It may be more expensive to install this type of system, but it will be worth it.

Speak with the police in your town regarding the home security programs they have. Your local police department will help you with preventive measures, inspect your home and show you how to mark your valuables so they can easily be found. Discuss the possibility of this sort of program with your police department.

After reading this article, you should have enough information to make your home very secure. It's important that you take a close look at everything said here, so that you can apply the tips to your own security. You will feel much safer when you secure your home, so let these tips help you do that.

Read more here International Security

#International Security

0 notes

quillsword · 1 year

Text

Protecting American Freedoms is the Best Thing America Can do for the Rest of the World

Obviously. What? That’s not obvious to you? What they heck did they teach you kids in school? Can’t do math, can’t half read, can’t pay attention – How’d you end up worse than MY generation? Seriously, we grew up on Westerns and Tarzan, roaming the neighborhoods until dark, with permanently skinned knees, hyped on boatloads of sugar and watching way too much TV – we were supposed to be the space…

View On WordPress

#congress #Democrat #foreign policy #Freedom #Freedom of Speech #International Aid #International Relations #International Security #Politics #Republican #world affairs #World&039;s Policieman

0 notes

tomorrowusa · 3 months

Text

Trump wants Russia to attack our allies. Is it any wonder why he's Putin's favored candidate for president?

Having an ignoramus pawn of Putin as commander-in-chief is not good for national security or international stability.

Seeking a second presidency as the Republicans’ presumptive 2024 White House nominee, Donald Trump has said he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies whom he considers to have not met their financial obligations. The White House described the remarks as “appalling and unhinged”. Trump made the statement on Saturday during a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina, ahead of the state’s Republican presidential preference primary on 24 February. The former president has voiced misgivings about aid to Ukraine as it defends itself from the invasion launched by Russia in February 2022 – as well as to the existence of Nato, the 31-nation alliance which the US has committed to defending when necessary.

Being the dumbass he is, Trump doesn't understand that NATO is a mutual defense pact. After 9/11 NATO countries provided logistical aid and even troops when the US overthrew the pro-al-Qaeda régime in Afghanistan and took into custody many of the planners of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Trump’s remarks on Saturday quickly raised alarm among many political pundits in the US. “Sounds as if Trump is kind of encouraging Russia to attack our Nato allies,” David Corn – an MSNBC analyst and the Washington DC bureau chief of Mother Jones – said on X. Meanwhile, conservative political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin said Trump’s comments were “music” to the ears of Russian leader Vladimir Putin

Something Trump doesn't tell his MAGA zombie followers is that military expenditures of NATO countries have gone way up during the Biden administration.

From last July...

NATO Details Leap in Member Defense Spending Ahead of Summit

Is Trump just butthurt that Biden has had greater success at increasing NATO member defense expenditures? That does make Trump look even more like a loser.

More likely Trump is simply doing Putin's bidding in helping to weaken Europe in order to spread Russian hegemony.

Under Biden, NATO is not only growing in strength but growing in membership. Finland joined NATO last April. Sweden is set to join this year.

Many of our NATO allies have excellent intelligence services. Undoubtedly some of them have picked up "dirt" on Trump over the past dozen or so years. It would be a shame for Trump if some of that dirt somehow became public later this year. Europe should show the same love for Trump which he has been showing them. 🙂

#donald trump #vladimir putin #russia #nato #trump encourages putin to attack nato countries #international security #the trump “pee tapes”#election 2024

14 notes · View notes

wartakes · 9 months

Text

Geopolitics: The Reason Why Your Tummy Hurts (OLD ESSAY)

This essay was originally posted on September 27th, 2022.

This is one of those essays where I see a string of posts or a line of behavior emerging on the internet and I feel compelled to push back on it. In this case, its how people don't understand the situation some countries and groups find themselves trapped in when they have to turn to less than desirable partners for help (especially if the US and the West aren't willing to step up).

(Full essay below the cut).

I feel like every time I rejoin you all with one of these essays I have to go “boy, a lot of history sure happened in the last month” and this time it’s no exception. I’m going to spare you the line-item state of the world summary, however, and I’m gonna try and get straight to the point in this piece because I really think the main point of this month’s essay is an important one that I want to really want to cram into people’s brains and make it stick there.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has had a number of repercussions there will be more as it continues on. One that I’ve noticed online in particular – though exclusively – is the treatment of war and struggle as being almost like some kind of team sport. This in itself is not new by any means, but I believe that the monumental nature and scale of the Russian invasion and the manner in which it caught so many off guard has amplified this tendency. The result is that you get a number of people boiling down armed conflict and the geopolitics surrounding it into essentially “yay my team and anyone that supports it and boo the other team and anyone that supports it.”

Now before you take that the wrong way, this is by no means an attempt on my part to “both sides” the Ukraine conflict. I have maintained since 2014 that Russia is an aggressor trying to impose its imperialistic will on Ukraine and that belief has only been reinforced by the events of the past seven months as Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine has slogged on. The point I’m trying to make is, by taking a “sportsball” (God help me) approach to wars like the one in Ukraine and everything else that becomes connected to it, those with that mindset begin to dumb down, disregard, or downright ignore nuance to the point that it starts to become actually harmful as it spreads to events that are removed by several orders of magnitude. It’s also worth noting that this attitude is something that’s not exclusive to any particular political ideology and that I’ve noticed it coming from all comers interacting with the War in Ukraine and other conflicts.

Said harmful effects became obvious in the past few weeks as new events unfolded outside of the scope of the War in Ukraine, but with the shadow of that conflict hanging over it and the “go team” simplified mindset having a direct impact on how it has been (incorrectly) perceived by many who have become more focused on international relations following the start of the Russian invasion. My goals for this essay are to A.) try and explain how all of this (i.e. geopolitics) is – unfortunately – more complicated than it looks and that can’t be helped; but I also want to B.) try and explain how you can wrap your head around what sometimes feels like conflicting and contradictory stances on geopolitics in a world increasingly filled with more and more crises and conflicts. At the end of the day, if you follow a consistent moral compass when it comes to armed aggression and your sense of internationalism and solidarity, you’ll find that navigating this crazy world isn’t as hard as a lot of people would lead you to believe (often to their own self-interested or sinister ends). So, without further ado, let’s get right into things.

The Tangled Web of Geopolitics

Life is inherently complicated. We, as human beings, have a natural desire to try and simplify it in order to make it both easier to understand and to manage – even if sometimes there are aspects of life that are difficult (if not impossible) to simplify. Geopolitics takes that to an extreme. Geopolitics are complicated, messy, sometimes contradictory, and always frustrating. So, it’s no mistake that the casual observer (and sometimes even the more experienced practitioner) will try and boil geopolitics down to simple, black and white terms, in order to try and make sense of it. While this desire to make geopolitics into a simple binary is understandable, it almost always ends up going too far and leads to flawed and often hurtful approaches to the rest of the world.

An excellent example of this are the latest clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan – occurring very much in the shadow of the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine. If you’ve read my essays before or followed me on Twitter (or follow Joe Kassabian on Twitter), you’re probably no stranger to the long-time struggle between Armenia and Azerbaijan – particularly over the contested majority-Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh. However, recently Azerbaijan broadened the conflict with a large-scale series of strikes against Armenia proper, attacking across their internationally recognized border with only the flimsiest of pretenses. While at the time of writing this essay things have calmed down some, the situation remains tense – with some countries advising their citizens to now evacuate certain parts of Armenia due to fears of further Azeri invasion.

Now, whatever you think about the Artsakh issue (my stance is that it is Armenian but that’s a completely different essay), we should all be able to agree that countries should not attack one another’s internationally recognized territory proper – especially not without actual provocation or under false pretenses (which Azerbaijan’s pretenses almost certainly are). Yet, I’ve seen quite a lot of sentiment on social media that somehow Armenia has done something to “deserve” this attack or that its somehow their “just desserts” and that they deserve no sympathy or assistance.

The very flawed and twisted justification for this attitude is that Armenia is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a military alliance led (and dominated) by Russia, formed following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992. Since Armenia is therefore a military treaty ally of Russia, a number of supporters of Ukraine (which I also support against unjustified Russian military aggression and imperialism) seem to believe that Armenia deserves whatever it gets as its attacked by Azerbaijan. There’s also a rather rosy attitude towards Azerbaijan by Ukrainians and Ukraine boosters, as Azerbaijan has politically supported Ukraine since the Russian invasion, sent humanitarian aid, and also has expressed a willingness to step up its oil and gas exports to Europe in order to counteract potential energy warfare by Russia this winter as the War in Ukraine drags on.

There are many problems with this logic (or lack thereof). For one, it fails to interrogate the actual relationship between Armenia and Russia beyond its more surface levels, refusing to ask why Armenia is even in an alliance with Russia to begin with. Armenia is small (both population and territory wise), landlocked country that is flanked by two states (Azerbaijan and Turkey) with much larger populations and resources – one of which has already attempted to wipe out its people before, with the other essentially now daring the world to stop them from doing it again. Armenia lacks the energy resources of Azerbaijan, which has facilitated strong relationships with countries eager to buy those resources – in addition to its strong partnership with Turkey over shared Turkic culture. From the moment it gained independence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Armenia needed a security guarantor if it was to avoid another genocide. Russia was the closest and most able and willing to act compared to other states, essentially falling into the role of Armenia’s security guarantor by default and then proceeding to hold a trapped Armenia hostage in the ensuing economic, political, and security relationship.

Essentially, Russia has remained Armenia’s primary security partner all these years basically out of both inertia and a failure by the United States and other countries in the West to do anything to change the situation – even after Armenia’s peaceful democratic revolution in 2018. Russia has also increasingly failed in its role as a security guarantor for Armenia. Russia and the CSTO’s failure to act decisively in the face of the most recent Azeri aggression (this time against Armenia’s internationally recognized territory) has sparked widespread anger and frustration with Russia by Armenians. Some Armenians have even called for Armenia to leave the CSTO and the situation has led to outreach by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives – Nancy Pelosi – as the CSTO appears to fragment while Russia’s war in Ukraine falters. While Armenia has been Russia’s ally on paper, it is not and has never been a universally happy and loving relationship and is one that Armenia took out of necessity and lack of options to survive.

Those making overly simplified comments about the Armenia-Azerbaijan situation also seem to ignore that, however cozy Azerbaijan has been with the West or supportive (notionally) of Ukraine, it has retained close political and economic ties with Russia – which in the typical Russian fashion has been trying to play both sides of a frozen conflict (one that is increasingly warming up). Azerbaijan isn’t acting on any profound political or moral grounds, it is simply trying to play all sides in support of its national interests – among which are removing the Armenian state and Armenian people off the face of the Earth (if you don’t believe me, take a look at what 99.9% of Azeri accounts on Twitter have to say about Armenia). Azerbaijan is taking advantage of the war in Ukraine in order to distract from what it wants to accomplish in Armenia, and unfortunately its propaganda war has been far too effective for my tastes thus far (though this time around more people seem to be taking a stand against its more naked aggression and I hope this trend continues – especially if it attacks Armenia further).

Aside from personal interest, I wanted to bring up Armenia and Azerbaijan in particular because this conflict serves as such a solid and recent illustrative example of what I’m trying to communicate. That none of these events happens in a vacuum or without a complex web of sometimes contradictory connections. This isn’t new, either. It’s always been the case, even in situations that have been historically characterized as being almost entirely binary in nature.

Let’s take the Cold War, as another example. We think about the Cold War almost exclusively as a geopolitical struggle between East and West, Communism and Anti-Communism, with two monolithic blocs led by almighty superpowers acting in perfect lockstep with one another. It makes for good propaganda, but it couldn’t be farther from the truth. Both East and West had many fissures and countries within both blocs often acted against one another out of self-interest or opposing principles and ideology – both via proxy and sometimes directly. In the East, the most famous example of this is probably the Sino-Soviet split, which led to the Soviet Union and China engaging in direct border clashes in 1969 and becoming enemies for the next two decades. Another prominent example is the Suez Crisis, where both Britain and France – in league with Israel – attempted one last great imperialist adventure to retake the recently nationalized Suez Canal from Egypt and potentially even remove the charismatic anti-imperialist President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power (against the express wishes and without the direct knowledge of their allied superpower, the United States).

The Cold War, despite our binary view of the competition, was riddled with cases like those just mentioned where supposed allies and partners crossed one another (if you really want to make your head hurt, take a look at the Wikipedia article for the Nigerian Civil War and then take a look at who was supporting both sides). Despite our innate desire to boil down geopolitics to a simple black and white, good versus evil struggle, that is almost never the case. The reality, as we’ve seen in the examples I’ve brought up, is far more convoluted than we’d like it to be.

How to Hold Two Opinions at the Same Time – A Primer

By now I’ve driven into your heads that geopolitics are not straightforward or black and white. Yeah, good, ok. So now what are you actually supposed to do with this information as you go about your lives? I’m glad you asked.

The point I’m trying to make by smashing you over the head with the proverbial mallet here, is that I want people to understand that sometimes states and their peoples are going to have to make decisions in order to survive that may not necessarily sit well with you ideologically, politically, or otherwise. To be clear, I’m not talking about excusing horrific acts of mass wanton violence like genocide or ethnic cleansing or other war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those are unacceptable no matter who is committing them or what reason they ostensibly have. I’m talking about actions like forging economic ties with, buying arms or seeking military support from, and generally associating with countries, groups, organizations, and so on that you may not be a fan of (for perfectly justified reasons in many cases).

Obviously, there’s no one-sized fits all approach to evaluating these actions and figuring out how you should feel about them or respond to them. There is no one universal “line” that once crossed a country or a people should suddenly no longer be worthy of support in its struggles against outside aggression (nor do I really think there should be a universal line except for specific cases like those acts I mentioned in the previous paragraph). But we have to understand when we see countries doing things that make you want to – for lack of a better term, God help me for saying this – “cancel” them, we also have to put said actions in their proper context (something I’m big on in international relations and security studies in general). We have to understand that, while in some cases countries may be performing certain acts purely out of self-interest and preserving or furthering their national power, in many cases countries and groups are doing them for one main reason: survival. Often, they just have no other options to turn to.

This is a frustrating thing to deal with because it means we have to take positions that, while they are not essentially contradictory, they feel so or appear so. I support Ukraine’s fight against the unjustified invasion and aggression by Russia, while also supporting Armenia’s similar fight against aggression by Azerbaijan and Turkey. What this means is I end up supporting countries that – if you connect the dots – appear to be aligned against one another. Ukraine being aligned with the West and Azerbaijan against Russia, while Armenia is (on paper) allied with Russia against Turkey and Azerbaijan (which I will again remind you both have very close relationships with Russia still despite all this), makes you think that therefore you should also be opposed to Armenia as well as Russia and that you should support Azerbaijan for supporting Ukraine. It all comes back to our innate human desire to make all this simple and cut and dry, black and white.

These types of positions may seem contradictory, but really when you get to the heart of the matter they are not. Said heart of that matter is we should always be opposed to unprovoked and unjustified armed aggression by one state or party against another, full stop. At the end of the day, Russia invaded Ukraine in a war of imperialistic aggression that was entirely a choice on their part (one they are paying for dearly now), that they were led to following their own mistakes they made via their heavy-handed response to the Euromaidan Revolution of 2013-2014. Likewise, while in past struggles with Azerbaijan, Armenia has certainly undertaken acts that were horrific and uncalled for and should be acknowledged as such, that in no way justifies the ongoing aggression that Azerbaijan continues has shown against Armenia and Armenians now for decades. As I shared earlier, Azerbaijan continues to engage in ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide in Artsakh – a historically Armenian majority region – and now seems set on taking those acts to Armenia proper with its most recent attacks on internationally recognized Armenian territory. In both Ukraine’s case and Armenia’s case, even though their relationships tie them to their enemies, it is still ethically, morally, and ideologically correct to support both of them in their struggles as they are both still fighting fundamentally the same struggle despite the geopolitical bullshit that encumbers them as they fight to survive.

As leftists – and just as people – we should take a fundamental stand against armed aggression in all cases, while also supporting those who are victims of aggression in their right to self-defense. This was one of the earliest points I made in writing my essays and one I endeavor to return to often, discussing how being anti-war does not mean that you can’t or shouldn’t defend yourself against armed aggression with force in kind. Being anti-war just means that you don’t start none – that doesn’t mean there won’t be none, if someone else decides to attack you (put another way: “fuck around and find out.”) Once again, this is not a contradictory stance to take. In fact, it is the only acceptable stance to take if you are to stay true to leftist internationalist principles of solidarity and resistance against fascism and imperialism worldwide. We cannot pick and choose the struggles we support based purely on the most superficial of aesthetics or we are betraying the principles we claim to uphold and take to heart. This doesn’t mean that we have to rush to a state’s aid directly in the case of every single war – especially in a case where you have one shitty regime attacking another shitty regime. However, we should still on principle be opposed to armed aggression in the interest of stopping the suffering of innocents caught in the crossfire, and we should then be prepared to assist like minded peoples and governments that share the values we hold as democratic socialists when they request our help and assistance.

I’ve seen plenty of cases of this on the Left, which is one of the main reasons I started writing these essays to begin with. It is most commonly observed in the tankie tendency to support authoritarian leftist regimes regardless of their many failings and crimes, as well as in the more general campist tendency to support any regime – regardless of ideology – that stands in opposition to the United States and the West simply because of said fact and nothing else. The fact is, for us on the Left, it is no less complicated, and we are not immune to geopolitics. As Democratic Confederalists in Rojava attempt to preserve their revolution, they’ve been compelled to balance between the United States and the West on one side and Russia and the Ba’athist Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad on the other in order to defend themselves against aggression by Turkey and its proxy forces in Syria. They do so because they are doing what they need to in order for both their people and their revolution to survive, while remembering the hard learned lesson of what happens when you depend on one guarantor of your security only to be betrayed time and time again by multiple parties and left to defend yourself with little resources on hand. This is the world we live in, and it involves striking a balance between our ideological beliefs and the cold hard facts of reality. Its never easy, and ideally always a temporary act, but still one that always seems to drag on longer than anyone wants it to and can gnaw at the soul and the conscience along the way if you truly hold your beliefs dear.

Stop and Think

In a better world (not necessarily a perfect one, but a better one), this would all actually be simpler. Perhaps then we actually would have an international united front of ideologically like-minded countries and peoples assisting one another in defending against the arrayed forces of authoritarianism, fascism, imperialism, and a like; enabling its members to not have to make deals with the devil in order to survive and ensure they have a future. In a better world, the struggle of actual good versus evil – though still maybe not as clear cut as we’d all like it to be – would at least be more defined and less fuzzy and easier to get a handle on for the average person who doesn’t have an advanced degree in international relations.

But, as I’ve spent the past multiple paragraphs explaining, that is not the case. I hope someday we can get closer to that kind of world, but as with everything else I aspire to in these essays, it’s going to take many years and a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears to achieve. In the meantime, in the interest of those who engaged in ongoing battles for survival, there are certain things we are going to have to tolerate and make allowances for.

Does this mean that we should not care at all about taking strong moral positions? That since black and white issues are so rare that everything should be treated as “gray” and that ethics and morality, and ideological positions don’t matter? That we should all become ultra-realists that Kissinger would applaud? Of course not. The main overarching point I’m trying to make (and have made on other related issues in these essays before) is that all of this is far more complicated than you think. That’s not an excuse to not care, it should be an excuse to care more and an impetus for you to want to figure out how you feel and have to think about events more deeply and your own reactions to and interactions with them more deeply. It means you have to engage your brain when you see a new Tweet on world events and not immediately decide the entirety of your position right then and there in 280 characters based on whatever thoughts are floating in your head at the time. I know this is a tall order at a time when a new historical event is occurring every five minutes, but it really is essential if we are to have fewer in the future.

Ok, I’m fading fast here due to having stuffed myself with this sausage stew I made earlier, so I’m afraid I have no eloquent conclusion here other than “think” and “don’t be a fucking jackass.” Oh, and try to take a moment to breathe now and then in between major historical events or you will go insane – guaranteed. That’s all I got for now. Until next time, stay safe and look after yourselves and your loved ones, and I’ll be back with another lecture next month.

16 notes · View notes

chemicalwarefareremembranceday · 13 years

Text

Dealing with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community.

The First Committee deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community.

The United Nations General Assembly First Committee is one of six main committees at the General Assembly of the United Nations. It deals with disarmament and international security matters. The First Committee meets every year in October for a 4–5 week session, after the General Assembly General Debate.

#Disarmament #international security #United Nations General Assembly First Committee #united nations general assembly #Threats to Peace

0 notes

shreygoyal · 2 years

Text

View on Twitter

Nuclear weapons producers spent millions lobbying on defence in 2021, with every $1 spent lobbying leading to an average of $256 in new contracts involving nuclear weapons.

(Source)

#nuclear weapons #Late Stage Capitalism #military industrial complex #international security #nuclear war #lobbying #My Tweets

3 notes · View notes

workersolidarity · 11 days

Text

🇺🇸⚔️🇵🇸 🚨

UNITED STATES VETOS PALESTINIAN MEMBERSHIP TO THE UNITED NATIONS

In a vote today in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on a resolution to grant membership into the UN for Palestine was vetoed by the United States.

The vote for Palestinian membership was supported by the vast majority of UNSC members, with 12 votes in favor, one against, and two abstentions.

US representative to the UN for Special Political Affairs, Robert Wood, argued that Palestine could not be admitted as long as Hamas controlled the Gaza Strip, echoing Zionist arguments over Palestine's membership, at one point arguing, “there are unresolved questions as to whether [Palestine] meets the criteria to be considered a state," without ever mentioning the Israeli occupation that makes such criteria unlikely to ever be satisfied.

Palestine is currently a "Permanent Observer State" without voting rights at the United Nations.

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

585 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

albawarsewa

ALBA WARSEWA

autpunk-zombie

I’m Gonna Build 10,000 Homes

website-app

Website App

goldenalbum

gnomesbypatti-blog

Gnomes by Patti