Co-Authors: Dr. Morris Mottale & Dr. Yiorghos Leventis

At the end of the Cold War, in Washington and Western Europe there was a consensus that a new world order was coming around. Overlooked was the fact that an Islamic revolution in Iran led by an octogenarian Ayatollah brought a series of upheavals in the Islamic world that saw radical terrorism, revolutions in Africa, and civil wars that continue to this day. These events were capped years later by conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, and Sub Saharan Africa and eventually a radical Islamic takeover in Afghanistan. In short, the end of the Cold War brought an endless list of conflicts of which the two outstanding ones are the war in Ukraine and the war within the Gaza Strip. There are at least fifty other wars in Africa and Asia but they do not make the news, including conflicts in Somalia, Central Africa Republic, Ethiopia, Sudan, Southern Sudan, and The Republic of Congo among many others.

The preeminence of international news networks such as CNN and the BBC along with social media brings the focus solely on the Arab-Israeli conflict and American politics. By the year 2000, there was a consensus that the new International System would see antagonism between China and the United States. By 2025, Chinese commercial trade preeminence was challenging the European Union and the North American free trade area. From 2000 onward, the Chinese set out to create a new economic block known as BRICS which is composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and by 2025 they included Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The direct challenge to the US in many areas of the International System began with the challenge that Radical Islam, shaped and manipulated by the Ayatollah, posed against the US, France, and Great Britain. The outstanding tool for Islamic expansion was the Arab-Israeli conflict and more specifically the Palestinian issue. Within a few years of the establishment of what appeared to be peace treaties between Israel and some of its neighbors (Abraham Accords), the Islamic world and the Global South saw antagonism to the existence of the Jewish state, with regional conflicts in which conflicting parties took sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interestingly, the same parties, with some exceptions including India, are also members of BRICS.

The preeminence of the United States – however much challenged by China, Russia, and Iran – did not decrease the importance of the United States presidential elections of 2024. For the world, the US election was bound to be a defining moment in international politics, regardless of the outcome. The outstanding elements in the International System are the resentment and imitation of American cultural trends, including US mass media. What passes for American soft power is affirmative action and the woke ideology. The US stands out as an agent of cultural change. The anti-women movement in Islamic society has been influenced by the globalization of American culture and the preeminent role of women in American and European society. Misogyny has become a political ideology in the Islamic world. The competition between the major powers is compounded by the rise of new technologies, shaped by electronic communication, artificial intelligence, and cyber technology.

In 2013, China proposed changes to global currency to bypass, if not outright abolish the US Dollar. The original BRIC group was dubbed very loosely the “BRICS,” including Brazil, China, Russia, India, and South Africa. In time, other countries also joined. Venezuela and Turkey are seeking entry to the trade group, which has gained momentum.

The official members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are primarily Asian, Arabic and nations within the former Soviet Union, but growing interest across the Middle East and South America is notable. In 2004, the SCO officially established relations with the United Nations as an observer, in addition to other international bodies.

Two principle international conflicts, the Gaza War and Ukraine, along with conflicts in Africa and Asia have sped up the process of this new world order, where the Anglo-American ideal of a rule-based system is being challenged on the grounds that it is fundamentally pro-American, pro-Liberal, and pro-Capitalist. The rise of conflicts within the Islamic world and the widespread anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic positions of many countries from Latin America to Asia to Africa are adding another dimension to this new world order yet to come.

Rise of Islamic Politics in the West

The rise of Islamic politics in France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Canada the United States and the United Kingdom has influenced domestic electoral politics. In Europe, for example, the rise of the so-called extremist parties like AfD (Alternative for Germany) or the Rassemblement National in France have given new weight to the idea that liberal democratic order, which has characterized the development of Western Europe and America in the post-war period, is not accepted by large portions of the population. Similar trends are evident across Europe, with the rise of Vox from Spain, 5 Stelle in Italy, and BNP in the United Kingdom.

Speaking of the latter, let’s take a closer statistical look at the upsurge of Islamic politics in the UK. There is an array of hard political facts: Muslims count for four million in a total population of 66 million in the UK. Yet they elect Muslim mayors in no less than nine major urban centres in the country, including the mayor of the capital, London, of the second largest city Birmingham and of the world-renowned liberal university city of Oxford. The other six Muslim-led municipalities are: Blackburn, Leeds, Luton, Oldham, Rochdale, Sheffield. There are now 3,000 mosques, (one mosque per 80 square kilometres roughly) 130 Sharia Courts and 50 Sharia councils in the UK. Seventy-eight per cent of Muslim women do not work and receive state support, 63 per cent of British Muslims are out of work and receive state support. UK Muslim families on the receiving end of state support and free accommodation have on average six to eight children. Every school in good old Christian England is required to teach about Islam. Under such circumstances, guess which is the most common name given to British boys nowadays. You guessed right: it is Mohammed!

Greece: Demographic Collapse

At the other end of the Old Continent, Greece, an ancient nation reborn in 1830, lying at the southeastern fringes of the European Union, has been in deep trouble for the past two decades. Endemic corruption and leadership incompetence brought up mounting external foreign debt. Greece’s government debt hovers around 160 per cent of the GDP. The country’s economic woes are compounded by the hordes of irregular migrants. Periodically, vulnerable segments of Hellas’ 15,000 kilometres long coastline get awash with hundreds of mainly sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern unsolicited destitute visitors. The Hellenic Republic currently hosts a large number of immigrants accounting for over a million or approximately ten per cent of the total population, a considerable proportion of whom are Muslim. Pew Research and other international reports estimate there are 520,000 additional Muslims in Greece who are refugees, regular or irregular migrants, or asylum‑seekers. This number is in addition to the indigenous recognized Muslim minority in Western Thrace numbering around 140,000 people. Sharia law applies for this minority, which enjoys a special status in terms of religious and cultural rights, in derogation to the Hellenic Civil Law, in compliance with the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 governing its status.

Greece’s Muslim immigrants are in the most part Albanians (over 0.4 million) who are not particularly devout Muslims given their socialization for over 50 years in a totalitarian communist regime banning religion. In fact, a number of them, in their everyday life, adopt Greek names – either ancient or modern.

However, what should be underlined, is that the rise in the incoming Muslim population in the Hellenic Republic comes on the sharp backdrop of the flight of an impoverished indigenous Greek Orthodox population. Young Greeks are forced to become economic migrants themselves in the more affluent countries of the northern tier of the EU, the UK, the US and Canada. A rough total figure of migrant Greeks for the first quarter of the 21st century is estimated to be around 1.3 to 1.5 million! This is definitely a generation lost for the country. Brain drainage ad nauseum.

To make things worse, Greek birth rates are falling rapidly. Though a small nation, or perhaps because of this, the sharp demographic decline of Greece, has not escaped the attention of Elon Musk. The flamboyant billionaire businessman reposted, on 2 September 2025, an article that reported over 700 schools in Greece were closing due to falling student numbers. He captioned the post: “The death of Greece.” The actual number of Greek schools shutting down because of failing to reach the threshold of fifteen pupils is 721. Conclusively, in the first quarter of the current century, the Hellenic Republic lost well over a million of highly qualified young Greeks only to be replaced by half a million of unskilled Muslim immigrants.

Development of communication technology, social media

The causes of such new developments have to be found in the development of communication technology and what we used to call rising expectations, which characterized the study of development in the 50s and 60s. Social media and international visual communications have fueled rising expectations in the 21^st century. This New World Order has also been characterized by large numbers of so called “illegal” immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America moving to North America or into Western Europe.

In the case of Germany, for example, the growth of “extremist” parties has been fueled by the presence of illegal immigrants and the ease with which the German government has allowed real and imaginary refugees to move and enjoy the benefits of a welfare society in Germany under Angela Merkel. In fact, by September 2024, Germany had imposed passport controls on its borders, irritating some of its neighbors because this policy is against the idea of an integrated, borderless Europe. Both in Europe and North America, the rise of Chinese exports and the decline of local industries, ranging from the car industry to chemicals and steel, has led the traditional working classes to support nationalist and protectionist parties. American elections have seen both parties talking about protecting American industry. This also seems to be the case in Canada.

This new world order has also been propelled by the so-called “Woke Business,” the rise of racial identification, which has added to racial and identity politics all over the world. In Islamic countries, ranging from Pakistan to North and West Africa, this has meant the persecution of Christians and Jews, to the extent that women who do not wear the hijab face persecution. Paradoxically, Islamic society is also being threatened by radical Islamic societies. Al Qaida and violent subversive groups are propagating across Africa and Asia.

Leadership in Western Europe and North America has sometime faced this issue in response to radical terrorism such as 9/11 and Bataclan. More immediate political concerns and challenges see democratic political systems concentrating on jobs, education, human rights, immigration and, last but not least, climate change. Historically, from the Napoleonic period onward, world orders and balances of power never lasted more than a generation. For example, the Peace of Versailles world order lasted twenty years. The Cold War order in Europe lasted from 1947 to 1989. The relative peace that followed the fall of the Soviet Union lasted fifteen years at most, as NATO expanded into Eastern Europe and the rise of a new Russia set off a renewed arms race and added more weight to the developing BRICS.

The spectacular victory of the Ayatollahs in the Middle East and the rise of radical Shiite politics saw Iran waging ideological and international antagonism against Israel. This was historically due to the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers were violently opposed to the existence of a Jewish state and Zionism. The war in Gaza, while carried out by Hamas, has been instigated and pushed by the Ayatollahs of Iran, unhinging any attempt by the United States and Europe to bring some degree of a peaceful order in the Middle East.

An interesting facet of this new world order was how India, China, and even some Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates became interested in a race to the moon. The increasing competition for status and prestige saw an explosion of international sports. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar bought themselves international competitions and famous European players to attempt a change in global perspective towards them, with mixed success.

One approach to studying these new developments would focus on the idea of cultural and political resentment by non-European countries, which for the last two centuries have seen France, Britain and the United States shaping the international order and cultural and political values, ranging from the status of women to economic protectionism and the assertion of secular Euro-American values. For example, the decline of Indian socialism has meant the rise of a new Indian identity which focuses on Hinduism, and the reassertion of Indian heritage against Islam, creating further violent conflict with Pakistan. Cultural trends from the United States, such as radical feminism, transgenderism, the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriages have added even more contentious issues characterizing this new world order. In Russia, Putin’s government has made clear that homosexual values and marriages will not be accepted, and this has of course been the case in countries in Africa and Asia.

An insight into the cultural and economic context of the rise of BRICS and the New World Order should not overlook the fact that many of the conflicts in the world are of cultural origins. At one time, one could have employed the term “ideological,” but culture and ideology overlap each other, as do religious attitudes. While Islam began as a religion, after centuries of theologically based governance, it has also become a foundational cornerstone of the political ideology of the Middle East. In today’s world order, Islam has taken on heavy political connotations and has been used by radical groups to unhinge societies in European and American states.

Trumps administration in Washington in 2025 was attempting to enhance American power and control conflicts in the name of an American regulated international system. Whether that idea was feasible remains to be seen. As it was of May of 2025, India and Pakistan were on a threshold of war in Kashmir. It added even more to the notion of civilization and religious conflicts that characterized the Islamic world. From the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and from North Africa to the Cape.

In 2014, brother nations (“bratskie narodi”) Russia and Ukraine, united by common cultures, mentalities, customs, traditions and closely related languages, became enemies. They have remained so for eight years now. The main reason behind this negative development has been the geopolitical game between the Russian Federation (RF) and the West.

The Moscow-organized referendum resulted overwhelmingly (95%) in favor of the union of the Crimean Peninsula with the RF. The Russian government considers the referendum’s result as a sufficient international law basis for the accession of the said region into the RF. However, the West dismissed this result as being rigged (or engineered) by the Kremlin. What are Russia’s security concerns though as they seem to be at the heart of the current crisis?

First, Moscow is concerned that the United States (under the guise of collective NATO defense) will eventually deploy troops (and possibly missiles) in Ukraine as military cooperation between the two has seen unprecedented growth since the regime change of 2014 in Kiev. (NB: Regime change has been a time-honored “tenet” of US foreign policy – we need not elaborate in the confines of this short article.)

In this respect, let us mention that Russia has kept Kaliningrad a semi-exclave, situated on the Baltic coast, bordered by Poland to the south and Lithuania to the north and east. Thus, this Russian strip of land is squeezed by two NATO members with the US stationed troops. Currently, approximately 4,500 US personnel are on rotation in Poland while Lithuania seeks permanent US military presence in the country (online report by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, February 9, 2022).

Second, without Crimea, the Black Sea, which connects European Russia to the rest of Europe, would become a vulnerable point for Moscow. In the case of the Baltic Sea region, Russia maintains a balance of power with its weapons in Kaliningrad, reducing vulnerability in its northwest. However, Russia would become vulnerable in its western and southwestern part: In the Black Sea the RF is surrounded by Georgia and Ukraine, which are both hostile, plus Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, all three NATO member-states. Moreover, it is well known that the latter, boasting the second strongest army in NATO, harbors neo-imperial ambitions of control over former Ottoman lands in the Middle East, the Caucasus as well the Turkic republics of Central Asia (Pan-Turanism).

The Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine also held a referendum. Unlike Crimea, as of 2014 they received the status of an unrecognized state, separate from Ukraine and Russia. However, the Ukrainian crisis did not end there. We are now witnessing the second most active phase of the crisis.

Russia is pursuing an open foreign policy, positioning itself as a friendly state, in order to improve its image in the eyes of the world community, as evidenced by various international programs and projects for young people and foreign students, international humanitarian assistance, as well as peacekeeping and anti-terrorist missions in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Given the above facts, it becomes clear that Russia wants to convince everybody that it has no reason to attack Ukraine, except for one – Ukraine’s NATO accession. Therefore, the troop buildup near Ukraine’s borders is an accompanying tool for negotiating security guarantees.
Ukraine itself seems not to be the question, but the negotiating terrain between Russia and the United States. Russia’s national interests appear not to be founded on the capture of Ukraine, but on the inadmissibility of NATO’s expansion to the east.

Such is clearly reflected in the proposals for security guarantees put forward to NATO and the United States: non-advancement of NATO to the east and non-deployment of weapons systems near the borders of Russia. Russia’s proposed non-expansion of NATO not only implies an exclusion of Ukraine and Georgia from NATO membership, but also a return to the 1997 membership, which means the exclusion from NATO of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia. Of course, the Kremlin understands that such a turning back of the clock is practically impossible. However, it is a frequent stroke of Russian (and not only) diplomacy by Russia to go for the maximum in order to secure the desired minimum.

The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO is a red line. At the same time, the Kremlin reckons that the US-NATO camp shares its unwillingness to enter into a direct confrontation. First, after the Iraq and Afghanistan debacle, fresh US foreign meddling in Ukraine could deal a serious blow to the current Biden administration’s domestic approval rate. Second, NATO has no legitimate reasons to provide military assistance to Ukraine. Third, an eruption of war will lead to sad consequences for the whole world.
For all the above reasons, it seems that Moscow’s proposals for security guarantees are a good enough compromise option for both sides.

Possible crisis outcome

A possible scenario would be the conclusion of an agreement on security guarantees, where the main emphasis would be placed on the non-deployment of medium-range and shorter-range missiles near the borders of Russia. Consequently, even if Ukraine joins NATO, missiles will not be placed on its territory. Of course, this does not form a new world order, but it will ensure regional security.

From Moscow’s perspective, subjugation or occupation of Ukraine is not the end. Prevention of NATO expansion is. Russia fears the deployment of troops and missiles near its borders. It is a red line in its foreign policy. The Ukrainian crisis is not at all about Ukraine. It is about the conflicting geopolitical interests of Russia and the United States in the former Soviet space. On the one hand Moscow attempts to form a multipolar system of international relations while on the other hand Washington favors steadfast adhesion to the unipolar system established at the end of the Cold War.

Last but not least, we should not forget the important role of China in providing political support to Russia. At the same time, however, Beijing aims at capturing the energy market in Europe, which Moscow stands to lose in case sanctions are imposed.

In the Rimland Theory, the renowned American political scientist Nickolas Spykman introduces the Inner Crescent Theory. The theory’s introduction forms the basis of America’s geopolitical thought and in extension the practice of the Western World. The Inner Crescent Theory is a worthy mention in this article owing to the importance of the contents contained therein. However, such mention will be brief as this article’s main intention does not lie in making a detailed reference to the previously mentioned theory. Instead, the objective is to understand it through perceiving the world as a competitive environment between land and sea forces.

Sir Halford John Mackinder was Nickolas Spykman’s mentor. Sir Halford helped shape his perception. In his work The Geographical Pivot of History Mackinder discusses the importance of the World-Island, which comprises the interlinked continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia. These are the most populous and richest land combinations possible. He also traces the Pivot Area, which consists of the territories of the earth’s centre. His idea is that the alliance between the two would lead to domination resulting from abundant population as well as natural resources. Mackinder published his book Democratic Ideals and Reality in 1919. His perceptions can aptly be summarized as follows: “whoever rules East Europe commands the Heartland; whoever rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; whoever rules the World-Island commands the World.”

In his essay “The Geography of the Peace” (1944) Spykman revised Mackinder’s work. He sought to correct Mackinder’s geopolitical perceptions regarding the primary geopolitical importance of the Pivot Area. Instead, he shifted focus to those states that formed a circle around the Central Earth, also known as the “Heartland” or Russia. These are the countries surrounded by the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans and also the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. An alliance of the states found in that common area would effectively strangle the Heartland’s land forces and deny them access to both the land and sea trade routes.

Maritime isolation, viewed as a disadvantage can be reversed into an advantage by controlling the sea trade routes. The US, UK, and Japan as maritime powers have been utilizing this advantage to the present. Control of the Crescent of Containment is more significant in geopolitical terms than a grip on the Heartland. Failure to control the former, allows the land forces to decisively turn the global balance of power in their favor.

Climate Change & Ice Melting

The Rimland Theory has for a long time persisted with much prevail even as it is in support of the plan by the West to impose a chokehold on the USSR and subsequently to its heir, the Russian Federation. An interesting dynamic has since occurred that Spykman could not have foreseen in 1944: ice melting in the Arctic Circle has opened up the possibility of a northern sea trade passage. Such an opening will effectively weaken the level of importance that the Crescent carries.

The melting ice introduces a significant shift in power dynamics strengthening the RF over its rivals. Such melting eases the extraction of energy resources in the AC. Moscow gets into position to gain maritime advantage in addition to the immense land power that it already has. One could suggest that EU and UN member states turn to green growth does not only pertain to the need to channel capital into a new investment area in an effort to protect the environment from the long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel consumption. Climate change moves centre stage in geopolitical competition.

Opening of the northern sea passage weakens maritime trade through the Suez Canal. This is the desire of both Russia and China, but also India, within the framework of the Polar Silk Road (PSR) project. The PSR project is seen as a less costly alternative for merchant shipping from East to West. Implementation of the PSR has been met with US hostility. Washington has taken both diplomatic and military steps to frustrate its development. The EU, on the other hand, has not taken any aggressive stance. Brussels is rather defensive in its approach. China tends to become the most significant trade partner of the Union. (It is now closely trailing in second place behind the US). After US President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) negotiations (2017) this trend became more accentuated.

Both positive and negative attributes accrue from every phenomenon. It would be wrong to assume that only either of the two should be expected. Predictions thus become difficult to make. A most appropriate example: as the EU turns increasingly to Renewable Energy Sources (RES) thereby diminishing the importance of Russian natural gas imports, Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline is coming to fruition. Nord Stream 2 pipeline will establish an energy link between Russia and Germany which will, in turn, weaken the Western Bloc’s attempt to secure alternative routes mainly through the EASTMED and TAP pipelines.

A developing phenomenon is in the making whose consequences will climax in the next twenty to thirty years: Russian acquisition of the Crimean, Syrian, and Libyan ports has cracked the Crescent. However, the opening of the northern passage would create a different dynamic as the Russian merchant fleet develops, with ports and shipbuilding industry within Russian territory.

With the ice melting, Russian access to the Arctic’s mineral wealth is expected to further increase:  a phenomenon already witnessed in Stalin’s era. Yet Russia is in a unique position of strength over the Arctic Circle contestant countries due to its technological know-how in icebreaking technology and pumping of mineral wealth from soils with such characteristics. In addition to maintaining its military superiority over the US, Russia is also renovating its ports on the icy northern shores of Arkhangelsk and Kronstadt.

The EU and the UN on Climate Change and the Dilemmas of the States

The Paris Climate Agreement, of which the US is a member state, aims at a global temperature reduction by two degrees Celsius in comparison to the pre-industrial levels. Reducing pollution by 55 per cent by the year 2030 is an objective of the UN encapsulated within this framework. Additionally, 2050 is the year within which the UN hopes to achieve the first climate-neutral world race that would have zero greenhouse gas emissions and would also disassociate growth from the use of resources.

Despite the effort being made to achieve the goals, the EU report on the participation of RES in total energy consumption for 2019, reveals that the Union is just 0.3% behind the 20% goal. Greece and Cyprus have managed to achieve the national goal they set but are slightly behind the goal set by the EU. It is necessary to mention at this point, that the up-to-date studies regarding the results of the development of RES are not sufficient to determine whether the rate of environmental recovery – and therefore the reversal of the ice melting trend – is higher than its rate of environmental deterioration.

Achieving the Arctic Route remains a big dream. Its operation will, no doubt weaken the significance of North African ports and the Eastern Mediterranean as the initial reception points through the Suez Canal. This will make Russia a remarkable global power with the ability to dynamically project power at sea.

In conclusion, the adaptation of a state’s international alliances must take such tendencies into account, but it does not cease to be shaped based on the respective nation’s advantages. A sober study of the unfolding trend is necessary even as we see its co-existence with compensatory trends. The melting of the ice will strengthen the Russian naval force at the expense of the US bringing a relative balance in this area. At the same time, the RES weakens Russia’s “Natural Gas” superpower weapon as an exportable product to the EU.

*Elias Hadjikoumis is Foreign, Security & Defence Policy Expert and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

In the last couple of years of German occupation (1943-44) ELAS fighters’ numbers swelled tremendously. By the time of the Nazi withdrawal from Attica, the Greek partisans under ELAS command numbered around 70,000 men and women. In effect, this initially irregular force of guerillas, formed in 1942, was transformed into a formidable regular army, by the time of liberation.

The EAM cabinet members’ resignation sparked a demonstration at Syntagma (Constitution) Square in central Athens. This peaceful demonstration turned into a bloody affair with a high toll of casualties as snipers fired into the leftist demonstrators’ crowd. Soon after, Greece would plunge into the abyss: a full scale civil war between the leftists’ supporters of EAM-ELAS on the one hand and the ill-armed Rightists-Royalists on the other. The latter, though originally the weak side, would soon enjoy the unwavering support of the amassing British troops marching into Athens unopposed having landed at Piraeus.

But what was the chain of significant international events that catapulted Greece into an internecine war whilst the Nazis were still retreating from the millennia old country that gave birth to Western civilization?

As German defeat appeared increasingly certain, Churchill and Stalin were busy carving the freed-from-Nazi-occupation world into predetermined spheres of their respective postwar influence. The infamous percentages agreement with respect to Soviet and British influence in the Balkans was reached already in Moscow where the two Allied leaders met on the 9^th of October 1944. At this crucial Kremlin meeting, Churchill jotted down, on a single notebook page, his idea of percentages’ influence in each Balkan country. He passed it on to Stalin who nodded his head in approval. Winston appeared momentarily hesitant: “Don’t you think we are too cynical [to decide the political future of entire peoples in their absence]? I better tear off this [disgraceful] note?” he offered to his wartime ally, Joseph. The latter, true to his name, ‘Man of Steel’, without a second thought, dispelled Winston’s doubts: “Keep it!” The dice was thrown! Greece was going to fall ninety per cent under British, ten per cent under Soviet influence, no matter what the actual sympathies or loyalties were amongst the Greek population.

Stalin, betraying his nationally powerful but internationally weak Greek comrades for the benefit of winning over Bulgaria and Romania, would grant Churchill a free hand to disembark tens of thousands of his troops at Piraeus and march them on to prop up a pro-British royalist regime in Athens.

Nine days after the Moscow percentages’ deal, the Nazis evacuate Athens: the 18^th of October 1944 marked the liberation day. An ominous power vacuum ensued.

Five days later, on the 23^rd of October 1944, the first British troops enter Athens. They encounter a mixed, if not apprehensive, reaction by the Greek population. The Nationalists-Royalists welcome them as saviors from communist domination. The Leftist anti-royalist camp view them as the new occupation force. Indeed, whilst on the trouble spot, Churchill ordered Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald MacKenzie Scobie, Commander of British Forces in Greece, to ‘rule Athens as an occupied city, if need be’. Taking up battle positions, ELAS guerillas poised for another anti-occupation war. Ironically, this time in their homeland’s capital, against the very allies they, not long ago, collaborated with, to blow up German patrols in the Greek mountains to the north.

Strikingly, Hugh Seton-Watson, Special Operations Executive (SOE) and later MI6 officer, noted in stark frankness: Had the Communists wished to seize power in Athens at this time they could easily have done so. They chose otherwise.

In London, Winston Churchill having secured Stalin’s acquiescence, was contemplating taking on the Greek communists weeks before his urgent Christmas descend in Athens. The British Prime Minister wrote to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden (and his deputy in the Conservative Party) on 11th November 1944: I fully expect a clash with EAM and we must not shrink from it, provided the ground is well chosen.

Churchill spent his Greek Emergency Christmas at Hotel Grand Bretagne, Syntagma Square the very scene where the violent clashes first broke out on 3^rd December. ELAS Central Athens Command planted explosives all along the underground sewage canals to blow up the hotel, which served as the seat of the British Forces Command. Had they decided to detonate the explosives to eliminate Winston Churchill, they could easily have done so. They chose otherwise.

The Western alliance launched the air attack campaign which lasted for 79 days and nights – it started on 24 March 1999 – without the due authorisation by the UN Security Council. Obviously, the unauthorised air raids were in direct breach of international law: NATO was not in any conceivable way threatened by the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) to warrant a self-defence response.

‘Humanitarian intervention’ was NATO’s brand name for the massive air raid on the rump FRY. The Brussels headquartered alliance referred to the protection of the Albanian minority – residing mostly in Kosovo – from the federal Yugoslav army ‘onslaught’. But how humanitarian was NATO’s intervention? Here are the ‘humanitarian effects’ of the almost three-month long air raids: between 489 and 528 civilians killed on top of about one thousand members of the Yugoslav Security Forces. The bombings destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations. Modest estimates put the value of the immediate material damage inflicted at around $35 billion. This figure does not include the tremendous loss of future production capacity as a result of the obliteration of the country’s industrial base by NATO’s bomber jets. Twenty one years later, NATO has not compensated a single billion for this immense catastrophe. (Interested in learning excruciating details of this untold story? Browse the book entitled Crime in War, Genocide in Peace: The Consequences of NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 authored by three professors: Vladislav Jovanovic, Slobodan Petkovic & Slobodan Cikaric, www.slglasnik.com, Belgrade 2012).

A single extract from the afore-mentioned book would suffice (pp. 14-15):

Regrettably, it was not only that political and military leaders of the major NATO Members were absolutely unscrupulous in committing aggression … but they also totally disregarded their moral duty following the aggression, to provide assistance in the identification and rehabilitation of the contaminated areas, funding for overcoming the created [sad] situation and compensation to the victims or their families for their loss, traumatic experience and covering of medical treatment expenses. Instead of showing at least minimum solidarity with the innocent victims, NATO leaders are watching quite indifferently, from the heights of their invulnerability, how Russian experts specializing in demining and decontamination are assisting, at their own cost, the clearance of some contaminated areas. (Vladislav Jovanovic: NATO Aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Depleted Uranium)

As it happens Russian humanitarian aid to Serbia is not a desultory affair: early in April of the current year, the Russian Ministry of Defence dispatched 87 military virologists and doctors, special and protective equipment as well as sixteen pieces of military equipment to assist in the fight against coronavirus. The aid warranted eleven Il-76 flights to Serbia. Two Russian medical teams stayed on in the Serbian capital, where the most difficult epidemiological situation has developed, whilst five more were sent to the cities of Nis, Kikinda, Valevo and Chupria. President Vucic, whose party opposes NATO membership, thanked the Russian president, for volunteering this valuable aid at the height of the Covid-19 lock down.

Next Sunday, June 21^st, Serbia goes to the polls. The country’s future relations with NATO form part of these general elections’ foreign and defence policy agenda on which the battle for power is fought. Belgrade has a twenty-one year old unsettled bill in US dollars – undoubtedly an eleven digit figure – to claim from the unscrupulous Western alliance.

In less than a year time (May 2021) the Cypriot voters will also go to the polls for parliamentary elections. The island republic’s relations with NATO has also been part of the Cypriot national debate. The issue is complex; equally historically loaded. It was NATO-member Turkey which invaded Cyprus in 1974 using NATO weaponry. The US arms sales embargo imposed on Turkey in the aftermath of the invasion was so short-lived that amounted to a mockery. Like in the case of NATO air strikes on Serbia, Ankara failed to pay the billions in compensation for damages and war crimes committed by its invading troops in Cyprus. Not to mention NATO’s complete failure to reign in Turkish continuous trouble making in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. So much so that an exacerbated French Ministry of Defence had to put out a no-word-mincing statement: there is a Turkey time bomb within NATO, let’s face it, otherwise we fool ourselves!                                            

Idlib is bleeding. Radical Islamists, who lost the war in Syria, are trying to retain power in the country’s north-western province at the cost of civilian lives. This is the final obstacle to attaining peace in the country.

Brett McGurk, US Special Presidential Envoy to the Coalition fighting the Islamic State speaking at the American Institute of the Middle East, three years ago, said: Idlib Province is the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven. It borders with Turkey and it is Ankara whom we should talk to about it.

McGurk was as much right as he cut corners: he is perfectly aware how the Islamists found themselves in Idlib. It all began in 2011 with the attacks of Al-Qaeda terrorists on Syrian government forces which held the line in the northern part of the province next to Jisr ash-Shugur. The Syrian-Turkish border existed then only on paper. In fact, it was utterly permeable resembling a block of Swiss cheese. Uncontrolled crossing points were a common occurrence. The most important of which was located near the Turkish border town of Reyhanli. Over time, this porous border turned into a real transit camp, through which Islamic militants from all over the world penetrated into Syria. Moreover, loads of weapons were supplied via the ports of the Hatay Province, also on Turkish soil.

A year later, the US entered the frame under the CIA operation codenamed Timber Sycamore. The Americans, supported by the special services of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan, illegally sent military advisers, equipment and funds to Syria – with the consent of neither the Syrian government nor of any body of the international community. By 2013, Washington satisfying, inter alia, the wishes of Tel Aviv, gave the go-ahead for the supply of weapons to several thousand Islamic militants. The latter operated under the clear order of overthrowing the Syrian government.

Throughout this time we have been reading reports in Western media calling those Islamic militants ‘rebels’. It was clear to everyone, however, they were just abandoned villains planning to turn Syria into a theocratic state. They set up their training camp between Mount Zāwiya and the small town of Maarrat al-Nu’man, south of Idlib. From there, these atrocious jihadists penetrated into other parts of Syria.

In the following couple of years, 2014 and 2015, the Islamists, who by now possessed state-of-the-art weapons including anti-tank missile systems, pursued a hard-fought offensive on the province’s capital, the very city of Idlib, which was then controlled by the Syrian government forces. Alas Idlib fell. Damascus troops sustained losses. They retreated far inland. At this very moment, Bashar Al Assad sought military aid from Russia.

After the fall of the province’s major city, thousands of militants of the Islamist Army of Conquest aided by Turkey and the Gulf states advanced further, to Aleppo. They were stopped by the Syrian Army at great sacrifice of life. The turning point of the war occurred in late 2016 with the complete liberation of Aleppo from the armed gangs. The scattered militias made their way back to Idlib: first from eastern Aleppo, then from the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta, later from Yarmouk and Al-Hajar al-Aswad located further south, and finally from Daraa and Quneitra. All the survivors flocked to Idlib – groups of foreign mercenaries and a metley of local jihadists from the ranks of Al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra.

Meanwhile, a new bloody drama was unfolding in Idlib – a struggle for power between various gangs. The “moderate Syrian opposition”, closely connected with Turkey and the Gulf countries, started creating its own political structures – the “Salvation Government” with its own security services and police. Those “moderates” decided to establish a new command system to dismember the country and cut off Idlib from Syria in the future.  In turn, Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists, renamed by that time Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), suggested that the new territory be under their patronage. Nobody wanted to share power. Quite a natural thing, because at stake there was money, weapons, assistance from the allies, control over pivotal routes and border crossing points. By the beginning of 2019, HTS militants managed to resolve the conflict for their own benefit.

The US, Great Britain and Germany took a wait-and-see approach. As for Syria itself, its government troops had planned a military operation to liberate Idlib since the summer of 2018, but calls coming from the West “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe” forced Assad to postpone the offensive. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made clear what Europe really feared. Many militants in Idlib have European countries’ citizenship. In case of a military operation, they would flee to Europe posing a threat to the entire continent. In this context, Le Drian confirmed McGurk’s words about Idlib’s becoming a haven for al-Qaeda’s international recruits.

At this point, we need to revisit Turkey’s role. Already a year ago, in September 2018, an agreement was reached within the Astana process on a ceasefire in Idlib coupled with the creation of a twenty-kilometre de-escalation zone. The Russian military police prepared humanitarian corridors for all those civilians wishing to leave the province. Moreover, under Turkish supervision all heavy weapons had to be taken away from the area.

Ankara had six months to fulfill its part of the deal. Things turned out in a different way. Before the Turkish military’s very eyes the HTS militants intruded the buffer zone with weapons consolidating their position. They increased the number of attacks across the dividing line, including the shelling of populated localities. The Russian Khmeimim military base in Latakia suffered drone attacks. But the Turkish military command on the ground condoning of the new militants’ intrusion turned into a boomerang: at the end jihadists attacked the stronghold of the Turkish Army itself, forcing the latter to ask for Russian air power assistance. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice from Goethe’s ballad, the perfidious Turks had to admit their blunder: Wrong I was in calling spirits, I avow, for I find them galling, cannot rule them now.

Obviously, the problem of Idlib requires an urgent solution. The situation is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides are already preparing for an offensive. The Syrian Army against the militants who took refuge in Idlib and the militants against the government troops’ positions. A compromise can be found only by means of joint action guaranteed under the Astana process parties with the involvement of those Western countries whose citizens are fighting in Syria on the side of jihadists. Then the question arises: does such a big number of players have enough political will to reach an understanding?

Sadly, as long as this issue remains unresolved, Idlib will maintain its status of the new-found haven for terrorists. In such a case, Syria will continue to be in the state of endless war.

US foreign policy may be driven by a burning desire to achieve global dominance. What does Cyprus stand to gain from such designs? What if Cyprus is selected as the next victim in Washington’s geopolitical games in the Eastern Mediterranean? There are serious doubts about how beneficial this game is for the Cypriot people. What do we stand to gain as the West assigns to our troubled island the role of the bulwark of its ambitions in the region?

Modern history abounds of sad examples in which Washington’s interference in foreign countries turned out a nasty affair. One of the most recent striking example is Ukraine. For five years, President Poroshenko served with ardent zeal the interests of the White House, dashing his own people’s hopes for a better future. He fulfilled his personal task in full: during this period his income increased manifold. Rampant corruption and profiteering have been the main characteristics of his term in power.  This sorry state of affairs in the ex-Soviet country continued unpunished by his Western protectors. However, his days were counted: the Ukrainian people casting their vote stopped him short. Poroshenko (hence the US protégé in Ukraine) – received less than a quarter of the total votes – three times less votes than Zelensky’s, the winner artist, in the second round of presidential elections held last weekend.

Whether Poroshenko’s quarter of the votes corresponds to the true level of popular support for him is still a controversial question. The civil and religious war unleashed by the US protégé, the utterly destroyed economy, the poverty and despair of the Ukrainian people do not come as nearly as close to a complete list of Poroshenko’s “achievements” with his pro-American team.

It is always easier to destroy than to build and develop what has already been achieved. Washington offers a path that seems easier and light-hearted. It is naive to believe that Americans care about the welfare of the Cypriot people. Taking into account the experience of Ukraine and other countries, it is easy to guess what to expect from an imposed American friendship. A number of actions of the Cypriot government can hardly be called constructive in terms of their compliance with the interests of the people. This is the only way to explain the visits of our leadership to some Western countries at the time Cypriot people celebrate national holidays and honour the memory of the heroes who gave their lives in the fight for independence from the colonial yoke of the current Western partners.

Turkey and the UK, both staunch NATO members control, in aggregate, two fifths of the island’s territory. Is this undeniable fact to be ignored? Is it the aim for which our people fought in the middle of the last century? Are we putting a noose on our neck and meekly wait for the command of the neo-colonial master? Oddly enough, sometimes it seems that the noose is already thrown around the neck of some of our leaders. It is difficult to explain the rumors about the negative decision of the Cypriot leadership for Russian warships participation in the multinational search and rescue exercise scheduled for the end of May in Cyprus’ waters.

The invitation to Moscow to participate was issued. The Cypriot side with genuine satisfaction accepted the consent of the Russians to take part. Then, all of a sudden, only a week later, Lefkosia changes her mind offering a far-fetched pretext. Undoubtedly, such an inconsiderate decision deals a serious blow to the integrity, competence and professionalism of our leadership. Would it be far-fetched to infer the Cypriot government deliberately descends to this humiliation for the sake of serving American ambitions? This sad incident militates against the declared multi-dimensional foreign policy concept of the Cypriot government. Probably for someone in charge in Lefkosia it is more important to be praised by this or that Senator or the new US ambassador.

Would the common Cypriot in the street trust this mono-dimensional West-oriented foreign policy or a more balanced multi-dimensional one, through which neither Moscow, nor any other pole of power, is ignored? With the lessons of recent history in their minds, we would argue that Cypriot people undoubtedly favour a more balanced approach in our foreign relations passing the message that we are masters of ourselves.

Κατ’ αρχάς ας ξεκινήσουμε με την σημασία της διεξαγωγής αδιάβλητων δημοψηφισμάτων ως γνήσιας έκφρασης αυτοδιάθεσης των λαών. Η ημερομηνία δημοσίευσης του άρθρου του ΧΜ συμπίπτει με μια σημαντική επέτειο της Κυπριακής Ιστορίας: η 15η Ιανουαρίου του 1950, ήταν η πρώτη Κυριακή του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος στην Κύπρο. Τότε, ο Κυπριακός Λαός ψήφισε με καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία για την Ένωση της νήσου με την Ελλάδα. Η απόφαση του καταπατήθηκε από τους Βρετανούς αποικιοκράτες ενώ η αδυναμία της μητέρας πατρίδας να προστρέξει για εφαρμογή της ξεκάθαρης ετυμηγορίας (96%) κατέστησε το αποτέλεσμα του Κυπριακού δημοψηφίσματος ανενεργό εις το διηνεκές! Αντίθετα στην περίπτωση της Κριμαϊκής Χερσονήσου, όπου επίσης η καταπληκτική πλειοψηφία του Κριμαϊκού λαού ψήφισε υπέρ της ένωσης με την Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία, η ετυμηγορία εφαρμόστηκε πάραυτα με απόφαση της Μόσχας η οποία και από τότε προχωρά στην κοινωνικο-οικονομική ανάπτυξη της Κριμαίας.

Χαρακτηριστικά, όπως αναφέρεται και στο άρθρο του ΧΜ, κατά την τελευταία τετραετία, στην Κριμαϊκή Χερσόνησο οι υποδομές, η αγροτική και βιομηχανική οικονομία αναπτύσσονται, ο ορυκτός πλούτος καθίσταται εκμεταλλεύσιμος και βεβαίως συνεπακολούθως το βιοτικό επίπεδο του τοπικού πληθυσμού ανεβαίνει. Εμφανώς η Ρωσική κυβέρνηση έχει μακροπρόθεσμο σχέδιο ανάπτυξης της Κριμαίας, το οποίο μετατρέπει την δυσκολία της επιβολής Δυτικών κυρώσεων σε μια ευκαιρία διαφορετικής ανάπτυξης της περιοχής. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, όπως αναφέρεται στο προαναφερθέν άρθρο: «Στόχος της Ρωσίας είναι η Κριμαία να γίνει η νότια πύλη των αφρικανικών χωρών και των προϊόντων τους και να δημιουργήσει μια ζώνη ελεύθερης αγοράς [εμπορίου] για τα αγροτικά προϊόντα που προέρχονται από χώρες της ΕΕ, τα οποία λόγω κυρώσεων δεν προωθούνται στη ρωσική αγορά και των οποίων η αξία ανέρχεται στα 100 δις ευρώ.» Γίνεται αντιληπτό ότι ο όγκος των εν δυνάμει συναλλαγών είναι τεράστιος.

Στο άρθρο επισημαίνεται επίσης η σοβαρή εκδοχή, να έχει προκατασκευαστεί η νέα κρίση των Στενών του Κερτς από τον πρόεδρο Ποροσένκο με σκοπό να συσπειρώσει τις ψήφους των ακραίων εθνικιστών σε μια προσπάθεια να αποσοβήσει προδιαγεγραμμένη ήττα λόγω της άθλιας οικονομικής κατάστασης στην χώρα.

Ένα άλλο σοβαρό ενδεχόμενο μας βρίσκει επίσης σύμφωνους: όπως εκτιμάται από αρκετούς διεθνών αναλυτών, η πρόσφατη κρίση στο Κερτς πιθανόν να είναι πρόβα τζενεράλε για έναυσμα Γ’ Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου. Οι ΗΠΑ, για ανεξήγητο(;) λόγο, έχουν αποχωρήσει από την Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty – Συνθήκη INF (όχι ΙΜF όπως εκ παραδρομής αναφέρεται στο εν λόγω άρθρο). Η Συνθήκη INF διημείφθη το 1987 μεταξύ ΗΠΑ και ΕΣΣΔ και προέβλεπε απόσυρση πυραύλων – και των εκτοξευτών τους – τόσο συμβατικών όσο και πυρηνικών, βεληνεκούς 500 μέχρι 5,500 χιλιομέτρων. Μέσα σε τέσσερα χρόνια, μέχρι το 1991, είχαν αποσυρθεί από την ενεργό δράση 2,692 πύραυλοι. Στη δεκαετία 1991-2001 διεθνείς παρατηρητές επιβεβαίωναν με διατεταγμένες επιθεωρήσεις ότι οι αποσυρθέντες πύραυλοι παρέμειναν ανενεργοί.

Σήμερα, ως αποτέλεσμα της Αμερικανικής απόσυρσης από την Συνθήκη INF, αλλά και της γενικότερης τεταμένης κατάστασης δημιουργηθείσας από τις απανωτές επελάσεις του ΝΑΤΟ επί του πάλαι πότε Σοβιετικού χώρου άσκησης επιρροής – κατ’ αθέτηση σιωπηρής συμφωνίας μη επέκτασης του μετά την διάλυση της ΕΣΣΔ –  γινόμαστε σήμερα μάρτυρες μιας νέας κούρσας εξοπλιστικού ανταγωνισμού η οποία αναβιώνει τον Ψυχρό Πόλεμο. Από την μια, ΗΠΑ με το ρυμουλκούμενο της ΝΑΤΟ να επιχειρούν με υπερβολική αυταρέσκεια να παίξουν τον ρόλο του αδιαμφισβήτητου πλανητάρχη, ενώ από την άλλη μια ανερχόμενη Ρωσία και Κίνα να ορθώνουν ανασχετικώς το ανάστημα τους. Ας σημειώσουμε εδώ ότι αθροιστικά οι δύο τελευταίες δυνάμεις πόρρω απέχουν σε στρατιωτικές δαπάνες συγκρινόμενες με αυτές της υπερδύναμης των ΗΠΑ.

Όπως και να ‘χει το ξέσπασμα ενός καταστροφικού περιφερειακού πολέμου στον Εύξεινο Πόντο θα είχε απρόβλεπτες συνέπειες. Θα μπορούσε εύλογα να ρωτήσει ο μέσος Κύπριος: και τι μπορεί να πράξει η μικρή και αδύναμη Κύπρος; Κι όμως η Κύπρος ως μέλος της ΕΕ με κατά πλειοψηφία ορθόδοξο πληθυσμό και άριστες σχέσεις τόσο με την Μόσχα όσο και με το Κίεβο και τις ΗΠΑ θα μπορούσε να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία διαμεσολάβησης σπρώχνοντας προς την κατεύθυνση της εκτόνωσης της κρίσης και της προώθησης του αφοπλισμού. Είμαστε πεπεισμένοι ότι η ομόδοξη προεδρεύουσα της ΕΕ παρευξείνια Ρουμανία έχει επίσης άμεσο κι απτό συμφέρον εκτόνωσης της παρούσας κρίσης.

Ως προς το γενικότερο ζήτημα της μη εξάπλωσης, με απώτερο στόχο την εξάλειψη των Όπλων Μαζικής Καταστροφής, ας μας επιτραπεί να αναφέρουμε ότι η δουλειά του Δικτύου Ανεξαρτήτων Δεξαμενών Σκέψης της ΕΕ στο συγκεκριμένο φλέγον ζήτημα δεν είναι αμελητέα κι έχει την στήριξη της καθ ύλην αρμόδιας Φεντερίκα Μογκερίνι. Ένα κυπριακό ίδρυμα ερευνών συμμετέχει σε αυτή την αγωνιώδη προσπάθεια …

On October 20 Donald Trump stated that the US decided to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to start developing weapons prohibited under the treaty. This intention is one of the most dangerous mistakes made by Washington, which has pulled out of a number of international agreements and organisations, including the Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) Treaty.

The termination of the INF Treaty is a most dangerous step that would produce an extremely negative effect on international security and strategic stability. This erroneous US decision may spur a new arms race in several regions of the world. In other words, the situation with the INF Treaty concerns the entire international community.

The United States bracing up to unravel the INF Treaty has launched a massive propaganda campaign claiming that its decision was provoked by Russia’s alleged violations of the said treaty.  It is not the first time when Washington tries to present itself like a victim of treaty violations by other signatories. However, the US constantly violate or drag their feet on the signing of fundamental international agreements. For example, the US ratified the Genocide Convention (1948) only 40 years after its signing. It has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The above is only a short list of how they joined and withdrew from international agreements; signed but not ratified; signed, ratified, but not complied with them; or modified agreements in their own way and taste. Below are a few more examples, however the list is by no means comprehensive.

The United States has repeatedly violated principles of the UN Charter. Take for example, Washington’s armed invasion of Grenada in 1983. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/8 described the US action as a gross violation of international law. Three years later, the US launched an assault on Libya. Another three years pass and the US invade Panama (1989). The UN General Assembly condemns both incursions as violations of international law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) also denounced US violations of the UN Charter. It passed a well-known verdict on Nicaragua vs the US in 1986, stating directly that the United States had violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty and the norms on non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and non-use of force.

The irresponsible attitude towards the UN Charter on the part of the United States and its allies, reached new proportions in the form of bombing raids against Yugoslavia in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. [Colin Powel’s erroneous claim on Iraqi WMD]

In March 2011, the US spearheaded NATO’s intervention in Libya. As a result a formerly prosperous country descended into complete disintegration. An illegal interference in the form of illegitimate air strikes and arms supplies to nongovernmental armed groups spurred on the growth of radical sentiments in Syria, which eventually helped the emergence of a global community of militants and terrorists. America’s absolutely ill-conceived, short-sighted and illegal actions in Iraq as well as the region as a whole have in some way or another facilitated the emergence of the Islamic State. The bad consequences of US interference in Libya and Syria are beyond all proportions.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1970 and supported by practically all countries with the exception of Cuba, India, Pakistan and Israel. The treaty outlined a strategic goal, the renunciation of nuclear weapons. Other things aside, the NPT provided for nuclear states pledging not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. The US claims that it abides with its NPT obligations but the worrisome situation linked to Washington’s failure to comply with some key provisions of the treaty is still there. The United States continues to engage NATO’s European non-nuclear countries in so-called joint nuclear missions. These “missions” include elements of nuclear planning and skill enhancement drills on how to use nuclear weapons, drills involving non-nuclear NATO countries’ carrier aircraft, air crews, air-field infrastructure and ground support services. All of this is a direct violation of NPT articles 1 and 2. In 2002, certain high-ranking US military officers went on record saying that they allowed the use of nuclear munitions against non-nuclear states or terrorists.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has been discussed over a period of four decades and signed in 1996. It bans all nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes, in all environments: underground, ground, water, air and outer space. The Treaty was signed by 44 countries possessing nuclear infrastructure. The US and China signed but failed to ratify the CTBT. For over twenty years, it was not possible to bring this crucial international treaty into effect. Given that the non-treaty countries take their cues from the United States in the matter of joining the CTBT, Washington’s stagnant stance is the main obstacle standing in the way of tuning the Treaty into a valid international legal instrument.

In 1972, the USA and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) that created a mutual assured destruction system. Neither the USSR, nor the USA could attack each other, for a response was sure to destroy the aggressor. Thus, a missile attack automatically became an act of suicide, with the so-called “strategic balance” being established between the two superpowers. This agreement was signed at Washington’s initiative. In 2001, US President George Bush declared that the Americans were unilaterally withdrawing from this agreement. The formal pretext for this step was that the United States wanted to secure itself against missile attacks from so-called “rogue countries” and terrorist groups. Since then, the US efforts to put in place an antimissile system have most adversely affected the international security system, aggravating relations not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also in the Asia Pacific region, emerging as one of the most serious obstacles to further stage-by-stage nuclear disarmament and creating dangerous prerequisites for a resumption of the nuclear armed race.

The next point is the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which prohibits the development, production, transportation, diffusion and use of chemical weapons, as all of us well know. Apart from this, it provides for the creation of a complex and total international surveillance system. The US played a key role in drafting and signing this agreement. However Washington has been doing its best to avoid international inspections rating them as likely to threaten their national security interests. We have been hearing this explanation from Washington for many years. Some other countries have followed in the footsteps of the US.

The next agreement, Biological Weapons Convention, was signed in 1972 and came into force in 1975. It banned the development, production, stockpiling and acquisition of biological agents that could be used as weapons and of biological weapons proper. The Convention included a special protocol that banned the use of even tiny quantities of deadly microorganisms or toxins for research purposes. The US was rather a reluctant participant in efforts to reach an agreement on the Convention, while some senior US officials were in principle against the signing of the protocol as it would likely damage the interests of US microbiological research companies. In July 2001, Washington declared that it would not abide by the protocol until it was amended.

The next document is the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The aim of the Convention was to reduce industrial atmospheric emissions causing the so-called “greenhouse effect” which in turn is believed to be the main cause of global climate change. The US signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1992. Nevertheless by 2001, the then US administration refused to comply with its provisions, saying that there was no unambiguous proof of the relationship between global warming processes and the amount of gaseous emissions. The Bush administration believed that implementing the Convention put the US industry in a quandary while not helping to fight the “greenhouse effect”. There is no sense to reiterate the information concerning the Paris Agreement. Everybody knows what has happened to it.

Furthermore the US and its allies have repeatedly circumvented the restrictive provisions of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) through the well-known NATO expansion. At the same time, they, in every possible way avoided the renewal of the regime of Conventional Arms Control (CAC) in Europe proposed by Russia in accordance with the new military and political realities on the continent. The most vivid confirmation of this is the US refusal to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (adapted CFE).

In August 2018, the United States froze cooperation with Russia under the Treaty on Open Skies. Practically, from the very moment of the signing of this document, Washington has been ignoring its requirements to work out special procedures for the aerial observation of its islands and territorial waters. For a long time a significant part of US territory was simply inaccessible for observation: a gross violation of the foundations of the Treaty. Only at the end of 2015 did Washington meet Russia’s requirements. However, the procedures for the Aleutian Islands still provide no possibility for the flight crews to rest there, which may adversely affect flight safety and significantly limit Russia’s ability to observe this part of US territory.

On August 31st, the US authorities demanded the suspension, within forty eight hours, of the work of the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco, the trade mission in Washington and its branch office in New York. Consequently, the Russian government owned buildings were seized. According to many experts of international law of diplomacy, the US actions with respect to Russian diplomatic property are illegal. They violate the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

At the October 3rd briefing, John Bolton, Adviser to the President of the United States on National Security, said the US was withdrawing from the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which allowed Convention violation disputes to be settled by the UN International Court of Justice in The Hague.

This is a far-from-complete list of examples of how the US treats international law and agreements. Washington, actually, has been treating these documents in a manipulative manner that serves US predominant interests.

As the statement of the special envoy was made against the background of preparation of Syrian army′s offensive to Idlib, it caused panic among leaders of the armed opposition located in the territory of the province. They accused de Mistura of “betrayal, “cooperation with the Russians” and incompetence.

Mustafa Naji, representative of the National Liberation Front (one of the most influential opposition groups operating in Idlib) very clearly formulated his dissatisfaction with the words of the diplomat. According to Naji, with his statement, the special envoy lent legitimacy to the offensive of the Syrian Army.

Unfortunately, there is practically no alternative to the military operation in Idlib. Terrorists located in the territory of the province intensified their attack on positions of the Syrian Army, using car bombs, drones, homemade projectiles and other explosive devices. Terrorists cynically hide behind the status of the de-escalation zone and deliberately provoke Damascus to violate those ceasefire agreements. In addition, internal conflicts between armed groups in the region continue, and civilians are often victimised.

The command of the US-led international coalition does not deny that Idlib is controlled by terrorists. Despite numerous statements of concern about a possible humanitarian disaster, after the first strikes by Syrian government forces on targets in the province, the Americans limited themselves to calling on Russian and Syrian Air Forces “to be more precise” on their strikes.

Armed opposition in Idlib should also not hope on Turkey’s protection. Ankara has repeatedly stated aggravating the situation in Idlib is not an option. At the same time, the units of the Free Syrian Army under Ankara′s auspices have already been evacuated from the territory of the province. Therefore the Turkish leadership considers the remaining armed groups in the troubled Syrian province as terrorist.

No one really expects that Washington or Ankara will support or approve the military operation in Idlib. It is most likely that the actions of the Syrian Army will be used to obtain political dividends, discredit Damascus, Moscow and Tehran and accuse President Assad of unleashing a “massacre”. In order to achieve these goals, both Turkey and the US seem ready to sacrifice the remnants of the so-called armed opposition.