The Arkin Group

In today’s world, the lines between official and non-state diplomacy are blurred, increasing the risk of global instability. This week, Henry Kissinger’s death marks the end of an era of international relations and geopolitics writ large where a single man and a single nation could drive the agenda. Whether you saw him as a great statesman or merely a flawed diplomat with a series of wins and missteps, when Kissinger was Secretary of State, he was the leader of a coalition of nation states that followed America’s lead – and all our significant matters were coordinated through the U.S. government.

Today’s political environment, however, is one where non-governmental entities have a powerful influence. In this environment of instantaneous news, and the immediate distortion of news and events for ideological or political purposes, the challenge to lead constructively requires a kind of diplomacy that wasn’t required of Kissinger. America’s ability to influence a single conflict, let alone the course of human development, is increasingly complicated and becoming far more reliant on private sector actors who – by their extraordinary influence and wealth – are becoming power centers of their own.

Elon Musk, who recently visited Israel and met directly with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, serves as a prime example. In addition to his influence over which ideologies proliferate online – as demonstrated by his governance of Twitter – his decisions can have a tactical impact. Ukraine, for one, has relied on Starlink – Musk’s satellite internet technology, to maintain connectivity while under attack by Russia. Modern diplomacy then, is reliant not only on the ability to build alliances between states, but between and among public and private institutions.

This also requires defending the economic success of our companies, and it demands protection against forces of corruption or malign foreign influence in our universities and institutions. It also means maintaining, and securing, an advantage in technology – whether it be social media, military, or artificial intelligence. We’re now tasked with cultivating important security partners in places like Qatar and the UAE, and sharing critical emerging technologies with them, that inevitably risks enabling China to access these tools through its own partnerships with these nations.

The multiple channels being activated for hostage negotiations also underscore multipolar conditions. It’s telling, for example, that the Thai government worked directly through Iran to negotiate the release of Thai citizens who were kidnapped by Hamas on October 7. Even more notably, perhaps, a group of Thai Muslims – highlighting the significance of transnational, non-state ties, and Thai government officials traveled to Iran and met with senior Hamas figures in October. Indeed, while the Thai Foreign Minister also traveled to Egypt and Qatar, it was Iran that claimed responsibility for the successful release of 10 Thai hostages last week via social media postings made by the Iranian Embassy in Thailand.

Putin has likewise had some success securing the release of some Russian hostages – which Hamas is calling a gesture of “appreciation” for Putin’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict. While Hamas welcomes Putin’s position, the deal speaks more to Putin’s friendship with Iran- a relationship that’s been strengthened over the course of the past two years of Russia’s war on Ukraine for both economic and political reasons. It’s also a demonstration of how increased trade and financial relationships can provide a foundation for diplomatic ones when needed.

Notably though, these indirect relationships outside of formal diplomatic channels can result in negative, unintended consequences. For example, European media reports that Ukrainian-made aircraft parts that were sold to the UAE and Kyrgyzstan were possibly purchased by Russia and used against Ukraine in battle. Given the interwoven and interdependent nature of modern technology and trade, we’re operating in a new world that’s evolved from the Kissinger era where nation-nation interaction was predominant.

The Arkin Group is a strategic intelligence firm offering investigative research, due diligence, international risk and crisis consulting, and security & preparedness services. We can be contacted at 212-333-0280.

Frustration with the status quo leads to global disruption and possible opportunities. This week, we’re continuing to witness frustration with the status quo on everything from political leadership to current geopolitical dynamics. In Argentina, voters demonstrated their exasperation with the status quo when they elected libertarian Javier Milei to serve as their next President. Milei, who is nicknamed “the madman” by fans and calls himself “the lion”, has a sizable economic challenge before him — with inflation in Argentina topping 140% and the threat of a deeper recession. But there are also notable growth opportunities in the country, with a possible boost in exports and more energy self-sufficiency.

Milei’s policies could also have geopolitical implications — on the campaign trail he stated that if elected, he might cut ties with China and Brazil. Argentina was also recently invited to join the BRICS, but it is rumored that Milei will reject the group. Already, BRICS is limited by interpersonal conflicts of key members India and China, and in addition to Argentina, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran were recently invited to join the BRICS. Indeed, if the BRICS status quo was to represent the Global South, sharply diverging viewpoints among members – replete with leaders who are in direct competition and opposition with one another- could readily lead to disruption.

Ties between Argentina and Russia might also be challenged by Milei, who supports Ukraine and wants the United States and Israel to be Argentina’s top partners. Indeed, as the battle between Ukraine and Russia has evolved into stalemate, we’re seeing more policy-level discussion about how this war might ultimately reach some sort of resolution. While it will be up to the Ukrainians to decide exactly how long to continue their righteous battle, the status-quo of this conflict will eventually need to shift into something more sustainable.

Further East, the precarious status quo between Israelis and Palestinians was devastatingly transformed by Hamas on October 7. Since then, Israel has been on a critical mission to dismantle the terrorist group that has served as the de-facto leader of Gaza for too long, and to prevent Hamas from ever accumulating that kind of power, access, and military arsenal again. But while Israel fights to defeat Hamas, the Arab Street– which is also now manifest in cities throughout much of the Western world- sees the disruption of the regional status quo as a different kind of opportunity.

Instead of recognizing that this war inevitably presents an opportunity for more stable borders and better conditions for Israelis and Palestinians alike, the Arab Street and its sympathizers see this as an opportunity to eliminate the Israeli state altogether. Unfortunately, this contingent has support within international institutions like the United Nations, which spends a disproportionate amount of energy railing against Israel instead of empowering Palestinians.

Indeed, several million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza are still categorized as refugees by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, decades after the initial conflict erupted. While Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank need healthcare, educational services, and aid, it doesn’t make sense for them to still be viewed as refugees when they’re living in recognized Palestinian territory. This contributes to a sense of impermanence that serves as an impediment to building a viable economic and political system.

It’s going to take a shift in mind frame to upend the status quo that hasn’t served either the Israelis or Palestinians well over the past 75 years. Indeed, while Israel no doubt has an important impact on the Palestinians’ ability to flourish, such an entrenched conflict is also going to require support of the international community and in particular the support of key Arab states to move forward. As hostage negotiations continue, and Israel shifts into Gaza’s southern region to further dismantle Hamas, Israel is fighting both a ground battle and a war of global opinions that could impact the region for the foreseeable future.

Happy Thanksgiving to all from The Arkin Group.

The Arkin Group is a strategic intelligence firm offering investigative research, due diligence, international risk and crisis consulting, and security & preparedness services. We can be contacted at 212-333-0280.

Once a month, In Other News features a short op-ed heavily informed by the European perspective. We hope that these special monthly pieces will offer our readers an enriched understanding of global events and allow for a more robust international risk calculus.

In a time of great geopolitical upheaval, nations are hedging their bets and opportunities for new alliances abound. With two active and influential wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and a battle for competition among global superpowers, the world has entered a new geopolitical reality. China’s heightened global posture and Russia’s aggression have led to a renewed impetus for NATO in the West and encouraged enhanced relations among the United States, European Union, Japan, South-Korea and Australia. But China and its subordinate Russia have also enhanced the BRICS format with six additional states, strengthened their security collaboration within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and increased their respective economic and military activities in Africa.

During the Cold War, ideology was a dominant and decisive factor in geopolitical alignment. Countries closely linked to the Soviet Union, and China, adopted communist state and economic systems, while countries associated with the United States and Western Europe generally adopted more democratic and capitalist systems. But in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the strict ideological divide has blurred and eroded, and for most nations it’s no longer a matter of simply choosing sides. While there is still an element of democratic versus autocratic systems, this difference does not define the foreign policy choices countries make. Instead, most nations are now hedging their bets based on a narrow definition of their national interest “Staatsräson”- the interest of the State.

These national interests are being driven by factors like geographic proximity to United States or China – and to a lesser extent Russia, economic prosperity, security considerations and transactional profitability: “what is in it for me?” This calculus is visible in the actions of Saudi Arabia and UAE – who are pivoting in their foreign policy away from Washington towards China, and the renewed focus of Latin American countries towards China. Many countries in Africa and the Caribbean have also made very clear pro-China choices in exchange for huge financial investments. Some countries make these choices quite explicitly, while others try to remain as invisible as possible, recognizing that “when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.”

Some countries are also trying to work both sides to their advantage, as demonstrated by Central Asian states like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Traditionally, Central Asian countries naturally focused politically on Moscow, as many are former Soviet Union republics, and others focused heavily on Beijing for economic opportunities. With Russia’s current pre-occupation with Ukraine, however, and the Kremlin’s power seriously reduced, Central Asian nations have an opportunity for political maneuvering.

Outside powers are also recognizing that Central Asia is fertile ground for new partnerships. Germany has been investing in enhanced economic ties in the region, and French President Macron visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan at the end of October, focusing on energy relations. An October EU meeting in Brussels also concluded with the EU Central Asia Roadmap for deepening ties between the EU and Central Asia, as well as the agreement on the 2024 EU Central Asia Summit in Uzbekistan.

For its part, Washington is also looking to deepen ties in the region. President Biden hosted an inaugural C5+1 summit with Central Asian heads of state during this year’s UN General Assembly in September, and US State Department officials visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan last week to build upon the success of the summit. Another key regional player, Japan, also recently organized a meeting with regional leaders to focus on the supply of oil, gas and minerals. Moscow looks at these new ties with concern, and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has remarked that “the West is trying to pull Russia’s neighbors, friends and allies away from it.”

For many countries, linking political friendships with economic advantages and playing the United States and Europe against China and Russia, will be an attractive strategy in the years to come. This will have direct implications- especially for European foreign policy. The EU member states will have to make a balanced decision whether their own external policies, heavily dominated by human rights and value related considerations, should take precedence over their own naked financial and security self-interests.

Indeed, while it might have been straightforward for Washington and the EU to support Ukraine because of their shared values – including an adherence to democracy, human rights, and international law, this calculus is not always so straight-cut. In regions like the Middle East and parts of Africa, for example, where the West might want to maintain alliances for security and economic purposes, these political relationships will be challenged by a divergence in ethical standards that isn’t easily resolved.

At the same time, however, smaller states in these regions ultimately profit from the protection of the international legal order. And during times of political upheaval like the present, there exists a real opportunity for Western democracies to play into the national self-interest of smaller nations via economic and political outreach. Taking this into account, in the coming months we’ll be keeping a watch on regions like Central Asia, to understand how effective this burgeoning outreach might be and what it might indicate regarding the future geopolitical landscape.

The Arkin Group is a strategic intelligence firm offering investigative research, due diligence, international risk and crisis consulting, and security & preparedness services. We can be contacted at 212-333-0280.

Multiple conflicts and war fatigue might challenge policy makers, but long-term global security is at stake. As Israel enters the next phase of its battle against Hamas, with ground troops entering Gaza and reportedly encircling Gaza City, the dramatic, decades-old regional conflict has recaptured the world’s attention. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has cautioned that the physical war will be long and difficult and has suggested that Israel will manage Gaza’s security indefinitely after the battle’s eventual end. As much as members of the international community might try to pressure Israel into a “humanitarian pause” or “ceasefire” in Gaza, Israel recognizes that every pause presents an opportunity for Hamas terrorists to escape through the Egyptian border, re-equip, or further abuse Israeli hostages.

While Israel does its best to weaken Hamas on the ground, outside of Gaza the war is being fought with fiery media and activist rhetoric, contentious political debate, UN votes and debates about funding. Further amplifying the conflict, the information war is in full force: many social media postings in support of the Palestinian cause have devolved to the point of denying that Hamas even kidnapped Israelis on October 7 at all – regardless of the extensive footage documented by the terrorists themselves showing otherwise. Ruthless Hamas leaders have also proudly declared that they launched the attack in all its brutality – and that they’d do it again and again.

But it’s getting harder for social media consumers to know what’s real and what’s fake, and this is impacting real-world behavior. Online, China and Russia are both employing their well-honed propaganda machines – long used to indoctrinate their own populations – to influence individuals far beyond their borders. Photoshopped and frequently mis-attributed battlefield images are spread across the screen in unprecedented numbers. It is unclear what Washington is doing to counter the rampant disinformation that has permeated social media via TikTok and Telegram.

In addition to the disinformation being propagated via social media, many traditional media outlets are also covering the conflict in a slanted manner, sometimes elevating it beyond other critical global stories. For example, for months Qatar-funded media giant Al-Jazeera carefully tracked the war in Ukraine – noting nuanced developments both on the battlefield and in foreign policy. But now the entire platform is overwhelmed with one-sided information on the Israel-Hamas war. While it’s not surprising that a Middle Eastern company with a personal stake in the conflict would quickly forget Ukraine and move on to the crisis in its backyard, Ukraine has seen less airtime in many Western media outlets as well.

Further, in the case of Ukraine, there are both media and policy developments that highlight the potential threat of war fatigue. This week, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s head of office Andrii Yermak claimed that rumors of Ukrainian war fatigue were being driven by Russian propaganda efforts. But he also stated that “Even if there are people who feel this fatigue, I’m sure they don’t want to wake up in a world tomorrow where there will be less freedom and less security, and the consequences of this last for decades.”

Indeed, when we commit to supporting our allies, it ensures that aggressors know that there are devastating consequences for their unjustified actions. While Ukraine might have initially been surprised by Russia’s brazen attack and advance towards Kyiv, Russia was likewise surprised by Ukraine’s immediate and persistent defense. Likewise, while the Hamas attack was shocking in its tactics and scale, Israel’s response is likely to be stunning even to the terrorists who knew that there would be military retribution. Both Ukraine and Israel recognize that if their adversaries aren’t firmly deterred, they indeed will live under the continued threat of further attacks for eternity.

It is important to understand that Washington’s continued funding of Ukraine – while simultaneously supporting Israel against Hamas – is a critical investment in the democratic world order that we want to live in, and a way to have an immediate impact on our adversaries. It also sends a strong and essential message to Iran and China that we are willing to actively defend our values.

The Arkin Group is a strategic intelligence firm offering investigative research, due diligence, international risk and crisis consulting, and security & preparedness services. We can be contacted at 212-333-0280.

The first week of every month, In Other News features a short op-ed heavily informed by the European perspective. We hope that these special monthly pieces will offer our readers an enriched understanding of global events and allow for a more robust international risk calculus.