ISIS: is arising a new titan?

"Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me.” Napoleon Bonaparte

When someone thinks about a state and lives in a stable area of the world, he sometimes can forget that states are born and die because they are a product of human being after all. In addition nations are not created as a consequence of a treaty or of an international recognition by other countries, but they often have to fight in order to obtain its own existence. An example of that is the appearance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the Middle East and North Africa.

The last wars and revolutions in the Middle East have weakened the countries of the area. The USA invaded Iraq in 2003 destroying the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein that was executed in 2006. From now on Iraq became a very fragile state. More recently the Arab spring broke out and civil wars began in Libya and in Syria where, in the first case, the old regime fell and ,in the second case, the state lost control of part of its territory. The lack of power, authority and identity in these countries created an empty space that was filled by ISIS. In fact, the Islamic state has a strong ideology, a well-organized army and relevant economic resources in comparison to Iraq, Syria and Libya, and so it began its expansion.

ISIS uses various types of war at the same time in order to expand its power and stabilize its authority: it commits genocides against ethnic and religious groups, it spreads its influence towards Muslim young generations with propaganda, it uses terrorist attacks and public execution to scare people of the Middle East, but also to shock world public opinion. In addition the Islamic State can count on a good communication strategy and on a global net of members and sympathizers.

The consequence is an incredible attention towards ISIS and its expansion nowadays, but all this attention and the aggressive strategy have generated many enemies that try to stop the military and mental conquests of ISIS. Only in the next months (or years?) it will become clear what will happen in the liquid scenario of the Middle East and North Africa.

China and USA in competition for African economy

“Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.” Sun Tzu

Africa recently has been transformed in the object of desire of many investors because in this continent there are some of the fastest economies in the World, the middle class is growing, the population is soaring steadily and there are many precious natural resources. As a consequence, foreign states try to put their influence in Africa in order to boost their economies and so it began a race for the best deal with African nations.

China was more forward-looking than the other states in this race and the Chinese interest in African economy and resources became clear in 2000 when the China-Africa forum was organized for the first time. After that it was repeated every three years. The main purpose of the forum was to increase trade: in this way China could buy the raw materials essential for its economic growth and African countries could obtain the money to build infrastructures and modernize their industrial system. Nevertheless there was even a geopolitical goal in promoting this meeting. It consisted in creating new political ties and replacing the influence of western countries with Chinese influence. In order to reach this goal Chinese authorities used also propaganda, for example Wang Hongyi, a leading specialist on Africa at the China Institute of International Studies, stated that “The Western approach of imposing its values and political system on other countries is not acceptable to China. We focus on mutual development, not promoting one country at the expense of another.” The result of this strategy was that China surpassed the USA as Africa’s single largest trading partner in 2009.

The US could not react immediately to the Chinese overtaking because the American administration had to face several challenges in that period, first of all there was the world economic crisis. However the economic situation of US has recently improved, therefore the American administration now can focus also on the African affair. In order to revitalize the economic and political ties with African countries, the US-Africa leaders summit was held on August 4-6, 2014. During the event president Obama highlighted that the US did not want only to extract natural resources, but they wanted to draw up a serious engagement that would bring reciprocal advantages. Moreover, during an interview for the Economist the president cunningly suggested that the Chinese only interest in Africa is to obtain oil and ore, unlike the USA that wants to create enterprises. He said also that the infrastructures realized with Chinese money are not supposed to be useful only to bring raw material to China, but they should be useful for a long-term economic growth in the interest of African people.

In conclusion it is clear that an economic clash is now happening and the prize for the winner is to manage and benefit from the African economic growth. Nevertheless there are not winners in this clash yet and there could be some surprises: for example the participation of a new actor. Maybe the EU?

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/world/asia/02cnd-china.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22}

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/opinion/beijing-a-boon-for-africa.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22}

http://www.whitehouse.gov/us-africa-leaders-summit

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/barack-obama-talks-economist

North Korea: guilty or not?

"Our country has no connection with these hackers," said the political adviser of North Korea to the UN, Kim Song, commenting on the statements of Obama’s administration that the cyberattack that hit Sony last December was the work of the Secret Services of Pyongyang. In fact, the FBI investigation had found, at first, that the Korean government was responsible for the cyber-attack to Sony Pictures of Los Angeles. A cyber-attack is an "Unacceptable behavior for a State. No dictator can impose censorship in the US”, American President declared indignant. The hackers hit the major to prevent the release of the film "The Interview" with James Franco, which makes a fool of Pyongyang’s leader, Kim Jong-un. President Obama then said: ”We will respond in a proportionate manner to the cyber-attack against Sony”, conducted according to the FBI by North Korea, ”in a proportionate manner and within the time that we decide, also considering to put the regime of Pyongyang in the list of countries that support international terrorism”. The reaction of North Korea was vehement and laconic, Kim Jong-un immediately distanced himself from the attack, although described the decision of Sony to withdraw the film as "very wise and forward-looking”.

In the following days, there was a massive cyber-attack against the Korean internet network that led to the blackout of the entire country for 9 hours (maybe the American reaction?). 

The affair still has reserved a new twist just few days ago, in fact, not only the film was shown in cinemas all over the world, but many cyber-security agencies that are investigating the case claim that the real responsible of the attack could be a former employee of Sony laid off four months ago, and not North Korea. This hypothesis has been subjected to the FBI that is continuing to carry out the investigation, although the early evidences do not seem to be strong, in fact, the American agency said: “These statements are based on inner intelligence, other national agencies and foreign partners of the private sector. There is no credible information to suggest that other individuals are responsible”. Therefore, we have to wait for the end of the investigation, and figure out if we are faced with a cyber-clash of Titans or to an individual who wants to take revenge with his former employer for being fired.

References:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/27/tech/north-korea-expert-doubts-about-hack/http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/security-experts-doubt-north-korea-role-in-sony-hack-attack-1201389525/
http://www.corriere.it/opinioni/14_dicembre_31/attacco-hacker-sony-l-imbarazzo-dell-fbi-f45b551e-90c5-11e4-a341-1b24c965fa88.shtml
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/north-korea-hackers-sony-pictures-cyber-attack

The crucial importance of the Caucasus

The Caucasus is a mountainous area in the border between Europe and Asia and it is historically important in the political sphere because it is situated in a strategic location between two continents, the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, and in the economy sphere because of its important natural resources. It has always been a hot zone, but the Soviet dissolution resulted in the origin of numerous new actors, both independent nations and separatist regions: the three southern countries (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) are republics but the northern regions are still part of Russian Federation .

The geopolitical situation in the last twenty years has been totally unstable, there were continuing clashes for reasons of borders, ethnic problems, independence, control of economic resource: it is one of the most problematic areas in the world. The fall of the USSR fueled the interest of regional powers, such as Turkey, Iran and the newborn Russia. The competition intensified also because the small republics still under Russian control were, and still are, very active and belligerent and their will of independence is rooted (e.g. the famous Chechnya).
By the time, Russian influence alienated any ambitions of Iran or Turkey but the region has seen the growing of the American interest: the energy richness of the Caucasus convinced the US to intensify relations with the states of the area, from several points of view. In these terms it is possible to highlight the American pressure on Azerbaijan and Georgia, (territories who were unsatisfied by the Russian presence) to bring them close to the Western Civilization’s sphere. The positive relationship between these actors allowed the creation of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in 2006, an engineering work that represents an enormous resource for the Europe and the US, taking oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and bringing it to Turkey and then to the West. The pipeline guarantees a high daily amount of oil and does not pass through the territories under Russian control, subtracting large portions of crude oil and vast crucial territories to Moscow.
Two years later, in 2008, the Caucasus is back under the international light because of the outbreak of the war between Russia and Georgia for the control of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Moscow cleverly exploited regional tensions to reaffirm its presence in the area and to emphasize the importance of controlling those territories. 

The American response was not a military intervention in support of Georgia, its ally, because this could result in a war against Russia, but rather an increase in funding to Tbilisi and Baku’s governments, permitting them to grow economically and remain a stable ally in the area: it is, therefore, a battle fought thanks to the alliances system with the small and weak Caucasian republics.
Since the 2008 war, the area has not recorded clashes that have interested the international press and the recent crisis in Ukraine moved away from the area the attentions and the Russian hegemonic efforts. However, it does not mean the situation is locked, in fact, the Caucasus remains a crucial region where international policies of various countries intertwine in a clash on several levels: the support and influence on Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and neighboring regions remain a silent but significant battlefield between Russia, US, Europe.

 
Useful links:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/11/georgian-politics

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/georgia/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/world/europe/14oil.html?_r=0

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/SoleOnLine4/Economia%20e%20Lavoro/2008/08/energia-rotte-chiave-russia-europa.pdf?cmd%3Dart

Ukrainian situation: the sanctions

One of the major problems in the world in 2014 is undoubtedly the Ukrainian crisis and the current civil war in the country. The issue has become the battleground for EU, Russia and US in many ways, one of which is definitely the imposition of economic and restrictive sanctions. Those are, in fact, an alternative approach to military confrontation to win a clash, because the state who is hit, it is forced to find alternative solutions to the health of its economy.
Following the annexation of the Crimea in March 2014, the European Union and the United States decided to impose the travel bans to many leading figures of Russia, both political and economic. It was only the first step in a long series of measures to force Russia to withdraw from Ukraine’s affairs: in late April there was a second round of sanction that hit a growing number of officers, banks and Russian companies. The EU pointed out that the sanctions are not punitive but designed  to bring a change in policy in the target country. During the summer, many countries (Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Norway) joined the group, enlarging the front which was in contrast with Moscow.
These initiatives were clearly aimed to stop Russia from interfering with Ukrainian situation, forcing to abandon the separatist movement and withdraw its troops: Putin's government responded with great vehemence, adopting some counter-sanctions. It has been particularly important the ban about the importation of agricultural products and food, a very important market for the EU, whose exports of food in Russia are estimated to be 10% of total.[1]
While the situation in Ukraine worsened, reaching the civil war, the measures increased with a third round of sanctions, from July to September: the EU and the US, followed for the first time by Kiev’s government, decided to strike the heart of Russian economy, applying restrictions in the financial sector, weapons production and, especially, energy. This phase was particularly delicate because it represented an escalation that touched the most powerful sectors of Russia, the ones that Moscow normally uses as counter-move to create problems to Europe. In these days, the American government is discussing the possibility of new sanctions, more severe than the previous.
So far, the “war of sanctions” is a fight that has no winners, but there are already significant economic repercussions both on Russia and on Europe. The former are more and more isolated from the rest of the world and they have to face the costs of sanctions and war, the latter are forced to find new energy supplies, new markets for the export of certain goods and, not least, they have to stay united in a historical moment of economic and political crisis that requires strong decisions.

Useful links:

http://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu_sanctions/index_en.htm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-u-s-significantly-expand-sanctions-against-russian-economy-1406666111

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28400218

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/ukrainerussia/

---

[1] Data from Europa.eu

Energy as a key factor in the Ukrainian economic clash

“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
Henry Kissinger

The civil war in Ukraine clearly has become one of the most controversial International affairs, not only for the victims and the clash between USA, EU and Russia, but also for the strategic position of Ukraine. In fact the pipeline that brings gas from Russia to Europe passes through the Ukrainian territory and so the war has been transformed also in an energy clash.

It is useful to note that Russian gas is essential for Ukraine and European countries have a significant dependence on it: EU gets 24% of its gas from Russia and a half of that comes from Ukrainian pipeline[1]. This explains the reason why Russia was so self confident at the beginning of the conflict and EU simultaneously was not so determined to apply economic sanctions to Russia. Nevertheless a help to Europe came from the USA that offered to cover the amount of gas that could be cut down by Russia. This large amount of American gas was disposable thanks to the fracking technique that permits to extract natural gas that was unreachable in the past. The answer of Russia consisted in signing a historical International agreement: a 400$ billion gas deal with China. In this way Russia has enforced its geopolitical position and has found an alternative to European market.

On November 28 2014 OPEC decided not to cut production

At this point the energy clash seemed to be concluded with no winners, but Russia surprisingly started having bigger problems than EU in this field. The price of natural gas and oil recently is going down and the producing countries have decided not to decrease the extraction of natural resources in order to raise prices. As a consequence of this decision, nations that import gas and oil, like European countries and China, took advantage of the situation. On the contrary the Russian economic condition is weakening because of the lower prices of gas and oil, the sanctions imposed by western countries and the high military expenses: the ruble is depreciating dramatically and inflation rate is accelerating.

From what was said, it seems that Russia is losing the energy clash in the context of Ukrainian war. However it is fundamental to remind the determination of Putin and the frailty of EU that is under pressure for the economic crisis and for the anti-European feeling that is growing among the citizens of member states.

References:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21600111-reducing-europes-dependence-russian-gas-possiblebut-it-will-take-time-money-and-sustained

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/world/asia/china-russia-gas-deal.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%222%22%3A%22RI%3A16%22}

http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2014/12/02/putin-alla-guerra-dellenergia31.html?ref=search

http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2014-12-04/rublo-picchiata-senza-freni-063742.shtml?uuid=AB3b0uLC

---

[1] 2012 data by Eurogas

Russia's "Stealth" Invasion of Ukraine

From February 2014, the Kremlin has begun to send “unmarked” troops of the Russian army in the territory of the Ukrainian state; moreover, Russia has sent hundreds of trucks loaded with military equipments to provide logistical support to the Ukrainian insurgents in Crimea and in other areas of the country. Therefore, experts of international relations described this operation as a Russian invisible invasion, though the troops belonged to the Armed Forces of Moscow. If the Kremlin had publicly admitted that the Russian soldiers in Ukraine had been under its command, it would appear as an act of war, punishable by international law. Therefore, starting from the revolution of February 2014, these troops of “not identified” nationality have taken control of some regions of the Ukrainian state, first of all the Crimea, then annexed by Russia through a popular referendum. Only after the annexation, Russian President Putin revealed to the international press that some groups of special troops were sent to the region to allow the referendum.

The most serious military incident involving these “undercover” troops was the shooting down of the flight MH 17 of Malaysia Airlines in the Ukrainian sky. What happened, officially, was not attributed to the direct responsibility of the troops of any state, even though international investigations have found that the explosion of the airplane with 298 people on board was caused by a surface to air missiles made in Russia. Therefore, Kiev and the Western states have blamed the “undercover” troops of Moscow, while the Kremlin has blamed the Ukrainian air forces.

Doubtless, this is a new kind of war, played by states in an indirect way to weaken the opponent "Titan".

References: 

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21615605-now-willing-use-russian-troops-more-or-less-openly-eastern-ukraine-vladimir-putin-has

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/russias-stealth-invasion-of-ukraine-only-washingtons-war-party-can-see-it/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/17/crimea-referendum-sham-display-democracy-ukraine

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-plane-questions/