A Case for Removing Personal Income Tax

Approaching War Clouds?

War is the permanent state of affairs, Peace is only transient.

Rising International instability, the resurgence of Realpolitik and the return of a rejuvenated Russia in the geopolitical arena - a sign of things to come?

As we go further into the 21st century, the drums of war have been getting louder and louder.
Even an ordinary civilian who isn't a geopolitical observer will opine that there is more conflict and increasing tension around the world when compared to the relatively peaceful 90s and early 2000s. 

While the 90s were marred by inter-ethnic clashes in the aftermath of Yugoslavia's collapse, as well as the brief and inconclusive war between India and Pakistan, the period of 15 years since have been arguably the most peaceful period in the history of mankind. 

Where did the chaos begin? And what was the flash-point? Lets observe some of the moves by the major players in the geopolitical arena and how they have contributed to the ongoing friction. 

Russia

It would be difficult to pin-point one geopolitical event as the cause for a chain reaction of aggressive foreign policy the world over, but it is safe enough to say the Annexation of Crimea in early 2014 sent shock-waves across the globe, and set the tone for foreign policy makers directly and indirectly related to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine.

A soldier stands in front of the flag of the Novorossiyan Republik

The intervention in Eastern Ukraine and the subsequent annexation of Crimea wasn't foreseen by leading political and regional analysts alike, being later labelled as a big gamble. But the gamble eventually paid off, with Ukraine having to pay for its change in allegiance with her land and blood. Now a frozen conflict, the two oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk have declared independence and together refer to themselves as the Novorossiyan Republik (or the New Russia republic), with a future secession to Russia as a central part of their agenda. They join the long list of breakaway nations only a step away from merging with the Russian Federation and creating Putin's self-styled Russian Empire, namely : Transnistria in Moldova and South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia.

This was a strong message from Putin to his Western adversaries.He felt that Ukraine belonged exclusively in Russia's sphere of influence, and that the nation was being pulled away from Russia's reach through a Western-backed coup (Euromaidan protests) and the resulting regime-change.

The United States and its allies responded with a series of heavy sanctions aimed at crippling Russia's economy and punishing them for what they saw as illegal occupation of a neutral nation's territory. The sanctions were also imposed with the view that it would deter any Russian aggression, at least in the near future.
While the sanctions caused the intended damage to the Russian economy, it backfired as a deterrence tool for  against Moscow's pro-active foreign policy, with Putin again baffling analysts and experts by actively intervening in Syria.

THIS is where the drums of war started getting louder.

The Syrian Civil war had already transformed the country into a playground of sorts for larger nations who were backing their local proxies on the ground. The Western-backed Free Syrian Army and the al-Nusra Front had failed to topple Assad - who is backed by Iran, China and Russia. The Kremlin had previously been more of a passive supporter of the al-Assad government, but slowly changed its posture as the Russian Air Force became more active in the region and highly instrumental in assisting the Syrian Arab Army in retaking provinces lost both to the opposition as well as to ISIS. What followed was a series of major ground reversals as Assad's troops marched into hostile territories under the protection of Russian firepower. Russia proved its doubters wrong, who had dismissed it as an outdated Cold War-era military, without the capabilities of modern warfare. Putin's steps to modernize the military in the early 2000s paid off in the 2008 war in Georgia and even more so in Syria.

Turkey 

What makes the Syrian Civil War such a dangerous spark for a large scale conflict is the pro-active and rather aggressive involvement of another player- the sick man of Europe. Erdogan has been playing a very dangerous game of attempting to topple Bashar al-Assad and establish itself as a regional power, in what many view as an attempt to reclaim the grandiosity of the Ottoman Empire. Despite being a NATO member, Turkey's agenda is not in line with the rest of the Western nations involved in the conflict, and their main priority is to prevent the creation of an independent Kurdish nation in Northern Syria and North-Western Iraq.

The failed Turkish coup reeks of being orchestrated to justify Erdogan's Purge

Having taken their war against Kurds beyond their borders, Turkey has often found itself isolated from its NATO partners and gotten itself in sticky situations like the downing of a Russian jet in November 2015. Russia's response was a warning, and VERY minimal in nature, to say the least. The failed coup in Turkey in 2016 is seen by many as a false flag event which facilitated and justified Erdogan's crackdown and systematic purge of the Judiciary and the Armed Forces. Added to this was the referendum in April which centralized power in Turkey and increased the President's power as well as term duration, making it a 'democratic dictatorship' of sorts. Erdogan's muscle-flexing hasn't gone down well with the Kremlin, and even its NATO partners have looked on with caution as a parent would look on to see their child play with fire.

Many believe Turkey has overexerted itself and is waging a war beyond its capabilities. In the scenario of a war involving Turkey, the nation may find itself without the backing of its own NATO allies, having lost credibility as a secular and democratic nation as well as consistently failing to be a responsible party in the Syrian conflict.

United States 

While there is no surprise at the mention of the most powerful nation in a discussion involving war, the United States seems to have lost the Syrian gamble. The financial and technical resources put into supporting the enemies of the Assad government have not borne fruit, and the so-called 'Pro-democracy' and 'Arab Spring' protests now look more and more like a failed coup attempt by the West than a peaceful civilian protest.
Even as far back as 1999, United States being the largest nation among the NATO powers, had the chance to normalize relations with a 'reborn' Russia, which at the time was even considering applying for the NATO. However, the encirclement of Kaliningrad, St.Petersburg and Moscow with Missile Defence Systems has done anything but that. The signing of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the NATO treaty was seen as an aggressive move in Moscow and an indication that the West was taking advantage of the internal and external instability in Russia.
The election of Donald Trump created uncertainty in geopolitical circles as he had opposed the Obama-era interventionist doctrine in Syria, as well as being strongly opposed to the U.S being involved in conflicts far from its borders. However, the bombing of a Syrian Air Force base and arms depot in Syria affirmed the suspicions that there wasn't much change in course for American foreign policy regarding the Middle East.
Assad is the only major ally for both Russia and Iran in the region and serves as a buffer state between Israel and Iran - two sworn enemies. The United States' treatment of Iran as the largest military and nuclear threat, coupled with its lack of change in it's stance on Syria, will render any Russo-American rapprochement impossible as many had predicted following Trump's election.

Nonetheless, at the fringes of the G20 Summit, Donald Trump met with Putin for the first time in person and the two nations immediately announced a fresh Syrian ceasefire agreement. There have been 4 Ceasefire attempts in the past, all having failed miserably as none of the sides stopped seizing undefended territory, leading to consistent clashes.

India 

The historically peaceful nation has finally started to make ground with regard to its foreign policy and international relations. While the initial agenda was to win over the neighbouring nations and limit China's influence in Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and most importantly Sri Lanka and Maldives to break China's "String of Pearls" naval encirclement of the subcontinent, the restriction and prevention of Pakistani-funded terrorism and cross border infiltration has now taken priority.
There have been several incidents of cross border firing along the rugged border with Pakistan, incidents that would otherwise generally amount to war and would have urged most nations to declare hostilities. The most recent development in the region has been India's strong posturing against Chinese outposts along and around the Sikkim border. This was immediately followed by a historic visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israel, the first ever by an Indian head of state.
The two nations see eye to eye on a plethora of issues, especially regarding Islamic terror. Benjamin Netanyahu also publicly supported India's claims against Pakistan and its breeding of terrorists. Having already become India's second largest arms supplier, Israel can serve as an important intelligence and military partner, while providing direct diplomatic support in the event of an Indo-Pak War. Kashmir is turning more and more into a Chechnya issue and an immediate control of cross-border infiltration of militants will be crucial in preventing a conflict within the state.

China 

China has been, arguably, the shrewdest of all the major powers around the world. It has consolidated its control over the South-China Sea by building artificial islands, an area which could well be the flash point of a future conflict. Xi Jinping has effectively ignored all the complaints by Japan, United States and South Korea regarding the ICBM tests conducted by North Korea, giving them a free hand.

Even though China is a passive participant in the Syrian war, they have vested interests in Assad's victory. The prevention of the establishment of a West-friendly puppet state in Syria is among its main,if not foremost priority. Millions of dollars have been invested into several African nations, which underscores the 360 degrees view of Chinese policy framers and their steps to take care of all fronts- whether economic, security or diplomatic. While being visibly surprised by India's strong and newly aggressive stance at the Sikkim border, war between the two fastest growing nations is in neither countries' interest. Currently, China has territorial disputes with almost all of its neighbours, of which Japan, India and South Korea have seemed to have gotten fed up of what they refer to as China's 'bullying'.

North Korea 

Contrary to the majoritarian view, North Korea remains, and will continue to be - a Chinese diplomatic tool. It serves as a counterbalance to American influence in the Korean Peninsula and the regular ICBM tests only help China in strong-arming its opponents. As an independent nation, it doesn't have the capability or scope to create large ripples around the world. The media may create the image of a North Korean nuclear threat, but the closed-off nation cannot exert itself beyond what China allows. The Beijing-Pyongyang relationship is a highly codependent one, with China using North Korea for its geopolitical gains, and North Korea enjoying the freedom to flex their muscles under China's shadow and guardianship.

General change in Attitude and India's ball game.

Several other nations have changed their posture towards disputes, and force is replacing diplomacy  as a tool for resolving international disputes and geopolitical tug-offs. Most recently, Austria decided to send troops and tanks to its border with Italy due to Italy's failure of regulating its borders with Austria to refugees. The last time a European power put up forces against another was back in the Second World War, if Russia's failed invasion of Czechoslovakia in 68' can be brushed aside as a regime-change attempt.

Pakistan, a nation lauded for pulling off diplomatic success one after the other, may find that its been digging its own grave. With two clear blocs being created - one side having the United States and its NATO and non-NATO allies; and the other having China, Russia and Iran, Pakistan has for too long played choosy with either side at its own convenience. At present it purchases arms from both the United States and China and must decide sooner or later where its allegiance lies.The CPEC definitely signals an inclination towards China in Islamabad but Pakistan is still much of a 'diplomatic prostitute' of sorts.

While the noisy neighbour weighs its options, India seems to have made up her mind and given clarity to her own foreign policy after building relations with Israel. This will no doubt create gaps in an already broken relationship with Russia, but also create further tensions with China as being observed presently. Even though a war with Pakistan would seem doable on the face of it, the reality is that the Indian Military's only advantage is numerical in nature. In the quickly evolving methods of warfare, a numerical advantage is irrelevant when the nation's 'defence technology' is outdated. Hopefully, the new ties with Israel will see a halt on the purchasing of outdated Soviet equipment and lead to the modernization of the Indian forces for the inevitable and long overdue war with Pakistan.