Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Their newly agreed connectivity partnership gives the bloc tangible stakes in Pashinyan’s re-election and ensures that they’ll support whatever measures he resorts to for remaining in power.

Next month’s parliamentary elections in Armenia are shaping up to be a “Battle for Armenia” due to the geopolitical stakes at play. If pro-Western Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s party wins, then last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) will be built with gusto, thus risking Russia’s displacement from the region. That’s because TRIPP isn’t just a trade corridor, but also a NATO military logistics one to Central Asia, and it could be paired with the contentious Trans-Caspian Pipeline.

The injection of more Western economic and military influence along Russia’s southern periphery, including the political influence that comes with them, would amount to the accelerated implementation of Trump’s Neo-Reagan Doctrine for “rolling back” Russian influence there. The aforesaid scenario is dependent on TRIPP, particularly Russia’s inability to monitor shipments across this route to prevent it from turning into a military logistics corridor, which in turn depends on the outcome of June’s elections.

If the nationalist opposition wins, then they’ll likely restore Armenia’s compliance with the last part of November 2020’s Russian-mediated ceasefire regarding Moscow’s responsibility for securing this trade route, the role of which was replaced after TRIPP was agreed to. After all, allowing Armenia to facilitate the Azeri-Turkish Axis’ military logistical plans for Central Asia at NATO’s behest would risk turning their country into a “Neo-Ottoman sanjak”, the socio-cultural consequences of which were described here.

In short, the erasure of Armenia’s multimillennial-long culture might finally become a fait accompli if it’s coerced by Azerbaijan, the EU, and the US into accepting the return of the ~200,000 Azeris who fled during the chaotic Soviet collapse and the descendants as a precondition for regional peace.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Instead of waiting for Pashinyan to hold a referendum on joining the EU, which he might never end up doing in order to retain the advantages from membership in the Eurasian Economic Union for as long as possible, Putin might cut Armenia off right away if Pashinyan wins re-election by hook or by crook.

A journalist asked Putin over the weekend about his reaction to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan hosting Zelensky last week and giving him a platform to threaten Russia. Putin dodged that part of the question but elaborated on the future of their ties. Russia wants only the best for Armenia and will respect its people’s wishes, he said, in connection with which he proposed that they hold a referendum on Pashinyan’s plans to join the EU since that policy risks ruining economic ties with Russia.

As a reminder, Putin said that a little less than one-quarter of Armenia’s GDP comes from trade with Russia, around $7 billion out of $29 billion last year. The advantages that it derives from membership in the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union apply to “agriculture, the processing industry, customs and other duties, and so on and so forth. This also applies to migration.” If its people decide to end them, Putin said, then Russia will begin the process of “a gentle, intelligent and mutually beneficial divorce.”

Putin hosted Pashinyan for candid talks in early April that were assessed here as representing the moment of truth in their relations. The day after, “A Top Russian Official Rang The Alarm About Deteriorating Relations With Armenia”, specifically condemning last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) for upsetting the regional geostrategic balance. This was followed last week by the EU solidifying its influence in Armenia ahead of next month’s elections.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

There’s an unspoken rule that intel agencies aren’t supposed to implicitly threaten foreign diplomats’ children to coerce them into becoming informants.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova published an article in the Russian business daily Vedomosti on Monday about the curious case of a Russian diplomat in the US. An unknown employee of the State Department informed them during a call that their son, who was born in the US, “has been granted US citizenship without his consent by virtue of being born on American soil…Be on notice that your child is our citizen with all the ensuing consequences, and you cannot renounce this!”

Zakharova reminded readers that the children of foreign diplomats don’t have birthright citizenship privileges in the US. She then drew attention to how this incident contradicts Trump 2.0’s immigration policy, speculating that the Democrats are once again trying to subvert it for Russophobic reasons. She also expressed concern that “The arbitrary granting of US citizenship to such children potentially provides Washington with a lever for improper pressure on our personnel”. That’s likely the main motive.

As far as is publicly known, the incident that Zakharova described only happened with one Russian diplomat thus far, but it’s reasonable that she’s worried that “The deep state in the United States has created a new problem to exert pressure on Russian diplomats…Now the State Department – or those behind the façade of American diplomacy – have begun to extend US citizenship to children of Russian consular staff born under American jurisdiction”. This could indeed become a trend if it’s not stopped.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The DROP Act Is An Unprecedented Weapon Of Financial Warfare Against Russia. Russia’s oil clients would be coerced under pain of sanctions into dumping it or scaling support for Ukraine if this bill passes.

Anti-Russian hawk Michael McCaul, who importantly serves as the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced the introduction in the House in early February of the bipartisan “Decreasing Russian Oil Profits” (DROP) Act that was earlier introduced in the Senate last December. If it passes, then Trump would have the power to impose targeted sanctions against anyone buying, importing, or facilitating the export of Russian oil, with exceptions only possible under one of three conditions.

The first is that the funds owed to Russia for such purchases must be credited to an account in their country, can only be used “to facilitate transactions in agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices”, and their government must commit to significantly reduce its purchase of Russian oil. The second is that such funds are used to either arm or rebuild Ukraine, while the third is that the government of their country provides significant economic or military support to Ukraine.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The “EU Defense Line” that’s being built, which refers to the combination of the “Baltic Defense Line” and Poland’s “East Shield” along NATO’s eastern border, might then be bolstered by Polish-led troop deployments seeing as how Poland would be integral to those three’s survival in any war with Russia.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki inaugurated the latest section of the “Via Baltica” highway between Poland and the Baltic States in late October in an event with his Lithuanian counterpart, with both highlighting the dual military purpose of this megaproject in an allusion to the “military Schengen”. “Via Baltica” is one of the “Three Seas Initiative’s” (3SI) flagships, many of which complement the newer “military Schengen” initiative of facilitating the flow of troops and equipment eastward towards Russia.

Poland envisages the 3SI accelerating the revival of its long-lost Great Power status that’ll then result in it leading Russia’s containment all across Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) once the Ukrainian Conflict ends. It’s the most populous formerly communist member of NATO with the bloc’s third-largest military, just became a $1 trillion economy with its sights now set on a G20 seat, and has a history of regional leadership during the Commonwealth/“Rzeczpospolita” era, so these ambitions aren’t delusional.

Building upon the last point, most casual observers don’t know that the Commonwealth stretched as far north as parts of Latvia, which remained under its control till the Third Partition in 1795. Prior to that, it even controlled around half of Estonia from 1561-1629, after which it was ceded to Sweden. Suffice to say, what’s nowadays the nation-state of Lithuania was also part of the “Republic of the Two Nations” as the Commonwealth was officially known, thus giving Poland a substantial footprint in Baltic history.

The insight shared in the preceding two paragraphs enables the reader to better understand what Nawrocki told Lithuanian media during his maiden trip as president to that country last September about how

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

This might be the US’ final warning before it takes drastic action to punish those who continue to reject Trump’s demands.

Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby gave an important speech at mid-April’s Ukraine Defense Contact Group in which he urged the Europeans to step up their transition to something that he described earlier this year as “NATO 3.0”. As was explained here, “The idea is that NATO should return to focusing on defending itself instead of overextending itself in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere”, and the preceding hyperlinked analysis explains how it aligns with Trump 2.0’s policies.

Circling back to Colby’s speech, he demanded that “Europe must accelerate its assumption of primary responsibility for the conventional defense of the continent”, including arming Ukraine through the “Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List” (PURL) program in which the US plays the most significant role. To that end, “The need to quickly rebuild European munitions stocks is paramount, as is the need to remove protectionist trade barriers that stifle the continent’s industrial potential.”

He added that “Developing a robust, capable, and integrated European defense industrial base cannot simply be an aspiration, but an absolute pre-requisite for credible deterrence and defense.” Knowing how obsessed they are with Ukraine, Colby then threw in that “This will be critical to achieving an end to the war in Ukraine, on terms that support an enduring peace.” He then called for more “deeds and a fundamental change in attitude” from them to “accelerate this transition to a ‘NATO 3.0’”.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Most Hungarians came to take his achievements for granted and won’t appreciate what they had until it’s gone.

His crushing defeat followed the EU earlier freezing €17 billion in allocated funds on rule of law pretexts, Russiagate conspiracy theories derived from wiretaps of Orban and his Foreign Minister, and Ukrainian energy blackmail as well as threats. Liberal-globalists like Ursula von der Leyen, Alex Soros, and Donald Tusk predictably celebrated.

While the aforementioned factors played a role in turning public opinion against Orban, several other ones were arguably more important. For instance, he’s an older politician who naturally doesn’t appeal as much to the youth as his relatively younger rival, Peter Magyar. He’s also been in office for 16 years, so the opposition played on anti-incumbent sentiment, to which end they blamed him for the stagnant economy despite him doing his best given the circumstances. Corruption accusations also abounded.

The socio-political system that Orban built will now be dismantled since the opposition’s two-thirds supermajority enables them to change the constitution. Witch hunts against conservative-nationalists, beginning with him and his Foreign Minister on Russiagate-related grounds, also can’t be ruled out. His policies in support of traditional values might soon become a thing of the past.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The Hungarian people have the greatest stakes since they’ll be the ones who’ll live with the consequences.

Sunday’s parliamentary elections in Hungary have been described by RT as the “Battle for Hungary” due to the huge stakes involved for the EU, Ukraine, the US, and to a lesser extent, Russia.

The first three have also sought to influence voters, the EU, and Ukraine via various forms of meddling that include concocting Russiagate conspiracy theories and even attempting to blow up Hungary’s main gas pipeline, and the US through Trump’s and Vance’s endorsement of incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

The EU’s interest in “democratically deposing” Orbán is ideological, since he’s a conservative nationalist opposed to the liberal-globalist agenda the bloc wants to impose on Hungary. The opposition’s chief economic advisor is Shell’s former Vice President for Mobility, Istvan Kapitany, and this article explains how he wants to succeed where George Soros failed. In a nutshell, the EU considers Hungary under Orban to be a major impediment to its federalization plans, which they hope to soon remove.

Ukraine hates Hungary too, but only because Orban refuses to arm it, continues purchasing energy from Russia, and has occasionally obstructed EU funding for this former Soviet Republic.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

They now hate Iran for damaging their energy infrastructure and therefore don’t want to indefinitely pay it “petroyuan” as part of the “toll” system that the Islamic Republic is flirting with imposing.

The Financial Times recently reported that “Gulf states consider new pipelines to avoid Strait of Hormuz”. Per their assessment, “In the near term, the most viable options may be to expand the East-West pipeline and also Abu Dhabi’s existing route to Fujairah.” Future plans, however, could include new pipelines to the Arabian, Red, and/or Mediterranean Seas, the last one paralleling the frozen India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) but only in the event of an Israeli-Saudi rapprochement.

From the Gulf Kingdoms’ perspective, provided that a US-Iranian deal is reached so that Trump doesn’t carry through on his threat to destroy Iran’s energy infrastructure and thus prompt Iran to carry through on its own threat to destroy the Gulf Kingdoms’, export route diversification is their top priority. Given the existing damage to their energy infrastructure from Iran, which defends this on the basis that the US used their bases and/or airspace for attacking it, they don’t want to pay any so-called “toll” to it.

About that, Iran is flirting with such a system as a form of “reparations”, one which could also lead to the yuan challenging the dollar as the global reserve currency if Tehran demands payment in it for transit. It was recently concluded here that “The US will have lost the Third Gulf War if China can still rely on Iran as a reliable low-cost energy supplier while turning the yuan into a global reserve currency that challenges the petrodollar.” That assessment still stands but with an important caveat.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

If the US oversees the optimization of the EU’s military-industrial complex, military logistics, and other defense-related matters with a view towards “dwarfing” Russia’s associated capabilities, then the challenge that Russia might face along its western frontier could mirror the one in June 1941.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated long-standing policy in a recent interview when he told his interlocutor that “We are not going to attack any part of Europe. We have absolutely no reason to do so. And if Europe opts to materialize its threats to prepare for war against us and starts attacking Russia, the president said that it will not be a special military operation on our part, it will be a full-scale military response with all available military means in accordance with the doctrinal documents on this matter.”

To elaborate, Russia never had any plans to risk World War III by invading the Baltic States and/or Poland, whose hostile populations would also represent an enduring security threat in any occupation.