In Geopolitics This Week
Belarus reroutes flight to arrest activist-in-exile, Russia’s interests in the reconstruction of Syria, and other stories.
Monday, May 24th
Belarus Reroutes Flight to Arrest Activist-in-Exile
Ryanair Flight 4978 (Athens–Vilnius) was intercepted over Belarus by a Belarusian fighter jet, and subsequently diverted by Belarusian air traffic control to Minsk National Airport. Aboard the flight was Roman Protasevich, a 26 year old activist who — as a ‘senior’ figure in the Polish-basedmedia group NEXTA — played a prominent role in the protests that shook Belarus following last year’s controversial elections.
Airport staff were initially reported to have said that the plane was rerouted due to concerns of an on-board bomb threat, but this claim appears to have been false, and the flight seems to have been the target of a covert operation to snatch Protasevich. According to a witness cited by Reuters, upon hearing of the imminent diversion to Minsk, Protasevich immediately gave some of his luggage to his girlfriend, and as the plane landed in Minsk, he and his girlfriend were removed from the plane and promptly arrested.
The aftermath of the incident has seen fierce condemnation of the Belarussian authorities. Officials from across the EU took to Twitter to denounce the move by lambasting the government for such an ‘unprecedented’ move and urging action against Belarus. Some of those most vocal in this regard were none other than Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, and Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda. But what these high-ranking officials may not be aware of, sadly, is that an event like this is anything but unprecedented.
For instance, when in 1954 Israel forced a Syrian passenger plane to land in order to gain hostages which it then hoped to exchange for captured Israeli soldiers. Or when in 2010, the US diverted a France-Mexico flight to Canada in order to detain and transfer a suspect to the US. Or when Turkey did the same to a Syrian passanger plane in 2012. Or when in 2013, the plane carrying the Bolivian President Evo Morales was grounded as the US government searched for whistleblower Edward Snowden. Or when in 2016, Ukraine grounded a plane with military jets only to discover the man they were looking for was not on board.
I could go on, but you get my point — abhorrent as state abductions of individuals are, unprecedented they are not.
Read more about this story here.
Yemeni Fighters Down Chinese-Built Saudi Drone
Yemeni army forces have reportedly shot down a Chinese-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) belonging to the Saudi-led military coalition over Yemen's northern province of al-Jawf. Spokesman for Yemeni Armed Forces, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, said their air defence forces targeted the Chinese-made CH-4 combat drone with an unspecified surface-to-air missile.
The aircraft was said to be on a reconnaissance mission over al-Maraziq in the Khabb wa ash Sha'af district early Sunday morning. Saree said that it would not be a “picnic” for anyone to enter the Yemeni airspace because the country's armed forces protect it. The day before, a senior member of Yemen's Supreme Political Council threatened to intensify attacks against Saudi Arabia and its allies if they continue their attacks on Yemen. If the timeline of the events corresponds to the reporting, the threat leveled at the Saudi-led coalition was not an empty one, as images of the downed drone have been shared through media.
Saudi Arabia — backed by the US, UK, and other regional allies — launched a devastating war on Yemen in March 2015, with the goal of bringing the government of former Yemeni president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi back to power and crushing Ansarullah. But Yemeni armed forces have gone from strength to strength against the Saudi-led invaders, which has left Riyadh and its allies bogged down in a quagmire. On top of failing to secure its objectives, the Saudi-led war effort has left hundreds of thousands of Yemenis dead, displaced millions of people, and utterly destroyed Yemen's infrastructure.
That a Chinese-made UAV is used as part of the Saudi-led coalition forces is in itself interesting to note, but the more consequential takeaway is the susceptibility of the UAV to what are relatively poorly-armed militia.
Read more about this story here.
Tuesday, May 25th
The Dangers of Exaggerating the Threat China Poses to Taiwan
Of all the corners of the globe where violence and conflict rage daily with no end in sight, it would be strange to say that Taiwan is the most dangerous place on earth. But that is exactly what an article published by the Economist suggests.
The piece titled The Most Dangerous Place on Earth argues that to ensure that a war over Taiwan would be too costly for China, the US and Taiwan need to think ahead. This, according to whoever wrote the article, would involve devoting fewer resources to big, expensive weapons systems in Taiwan that are vulnerable to Chinese missiles, and focusing US strategic objectives on the tactics and technologies that would frustrate a Chinese invasion.
But to understand how to avoid a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, a good start would involve an examination of the contradicting interests that have kept the peace during the past few decades. While Beijing insists it has a duty to bring about unification — even, as a last resort, by force, — the Taiwanese have taken to electing governments that continually stress its distinction from China while stopping short of declaring independence. And the United States has, even while diplomatically recognising Beijing as the legitimate government over Taiwan, continued to supply arms in a bid to deter China from overwhelming Taiwan. These opposing ideas are bundled into what has essentially been the status quo since Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1979 and the thawing of relations between China and the US that took place at the height of the Cold War.
But things are changing rapidly, as the US is entertaining dialgue with increasingly senior Taiwanese officials. For example, Biden’s staff invited a Taiwanese representative to his inauguration and a delegation of former US officials headed to Taiwan in April. These visits have been coupled with US officials sounding the alarm that China will attack Taiwan in the near future. The US military commander for the Indo-Pacific region, Admiral Philip S. Davidson, stated without providing evidence or reasoning to his claim that “the threat is manifest during this decade, in fact, in the next six years.”
Read more about this story here.
Turkish Mobster’s Ties to Government Stir Controversy
A Turkish ‘mobster’ Reis Sedat Peker, who until recently organised rallies in full support of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has embroiled the Turkish government in controversy. While he had been known to enjoy the favor of pro-government circles, he has been rattling Turkey since early May by posting a series of videos which expose what he paints as close links between the high stratum of politics and the criminal underworld.
Though the Turkish government is no stranger to stories of dubious intermingling between state officials and criminals, the scope and gravity of the claims has fuelled vocal concerns among Turks over the country’s transformation under Erdogan, who, opponents say, has been monopolizing the Turkish state since assuming sweeping executive powers in 2018.
The video series in question explicitly targeted Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu, who had allegedly promised Reis Sedat Peker protection but did not keep his word; hence, Peker’s quest for score-settling. The accusations included drug dealing, racketeering and even murder against members of the ruling party, and have prompted opposition calls for a parliamentary probe into his allegations.
Read more about this story here.
Wednesday, May 26th
Russia’s Interests in the Reconstruction of Syria
As the presidential elections loom in Syria, and as the country remains in the control of various rebel groups supported by outside powers, it is worthwhile to explore what interests drive Russia’s ongoing military intervention as talk of reconstruction of its long-standing ally ramps up.
Russia has helped the Assad regime to not just avoid being overthrown, but also to regain control over much of the territory it had previously lost to its various opponents. Whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces will be able to regain control over more or even all Syrian territory remains unclear. The lack of a clear military victory largely stems from the chaotic nature of the conflict at the ground level, with multiple rebel groups each with differing sponsors and goals still entrenched in their positions.
But even if Assad fails to get re-elected on May 26, his opponents do not seem likely either to seriously threaten his regime’s survival or retake territory from it anymore. While this represents somewhat of a success for Russian policy, the situation in and around Syria remains complex for Moscow due to so many other actors pursuing conflicting policy goals there.
Still, the more secure that Russia’s military intervention in Syria is, the less incentive it has to make reforms or concessions to its opponents — including those who have fled Syria. But conversely, the continued presence of Iranian forces as well as the various Shi’a militia means that Assad has other important allies to lean on for resisting any Russian effort to pressure him into undertaking even minimal reform. How so many conflicting interests can come to the same table and agree on a path forward is difficult to predict.
While Moscow has long called for an internal peace settlement in Syria and sees a reconstruction effort as an important element in reaching this outcome, it is neither willing nor able to pay for this effort itself. Russia’s total annual foreign aid budget has been running at just above $1 billion per year, while the U.N. has estimated that Syrian reconstruction will cost as much as $250 billion. Moscow, then, must find partners in financing the reconstruction of Syria, even if that search leads them to deal with adversaries.
Read more about this story here.
The Three Phases of Turkey’s Official Involvement in Libya
Ten years into the conflict that saw Gaddafi toppled as the leader of Libya, the proliferation of arms and fighters have taken their toll on the country. In this chaos, Turkey officially intervened in Libya in January 2020 by helping the Government of National Accord (GNA) repel Khalifa Haftar’s offensive on Tripoli. In doing so, Turkey facilitated the ceasefire signed in October 2020, which brought an end to 16 months of overt hostilities, and opened the door as the leading power-broker in the country.
Emadeddin Badi, writing for War on the Rocks, traces the history of Turkey’s intervention to explain the motives and future prospects of Turkish policy in Libya. In his view, the Turkish intervention can be categorised according to three distict phases of involvement.
The first phase of Turkish security assistance in Libya was geared towards achieving a specific military objective — repelling Haftar’s offensive. In this initial phase, there was no strategic institutional endgame for Turkey beyond ensuring the survival of the GNA, which would secure Turkey’s maritime agreement along with a range of economic interests.
After Haftar’s offensive was successfully repelled, the second phase of Ankara’s security assistance began. In this phase Ankara sought to secure its military footprint in Libya and establish itself as a power broker. Ankara significantly scaled up the transfer of military equipment to western Libya and established Watiya Air Base on the Tunisian border. It also secured a presence in several military bases in Tripoli’s outskirts, built on its pre-existing military footprint in Misurata, and established a military presence at the port of Khoms.
The third phase involves an attempt to convert this military might into political capital. Ankara is committed to a new political process through the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum as it realizes military escalation would jeopardize its room for diplomatic maneuver and undermine its current rapprochement with Cairo. At the same time, it is seeking financial gains in the form of access to the country’s currently frozen oil revenues, which works as a powerful incentive to local Libyan elites in order to garner support for its policy goals.
Read more about this story here.
Thursday, May 27th
Philippines Foreign Policy Plays Both Sides
The Philippines, an old US ally and more recent friend of China, is awkwardly bouncing one superpower off another on its way to a neutral foreign policy that will give the Southeast Asian country benefits from both sides.
For the majority of the last four years, the government of President Rodrigo Duterte has largely taken an anti-American position, and has at the same time sought friendship with China. But recently, and as the extension of a deal underpinning a US troop presence is being negotiated, the Philippines has shown it can garner benefits from both powers if it plays its cards right.
Though the Philippines was left off a list of US allies in Biden’s interim national security strategy released in March, US State and Defense Department officials insist they’re still working to build the relationship. US and Philippine negotiators concluded talks on the deal underpinning the US troop presence in the Philippines, a move that could soothe the Biden administration’s tense relationship with a key regional ally as competition with China heats up.
Like Asian neighbours such as Indonesia and Vietnam, the strategically located Philippines intends to maintain cooperative relations with both world powers. Such a foreign policy in Asia allows them to get development aid and investment from China while also receive military support from the United States.
Read more about this story here.
The Info-Pacific Challenge to Russia
Over the past decade, Russia’s efforts to pivot to Asia have gathered force as relations with the West have deteriorated. While the focus of this engagement has been on the Asia-Pacific and its existing regional architecture (ASEAN), China has emerged as by far Russia’s most important partner.
The China–Russia relationship increasingly involves key areas of cooperation and convergence, notably on policies designed to oppose the US. Russia has, however, developed a wider regional policy with key Asian states (notably including India), in part to prevent an over-reliance on China. The rise of the Indo-Pacific regional concept represents a challenge to Russia’s established position in Asia.
Dr. Neil Melvin, Director of International Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, has published a paper which maps out Russia’s opposition to the US-driven concept of the Indo-Pacific. Dr. Melvin explores Russia’s attempts at regional balancing through a multitude of ties with China, India and Japan as well as they ways in which Russia seeks to actively counter Indo-Pacific strategy.
The paper argues that the rise of the Indo-Pacific concept and, in particular, the consolidation of a regional security order around the Quad, is forcing Russia to readjust its regional policies and seek an ever-more elusive regional balance in its relations with Asian countries.
Read more about this story here.
Friday, May 28th
Interpreting the Structures and Capabilities of Russia's ‘Hybrid War’
A large part of the security analysist community in both Europe and the United States hold the position that Russia is a hostile actor which exploits the conditions of the operational environment to achieve its objectives by way of fracturing alliances, partnerships, and resolve.
These exploits are said to be particularly effective through the use of information operations with the goal of undermining will. It typically further includes the notion that much of Russian influence over events is planned and orchestrated.
This is certainly true in many instances; however, identifying the exact command structures and levers of power of Russian influence can be difficult as it can not only come from planned operations but also from standard geopolitical practice, spontaneous civic activities, and many other actions and events that contribute to achieving Russian objectives.
Tom Wilhelm, who served as the director of the Foreign Military Studies Office, has put forward a framework to help us interpret Russia’s ‘hybrid war’ capabilities. He notes that a key element of the US-Russia competition will be the ability of each side to create a strategic and operational standoff in order to gain freedom of action in any domain. This will likely be done through the integration of political and economic actions, unconventional and information warfare, and the actual or threatened employment of conventional forces.
Read more about this story here.
US Security Strategy for the Arctic
The Biden administration’s March 2021 Interim National Security Strategic Guidance is focused around deterring and preventing adversaries from threatening the United States and its allies, inhibiting access to the global commons, or dominating key regions. And the Arctic is just such a region where Russia threatens to be the dominant player going forward. For this reason, the US is looking to rapidly put forward a coherent Arctic policy to narrow the gap with the Russians.
David Auerswald notes that any new US Arctic security strategy should have three goals: to deter military attacks against US or allies from the Arctic, to prevent China or Russia from weakening existing Arctic governance structures through coercion, and to prevent regional hegemony by either China or Russia.
He suggests that these goals should be accomplished through the development of military capabilities for use in the North American, European and Arctic subregions. The US should persuade regional allies and partners that the United States can be a trusted security partner in the region and demonstrate the ability to consistently use its capabilities in tandem with allies in harsh Arctic conditions. Finally, he notes that the strategy should contain collaborative links to the private sector to build dual-use Arctic infrastructure that benefits both the private sector and military platforms.
Read more about this story here.