Connect with us

Interview

‘Ukraine must win this war to avoid World War III’

Published

on

Marko Mihkelson, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Estonian Parliament, spoke to Harici: “At the same time, the existential challenge posed today by Russia, not only by Russia but also by China, tells us that if we want to keep the world predictable and stable, we have to make sure that we united as NATO allies … Ukraine must win this war to avoid World War III or a similar global conflict situation. Russia cannot win this war.”

A politician with a journalist background, Marko Mihkelson has served in previous parliaments as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman of the EU Affairs Committee, Chairman of the National Defense Committee. He served as the Director of the Baltic Center for Russian Studies from 2000 to 2003. Between 1997 and 2000, he was the editor-in-chief of Estonia’s largest national daily newspaper, Postimees, before that, he served as Postimees’ correspondent in Moscow.

Marko Mihkelson answered journalist Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the Russia-Ukraine war and its effects on the Baltic states, and also commented on the Israeli-Palestinian war and tensions in the Middle East.

Let’s start with the Suwalki Corridor, of which is defined as “vulnerable” against Russia and may cause the destabilization of Baltics in case of any distruption. Such destabilization could cut off all the Baltic countries, as it is NATO’s only route to the Baltics. What is your comment on the allegations that Moscow will invade Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland from Ukraine considering the fact that there are no such statements of officials from Russia. None of the officials mentioned the Suwalki Corridor or any intentions to invade. Where are all these allegations coming from?

First and foremost, we need to understand what is going on. Certainly, when it comes to the threat posed by Russia to NATO, it is a serious and existential threat. It’s not only a concern for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and other countries bordering Russia. The war that Russia started against Ukraine is not only an attempt to destroy Ukraine’s territorial integrity or erase the nation from the political map, as they wish. But also they would like to change the world order. Their ultimate goal is to destroy the Western security architecture established since the end of World War II. The cornerstone of this architecture is NATO, which unites countries like Estonia, Türkiye, the United States, Canada, and other nations. This alliance, led by the United States and other democratic countries, is a kind of threat to the current regime in Russia, which is heavily authoritarian, perhaps even totalitarian. Russia would like to survive by expanding its borders by force, as we see in the case of Ukraine.

In October 2023, Putin explicitly stated that the war against Ukraine aims not only to change the geopolitical reality in this part of Europe but also to change the world order. This is why Russia is trying to build strategic alliances with China and closer relations with North Korea and Iran, to make sure that they are together to derail the dominance of Western countries, first and foremost the United States as a leader in the world. To do so, to destroy NATO, to undermine the alliance, they might test the seriousness of each NATO member’s commitment to defending any threatened or attacked ally.

Obviously theoretically for a long time we know that they would like to perhaps test us in different parts of alliance from Black Sea to Baltic Sea from a high North maybe to some other parts. Here one of the areas people speculate people think what might happen is a Baltic region and as you mentioned also certain areas which might be kind of the interest of Russians to test us test our resolve.

I don’t think that Suwalki Gap is the only sort of the area we have to pay attention to. And I argue that not only the Baltic nations are the only countries who might be threatened directly by Russia but certainly we have to understand that Russia won’t stop in Ukraine if we are not going to make sure as allies who are interested to restore peace in Europe, to make sure that borders which are intern internationally recognized are firm and won’t be changed by force, as Russia is trying to change. Then we have to make sure that we give help to Ukraine to win in this war and Russia must pay for their highest crime against peace which is launching a sort of most serious war in Europe since the end of World War II.

What are you and your allies are doing to reduce the risks in the Suwalki Gap?

The most importantly not only risk is posed directly to certain parts of our alliance but also what the most important step is to pay attention to our investments in defense; we show to Russia or anybody else who pose existential threat to us, that we are ready and “do not even think of attacking us or destroy stabilization in this region”.

Estonia is investing 3.4% of its GDP in self-defense and is actively working with allies to increase deterrence measures. Troops from three nuclear states —the UK, France, and the United States— are present in Estonia. We work and train closely with allies within NATO, including Türkiye, to ensure the alliance remains strong and united, deterring any threats as it was in the last 75 years, -even though Estonia is in NATO for less years about 20 years.

But it is still a very serious message to anyone who might pose a threat to us: the Alliance is still strong, united, and working together to deter any kind of threat we might face. At this moment, it is most important to seriously consider increasing defense expenditures, working more closely together, training together, and showing Russia or anyone else that their crazy ideas to change the world order cannot succeed.

Regarding nuclear deterrence, recent months have seen Russia step up military cooperation with Belarus, including joint nuclear exercises. How realistic are the risks of a nuclear war in this context?

While nuclear threats are used by Russia to blackmail others into accepting its aggression and genocidal act against Ukraine, Belarus is de facto politically occupied by Russia and used to put pressure and for illegal immigration as a weapon on NATO allies like Poland and Lithuania.

We must make clear to Russian Federation that any real threat of using nuclear weapons must be met with decisive and destructive measures.

The use of nuclear weapons in the interest of aggressive policies cannot be accepted by anyone in the world. Nuclear weapons have served as a deterrent measure for more than half a century, since the end of World War II. Whether we like it or not, they exist and are an essential part of maintaining the world and international rules agreed upon by countries with vastly different political systems, whether democratic or authoritarian so far.

Perhaps what is most important for all of us is to ensure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons can still be controlled as we have done so far. The danger here is if Russia wins the war against Ukraine, the world will become more destabilized, and countries still seeking nuclear weapons will become more active in achieving that goal. What we see is that if you don’t have nuclear weapons, you can be attacked or threatened directly by countries that do. Ukraine gave up all the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union in 1994, and several countries, including the United States, China, and Russia itself, promised that they would never attack Ukraine, specifically Russia. Unfortunately, since 2014, we have seen that countries which gave up nuclear weapons are under attack and actually under the threat of losing their sovereignty. This is the most dangerous trend we could see if Russia succeeds in its aggression.

The US decision to deploy hypersonic missiles in Germany has provoked retaliation from Moscow. What do you think about this escalation?

If anyone escalates, it is Russia, which has pursued aggressive policies to increase its dominance since the ’90s by using military forces. This includes meddling in the South Caucasus, Nagorno-Karabakh crisis, Moldova and invading Georgia in 2008. Russia occupied one third of Georgian territory to make sure that NATO allies agree upon not enlarging in South Caucasus.

In 2014, Russia started the war against Ukraine, occupying Crimea and illegally annexing it. After that, Russia moved into Syria in 2015. We have seen Russia escalating everywhere. The Western countries, including the United States and others, have reacted to show Russia that there are limits to their aggression. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen from the Western countries, and not only Western countries but all countries that wish to restore predictability and stability in geopolitical terms in the world, a direct help to Ukraine to defend its country against this aggression and also to win this war because the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine is paramount. It is not only important for Ukraine as a nation but also for Türkiye, Estonia, and other countries that do not want to end up in a global war or conflict in much more catastrophic terms than what we have seen so far in Ukraine. Every measure that helps to deter further Russian aggression is better for peace and the whole world order.

After the annexation of Crimea by Russia, several experts say that there is a geopolitical crisis that shook the northern countries as well as the strengthening of centrifugal tendencies in Europe. Trump’s presidency created uncertainties in NATO, and China’s presence in international affairs seems deeper. If this is indeed the case, some experts argue that it might be more logical for the countries in this region to move away from the NATO bloc to avoid these risks. What is your take on this?

(Laughes) If you ask the average Estonian here in our country, they will tell you a story from our history. We learned a very, very tough lesson, a tragic lesson from World War II. Prior to World War II, Estonia was a neutral country. In 1939, we hoped that being neutral meant that we were safe and that the turbulence happening in the world in the late ’30s wouldn’t touch us. We would survive, but unfortunately, this wasn’t the case. This was a tragic mistake, and we lost 25% of our population, either killed by Soviet occupants, Nazi Germany, or those who left Estonia or were forcefully deported to Siberia.

Ever since we regained our independence in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, there has been a strong political consensus, which is still very present today, that we must never be alone again. Every single moment, we have to have as many friends and allies in the world to ensure that if turbulence hits international relations, as we are right now in the middle of very turbulent international relations- our small country is much better defended if we have good allies and good friends who are ready to support us and defend us if needed. As I said, NATO, as an alliance of free nations, has shown everybody that for 75 years, which is historically significant, this alliance alone has kept Europe and the transatlantic region in peace.

Throughout 75 years, there have been many disputes between NATO allies. I think Türkiye knows much better than Estonia how it is to deal with NATO neighbors. At the same time, the existential challenge posed today by Russia, but not only by Russia but also by China, tells us that if we want to keep the world predictable and stable, and we as nations can benefit from stability in terms of international trade, innovation, and addressing global issues like climate change, we have to make sure that we, united as NATO allies, work together to deter any kind of threat and aggression tens of thousands of people are perished in Ukraine. We must make sure that countries that use military force and genocidal force cannot succeed because if we agree that Russia can move borders by force, killing, deporting, and torturing people, then we are accepting that other countries can do the same. This is a direct road to the hell and direct road to a global instability and most likely to World War III. This is why we have to stick together, and NATO alliance is the best alliance that has kept us and our part of the world in stability and peace.

Now, everybody is talking about World War III, the possibility of another immense war. So, is this just a scenario that you are taking measurements against, or do you just use the term as a deterring element?

No, it’s not only a deterring element because if somebody is using massive military force against another nation, aiming to annihilate an entire nation, like in Ukraine, where there are 40 million people living, the war launched already in 2014 by Russia against Ukraine, but in a much more massive way since February 2022, has not only the aim to destroy one member of the United Nations, actually the founding father of the United Nations as Ukraine was in 1945, but also the aim to change the world order. If somebody has ideas like Hitler had in the 1930s to make sure that Nazi Germany will completely change how the world is constructed, then this is a direct challenge to the existing world order. If somebody would like to change the world order by force, this can lead to a major global conflict, a war.

Sometimes people don’t see the connection between the very traumatic events already existing in the Middle East, such as the Gaza and Israel-Hamas conflict, which started on October 7th with an enormous terrorist attack by Hamas against Israel. What has happened in the Sahel region during the last couple of years, the change of the nature of conflict there, and the growing tensions in East Asia regarding the South China Sea or potential conflict around the Taiwan Strait; all these hotspots are all connected. Our task as responsible members of the international community are to be frank and honest about these threats and to work together to avoid this major conflict that is looming. Unfortunately, we are getting every day closer. Why I am saying that? We are getting every day closer to this because we are not paying enough serious attention to what is happening in Ukraine. The key question to avoid World War III or a similar global conflict situation is that Ukraine must win this war. Russia cannot win this war; their aggression cannot be accepted. Otherwise, we will have much more bad news to digest.

What would be your response to Russia’s criticism that Baltic countries, by removing or attacking the historical monuments are disrespectful to the history and this is bothering Russian citizens which holds a considerable population in the region?

As a historian myself, I studied history at Tartu University. These topics and questions are very close to my heart. One of the few countries in the world that really uses history in a weaponized way is Russia, and they have done so for a long time. The regime in place for many decades has used history as a tool to control the minds of their own people and to attack others, including Baltic states. We have a completely different understanding of what happened during World War II. Russia tells everyone that they liberated us at the end of World War II in 1944. However, they don’t recognize the clear fact that in 1944, after Nazi Germany was pushed out from Estonia, another occupation started. We didn’t become a free nation. In this tall hermit, our national flag is flying. In 1944, this flag wasn’t restored as a sign of independence and freedom. We were able to raise this flag again after 50 years of Soviet occupation when we regained our independence. When it comes to honoring history as it happened, the real facts are that Stalin’s Soviet Union made a deal with Hitler in 1939 to divide Europe into zones of influence and territories they could conquer and control. The Baltic states were given to the Soviet Union, and they conquered us in 1940, occupying Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and starting a war against Finland. Finland bravely fought back during the Winter War in 1939-40.

Unfortunately, we hoped, as I told you about neutrality, that as a neutral country, we could survive this turbulence. We could not. This is a very deep wound in the hearts of our society and people because many Estonians were forcefully deported as children in 1941 or 1949 to Siberia. Their parents were killed, or they went through horror. What you see happening with children in Ukraine today is similar. More than 20,000 Ukrainian kids are forcefully deported from Ukraine. Nothing has changed.

When the full-scale war started in Ukraine in February 2022, we in Estonia made a clear decision to remove from our public space all monuments connected with the occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union. This has been carried out in a very orderly manner. If there are burial places of those killed during World War II, we honor them. And everything is done in a very orderly way. But we won’t accept any public activity that shows respect to the horrors going on right now in Ukraine.

Do we want or not it brings up memories from the past… Unfortunately, Russia hasn’t changed. They use the same methods, tools, and violence today in Ukraine as they did during World War II or after. It is not against Russia; it is to defend our independence, sovereignty, and honor all the victims who perished under dictatorships like Russia was and still is.

You have still a border problem with Russia. What is the latest situation?

We have a border really signed by ministers in February 2014, but not ratified by parliament.

Are you scared?

No, of course not. If you are scared, you are already lost. You have to be knowledgeable and understand what is going on, why it is happening, and then be ready to make decisions. As politicians in Estonia, we see that the stress level among people is higher than usual. It is natural. A major war is going on in Europe, in the middle of Europe. Unfortunately, we don’t see the end of it. We would like to see peace made, the war over, and people surviving these horrors.

However, we may have different views with our Turkish colleagues and friends on how this war should end. A few weeks ago, I accompanied our president, Mr. Alar Karis, on a state visit to Türkiye. We met President Erdogan and had a good opportunity to discuss these matters with Foreign Minister Fidan. We agree that this is a threat to stability. The war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine is a direct threat to regional stability.

Türkiye supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine and doesn’t accept the annexation of Crimea. Türkiye supports a ceasefire and mediation. In which point, do your opinions divert?

We differ on whether a ceasefire can bring the peace we would like to see, including honoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We highly appreciate any effort to mediate because it is necessary. However, this is not just a regional conflict. Russia’s aim is not only to destroy and annihilate an entire nation. They have said publicly, both Putin and Medvedev, that they want to destroy all of Ukraine. They are not interested in a ceasefire. They may be interested in a temporary ceasefire only to gain more strength and start again. What happened in 2014 and 2015 with the Minsk Agreements shows this. During those years, I traveled to the front lines in Eastern Ukraine multiple times. Since February 2022, I have been to the front lines four times. I have seen with my own eyes what is happening there. It’s not just the reportings of journalists…

This war cannot end in a tie. Our goal as countries interested in international law and justice is that aggression cannot stay without pay off. War crimes must be dealt with seriously. Russia has already committed a huge number of war crimes, including the latest attack on a children’s hospital in Kiev. It cannot be handled by just making a deal and negotiating with war criminals. Ukraine, as an independent nation, must survive and they are also very interested in peace but they cannot choose independently choose their path to NATO and ensure nobody invades them again. Russia’s idea of peace is the total capitulation of Ukraine, making it a neutral country with a reduced army that cannot defend itself. This cannot be accepted by Ukrainian politicians including President Zelenskiy. Ukraine is actively seeking support for their peace formula, organizing conferences in Switzerland, and engaging with Chinese officials to understand Ukraine’s position as Foreign Minister Kuleba was there.

Putin has stated several times that he is open to negotiations. On his way back from China, he once again said he is open for negotiations. However, Zelensky has prohibited negotiations with Russia by law. As a historian, you know so many wars in the past ended with peace agreements, such as the 30 Years’ War with the Westphalia Agreement. Europeans have experienced immense massacres, millions of people died but reached peace agreements. How can you reach a peace agreement? You negotiate. I understand that this is where you divert from Türkiye’s position but still Türkiye’s approach proves that this is what the history shows that peace is only possible with negotiation. What is your take?

First and foremost, Estonia and Türkiye are on the same page that this war must finish in a way that the peace agreed upon ensures lasting peace and prevents future attacks on our countries and nations by those seeking to change the world order dramatically. I would not go that far back to the 17th century; still, the world has changed since then. In the last 100 years, major wars like World War I and II, which are very similar to today’s war, have shown that lasting peace sometimes requires fighting for it.

Not like the regional conflict that happened perhaps in 2008, when it comes to the occupation by Russia of a fifth of Georgia’s territory in 2008, the war lasted only 5 days. Today, this war has been going on for more than 10 years. For 10 years, Russia has been trying to destroy Ukraine. And they are active not only in Ukraine. But they are building a much bigger sort of alliance with North Korea and Iran. North Korea is helping directly. Iran is helping directly with their military equipment. China, obviously, is helping Russia economically, if not with our tools and means. And that is what we, as politicians or diplomats, must consider. It is a much more difficult path to peace this time. And unfortunately, sometimes to achieve lasting peace, you have to fight for that.

And this is why I argue, and this has been the very clear position of Estonia as well, from our knowledge of the past, knowing Russia. I know that Türkiye knows Russia sometimes better than many nations, having been in military conflict with Russians so many times in the past. (Laughes) To make sure that Russia understands its borders and respects the borders of others, they have to be defeated in their war of aggression. We are not talking about defeating Russia in general, but we are talking about this aggression.

Occupation of territories cannot be accepted. When Putin tells you that he is ready to negotiate, he is ready to negotiate how much more territory he can get from Ukrainians. He said publicly before this meeting, “Give me this, give me that,” referring to non-occupied territories of the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions. “And maybe then we can think about negotiations.” But at the same time, people like Medvedev or others directly tell us that they are not interested in just stopping there. They are interested in destroying the entire nation, the entire Ukrainian statehood. They would like to restore the Russian empire. As Serzhinsky said already in the early 90s, if Russia would like to restore the empire, then without Ukraine, it is impossible to imagine it happening.

So what they have done during the last, let’s say, 10 or 20 years, or even longer, as I worked as a journalist in Moscow in 1994-97, I witnessed myself. I covered the Chechen war, the First Chechen War in 1994-96. And I understood already at that time that this kind of imperial push is not gone anywhere. People thought that after the Soviet empire collapsed, the Soviet Union collapsed, that it was going to be in the past and Russia would accept the new reality. So actually, what happened in Chechnya during the first war, and then later when Putin came to power, told us or gave us a clear signal that Russia would like to stop the dismantling of their own country or empire, and would like to expand by force.

And this is what happened in 2008 against Georgia. This is what has happened since 2014 against Ukraine. What has happened in Belarus specifically, after the so-called presidential elections in August 2020, is that Russia fully controls the situation in Belarus de facto. And they would like to expand also perhaps towards Central Asian countries, specifically Kazakhstan. When you recall the ideas of, for instance, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a famous Russian writer who used to live in the United States and who came back to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was expelled by the KGB in the 70s. So, his idea is that Russia must be an empire, including the territories of Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan.

So, you see that this kind of way of thinking is strongly embedded in their minds. And that triggers this kind of very aggressive way of behavior against its neighbors. And unfortunately, this has led us to this very tragic war that is going on right now in Ukraine. And this is why I’m saying that trying to make a sort of temporary peace might save lives for some time. But unfortunately, it doesn’t serve the long term. Our goal is to restore lasting peace in Europe. I think what should be done today is to help Ukraine, as Türkiye has done since 2014. As we know, Turkish help has been significant to Ukraine, and also the political decision not to recognize any kind of annexations, similar to us. But the only way today to make sure that Russia takes negotiations seriously is that they see that their idea to conquer, to establish a new reality by force, is a dead-end policy. It won’t lead to the success of what they have dreamt about.

And this is why I think what NATO allies agreed upon in Washington was significant. This final declaration is a very good one. But we have to make sure that our support and assistance to Ukraine will last until victory. Temporary peace might save some lives but doesn’t serve long-term goals of lasting peace in Europe. Helping Ukraine is crucial, as Türkiye has done since 2014, with significant support and political decisions not recognizing annexations. NATO allies’ support must last until Ukraine achieves victory.

With Kaja Kallas steped down to become the EU’s foreign policy chief, how do you foresee Estonia’s role within NATO and the EU evolving under new leadership? Estonia has been a vocal supporter of Ukraine since Russia’s invasion. What further steps do you think the EU and NATO should take to ensure regional security and support Ukraine? Also, under Kaja Kallas’ administration, Estonia increased its defense budget significantly. How do you plan to maintain or expand this investment in national defense?

Kaja Kallas’ role is enormously important. Very good news for her… It is recognizing her leadership throughout the last several years, as she has been our Prime Minister and also a very clear and leading voice among allies when it comes to deterring and standing against Russian aggression; this is the first time ever an Estonian politician has been recognized with this kind of high recognition and job as a High Representative of Foreign and Security Policy within the EU.

And I’m more than sure that from 1st November when she will take office, she will actively lead the EU’s joint efforts to tackle all the challenges. Not only what we see in Ukraine but also in the Middle East, in Asia, and Africa. So, it’s going to be for her definitely a challenge.

What will be her approach for Israel-Gaza? In your previous answer, you said that it started on October 7th. But the fact is that it has been ongoing since 1948 according to several people. Because that’s an ongoing thing. The Palestinians and Gazans under occupation and killed immensely. You would accept this, right? And what would be her approach?

You have to ask Kaja. In your next interview, I don’t know what is her position as a high representative. You can ask her since 1st November.

And  what is your approach then?

Unfortunately, it comes to the question of what has happened on 7th October and afterward. Or what has happened during the last decades in the region by and large. Unfortunately, we have to understand that there are so many interests represented not only the direct sort of violence between particularly Palestinians or Israelis or Arab states against Israel who still a number of them don’t recognize the existence of Israel as a state. So, unfortunately, we see that there are interests of global players as well presented when it comes to for instance the interests of Iran or Russia or some other countries.

So, it is an extremely complicated situation today. We all of course as humans are against any suffering both those who suffered by this unimaginable terrorist attack on 7th October. I was just 7 days after this attack. I was in Bari Kibbutz and also in Nova music festival place. And believe me I have seen many unpleasant scenes. And this was something that was heartbreaking. I know that there is a long story before that. But we also know that before 7th October was relatively sort of stable period for some time. Anyway, any violence cannot be accepted at all. And specifically when it comes to the raping and torturing and killing in a way what it was done. And unfortunately, the response to that was known that it is going to lead to the unfortunate loss of many people in Gaza.

Sorry, no rapes are reported. All of them are reported to be fake news and proven. So, no single example of what you said…

Let’s please don’t go into that. I leave it to the investigators. Those facts which are known to many people. But anyway please…

You see Putin as a war criminal. Is Netanyahu a war criminal too?

Anyway, it demands international efforts to make sure that this war will end up respecting the basic rights of people to live in peace. But unfortunately, what we see right now is that the United States are in the middle of presidential elections. The European Commission is in transition. War in Ukraine is going on. And as I said, unfortunately, I see the direct link between the Russian aggression in Ukraine and also what has happened in the Middle East by and large in Syria before and the Russian meddling in killing thousands of people in Aleppo and trying to create a new reality of geopolitics in the region.

Internal politics of Israel is playing enormous impact on that and it is much more difficult to solve the situation right now. It is really huge puzzle. Unfortunately, I don’t see any immediate solution that can help us to restore lasting peace in Gaza as well. But I argue that with respect to Russian aggression, if Russian aggression against Ukraine is challenged by the international community in a way which recognize international-rules based world order, then that would help definitely to solve tensions in the Middle East which also involves Iran and others.

But you have the fact: Hospitals hit. Children are killed. Women are killed. Pregnant women are killed. And Israeli soldiers post how they mess with what is happening in Gaza in their Tiktok videos.

Do you know how many people are killed in Mariupol?

Of course, I know. I closely followed Russia-Ukraine war from the first day.

Every war crime when it comes to Russia or when it comes to October 7 events which Hamas must be recognized as terrorist organization should be condemned.

Netanyahu also killed tens of thousands of civilians after October 7th. Is he a war criminal like Putin in your eyes?

International Criminal Court must give its decision about that. But all war crimes must be dealt equally. That is something very clear. To deal with criminals like Putin, we have to think about our future and restore peace globally.

I can say you are a very good politician.

(Laughter).

Interview

EU late in Central Asia initiative, says expert

Published

on

The European Union has launched an ambitious initiative targeting Central Asian countries, which have long fostered close military, economic, and political ties with China and Russia.

The EU-Central Asia summit held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, on April 3-4, between the EU and five Central Asian countries, was the first of its kind and underscored Brussels’ interest in the region. With its “Global Gateway” project, the EU is attempting to create an alternative trade corridor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), while its share of direct foreign investment in the region has risen to 40%.

One of the summit’s most significant outcomes was European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s pledge of 10 billion euros in investment for the “Middle Corridor” passing through the region. Another issue that made headlines in Türkiye was the decision by member countries of the “Organization of Turkic States” to accredit ambassadors to the Republic of Cyprus, which the UN recognizes as the legitimate government of Cyprus. The joint statement referencing UN resolutions that do not recognize the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus caused controversy in Türkiye.

EU’s Central Asia move due to resource scarcity

Speaking to Harici, Alexander Rahr, head of the Berlin-based Eurasian Society, said that the EU’s recent move toward Central Asia is driven by the EU’s need for raw materials, raw material producers, and external resources. The German author noted that the EU has very few of the raw materials needed to strengthen its industry and industrial base, and therefore the EU is becoming increasingly dependent on external resources and raw materials.

“The EU has lost Russia, its main supplier and producer of raw materials; natural gas, oil and coal, and other minerals,” Rahr said, reminding that the continent is also in conflict with America, and a long-term trade war is expected between America and Europe, according to a number of experts. According to Rahr, it is therefore dangerous for the EU to rely only on the US or countries very closely linked to the US.

Rahr also stated that the EU is moving away from China. According to him, Brussels foresees a major crisis in China, a possible war with Taiwan one day.

Therefore, according to the German expert, the EU has very few options and is now eyeing Central Asia. These states are not too far from Europe and also contain a large amount of raw materials and minerals that the EU needs. Rahr continued:

“So the issue is clear: the EU needs a strategic partnership with Central Asian countries as a supplement to the lost Russian market and as a solution to problems with China.

The EU’s problem is that the Central Asian countries are very well connected to Russia and the Russian market. Russia’s influence in the region is much greater than that of the EU. The view that the EU will break Central Asian countries away from Russian influence is extremely naive. I think this is far too ambitious for the EU. They are also too late and the EU does not have the political instruments to do this.”

‘Brussels’ policy is disturbing because it focuses on values, not cooperation’

Rahr also emphasized that there are other large, active, hegemonic powers in the region. One of these is China: with its Silk Road strategy, it connects Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Russia partly to Europe and has a great deal of authority, political power, and influence in the region.

Türkiye is also in the region. It is very active in cooperation with Central Asian countries in this field.

Rahr therefore thinks that the EU is “too late” and also points out that the EU has other problems:

“Brussels’ foreign relations and economic policies focus on human rights, liberal values, and feminist foreign policy. All of these play an important role for the EU in building cooperation with countries outside Europe. But this is very disturbing for many countries that are not part of European culture. These countries do not want to be lectured or pressured by the EU. I think this is one of the obstacles to cooperation between the EU and Central Asian countries in the future.”

‘Eurasian countries will not break their ties with Russia just because the EU wants them to’

The German author also said that if Europe tries to encourage Türkiye, Central Asian countries, and even China to get rid of Russia’s influence, to break the ties they have established with Russia for decades, and to force countries such as Türkiye and Kazakhstan to participate in anti-Russia sanctions, he thinks that it is too late in this respect as well.

According to him, these countries, Central Asian countries, especially China, India, that is, “Eurasian countries,” have established a suitable relationship with Russia during these sanction wars. Therefore, he does not expect countries outside the EU to destroy their relations with Russia.

According to him, on the contrary, they benefit from these relations with Russia: “Of course, they also want to establish relations with the EU, why not? The EU is a very attractive market and has money for investment. But these countries also know the limits and political goals of the EU.”

‘Brussels will lose if it tries to break the region’s ties with China and Russia’

Rahr, who admits that trade relations between Germany and Central Asian countries are less important than, for example, these countries’ trade with China, says that China’s Silk Road strategy has developed very rapidly in this region.

Rahr noted that the EU, and especially Germany, can enter the region with European Silk Road strategies and ideas, “They can build special and very important corridors. This is logical and should be supported because a corridor built by Europeans may balance the political power carried by China’s Silk Road strategy,” he said.

Rahr thinks that the EU’s problem is “ideology.” According to him, Brussels will lose if it tries to spoil these countries’ relations with China or Russia:

“In my opinion, the EU will only win if it enters this region with an inclusive approach. Cooperation with all the main actors in the region and the construction of necessary corridors. Asia and Türkiye also benefit from this approach. But this must be a completely inclusive approach and must also combine investment with the globalization of markets, inter-market cooperation, and a common security approach for the region. A new Cold War should not be waged, as is currently the case in Ukraine.”

‘The Cyprus issue has been politically resolved in my opinion’

Finally, touching on the Cyprus issue, Rahr argues that the problem on the island has been politically resolved. “Everyone understands that Cyprus consists of two parts, the north connected to Cyprus and Türkiye,” Rahr claimed.

Rahr, who stated that “morality and international law” are very important for the West and that the issue is not completely resolved according to the Western approach, concludes his words as follows:

“In my opinion, if you look at the issue from a realistic and political point of view, there is a status quo in Cyprus. Many referendums were held on the island and the majority of the Cypriot population accepted the current status quo as it is. It seems impossible to change the real situation in Cyprus.

A realistic view should prevail here as well. You will always find some experts who question the ongoing processes in Cyprus and representatives of a larger international perspective.”

Continue Reading

Interview

The international system through China’s eyes: An in-depth interview with academics in Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Beijing

Published

on

In recent days, I had the opportunity to set out from Shanghai—one of China’s most vibrant and intellectually rich cities—and revisit Hangzhou and Beijing. These cities are home to China’s most prestigious universities and provide an ideal setting for gauging the pulse of academic circles. With Donald Trump’s re-election in the United States reigniting trade wars through heightened tariffs, the growing turbulence in the international system, and China’s position in this emerging world order, I engaged in extensive conversations with Chinese academics. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, these scholars offered candid insights into China’s foreign policy and the global balance of power. The questions are mine, while the responses come directly from these academics.

From Shanghai to Beijing: China’s academic community speaks

China’s role in the international system has been a frequent topic of debate in both the West and the East in recent years. The escalating trade wars spurred by Trump’s tariffs and a world order shaken by conflicts like Ukraine-Russia and Palestine-Israel have once again placed China under the global spotlight. During my discussions with leading academics from universities in Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Beijing, I sought to understand how China views this chaotic landscape and where it positions itself within it.

‘China keeps its distance from conflicts, but it’s a strategic choice’

The first striking aspect of China’s foreign policy is its cautious stance toward conflicts beyond its borders. According to the academics, China justifies this approach with its principles of “non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs” and “non-involvement in disputes between third parties.” However, I posed a pointed question: “Isn’t the root cause of these wars the power vacuum in the international system? If the U.S. were as strong as it once was, would conflicts like Russia-Ukraine or Palestine-Israel be as widespread? Doesn’t China bear some responsibility for the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order? If so, how logical is it for China, as a partial architect of this turbulence, to stand on the sidelines?”

One academic responded decisively: “Yes, it benefits China. The U.S. is no longer as powerful as it once was and is steadily weakening. Constantly engaged in wars, the U.S. is losing both prestige in the international community and economic ground. This situation works against the U.S. and in China’s favor.” I countered with an objection: “But doesn’t it seem like China is losing ground too? Russia and Iran paid heavy prices in Syria over the years, yet China couldn’t even economically support Syria’s reconstruction. Had it done so, might the Assad regime have survived? With Russia tied up in Ukraine and Iran clashing with Israel, Assad was left unsupported and fell. Moreover, groups like the Turkistan Islamic Party have gained strength in Syria and may soon have the capacity to establish a state. Can anyone guarantee that these groups won’t one day target China’s Xinjiang region?”

The academic acknowledged my concern: “Yes, what you say is partly true. Assad had lost the support of his people, and a leader who loses that support will inevitably fall, one way or another. But for China, the real threat isn’t the jihadist groups themselves—it’s the powers backing them. If China is ever forced to fight—and that would truly be a last resort—it would confront not the terrorist organizations, but the forces behind them. China doesn’t approve of Russia’s approach in Ukraine and is pursuing a different path.”

‘Russia made a mistake, China doesn’t favor proxy wars’

Curious about this “different path,” I pressed further: “What do you mean?” The academic’s response was striking: “Russia, with the largest landmass in the world, claimed its goal in Ukraine was to counter groups attempting ethnic cleansing of Russians—which was a legitimate concern. But it did what it swore it wouldn’t: it annexed the territory of a sovereign state. China, on the other hand, hasn’t launched a military operation even in Taiwan, which is internationally recognized as part of our territory. That’s because the people of Taiwan are our people; we seek peaceful reunification, and it will happen eventually. If an operation over Taiwan occurs, it won’t be between China and the island—it will be between China and the powers that support it behind.  China doesn’t engage in proxy wars.”

This response hinted at a red line in China’s approach to conflicts. “So, does that mean China will ignore global conflicts until they reach its borders?” I asked. The academic clarified: “No, of course we’ll raise our voice. We’ll stand against imperialism and with the oppressed. But we won’t be drawn into direct conflict as the U.S. wants. We do not want to jump into the trap that set by the U.S..We’re not ready for that now, but we’re preparing. Look at history: Britain won both world wars but lost all its strength. The U.S., entering both wars late, emerged fresh and energetic, securing victory and becoming the architect of the new world order. China is gathering its energy and strength today. Meanwhile, the U.S. is repeating Britain’s mistake—constantly fighting and wearing itself out.”

‘Waiting for the right moment is China’s strategy’

But isn’t there a limit to this “energy-gathering” strategy? “What happens if you lose all strategic points to the U.S. in the meantime?” I asked. The academic offered a historical perspective: “As Chinese, we, like the Turks, prefer to move forward with historical references. During international crises, we focus on resolving our internal issues and border disputes—it’s a form of preparation for the larger battle. Take the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. While the world was fixated on the U.S. and the Soviet Union, we settled our issue with India in one month. No one even noticed. Of course, no Chinese can figure out why the India launched a war with China first. Similarly, in 1979, amidst the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Second Oil Crisis, we are forced to start the Counterattack in Self-Defense on the Sino-Vietnamese Border, we entered Vietnam, achieved our goals swiftly, and withdrew. Timing is important for China.”

In short, while its adversaries fight, China builds its strength, preparing to defend itself when the moment is right. So when might that moment come? “At what point would China shift from rhetoric to action?” I asked. The answer was clear: “Maybe Iran, or maybe the direct attack from U.S.. Iran is so important for the safety of Central Asia and China. We oppose intervention in a sovereign state. Just as the U.S. supported Ukraine against Russia, we would support Iran anyway.”

‘Until 2030, a period of conflict and cooperation’

The academics also shared a long-term vision for China’s relationship with the U.S. “Until 2030, China will adopt a strategy of engaging the U.S. without entering direct conflict,” they said. They describe this period as one of “conflict and cooperation”, but maybe the most intense and dangerous period compared with the next 10-20 years. The reasoning lies in China’s domestic priorities: “Our western provinces are still underdeveloped. Until China completes its overall development, it won’t risk a direct confrontation. Militarily, we don’t want to be part of a conflict, nor do we think we’re ready for one. But after 2030, the gap between China and the U.S. will be reduced to a large degree and the balance will be in China’s favor. By then, we believe the U.S. won’t dare risk a direct conflict either. If they do venture into such ‘madness,’ China will be ready.”

‘China won’t kneel to Trump’s tariffs’

When the topic turned to Trump’s tariffs, the academic was resolute: “We’ll see it through to the end. In 2018, we didn’t immediately retaliate to the U.S.’s tariffs on China, but things are different now. We didn’t start this trade war, and we won’t bow to the U.S.”

Russia-U.S. agreement and new alliances

I also asked about the possibility of a Russia-U.S. deal: “It was said that China and Russia’s partnership had no limits—does that still hold?” The academic replied: “But there is a bottom line for the relations. China has never seen Russia as an enemy. We understand the security rationale behind its intervention in Ukraine, but we’ve always supported a sovereign state’s territorial integrity. If Russia strikes a deal with the U.S., that’s their choice. According to the official documents, China has no allies. The only ally China has maybe the North Korea because of the Korean War.”

Finally, I touched on recent developments: “Last month, Russia blamed European states for world wars, avoiding mention of the U.S. Trump suggests he could reach an agreement with Russia. Meanwhile, tariffs seem to be bringing China and Europe closer. Just last week, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited China, emphasizing cooperation. Could we see a China-EU alliance pitted against a U.S.-Russia bloc in the near future?” The academic didn’t rule it out: “There are no eternal friendships or enmities. It’s possible. And with potential land and rail links between China and the EU, the strategic importance of Central Asia and Turkey grows. Turkey’s geopolitical position and ties with Central Asia could make it a key partner for China.”

Conclusion: China’s strategic patience and future plans

This interview with Chinese academics reveals Beijing’s patient, strategic, and long-term approach to the turbulence in the international system. By steering clear of conflicts and building its strength, China aims to avoid direct confrontation until 2030, even 2035, 2049 while completing its development. The academics predict that, post-2030, China’s advantage over the U.S. will grow, preparing it for any potential conflict. A critical key country like Iran or a strategic issue like Taiwan could prompt China to act sooner. In the face of Trump’s trade wars, China stands firm: it won’t back down. Meanwhile, emerging partnerships like Russia-U.S. and China-EU, potentially involving Turkey, hint at a global realignment. Time will tell what role China ultimately plays in this chaotic world.

Continue Reading

Interview

German economist: Militarization of industry is a path to disaster

Published

on

Lucas Zeise, a German economist and co-founder of Financial Times Deutschland, shared his views on the militarization of industry in a recent interview. Zeise said, “If more and more is being spent on the defense industry, this is actually a loss. Because this is a production that exists only for destruction. This is a sign of a general decline and at the same time an indication of the road to disaster.”

Born in 1944, Lucas Zeise is a financial journalist with a background in philosophy and economics. His career includes positions with the Japanese Ministry of Economics, the German aluminum industry, the Frankfurt-based Börsen-Zeitung, and the Financial Times Deutschland, which he co-founded. Until 2017, he served as editor-in-chief of UZ, the weekly newspaper of the German Communist Party (DKP). He currently writes a regular column for Junge Welt and contributes articles to various publications.

Lucas Zeise answered Tunç Akkoç’s questions about the debate on German industry and economy and global developments.

Tunç Akkoç: First of all, is deindustrialization a reality?

Lucas Zeise: Yes, I think so, but of course it is a long-lasting reality. Deindustrialization is a process that coincides with capitalist development in general. Industry has been the main surplus-value-producing element of capitalism in all countries, and in some of the more developed countries, notably Britain, deindustrialization has reached a more advanced level. Since Britain was the first fully developed capitalist country, this process started earlier.

Economists often refer to this process as the tertiary sector, i.e. the service sector in general. In capitalist countries, the share of services in the economy is steadily increasing. This is a general trend that can be observed everywhere, and is particularly related to the fact that developed countries are gradually shifting their industries to other regions, especially South-East Asia, by exporting capital. While industrialization is taking place in these regions, the process of deindustrialization in developed countries has accelerated.

In addition, the process of financialization has also accelerated and the financial sector has become stronger. However, the finance sector is a service sector, not an industry. Nevertheless, all these service sectors depend on industry remaining strong. When we analyze the UK, we can see that the country has experienced a relative decline compared to other regions. For example, Germany had overtaken the UK in the industrialization process and even surpassed it before the First World War. Likewise, the US has also overtaken the UK in terms of industrialization.

This is a long-term trend. However, two major industrialized countries, Germany and Japan, have managed to resist this process for a long time. The recent economic shocks, however, have accelerated Germany’s deindustrialization process, which has brought about an inevitable crisis. This is the essence of the whole issue.

Tunç Akkoç: Some influential figures in the European Union, such as Mario Draghi, have argued that Germany should move away from the car industry and invest in new technologies such as artificial intelligence. What do you think about such proposals for structural change?

Lucas Zeise: I think such proposals for structural change will happen spontaneously on the one hand. I mean, this process is already going on naturally. China has already overtaken Germany in the car industry. Therefore, Mario Draghi’s advice on this issue is actually a cheap suggestion. It is easy to suggest something like this and then say ‘Great job!'”

On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to think that it is possible to steer the economy in this way. It is not enough to say, ‘OK, now we are investing heavily in artificial intelligence and we will get ahead in this field.’ Moreover, it is debatable whether artificial intelligence is really a great revolution or just a passing fad. Artificial intelligence can actually be considered as a sub-branch of the semiconductor industry, i.e. microelectronics.

Of course, the development of microelectronics is important and all countries are making state-sponsored investments in this field. The European Union and Germany are already encouraging this. However, this is not something that is unique to Germany or something that makes Germany different from others. While it is possible to make great progress in this area, this alone is not the final solution to a problem.

Tunç Akkoç: In general, how do you assess Germany’s future energy supply strategy?

Lucas Zeise: Obviously, I am not an expert in this field, so it is difficult for me to give a really good assessment. But it seems very clear to me that all states have to pay attention to such a central sector of the economy.

Germany was already in a different position in that it did not have its own oil companies. This has become a historical tradition. As for natural gas, there used to be two big centers: one centered around BASF, the other around Ruhrgas. These two structures were interconnected and worked well for a while. Over time, however, this system changed and other areas of the energy sector, especially electricity generation, were restructured.

However, this does not change the fact that the energy sector must be guided by the state. Energy policy should be managed by the state in a holistic manner. Developing a common energy policy in the European Union already seems unlikely. However, such a policy should have been mandatory for such a large common market.

At this point, if we look at the example of Turkey, the energy sector there is handled, managed and coordinated in a relatively centralized manner. In Germany, and at the EU level in general, there is a major deficiency in this respect. The state does not really take enough ownership of the energy issue.

Tunç Akkoç: On the other hand, German industry is increasingly turning to the defense industry. Some see in the militarization of the economy the potential for a kind of ‘re-industrialization’. After the war in Ukraine, more and more German companies are breaking the taboo on supplying the defense industry and entering the military equipment sector. How should we assess this development?

Lucas Zeise: On the one hand, this is clearly a sign of the collapse of the still developing and relatively well-functioning global economy. If more and more of it is being spent on the defense industry, this is actually a loss. Because this activity is a production that exists only for destruction. This is a sign of a general decline and at the same time an indication of a road to disaster.

It is also clear that there is competition for the best defense tenders in the international arena. That is why everyone feels that it needs to enter this field strongly. Nobody just wants to buy aircraft from the US, but wants to build their own defense industry. Germany was already taking part in this process. Although not always at the forefront, tank production in particular has long been strong. This sector was progressing steadily, albeit at a slow pace.

However, this development seems to herald an impending catastrophe. It shows that everyone is preparing for war. This is very similar to the atmosphere before the First World War.

Tunç Akkoç: Elections are approaching in Germany. Do you think that after these elections, Germany’s economic policies will change with a new political order?

Lucas Zeise: More likely no, I don’t think so. I think that economic issues have become a bit more prominent, but if we look back, I remember that in the German Bundestag elections in 1969, one of the main debates in the election campaign was whether the German Mark (D-Mark) should appreciate against the US Dollar. So, a very specific and economically critical issue for Germany at that time was at the center of the election campaign. This debate was directly related to the position Germany should take vis-à-vis the US and Europe.

Today such a debate is missing. The issues that really need to be addressed —energy policy, deindustrialization— are being dealt with in a strangely distorted way. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is the Agenda 2010 program that Gerhard Schröder launched in 2002 or 2003. This program meant lowering wages, reducing social benefits and increasing profit-making opportunities for companies.

But this approach was already wrong at the time. Schröder’s move enabled some big companies to make a big leap forward and strengthened German capital, especially in the European domestic market. This had certain advantages, but repeating it now would only worsen the situation.

That’s why I think the debate is being conducted in the wrong way and not particularly along party lines. On the contrary, there seems to be a consensus among most political actors on this issue.

Tunç Akkoç: How do you assess the first actions of the Trump administration and what will be the impact on international relations and the global economy?

Lucas Zeise: In my opinion, there is not a new wave of deregulation (liberalization). The US government’s more aggressive stance towards other great powers, or as Trump calls them, ‘shitholes’, or small states, ruthlessly suppressing and crushing them, is not deregulation. It is, in fact, a further intensification of the rivalry between the capitalist states, which are essentially allies, by any means necessary. We can see this situation clearly.

This is not deregulation; it is more like what happened during the Ronald Reagan era. At that time, the US tried to revitalize its rivalry, not with China, but especially with Japan and Western Europe. Reagan’s ruthless behavior towards his own allies was aimed at strengthening the US global position. Today, I think it has become even harsher, so much so that the President of the US can stand up and say, ‘Oh Denmark, you have to give us Greenland, or else we will buy it.’ They even imply that they can intervene directly if necessary.

This kind of behavior is actually a continuation of the past US policies towards Panama. Panama was detached from Colombia and made independent because the US wanted to build a canal there. In other words, this imperialist behavior towards weak countries is already a tradition. But the behavior towards medium-sized states such as Germany, Britain, France or Japan is becoming more and more brutal. I see this as the result of an intensifying and ever more bitter rivalry.

The US in particular is less and less reluctant to use its military power more recklessly, and this is becoming more and more prominent. This is not a new era; it is a further advance of neoliberalism and laissez-faire. The so-called ‘rules-based economic policy’ rhetoric has been completely discarded.

Tunç Akkoç: We see both overly optimistic and overly pessimistic comments about the Chinese economy. When government bonds lose value, pessimists sound the alarm; when exports break records, optimists raise their voices. Does China have the intention or the power to ‘share’ the world with the US?

Lucas Zeise: I completely agree with you; the overly optimistic comments are as exaggerated as the overly pessimistic ones. If I try to think from the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party and its leaders, their tradition has been to position China as the largest economic power and to take the first place in the capitalist world.

In the present situation, if I am the second most powerful country, naturally my goal is to equalize with the first. And I have to do this because there is almost no scenario in which the US will accept this and say, ‘OK, we can live in peace with China.’ For a while it seemed as if there was this understanding, that we were working well with China and we were happy with that. But this is clearly no longer possible.

The official US policy is based on not allowing China to become an equal power. They want to continue to set the rules and, if necessary, to violate them according to their own interests. Therefore, China is forced to act like an imperial power.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey