Published
on
By
Tens and thousands of civilian-military people perished in the first year of the Russo-Ukraine war. And the war continues with no end in sight. As the ongoing war enters its second year, it threatens to develop into a nuclear conflagration. But no serious action to stop the war is in place. Why?
Because anti-war political movements, the peace movement, and anti-war public opinion globally are all dead; and, despite claims that the post-Cold War world is gradually becoming multipolar, in the absence of a new global security architecture we find multilateral mechanisms are non-existent. What is bizarre is some leading world powers, China, for example, which are suspected of complicity in the Russian war of aggression, haven’t stopped singing and dancing their “neutrality” as the war rages on. Besides, amid (though unverified) US accusations that China was providing lethal weapons to Russia, on the first anniversary of the invasion China instead put forth its “12-point peace plan” to end the conflict.
Root Causes of the Russo-Ukraine War
It is baffling as we are unable to understand, instead of resenting the US “war machine” why the European NATO countries have been more in “lockstep” with the United States since the war’s inception. Without a doubt, it is a paradox why a Europe that has suffered two world wars in the past one hundred years is walking toe-to-toe with the US in this war; with the war entering its second year, despite the specter of nuclear confrontation returning to their continent why are Europeans least bothered about their own security; or, 12 months after the war began, why is it that more governments in Europe have reached the consensus that “only a Ukrainian victory will stop Putin’s war.”
Of course, though ineffective, anti-war demonstrations have been taking place here, there, and everywhere. But the demonstrators’ appeal to political forces waging this war to “negotiate, not escalate” will go unheeded without first grasping the root causes of the crisis in Ukraine. Without going too long back into the past, let’s understand the recent historical background of the conflict. The crisis in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in eastern Ukraine caused following the coup d’etat in 2014 resulted in a ceasefire agreement (the Minsk Accords) brokered by Russia, France, and Germany. However, tensions started escalating following the US decision – as part of its post-Soviet collapse NATO expansion policy and further militarization of Europe, called “defensive strategy” – to grant NATO membership to Ukraine.
This caused major security concern for Russia which had been trying to prevent the eastward expansion of NATO since the end of the Cold War but to no avail. Showing no concern for Moscow’s consistent red lines – no more eastward NATO expansion, actual or by proxy; and security guarantees for the ethnic Russian population in the Donbas region – the US too remained firm on its position saying Russia needs to respect the international rules-based order. With both sides refusing to show flexibility in their respective bargaining positions, Putin finally resorted to “military operation” in order to a) overthrow Ukraine’s post-2014 anti-Russian government; b) halt the massive inflow of military aid pouring into Kyiv.
War in Ukraine and US-Russia-China: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
While China did not play a role in causing the Ukraine crisis, it has been deeply invested in the outcome of the war. As a Chinese scholar recently wrote, “The Russia-Ukraine war has completed one year…although the war is being fought a thousand miles away yet China is finding itself in the thick of it.” Another IR expert in China observes that given the conflict of interests between China, Russia, and the United States, their directly getting entangled in the geopolitics of the crisis in Ukraine is like the warring kingdoms during the Han dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD). The political turmoil and feuding kingdoms during the last years of the Han dynasty, when China was divided into three big warring states – also known as Sanguo, or Three Kingdoms – has been vividly described in the 14th-century fiction Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguoyanyi) written and composed by Luo Guanzhong.
To return to the present-day three “warring kingdoms” – China, Russia, and the United States, what is at the same time incomprehensible is the speedy and swift manner in which the post-Trump US administration has successfully converted the bipartisan anti-China consensus, also into a bipartisan consensus against Putin and Putin’s Russia. A recent multi-country poll, as reported in a European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) publication, suggests the Russian war of aggression in Europe has consolidated “the West.” Especially when [the US] aim of the ongoing war is essentially to militarily defeat Russia, create a regime change in Russia, and install a puppet regime in order to place natural resource-rich Russian landmass under the direct control of the US (and maybe a handful of European) corporations on one hand, and to establish complete US domination over Eurasia on the other.
China, interestingly, was caught on the wrong foot, as it were. Typically, perhaps more out of concern about what to do in case the situation across Taiwan Strait flares up, Beijing remained both indecisive and confused as to what side to choose in the US/NATO-Russia war in Europe. Moreover, not at all surprising, especially in the country’s domestic political debate on Russia’s war on Ukraine, to date, the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) leadership – including President Xi Jinping, has been perceived as “careful” not to overtly support Russia and invite “Western” isolation and US sanctions.
Indeed,let there be no illusion that on the part of Russia, the decision to launch the “Special Military Operation” on February 24, 2022, was not only unjustified and anti-humanitarian but also in violation of international law. It is pertinent to recall, notwithstanding claims such as discrimination against the ethnic Russian populace in eastern Ukraine, Putin-led Russia’s troubles with Ukraine were set into motion by a right-wing coup in 2014 which overturned the pro-Moscow government and brought into power “anti-Russia, pro-US” regime in Kyiv. But Putin is no angel either. He [Putin] invaded Ukraine hoping to extract a “compromise understanding” with Washington. However, the plan turned into a catastrophe.
Will Ukraine become another North Korea?
Finally, in the first year of the Russo-Ukraine war, Europe’s bloodiest war since WWII, an estimated 200,000 civilian-military people have been killed. As the ongoing war entered its second year, it is becoming evidently clear that neither Russia nor the US is going to end the war soon. Into its second year, the war threatens to develop into a nuclear conflagration.Yet it is shocking no serious action is in sight to stop the war. Only a couple of days ago, in an interview with the Associated Press, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ruled out negotiations with Russia. Just a couple of weeks ago, the United States (and the West) dismissed the Chinese 12-point peace plan without even considering it.
In fact, the only serious attempt to end the war last April was sabotaged even before being discussed. An article in Foreign Affairs (August 2022) revealed that Kyiv and Moscow may have had a deal to end the war all the way back in April but the chances of a tentative agreement were scuttled by the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. During a visit to Ukraine in April last year, Johnson had put immense pressure on Zelensky to walk away from a possible negotiated settlement for two reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with; the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
Unfortunately, and sadly, the two reasons continue to guide the crisis in Ukraine. Just days before the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden declared during a visit to Warsaw, Poland: “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia, Never.” Since the inception of a warring situation in Ukraine, the US administration has consistently and relentlessly maintained the aim of defeating Russia. Last June, President Biden promised the G-7 leaders “US will support Ukraine ‘as long as it takes’ to win the war.” A Chinese scholar – who called the CPC leadership’s efforts to “broker” an agreement between Kyiv and Moscow “wishful thinking” – has fearfully predicted: I’m afraid the war in Ukraine threatens to turn akin to the crisis in the Korean peninsula!
Education: Armenia’s Path to Stronger Economic Growth
Hemant Adlakha is professor of Chinese, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. He is also vice chairperson and an Honorary Fellow, Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), Delhi.
Can Emmanuel Macron Make Europe Great Power?
Does the “No limits” partnership between China-Russia limit India’s strategic hedging practice in its foreign policy?
Journalism facing rising threats on all fronts
The De-Dollarization of World Economy: Xi-Putin Agreement, Saudi Arabia’s Shift to Yuan
Gen. Šedivý on Ukraine war: “We underestimated the whole situation because we were not prepared for it”
China’s development strategy and its economic diplomacy
Published
on
By
Better education and a stronger innovation drive are crucial for achieving higher rates of economic growth and prosperity in any country. Countries that prioritize improvements in education – from the pre-primary to the university level – and innovation are better positioned to adapt to economic change and help raise the living standards for their people.
Education equips individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to the economy, with the ability to learn – and unlearn – continuously. Innovation involves the creation of new products, processes, and services that expand the capacity of enterprises and economies. In fact, the most innovative countries tend to be the most successful economically.
Take the case of Estonia. In 1993, Estonia’s GDP per capita was a modest about $6,480. In comparison, Japan’s was $24,000. Fast forward 30 years. Estonia’s GDP per capita was equal to that of Japan in 2022, at nearly $43,000. Estonia now boasts the highest PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) scores in math, science and reading in Europe. A similar ‘miracle’ happened in Korea, a country that moved from developing country status to an advanced economy in just one generation. How can countries replicate Estonia’s or Korea’s success and achieve faster economic growth and standards of living that are like to those of high-income countries?
Through education and innovation.
Here in Armenia, education has been a priority since the country’s independence in 1991. The government has made efforts to increase the number of schools, provide free education for primary and secondary schools, and promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. As a result, Armenia has a high literacy rate of over 99% and over 60% of adults have completed at least secondary education.
Yet, the education system is not producing the needed outcomes. Children born in Armenia today will be only 58% as productive during their lives as they could have been if they had received quality health and education services available. Armenian children are expected to complete 11.3 years of schooling. This decreases to 8 years if the quality of education is factored in. Pre-primary school and secondary school enrollment is low compared to peer countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA). It is the quality of education that is the most pressing concern. Armenia’s TIMSS mathematics score – a standardized test for children in grade 4 – is one of the lowest in the region. The quality of tertiary education is below the ECA average: it is nearly 30% lower than Georgia, and half as low as the new EU member states. These outcomes are not surprising, given that public spending on education is just under 2.7% of GDP in Armenia, which is half that of the EU.
The World Bank is helping Armenia improve its education system, including through the Education Improvement Project, which is enhancing the conditions for learning across educational levels by extending preschool coverage, providing laboratory equipment, informing curriculum revisions, and improving the relevance and quality of higher education institutions. The many outcomes of the project include new preschools in rural communities, training of preschool teachers, and grants to higher education institutions through the Competitive Innovation Fund. Under the EU4Innovation Trust Fund, the World Bank is also helping improve the quality of STEM education. By September this year, Armenia will have a fully revised STEM curriculum for middle and high schools (grades 5 to 12), improved learning materials, school-based STEM laboratories and as well as enhanced student-centered instructional methodologies/teaching methods.
Education is essential but alone is not sufficient to drive economic growth. How knowledge is applied by firms, researchers and workers through innovation is critical. In Armenia, there is a disconnect between education, research, and the link to entrepreneurs and markets. For example, academic research in Armenia is dominated by the National Academy of Sciences which comprises more than 30 separate research institutes. None of these institutes are formally integrated with any teaching university in the country. There is also a proliferation of universities in Armenia, with 26 public (state) and 33 private universities; many of the latter, in name only. In Denmark, a country with almost twice the population, there are only eight state-recognized and funded universities offering research-based education.
Consolidating the universities in Armenia, merging them with the research institutes, and focusing government attention on accreditation could help address some of these challenges. It is also essential to reform the university admission process to incentivize talented high schoolers to apply. The government could also support the commercialization of research. In many advanced economies, universities are prodigious producers of knowledge and basic research output, and the private sector, the user of this research, is very vibrant. Without practical application, research may have little impact on the country’s growth potential.
Extensive work by the World Bank shows that human capital is at the core of efforts to strengthen innovation and technology adoption. In Armenia, as in many other countries, human capital is one of the main binding constraints to growth.
While the government has taken significant steps and has initiated important reforms to promote both education and innovation, more is needed to realize their potential. By making a greater investment in education and innovation, Armenia can build a knowledge-based economy that can help the country deliver a development miracle and elevate standards of living to those of high-income countries. The dialogue at the recent panel discussion on “Growth, Education, and Innovation” could help policymakers in their efforts to transform education and innovation in Armenia.
This op-ed was originally published in Banks.am via World Bank
Published
on
By
Since the full-scale Russo-Ukrainian war unfolding after 24 February 2022, China has maintained so-called neutral stance on the conflict, passively calling for a peaceful resolution. But on the anniversary of Russian invasion, Beijing popped up with concrete suggestions on how to end the war: China claimed its readiness to participate in peaceful adjustment.
Beijing’s peacemaking attitude and Xi Jinping’s legitimacy as Mediator were acknowledged by Putin during Xi’s visit to Moscow and the rumors about the following soon phone call between Xi and Zelensky spread, however, it is arguable whether Kyiv is truly ready to welcome China as the broker. The US, in turn, treated Beijing’s position skeptically.
This piece elaborates on how China became Global Mediator of the 21st century and why now Ukraine is reluctant to accept Beijing’s brokering.
For starters, China is a realist actor across the domain of international relations. Kissinger states that Chinese leaders are making profound foreign policy decisions only when they do not lack the means to achieve the goals [Kissinger, 2010], hereby Xi knew that Beijing’s possible mediation between Moscow and Kyiv during first months of the war would not be realizable. The sides were not sincerely ready for a truce, neither Russia, occupied territories and continued advancements in Donbas, nor preparing counteroffensive Ukraine, backed by vast Western support.
Moreover, from realism perspective, peace achievement lies in accepting and adapting to the irresistible existence of powers involved in security competition [Mearsheimer, 2001] and peacemaking is most likely when there is no hegemon [Morgenthau, 1946].
China adhered tenaciously to aforementioned realist position by declaring that “the security of the country should not be pursued at the expense of others”, obviously referring to NATO’s strengthening and Russian lament about bloc’s eastward expansion. But such Xi’s mediation ceasefire proposition in the heat of the war would be found senseless by Ukraine and the USA, which were publicly committed to peace restoration by beating Russia on the battlefield and reestablishing liberal world order led by predominant power – the U.S.
Beijing had to prepare before ascending as Mediator between Kyiv and Moscow.
Firstly, China gained legitimacy as a global security provider. Ukraine fights for its land, but Washington made a geostrategic mistake by being directly involved in a confrontation with Russia: by imposing enormous economic sanctions on Moscow, tolerating Nord Stream pipeline sabotage and trying to end the Russo-Ukrainian war only by military means, not diplomacy.
While China proposes negotiations, the U.S. is only committed to the war continuation.
As a result, the USA lost worldwide recognized status as the sole provider of economic prosperity and global security; the unipolar liberal world order ideology became an American tool for maintaining the U.S. leadership and Western dominance at any price, despite the economic losses of others.
Therefore, some states, especially from the Global South, did not support American efforts to isolate Russia, perceiving Washington’s strategy as destabilizing. Instead, they opted for cooperation with China as an alternative planetary center within the uprising multipolar world order model; Beijing met the demand by launching Global Security Initiative, posing itself as a stabilizing Mediator.
Secondly, Beijing successfully proved its new status. China became broker between Iran and Saudi Arabia, helping two longstanding Middle East rivals to achieve reconciliation as well as détente, giving them solid security guarantees. Tehran and Riyadh restored relations without Washington’s participation and pleasingly deepened economic interaction with China.
Thirdly, concerning the Russo-Ukrainian war, Xi Jinping can become Mediator and repeat the historical brokering successes of pacification Russia achieved by such famous statesmen like Otto Bismarck and Theodore Roosevelt.
German “iron” chancellor, apologist of realpolitik, frequently played role of mediator among leading European nations in the 19th century, balancing their interests within spheres of influence. Balkans became one of such great states’ competition arenas, where Austria and Russia struggled to gain control over newborn Bulgaria and influence in the region. The war between them was prevented because Bismarck sagaciously established “League of Three Emperors”, through which mediated disputes between two empires, therefore he was known as “honest broker”.
American president contributed to halting the war between Russia and Japan in 1905. His wise brokering helped states to sign the Treaty of Portsmouth. Serving as mediator for combatants, Roosevelt induced two countries to make concessions on the most intense issues regarding reparations and territorial disputes, thereby sides reached peace.
But while Putin acknowledges Xi as broker, Zelensky probably does not, due to Ukrainian survival dilemma – if Kyiv accepts China as a Mediator, it loses Western vital support.
Thus, there are three reasons why Ukraine is not enthusiastic about Beijing’s brokering, at least publicly.
First, Zelensky has his own, approved by the West, peace plan. He wants Xi to take part in Kyiv’s “peace formula.” It assumes restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Russian troops withdrawal from occupied territories. Chinese “peace position”, on the contrary, suggests the immediate ceasefire and peace talks launch: frozen conflict, not total Ukrainian victory. Moreover, it does not stipulate the matter of Ukraine’s territorial restoration.
Secondly, Ukraine is diplomatically, politically, militarily and economically dependent on the West, i.e. the USA. China, successfully mediating between Moscow and Kyiv, is the worst-case scenario for America, because intensifies Beijing’s global influence at the expanse of the U.S., which has different from Chinese stance on Russo-Ukraine war ending issue. The USA wants to preserve its worldwide leadership. Consequently, Washington will reduce its vital aid to Ukraine if China is chosen as broker. Kyiv needs to consider the stabilization puzzle, given the significantly suffered from the war economy.
Thirdly, Ukrainian ruling elite, opinion leaders and society are ideologically inclined as well as biased to accept West as only one party, which can help Ukraine to stop the war. NATO is seen as the sole security guarantees provider. Besides, there are many West-funded organizations and media outlets in Kyiv, influencing public narratives within Ukrainian society. So, even if Zelensky accepts mediation, economic support and post-war restoration plan from China, elites in Kyiv and Ukrainian society will oppose him, challenging his legitimacy. Zelensky risks repeating former president Yanukovych fate.
To sum up, it should be stated that China’s role as global security provider is inevitable, Beijing will continue to use its economic leverage to reconcile many conflicting rivals in the world. Thus, Beijing mediation option may be considered by Ukraine in the near future, but not today.
Published
on
By
In early nineteenth century, following the wars with Persian and Ottoman empires, Russia completed the invasion of the South Caucasus. The region that hosts present day Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia remained under the control of Moscow until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, though the three countries were independent for a brief period after the World War I. Suppressing the independence movements in these countries along with the other parts of Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Moscow also acted as security provider in the region. In this role, Russia subdued conflicts between the subjects of the empire and also countered the intervention of external powers into “its” territories. This created a stability in the South Caucasus, as in other parts of the empire, dubbed by the theories of international relations as “hegemonic stability”.
In early 1990s, the Soviet Union collapsed and, subsequently, most of the newly independent states in the territories of the former empire ushered into inter- and intra-state conflicts. In the South Caucasus, Russia sought to manipulate and ultimately benefit from these flashpoints in order to preserve its influence over the region. Moscow’s support to Abkhaz separatists in Georgia and Armenia’s occupation of the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan in early 1990s helped the Kremlin recover its control over three countries of the South Caucasus. This translated into resurgence of Russia-dominated security order in the region in the post-soviet period but with more assertive independent states that sought to boost their sovereignty while minimizing Russia’s hegemony.
Armenia joined the Russia-led security and economic integration with a full membership at the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Azerbaijan, on the other hand, managed to build neutral and multilateral foreign policy and succeeded to resist Russia’s pressure thanks to economic independence of the country. The only country of the region, Georgia, that sought to escape Russian orbit and join the Eura-Atlantic political and military structures faced insurmountable obstacles on this path and remained in-between. Russia’s occupation of two regions of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) in 2008 has served for the Kremlin as the Sword of Damocles over Tbilisi’s foreign policy.
The post-Soviet hegemonic stability in the South Caucasus has been, therefore, more volatile compared to earlier periods. The occasional military escalations between Baku and Yerevan along with the war in Georgia (2008) manifested such sporadic disruptions of the regional security order. However, in both cases, Russia succeeded to act as hegemon by recovering ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan and putting a de-fact veto on Georgia’s foreign policy.
Even during the full-scale military operations between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020, known as the Second Karabakh War, Russia appeared as the only mediator with enough authority to bring the sides to ceasefire. Deploying its troops to the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan under the name of peacekeepers, Russia managed to complete its mission of deploying its troops on the soil of each of the three countries of the region.
Hence, in the post-Soviet period, Moscow managed mostly to preserve the security order in the region under hegemony of Russia. The Kremlin, however, has had to swallow growing security ties between Azerbaijan and Turkiye, but reacted more calmly to these ties as Baku demonstrated deference to Russia’s core national interests and concerns in the region.
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Moscow’s dominance established over the South Caucasus in early nineteenth century came under jeopardy for the third time after the post-WWI and early years of the post-Soviet periods. Facing an unexpected military debacle in Ukraine and massive economic troubles at home, Russia encounters challenges against its dominance in the South Caucasus, the region that has overarching geopolitical significance for Moscow.
This time the challenge to Russian power originates in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as Georgia avoids provoking Moscow and seemingly drifts away from its pro-Western aspirations. On the one hand, Azerbaijan criticizes Russia’s support to the separatist regime in the Karabakh region, tries to end the mission of the peacekeeping contingent, deepens its strategic alliance with Turkiye, increases its contributions to the energy security of Europe, and relies more on the EU’s mediation in the peace process with Armenia. On the other hand, Armenia defies Russia’s authority by distancing itself from Russia’s military bloc, builds closer relations with the European countries and the United States and invited a mission of the EU to monitor the security situation along Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan. The Kremlin reacted rather furiously to these developments and blamed the West on attempts to squeeze Russia out of the South Caucasus.
To the disappointment of Moscow, this signifies a decline in Russia’s dominance over the region, although it is now premature to say how this process will go on and whether this will end up with Russia’s withdrawal from the South Caucasus. The decline of Russian influence over the region creates a period which can be seen through the lens of the power-transition theory of international relations. According to this conceptual framework, the decline of the dominant power might lead to a conflict or war with the rising power as the latter becomes more assertive seeking to challenge the dominance of the declining power. This can be observed also as the emergence of a power vacuum in the respective region which other powerful state(s) might try to fill in which again leads to a conflict or war between the dominant power and rising power(s).
The present situation in the South Caucasus, thus, resembles the period described by the power transition theory. Other external powers, including Iran, Turkiye, the EU and United States try to benefit from Russia’s diminishing influence over the region and increases their power. Particularly, for Iran, the “encroachment” of the external players into the South Caucasus is inadmissible. The Russia-Ukraine war complicated the regional geopolitics for Iran as the European Union (EU) and United States have increased their influence in the South Caucasus by boosting their mediating role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process, effectively sidelining Russia therein and deploying a monitoring mission to the Armenia-Azerbaijan border in the aftermath of Prague summit (October 6). Against this background, increasingly closer relations between Israel and Azerbaijan and the emerging possibility of the formation of Israel-Turkiye-Azerbaijan trilateral cooperation platform further enrage the Iranian authorities.
Tehran is determined to use military and other instruments to fill in the power vacuum emerges in the region in the wake of Russia’s decline. In this endeavor Iran effectively enjoys the support of Armenia whose leaders try to use the Iranian card against their common enemies of Azerbaijan and Turkiye. The recently growing ties between Armenia and Iran have provided Tehran a useful chance to get into the South Caucasus more assertively and form a de-facto alliance against the two Turkic states. Towards this end, Yerevan and Tehran are clearly building up their cooperation in various spheres, including military and economy. Apart from aiming to boost bilateral trade turnover from $700 million to $3 billion, Iran is also discussing supplying combat drones to Armenia.
That said, the hegemony Russia acquired over the South Caucasus in early nineteenth century is fading and with it the security order it built in the region is rapidly eroding. This process might be accompanied by violent conflicts and wars amongst different regional and external actors. For now, the major security threat to the regional stability is Iran and the alliance it builds with Armenia.
Increasing numbers of people are being affected by larger, ever more complex and more expensive disasters because decision makers are…
In a mid-January speech addressing France’s next six-year defense strategy, President Emmanuel Macron unveiled ambitious plans to boost defense spending…
The housing market has had a difficult time stabilising since 2020, and has wrought havoc on several European markets. As…
An Indian Supreme Court ruling coupled with calls by Indian Muslims for an end to sustained Islamophobic attacks on the…
The “No limits” partnership between China and Russia, intensified by the shared motive of diminishing the western power and influence-…
Authors: Dr. Arshad M. Khan and Meena Miriam Yust Do it! Do it now! That is the unambiguous and uncompromising…
It’s a timely and apt question given revelations of an unreported consequence of the war in Ukraine – deaths of…
De-dollarization is gaining momentum
Looking at Indonesia’s Nickel Downstream Efforts from The Perspective of Resource Curse
What Beijing’s Iran-Saudi deal means
Geopolitical Changes and the Significance of Russia’s New Foreign Policy Concept
Ways to Overcome Afghanistan Crisis in Post-Republic Collapse
The possibilities of restoring the ancestral functions of asteroids and averting their dangers
Foreign Affairs: What sanctions on Russia can and cannot achieve
Now more than ever, Türkiye must accelerate its gender equality journey
Copyright © 2023 Modern Diplomacy