Is US Prestige Irreparable?

Is US Prestige Irreparable? What Must Be Done to Repair It

For much of the 20th century, the United States was seen as a beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity. Its leadership in World War II, its role in rebuilding Europe through the Marshall Plan, and its firm stand against the spread of communism during the Cold War cemented its position as a superpower—and as a global leader whose prestige was unmatched. However, as the first quarter of the 21st century nears its close, the question looms: is U.S. prestige irreparable?

The challenges to American prestige are multifaceted. From costly military interventions to economic crises, from political polarization to shifting global power dynamics, the United States finds itself in a precarious position. Repairing U.S. prestige requires not only addressing the root causes of its decline but also reimagining the nation’s role in an increasingly multipolar world.

The Erosion of American Prestige

American prestige has suffered a series of significant blows over the past two decades. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, conducted under the guise of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, severely damaged U.S. credibility. The prolonged nature of the war, combined with revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib and the broader failures of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, led to a loss of trust among allies and adversaries alike.

Domestically, the 2008 financial crisis exposed vulnerabilities in the American economic model. The perception of the U.S. as a safe haven for investment was shaken, and the crisis underscored the interdependence of global economies. Countries that once looked to the United States as a stabilizing force found themselves questioning its reliability.

More recently, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 served as a stark reminder of the limits of American power. While the decision to end the “forever war” was widely supported, the manner in which it was executed—with scenes of desperate Afghans clinging to departing planes—projected weakness and poor planning.

The polarization of American politics has further exacerbated the decline in prestige. Events such as the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection showcased to the world the fragility of American democracy. Meanwhile, inconsistent foreign policies between administrations—from "America First" under Donald Trump to renewed multilateralism under Joe Biden—have left allies unsure of the U.S.’s commitments.

The Consequences of Lost Prestige

The erosion of U.S. prestige has far-reaching consequences. For decades, the United States enjoyed a “hegemonic stability” role, providing public goods such as security and open markets. This leadership fostered a global order that benefited both the U.S. and its allies. However, as American prestige wanes, challengers such as China and Russia are stepping into the vacuum.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has extended Beijing’s influence across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Through infrastructure investments and loans, China has positioned itself as an alternative to Western-led development models. Meanwhile, Russia’s assertiveness—from annexing Crimea to interfering in democratic elections—has highlighted the waning influence of American deterrence.

Even long-standing allies are recalibrating their foreign policies. European nations, for example, are taking steps toward strategic autonomy, as evidenced by initiatives within the European Union to reduce dependence on U.S. security guarantees. Middle Eastern allies, such as Saudi Arabia, have also begun diversifying their partnerships, engaging with China and Russia on energy and security issues.

What Must Be Done to Repair U.S. Prestige

Repairing U.S. prestige is no small task. It requires a combination of domestic renewal, strategic vision, and diplomatic engagement. Here are five key steps the United States must take:

1. Recommit to Democratic Values American democracy has long been a cornerstone of its soft power. To restore prestige, the U.S. must address its domestic political dysfunction. This includes safeguarding electoral integrity, combating misinformation, and reducing hyper-partisanship. A functioning democracy at home strengthens the U.S.’s ability to champion democratic ideals abroad.

2. Invest in Economic Competitiveness A strong economy underpins national power. The U.S. must invest in infrastructure, education, and technology to remain competitive in a globalized world. Initiatives such as revitalizing manufacturing through the CHIPS Act and pursuing clean energy innovation can position the U.S. as a leader in emerging industries. Trade policies should also emphasize fair competition while ensuring that global economic interdependence remains an asset rather than a liability.

3. Rebuild Strategic Alliances Alliances have been a pillar of American strength. To regain trust, the U.S. must prioritize consistent engagement with allies. NATO, for example, remains crucial in countering Russian aggression in Europe. In the Indo-Pacific, partnerships with nations like Japan, South Korea, and Australia are essential for addressing China’s rise. The U.S. should also expand its diplomatic footprint in regions like Africa and Latin America, where its presence has diminished.

4. Lead on Global Challenges The United States must play a proactive role in addressing global issues that transcend borders, such as climate change, pandemics, and cyber threats. By taking bold actions—like rejoining the Paris Agreement and committing to substantial emissions reductions—the U.S. can reassert its moral leadership. Supporting global health initiatives and cooperating on cybersecurity standards can further demonstrate a commitment to collective security.

5. Develop a Clear and Sustainable Foreign Policy Vision The inconsistency of U.S. foreign policy has undermined its credibility. A long-term strategy that transcends partisan divides is essential. This vision should recognize the realities of a multipolar world while emphasizing the importance of rules-based international order. Diplomatic engagement, economic statecraft, and military readiness must all align toward coherent objectives.

The Road Ahead

While the challenges to U.S. prestige are significant, they are not insurmountable. History shows that nations can recover from periods of decline. The United States itself rebounded from the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, emerging stronger in the 1980s and 1990s.

However, repairing U.S. prestige will require humility. It means acknowledging past mistakes and committing to learning from them. It also means recognizing that leadership in the 21st century is less about dominance and more about partnership. The United States must lead not by imposing its will but by inspiring others to join in common causes.

The stakes are high. The erosion of American prestige is not just a loss for the United States; it is a loss for the global community. The liberal international order, despite its imperfections, has provided a framework for unprecedented peace and prosperity. Allowing that order to fragment risks a return to great power competition and instability.

Ultimately, the question of whether U.S. prestige is irreparable depends on the choices America makes today. By addressing its domestic and international challenges with clarity and resolve, the United States can rebuild its standing and continue to be a force for good in the world. The world is watching, and the time to act is now.

Is Georgia Facing Its Own Maidan Moment?

Is Georgia Facing Its Own Maidan Moment?

The political climate in Georgia is reaching a tipping point, one that bears striking similarities to Ukraine’s Maidan moment of 2014. Both countries share a complex relationship with Russia and the West, with political factions and large segments of the population deeply divided on whether to align with Moscow or Brussels. In recent months, waves of protests and civil unrest have surged across Georgian cities, reigniting questions about the country's future orientation: Will Georgia deepen its democratic path and strengthen its ties with the West, or will it remain tethered to its Soviet legacy?

At the heart of the issue lies widespread discontent with the current Georgian administration, led by the Georgian Dream party, which many perceive as a puppet of Russian influence. This perception is fueled by policies that seem to prioritize Moscow’s interests over the demands of Georgian citizens, who largely support joining NATO and the European Union. Earlier this year, protests erupted in response to the passage of a controversial "foreign agent law," which critics argued was eerily similar to Russian legislation used to suppress NGOs and silence opposition voices. The government ultimately abandoned the law, but the tension between Georgian citizens and their leadership did not subside.

A Maidan-like movement in Georgia would not be the result of any single law or policy but would be a response to a perceived betrayal of the democratic principles that Georgians have fought to uphold since the Rose Revolution in 2003. Today, many Georgians believe that the current administration is distancing the country from its pro-European path, moving closer to a Russian-style authoritarianism. Frustration has simmered to a boil, and the risk of escalation is higher than ever.

Yet, a Maidan moment in Georgia would not be an exact mirror of Ukraine’s. While Ukraine's historic protests were rooted in an immediate reaction to President Yanukovych’s abrupt decision to reject an EU Association Agreement, the path to European integration for Georgia remains more aspirational. EU membership is not imminent, and NATO’s open-door policy has been tempered by Russia’s sensitivity to Western influence in the region. Georgian protesters are rallying around a broader call for transparency, democracy, and an end to Russian meddling, rather than a specific agreement or treaty.

The stakes, however, are no less high. Georgia's strategic position in the Caucasus and its cultural ties to both Europe and Asia make it a unique target of Russian interest. Should the Georgian government move decisively toward the West, it risks provoking a response from Moscow, which has consistently sought to keep former Soviet states under its sphere of influence. Russia has already shown a willingness to use military force to maintain regional dominance, as evidenced by its support for separatist regions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia following the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.

At the same time, the West’s response to a potential Georgian Maidan moment could shape the region’s future for years to come. Ukraine’s Maidan uprising ultimately paved the way for a stronger relationship with the EU and a firm commitment to democratic reforms. Georgia could pursue a similar path if Western allies offer meaningful support, both economically and politically. However, unlike Ukraine, Georgia is further removed from Europe geographically, and NATO and EU expansion remain contentious issues that might temper the international community’s willingness to intervene.

For Georgia, then, the critical question is not only whether its people will rise up in defiance of perceived Russian influence but also whether the world will stand by them if they do. Without clear signals of support from Western allies, Georgia’s Maidan moment may ultimately lead to more entrenchment of Russian power. This moment presents a test not only for Georgia’s future but for the West’s commitment to democratic movements in post-Soviet spaces.

As Georgians take to the streets, calling for their government to respect democratic principles and cut the strings of foreign influence, they do so with a vision for a modern, sovereign Georgia. They face the choice of taking a step toward Europe or retreating into Moscow’s shadow. If this truly is Georgia’s Maidan moment, it deserves the world's attention and support—lest history repeat itself in tragic form.

The Evolving Face of Warfare

The Evolving Face of Warfare: Israel's Targeted Assassinations and the Elimination of Proxy Groups

In the modern age of warfare, Israel’s use of targeted assassinations has become a defining feature of its military strategy. Over the past two decades, Israel has utilized these precision strikes to eliminate key figures within terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. With advanced intelligence capabilities and sophisticated technology, these operations have demonstrated Israel’s ability to neutralize specific threats while minimizing collateral damage. But as this strategy becomes more common, it is reshaping not just the battlefield but also the broader rules of war.

The appeal of targeted assassinations lies in their effectiveness. By eliminating high-ranking militants and strategic planners, Israel weakens the command structures of its enemies. These individuals are often irreplaceable, and their removal disrupts terrorist networks and weakens their capacity to launch coordinated attacks. In a sense, targeted killings are seen as a preemptive strike against future violence. For Israel, a nation perpetually in a state of heightened security, this strategy provides a form of deterrence that undermines adversaries without resorting to full-scale war.

However, the practice of targeted assassination also challenges traditional understandings of warfare. The precision and selectivity of these strikes blur the line between military and covert operations. Assassinations, by definition, target individuals rather than military assets or infrastructure. This is a significant departure from conventional warfare, where armies typically engage in mass combat. The evolution of this tactic also raises important ethical and legal questions. While Israel justifies these killings as necessary for self-defense, critics argue that it undermines international law, particularly when civilians are inadvertently harmed.

This evolving strategy also reflects a broader trend in warfare: the increasing role of intelligence and technology in combat. Drones, satellite surveillance, and cyber capabilities now play as crucial a role as traditional weaponry. Israel’s targeted assassinations often rely on real-time intelligence gathered from various sources, including human informants and advanced surveillance technologies. In many ways, Israel has transformed assassination into a form of precision warfare, carried out with surgical accuracy, but this precision requires a level of intelligence sophistication that few nations can match.

Yet, as effective as these operations may be in the short term, they also risk perpetuating cycles of violence. Every assassination can create martyrs and deepen grievances, which can fuel recruitment for terrorist organizations. For instance, when Israel killed Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, in 2004, the assassination was met with widespread outrage in Gaza and the broader Muslim world. This reaction intensified the conflict and did little to bring peace to the region.

The Role of Proxy Groups

One of the most profound consequences of Israel's targeted assassination strategy is its impact on proxy groups operating in the region. For decades, Iran, Syria, and other state actors have utilized non-state militant organizations as proxies to further their geopolitical interests without directly engaging in conflict. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have served as the operational arms of larger, state-backed strategies aimed at confronting Israel while maintaining plausible deniability for their sponsors.

Targeted assassinations directly challenge this model by undermining the effectiveness of proxy groups. Israel’s precision strikes against key figures in Hamas and Hezbollah do not merely disrupt the internal leadership of these groups; they also weaken the strategic influence of their state sponsors. By eliminating commanders, financiers, and strategic operatives, Israel forces these proxy organizations to rebuild leadership structures repeatedly, which in turn diminishes their overall effectiveness as tools of state influence.

For example, Hezbollah’s strong ties to Iran have made it a central player in the Iranian-Israeli conflict dynamic. Israel’s targeted killings of senior Hezbollah operatives, such as Imad Mughniyeh in 2008, sent a clear message to Iran that its proxies would not be immune from direct attack. This has made it harder for Iran to leverage Hezbollah as a proxy without facing costly consequences. Similarly, Israeli strikes on Hamas leadership significantly limit the group’s ability to function as an autonomous or effective arm of broader regional opposition to Israel.

This strategy, in effect, reduces the utility of proxy warfare, which has long been a preferred method for regional powers to engage in asymmetric warfare. By targeting the leadership of these groups, Israel forces their state sponsors to either escalate by committing their own resources directly or risk watching their proxies weaken and falter. This dynamic is changing the nature of conflict in the Middle East, where proxy groups have traditionally been used as buffers to absorb the brunt of military retaliation without directly implicating their state sponsors.

Strategic and Ethical Implications

The elimination of key figures in proxy groups raises both strategic and ethical questions. On one hand, Israel’s actions are a direct response to the persistent threat posed by these organizations and their sponsors. By disrupting their leadership and operational capabilities, Israel is essentially taking the fight to its enemies before they can organize or strike. This proactive approach helps Israel maintain a strategic edge in a region rife with instability.

On the other hand, the use of targeted assassinations against proxy groups could have broader ramifications. If proxy groups are systematically dismantled, the result could be either the escalation of state-on-state conflict, as nations like Iran are forced to act more overtly, or a move toward more decentralized, amorphous threats that are harder to target and contain. In either case, the risk of continued violence and instability remains high, especially in a region already fraught with deep-rooted political and ideological divides.

As Israel continues to refine its targeted assassination strategy, the international community will need to grapple with the long-term consequences of this shift. While the elimination of proxy groups may reduce immediate threats, it could also further blur the lines between legitimate military targets and extrajudicial killings. Moreover, as other nations begin to adopt similar tactics, the normalization of state-sponsored assassinations could undermine global norms governing conflict and lead to a more dangerous and unpredictable international landscape.

In conclusion, Israel’s targeted assassination strategy has not only reshaped the dynamics of its conflict with militant groups but also altered the calculus of proxy warfare in the region. While the strategy offers clear short-term benefits in terms of neutralizing immediate threats, it also carries significant risks for long-term stability. As this tactic spreads, it may fundamentally change the nature of modern warfare, pushing the boundaries of legality, ethics, and statecraft in ways that we are only beginning to understand.

Is an all-out Israel-Hezbollah War Imminent?

After Israel's recent impressive "Hollywood-inspired" successes against Hezbollah, and the deeply targeted mass airstrikes in areas of Lebanon, the tough question that arises is whether this escalation leads to a ground invasion and eventually to the 3rd Lebanon War! With a war objective as set by the Israeli Government, the return of approximately 60 thousand displaced Israeli citizens to their communities on the border with Lebanon, what happened last week and with the transfer of two Divisions to the area, one of which, the  98th  was withdrawn from Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip where it was operating, the "North" as the Israelis say is turning into a primary front and the conflict is entering a new phase.

From a military perspective, an invasion of the Israeli Ground Forces in South Lebanon would have been expected immediately after the explosions on over 3000 pagers of Hezbollah leaders and other lower level commanders on September 17.  This was the most important blow suffered by Hezbollah, as even the  Leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah  admitted and what also followed in communications the next day. Initially it was estimated by some circles that the specific time the explosions occurred, was imposed because Hezbollah had begun to suspect sabotage.

But everything now shows that the timing of the explosions was premeditated   as part of a long-term strategic plan that left the ground invasion as a last option with the primary purpose of significantly weakening or possibly defeating this terrorist organization and forcing it to stop action against Israel without exposing it to a ground operation. The ground operation would in all likelihood provoke a general war with all the risks inherent in such a case.

It certainly makes sense that the infliction of significant casualties which the Israelis estimate far more than the 37 dead and hundreds of wounded given by Hezbollah, the paralysis of the communications system and undoubtedly the huge psychological effect, have reduced its fighting capability, while important information was obtained about the positions where the commanders were at the time of the explosions. With Hezbollah "fighters" now feeling vulnerable and powerless, Israel is relentlessly pounding their positions and military installations from fortifications to launcher bases and ammunition depots most of which are in buildings in urban areas where civilians live. It is estimated that these are the most massive attacks since 2006. Unfortunately, in addition to the losses suffered this Shiite organization, there are also many civilians who remained in the affected areas despite the notice for their removal sent by the Israelis.

We can conclude that having detailed mapping, excellent intelligence and "indicators" that allow for precision strikes like the one that killed the "Radwan" Elite Force Chief and of course a global terrorist Ibrahim Akil along with 15 other Hezbollah commanders in the basement of an alleged secret compound in the Dahiyeh suburb south of Beirut, Israel is implementing a systematic plan to significantly weaken Hezbollah and force it to stop its war of attrition against Israel. This would allow the displaced Israeli civilians to return their homes.

The statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallad prove  this Coercive Strategy  That is, there will be much more and stronger blows if they do not stop hitting Israel by waging a war of attrition. And now we come to the crucial question of how Hezbollah and Iran will now react. Will he proceed with some spectacular action if of course he has such a possibility that it will cause an –all out regional war which, however, no one apart from Hamas and Sinwar want?

Hezbollah is a state within a state in Lebanon and unlike the Palestinians it does not try to create a separate state! But it pursues to be a powerful politico-religious community, strong militarily and to remain Iran's long arm in the region. It has made careful calculations of the effects and consequences of an escalation that would drive  an all out war! So far it has put just enough pressure on Israel to keep the fighting force credible and to wear Israel down but not so much as to cause massive damage to both its position and capabilities. It can produce ... lionization but in practice it shows otherwise and avoids destabilizing Lebanon because as the experienced Middle East British  former Diplomat John Raine says it just needs a.. "host"! He may have created significant problems in Israel in the 2nd Lebanon War or the 34-day War, but Hassan Nasrallah, realizing the enormous damage he did to his Organization and to Lebanon in general, said in August 2006 that "if I had known that the kidnapping of Israeli Soldiers would trigger a war,  I wouldn't have ordered this! Dean Shmuel pointed out in an article in the Jerusalem Post on September 23 that the Hezbollah Chief is between a "hammer and an anvil" i.e. between Iran's "proxy" property  and protector to present the "Axis of Resistance" of all proxies in the region and a Lebanese State that is collapsing along with its Organization. Nasrallah's main goal is the continuation of political and military dominance in Lebanon.

You could ask me after the above mentioned whether a "total war" between Israel and Hezbollah with the possible involvement of other parties is being avoided. A definitive answer cannot be given, but we emphasize the fact that no one wants a total war and this simply reduces the likelihood to happen. Beyond what is generally   said, the interests of Iran, Hezbollah and primarily Israel are leading things to a state of cynical and extremely dangerous ...coexistence! Against the ground invasion where the Israeli Army will be forced to pursue the Hezbollah "fighters" all the way to Beirut with what this means in human losses and means as well as time, it chooses coercion!

But if this strategy does not force Nasrallah to stop the attacks against Israel, then it is estimated that in the first phase Israel  will escalate more with more massive strikes even in the Dahiyeh suburb, Hezbollah's stronghold in southern Beirut, and of course in Lebanese government infrastructures in order to  force Lebanon as a State to take action against Hezbollah. For now the Sunni Prime Minister of Lebanon Najib Mikati only accuses Israel of violating his sovereignty but dare not say anything about Hezbollah which is the one who undermines it.  The last option, of course, remains the land invasion and the ground maneuver , but with Hezbollah maintaining the ability to hit Israel's strategic locations with even ballistic missiles and not entirely neutralizing the threat of Hezbollah. Last but not least the Haaretz analyst mention in his relevant article that wrote that  the Veteran Lebanese journalist Ali Hamade highlighted in an article on the Annahar newspaper's site. "The assessment was that Israel would not enter a long war in Gaza, but it entered such a war and is still fighting," !

The military pressure of Israel is growing all the time with the strategic goal to  make the situation unbearable for Hezbollah and force it into a cease-fire regardless of what happens in the Gaza Strip. Its survival and continued dominance in Lebanon are probably worth more than be destroyed by Israel. Resolution 1701/2006 of the UN Security Council, which was unfortunately never implemented with the removal of the armed units north of the Litani River, must be a platform for discussion and political settlement that leads  to  a truce and the return of displaced Israelis and Lebanese of South Lebanon to their homes!

Lt General (ret) Konstantinos Loukopoulos

This article originally issued on the Athens Greece Website “The President” on 24th September

The aim of the Ukrainian operation in Kursk and the evolution of the war in Ukraine!

There is no doubt the success of the Ukrainian Forces is very significant at the tactical-operational level, which after a surprise invasion on August 6 (the first invasion of Russian territory after WWII) ended in the occupation of Russian territories of the Kursk Region, an area of ​​just over 1000 square kilometers with dozens of settlements and hundreds of Russian prisoners. But beyond the humiliation of Russia, which tried to downplay the event, the blow to Putin's prestige and after the first smiles in Kiev as well as in the capitals of the Western countries that support Ukraine, a reasonable reflection is created both for the operation itself and for the continuation of the war.

In an article in Foreign Policy, Harvard University Professor of International Relations, Stephen M. Walt, poses the critical question of whether this surprise counterattack by Ukraine against Russia constitutes a turning point in the war, a sideshow, or a strategic mistake? Moreover, the Professor also wonders if this short-term success could have medium-long-term positive effects on the wider implications for Western policy towards Russia in general and the war in Ukraine in particular! Israeli Analysts Boaz Golani and Jacob Nagel (former National Security Advisor of Israel) express similar concerns in their joint article on the well-known American website National Interest on August 30. But let's take things from the beginning and try to analyze them by drawing clear lines between wishful thinking and harsh reality, despite the difficulties of the "fog of war". First of all, what was it that made the Ukrainians go ahead with "audacity" in a high-risk operation and invade Russian territory? University of Arizona Political Science Professor, John P. Willerton, in an August 30 National Interest op-ed, argues that desperation over the turn the war on Ukraine had taken was the main reason he "bet" on this bold venture since it was looking for a way to compensate for the unfavorable developments. Alongside this assessment comes that of Professor Emeritus, Sir Lawrence Freedman, of the School of War Studies at Kings College London, who in an article on his own website assesses that Ukraine's operation in Kursk was intended to shift the narrative around the war with a win!

With a war of attrition that increasingly exhausts and destroys the country, with the necessarily defensive attitude due to the inability to carry out an offensive maneuver to recover at least part of the occupied territories from the Russians and the main goal is to make the Russian accessions to its territories as "costly" as possible, the Ukrainian political and military leadership was rightly looking for a way to seriously damage Russia beyond periodic strikes on oil facilities in its interior.

The main benefit of the Kursk operation for Kyiv was that it showed it was able to take the initiative at least at the tactical level with serious Ukrainian gains and serious damage for Russia. In addition to boosting Ukrainian morale, the operation has brought the war in Ukraine back at the top  of global attention and may strengthen some voices calling for an increase in the quantity as well as the quality of Western support. Our assessment is that there is no strategic footprint which could change the flood of war, neither operationally, nor force the Russians to transfer forces from the eastern front to the Pokrovsk sector to reduce the pressure on the existing exhausted six Ukrainian Brigades fighting there. The Russian military force of about 30,000 troops that intercepted the Ukrainians in the Kursk region after the poorly trained (for high-intensity combat) Russian border guards fled, was transferred from the rear support area and was the reserves of the Russian High Command. Ukraine threw the main body of its reserves into the Kursk operation. Operations must aim at victory, and victory means for Kyiv the recovery of its territories occupied by Russia and certainly not to lose other parts of its territory.  American analyst Dr. James Holmes of the US Naval War College pointed out in an article in the National Interest that "it makes absolutely no strategic sense to compromise what matters most for the sake of something else that matters less, no matter how ‘seductive' it is"! In short we would say that for Ukraine,  that faces the specter of defeat, the priority should be to keep as much of its territory as possible while trying to recover its hitherto lost territory.

The Russians, with inherent weaknesses, did not foresee the unforeseen! They were totally surprised, they were not able to  counterattack from the beginning, and suffered a defeat, losing ground of their territory, achieving interception of the Ukrainians after 15-16 days! But steadily, albeit slowly, even at high cost, they continue to advance on the Donbas front and are now very close to the city of Pokrovsk, which is a rail and transportation hub and main logistics area for the Ukrainian defensive forces. The situation there is extremely difficult as President Zelensky himself and the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Forces Sirsky (who is by the way... Russian) have admitted that Russia is moving towards decisive success when the Ukrainians lack reserves since they were used in Kursk and thus cannot resist successfully this time. Niko Lange, a former German defense official who is now a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, noted that while the Kursk operation gave Ukraine "tangible gains," Putin is downplaying the invasion and focusing his efforts on eastern Ukraine. It is as if he is saying to the Ukrainians: "You can stay, you can leave, do what you want, I will go to Donbas"! The ground that has been lost or further will be lost now in Donbas Russia will keep.

But Ukraine cannot hold Kursk indefinitely. The potential loss of Pokrovsk poses a serious operational threat to the logistics of the entire region, cutting off supply lines from Volendar in the south to Horlivka in the north, and would worsen the situation for Ukrainian forces in Donbass leading to possible further casualties. At the same time, the Russians intensified the war of attrition that they are conducting with the aim of bending the will to resist with new mass attacks on August 26 in 15 cities of Ukraine and on energy infrastructure with 236 Drones, as UAVs are widely called in the media, Cruise Missiles and also Hypersonic Missiles Kinzal. These attacks, albeit smaller in scope and intensity, continued until yesterday with casualties and significant damage. Parenthetically, it is pointed out that while before the Russian invasion Ukraine produced 50 Giga Watts (GW) of energy today it barely reaches 20 GW.

The Kremlin has launched a campaign to raise the patriotic sentiments of the Russian people by likening the Ukrainian invasion to that of Nazi Germany while also exploiting the spread of already limited Ukrainian forces. It must be said that Russia's poor performance and other weaknesses and therefore its limited reach to eliminate the narrative of some in the West that Ukraine was only the first step before Russia launched an attack on countries such as the Baltic States. Also, on the occasion of the successful Kursk operation, it is not serious by some western circles to claim that Russia's "red lines" and threats to use nuclear weapons and escalation are... bluff. Undeniably Ukraine's invasion of Russian territory can be seen as a major development but Putin has no incentive to escalate as long as his forces are still winning in Donbas. We believe that the risk of escalation by Russia will arise in the event only of a catastrophic defeat, something that has nothing to do with the current situation. In conclusion, I will repeat that the Ukrainian success in Kursk, which has raised more questions than answers, is not a "turning point" and I share the concern of many reputable international analysts that it may ultimately turn out to be a mistake if the Russians expel Ukrainian forces from the region when these could serve as reserves to support defense operations in Donbas. Kiev can certainly withdraw without Russian pressure whenever the situation implies, but until now their losses are considerable.

The course of the war positively or negatively for Ukraine will be determined primarily by the developments in Eastern Ukraine and not by the Kursk operation! This war, which, let’ s not  forget, started because of the Russian invasion, will continue from the moment both sides estimate that by continuing it they will achieve a better outcome. But is it so? As a final remark we would say that the specific military success of Ukraine should be seen as an opportunity to start serious talks on de-escalation and a ceasefire in principle and not at all as a basis for prolonging a costly war in which Ukraine can survive even half ruined with the chances of winning ever decreasing!

This article originally issued on the Athens Greece Website on 3nd September before the severe Russian strikes in Potlava and Lviv

https://www.thepresident.gr/2024/09/03/to-diakyveyma-tis-oykranikis-epicheirisis-sto-koyrsk-kai-i-exelixi-toy-polemoy-stin-oykrania-grafei-o-konstantinos-loykopoylos/

Lt Gen (ret) Konstantinos Loukopoulos Geostrategic Analyst

Does Your Company Have a Foreign Policy?

DOES YOUR COMPANY HAVE A

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE INSTRUMENTS TO EXECUTE IT?

By Ambassador Riaan Eksteen

(Note: Statistics used are related to the time of writing the document in October 2009)

Any company operating across its own country's borders must have a foreign policy.

Somebody must be responsible and give credence to it. It is imperative for such a

company to do so for precisely the same reasons a country has a foreign policy.

Commercial interests have now become a key part of foreign policy. Business needs to

understand foreign affairs and how to be comfortable in that environment.

Most companies think about foreign policy as something that the government alone

conducts. However, a business foreign policy would not only aim at understanding and

influencing the way its own government works; it would devote even more time to figuring

out how foreign governments are likely to behave. It is thus imperative that companies —

not just multinational corporations — understand foreign politics and the way they could

affect business prospects and decisions.

The underlying reason for any country's foreign policy is to promote and protect the

country's interests abroad. Top executives and their management teams must be au fait

with foreign policy issues, their demands that impact on their companies, and their

decisions and operations abroad. They must maintain constructive relations with the host

country's government, body politic and institutions.

All executives read newspapers, listen to the radio and watch television. They thus read,

hear and watch what is going on in the world. But, do they really comprehend what is

happening so that they appreciate and recognise the opportunities and threats

developments in the countries their companies are present and operating in — or in a

neighbouring country, sub-continent — hold for their companies?

How do they translate these developments into action plans whereby opportunities and

challenges are exploited and threats and disasters avoided? Or do they just simply suffer

from the CNN-effect: don't pay any attention to any development or story unless and until

CNN starts reporting it.2

Top management, while recognising that demand — or, for that matter, that vacuum —

may not have the tools at its disposal or the desire to concentrate on the opportunities

and problems which must be addressed in its overseas endeavours. Companies also

need to educate boards of directors in the reality of doing business abroad. Issues such

as economic opportunities, political and economic uncertainties and risks, corruption,

human rights, environmental protection, need for long-term horizons, and extreme

flexibility in planning and operations require corporate directors with a level of experience

not often found. As firms expand abroad, the qualifications for corporate governance will

need to change, with understanding of global realities given much more priority.

A "no crisis" world does not exist. With little prior notice the fall-out from political and social

unrest abroad ends up at the front door of a company in various forms. The staying-at-

home syndrome does not have a place in any progressive minded company. Events tend

to gain their own momentum, which if not "mastered" will be more and more difficult to

handle successfully. When they do turn into crisis it is not possible to deal with them by

improvisation. High-level international and strategic advice is required by corporations

and private entities operating on the international scene regardless of how insignificant

such an involvement may initially be regarded to be by the management or members of

the companies.

Expertise, experience, credibility and dedication are required to develop close and lasting

relationships and, also, to define these strategic needs and opportunities for clients in

foreign countries and environment. Foreign relations and how they manifest themselves

in various ways must be understood. Knowing, understanding and interpreting the political

environment in any country are vital ingredient for successfully identifying the

personalities and all who are involved in the make-up of that country. They are also vital,

for entering, establishing, operating and performing in that country. Being able to access

a considerable contact base ensures a comprehensive view of what is unfolding. Political

and socio-economic matters internally and externally are constantly in a state of flux.

Companies must be able to react to them promptly. Being comprehensively involved

abroad can be a complicated, intricate endeavour.3

Information is the commodity on which the future is built. Opportunities are the lifeblood

of companies. The experience of an external advisor may be a further key to success. An

intellectual guide and interpreter are basic requirements to ensure the continued success

of a company aboard.

A multinational company must have a Corporate Advisor on Foreign Affairs/Policy who

can work easily across international boundaries. Such a person can play a critical role in

guiding and advising on corporate strategy and policy decisions in this field and engage

in strategic dialogue with the company.

As companies become more exposed to the outside world and business becomes more

international, none dare leave this vital aspect of its operations to chance or fate. The

sales revenues of the world's largest company, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are larger than the

GDPs of all but 25 countries. At 2.1 million, its employees outnumber the populations of

almost 100 nations. The world's largest investment manager, a low-profile New York

company named BlackRock, manages $3.5 trillion in assets — greater than the national

reserves of any country. In 2010, a private philanthropic organisation, the $33.5 billion

endowed Gates Foundation, distributed more money for causes worldwide than the World

Health Organisation had in its annual budget. An international company like ExxonMobil,

with sales around $350 billion in 2011, operates in more than twice as many countries as

a significant, wealthy country like Sweden has embassies. In 2010, Sweden's defence

expenditures were about one-sixth of Exxon's budgeted expenditures. The energy

behemoth has more free capital to distribute worldwide, plays a much bigger role in the

economic lives of more countries, and mobilises more resources to influence political

outcomes than do the Swedes. So the question arises: Which entity, Sweden or Exxon,

probably has a greater impact on the outcome of global climate talks? On the adoption of

environmental policies worldwide?

Comparing the sizes of companies with those of countries is a fraught business, with

imperfect metrics, but consider this: The 1,000th-largest company in the world has annual

sales greater than the GDPs of 57 economies. That company, Owens-Illinois, makes

glass bottles; its sales exceeded $7 billion in 2010, more than the GDPs of Benin,

Bermuda, Haiti, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda,4

Tajikistan, and dozens of others. In fact, of the world's 500 largest companies, according

to Fortune magazine, all 500 would rank among the top 100 economies on the planet.

(GDP is a complex, if misleading, value-added metric, and it does not directly compare

with a company's sales. But the comparison does give a sense of scale.) The

phenomenon of corporate power is, of course, hardly new. The British East India

Company ran the Indian subcontinent and managed one of the world's largest armed

forces; Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford built small cities for their thousands of workers,

complete with employee housing and schools. Over the past century, however, the state-

like roles of companies have grown and changed, becoming more common and more

complex as multinational corporations themselves have grown bigger.

A company can outperform its rivals only if its unique and valuable position is based on

and backed by a different set of activities. To achieve operational effectiveness a

company's management must not only be able to maintain those differences, but also

perform differently and better. At home and abroad competitive strategy counts. It is all

about being different and better. Not leaving a vacuum. Or making complacency part of

its philosophy. A quality company always searches for ways to strengthen, improve and

extend its position at home and abroad. In maintaining its unique position, such a

company will find a role for foreign activities as a central and focused part of its

establishment.

Being in command at home is as important as being able to operate authoritatively and

decisively in international arenas.

The reverse of “Think Globally” and “Act Locally” is often applied by companies, with

disastrous consequences.

Riaan Eksteen

Cape Town

October 2009

WE ARE LIVING IN A DIFFICULT MOMENT

Here are excerpts from the speech of former Minister of Foreign Affairs for Tunisia, Khemaies Jhinaoui, at the opening of the second meeting of Days of Reflection on the strategic positioning of Tunisia.

When I started to take my first steps as a young diplomat almost 45 years ago, the world was already a complicated place.  There was the Eastern Block, the Western one, the Non-Aligned States, Europe still under construction, China that was looking for its path forward, an explosive Middle East subject to interminable wars, and Africa that was left to its own devices.

Nevertheless, faced with the complicated world of that period, there still existed the opportunity to distance oneself somewhat because we were armed with paradigms and concepts that allowed us to analyze the international situation.  However today, not only has the world become even more complex, but also and most importantly we are involved in a search for ‘new paradigms,’ new tools to analyze and explain what is happening in front of our eyes, and to understand the causes of rapid shifts in principles and values which we used to think were unchangeable that served as the bases of the world order after World War II.

Therefore, we are living in a difficult moment, a time when the former balance is being contested and a new balance still needs to be defined.  This is a world that is characterized by the withdrawal of law, by multi-lateral institutions running more and more out of steam, and also the proliferation of conflicts and wars.

Once again, there is the specter of war.  The specter of war that we used to think inconceivable during the expansion of democracy and the triumph of liberalism in the ‘90’s is today a tangible reality in Europe, even with risks of expansion.  No way out from the crisis is contemplated at this point.  On the contrary, Russia repeatedly evokes the taboo of nuclear arms, whereas the opposite side doesn’t view an exit strategy other than a pure and simple defeat of Moscow, while pursuing, not without difficulty, massive shipments of arms to Ukraine.  Since our first meeting in 2022, the world that had its eyes riveted on the inextricable conflict in Ukraine has been shaken up by another war, this time in Gaza, a bloody and dehumanizing war against a civilian population, almost two million strong, locked up in a space not more than 360 square kilometers (the equivalent in size of the city of Tunis).  Israel, the occupying power, has been defying for decades all the UN resolutions and the fundamental principles of international law.

It (Israel) has been pursuing, with the complicit agreement of the international community, a violent and humiliating occupation of Trans Jordan and a sealed and inhumane blockade of the Gaza strip.  Israel’s successive governments, both on the right and on the left, have systematically worked to undermine the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for self government and have prevented by all possible means, including recourse to systematic violence and segregationist politics, the creation of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on its national territory.

The Global South

In this context of geopolitical tensions appears a “global south”, dissatisfied with the status quo, which increasingly demands its place on the world chessboard, not only on an economic, commercial and technological basis but also and more importantly, on a basis for deciding issues.  It’s a new essential given that will certainly contribute to fashioning tomorrow’s world order.  This ‘global south’ is a reality that is here to stay.  It consists of a synthesis of resentments on the part of emerging powers that believe the UN system which came into being in 1945 is not only unjust but especially outdated in that it no longer conforms to the reality of the relations of the geopolitical powers of the 21st century.  From now on, we can ask the question whether we are not in the process of sliding towards a world order where confrontations and wars are getting the upper hand over bilateral, multilateral and interregional negotiations, and where relations based on force are becoming the sole determining factor regarding the development of international relations.

Democracy in Danger

The year 2024 represents a record electoral year.  Half of the world population of voting age is summoned to the ballot box.  Several presidential, legislative and regional elections are taking place in 68 countries, and not the least important ones.  Among them are the US, Brazil, India, Russia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Mexico, in other words, eight out of ten of the world’s  most populous countries.

If the outcome of some elections remains uncertain, other votes are already played out in advance, either because some systems don’t tolerate alternation, or because voters, carried away by populism that is already in place in certain countries, prefer to continue it in the illusory hope of a better future.  Whatever the case may be, the year 2024 will be a time of paradoxical crossroads marked both by ruptures and by electoral consolidations which will have a fundamental impact on the course of international relations.

One thing is certain.  Democracy in the world has seen better days.  The increase in populism and autocracy in a number of countries, especially in the south, and the fiery increase of extreme right movements particularly in Europe, risk accelerating rejection phenomena, exacerbating conflicts and enlarging the gap between North and South.

Global Outlook

This page is where our experts are asked to provide commentary on issues of importance for our clients. If a specific post is of interest to our clients, please contact us for more specific information that we can provide.