The complicated and constantly changing networks of arrangements, alliances and conflicts, in which significant parties often include non-state actors, are a characteristic feature of the geopolitical scene in the Middle East. The relations between individual countries, religious, paramilitary and terrorist organizations in addition to overseas powers can confuse even skilled observers, let alone laypeople. Nevertheless, it is worth noting some basic characteristics that shape the reality of the Middle East nowadays.

Speaking (or writing) about this region one cannot forget the reason behind its significance. The energy resources, especially crude oil, are the most commonly associated with this area. It is quite obvious, yet still worth mentioning. Oil, along with a strategic location at the intersection of the three continents and multiple trade routes, is the main reason why the world powers are interested in the Middle East and compete with each other trying to increase their local influence.

The 20^th century history of the region was defined primarily by events such as the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the interventions of colonial powers, the establishment of the State of Israel and the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Of course, the Cold War, taking place in the second half of the previous century, was also a significant event that influenced the balance of power in the Middle East. At this point it is worth mentioning the periphery of the region, Afghanistan, where the civil war, the Soviet intervention between 1979 and 1989 as well as the US support for anti-communist fighters, consequently led to the establishment of al-Qaeda, until recently the most famous fundamentalist terrorist organization, and the so-called internationalization of jihad, which in turn initiated the “war on terror.”

The 20^th century therefore abounded in turning points, which to this day are more or less important and cannot be omitted when trying to analyze the contemporary problems of the Middle East and the ongoing developments. The aforementioned events, constituting sort of caesuras, resulted in subsequent ones, which over time have been piling up and permeating each other, similarly to the involved parties. The 21^st century brought us further breakthroughs, the first of which was the Second Gulf War, better known as the Iraq War, which destabilized the region and created fertile ground for the future establishment of the so-called Islamic State. The next moment was a series of protests and revolutions in 2011, referred to as “the Arab Spring” or “the Arab Winter.”

So much for the history in a general form. In an attempt to explain today’s dynamics affecting the image of the Middle East, numerous additional, yet essential threads could be mentioned and thoroughly explained, all of them being significant in their own way. It appears as follows:  in September two more countries – the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, established official diplomatic relations with Israel. This event is a landmark in a broader process of growing acceptance of Arab states for Israel, (unofficially) at the cost of the Palestinian cause, in order to create a united front against other regional rivals – Turkey and Iran. Furthermore, this process includes additional seemingly insignificant events, such as the fact that the largest English-language newspaper in Saudi Arabia – Arab News, expressed its wishes on the occasion of the Jewish Rosh Hashanah (New Year’s Day) on September 18, changing its profile pictures on the social media to the wishes written in Hebrew, thus causing much controversy. However, this confirmed the belief that although Saudi Arabia cannot afford to establish official diplomatic relations with Israel, it will look favorably on such actions in the case of other Arab countries and quietly support them, at the same time limiting itself to such gestures.

• Read also: The Illusion of “Frozen Conflicts” in the Post-Soviet Area

As an example of the “normalization” of contacts, or more of an announcement of such in the future, some pointed to the Israeli-Lebanese negotiations on the maritime border, which began on October 12. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called them “historic” (Israel and Lebanon are officially at war), however, the President of Lebanon Michel Aoun has toned down this enthusiasm by declaring that indirect talks will be limited to technical matters and no major normalization will take place in the near future. Nonetheless, the question remains whether Lebanon will not be forced to do so due to deteriorating economic situation and the need to find new economic partners. The country, once called “Switzerland of the Middle East,” has been struggling for years with not only an economic and financial crisis, but also a social and political one, aggravated by the explosion in the port of Beirut on August 4. The question is whether Lebanon would use this opportunity to potentially improve the situation and establish diplomatic relations with Israel or not.

The process of redefining Israeli-Arab relations is one of the main subjects that characterizes the contemporary dynamics of the Middle East agreements, yet it is not a cause, but an effect of other processes. For the main representatives of the Arab allies of the United States, i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the key rivals are Turkey and Iran. While in the case of Iran we are dealing with a long-standing hostility, sometimes religiously motivated (Shiite Iran versus Sunni states), creating an openly anti-Turkish front is a kind of novelty. Egypt is at the forefront of this rhetoric. On September 9^th the head of Egyptian diplomacy Sameh Shoukry called on the Arab countries to adopt a “firm and unanimous” policy against Turkey. This took place the day before a special meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League during which Turkish interventions in Syria, Libya and Iraq were condemned.

Egypt is not the only Arab state trying to counter Turkish influence in the region, but it is undoubtedly doing so most fiercely, being almost at war with Ankara. In this case, the main bone of contention has recently been Libya, where Cairo supports the forces of General Khalifa Haftar and the so-called National Liberation Army, representing the government in Tobruk in the civil war. On the other hand, Turkey is aiding the government in Tripoli (the Government of National Accord, or the GNA), which is officially recognized internationally, including the League of Arab States. However, Cairo fears that the victory of the other side would make Libya a haven for various kinds of extremists. And since this country is adjacent to Egypt, such a situation would, in the opinion of Egyptian decision-makers, pose a direct threat to the internal security of the country over the Nile.

The roots of tensions between Cairo and Ankara, including those in the context of Libya, go back to 2013 and the military coup in Egypt. It resulted in the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi, associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. He was appointed after the elections following the events of the 2011 Arab Spring and the loss of power by Hosni Mubarak. The former general and leader of the coup, who launched a nationwide campaign against the Brotherhood after recognizing it as an extremist organization – Abdel Fattah al-Sisi – became the President. The coup was condemned by Turkey and its President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who, in addition to his personal aversion to military coups overthrowing extremally “Islamic” governments, saw Morsi as an ally. Since then, he has called al-Sisi a dictator and tyrant, but al-Sisi in addition to regarding the Turkish president in a similar manner, accuses him of supporting extremists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and trying to destabilize the region, including Libya. Recently, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also been increasingly using an anti-Turkish tone. For example, on October 3, the president of the Saudi Chamber of Commerce Ajlan al-Ajlan called the citizens of the kingdom via Twitter for “a boycott of everything Turkish.” On October 10, Anwar Gargash, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the UAE, concluded that the Turkish military presence in Qatar “reinforces polarization, and it does not take into account the sovereignty of states and the interests of the Gulf countries and its peoples.” These are only the latest statements made by Saudi and UAE officials against Turkey.

• Read also: The Hidden Cost of Cheap Smartphones

Today, the Middle East can be simplified as follows: on the one hand there is Israel and the Sunni Arab states which maintain good relations with the United States; on the other hand, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood; additionally there is Iran and its allies (Hezbollah, the Shiite militia in Iraq, the Syrian government) which have not been mentioned in detail here. The rivalry between them is taking place in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, whilst the already confusing network of agreements and interests should be supplemented with other countries outside of the region (the USA, Russia, China, France). Nevertheless, it could be expected that for at least the next few years the dynamics of international relations in the Middle East will follow this triaxial pattern. It certainly poses a threat to the integrity of NATO since Turkey’s ambitions are often contrary to the interests of the other members of the alliance. The question is how other countries in the region will adapt to this arrangement: the aforementioned first group of them would appreciate having a united Arab front, and it often relies on “Arabism” as opposed to “Turkishness” and “Persianism.” Here, above all, the future role of Oman and Kuwait is intriguing. In the past, these countries have repeatedly assumed the role of mediators, but now, after the power shift in both countries (the death of Sultan Qaboos in January and Emir al-Sabah at the end of September), the new leaders may not be as strong as their predecessors. However, the results of the US presidential election and the policy of the next American administration will be crucial for the Middle East power structure.

Author: Maciej Śmigiel – A graduate of the Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Warsaw, where he was granted scholarships to Egypt and Morocco. Currently a PhD candidate at the Doctoral School of Humanities (cultural and religious studies). He gained his professional experience as a trainee at the Counter-Terrorism Center in Internal Security Agency, Embassy of Poland in Cairo and National Security Agency. Project Coordinator at Polish-based think-tank Warsaw Institute.

Katy Carr’s sixth studio album Providence was inspired initially by a dream sequence that the award-winning singer songwriter remembers upon waking. Themes around water – including songs about taking in Hampstead’s Ladies’ Pond and miracles on the River Vistula – good versus evil, fighting for freedom as well as love and death are explored. The new album creates the third and final chapter in her Polish roots rediscovery trilogy initiated by her fourth album, ‘Paszport’ (2012).

Katy believes that the people she has met along the way have been linked through providence and that her experiences have been synchronised through fate. Picture yourself through the new album’s release, transported back to Hampstead post World War II sometime around 1947, where you are hosting a party at Erno Goldfinger’s house for the elite thinkers, writers, military leaders of Britain and Poland throughout the ages. The Cold War has begun and Stalin has sealed his Iron Curtain stamp on Europe.

• Read also: The Battle of Warsaw, 1920

Then you hear Edgar Rice Burroughs’ voice repeating over and over again – “Am I alive and a reality, or am I but a dream?” A young George Orwell then discusses in great detail the current tragedy of ‘HERO TO ZEЯO’ and the ‘Western Betrayal of Poland’ with a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (Czesław Miłosz) and Polish resistance fighter (Witold Pilecki). For nearly a decade, Carr has been making in-roads to rediscover the land of her mother’s birth, Poland – learning the Polish language and history of a rich and diverse heritage.

Underlying this Polish mission has been her personal quest to understand her own family’s inter-generational trauma from both a British and Polish WWII experience. This has resulted in family estrangement and led her to develop a songwriting and performance career. The ten songs on the album reflect the immense need the singer had for strong role model characters that could become her friends and family and demonstrate survival techniques through their own life histories, trials and experiences.

Nottingham-born Carr says she learnt that at the heart of every story was a quest for inner enlightenment, freedom and peace. With the album’s other tracks, ‘BOADICEA’ praises Queen Elizabeth I, aka ‘THE VIRGIN QUEENE’ on her defeat of the Spanish Armada and then they all then head off to ‘THE LADIES’ POND’ for a swim. ‘AFTERWARDS’ … and you see a little girl born into poverty in the Polish mountains who will eventually become your mother. ‘THAT LITTLE DEVIL’ , that is your grandfather, suffers from Auschwitz syndrome and inflicts immeasurable cruelty upon his family. Queen Wanda of Poland then tells you to keep the 'MIRACLE ON THE VISTULA’, a secret in a box under the water and never to utter a word. You hear ‘A BEAUTIFUL SONG FOR YOU’ sung by Oscar Wilde’s brave nightingale, whose song – once so strong – has now faded into the distance as her heart is pierced by a thorn and loses its precious life force.

As you awaken with the dawn, a bloom of a red rose reminds you that this strange and yet compelling dream/nightmare sequence is continuing to spiral. Your head is awash with coded messages from the ‘HEJ SOKOŁY’ peregrine falcons. Subsequently you dash for your notebook and scribble down as much as you can remember. There must be a meaning to all of this, you say to yourself. Your senses are heightened, for you know the muse has spoken. Now your only job is to decipher her messages and translate them into a ‘FREEDOM SONG’.

Katy Carr is an award-winning British recording artist who has released six albums to date. Her recent albums ‘Paszport’ (2012) and ‘Polonia’ (2015) are inspired by the Polish WWII experience. In 2016 Katy was awarded the ‘Pro Patria’ medal for her humanitarian and musical work. She is also an Ambassador of Polish history in Great Britain. Amongst literary and other works that inspired this latest album were George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'England Your England', Oscar Wilde's 'The Nightingale and the Rose' as well as Witold Pilecki's first comprehensive intelligence report (1943) on the atrocities committed at Auschwitz.

• Read also: “We can hardly imagine the UK without the presence of Poles" – Boris Johnson writes about Polish-British friendship on the occasion of VE Day

The post-Soviet area, although it avoided the Balkan scenario and was not the scene of great ethnic conflicts, did not avoid the outbreak of local nationalist struggles. Their characteristic feature is the low frequency of military action, which is why they are called “frozen conflicts.” A common element for these conflicts is the involvement of Russia as a mediator, e.g. in the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, or a party that grants independence to separatists from their respective states: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria or Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republic (LPR and DPR). Conflict zones, although they do not pose a threat to interstate military action, are nevertheless a source of political instability and criminal phenomena such as smuggling of goods, drugs and weapons.

The apparent stability in conflict zones in the post-Soviet area generates a threat in case of political downturn. Their apparent stability also results from a lack of political will from both separatists and central authorities, which can consolidate their societies in the face of separatist actions at the time of threat.

Recent events in Nagorno-Karabakh, a separatist region in Azerbaijan inhabited and administered by Armenians, reminded international public opinion that this type of conflict exists. Tensions between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh began even before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s whilst the conflict had different stages of intensity and escalated at certain times. Military actions between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh are called a low-frequency conflict. An important element of this dispute is the suspension of any diplomatic and economic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Regulations concerning the ceasefire during armed incidents between these two countries are concluded through negotiations conducted by the “Minsk Group.” The talks, which took place on October 9, 2020, were held under the auspices of the “Minsk Group” by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov along with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan – Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Jeyhun Bayramov.

• Read also: The protests in Belarus are driven by public anger, not a political vision – an interview by The Warsaw Institute Review

While supporting Armenia militarily, Russia remains in good diplomatic relations with Azerbaijan, hence Moscow’s position as the negotiator in this conflict is undeniable. However, periodic tensions between the parties remain beyond the control of the Kremlin, which fears an escalation of the conflict as it may involve other regional powers such as Turkey and Iran. It is vital for Russia to maintain full control of this conflict because it concerns countries that remain in the Russian sphere of influence, commonly called the “close abroad.” As long as Moscow has the appropriate tools to keep this conflict under control, it remains “frozen” from a geopolitical perspective and does not pose a greater threat to Transcaucasia (South Caucasus) as part of a larger geopolitical space described by Zbigniew Brzeziński as the “grand chessboard.”

One of the least intense disputes is the one between Moldova and Transnistria. In contrast to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the communication routes between Transnistria and the rest of Moldova are open. There were few incidents between the two sides, mainly between the police forces. Last week, for example, a police officer was kidnapped from the territory controlled by the authorities in Kishinev. The suspicions in this case are directed towards the Transnistrian special services, which, being a de jure part of Moldova, have an administration independent of the central authorities. Kishinev does not have any means of controlling the situation in Transnistria. A 5+2 format was created to conduct negotiations between the two parties and includes: Russia, Ukraine, the OSCE, the United States, the European Union, Moldova and Transnistria. In the case of this conflict, solutions were developed, e.g. the federalization of Moldova (the Kozak Plan), however, they were rejected at some stage of the negotiations.

Russia, while supporting the Transnistrian administration, does not recognize the independence of this “quasi-state” by striving for a satisfactory compromise with Moldova. The existing status quo in the case of Transnistria is aimed at keeping Moldova within the sphere of Russian influence.

The situation is different with regard to the conflicts among Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia. Each of the first two provinces constitutes an independent entity with the support of Russia – Moscow recognizes their independence. Due to their location and a common border with Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia had no problem to integrate with the Russian market and de facto separate from Georgia. Assuming that Georgia will treat these territories as occupied, it can be assumed that this will generate problems for Tbilisi, because both provinces are under the protection of Russia. It introduces its legal and administrative order there, thus expanding its sphere of influence. Georgia, on the other hand, might not be able to join NATO or the European Union in the future because these organizations will not allow a country that does not have full control over its whole territory to become its member.

In the case of two separatist republics in eastern Ukraine, the situation is similar to that of Transnistria. Russia will not recognize the independence of the DPR and LPR, nor it will try to integrate these territories because Moscow’s strategic goal is to maintain control over Ukraine.

• Read also: What is next for Nord Stream 2?

To sum up, local conflicts in the post-Soviet area are a source of political instability in Eastern Europe and Transcaucasia, their impact in case of intensified military action may be regional in scope. Moreover, the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute involves Turkey and Iran as regional powers. The conflict in the east of Ukraine and in Georgia involves Russia directly. The conflict between Moldova and Transnistria may also involve Ukraine, which is bordering with Transnistria, in addition to Romania, which is supporting Moldova politically.

Jakub Lachert is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Political Sciences and International Studies at the University of Warsaw. His research interests include: European Union neighborhood policy, including, in particular, Eastern policy, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans in the process of integration with the EU.

On August 9, Belarus held a presidential election, which, according to official results, the incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko won with over 80% of the vote. His rival, Belarusian opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, was supposed to receive only 10% of the votes. These results were not recognized by the opposition nor a number of states and international organizations, including the European Union. The editors of The Warsaw Institute Review talk about the protests that engulfed the country, the attitude of the Belarusian authorities and the geopolitical future of Belarus with Piotr Żochowski, an analyst of internal security in Eastern Europe at the Center for Eastern Studies.

The Warsaw Institute Review: On September 23, the so-called “swearing-in” of Lukashenko took place. It was conducted in secret – not announced earlier, nor broadcasted live on television. What is your opinion about this behavior? Why was the swearing-in such a secret event?

Piotr Żochowski: It came as a surprise to all observers. The people who witnessed the situation in Minsk were confused until the last moment, because the earlier information circulating in the city assumed that Lukashenko would organize this ceremony on Saturday or Sunday. Everyone was expecting that it would be a major event, but to our surprise, Lukashenko slipped through Minsk to the Independence Palace in a protected motorcade and took an oath there in the presence of people, many of whom, as it later turned out, did not even know they were invited to this kind of ceremony.

Why did he keep it secret? The first answer is quite obvious – he was afraid that the official announcement of the inauguration would cause mass protests in Minsk and he wanted to avoid them. On the other hand, the lack of a live television broadcast, the mystery surrounding the event, proves that Lukashenko does not feel comfortable in Minsk, and his every move in the city is considered a threat to safety. We are able to examine the mental health of the regime if it considers safety a priority.

In your opinion – is it not a paradox? Lukashenko claims that he is elected by Belarusian citizens and that he has a strong support of the Belarusian society, but he was afraid to take the oath in the traditional way?

I refrain from judging the mental health of politicians, but I would like to remind one more fact – Lukashenko fell into the trap of his own declarations, in which he marginalized the significance of the protests. The demonstrations are continuing and public anger is high. At one point, Lukashenko began to treat Belarus as a “besieged fortress.” He acknowledged that the outside world wanted to destabilize the situation in Belarus, hence this violent anti-Western rhetoric, which lasts for many weeks, a demonstrative call for help from Russia to defend the regime against Western actions. The Minister of Defense of Belarus stated that Western countries started a hybrid war against Belarus. He added that the West initiated a struggle to gain dominance in the information space. Using the argument of the external threat, the regime continues its repression of society, with different degrees of brutality, consistently increasing its scale.

• Read also: Alternative reality in Belarus

In your view, what will be the reaction of European countries – we already know that most of the countries did not recognize the election results and swearing-in – will sanctions be imposed on Belarus?

Most countries do not recognize Lukashenko’s presidency, considering that the conduct of the election did not guarantee their integrity. Regarding the sanctions – there are two possibilities. Some countries, for instance Lithuania, decided to introduce personal bilateral sanctions and take action to limit political relations with Belarus. The European Union opted for personal sanctions, targeting people who were involved in suppressing social protests and organizing flawed election. It is worth noting that the Belarusian authorities have embarked on a path of self-isolation in their relations with the EU. This is evidenced by the regime’s unilateral decision forcing the reduction of the staff of Polish and Lithuanian diplomatic missions. This step caused a solidarity response – numerous ambassadors representing EU countries in Belarus were recalled for consultations to their home countries.

As far as broader sanctions are concerned – this is a complex matter because we are always faced with a choice – do economic sanctions only affect the regime or society? We want the Belarusians to be able to keep in contact with the outside world, so that despite the restrictions introduced by the regime, the Belarusians will have a chance to freely contact with the societies of the EU countries that are friendly towards them. We have to be cautious about maintaining and shaping economic relations. Any potential sanctions should be severe for the regime’s institutions and not the society.

Read the whole interview here: www.warsawinstitute.review

The Warsaw Institute Review is an English-language quarterly magazine published in Poland since 2017. It presents a variety of themes concerning Poland and Europe while its main goal is to emphasize the role of the Republic of Poland as a geopolitical leader in Central Europe and a country that consistently pursues pro-Western, pro-Atlantic and pro-European policies. The authors of the articles published in The Warsaw Institute Review are analysts and experts as well as individuals who have an active and practical impact on political, economic and cultural life in Poland.

The poisoning of Alexei Navalny, of which the suspect is Russia, has caused a lively debate about the controversial construction project of a natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany called Nord Stream 2. The project was launched in November 2011 when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and European leaders, including Angela Merkel, met in the German resort of Lubmin to officially launch the Nord Stream pipeline. The 10 billion euro pipeline, owned by the Russian gas company Gazprom, is expected to double the amount of Russian natural gas transported from Russia to Germany. The construction of Nord Stream 2 strengthens Russia in Europe, making it dependent on natural gas supplies from Russia and isolates Ukraine, thus posing a threat to European security.

Furthermore, this project conflicts with Brussels’ efforts to decouple Europe from Russian natural gas. In April 2018, the European Commission refused to support the project, claiming that it does not contribute to the EU’s goals of diversifying natural gas supplies. Environmentalists also joined the discussion, claiming that the gas pipeline would be harmful to the flora and fauna of the Baltic Sea.

The United States strongly opposes the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, claiming that it will make Europe too dependent on Russia. The Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Clarification Act, signed in 2019 by President Donald Trump, effectively deterred the Swiss company Allseas, which was responsible for laying Nord Stream 2 pipes, from implementation of the project. The document contained possible sanctions for companies involved in construction of Nord Stream 2 or Turk Stream 2. As a result of US sanctions announced in December 2019, the Swiss company withdrew its vessels laying the pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

• Read also: USA sanctions Chinese companies involved in building artificial islands on South China Sea

In June 2020, two US senators from different political factions presented a bill that extends sanctions to the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The new sanctions expand the restrictions of the bill signed by President Donald Trump in 2019. Due to the fact that proposed legislation is supported by both parties, the US position towards Nord Stream 2 will continue, regardless of the outcome of the November presidential election. Moreover, for President Donald Trump, who is running for reelection, striking at Russia would be an asset in his campaign, especially in the context of alleged suspicions of close relations with Moscow.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel advocates resuming the construction of the second string of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, but international pressure is increasing after the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. More and more European politicians are in favor of suspending the project. There are even calls for the removal of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder from his position in Russian state-owned energy companies, among others, the position of Chairman of Shareholders Committee of Nord Stream 2.

To complete the gas pipeline, 160 km of pipes in Danish waters are needed, which is only 6% of the project. At the moment, there is no contractor because the companies withdrew from the project under the influence of American sanctions. It should also be expected that the imposition of further US sanctions on the companies, proposed by US Senators, will further discourage them from getting involved in the project.

• Read also: The Hidden Cost of Cheap Smartphones

With the potential completion of Nord Stream 2 approaching, it seems that the international community is becoming increasingly aware of the consequences and threats of the project. Moreover, the actions of Russia, which openly violates international law, are not favorable for a positive implementation of this project. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has pointed out that Navalny’s poisoning is a cause for serious concern. It concluded that the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances is reprehensible and completely contrary to the legal standards established by the international community.

On September 4, Norbert Röttgen – conservative head of the German Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote on Twitter that by poisoning Navalny, Putin had one clear message: resistance to his regime is a threat to life. Europe must give a strong response in a language that Putin understands. This means that opposing aggressive Russian policy would only be effective through blocking Nord Stream 2. However, the German Chancellor does not want to connect Navalny’s case with the construction of Nord Stream 2. At a press conference in Berlin, Merkel made it clear that she expects a reaction from the EU on Navalny, but work on the pipeline should be continued.

Berenika Grabowska – is graduated with BA in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Warsaw and she continues her education there studying law. Berenika also graduated the Academy of Young Diplomats program organized by the European Academy of Diplomacy.Currently Berenika is President of The Warsaw Institute Review and Vice President of European Young Conservatives. In the past, Berenika was President of the Forum of Young Diplomats Association and Vice President of the Warsaw Latin Convention. Berenika is interested in international organisations and international law, as well as economic diplomacy. Berenika’s main region of interest is Europe and the North America region.

On November 3, 2020, another presidential election will be held in the United States. The Americans will choose the next President of the United States for the upcoming four years. The candidates include: from the Republican Party, the incumbent President – Donald Trump and from the Democratic Party, the former Vice President of the Obama administration – Joe Biden. The latest September polls show Biden’s minimal lead, but the current president seems to be gradually catching up. In November, a fierce fight for the office of the President of the United States will take place thus it is worth considering what the current American election campaign is like, how the specific and indirect electoral system works (the President is de facto chosen by the Electoral College) and what does the victory of a certain candidate mean for us – continuity or change of American politics?

An American historian – Professor Allan J. Lichtman, created a 13-point (category) model in the early 1980s, only two of which are directly related to the personal characteristics of the candidates for the office, and whose fulfilment leads to the acquisition of the position of President of the United States (for instance: economic situation, successes in international politics, social moods, or the results of the recent election to Congress – the midterms). This model, based on methodology used in geophysics and statistics, was described in his book – The Keys to the White House, originally published in 1996. Thanks to this method of forecasting, he has been able to accurately predict the results of each election since Ronald Reagan's presidency. An interesting fact is that Prof. Lichtman was one of the few to predict the 2016 victory of the current US President – Donald Trump, despite Hillary Clinton’s (Democrat) original lead in the polls. After the campaign, the professor received a congratulatory letter from President Trump.

In the current campaign, however, Lichtman points to Joe Biden’s victory (7 to 6 out of 13 points), yet there is still about a month towards the end of the campaign and everything may change (predictions in Trump’s favor were changed by Lichtman in fall 2016, only a few days before the election day). The current nationwide surveys (CNN Politics poll from September 2) give Biden a slight advantage: 51% to 43%. The same was true in 2016, when Donald Trump initially had a survey loss to Hillary Clinton, but in the end, it was him who, using Professor Lichtman’s nomenclature, found the “key to the White House.”

Read also: EU and NATO in the midst of challenges – the role of strategy in a disrupted international environment

There is one aspect Professor Lichtman does not refer to in his model, but from the political-legal aspect of the so-called electoral geography this seems to be crucial. Formally, according to American law, the election of the president is made by the Electoral College – a constitutionally established and specially appointed body. In practice, however, the voting of the electors is rather symbolic. The number of electoral votes per state plays a key role in the strategy of presidential election campaigns in the United States, and the result of the election depends in practice on the result of voting in several swing states (in the upcoming election there will probably be eight of them: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and traditionally Ohio). The candidates’ task is to take over as many swing states as possible. The November victory of one of them may depend on this.

In 2016 Donald Trump succeeded in this (he won most of the major swing states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin). This year, it will be much more difficult for the current president (he must win Florida again and certainly keep Texas, which is slowly becoming a swing state – a so-called “leaning republican” state – one with a weakening advantage of one of the parties, in this case the Republican Party), although this is not out of the question, yet this year experts say that Biden has a chance of winning more swing states (if Florida with 29 electoral votes is one of them and Trump loses 38 electoral votes in Texas, then winning  the remaining swing states would not give him much, unlike in the previous election). Nevertheless, at the beginning of September, Biden is still the front-runner (certainly not a rock-solid one).

The campaign at this stage also involves the candidates’ collaborators, including, above all, the official candidates for US vice-presidents, officially nominated by the two largest parties. While the natural candidate for Donald Trump is the current vice president – Mike Pence, the nomination of a senator and a former California prosecutor – Kamala Harris, by the Democratic Party was expected to give much new energy to Biden. It is also a tribute to the left-wing and progressive electorate of the Democrats (especially those who were hoping for the nomination of Bernie Sanders) and an attempt to aggregate support for the anti-trump “Black Lives Matter” movement (formed informally as a result of mass protests in the USA after the death of the African American citizen – George Floyd, possibly caused by brutal police intervention in May 2020). The case was quite politicized – on the one hand Donald Trump supported actions of the police, demanded the ban of the left-wing Antifa, and called the “Black Lives Matter” movement a neo-Marxist one, while Joe Biden participated online in the Floyd’s funeral in Houston in June and assured that if he won, the police would not exceed its powers, so in a sense he also played the political card. This event clearly shows how such controversial events can politicize American public opinion.

Read also: USA sanctions Chinese companies involved in building artificial islands on South China Sea

It is also worth adding that the second strong theme of the campaign is the COVID-19 pandemic. Joe Biden points out that Donald Trump did not cope with it. Trump, on the other hand, counterattacked stating that he is fighting for the American economy and jobs, and that electing Biden is the neo-Marxist “end of American Dream.” These matters will be the subject of three debates between the candidates. The first one is to take place on September 29 in Notre Dame, Indiana, and the next two in October. These TV debates in addition to the good news from the economy are, assuming a good preparation of the current president, his great chance to catch up with his rival and be reelected. Joe Biden, on the other hand, is likely to focus on criticizing the current policy of Trump’s administration and convincing Americans that he will handle the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic better. At this stage of the campaign it is difficult to identify the winner unequivocally, but at this point in time the former vice president of Obama’s administration is one step closer to the desired presidency. Whether this means a return to his policy from 2008-2016 is unknown. In turn, the incumbent president, who as a businessman fights to the end, will certainly not give up so easily. One is 100% sure – the next two months will be an extremely interesting political game for the most desirable place in America – the White House.

Szymon Bachrynowski– Politics and European studies scientist. He graduated from the University of Warsaw. He obtained his PhD at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. He is an assistant professor at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Warsaw “Collegium Bobolanum”. Member of the Polish Society for International Studies. He specializes in the analysis of public policies, geopolitics and contemporary political thought. He published monographs on the political thought of the Irish republican movement (2009) and the party system of the Basque Country (2011), was a co-editor of a book on the crisis in contemporary politics (2010) and the author of several dozen other scientific, popular and expert publications.

The first smartphone was created over a quarter of a century ago, in 1993 IBM launched a device called Simon. It was a cell phone with a touch screen and a personal digital assistant (PDA) function, which between 1993 and 1995 was owned by more than 50,000 customers. Over the next decade the smartphone market has changed significantly. In 2007 alone customers from all over the world bought over 120 million of these devices. Over the next five years (2008-2012), more than 1.7 billion customers decided to buy a new smartphone. Only slightly fewer people replaced or bought their first smartphone in 2019 alone.

• Read also: EU and NATO in the midst of challenges – the role of strategy in a disrupted international environment

The market for this part of electronics, which has become permanently integrated into our private and professional lives, is enormous. In the last few years, smartphone sales have fluctuated in the range of 1.5 billion annually. This means that statistically every fifth person buys a new phone in a given year. Samsung, Apple, Huawei and Xiaomi have consistently led a battle for customers for a long time, sharing about 60% of the market share year to year. The remaining 40% are often other well-known companies from the IT market that manage to break through in a given year with an innovative or affordable product. All these companies share a long-term plan, which assumes keeping the customer in addition to taking care of their own brand and reputation. Naturally, every producer makes its own mistakes. One of the examples could be the security gap detected by the engineers of Project Zero – a group of analysts belonging to Google that specialize in finding bugs in every type of software (including the ones created by companies other than Google). In May 2020, Samsung published an update, which fixed the bug detected by Project Zero. It was located in the Skia graphic engine, which was modified by Samsung and has been used in all smartphones manufactured by the company between 2014 and 2020. By means of specially prepared MMS messages using .qmg graphic files hackers could bypass the ASLR security features present in the Android system and execute any code on it, in practice leading to taking control over the device. However, this process was not trivial and required sending tens if not hundreds of MMS messages. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that after a successful attack, the messages on the infiltrated device could be removed immediately and the victim would remain completely unaware of the hacking. After being informed about the vulnerability, Samsung published an update for its devices [1].

Unfortunately, such problems are nothing special. In the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) online database, for Android alone there are more than 6,000 reported bugs, which could be exploited by the hackers in varying degrees. Technological companies taking care of their customers and brand routinely publish updates to prevent the detected security vulnerabilities from being exploited. Unfortunately, not all of them. Let us recall that the smartphone market in about 40% belongs to smaller companies, in the vast majority – companies offering users good quality devices without hidden defects. Players with little experience, using untested subcontractors as a source of hardware and software also take part in the fight for the customer. They offer cheap devices which lack support in the form of regular updates.

There are also known cases of hardware suppliers, whose products reached the end user already with a pre-installed malware [2]. In January 2020, Malwarebytes specialists reported that they found preinstalled malware on Unimax UMX U686CL devices. They were manufactured in China and later distributed to American users of the Assurance Wireless program, which offered mobile device surcharges and mobile network access to those most in need. The devices were infected with a HiddenAds malware (Android/Trojan.HiddenAds.WRACT) and Android/PUP.Riskware.Autoins.Fota.fbcvd software, which is associated with the Chinese company Adups, caught [4] in the illegal process of collecting user data, creating backdoors for mobile devices and auto-installers – programs that enable automatic installation of other applications on clients’ devices. Technical details could be found in the report of Malwarebytes [3], along with the following position of the device manufacturer:

“After investigating this issue, Unimax Communications has determined that the applications described in the posting are not malware…In reviewing these applications, however, Unimax Communications has determined that there may be a potential vulnerability in the Settings App library. Because of this, Unimax Communications has updated software to correct the potential vulnerability.”

At the end of July, the same problem was found in low-end ANS L51 devices offered mainly in the US market [5]. The current investigation is to prove whether the malware was installed by the supplier or whether it was installed in the operating system later on through the supply chain.

• Read also: USA sanctions Chinese companies involved in building artificial islands on South China Sea

Pre-installed tracking applications are of course a big problem – uninformed users pay an unreasonable amount of money for the hardware that steals their privacy in an uncontrolled way. However, an even bigger problem are the devices that rob them not only of their privacy but also of money. At the end of August 2020 there were reports about devices offered mainly in Africa. Cheap Chinese Tecno W2 smartphones, offered to customers in South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana and Cameroon, among others, were sold with previously installed Triada backdoor and xHelper Trojan. The former allowed to install any software without the owner’s knowledge – using its capabilities it installed the xHelper Trojan. The malware nested in the system in a way that made it impossible to remove it easily. Resetting the device to the factory settings did not help in this case. The owner of the new phone was notoriously flooded with unwanted ads displayed on the smartphone screen and was involuntarily subscribed to paid services. A spokesman for Transsion admitted that Tecno W2 phones were actually infected, blaming an unnamed subcontractor. It was not revealed how many “defective” devices had been placed on the market. At the same time, he stressed that the company did not benefit from the procedure of generating automatic subscriptions.

The opinions presented by the author belong exclusively to him/her. They are in no way related to the opinion and position of his/her employer.

Wiktor Sędkowski graduated in Teleinformatics at the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, specialized in cybersecurity field. He is an expert on cyber threats. CISSP, OSCP and MCTS certificates holder. Worked as an engineer and solution architect for leading IT companies.

Unpredictable developments in Belarus, coronavirus outbreak and changing regional realities – with all the disturbances around, it seems we have definitely entered an Extremistan, this country full of improbabilities imagined by Nassim Taleb. In these circumstances, more and more scholars argue that in the 21^st century, long-term strategies are bound to fail due to highly changing environments.

Usual critique is that a strategy built in advance is not responsive enough to the contemporary emerging threats. Consequently, decision-makers find themselves obsessed with here and now, prioritizing reactive crisis-management, an example of which are the current response to the COVID-19 pandemic or EU’s approach to unprecedented street protests in Belarus. Undoubtedly, during the Cold War era, Western allies faced relatively clear-cut opponents like USSR and communism (although one could argue whether Gorbatchev’s actions in 1987-1989 were predictable). Nevertheless, today the West has lost a clearly defined external adversary and uncertainties are undeniable – global pandemic, hybrid wars, climate change or transnational terrorism – are just some examples. In this case, it is often complicated to convince people that long-term strategizing is actually useful in the 21^st century.

Nevertheless, complexity of the contemporary international environment should not discredit grand strategy as a whole concept. Instead, volatility of current international affairs should call for its renaissance as a disciplined intellectual framework, allowing policy makers to judge the relative importance of emerging risks. How else, the EU would know whether China’s rise, Middle Eastern instability or recent developments in Belarus are core or marginal concerns? Defining and hierarchizing interests is essential, as states cannot handle all the issues equally due to limited resources and capabilities. Specifically – the percentage of defence spending on military forces, R&D, diplomatic activities or foreign aid are dependent on grand strategy.

Read also: USA sanctions Chinese companies involved in building artificial islands on South China Sea

Unfortunately, policy makers often find it difficult to implement an effective long-term strategy. Instead, they look at it often from a “reductionist” point of view, as an ideal single organizing framework, to that extent it stops decision-makers from holistically understanding the world complexity and from adapting to changing circumstances. Let us take a look at NATO example, and namely on defence spending, which focuses rather on mathematically set goals with little degree of flexibility – 2% of GDP on military forces and 20% of military spending on R&D and procurement. Such an approach is actually ignoring various aspects of strategy such as defining core interests or hierarchizing areas of interest where money is actually needed. This reductionism is also visible due to lack of NATO-wide discussion on forward-looking strategy and defence planning. An example of which is the latest intention to significantly reduce the presence of US troops in Germany, so far, the most important military partner on the European side of the transatlantic security structure. According to Donald Trump, the justification for such a step is the fact that Germany – the richest country in the European Union – “does not pay for NATO.” But maybe instead of having a prescribed approach towards pressuring NATO members like Germany to reach mathematically fixed spending levels, the Alliance should call to think about strategy, define real priorities and make its allied forces more effective in core areas? Prescriptions and dogmatic viewpoint towards strategy has little utility in the 21^st century. It is not because one has a fixed percentage spending or defined directions of security development, that he should become stubborn about a strategy and lose the ability to adapt and react to the changing environment.

Moreover, static assumptions are also dangerous for effective strategizing – for instance, the EU’s strategy is in some ways based on the assumption of sustainability of liberal international order. Nevertheless, in the context of the variability of international affairs, currently caused by COVID-19 or by serious disturbances in Belarus it is more contested. Namely, the EU’s global influence, political and economic strength seems to be in decline. For example, in the mid-1990s, the EU’s share of global trade was over 25%, whereas today it equals around 15.2%. Moreover, its reliance on China, being the largest exporter since 2009 and world’s largest industrial producer, is even more visible with the current coronavirus crisis. China, as one of the largest manufacturers of medical products, is providing EU member states like Italy or Poland with medical supplies. Additionally, the supplies are accompanied by a vast promotional action and diplomatic activity from Beijing. These trends, together with broader international affairs issues, puts into question the advance of globalization, and the West’s uncontested international pre-eminence. It reveals that the volatile character of contemporary international affairs can easily challenge basic assumptions and thus flexibility is key.  

Read also: Alternative reality in Belarus

Furthermore, the situation in Belarus is not making it any easier for the EU… Belarussian case offers a range of possible developments – on one hand, there is no doubt that the Armed Forces of Belarus, together with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have rehearsed scenarios of armed intervention in Belarus. Additionally, Russia and Belarus have ties on various levels, both in terms of military operations and in the area of military-technical cooperation. A scenario of military intervention, while not a cakewalk, is still within the realm of the possible. But on the other hand, there are also hybrid activities aimed at destabilizing the social situation, with the use of information warfare which seems even more probable. In Belarus, the majority of people watch Russian news programs and it seems like a child’s play to flood the news or Internet with disinformation. For example, there have been attempts to discredit NATO exercises in Baltics – by showing deceitful images of pending NATO invasion of Belarus from Lithuania. Hence, a destabilized situation in Belarus is even intensified by a complex disinformation landscape, which can surely have an impact on the EU members, NATO and its allies. Is then backing away from long-term strategizing and conducting a foreign policy from crisis to crisis the best remedy?

Those three examples – disturbances on NATO level, COVID-19 crisis as well as protests in Belarus show that a volatile character of the international politics can create a serious dilemma for the EU or the US as to how they should react to various changes in the world. Instead, European and American decision-makers might take a closer and a more analytical look at the unprecedented developments worldwide and increase its preparedness for the future by building its anticipatory capacity. Hence, draw attention to trends, discontinuities but also emerging opportunities by incorporating forward-looking methods such as scenario planning into foreign policy making. Because, whatever the developments of the geopolitical situation will be, it is likely to have a number of implications on the international politics in the long run.

Martina Hachoud – Coast Guard Sector Assistant at Frontex. She gained her professional experience in government and non-government sectors as well as international organisations like United Nations. A graduate of MA studies in International Security at the Sciences Po in Paris.

On the 26th of August, Washington sanctioned dozens of Chinese individuals and defence firms over their contribution to China’s controversial island-building campaign in the disputed South China Sea and coercion against Southeast Asian claimant states. The announcement marks the first instance Washington has used sanctions against Beijing in relation to the disputed strategic waterway and points to the South China Sea as the next defining battlefield of US-China confrontation.  

The immediate practical impact of the sanctions is likely to be relatively small. According to the US Department of Commerce, the US export to the blacklisted companies is insignificant and amounted to about $5 million in the last five years. As such, those defence firms, which include Guangzhou Haige Communications Group, China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) as well as China Shipbuilding Group, will remain largely unscathed by Washington’s move. 

However, sanctions come amid a serious escalation of tensions between the two powers in the aftermath of the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech outlining the US policy in the region. In his statement on July 13th, the top US diplomat rejected all Chinese claims across much of the South China Sea as “completely unlawful,” thus fully endorsing the 2016 unanimous decision by the international tribunal in the Philippines’ 2013 case against China. The hardening of Washington’s stance did not remain only on paper as in early July the US Navy dispatched two aircraft carriers and four other warships to sail through the waters China claims, in a significant show of force to the Chinese military.

• Read also: Alternative reality in Belarus

Beijing by no means remains the passive party in the recent spat. The dispatch of the US Navy was widely perceived as a response to Chinese military drills in the South China Sea. In late June, the Chinese military declared the area around the disputed Paracel Islands off-limits to other ships for the duration of Chinese military exercises, which took place in the first five days of July. The American sanctions also coincided with the reported launch of Chinese surface-to-air missiles that struck the area of the South China Sea between Chinese territory and the Paracel Islands. According to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post the missiles, which included an “aircraft-carrier killer,” were a warning shot a day after a US spy plane reportedly flew near Chinese naval drills. 

The prize is certainly worth the trouble. The economic and security significance of control over the South China Sea cannot be overstated. In economic terms, the sea-lanes that pass through the South China Sea are the busiest and most prominent seaborne trade passage in the world with some US$ 5 trillion in goods cruising through its waters every year – one-third of global shipping. That accounts for not only nearly half of the Chinese and 6% of the American total trade, but also 90% of oil imports by resource-deprived Northeast Asian states like China, Japan, or South Korea. Secondly, its seabed is believed to store huge oil and natural gas reserves with U.S. conservative estimate putting the figure at 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 

From the military perspective, the same sea-lanes also serve as an important artery for the American navy. It allows the U.S. Seventh Fleet to transit between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and thus sustain the dense network of security ties and commitments Washington built throughout East and Southeast Asia.  

Read also: Dangerous Russian Siege Mentality

However, the dispute over the South China Sea goes beyond simple economic and military factors. It is seen by many as the last stand in the struggle over the preservation of a “rules-based order” in East Asia, established by the West and backed by U.S. power. Embodying principles like the commitment to international law, opposition to unilateral territorial expansion and preservation of sea-lanes as a global commons, those rules have been increasingly challenged by revisionist powers like China or Russia, who push for the return to nineteenth century-style spheres of influence. Many western politicians and analysts believe than only under such order the South China Sea region can remain “open, free, safe and prosperous.”

China is well-aware of this significance. It has staked claim virtually over all of the South China Sea under its “nine-dash line,” over objections of its Southeast Asian neighbours – Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam among others – who also have maritime claims to the area. To bolster its sovereignty claims, over the past decade Beijing has launched an impressive island-building campaign, constructing military outposts on disputed reefs, while at the same time deploying missiles and jamming equipment to challenge foreign navy forces operating in the region. The Middle Kingdom also has not shied away from outright intimidating claimant states to give away their rights to sea resources through its coast guard and paramilitary “fishing fleets,” for instance forcing Vietnam to cancel several oil drill operations in disputed areas. 

The US became the principal international player to challenge China’s attempts to change “facts on the ground” on the South China Sea. Accusing Beijing of militarizing the area and intimidating its neighbours, Washington repeatedly sent its warships to sail through the sea in so-called “freedom of navigation” operations, aimed at asserting freedom of passage on international waters. Starting with the passage of USS Lassen near Subi and Mischief reefs in 2015 these operations became a regular affair, much to China’s annoyance, who views them as an attack on its sovereignty.  

Although the policy was first adopted in Obama’s last years, upon Donald Trump entering the White House the number of US Navy patrols near disputed region rose significantly. The new administration adopted a markedly sharper anti-Chinese stance than its predecessors and viewed the South China Sea dispute as another tool to exert pressure on the Middle Kingdom, combined with launching a trade war and its crusade against Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. Thus, according to data released by the US Pacific Fleet in 2019, the US launched record nine freedom of navigation operations in territories claimed by Beijing, raising fears of clashes.  

The rise in US-China tensions over the South China Sea may also have a domestic component. Washington’s latest moves come in the midst of the US presidential campaign. The republican team employed China as one of the main attack lines against the democratic candidate and former vice-president Joe Biden, hoping to capitalise on the growing realisation that China’s expansionist moves in the Asia-Pacific require a strong response. The escalation may provide fodder for the president’s re-election effort, shoring up Trump’s tough-on-China credentials before 3rd of November, while at the same time portraying his opponent as too soft on China by comparison.

Waldemar Jaszczyk – King’s College London graduate with the first-class honour degree in History and International Relations. He is currently studying at Peking University as a part of the Peking University – London School of Economics and Political Science double graduate degree in International Affairs. His main research interests are energy security, political and economic relations of Northeast Asia

Undoubtedly, the topic that currently dominates the public debate in Poland in terms of foreign policy is Belarus. The unprecedented protests, which have spread not only to the capital city of Minsk, but also to smaller towns in the countryside, and the scale of these protests – Belarus has not been a witness of such events till date. The resistance against the dictator is significant. The brutal reaction of the security forces at the beginning of the protests seemed to only intensify the fury and resistance of the society.

The situation in Belarus is of interest to all neighboring countries – especially Lithuania, Poland and naturally Russia, for which this country is a part of the sphere of influence and a crucial strategic area. The multifaceted dependence of Belarus on Russia will be a factor influencing further development of the situation. It should be remembered that while Alexander Lukashenko was the executor of Russian interests in his country, the vague views of opposition leaders on the matter of future relations with Russia may not lead to any drastic changes as many Western and Polish commentators would like.

• Read also: Dangerous Russian Siege Mentality

Nevertheless, this issue is presented differently in the Russian narrative. Poland is to be the main initiator of protests in Belarus. The opposition is to be led by the Polish forces, further, which are in charge of all media in Belarus, except, of course, the official ones. The Russians can be very precise in these inventions, e.g. former GRU officer – Lieutenant Colonel Sergey Kozlov, commenting on the situation in Belarus for “Komsomolskaya Pravda,” said outright that it is the result of the activities of the Central Group of Psychological Actions from Bydgoszcz, which is to specialize in propaganda and manipulation. The group was already supposed to be active in the Ukrainian Euromaidan. Certainly, Poles are to act for the benefit of the Americans, but the situation is to be quite new because until now, e.g. in Kiev, the Americans were in action themselves whilst now they are acting through Poles.

The “Solidarity” has apparently been strongly engraved in Russian memory, because they recall its example as yet another proof of Polish involvement, a kind of Polish trace in protests in Belarus. Why? Well, the pattern of the opposition’s actions is supposed to be a duplicate of the methods used by the “Solidarity,” where the central role was played by workers who started protests in the country’s key factories, which in turn forced the authorities to make concessions. Although this has little to do with the reality, it should be noted that 40 years later “Solidarity” is a point of reference for Belarusians fighting for freedom. The Belarusian version of Jacek Kaczmarski’s famous song “The Walls” (Mury) is widely sung thus becoming a symbol.

Coming back to the Russian alternative version of the events – all these Polish operations, carried out with the support of the Lithuanians and Ukrainians, are to serve the purpose of integrating Belarus into the Polish sphere of influence. According to the divagations of Sergey Markov – a pro-Kremlin political scientist, after the victory of the opposition in Belarus, power would be exercised by Polish puppets. Companies from across the Vistula River would buy out Belarusian companies and Poles would become the new oligarchy. Moreover, the Belarusian language would not be spared, but subjected to polonization. Of course, for Belarusians such a government would only bring misery.

However, if somebody thinks that this is the ultimate goal of Poland, he or she is sorely mistaken According to Russian propaganda, it is only an intermediate target. Primarily, Poles want to block Russia and lead to the overthrowing Vladimir Putin. This is supposed to be an element of the eternal rivalry between Moscow and the Polish Republic for dominance over this part of Europe. Such stories are received with utter disbelief in Poland, because similar ambitions were abandoned by the country with the Peace of Riga in 1921.

• Read also: The Rusty Privacy Shield

A competing narrative says that Poland is directly interested in recovering the land that previously belonged to it and incorporating it to the state. Above all this is supposed to apply to Grodno. Alexander Lukashenko himself seems to embrace this propaganda, desperately seeking his own salvation – creating an impression of a Polish threat is part of this activity. Hence the movement of elite units to the border with Poland, right to the vicinity of Grodno. Some analysts believe that Lukashenko may want to stage a border incident, which could be a pretext to call for help of the Russian troops in order to suppress the resistance of the Belarusian people towards to the dictator. It is highly questionable whether the Russians would be interested in taking part in such a game. Moreover, it may turn out that Moscow will successfully achieve its goals even without Lukashenko. This is undoubtedly facilitated by the ambiguous attitude of some Western politicians and commentators, who do not recognize the importance of the aspirations of the Belarusians and advocate for a quick implementation of a scenario, which will respond to Moscow’s expectations.

In order to discourage Belarusians and Russians from protesters in Belarus, Moscow is using an old Comintern’s method of attributing agency connections with a foreign country in addition to reproducing with modern language the formerly known clichés about “Polish lords,” whose sole goal is to exploit Eastern Slavs and realize their imperial dreams. The use of such a narrative in a new form indicates the concerns Russia has about the increasingly active Polish policy in the East.

Paweł Pawłowski – graduated law at the University of Warsaw, where he is currently a PhD student at the Institute of Sciences of the State and the Law. A graduate of a scientific internship at The Institute of World Politics and Babson Entrepreneurship Program at Babson College.