Developments in Russia-Ukraine War
Even as the Trump administration in the United States has mounted pressure on Russia and Ukraine to reach a peaceful settlement of their ongoing war, the implications of the conflict are visibly snowballing into several important strategic domain. America’s shifting language indicates these implications.
First, the American focus on securing a deal with Ukraine which involves substantial American investment – entailing control – in Ukraine’s rare earth elements’ repository indicates the growing importance of these critical minerals in the development of the most advanced future technologies. Their control has become an important part of the strategic implications of the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite the disastrous meeting between Trump and Zelensky at the White House, compared to the relatively favourable one between American officials and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia earlier, both sides were quick to reach a new balance. Soon after the disastrous meeting, Zelensky expressed regrets and further affirmed that Ukraine is willing to enter a critical minerals agreement with America.
The importance of these minerals becomes clear from the fact that the Russian forces now occupy significant lithium deposits in eastern Ukraine, so much so that, combined with Russia’s own reserves, Russia now has greater reserves of lithium than the United States. This is a reality that is eliciting deep discomfort in the US, as the expanding Chinese influence across all sectors in Russia is a challenge that US considers as its priority to curb. That is why the US has enforced sanctions on a Russian lithium mining facility near Murmansk that China is helping Russia develop. That is also why the US has linked peace between Russia and Ukraine to a potential US-Ukraine agreement on Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves. Stopping the war has become a priority to curb the growing Chinese influence across Russia.
The geopolitical competition on these critical minerals is also heating up in Russia’s and China’s backyard in Central Asia and is set to assume the form of a serious East versus West rivalry. The region contains many of the largest, but yet underdeveloped, rare-earth fields in the world, but its governments need outside help to develop the rare earth sector. With China already becoming the most dominant country in the region, the US and Europe have also rushed to counter the Russia-China axis in Central Asia.
Second, America’s withdrawal from Europe and the rising confrontation between Europe and the United States makes it clear that the future pathway for Europe lies in strong remilitarization through revival of its defence industrial base. This will also entail a diversification of military supplies to Ukraine. The new reality marks a break from the post-Second World War era when Europe has been under the American security umbrella and has been able to navigate the Russian challenge. The recent Paris gathering of key European leaders, resulting in the affirmation of taking responsibility for its defence as well as continuing to support Ukraine against Russian aggression, reflected the new emerging consensus in Europe. Already in anticipation of European remilitarization, stocks of major European defence companies have touched a high.
Third, Trump’s transactional approach towards the Russia-Ukraine war is breeding a cycle of global insecurity. It is not only leading to a remilitarization of Europe, but also a re-thinking of pacifist choices within key American allies like Japan and South Korea. Both the countries are now in a race – where they perceive China to be a greater immediate threat – to develop their technological industrial base to overtake China. Due to ageing population and its limitations in contributing to the technology-driven economy, both countries are soliciting selected high-skilled technical labour from other countries, especially India. Interestingly, in recent times, US declared South Korea a ‘sensitive’ country – putting it on a similar list as nuclear states like India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – thereby fuelling speculations that the country is engaged in nuclearization. The status of a sensitive country will limit unhindered Korean access to American technology development.
Developments in Israel-Hamas War
The precarious ceasefire agreed to in the Israel-Hamas war has come unravelling. With Trump declaring his intention to develop Gaza into a ‘riviera’ and re-settle millions of Palestinians in other countries in the Middle East, the unpredictability of American positions is breeding new insecurities. While Israel did not respond overly warmly to Trump’s proposals, the country has been emboldened to take strong action in West Bank while continuing periodic ceasefire violations. In West Bank particularly, Israel conducted intense raids and took hundreds of Palestinians prisoners. It also threatened Hamas asking it to release all hostages.
The deteriorating situation marks a departure from the positivity that was briefly encountered when the initial ceasefire agreement was negotiated. After having gone through the first phase, the parties are stuck at operationalizing the second phase. Much like in other areas, in this domain too, the increasingly unpredictable policies of America are breeding ideal conditions for a world full of wilderness and chaos.
Technological Horizon
The technological race has become the defining essence of geopolitics in the present times. This is most clearly borne out by the competing attempts by China and the US to create technology-driven defence base in moves that clearly indicate the rise of a much more precarious new cold war.
In the US, the Trump administration is replicating what has been referred to as the ‘Star Wars 2.0’ programme. The defence system aims to replicate Israel’s Iron Dome, but at a much larger and stronger scale. While Israel’s Iron Dome only defends small areas against short-range, low-flying and non-nuclear missiles, the American system will defend US against intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles and other advanced missile attacks. It will also incorporate ‘space-based interceptors, as well as lower altitude interceptors. It will also aim to develop capabilities to defeat missile attacks even prior to launch.
In parallel to this, China is also building a new massive military command post in western Beijing, which will also serve as a wartime command centre and is expected to be far larger than the Pentagon, becoming the world’s largest military command centre. Satellite images show a 1500-acre construction site consisting of deep holes which are expected to house bunkers to provide protection during wars, including a potential nuclear war. This construction is going on alongside the rapid Chinese upgradation of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Once complete, China will house, both, the world’s most advanced conventional fighting capabilities as well as nuclear capabilities.
Turkey-Kurdish Peace Settlements
In an unprecedented development, the decades-old Kurdish conflict appears to be on the verge of a peaceful settlement. This comes in the wake of the announcement by the jailed founder of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, that the Kurdish movement had reached the end of its lifespan and that it was time to declare a truce with the state of Turkey. Ocalan also called for the laying down of weapons and the dissolution of the PKK. This is different from past attempts at ceasefire, such as those in 2015 and 2019 which have failed, due to violations. This call is different as Ocalan has signaled the willingness to dissolve the movement and surrender altogether, thereby going beyond even a mere ceasefire.
The PKK leadership – based in Iraq – has responded to Ocalan’s call by declaring a unilateral ceasefire. Detailed issues such as final disbandment, disarmament and other matters are slated to be worked out in formal meetings of the organized in a few months. These announcements have been welcomed by Turkey. However, Turkey also remains firm in its demand that all PKK-affiliated groups, including its Syrian offshoots, must disband unconditionally.
The import of this announcement by the PKK is reflected in the rapidly changing geopolitical equations across the world and the Middle East. Three key developments have been particularly important:
First, the changing priorities of the Trump administration in the United States makes it an unpredictable ally for the Kurdish people in the Middle east. Historically, Kurdish militias have fought alongside the US to counter the expansion of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and have also been an important western ally in checking the influence of Iran and its proxies in the region. While the Kurds have faced systematic persecution in Turkey and Turkish bombardments in northeastern Syria and in Iraq, they have broadly had the backing of the US security umbrella. With the Trump administration prioritizing withdrawal of American presence and a retreat into isolationism, the Kurds will be left without a key security anchor.
Second, the fall of al-Assad regime in Syria and the country’s takeover by Turkish-backed Jolani’s HTS signals that Kurdish-dominated groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) will find it difficult to hold onto their strongholds in Syria much longer. Having realized these vital limitations, the SDF has already entered into an agreement with the Syrian government led by Turkish-backed Jolani. While the SDF and other Syrian groups have not responded meaningfully to PKK’s and Ocalan’s call for a ceasefire, the changing geopolitics of the Middle East in the post-Assad phase will be an important factor for the Kurds, reflecting that Ocalan’s call is not limited merely to PKK and Turkey but spans the Kurds across the Middle East region.
Third, in terms of domestic Turkish politics, there is visible an increasing replacement of preference for armed struggle by a preference for engaging in electoral and democratic party politics. This is visible in the rising popularity of Kurdish political parties and actors in the political arena in Turkey. Instead of winning by fielding independent candidates, the Kurdish parties are now able to win even through the institutionalized platform of their political parties, reflecting the rising legitimacy of Kurdish politics in Turkey.
