In Geopolitics This Week
Myanmar Rebel Groups Launch Successful Offensive in Northeast, Israel Conducts Ground Operations in Gaza, Russia Revokes Ratification of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and other stories.
Myanmar Rebel Groups Launch Successful Offensive in Northeast
Rebel groups in Myanmar have launched a major coordinated offensive against government forces in the country's northeast. The launch of the offensive represents a major escalation in the ongoing conflict. The rebels, which includes the Kachin Independence Army, the Ta'ang National Liberation Army, and other groups, is seeking to dislodge military forces and their militia allies from strategic areas of Shan State along the border with China.
The offensive carries major implications for the overall political struggle and dynamics of conflict in Myanmar. It represents the most direct challenge yet to the military government's grip on the strategic border areas in Shan and other states that help finance the state. This is part of an effort by the US-backed rebels to assert greater territorial control in the resource-rich region and secure access to cross-border economies that have helped fund the military government. If the rebels can retake territory lost to the military and its militia allies, it could deal a significant blow by capturing military outposts, blocking key transport routes, and disrupting the revenues that sustain it.
The escalation on Myanmar's battlefields coincides with intensifying economic pressure on Myanmar's government in the form of new sanctions. The United States, United Kingdom and Canada announced coordinated sanctions targeting Myanmar's lucrative oil and gas assets, which help fund its military operations. This combined military and economic pressure on multiple fronts underscores the extent of shared opposition to the military government by Western powers. However, the regime has proven highly resilient, retaining firm control of the state apparatus and refusing to compromise.
As Myanmar's civil conflict becomes more entrenched with the latest escalations, risks also grow of wider impacts on regional stability and increased displacement. Neighboring China will be monitoring events along its border carefully, concerned about implications for cross-border activity and security. The rebel gains on the battlefield so far represent an important tactical shift in the conflict's dynamics and demonstrate Myanmar's military's vulnerabilities. However, sustainable political solutions ultimately require negotiations and accountability measures beyond the battlefield. Fuelled by domestic and foreign resistance to the government, Myanmar is likely faced with a prolonged crisis defined by economic deterioration and worsening instability.
Israel Conducts Ground Operations in Gaza
Israel has initiated ground operations in Gaza as part of its ongoing military offensive against Hamas. These ground incursions are being conducted with caution, involving limited ground forces supported by artillery and airstrikes. The objectives of this ground campaign are multifaceted, including the destruction of Hamas' underground networks, gathering of intelligence on militant activities, exerting pressure during negotiations, and the establishment of buffer zones to disrupt Hamas' control. However, the urban combat environment presents substantial challenges, contributing to the slow progress of these operations.
It appears that Israel's strategy is to employ measured offensives to gain tactical advantages and buy time, with an eye on establishing a sustained presence on favourable terms in Gaza. Nonetheless, as with any prolonged military engagement, costs and complications tend to escalate over time, while the presence of a clear exit strategy remains elusive. This conflict is beginning to exhibit signs of evolving into a potential quagmire for Israel, with uncertain long-term implications for both the governance of Gaza and the security of Israel. The Gaza ground campaign may well mark a pivotal moment in the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What further complicates the situation in the Middle East is the role of the United States. The US has taken on a defensive posture while providing both military and diplomatic cover to Israel. While publicly emphasizing Israel's right to self-defense, the US has deployed additional military assets to the region, including air defence systems. The US military presence is aimed at safeguarding Israel from the risk of broader regional escalation, especially in the face of potential Iranian or proxy attacks. This conflict, however, has disrupted the recent progress made by Israel in normalizing relations with some Arab states. While moderate Arab states are likely to seek a swift resolution to the crisis to re-engage with Israel, substantial progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process appears unlikely in the near term.
The conflict's ripple effects extend beyond the Middle East, reaching the Horn of Africa. It has emboldened militant groups in the region and intensified great power competition in the Red Sea basin, with regional heavyweights, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt, vying for influence. In contrast, the United States and Europe seem somewhat detached from these developments, quietly supporting Israel while allowing assertive Middle Eastern powers to assume a greater role. As external powers pursue their narrow interests in the Red Sea basin, hard-won multilateral cooperation mechanisms are unraveling.
Russia Revokes Ratification of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Russia has chosen to withdraw its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a landmark international agreement that forbids all nuclear test explosions globally. President Putin signed legislation officially abandoning Russia's commitments under the 1996 pact, marking a significant departure from the principles of arms control and nonproliferation. However, Russia has stated its intention to continue observing a voluntary test moratorium, at least for the time being. This decision aligns Russia with the United States, which, while signing the treaty in 1996, never ratified it.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) expressed its disappointment at Russia's withdrawal from the treaty. The CTBTO had urged Russia to maintain its commitment to the treaty, including the operation of monitoring stations on its territory capable of detecting the slightest nuclear explosion in real-time. The move to revoke the treaty gained momentum as it passed through Russia's parliament in a fast-track process. During parliamentary hearings, State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin cited the United States' “cynicism” and “boorish attitudes” on nuclear weapons as the rationale behind Russia's decision.
While the CTBT never entered into force, it was ratified by 178 countries, including nuclear powers like France and the United Kingdom. While the treaty established an international norm against live nuclear tests, the treaty's potential remained unrealized without the ratification of all nuclear powers. Russia ratified the agreement in June 2000, six months after President Putin took office.
This departure from the CTBT marks a symbolic blow to the global efforts on arms control and nonproliferation, especially considering the prevailing tensions between Russia and the United States. While it may not have an immediate impact if Russia continues to uphold its testing pause, it raises concerns about the gradual erosion of the global taboo on nuclear testing. The move affords Russia the freedom to resume nuclear testing if it chooses to do so, reflecting its rejection of constraints on its military posture amid heightened tensions with the U.S. Moreover, this decision further isolates Russia and damages its credibility as a responsible nuclear power committed to reducing nuclear dangers.
As the architecture of disarmament and nonproliferation agreements established during the Cold War era is gradually being dismantled, there is an emerging sense of uncertainty in the field of arms control. While the New START treaty remains in effect as the primary nuclear weapons deal between the United States and Russia, it is vital to observe the broader context of shifting dynamics in global diplomacy and arms control. The recent move by Russia signifies a departure from established norms and agreements, with potential consequences that extend beyond symbolic gestures. The future of nuclear arms control hangs in the balance.