Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Brigade to be Created in 2017

Representatives from Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine

The Governments of Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine have agreed on setting up a joint military brigade between them, a project that is likely to be created by next year, International business Times reports. This announcement comes at a time when countries in Eastern Europe have been increasingly concerned over Russian Aggression in the region, particularly in Ukraine.

The Military Brigade between the three countries is set to comprise of 4,000 troops, and its headquarters will be in Lublin, Poland. According to Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz, “the multinational brigade is a sign, symbol, and very clear signal to anyone who would want to undermine peace in Europe.” Macierewicz also stated that the force will be used to strengthen defense and deter potential threats in the region. Although it was never explicitly stated, these comments almost definitely were in reference to Russia. Countries in the region have been on edge since the Russian Annexation of Crimea and the War in Eastern Ukraine, in which pro-Russian rebels were reportedly funded by Moscow. For countries that have close relations with Russia, like Belarus, they have avoided outright condemnation of Russian actions, but have remained weary. For former communist countries that have joined NATO and the European Union, in this case Poland and Lithuania, they have strongly condemned Russian actions, and have called on NATO to move permanent troops to their countries for extra protection.

Recently, however, the United States and Western European countries have been growing tired of strained relations with Russia. After a few days of delay and uncertainty, delegates from both the Syrian Government and the Syrian Opposition have arrived in Geneva, Switzerland, for peace talks to attempt to end the bloody Civil War in the country. The participation of the Assad government in the talks would not have been possible without Russia’s help. In addition, outright violence in Eastern Ukraine has largely died down. As long as Russia continues to be cooperative with the Syria peace talks and a peace deal is reached in East Ukraine, Western officials have implied that sanctions imposed on Moscow since the Ukrainian crisis escalated could be dropped. French Economic Minister Emmanuel Macron even suggested that the sanctions could be dropped this Summer.

The countries of Eastern Europe, for the most part, do not share this sentiment. Feeling especially vulnerable to Russian aggression, since Ukraine their governments have become increasingly nationalistic and anti-Russian; this is true for Lithuania to an extent, but especially true for Poland. The creation of this military brigade largely stems from these governments worries that the West may not be willing to entertain their requests anymore for increased NATO military presences in their countries, which Russia sees as a provocation. Although the brigade between the three countries has technically been created for a few years now, the fact that it is becoming operational at this point in time is significant.

However, there is also another point of significance that revolves around the inclusion of Ukraine in the fighting force. Both Poland and Lithuania are members of the European Union and NATO. Ukraine is a member of neither, but is an aspirant to both. Both the government and most of the population, particularly in the Western half of the country, are in favor of European Integration. The Euromaidan demonstrations that racked Ukraine from late 2013 to the toppling of the pro-Russian government in 2014 stemmed from the suspension of a Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement. This brigade, although on the surface not doing much in regards towards European Union membership, could help Ukraine eventually join the NATO Alliance. Poland joined NATO in 1999, with Lithuania joining in 2004, and to become members they had to effectively develop modern militaries that could at least be on par with the other NATO members. With increased cooperation and integration with its neighbors militaries through the brigade, Ukraine could have the guidance it desperately needs to develop its own military to NATO standards. Although this is not likely to happen in the near future, it is certainly a step in the right direction for Ukraine.

Outside of improvements in its army, however, Ukraine desperately needs reform at the governmental level. Although I have pointed this out in many previous articles about the country, Ukraine is filled to the brim with corruption and ineffectiveness, and the current pro-European government has done very little in regards to improving its functions and freedoms. And sadly, being a highly-functioning democracy is not a requirement for joining NATO. One of the Alliance’s founding members was Portugal, which at the time was an authoritarian, pseudo-fascist dictatorship that violently clung on to its remaining colonies in Africa and other parts of the world more than any other European country (democracy was not established in Portugal until after 1974). Today, NATO’s members include Turkey, one of the most influential members of the organization, but which has been becoming increasingly authoritarian under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Although democratic standards for the organization have slightly improved in recent years, they have not by much. Although Albania, one of the more recent members who was admitted in 2009, aspires to the European Union and has attempted to make democratic reforms, its government still does not meet the standards of Western democracies.

In the best case scenario, this military brigade would further cooperation between Ukraine and Poland and Lithuania, two countries that have effectively gone through the democratization process, and as a result, they would help Ukraine improve its democratic systems. But this is unlikely. Although pro-NATO sentiment remains strong across the board in these countries, with Poland hosting the next NATO summit in July, their governments have been becoming increasingly anti-EU. This phenomenon is most present in Poland, which, until recently, was considered the model European State of former Communist Europe, with a booming economy, a very active civil society, and an effective democracy. In a parliamentary election a few months ago, the nationalist, Euro-sceptic Law and Justice Party (PiS) of Poland took power. Its leaders take cues from Poland’s illiberal neighbor Hungary, and is trying to consolidate Polish media and fill important positions in government with party loyalists. The Party’s actions have been seen as increasingly undemocratic, and has led to a spat between Poland and the European Union over its actions. While the PiS rule in Poland is a sharp turn from the amazing progress Poland has made over the past two and a half decades, due to Poland’s bustling civil society, which has already protested many of the government’s actions, hopefully any damage the party causes can be mitigated in the next election. Lithuania, for its part, has a similar party known as the Order and Justice Party which is a member of the governing coalition; however, it has not been met with the same electoral success as the PiS. With a parliamentary election in October later this year, it will certainly be interesting to see which types of parties shall come to power in Lithuania.

Although the growth of nationalist, illiberal parties in Eastern Europe is troubling, it is simply reflecting the attitudes of many citizens not only in the region, but in the rest of Europe as well. With the European migrant crisis putting stress on the idea of European unity, far-right and anti-EU parties have been seeing increasing attention across the continent. However, Ukraine sees the European Union in a different light. If the country wants to properly reform its government, then it will need the help of EU members. And with the creation of the multinational brigade next year, it seems like as good as any medium for Poland and Lithuania, as both countries have gone from communism to democracy, to give Ukraine a helping hand in this difficult process. However, with the Polish government’s recent actions and Lithuania not seeming to be able to do much on its own to help, I would count on this alliance only being through military cooperation, and not much else.

Kazakhstan Jails Two For Facebook Posts

Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Kazakhstan

After a bogus trial that many dissenters believe was politically motivated, authorities in Kazakhstan have jailed two critics of the government who posted critical messages on Facebook, EurasiaNet reports. The jailing comes two days after Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev called for snap parliamentary elections for March as the nation heads for hard times economically due to low oil prices.

President Nazarbayev, who has been in power since Kazakhstan gained its independence, has always been notorious for cracking down on dissent; no legitimate political opposition exists, and all media is state-run. For this reason, many people in Kazakhstan turn to the internet and social media to voice their dissent against the government. However, in recent years, even this haven has been increasingly monitored. In this case, Yermek Narymbayev and Serikzhan Mambetalin were posting on Facebook about an unpublished book from around two decades ago by an anti-government activist, Murat Telibekov (who is, coincidentally, now being investigated by the government). And because of these postings, this month they were convicted by a Kazakh court for “inciting ethnic strife and insulting the honor and dignity of the Kazakh nation.” Under the vague charge of incitement of ethnic, religious, tribal, or social strife, Mambetalin was sentenced to two years in prison, while Narymbayev, who had been in incredibly ill health throughout the trial, was sentenced to three years.

Although the government claims that no trial in Kazakhstan is politically motivated, this trial almost certainly was. In the virtual world of the internet, Narymbayev and Mambetalin were very vocal critics of the Nazarbayev Regime, yet do not protest physically. Because of that, the government decided to latch onto a collection of weak Facebook posts and raise bogus charges against the dissenters. To say that the trial was only a formality would be accurate. The charge of “inciting ethnic strife” is often used by the Kazakh government to silence dissidents, and civil rights groups have long urged Kazakhstan to abolish this charge. But let’s be honest: even if they did, they would simply create a similar crime to jail political activists in the country. Political dissent in Kazakhstan was largely confined on the internet; now, President Nazarayev is trying to clamp down on this platform of criticism as well.

This sentencing comes at a time of uncertainty for the largest economy of Central Asia, an economy which is in decline. International sanctions on Kazakhstan’s biggest trading partner, Russia, are certainly a factor. But this weakening economy is in large part due to the falling oil prices, which have affected many countries in the post-Soviet sphere; petroleum and crude oils make up over half of Kazakhstan’s total exports. This has most certainly made officials in Astana uneasy, as for the past two decades they have touted the successes of the economy as testament to their good leadership. Whenever President Nazarbayev is confronted with criticism of his abysmal human rights record, he always deflects it with claims that he has brought stability and even prosperity to Kazakhstan. If that statement would have been considered a stretch a few years ago, it certainly would be considered a stretch today. For the country’s economy is not stable, nor is it prospering; it is shrinking.

In response to this crisis, Nazarbayev recently decided to hold snap parliamentary elections in March. The Parliamentary Elections were originally scheduled for the Fall of 2016. Early elections are not necessarily new for the Central Asian nation; in fact, they are actually quite common. And each time, Kazakh elections are blasted for not having a legitimate opposition. This election will be no different, as Kazakh voters choose mainly between three nearly-identical parties that each back the President. The point of the early elections, as stated by the Kazakh government, is to get a mandate from the people that the government is doing the right thing. However, when there is no tangible opposition in elections, how can the government get a mandate? The answer is, of course, that they can’t. Each election in Kazakhstan, pro-government forces get well over 95% of the vote because citizens cannot see any other alternative. It only gives the government yet another propaganda tool to tell anyone watching them that they are acting on the wishes of the people.

There is also something of a cruel irony to this entire situation. President Nazarbayev claims to want a mandate from the people that he is doing a good job. And two days after he called for the early elections, Narymbayev (who, keep in mind, was nearly too ill to stand trial) and Mambetalin, the dissidents on Facebook, were sentenced to three and two years in prison, respectively. When in crisis, it is typical, if deplorable, for authoritarian regimes such as Nazarbayev’s to crack down on critics within their country more than they usually do. But when trying to get a mandate from the people to move forward on the current course, it would probably be wise to actually listen to the people instead of maneuvering the electoral system to create zero chances that it will not go according to plan. However, Nazarbayev is not interested in what the unfiltered masses have to say. And if they become too loud or too annoying, then he will lock them up.

British Inquiry States Putin Likely Behind 2006 Assassination

Alexander Litvinenko in the hospital shortly before his death

Just recently, a detailed British Inquiry was released which explicitly stated that the 2006 murder of former Russian FSB spy, Alexander Litvinenko, was probably carried out by Russian agents, who would have almost definitely acted under the orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The inquiry, conducted by Former High Court Judge Robert Owen, took over a year to complete, and states that Litvinenko’s murderers, Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB and FSB (the successor to the KGB) agent, and Dmitri Kovtun, a retired Russian military officer, poisoned him with radioactive polonium-210 while almost certainly working for the Russian spy service. This operation would have not only likely been approved by the Russian FSB head at the time, Nikolai Patrushev, but it would have also been approved by President Putin. Many who concur with the findings of the inquiry also point to the fact that Lugovoi, one of the suspected murderers, is now a high-ranking member of the Russian Parliament and has been protected by Putin in the past in calls to extradite him to the UK to stand trial. The complete, extensive report can be found here.

Alexander Litvinenko was a former FSB agent working for Russia when, under increasing pressure at home, he defected to the United Kingdom and began working as a journalist as well as a consultant for the MI6. While living in the UK, he claimed that the Russian government was behind multiple terrorist attacks across Russia, including the 1999 Apartment Bombings which are largely attributed to Vladimir Putin’s rise in power. On Novemeber 1, 2006, after about six years of living in Britain, he fell gravely ill and was hospitalized after what doctors later saw was poisoning from polonium-210; he died on November 23rd. In a posthumous statement released the next day, Litvinenko accused Putin of his poisoning. And now, this inquiry seems to be backing up his statement.

The inquiry reveals five possible motivations for Litvinenko’s murder: the first, that the Russians believed Litvinenko had betrayed the FSB by revealing Russian secrets; the second, that Litvinenko was working with MI6; third, that Litvinenko was among many vocal critics of the Putin regime; fourth, that his claims against the FSB and against Putin, such as murder plots and terrorist activities, were of great sensitivity to the government; and the fifth possibility was that Putin simply did not like him personally. Litvinenko did call him a pedophile, after all. The real reason Litvinenko was assassinated, assuming Putin was behind, was likely a combination of all five of these reasons, although the fact that he was a vocal critic certainly highlights the plight of dissenters against his regime, both then and now.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, the Kremlin, as well as countless Russian officials, in a predictable fashion, immediately dismissed the inquiry, calling it “politically motivated.” Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement that “we regret that a purely criminal case has been politicized and has darkened the general atmosphere of our bilateral relations.” However, the claim that the results of the inquiry were “politically motivated” doesn’t really make much sense, especially when looking at the general atmosphere of bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation currently.

After many years of hassle, the inquiry into Litvinenko’s death was launched on January 27th of last year. At this time, Russia’s relations with not only London, but the US and Europe as well, were at an all-time low. The year before, Russia had annexed the Crimean Peninsula and fueled further instability in the Eastern part of Ukraine. Western sanctions were imposed upon Russia, and the West certainly had reason to want to isolate its old adversary in the international sphere. During this time period, it certainly would have been valid, even somewhat accurate, to say that the opening of the inquiry into Litvinenko, a long-controversial case somewhat suppressed in earlier attempts to try to ease relations between the British and the Russians, was somewhat politically motivated.

However, in a year, things have drastically changed. Whether Western governments liked it or not, Russia proved itself to still have great international influence throughout the year. During the Iran Nuclear Talks in the Summer of 2015, Russia was recognized as a constructive partner by President Obama. And as the conflict in Syria raged on, President Putin positioned himself to become an influential, even indispensable figure in talks between the moderate Syrian opposition and the Assad government. At the end of the year, the United States and Russia passed a joint-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution promoting a ceasefire in Syria. With any luck, indirect peace talks between the government and the opposition are scheduled to take place next week. This would not have been possible without Russia’s coaxing of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to take part in them. Although Russia is by no means an ally of the West, the US and European powers certainly want to see an end to the Civil War in Syria so an international coalition can focus its attention on the Islamic State group. So to get this end, the West has cautiously engaged Russia. It is not a relationship of trust, but one of necessity.

And Britain, a staunch ally of the United States and player on the international scene in its own right, would certainly like to keep this positive momentum going to hopefully bring the War to an end. So why would this inquiry be released for political purposes? A deep schism between Russia and Britain could fracture the Syrian peace process and threaten the progress made towards a ceasefire. Such a schism already exists between Russia and Turkey after Turkish forces shot down a Russian jet over the Turkish-Syrian border in November. But one would certainly expect the British government to act more diplomatic than its Turkish counterpart, which increasingly behaves with the attitude of a stubborn  child. The British inquiry was not published with a political motive in mind, because it simply would not make sense given the current atmosphere between the two countries.

Now the question lies in what Britain should do next. And for this, there is no easy answer. A larger diplomatic spat between Russia and the UK over Litvinenko could threaten the Syrian peace talks, as stated previously, and could potentially lead to further Russian adventurism in Syria without coordination with other powers. However, it cannot go unpunished. Vladimir Putin is, in no exaggerated terms, a thug who takes out anyone he thinks is too dangerous or critical. Litvinenko is one example. Boris Nemtsov, the Russian reporter who was assassinated last year by “Chechen terrorists”, is another. To name all of the victims of Putin would be a long list indeed. Justice must be served for Litvinenko. For the time being, this will likely mean some additional sanctions. But when the time is right, more punitive actions against Russia must be taken.

Tajikistan Could Become a Failed State, Report Warns

A border crossing on the Tajik-Afghan border

The International Crisis Group has released a report that warns that the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan could see increased instability and could even become a failed state, due to both internal persecution and external threats. The report focuses in on an increased extremist presence in the region and actions taken by the Tajik government to suppress religious expression. Tajikistan, a Muslim-majority nation, has in recent years become increasingly paranoid about the threat of Islamic Terrorism.

Instability is nothing new to Tajikistan. In the Central Asian region, an unstable area to begin with, there have been three major conflicts: two of these conflicts have taken place in Tajikistan. The Tajikistani Civil War lasted from 1992, shortly after the nation’s independence, until 1997. The Civil War is estimated to have killed up to 100,000 people and displaced over a million Tajiks within and outside the country. The opposing side of the War, the United Tajik Opposition, included forces that both fought for democracy within the country as well as some groups that fought for Islamism. It is even said that the Opposition had some support from Taliban and Al-Qaeda factions. Ultimately, a peace treaty was signed, and the United Tajik Opposition was disbanded. The country was left in ruin, and the government made an even further turn towards authoritarianism under Tajik President Emomali Rahmon. The second conflict in Tajikistan was an insurgency that lasted between 2010 and 2012, and led by some leaders from the previous Tajik Opposition’s Islamist factions. This time, causalities were much less severe, although with the direct sponsorship of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group the Islamic Movement in Uzbekistan, the government was now even more afraid of the threat of Islamic terrorism in the country.

In the past year, there has not only been an increase in activity of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but now there are groups affiliated with the Islamic State operating in the region. Out of all of the Post-Soviet Central Asian nations, Tajikistan shares the largest border with Afghanistan. So for Tajikistan, the poorest state in all of Central Asia and the least-equipped to handle terrorism, this terrorist reemergence is especially dangerous. As Tajikistan is currently suffering from a weak economy and poor infrastructure, it does not have the ability to properly maintain its border with Afghanistan. The report describes the Tajik-Afghan border as “inconsistent at best”, making it not very difficult for terrorists from Afghanistan to cross into the country. Make no mistake: there is a very real and very serious threat to the well-being of the Tajik people here.

However, instead of promoting a peaceful image of Islam for the Muslim-majority nation to follow, President Rahmon has pursued a dangerous policy of forcing secularism upon the population. The government, although not outright banning mosques, made the process to have them register with the government more difficult, and destroyed mosques and any other places of worship for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike that were not registered. Tajikistan’s Education Ministry has banned girls from wearing the hijab and other headscarves in public schools, and wearing hijabs in general, as well as having long beards for men, is discouraged by the government. Early this year, the government even banned the use of Arabic names, as they were deemed as “foreign.” Promoting a secular vision Islam is fine; done well, it is even commendable. But when it is forced upon a population that is devoutly Muslim, it feels too much like Soviet times. And pent-up anger and frustration from previous and current religious persecutions will only fuel violent radicalism. It already has: last year, Gulmurod Khalimov, a high-ranking general previously within the security elite of Tajikistan, defected to the Islamic State, and many more recruits from Tajikistan and Central Asia as a whole have been estimated.

In addition to these repressive measures by the Rahmon regime, last year Rahmon banned the moderate Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan, one of the groups from the original Tajikistan Opposition from the Civil War that, under a peace deal in 1997, would retain a certain number of seats within the parliament. After 2015 parliamentary elections, which contained a large amount of irregularities just as the rest of the region has, the Party lost their seats; some months later, the party was banned altogether; and finally, the group was declared a terrorist group. Although the Islamic Renaissance Party promoted political Islam as its ideology, it was not violent (at least not after the Civil War), and its removal and explicit denunciation by the government has only led to an increased resentment among the populace. The government’s repression of any forms of political Islam could very well lead to an increase of militant Islam within the country.

President Rahmon’s actions against Islam in the public eye, as well as the increasing instability occurring to Tajikistan’s South in Northern Afghanistan, lead to the report stating that Tajikistan could very well become a failed state in the near future. This must not happen. If Tajikistan falls or becomes engrossed in another Civil War or insurgency, then the country will most certainly act as a hub for terrorists to spread across the fragile Central Asian region. In response to the threats posed by the Taliban and the Islamic State in Afghanistan, Russia and regional partners such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan must come together to protect the Tajik border. Each of these countries has a stake in Tajikistan, and so they will likely at least attempt to protect the country from ruin. However, as they have dismal human rights records themselves, they are not likely to protest Rahmon’s policies of repressing Islam in society. For this angle, it is the responsibility of the United States and the European Union to increase pressure upon Rahmon to stop these unhelpful methods of trying to stop Islamic radicalization, as it is not only wrong, but it will likely only lead to further Islamic radicalization. The West already has some counter-terrorism links with Tajikistan through the Afghanistan War. If the President is wise, then he will listen to the Western government’s requests to, at the very least, lessen his grip on religious freedoms within his country. Will this happen? It is too early to say. But if President Rahmon does not let up, then Tajikistan faces a serious risk of plunging into a conflict from which it may not return for some time.

Moldova’s Political Crisis Rages On

A large pro-European protest in Moldova

The President of Moldova has nominated a possible contender to be Prime Minister of the country, US News and World Report reports. This nomination was announced late Thursday after massive protests in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau in response to the proposed nomination of a wealthy and seemingly-corrupt businessman and politician for the spot, a figure who was supported by the ruling political coalition in Moldova. This is only one chapter in the saga of a major political crisis that has plagued the poor, Eastern European country for well over a year now.

Moldova is situated East of Romania, a NATO member, and West of Ukraine, a country going through a crisis of its own. The Ukrainian Crisis, however, is much more well-known to the international community as compared to what is going on in Moldova. This stems from two factors: the first is that Ukraine has been forced to respond directly to Russian aggression, both through annexing part of its territory and supporting rebels that have seized territory of their own. So in a sense, while the story being printed by the international press is about Ukraine, it is first and foremost about Russia. Although talk about Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine is certain to garner attention, the current Ukrainian political crisis is likely to go largely unnoticed. As Russia is not playing a major role in Moldova, the situation here is ignored. The second reason is just that Ukraine is much bigger than Moldova. Ukraine has a population of about 44 million people, while Moldova has less than 4 million. However, despite originating from a small country, the Moldovan crisis is nevertheless important, as the nation’s shaky future depends upon its resolution.

Moldova’s recent troubles started in around November of 2014, when $1.5 billion went missing in three major national banks. For any major economy, this would certainly be a major scandal. For Moldova, the poorest country in Europe with a GDP comparable to many African countries, it was catastrophic. As a result of the theft, Moldova lost an estimated 1/8 of its economy. Last year, when the scandal was made public, Moldova’s currency, the leu, plummeted, and living standards in the country were threatened for many citizens. National uproar followed. Massive protests have been persistent in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau for many months now. Although the country had five different Prime Ministers over the course of 2015, (with an acting PM currently in office) Moldovan President Nicolae Timofti has remained in office throughout the crisis. The protesters have consistently called for his resignation, as well as a more thorough investigation of the scandal and a crackdown on the massive corruption in the country. At the same time, Moldova has been stuck with an interim government, as the fate of the Prime Minister is still uncertain.

This latest spurt of protesters is in response to the proposed nomination of Vlad Plahotniuc for Prime Minister, an influential politician with investments in oil, finance, banking, and media. Protesters claim that he is too corrupt and holds too much power to take on the position of PM. Plahotniuc was nominated by the ruling Alliance for European Integration coalition, a pro-European coalition that has been at odds with President Timofti since the crisis began. Although the Alliance pushes for European integration and stresses accession to the European Union as a major policy for the country, its behavior is rather un-European. Many accuse the coalition of just supporting European integration because it is popular with the public, and that they are really mainly indifferent to the idea as long as they are in power. Corruption in the coalition parties is widespread, just as it is in the rest of government.

In response to the protests and the nomination, Timofti rejected Plahotniuc as a potential contender for the Premiership, and instead nominated Ion Paduraru for the job. Paduraru is currently the general secretary of the President’s cabinet. The interim Moldovan Parliament is expected to vote on Paduraru soon, but if he is denied, Moldova is left with very few options. If Moldova is not able to form a government within the month, then snap elections will be called. With public dissatisfaction at an all-time high, the results of these potential elections are too difficult to predict. No matter what happens, the future of Moldova remains murky. Even if a new government is able to be formed and Paduraru becomes the next PM, it is up in the air how, let alone if, the government will soothe its outraged people and try to bring order back to Moldova.

Solutions to this crisis are unclear. Corruption is present nearly everywhere in the system, and it is hard to decide who to trust. However, some things should be a must: first off, a transparent, thorough investigation should be conducted into the stolen $1.5 billion. The fact that the government has not been nearly as transparent as it should have been since the disappearance only further seeds suspicion among the populace. Secondly, President Timofti must resign. He has failed to lead his country in one of the worst crises in Moldova since the Transnistrian War in the early 90s. He says that he cares about making government more transparent and ending corruption; if he wants to prove it, he will follow the wishes of his people and resign from the presidency. And third, the pro-European coalition should be disbanded. Although integration into Europe is a priority for Moldova, there are more urgent matters that require attention. Instead of running on broad platforms for future economic development within the EU, Moldovan parties should focus on how to solve immense poverty that the country faces now. Moldova is not even a candidate for EU Membership, and it likely will not be for a long time. The ruling coalition has only brought a bad name to Europeanism in the country, and thus threatens to bring Moldova into Russia’s orbit. If this occurs, then the already fragile democracy in Moldova could very well burst. It is already under enough strain as it is; this must not happen.

Sadly, due to the level of corruption in the government and power-hungriness of the Moldovan politicians, none of this is likely to happen. No matter what happens next, it seems that Moldova will be in for some hard times to come.

Turkmenistan Spreads Its Wings

A Constructed Pipeline in Turkmenistan

This month Russia has completely stopped buying natural gas exports from the Central Asian nation of Turkmenistan, AzerNews reports. This move comes after many years of Russia cutting back on buying gas from the natural gas-rich country, even though Russia used to dominate Turkmenistan’s exports. But the fact that a major trading partner has dropped out in full from buying Turkmenistan’s gas certainly has many in the country worried.

The decision by Russia to stop buying Turkmen gas starting this month is a long time coming. Russia bought 41-42 bcm a year of natural gas from Turkmenistan; last year, it was merely 4 bcm. And relations between Russia’s natural gas giant Gazprom and Turkmenistan’s Turkmengaz have grown increasingly hostile in recent years. Last year, the neutral nation of Turkmenistan claimed that Gazprom had not paid for any of the natural gas supplied to it that year up until this month, and called Moscow an unreliable business partner. Gazprom, however, never really depended on Turkmen gas for survival; after all, Russia has one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

For Turkmenistan, however, the effects are clear. Turkmenistan has the fourth largest proven natural gas reserves in the world, and although it lacks much of the development needed in order to make the gas useful, its economy largely depends on its natural gas reserves. In recent years, China has come to dominate Ashgabat’s export market, with Chinese markets taking in much of Turkmenistan’s natural gas. Iran, Turkmenistan’s neighbor to the South, is also an important trading partner, although with international sanctions being lifted on the country last year it looks like Iran may become a competitor rather than a partner for Turkmenistan. But the loss of Russia is an important one; if Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow wishes to continue to expand his country’s natural gas reserves, he will need to look towards more markets.

However, Ashgabat has been preparing for this day ever since the Gazprom-Turkmengaz rift became apparent. After years of planning, last month construction has started on the “TAPI” Pipeline, which, once completed, will stretch from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, connecting the Turkmen reserves with South Asia, where natural gas is very valuable. And once this pipeline is completed, it is likely that it could be further developed to reach other developing Asian markets, potentially in Southeast Asia.

Although going towards Asian markets is part of Turkmenistan’s gas strategy, the TAPI Pipeline is not expected to be completed until 2019, and it could take even longer to be operational due to security concerns in the region. So this has led some analysts to believe Turkmenistan is also turning its attention towards European markets. Gazprom currently has a monopoly on natural gas transportation for much of the continent, and European countries are eager to move onto anything else. The fact of the matter is, Turkmengaz is right: Gazprom is an unreliable business partner, and the chilly relations between Russia and Europe only add to this unreliability. Turkmenistan, a country with nearly double the natural gas reserves that the United States has, seems like a tantalizing replacement. And Europe seems like a tempting market for Turkmenistan.

In terms of actual cooperation between Europe and Turkmenistan, there is a pipeline under way that would transmit natural gas from reserves in the eastern part of the country across the Caspian Sea, through Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey, and into Europe. All countries the pipeline goes through are willing participants. The Trans-Caspian Pipeline was commissioned last month, and much of the pipeline, unlike TAPI, has already been built.

The economy of Turkmenistan depends on natural gas, so the inevitable expansion of its market is not a bad thing. But it is important to remember that this country is one of the most repressive in the world. On par with North Korea for having one of the worst human rights records on the planet, President Berdimuhamedow enjoys nearly total control over his country. He hides behind a veil of proclaimed neutrality to avoid international criticism, criticism which he would most certainly deserve. Human rights issues would likely never be brought up in the Asian Markets, but Europe is at least symbolically known for standing up for democracy. If the relationship between Turkmenistan and the European Union continues to develop, as it should, the issue of human rights in the country must not be ignored. When dealing with a country with as despicable a record as Turkmenistan, it is very hard to do. Perhaps not immediately so as not to scare the Turkmens off, but Turkmenistan must be pressured to make at least some modest reforms. Turkmenistan needs access to these natural gas markets, and if Europe plays its cards right, some change, even if very small, could happen. But the cards must be played in the first place of there is any hope for such a change.

Russian Hackers Suspected of Knocking Out Ukraine’s Power Grid

A Russian hacker group is being blamed for hacking the Ukrainian Power Grid a few weeks after Ukraine experienced massive power outages over Christmas. The allegations came first from the Ukrainian Government, and are now being backed by a major US cyber intelligence firm, iSight Partners, Reuters reports.

On December 23, 2015, Ukraine experienced a massive power outage in which 80,000 people in the Western part of the country were without power for about six hours. Nearly immediately, Ukrainian Security Services blamed Russia for the outage, although the energy ministry stated soon after that they would hold off from officially declaring Russia as the culprit until a further probe could determine the cause.

Now, iSight claims that a Russian hacking group known as Sandworm is behind the outage, reaching this conclusion through analysis of malicious software used in the attacks and gaining some intelligence from “sensitive sources”. If these claims are true, and it increasingly looks like they are, this will mark the first time that hackers have successfully targeted a nation’s power grid through malware, ever.

iSight Partners, when analyzing the damages done to the grid, found the malware known as BlackEnergy, which is reportedly a favorite of Sandworm. Although the firm said it is unknown whether Sandworm is a freelance group or works closely with the Russian government, the group certainly has Putin’s wishes at heart. “It is a Russian actor operating with alignment to the interest of the state,” John Hulquist, iSight’s director of espionage analysis, said in a recent interview. Although rumors persist that the government of Russia was at least somewhat connected, the Kremlin has not made any official statement whatsoever on the attacks.

Sandworm has previously launched cyberattacks on the United States and members of NATO and the EU in the past, as well as Ukrainian media systems, but this marks the biggest attack the group has ever conducted in its history. Many experts suspect it could be in retaliation for pro-Ukrainian Crimean Tatar activists blowing up electricity pylons in the disputed Russian-controlled peninsula of Crimea (read my previous article on this matter here). However, the difference is that this was a physical attack. Once you get into the world of cyberattacks and cybersecurity, it becomes a completely different matter entirely. Governments around the world have become increasingly concerned with cybersecurity and intelligence, and with this attack, a potentially new front could be opened. Although no major damages were reported in this blackout, an attack on the power grid over a large, highly-populated, and developed area could, if fully realized, be devastating. Although the Russian group would likely never try to attack Western power grids due to fear of the retaliation it could cause, the fact that the technology to conduct such an attack has been used certainly sets a dangerous precedent.

As previously stated, the Kremlin has not made an official statement on the attacks, nor have they acknowledged any involvement. It is neither confirmed nor denied whether there was government involvement in the attack, or whether the Sandworm group was just acting alone against the Ukrainian government. Neither situation is ideal. On the one hand, if it was Sandworm acting alone without any support from the Russian Government, then it certainly is unsettling that electricity grids around the world could be turned off by a collection of small hacker groups. For Ukraine, it could hinder any political agreements between the Russian and Ukrainian governments; the more lone wolf groups attack those they deem as enemies of their country, such as the Crimean Tatar attacks on the pylons last year, the more tensions it will fuel in the already vitriolic Russian-Ukrainian relationship, and the further away stability in Ukraine will seem.

But it is likely that Sandworm did not work on their own. Russia wants to do anything within its power to keep Ukraine unstable and thus within its grasp, so it would be unsurprising if, after a thorough investigation into the blackout, it is found that the Russian government played some role, either active or passive. The fact that Russia has said nothing about the blackout only further incriminates them. Sadly, such sophisticated cyberattacks will only increase dissatisfaction among the Ukrainian people, which remains at an all-time high. The West must help the Ukrainian government more efficiently protect themselves against future cyberattacks, which could very easily happen. If the Russian government was involved, then they are likely only just testing the waters; the next attack could be much worse.

Georgia Gets a New Prime Minister

Meet Giorgi Kvirikashvili, the new Prime Minister of Georgia

On December 29th, lawmakers from the South Caucasian nation of Georgia approved Giorgi Kvirikashvili as the country’s new Prime Minister, who officially took the job the next day, the New York Times reports. This decision came a week after the previous Prime Minister, Irakli Garibashvili, surprisingly resigned from his post, leaving the country and the ruling coalition scrambling to find a new leader.

The Former Prime Minister, Mr. Garibashvili, resigned in mid-December after serving two years in office with a televised address. No official reason for his resignation was given, although many suspect it has to do with the unpopularity of the ruling coalition, the Georgian Dream coalition. Georgian Dream is made up of six widely different parties and is named after the largest of the parties, the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia party, which presses for European Integration.

The party’s positions are relatively popular with Georgians: although the party has put importance in recent years on a conciliatory tone towards Russia, it also pursues a major policy of European Integration. The majority of Georgians believe that pursuing NATO and EU membership is the right thing for the country to do, and Georgians do believe in the democratization of their country. NATO membership is of particular importance to Georgians for protection against their neighbor to the North, Russia. After a brief war in 2008 between the two countries, it has become clear that Russia still wants to assert its influence in the small country, and the people of Georgia clearly want to move away from this and move more into the European-Atlantic sphere.

While their official positions are supported, the governing coalition has become increasingly unpopular with voters. Confidence in the government has taken a nosedive, and only 18% of voters say that the current ruling party is their first choice, down from 42% only a year and a half ago. 44% of respondents to a National Democratic Institute Poll stated that the country was heading in the wrong direction, despite the positions of the government.

So, why is the government so unpopular? It largely has to do with a problem that plagues other democratic-aspirant countries like Georgia: inefficiency and lack of results. NATO and European integration is certainly an issue for Georgians, but it is not the main issue. Looking back at the NDI Poll, much more major issues that are important to Georgians include jobs, inflation, poverty, territorial integrity, etc. These are all positions in which the government has not been able to do much. Even in regards to NATO membership, there has not been much progress, as the Georgian people struggle to hang onto hope that they will be able to join the Alliance in the near future.

As previously stated, it is highly suspected that it is due to the government’s unpopularity that Garibashvili, the former PM, resigned. And taking his place is Giorgi Kvirikashvili. Before this appointment, Kvirikashvili was the Foreign Minister of Georgia, and was a member of the Georgian Dream party. When Garibashvili stepped out, the Georgian Dream coalition nominated Kvirikashvili as the new Prime Minister. And unsurprisingly, nearly all of his positions are the same as his predecessor. Kvirkiashvili even said himself that there would be “no drastic change” in the course of the country under his leadership.

Although he also states that NATO and EU membership remain the top priorities for the country, in order for these Georgian dreams to become realities, then drastic changes in the country are most certainly needed. Not only should the government do more to battle poverty and inequality and enhance the democratic systems within the country, the people’s faith in the government should also be restored. And to do that, a new, competent government is needed. Listen to the Georgian people, Mr. Kvirikashvili: they don’t like where this country is heading.