Unnamed American officials, according to the New York Times, have admitted that the explosives fired against Ukraine’s nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia have been fired against the plant by Ukraine’s Government, not by Russia’s Government, and furthermore these officials make clear that Ukraine’s attacks against the plant are a key part of Ukraine’s plan to win its U.S.-backed-and-advised war against Russia, on the battlefields of Ukraine, using Ukrainian soldiers.

Zaporizhzhia is a city in Ukraine that is in Russian-controlled territory, and Ukraine’s strategy is to destroy the ability of the plant to function, so that areas controlled by Russia will no longer be able to benefit from that plant’s electrical-power output. The United States Government helped Ukraine’s Government to come up with this plan, according to the New York Times.

This information was buried by the Times, 85% of the way down a 1,600-word news-report they published on September 13th, titled “The Critical Moment Behind Ukraine’s Rapid Advance”, in which it stated that, “Eventually, Ukrainian officials believe their long-term success requires progress on the original goals in the discarded strategy, including recapturing the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, cutting off Russian forces in Mariupol and pushing Russian forces in Kherson back across the Dnipro River, American officials said.” 

When IAEA inspectors arrived at that plant on September 1st, after a lengthy period of trying to get there to inspect it but which was blocked by Ukraine’s Government, and the IAEA started delivering reports regarding what they were finding at the plant, no mention has, as-of yet, been made concerning which of the two warring sides has been firing those bombs into the plant. Even when the IAEA headlined on September 9th “Director General’s Statement on Serious Situation at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant”, and reported that the plant’s ability to operate “has been destroyed by shelling of the switchyard at the city’s thermal power plant, leading to a complete power black-out in” the entire region, and that “This is completely unacceptable. It cannot stand.”, and closed by saying they “urgently call for the immediate cessation of all shelling in the entire area,” no mention was made as to which of the two sides was shooting into the plant in order to disable it, and which of the two sides was firing out from the plant in order to protect it against that incoming fire. Previously known was only that the city of Zaporizhzhia has been and is under Russian control ever since March 4th. Consequently, all news-media and reporters have known that (since Russia was inside and Ukraine was outside) Russia has been defending the plant and Ukraine has been attacking it, but until “American officials” let slip, in this news-report, the fact that this has indeed been the case there, no Western news-medium has previously published this fact — not even buried it in a news-report.  

So, although nothing in this regard may yet be considered to be official, or neutral, or free of fear or of actual intent to lie, there finally is, at the very least, buried in that news-report from the New York Times, a statement that is sourced to “American officials,” asserting that this is the case, and the Times also lets slip there that this “shelling” of that plant is an important part of the joint U.S.-Ukraine master-plan to defeat Russia in Ukraine. It is part of the same master-plan, which the U.S. Government recommended to Ukraine’s Government, and which also included the recent successful retaking by Ukraine of Russian-controlled land near the major Ukrainian city of Kharkov, which city’s recapture by Ukraine is also included in the master-plan. Both operations — the shelling of the nuclear power plant, and the recapture of that land near Kharkov — were parts of that master-plan, according to the New York Times.

The Times report asserts that

Long reluctant to share details of their plans, the Ukrainian commanders started opening up more to American and British intelligence officials and seeking advice. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, and Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Mr. Zelensky, spoke multiple times about the planning for the counteroffensive, according to a senior administration official. Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and senior Ukrainian military leaders regularly discussed intelligence and military support.

And in Kyiv, Ukrainian and British military officials continued working together while the new American defense attaché, Brig. Gen. Garrick Harmon, began having daily sessions with Ukraine’s top officers.

The US over the Horizon Counterterrorism War from Pakistan

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse's new book, AMERICA'S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler's Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world's wealth by control of not only their 'news' media but the social 'sciences' — duping the public.

China’s Proxy War in Ukraine

What is behind new border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Interesting facts about Americans owning guns: is gun control the answer?

Indian students and U.S. strategy in R&D

Indonesia’s G 20 chairmanship: Balancing on a diplomatic tightrope

The Summit for Democracy Can Only Be a Success If It Focuses on Youth

In the face of the growing political and security crisis caused by China in East Asia, the US is trying to expand its military presence in South Asian countries and use Pakistan’s air space geo-political and counterterrorism objectives.  When the Afghan Taliban came to power in Afghanistan for the second time on August 15, 2021, and on August 30, the 20-year military presence of the United States in Afghanistan came to end completely, while undermining the military and political presence of the United States not only in South Asia but also in the Middle East.

 Furthermore, in East Asia, the possibility of an attack on Taiwan by China is also increasing day to day, hence, the United States prioritize the acquisition of an air base at a strategic point in South Asia in coordination with the Pakistani army and the ISI network in Pakistan. In order to get an airport at a point that has easy access to the border areas of three countries such as China, Afghanistan and Iran. Thus, after August 15, 2021, the United States once again expanded military and diplomatic relations with Pakistan in the region by overthrowing the government of the pro-Sino-Russia party of PTI in Pakistan.

Moreover, strategic communication between the high-ranking military and political officials of both countries, namely Pakistan and the United States have started to meet in relation to the security of the region, especially Afghanistan. The most important visit of high-ranking US officials to South Asia was the visit of William Burns, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency, in early September 2021.  Mr. Burns agreed with India and Pakistan on such a security mechanism for the region so that America can once again expand its surveillance and military presence in the region.

 Based on that security mechanism, three areas have been marked so that the United States can deploy its drones and naval forces in those areas such as Ladakh, a border region that has been troubled between India and China for years, Shamsi Airport in Pakistan, which is located in Balochistan, and Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, which is currently under the control of the Afghan Taliban.

 From these three areas, number of different types of American unmanned aerial vehicles, including naval forces have been transferred to Pakistan’s Baluchistan Shamsi Airport such as Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance and General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper attack drones. India is still in an uncertain position regarding military cooperation with the United States, and recently, both China and India, in coordination with the defense ministries, have removed soldiers from the Ladakh region.

However, if China does not interfere with the naval forces in the southern port of Sri Lanka, Hambantota, or face to the military development in Sri Lanka, So, India will not delay to give a military base to the US Navy in the Ladakh region. In addition, the third point was Afghanistan, however, several times after August 30, American officials tried to deploy their military forces in Afghanistan under the pretext of protecting the American embassy in Afghanistan through the Taliban’s Doha office in Doha. Nevertheless, it seems that their efforts have failed or the Afghan Taliban have backed away from this move after expanding relations with the Eastern Alliance.

On August 7, 2022, eight days after the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan, Pakistan handed over Shamsi Airport to the CIA for the second time.  In return, some of Pakistan’s requests were accepted by the US, which will gradually be adopted into practice.  

-Removing the name of Pakistan from the blacklist of cooperation with terrorist groups.

-forcing the International Monetary Fund or IMF to lend to Pakistan, Agreement on comprehensive military assistance with the Pakistan Army.

-in addition to other material and military assistance.

 From the Shamsi Airbase, America can easily destroy its targets inside Afghanistan besides; it can monitor the border area of ​​Iran and China as well.

Pakistan’s Shamsi Airport, located in Washuk, Balochistan, is only 190 km away from the Durand Line, from where American drones can easily monitor Afghanistan entirely, the border areas of Iran and China and the port of Gwadar. Shamsi Airport, located at an altitude of 340 meters above sea level, has a 3012 meter long runway of plane. This airport was built in 1992 by the United Arab Emirates in the name of bird hunting, which was then controlled by the Americans from 2001 to 2011. But when relations between American forces and Pakistan became strained in November 2011, Pakistan ordered American forces to withdraw from Shamsi Airport. Now, once again, this airport has been handed over to the American forces under the leadership of the CIA, to monitor Afghanistan, Iran and East Asia from here.

 The Middle East and the geopolitical and economic importance of this region

The Middle East, which is a geopolitical region of about 17 countries and eight islands, which the these countries included such as: Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. In addition, if the independence of North Cyprus gets international recognition, then North Cyprus will be the 18th country in the Middle East, and even now in some writings and research reports, North Cyprus is called the Middle East country. However, North Cyprus is still recognized by the United Nations as a part of the island of Cyprus. The largest country in the Middle East in terms of area is Saudi Arabia, and the most populous countries in the Middle East are Egypt, Iran and Turkey.

The eight islands of the Middle East are Arabia, Asia Minor, Eastern Thrace, Egypt, Iran, Levant, Mesopotamia, and the Socotra Islands. Geopolitical and economic importance of the Middle East: The Middle East is a bridge between the three major continents because the Middle East is a connecting tissue between Europe, Africa and Asia. The Middle East has gained geopolitical importance by having some of the world’s most important trade routes, important canals such as the Suez Canal, the Turkish Straits, the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Gibraltar, and military strategic checkpoints.

The vast oil resources of the Middle East, strategic trade routes, Middle Eastern territory, and ideas have given strategic importance to the geography of the Middle East. Oil and petroleum are the most widely available resources in the Middle East and the economies of many Asian, European and Western countries rely on the oil reserves of the Middle East. The Middle East produces almost 31 percent of the world’s oil because five of the ten countries that produce the most oil in the world are located in the Middle East, and besides oil, the Middle East produces 41 percent of the world’s natural gas.

In addition to having vast and inexhaustible natural oil reserves, sea trade routes and canals play an important role in the economic importance of the Middle East, among which we can mention the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal, which is considered the main sea channel for carrying commercial goods between Europe and Asia, is located in Egypt in the Middle East region, and 12% of the world’s commercial goods pass through this route. Along with sea routes and canals, advanced technology products also play an important role in the economic importance of the Middle East. Israel, which produces some of the world’s best technology, has attracted huge investments from the world’s top tech companies such as: Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Google, smartphones, computers and other technical products that you use have their technology developed in Israel.

The Middle East is a connecting transit route, for centuries; people have traveled from the East to the West using the Middle East route, so this region has become one of the most important economic regions in the world.

The mid-east has strategic importance because it is located between Asia, Europe and Africa, such as the Suez Canal making it one of the most strategic and important transportation areas in the world, and we cannot forget about the oil deposits there, which supply the world with petroleum. The vast oil reserves in the Middle East, the maritime economic route and the location of the Middle East have been the reason why this region has been a victim of political crisis and competition between superpower countries for a long time.

Moreover, this region was a big controversial part of the world during the Cold War, because both the West and the Soviet Union were making extensive efforts to establish an alliance in the Middle East and for the loyalty of the countries. Now this region has become a conflict zone between the West, China and Russia because each of them, namely the Eastern Alliance led by Russia and the Western Alliance led by the United States, are competing to find influence in this region.

 There are many reasons for the long-term political crisis in the Middle East, some of which we can describe as below. Islam/Christianity/Judaism, Iran/Iraq conflict, Iran/Baha’i, Shia/Sunni conflict led by Iran and Saudi Arabia, North/South Yemen, Everyone/Kurds, Struggle to Create Kurdistan State, Syrian Revolution, Libyan Revolution, Israel/Palestine Conflict, Tunisian Revolution, Arabs/Berbers, North/South Sudan, Lebanese civil war, Water scarcity, racism against women, honor killings.

China’s Silk Road also plays a significant role in the Middle East crisis, because the Chinese Silk Road was a network of trade routes passing through the Middle East connecting China and the Far East with the Middle East and Europe. In order to destroy this road, destabilizing the Middle East was one of the main goals of the West to prevent China’s economic growth. These are all the reasons why the Middle East has been in turmoil since the 19th century, and these reasons allow the political crisis in the Middle East and the training of jihadist groups in this region with the support of the West. The political crisis in the Middle East started in two stages after and before the WWII.

Before World War II, the political crisis in the Middle East began with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Sykes-Picot conspiracy between the British and the French. To build the region completely without considering the local communities. The British actually divided and ruled the region with their traditional policy, betraying the Arabs who had helped the British defeat the Turks. Furthermore, with the Kurds who promised an independent country, but whom Churchill instead bombed and experimented with chemical weapons.

Undoubtedly, they opened Palestine for European Zionist colonization and supported the Wahhabi Saudi tribe against the intellectuals Hashemites in the Arab Civil War. The second phase began after WWII, when Americans became increasingly involved in the Middle East, In order to weaken China and Russia in the Middle East and overthrow the pro-Russian and pro-Chinese government in Asia under the control of China and Russia or sacrifice long-term civil wars. A good example is Afghanistan becoming a victim of the 40-year war, which the origin of jihadist ideas and jihadist groups started from the Gulf countries and the Middle East.

 In Afghanistan, America supported the Mujahideen against Soviet Union and a progressive government of Afghanistan that had given equal rights to women, and is still proud that it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Attempted a coup in Syria, thus forcing the nation into Moscow’s arms, and succeeded with a coup in Iran, where they overthrew their first democratic government. America then supported Iraq in a terrible war against Iran, in which hundreds of thousands of young people were killed by chemical weapons, and these weapons were largely provided by the West. The Americans then turned to Iraq when Saddam went silent and invaded openly, before the sanctions were lifted, causing the deaths of half a million children. Since 9/11, a dubious event to say the least, the US has invaded the entire Middle East under false pretenses, causing millions of deaths, untold suffering, tidal waves of refugees, ongoing civil strife and caused widespread terrorism.

The West adopted a policy of “divide and rule” regarding the Middle East

 The Middle East no longer sees peace and tranquility. Because America also supports the dictatorship and supports the apartheid regime in Israel, despite the ethnic cleansing of its own Palestinian population. In essence, America did to the region what the Nazis did to Europe and the British did to Africa.

In order to dominate the land oil reserves in the Middle East, to prevent the military and economic development of China and Russia in the Middle East, and to divide and destroy the large and strong government in the Middle East, the United States has deployed dozens of jihadist groups in the Middle East.  In order to destabilize the region through these groups and to financially support these groups, the Western alliance illegally seized the oil resources of the Middle East and trained more jihadist organizations in the Middle East with the income from those oil reserves.

There are more than 16 major jihadist organizations and more than 40 local jihadist armed groups in the Middle East

Jihadi groups, some of which are trained by Iran with the financial and military support of Russia and the Eastern Alliance such as: Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatimiun, the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and Yemen’s Houthi rebels. Some jihadist groups are being supported by America in the Middle East with the support of the West. The most destructive group is the Islamic Dalit or ISIS group, which has been destabilizing the Middle East for years.

There are many armed and propagandist groups in the Middle East who are fighting to establish Dar al-Islam in the world, which is supported the majority of groups by the Western world.

1: Aden-Abyan Islamic Army, 2: Abdullah Azzam Brigades, 3: Hayat Tahrir Al-Shaam, 4: Maghweer al-Thura, 5: Al-Nusra Front, 6: Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, 7: Ansar al-Sharia in Libya, 8: Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, 9: Harakat Sham al-Islam, 10: Ansar al-Din, 11: Front, Jund al-Aqsa 12: Egyptian Islamic Jihad, 13: Islamic State in Libya, 14: Islamic State – Yemen Province, 15: Hizb al-Tahrir, a propaganda group that is fighting to establish Dar al-Islam in the world, 16: Society of the Muslim Brothers, a propaganda group that is fighting to establish Dar al-Islam in the world.

These were the groups that have been active in their jihadist struggle in the Middle East for years, so that each group can reach its goals separately. However, some of these groups are inactive now, but they may start to act a second time, like the Maghaweer al-Thura group in Syria.

The struggle of a number of armed groups in the Middle East is to destabilize the Middle East and pave the way for the influence of America and the Western world in the region in order to prevent China and Russia.

By 2014, the Global War on Terrorism had gone into full swing. The United States had formally entered and intervened in the Syrian Civil War by launching an air campaign and had established a Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR). U.S. soldiers were stationed in Afghanistan, despite being declared formally over, and ISIS had claimed a substantial portion of Iraq under their control. Terrorism was (and still is to a large degree) one of the greatest threats the world as a whole faced in terms of national security and foreign policy.

In 2014, Max Boot, a Conservative journalist and historian, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs focusing on Counterinsurgency (COIN). Boot’s most insightful point is in his discussion of planning for what comes after a regime change operation occurs, describing how it is the most difficult part of such a military endeavor to pull off.

I agree with Boot that the aftermath of a military operation, in terms of U.S. operations, is forgotten, mismanaged, or nowhere near fully thought out by the time the initial combat operations are completed. As Boot mentions, this can be seen in various world events, notably with the Treaty of Versailles resulting in the sowing of the seeds of World War II, the lack of forethought in determining the outcome of the Korean War, and the blinded and deliberately manufactured entry into Iraq in 2003.

Due to the U.S.A’s history of being poor at having a solid plan for the aftermath of a military operation, this is the most insightful lesson from Boot’s article. 

Planning for the afterword of a combat operation is essential. While winning the war is half the battle, ensuring a stable democracy is in place and that the civilians of that country have access to proper social services and the ability to freely decide what kind of country and government they wish to become is important. However, this is far easier said than done, as we have seen in Iraq and Vietnam that animosities between groups arise and result in tensions along ethnic and religious lines in addition to political ones. The best way to illuminate how disastrously a country can become without a solid, clear, and concise aftermath plan can be seen with Iraq.

The Aftermath of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq

In the lead up to the conflict, there was much discussion about which battle plan the U.S. government was going to accept and follow, be it the “Generated Start” or the “Running Start” options; Gordon and Trainor’s seminal book on the conflict Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq documents heavily, easily over 100 pages, the entire planning process, from the morning of September 11th to the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Firdos Square in April of 2003. In all of this, no one was discussing the aftermath of what to do with Iraq or how to go about making it into a viable democracy with a clear and strong leadership.

While the Bush administration tried to say that they had a clear aftermath after taking Baghdad, many military officials who were closely involved have said otherwise. As Thomas Ricks notes in his book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg (former director of communications and computers for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later Chief Operating Officer for the Coalitional Provisional Authority (CPA)) said, “There was no real plan [meaning what to do after toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime]. The though was, you didn’t need it. The assumption was that everything would be fine after the war, that they’d be happy they got rid of Saddam”. A Marine by the name of Nicholas Reynolds, a Colonel and official Corps historian, also told Ricks, “Nowhere in Centcom [sic]…has there been a plan for Phase IV that was like the plan for Phase III, let alone all of the preparations that accompanied it…”.

The only time a workable plan for Phase IV (the plan meant to rebuild Iraq and bring peace to the country) was even mentioned was in the immediate aftermath of 2003. Using the recollections of Colonel Alan King, the head of civil affairs for the 3rd Infantry Division, “On the night of April 8, Col. Sterling, the chief of staff of the 3rd ID, came to me and said, ‘I just got off the phone with the corps chief of staff, and I asked him for the reconstruction plan, and he said there isn’t one. So you’ve got twenty-four hours to come up with one”. Despite the administration’s multiple reassurances that a reconstruction plan would be available when the time was right, it ended up being developed in the middle of occupied Baghdad.

The result of this was the complete disintegration of order within the country, exacerbated by the CPA’s barring of any high to mid-level Ba’athist figures from government work in the new regime and the lack of broad, coordinated effort against an insurgency (the barring of former Ba’athist members too assisted in the creation of the insurgency). Despite the U.S. having begun this intervention nearly twenty years ago, Iraq is still incredibly volatile and is short of being a recognizable democracy.

Why Regime Change Failed in Iraq

The lack of a viable and effective Phase IV has led to much tension in the country and resulted in many deaths of Iraqis, Americans, and others involved in the coalition forces. This is why having a pre-made reconstruction plan is a necessity for any operation, before a government begins their military invasion. The need for decision-makers to realize that military operations must have a practical, already devised, rebuilding plan in place for utilization after major combat operations have ended is extremely vital to the success of any operation. Having input from academics with firsthand and historical knowledge of the country’s economic, social, political, military, and public works centers, input from business experts in re-developing destroyed financial markets and utilizing the country’s best assets to its advantage, and taking the advice of citizens of the country, the broad public, in devising a new form of government and an entirely new system of government is extremely necessary to the success of such an operation. However, the biggest challenge in doing this is having the right people in power.

With Iraq, those at the top of the planning (Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowtiz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) were not thinking in terms of a reconstruction plan, only devising ways to ensure that Saddam was toppled and that the U.S. had control of the country. As General Anthony Zinni, the former Commander in Chief (CINC) of United States Central Command (CENTCOM – the command directly responsible for devising both the invasion, occupation, and rebuilding plans for Iraq), stated, “I think – and this is just my opinion – that the neocons [Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Armitage] didn’t really give a shit what happened in Iraq and the aftermath…I don’t think they thought it would be this bad. But they said…We’ve taken out Saddam. We’ve asserted our strength in the Middle East”. Having those in power who are thinking in a forward mindset and caring about long-term and strong solutions is the biggest help to ensuring that a viable reconstruction plan is in the works and is developed before a military operation is complete.

Some of this surely must be blamed on the perception by senior commanders that this would be a short conflict and would be an easy mission to undertake. It’s the common assumption that has often been encapsulated by commanders saying to those under their authority, “You’ll be home by Christmas”. As well, some officers likely were also anticipating this to be a short war based upon past and previous experiences in Iraq; most of those commanders who led divisional and combatant commands (Generals Jim Mattis, David Petraeus, Peter Schoomaker) had been involved in the 1991 Gulf War serving as Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels and saw firsthand how seemingly easy that victory was, the entire operation taking only six months.

The majority were not thinking in a long term mindset, instead being purely focused on taking Baghdad and Iraq and removing Saddam from power; no one, save for a few field grade officers and those truly experienced general officers who were shut out from the development process, was thinking about an insurgency or how to effectively fight one. Most likely, many of those in command were simply not thinking in a long-term mindset and were not considering that an insurgency would be as large of a problem as it had become. As well, some, certainly those in charge of the Defense Department and within the U.S. Intelligence Community, were blinded by their own personal desire to settle old scores and purely concerned with the desire to gain additional money and power through an invasion of Iraq.

If anything, the 2003 invasion of Iraq is a lesson for future policymakers, military officers, and civilians alike to avoid reckless or ill-thought out foreign policy and military endeavors and work to press for a more complete and well-formed answer from elected officials. While Americans have struggled in the past with learning lessons from foreign engagements and military disasters, like Vietnam and Korea, optimistically the next generation of Americans and Europeans can be able to learn from past regime change and stability operations and be able to effectively, justly, and democratically carry out such missions.

In the new global context of socio-economic systemic shocks, recommitting to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has never been more...

On Wednesday night, Iran signed a memorandum of commitments in the path to fully join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)....

A new World Bank report calls on countries in the region to take urgent action to help reduce the impacts...

TheWorld Bank Group’s Country Climate and Development Report for Nepal underscores the urgency of building resilience to climate change and recommends policies...

Even in the best of circumstances, it is difficult to forecast energy costs, and the current level of market instability...

Quantum technologies offer huge potential for finding solutions to complex global challenges. But the focus on cybersecurity risks, which are...

During the Cold War, The Soviet Union and the United States clashed in numerous wars for global supremacy through proxies...

ISIS Rises from the Dust in the Syrian Desert

The US over the Horizon Counterterrorism War from Pakistan

Inverting Queen Elizabeth II’s Steady Glass Cage Leadership Style

Factionalism in the Chinese Communist Party: From Mao to Now

European Union needs reflection on its strategic autonomy in a geopolitical sense

The Summit for Democracy Can Only Be a Success If It Focuses on Youth

Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Is a career in graphic design more accessible in 2022?