Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Romania has drawn global attention over recent presidential elections due to its evolving geopolitical position. Many assume the often-disregarded Balkan nation is not relevant to global politics, but Romania has emerged as a key node in NATO’s logistical apparatus that supplies Ukraine. As a result, Romania has found itself as a flashpoint in a geopolitical faultline between nationalist populists and neoliberal globalists. A once-postponed, tumultuous presidential election spanning over the past seven months has culminated with the neoliberals, Nicuşor Dan, gaining power. The former Mayor of Bucharest defeated nationalist George Simion, who replaced firebrand nationalist Calin Georgescu after a surprising first-round electoral victory that was annulled due to claims of Russian interference. One of the key differences between the two camps is their approach to Ukraine. Simion and Georgescu oppose Romania being a supply route for supporting Ukraine, while Dan is strongly in favour and supports further NATO integration as well as increased military spending.

Subscribe now

Geography dictates that Romania and Poland stand as logistics hubs crucial to facilitating the flow of equipment and ammunition from West to East. These supplies come mostly from the United States and Western Europe, but other nations globally have made contributions, making Romania’s Black Sea ports a critical part of the supply route. Poland is much more aligned with anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian politics compared to Romania. Poland’s historical relationship with the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and modern Russia is deeply antagonistic and this is reflected in public discourse. Poland, a leading advocate of Ukrainian interests, was amongst the first to provide military aid and accept millions of refugees. While Romania too suffered under Soviet control, its population holds a far more mixed opinion of modern Russia and the war. NATO is broadly supported by Romanians, but scepticism remains rife surrounding questions of how Romania should involve itself in the support effort.

Subscribe now

The popular support for Ukraine makes Poland a more suitable, more secure option for NATO logistical supply into Ukraine. Poland also possesses more developed infrastructure, which NATO happily utilises, and greater capacity for transporting supplies. Last year however, Polish farmers blockaded key highways surrounding capital cities and the Ukrainian border, crippling this supply network. The farmers were protesting the flooding of cheap Ukrainian grain into the EU market following Brussels’ decision to lift the tariff fee on Ukrainian produce. This resulted in the grain price tanking, causing economic pain to the farmers. While the chances of farmers initiating another blockade is unlikely, in response to the protest the Polish government introduced a sweeping ban of grains into Polish markets, placating the angered farmers. Still, NATO had to bolster its influence within Romania and improve the infrastructure to become as reliable as Poland if disruptions were to arise again. The central project in this initiative has been coined the Moldova Highway, which will link Bucharest with Siret, a town located on the border shared with Ukraine. The construction is a high priority, with over 3000 workers being employed and 24/7 construction reflecting the importance NATO placed on the Balkan nation.

Subscribe now

Similar to Georgia, where I covered the issues facing the Caucasus nation in an article last year, the growing visibility of NATO and Russia reveal their geopolitical designs. France has a significant stake in Romania and seeks to further influence the country. Since the beginning of the war, France spent 80 million euros on a military base in central Romania. This base alone hosts 600 French military servicemen, along with 150 Dutch and Belgian troops. These troops are involved with the numerous NATO military exercises being staged in Romania, including Dacian Spring 2025, which concluded just last week. Almost 4,000 infantry and over 900 military vehicles from ten NATO members participated in the exercise. French President Emmanuel Macron may revive negotiations over the sale of several Navy vessels to Romania, after a 1.2 billion euro deal was cancelled in 2023 due to Romania failing to allocate sufficient funds to the purchase. Nicuşor Dan, the President-elect, has indeed committed to increasing military spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2030 from the current 2.5% rate. France also boosted its presence in the region by signing a defence pact with Moldova earlier in the year.

Considering France’s deepening involvement, it is unsurprising they favour a Romanian president that shares their perspective on the Ukraine war. Two days before the second round of the Romanian election, Macron and his Polish counterpart, President Donald Tusk, signalled their strong support for Dan. Simultaneously, Telegram founder Pavel Durov said that the French Foreign Intelligence Chief, Nicolas Lerner, had personally requested that conservative Romanian Telegram accounts be censored in the hopes of influencing voters to select the NATO-friendly candidate. Why is Macron putting so much effort, and in turn taking on so much risk into influencing the government of Romania and Moldova?

For almost ten years now he has been calling for Europe to throw off the yoke of American security leadership, in favour of what he calls ‘strategic autonomy’. The new German Chancellor, Fredrich Merz, has supported this process, vowing after his election win in late February to help achieve independence from the United States. For EU leaders, gaining influence over Eastern Europe and combatting American power in the region is of great important to regional security and the strengthening of European foreign policy sovereignty.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Donald Trump’s attempt to broker peace in the Ukraine war was bound to fail from the outset.

He vowed to drag Vladamir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiation table and achieve peace within 24 hours of his inauguration. Now just passing his third month in office there is no end to the war in sight; nor is there immediate reason for it to stop. The Trump administration has learnt that Putin will end the war on his time. Recently a series of miscalculations by the US administration have made apparent Washington’s severe misunderstanding of the motivations driving the parties involved in the war, this is most apparent in Russia’s case but Europe isn’t exactly feeling heard and understood. The most fundamental blunder was that Trump assumed that America can rely on sheer power to coerce Russia into a peace deal. Moreover, the narrow understanding of the conflict as being confined to the battlefield totally ignores the larger geopolitical security conundrum of which this war is only a symptom.

Subscribe now

The NATO encroachment eastwards towards Russia and presence in Ukraine is the underlying reason for Russia invading Ukraine. Putin views NATO as an existential threat consisting of a coalition of Russia’s historic rivals; Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Poland. These powers were the main adversaries in Russia’s most consequential wars, joined by old Cold War adversary the United States of America. An unwavering term in any peace agreement Russia would agree to is NATO decoupling from Ukraine. This proves the foolishness present in recent negotiation developments, the European Union suggested the introduction of a peacekeeping force and the United States proposed a mineral deal with Ukraine. These decisions exemplify the chronic misunderstanding that has so far plagued attempts to broker peace. In short, Russia will be hesitant to agree to a peacekeeping force unless they in some part consist of non-NATO aligned forces.

More recently, Trump has recently approved the transfer of missile systems to Ukraine after initially hesitating on the sale of any military equipment to Ukraine when taking office. This is a classic case of Trump using brinkmanship as a geopolitical negotiation tactic, something I discussed in an article last year prior to his inauguration. From the Russian perspective, this is simply more weaponry that must be destroyed or removed from Ukraine before peace can be achieved. Further complicating matters is that though additional brinksmanship pressure will prolong the conflict, this is perhaps Trump’s only play.

Subscribe now

Putin has been handed an incredible opportunity to use Trump’s pledge of ending the war to his advantage, by utilising slow and patient negotiations. This can play perfectly into Putin’s overall strategy of exhausting the West and eroding public support for Ukraine, making the war politically unpopular. With Trump’s patience and political capital starting to wear thin even among many of his loyal supporters, Russia’s consistent territorial gains are making the current peace deal the best Ukraine can get. The further erosion of Ukraine’s military capability will only result in Russia demanding further concessions.

The resolute firmness of Europe’s position must have also come as a surprise to the Trump admin. Since the outbreak of war, the EU has faced difficult economic hardship and a shift to more centralised governmental authority. If Russia secured a favourable agreement, then the narrative EU leaders have used to legitimise these developments will undermine that. The nature of a post-war Ukraine-Russia border remains a difficult question, in the case of third-party peacekeepers, which Europe in particular favours, they will have to control problematic extremist factions that exist within both the Ukrainian and Russian military. Both sides have infamous examples of poor discipline, disobedient commanders and rebellion in the case of Prigozhin and his Wagner forces. As for Ukraine, Azov battalions’ rejection of Zelenskyy’s commands in the years prior to the Russian invasion prove any peacekeeping force will have a difficult time controlling either side. If we observe the history of previous Minsk peace agreements, a pattern of chronic violations is unignorable. Neither the Trump administration, nor the EU, has yet offered solutions to this problem.

Subscribe now

Honestly, my criticism of Trump requires acknowledging that he faces a truly impossible task. On one hand, engaging negotiations with Russia at the expense of the Ukraine alliance risks undermining US credibility and the alliance system in East Asia, which the Chinese containment strategy hinges entirely upon. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines will be observing Trump’s handling of Ukraine if he were to placate Russia for a hastily arranged peace. While on the other hand, the pursuit of a transactional resolution leaves Trump with few viable approaches. Trump has two directions he can head in to solve this near-insurmountable dilemma. Strengthening Ukraine and daring Russia to endure more military and economic strain in the hope they will be more willing to accept a peace deal; this would uphold the perception that the US will honour their alliances and affirms their leadership role in East Asia alliance structure. However, in this scenario the Russia-China axis will further entrench and will drastically complicate efforts to divide them. Conversely, appeasing Russia and damaging the confidence the East Asian allies have in US leadership risks pushing these key partners into China’s orbit. Either path carries profound trade-offs with no painless way forward.

Ultimately, the Trump administration’s handling of the negotiations reflects a deep malaise of American foreign policy thinking, as well as an inability to grasp the shift in geopolitics and the emerging multipolar system. This culture is deeply entrenched in the US administration and despite Trump’s genuine overtures to end the war, he may find significant internal and geopolitical obstacles once peace negotiations begin to develop.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

For months, mainstream media has bombarded us with reports that it would be Russian president Vladamir Putin’s dream for a Donald Trump electoral victory. They argue that Putin and Trump are close friends, and that Russia will assist Trump’s campaign by targeting voters with malicious misinformation. This belief stems from Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine and pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the negotiation table. The assumption is that Trump will halt the aid and military equipment donations to Ukraine, hindering its military effectiveness. While on the other hand, if Kamala Harris had won last Thursday, then she would continue the arms supply to Ukraine indefinitely. Therefore, many assume Putin would clearly favour four years of Trump over Harris. However, I believe there is a case to be made that Putin would perhaps actually prefer a Democrat victory.

Subscribe now

To begin, since Trump is such a strong proponent of art of the deal and negotiating, he will see the poor state Ukraine is in and how Russia is making daily gains in multiple fronts. It is unlikely that Trump will want to enter negotiations with Putin from such a weakened position. Trump’s handling of Afghanistan in 2017 serves as a precedent of what could occur. Running on a campaign promising to end foreign wars and pull United States troops out of Afghanistan, in November 2017 Trump increased the troop count to 14,000 from 11,000 as well as significant ramping up of airstrikes, where in September a record 751 had been conducted. Trump could deploy a similar approach with Ukraine by surging weapons donations and possibly even easing restrictions on long-range missile strikes on Russian soil to improve Ukraine’s negotiating position. Conversely, a Harris administration, while certainly maintaining an interrupted flow of arms, would be far more predictable, which in turn simplifies Russia’s military planning.

Another reason the U.S. is unlikely to abandon Ukraine is that it would weaken American influence and erode trust among other allies regarding their own commitments promised from the United States. Nations like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan might see see the trail of broken former American allies like Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine as cautionary tales, and potentially viewing reliance American protection as a death sentence.

Subscribe now

Furthermore, Trump may leverage his surprisingly positive relationship with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un to weaken the budding Russian-North Korean alliance. North Korean artillery shells have provided significant support for Russia, South Korean sources estimate 8 million shells have been delivered over the year as well as dozens have ballistic missiles. In the pastmonth, US, European and NATO officials have reported that up to 12,000 North Korean troops have been deployed to the Kursk region to aid Russia in fighting Ukraine, although Russia has neither confirmed nor denied these claims. Trump has the potential ability to use his relationship with Kim to hamper this military alliance.

Finally, both Russia and China have gained influence in the developing world by appealing to cultural grievances many nations hold against the United States. Putin and Xi Jinping are advertising their nations as traditional, religious and rational while portraying the U.S. as satanic, anti-religious, non-traditional, woke and a decaying empire. Following this strategic vector to increase influence, that Russia and China particularly enjoy in Africa and South America, having Kamala Harris in power could continue this trend of the developing world drifting into a Russian and Chinese orbit.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Shocking scenes emerged from Bolivia last week where troops, armoured vehicles and tanks stormed the presidential palace in the capital city La Paz. Recently dismissed Army General Juan Jose Zuniga led the coup attempt to oust sitting President Luis Arce. Citizens loyal to Arce swamped the streets to show support for the government. Dramatically, in the corridors of the Presidential Palace, the seat of power in Bolivia, Arce angrily confronted Zuniga telling him ‘I am your Commander in Chief and I order you to withdraw your troops. I won’t tolerate insubordination.’ Eventually, Zuniga backed down and acknowledged the authority of the President, and perhaps seeing the widespread protests against him realised he did not have popular support.

Subscribe now

Many people were quick to speculate the United States Central Intelligence Agency’s involvement but internal political tensions in Bolivia have been brewing for years. Typically, if you assumed coups in this region are backed by the West, you would often find yourself correct, Bolivia in particular has endured 190 different military coups since the nation’s inception in 1832. But last week’s coup was more likely organic, the political landscape has been unstable since former President Evo Morales fled the country in 2019 and recently over the last few months a difficult national economic crisis has worsened.

The economic situation is caused by a drastic fall in natural gas production, which is the backbone of the landlocked Andean country. The loss of foreign currency entering the country has led to a drop in fuel imports, leading to shortages, and worsening cost of living expenditures for civilians. President Arce has faced rising political pressure to solve the economic hardship or risk losing next year’s August Presidential election.

Subscribe now

As for understanding the political instability, one man is at the centre of ongoing turmoil, former president Evo Morales. General Zuniga and Morales have been intertwined in an ongoing dispute over the last two years originating from Morales accusing Zungia of creating a secret group within the army that is involved with the production of drugs and surveils political opponents. Zungia reignited the quarrelling by promising to arrest Morales if he runs for a fourth term, resulting in Zungia being removed from his post. Morales’ running is problematic for several reasons, the first being his last electoral win sparked political turmoil and chaos resulting in his resignation and his fleeing the country. Morales’ previous reign was marred by controversy over term limits, where he implemented a limit of two consecutive terms for presidents but then went on to break himself and launched a referendum to remove the amendment. Despite the referendum being unsuccessful he ran in 2019 anyway, and with his victory came reports of massive voter fraud which sparked civil unrest. Secondly, Morales and current President Luis Arce are representatives of the same party, Movement for Socialism, and over the last few months, two figureheads have splintered the party over disagreements. Morales has returned from exile and maintained support from rural demographics, pledging to challenge Arce in the upcoming election.

Subscribe now

After being arrested, Zungia claimed that President Arce had asked him to stage a coup. Pundits are suggesting that Arce could have orchestrated the shocking coup attempt to save his falling approval rating. Zungia stated ‘the President told me that the situation is very screwed up, very critical. It is necessary to prepare something to raise my popularity.’ And that Zungia should use armoured vehicles in the attempt. President Arce has denied being involved in the coup in any capacity. The days following the military storming the central plaza he told reporters that ‘How could one order or plan a coup on oneself?’ As well as posting on X ‘We are going to defend democracy and the will of the Bolivian people, whatever the cost.’ It is uncertain whether further investigation into Arce’s connection with the coup attempt will be undertaken.

There are many mysterious elements to this story. The CIA being behind it makes the least sense, in the past the motivation for carrying out regime change is to maintain American access to Bolivia’s rich lithium supply; but since the Milei victory and his strong commitment to bolstering ties with the United States it is unlikely the CIA would be interested in going to such trouble for a resource they have already secured. Could this all have just been a conspiracy for Arce to boost ratings and thwart Morales from taking power yet again? This political situation does not look like easing up until next year’s election. It will be interesting to observe what happens as the election campaigns heat up.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Across the West, liberalism as a political persuasion is dying a slow death.

The energy of Ron Paul and the Tea Party Movement has been reduced to dying embers, particularly amongst Generation Z. The political polarisation of the 2010s has shifted voters away from the centre to more hardline attitudes, tearing the libertarian position apart from both the Left and Right. The rise of Donald Trump in 2016 created a more conservative culture on the right. Differing from previous Republican libertarians, like Ron Paul, Trump imposed government intervention in the economy in favour of a more protectionist ideology, introducing tariffs and modifying the NAFTA free trade agreement. Socially, Trump ushered in a return to more conservative social beliefs, such as a tougher stance on immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. Attempts to influence Trump to adopt libertarian policy have come from Peter Thiel the billionaire Republican mega-doner. Thiel had some success pushing Trump to be more open to legal immigration and loosening H1B Visa restrictions, which materialised in the 2019 State of the Union address during which Trump stated that he wants migrants at ‘the largest number ever’ and suffered backlash from Republican voters causing him to since revert from this unpopular position.

Subscribe now

Now in 2024, Trump has solidified control over the Republican Party and the voter base, it is unlikely we’ll see a libertarian ideology become as popular as it was prior to his descent down the golden escalator. Republican congress members Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are the most liberal-minded members of the Republican party, but conservative Generation Z voters do not find these two appealing, other than a fleeting spotlight provided by Covid where Paul could lambast health officials over lockdowns attacking civil liberties. Despite these short videos going viral in the Covid era, it is unlikely Paul and Massie stand a chance of recapturing this demographic in the 2028 Primaries. Especially once considering the success Vivek Ramaswamy, a Trump acolyte, has had engaging with the youth through social media and his short lived 2024 Republican Primary campaign.

So, libertarianism will not find a home in the Republican party for some time, but how about the Democrat party? The Democrats have had a long-standing tradition of ‘Big Government,’ beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation and evolving over the last century to incorporate more social welfare programs and safety nets. From Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton these policies became a staple in Democrat rhetoric, tax increases were a part of the package to fund the expenses, going against the low tax core value of libertarians. Culminating with Obama and his ambitious healthcare policy, coupled with increased taxes, there is little room for libertarian-minded candidates to exist let alone run on a Democrat presidential ticket. Recently, Tulsi Gabbard was perhaps the most prominent, libertarian member of the Democrat party until she left to become an independent in 2022 citing irreconcilable differences. Libertarianism has no home in either the Democrat or Republican parties.

Subscribe now

Enter Milei. Social media is rich with videos of the highly animated Milei ranting about government bureaucracy and criticising socialism. Being proliferated by prominent liberal-leaning accounts such as Elon Musk and John Ruddick, NSW Libertarian Party’s lead candidate, as well as a very popular interview with Tucker Carlson, sitting at 428 Million views on X alone. Milei has become a global figurehead of liberalism. The ultimate make or break to breathe fresh air into the ideology, the potential to excite and win over Generation Z rests solely on the success of his radical policies in Argentina. Which, fascinatingly, comes at a perfect time, the boom of the electric car manufacture and with it increased demand of lithium, which Milei can use Argentina’s vast reserves to facilitate a strong economy. Proving that a libertarian approach can end an economic crisis could reignite liberalism’s popularity amongst the Centre and centre-right political circles.

Earlier in the year, Milei met with Elon Musk where reports emerged that the meeting emphasised the need for free markets, also alluding to trade agreement. Many assume that Musk is keen to finalise a deal with Milei and secure a reliable supply of lithium for Tesla’s battery manufacture. Argentina enjoys the largest share of salt-lake lithium in the world, having 19.3 million tons which constitutes 21% of global supply. Argentina has also faced chronic underdevelopment of infrastructure, leaving this massive lithium store unexploited.

Have the stars aligned for liberalism? Could this unorthodox political rockstar resurrect the ailing ideology? Only time will tell.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

This week Vladimir Putin visited Kim Jung-Un in North Korea, his first state visit to the Hermit Kingdom since 2000. The meeting served as a follow-up to the talks held between the two in Vladivostok last September, signalling a deepening of ties as Russia continues its Asia pivot since being ejected from the Western economy. The outcome of Putin’s visit was a surprisingly mutual defence pact, where each nation agreed to support one another during times of foreign aggression.

Join The National Observer Discord

For North Korea, the new pact changes the global chessboard. Where previously the United States, under Trump, could call bluff about their missile strike capability, now Kim Jong will be able to rely on a solider military partnership the next time America applies pressure. This realignment of the geopolitical balance will further accelerate the ongoing escalation between China and America in the Asia-Pacific.

Depending on how this new relationship between Pyongyang and Moscow materialises, if North Korea enjoys a bolstering of military technology from Russia it will force South Korea, if they wish to maintain the balance of power on the Korean peninsula, to seek the same backing from the United States. Such an outcome will be a great pleasure for Russia as American weaponry will be drawn away from Ukraine. This is significant because Ukraine has been making great use of HIMARS and ATACMS weapons to make deep strikes into Russia targeting key infrastructure. Coupled with the fact that recently more Western countries have given Ukraine’s blessing to use their weapon donations for strikes on Russia outside of contested Ukrainian territory.

Support The National Observer

As for China, who are currently locked into a serious escalation spiral with the United States, they will be forced to respond to military build-up in Korea. The year has been dominated by stories of China conducting very complex and large-scale military exercises mimicking beach landings and naval blockades of Taiwan. China has stated that the military exercises will persist following numerous antagonising military exercises from the United States and allies. The United States-led drills have involved mainly the Philippines, along with the Australian Airforce, which suggests an integration effort between the three countries. By doing this, America is attempting to contain China and limit their influence in the South China Sea, which will hamper their ability to project power further across the Pacific. If this escalation wildfire were to spread to Korea, and the United States increased its military presence and supply to the South in order to counter Russia and the North, China would be forced to respond. Exactly how a response would manifest is hard to predict.

On the other hand, South Korea may be willing to break their commitment of abstaining from arming Ukraine as a retaliation against Russia. Chang Ho-jin, prominent South Korean National Security Adviser, announced that the government will undergo a review on exactly that. This is not in any way an unprecedented concept, throughout 2023 NATO used numerous third-party nations to circumvent South Korea’s commitment to not arm Ukraine directly. NATO deems South Korea, as the world’s ninth largest arms exporter, a critical nexus in its military production network helping compete against Russia’s disproportionate production capacity. If South Korea were to reverse its policy this could grant Ukraine vital resources in solving its severe shell hunger across the Donbas front. For years we have been pelted with reports of Russia’s significant artillery power advantage in the war, if Ukraine were to even up this disparity, they may be able to halt Russia’s constant incremental gains. Putin has warned that South Korea providing arms would be a big mistake, while US secretaries of State, Antony Blinken, said the US will consider various measures in response to the pact. If an arms race were triggered on the Korean Peninsula, Russia would see some export profit from its massive ratcheting up of its military-industrial complex.

In all, this appears to have been a great geopolitical play by Putin, as the North Korea deal could leave America spread too thin between Ukraine and the Pacific, which may in turn trigger America to to rethink its support of Ukraine and instead fully commit its attention to giving China and solidifying the containment policy. If the United States further withdrew from the coalition supporting Ukraine, other hesitant European nations, namely Germany, would follow suit leaving France and the United Kingdom to take the reins in leading the charge against Russia. But of course, these two nations are on the eve of high-stakes elections in the coming weeks, a factor which will greatly determine their relations with Russia and their commitment to Ukraine’s war effort. This is a fascinating state of geopolitical boards where many relationships are in flux and many changes to geopolitical landscapes are possible over the rest of the year.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

The Southern Caucasus is shaping up to be a new front in the power struggle between Eastern and Western powers. The increasing likelihood of Russian influence being ejected from both Georgia and Armenia in the near future represents a sorely needed win for the West after the ongoing disaster that has been Ukraine — a prospect Russia is certainly preparing for.

Ongoing protests have erupted throughout Georgia’s capital city, Tbilisi, over the legislation proposed by ‘Georgian Dream’ (Georgia’s current ruling party) which has been dubbed the ‘foreign agents’ bill. The law would require non-government organisations to register and categorise themselves as foreign agents if they receive more than 20% of their total funding from abroad. Protestors have labelled such a law as pro-Russian and criticise it for its resemblance to Russian laws used to squash dissent against Putin’s regime. This is quite the contradiction, seeing as Russia would be hard-pressed to inject its agenda into Georgian politics were its operatives required to register as Russian agents. This is the second round for the legislation after the Georgia Dream Party abandoned it following widespread protests last year.

Subscribe now

Protests are expected to continue until the bill is abandoned again and activists hope to maintain pressure against the Georgian Dream leading into the upcoming elections in October, which could see Dream lose the parliamentary control it has enjoyed since 2012. The above-mentioned accusations made against the Dream Party are not an accurate description and have been unfairly levied by the opposition. Many of the pro-Russian allegations arise from the fact that the party founder, Bidzina Ivanishvilli, made his multi-billion fortune in Russia, coupled with Georgia’s firmly neutral stance regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, the refusal to supply Ukraine with weapons or to sanction Russia under his leadership. All this being said, the most tumultuous effect of this law would be the banning of some Russian opposition officials from entry into Georgia, while balancing this with the maintenance of pragmatic relations with Russia. Despite the balanced nature of this proposal, the Western powers are not happy and so have thrown their weight behind the opposition party, who look likely to impose a tougher stance on Russia; continuing the NATO project of removing Russian influence from the Black Sea.

Armenia, another former Soviet state, is quickly ditching Russian support in favour of Western aid in the face of renewed Azerbaijani aggression. Early this year, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced that Armenia had refused to participate in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the Russian-led answer to NATO. The pivot away from Russian security was a surprising break in a longstanding relationship between Yerevan and Moscow. Seeing an opportunity, the United States and France in particular are seeking to fill this void; Directly after the statement from Armenia that the country will not be a part of CTSO, the French Armed Forces Minister visited Armenia to discuss strengthening defensive ties. Armenia desires Western support to bolster its military, requiring more support than Russia could accommodate, to even power discrepancies between itself and Azerbaijan in an attempt to stave off invasion.

Subscribe now

Armenia is wary of Azerbaijan's aggressive posture, of particular concern is that an invasion might be launched to take the geopolitically significant Zangezur corridor in southern Armenia. Such a move would finally connect greater Azerbaijan with the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, an Azerbaijan exclave located in southwest Armenia. If Azerbaijan controls the corridor, then they will share a border with Turkey, unlocking direct rail and road links between the two Turkic nations. This has been deemed an important issue for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who vigorously pursues what has been coined the pan-Turkic project. Armenia obviously does not want to be steamrolled in the creation of Turkic NATO and Russia does not want growing Turkish influence swelling in its Central Asian underbelly.

Subscribe now

All this considered, Russia is in a tough spot and NATO seeks to exploit this. Russian forces may be chipping away making slow but consistent progress in the far more difficult than expected Ukrainian Special Military Operation, but the West is seeking to make strategic advancements on Russia’s flanks. Russia for a long time has sought to maintain its influence in the region, brokering peace and meditating ceasefires in the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as the direct invasion of Georgia back in 2008, enforcing peace amongst Georgia and self-proclaimed breakaway republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

This Russian political behaviour follows the Primakov doctrine, which advises that for Russia to carry political weight in a multipolar world then, among other principles, dominance of post-Soviet territory is a necessity. Using the lens of the Primakov doctrine we understand the significance of Georgia and Armenia in this chess match. Russia can see the fall of the Caucasus provide a launching pad for hostile powers to agitate Russia’s Central Asian region. But with so many resources dedicated to Ukraine, it will be enthralling to see if the Kremlin can continue to keep the West out of the Caucasus. The October 2024 Georgian election will act as a litmus test, as will monitoring how Armenia’s relations with the West develop, especially if confronted by aggressive Azerbaijani rhetoric.

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Emmanuel Macron is a president without a legacy.
Perhaps this is why securing a victory in the upcoming June EU election is so important to him, he recently succeeded in winning a 5-year second term but this victory will be worth nil if he cannot cement his place in history. Macron is the first sitting French president to serve a second term since Chirac in 2002, and after the expiry of his term in 2027 he will be ineligible to run again afterwards. Long story short, the clock is ticking and the stakes are high.

Subscribe now

Emmanuel Macron has been plagued throughout his reign with a struggle to define a core political project. In 2017, Macron’s ascension symbolised a smashing of the traditional political party landscape in France. The two dominant parties, the ‘Republicans’ and ‘Socialists’ were conquered, a loss from which neither have yet recovered. Macron became the figurehead of this budding centrist movement. When he retires from office, he may have accomplished a decade at the helm of French political power, but it will be meaningless without a remarkable capstone achievement.

A key tenet is addressing the elephant in the French political space. Macron lacks vigour and he does not inspire the youth whatsoever, this is evidenced by the results of the 2022 election, Macron's voter base skewed old, and he was unable to attract the youth vote. In the first round, 42% of his voter base was over the age of 64 and in the second round, the 70+ years old bracket voted 71% in his favour. Many of the 35 and younger voters begrudgingly side with him when their more radical Socialist parties are defeated in the first round of the election simply to keep the right-wing Le Pen out of office.

Subscribe now

Macron recognises this generational problem. Seemingly he has deployed a dual tactic to save his legacy and institutionalise the position of his party ‘Renaissance’, and the carefully crafted centrist coalition ‘Ensemble’, in the French political system; to prevent them simply being swept away in the same fashion as the previously dominant ‘Republican’ and ‘Socialist’ parties. For stage one of this rejuvenation, Macron has taken aim at perhaps the most daring and lofty goals possible: re-establishing France as a geopolitical power, becoming the de facto leader of a militarised and ambitious EU bloc and finally breaking free from American strategic orthodoxy and modifying the dream of Charles De Gaulle for a 21st-century context.

Strategic autonomy is a phrase being sung from the Elysée Palace. This rebellion against American authority began in April last year when Macron gave an explosive interview, following a state visit to China, in which he stated his belief that Europe faces a great risk of becoming America’s followers and getting caught up in crises they need not become embroiled in; alluding to a war between China and America over Taiwan. To remedy this, he suggested Europe seek to reduce its dependency on the United States, this is where strategic autonomy sprang into the mainstream French political lexicon. He envisioned Europe collectively becoming a global power, which judging by his recent shift in rhetoric towards the Ukraine war over the last few months assumes it will be French-led. Coupled with this interview we saw a French company conducting the first liquefied natural gas trade deal in Yuan, with another similar gas deal in Yuan taking place later in 2023, further signalling the yearning to forge a new path for France in a post-American hegemonic world.

As for Ukraine, Macron has made a radical shift in rhetoric towards Russia and the war. For the first two years of the conflict, Macron was perhaps the most sympathetic leader in the West towards Russia, often making comments that he was willing to talk to Putin and that Russia must not be embarrassed. However, impossible to miss is Macron’s shift to signalling in favour of Ukraine’s defence as Russia continues to make gains towards key Ukrainian cities, Kiev and Odessa; the latter sharing a peculiar history with France having been under French occupation for 100 days during the Russian civil war. When many pundits expected him to walk back his fiery statements, he doubled down, just in the last few weeks France has announced they have a 2,000-strong troop contingent training for possible deployments to Ukraine. Pierre Schill, Chief of French Army Staff, went further in saying France is capable of having 20,000 troops ready to operate in Ukraine within only 30 days.

The second stage of this grand plan rests on a man called Gabriel Attal, who was widely popular while serving as education minister and is seen as a rising star in French politics, at just 35 he was installed by Macron as France’s youngest Prime Minister. This can be interpreted as a risky attempt to halt the unrelenting rise of ‘National Rally’, who has seen a surge in the polls over the last few months ahead of the June EU parliamentary elections.
Similarly, Macron’s implementation of domestic reforms tackling unemployment among a slew of economic challenges, and promising policy to reinvigorate the stagnant French economy are both attempts at winning over disgruntled voters lost to ‘National Rally’. Winning back these voters will be pivotal in the coming election, which will be the final chapter in the Macron v National Rally saga. A Macron loss will be a smear on Macron’s final term and indicate a declining sway over French politics, possibly fuelling dissent against his proposed reforms and foreign policy shift.

Subscribe now

Macron’s approval rating has dropped 10% over the year to 30%, his lowest in 6 years and only 2% away from his worst. When Attal was given the Prime Minister position in January, Macron stated on X that he counts on Attal’s energy and regeneration in the spirit of 2017. A comprehensive restructuring is a compelling attempt to prevent a ‘National Rally’ victory in the June EU election and save Macron’s legacy from being tarnished by Le Pen and ‘National Rally’ getting the last laugh of this extraordinary rivalry. Macron hopes going all in on Attal as successor will lead to the continued success of the ‘Renaissance Party’ in French politics post-Macron. The domestic economic policy goals and the daring foreign policy shift underpin the success of this plan.

Significant challenges face Macron’s final term amid a rise in political polarisation expected to dominate Western nations and tear apart centrist parties. If he can reassert France as a formidable power, take leadership of EU defence and foreign policy, regain independence from American influence and undergo successful economic policy reform, Macron could achieve greatness. As the globe enters an era of multipolarity, France could end up as the leader of the European pole. Will Macron go down in history as the man to pull off such a feat?

Written by foreign policy graduate Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

The January 13th Taiwan elections delivered an unprecedented third consecutive term to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the anti-Chinese integration party. Despite winning only 40% of the total vote William Lai, who was the incumbent Vice President, will be sworn in as president. This is the first time that a party has been in power for three consecutive terms. The pro-China integration KMT party secured some gains in the election winning 14 seats within the government legislature, causing DPP to lose its majority. Considering that 60% of the Taiwanese electorate voted for DPP opposition parties, KMT and TPP, who both do not see Taiwan as an independent country and promote cooperation with China, prove that this election is not so much of a loss for China as the mainstream media reported.

Subscribe now

Of course, Chinese President Xi Jinping made reunification a primary goal to reach by the mid-century in an infamous speech, declaring that it is a historical inevitability. Many Chinese thinkers believe that Taiwan falling out of Chinese control was a fluke of history due to the weak state it was in and that reunification will naturally occur once China is restored. With this rhetoric, Taiwanese reunification becomes a question of the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy as many will view the failure to integrate and continue independence as a failure of the Party itself.

China made sure to rebuke countries that congratulated William Lai on the victory, particularly Singapore and the Philippines, reminding them of their one-China position. The Philippines ambassador was summoned to receive an official reprimand, according to Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning;

“Singaporean leaders stated on multiple occasions that the Taiwan question is a deep red line for China. China hopes that Singapore will strictly abide by the one-China principle”.

At the core of all this lies a geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States wherein Taiwanese sovereignty represents a tug-of-war sphere of influence contest between the great powers, a forebodingly similar circumstance to Ukraine in the early 2010s. The biggest question from here is how China will response to this third successive DPP government. China has tried to pressure Taiwan with military exercises, fighter jets circling the island, battleships stationed in surrounding waters, and even missiles launched above Taiwan itself. Many Western pro-China advocates warned that these military demonstrations were overkill and only emboldened independence sentiment in voters.

Many believe China may shift their strategy away from these overt shows of military might and instead impose economic sanctions as punishment on the island’s inhabitants for voting the pro-independence party into power yet again. This is easier said than done. The pro-China KMT party affiliates have extensive, fruitful economic ties with China, which funnily enough was first established by American capital and investors seeking to open trade between the US and China back in the 60s and 70s, by using economic sanctions China will be hurting their KMT allies the most. If Beijing does decide to implement these economic attacks it will have to be incredibly surgical. This predicament casts tension across the entire Indo-Pacific region and only adds further tension to an already fragile US-China relationship.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

On the 16th of February, Russian dissident Alexey Navalny died suddenly in his prison cell located in the arctic circle in northern Russia. Not much is known at this point regarding Navalny’s health other than a blood clot is being hesitantly posited as the cause of death. The event has triggered global outrage, seemingly all global media outlets have charged Putin with being responsible for Navalny’s death. However, looking through the lens of Russian domestic politics, glaringly absent from the theory that Putin ordered Navalny’s execution is a clear motive. Putin lacked a clear reason to kill his political opponent, and in fact even the appearance that he did may present turbulence for his re-election bid in the upcoming March national election.

Subscribe now

Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has sat at record high’s throughout the war in Ukraine for a number of reasons; there exists a general perception among the Russian population that the Putin is responsible for repelling NATO encroachment onto Russian territory, and that his effective governance is to be credited for the prevention of serious catastrophe following the imposition of Western economic blockades. More recently, his performance in a highly anticipated interview with former Fox-news presenter Tucker Carlson won him praise from a Russian audience, who approved of his combative, stern approach. Yet another repetitional win is anticipated with the complete capture of the fortress city Avdiivka, a name now deeply familiar to Russians owing to the city’s involvement in the war since 2014.
With all these factors coalescing behind Putin, it was likely he would coast to yet another successful election result. The absolute last thing Putin needs is an attention grabbing controversy, rather it is in Putin’s interest to generate the highest voter turnout possible for the election as polls suggest Putin will win around 62% of the vote, while his closest competitor, Nadezhdin, will only win 7%.

Voter boycotts in protest of Putin are always anticipated to some degree, for this election boycotts were expected to only turnout relatively low crowd numbers due to Putin’s popularity, only an event like Navalny’s death could change this. If a large-scale boycott does happen, the West will undoubtably use this to attack Putin’s legitimacy throughout what many expect to be his final presidential term. In the meantime, Navalny’s death is potent propaganda for the West to churn up more donations to Ukraine to ‘defend democracy.’

Taking all these factors into account, many have raised the question: what could Putin have expected to gain by assassinating Navalny, if it was in fact Putin who ordered said assassination? Navalny’s political party and organisation was suspended in 2021, following a significant loss in support throughout Russia owing to a growing belief that he was compromised by Western intelligence agencies, and consequentially only sought destabilisation and regime change at their behest.

In 2020, while on a flight within Russia, Navalny was poisoned and was taken to a hospital in Omsk, a small city in Central Russian, at a later date he was transported to a German hospital for further treatment. If Putin wanted Navalny dead, why would he send his target away to NATO aligned Europe. Important to note is that this poisoning also occurred just a few weeks before the 2020 Russian presidential election, cementing in the mind of many Russians the idea that Navalny was a foreign asset deployed as a provocateur with an aim to undermine Russia’s government.

Subscribe now

Another theory suggests this is a desperate attempt to drive fresh donations as the United States congress has begun blocking further aid packages to Ukraine. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has blocked all aid designated to Ukraine over the last few months and with the largest donation contributor no longer sending anything Ukraine is suffering severe ammunition shortages.

Recently, the United States Pentagon and media together propagated a highly provocative story about Russia deploying nuclear weapons to space. After a short media frenzy and a very public announcement that congress had been briefed on the matter, reports began trickling out that Russia actually did not have the capability of perpetrating such attacks, nor is close to achieving it. Is the American state department and Ukraine desperate enough to assassinate Navalny in a last-ditch attempt to fill the donation cup? We know that Ukraine acting alone has accomplished high profile assassinations deep within Russia in the past. In 2022 Daria Dugina was killed in a car bombing just outside Moscow, which many believed was an attack intended to end the life of her father, Aleksandr Dugin, Russia’s globally recognised pro-Putin-regime philosopher and strategist. Ukraine also carried out the assassination of popular Russian war blogger Vladlen Tararsky with a bomb planted in a St Petersburg café.

When analysing events like Navalny’s demise it is important to think who benefits, who is capable and who has the motivation. An investigation into Navalny’s death is expected, which may bring clarity to the situation. However, the Western media will undoubtably reject the findings if assassination is ruled out, they will smear the report as Kremlin propaganda. Regardless of the discussions over the result of said investigation, the timing of this event is so unfavourable to Putin that we should place serious doubts on the Western media’s claim that Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

The night before most Australians were set to spend their Australia Day enjoying drinks and food with their family and friends, and thousands of discontented leftists gearing up to march through the streets of our major cities, Victoria’s famous Captain Cook statue was toppled in the night by masked men with angle grinders, and a second statue of Queen Victoria covered in red paint. Beneath Captain Cook’s feet were graffitied the threatening words ‘The Colony Will Fall’.

The whole incident was brazenly filmed and posted to an anonymous instagram page associated with the radical left-wing organisation ‘ANTIFA’, short for ‘Anti-Fascists’.

This organisation is an American import, and is rapidly approaching their overseas counterpart in their appetite for vandalism, threats, doxing and criminality. US ANTIFA boasts among its ranks domestic terrorists such as Willem Van Spronsen who was shot dead by police attempting to shoot up a US border security detention facility along with countless rioters and looters. An organised network of lawyers, journalists, fundraisers and politicians aid or turn a blind eye to the dangerous group while relentlessly targeting anyone ideologically right-of-centre.

In Adelaide last year the local ANTIFA cell pushed for the censorship of an apolitical film festival, ‘The Sam Hyde film festival’, being hosted in a rented private room in a cinema. According to our sources in the city, Antifa applied significant pressure to the cinema company to cancel the event all-together. Even going as far as launching an advertiser and film production studio boycott campaign against the small business, pushing for Australia’s biggest film producers to withhold their films being shown at the cinema, crippling the businesses means to function.

Subscribe now

In the days before Christmas 2023 a member of Thomas Sewell’s National Socialist Network, gym owner Tim Lutze, found his home targeted in a firebomb attack likely perpetrated by ANTIFA. Mr Lutze’s family car parked out the front of the home was torched using homemade molotov cocktails, destroying the vehicle. Another two homemade devices were found unexploded on Mr Lutze’s front yard, suggesting ANTIFA intended to firebomb a second car and possibly the home. The attack occurred at night while Mr Lutze’s pregnant wife and children were asleep inside the home.

According to Thomas Sewell, in his recap on X, Victorian police sent a measly two detectives to the scene and did not take any witness statements from the neighbours who assisted Mr Lutze unsuccessfully combat the flame. Overall, the police do not seem interested in investigating what can only be described as a politically motivated terror attack.

Subscribe now

Now, while I and the National Observer hold various disagreements with the NSN, recent events demonstrate the stark double standards enforced by both police and government. Over the course of just this past week we have witnessed the police chase the NSN from one local government area to another in order to prevent them from peacefully protesting, at the same time NSW Premier Chris Minns and Prime Minister Albanese have put out statement after statement condemning the protestors and encouraging police to treat the group with greater aggression.

Curiously absent was any equivalent condemnation or persecution of ANTIFA for their vandalism, involvement in anti-Australian ‘change the date’ protests or political firebombing. Objectively, ANTIFA and NSN are at least equally radical, ANTIFA being comprised of devotees of genocidal communism and anti-state anarchists, yet their extensive network of organised radicals with a presence in most major cities across Australia face almost no interest from law enforcement, or condemnation from either the Labor or Liberal party.

Subscribe now

Almost as bad is the total media silence regarding the attack. Much like police and the political class, mainstream media has remained similarly silent about ANTIFA terror, even when it came to the above mentioned firebombing. Comparing the firebombing of political YouTuber Jordan Shank’s house to this event reveals a yawning chasm in media attention that can only be explained by the political persuasion of the two individuals.

As the culture war intensifies in Australia and the Right Wing continues to express itself more freely it will be interesting to observe the Antifa response. Elon Musk’s purchase of X is allowing for the proliferation of Right Wing ideas, especially in the Art sphere. Many today are bored of the left-dominated culture and art scene and will be looking to alternatives in politics and media. As these alternatives arise, we can expect Antifa’s counter protesting to increase, as has been the case with the increasing frequency of NSN stunts with their infamous banners and increased presence on X. It will be important to note if this leads to an uptick in leftist violence and whether ANTIFA terror attacks escalate if the media will report on it and if the police will dare investigate a crime committed against the NSN. Left to fester, ANTIFA will only bolder and more virulent, it is past time Australia’s media, political class and law enforcement to recognise this threat, and abolish ANTIFA.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

While there has been widespread acclaim among western conservatives and libertarians over the election of Argentinian President Javier Milei, increasingly accusations have begun to arise suggesting that the statesman may in fact be puppet of the United States, and not the liberator of Argentina from woke socialism he presents himself as. Throughout September and October, in the lead up to the Argentinian president election, several clips of Javier Milei went viral on social media. Clips of him passionately critiquing the dominant consecutive woke-left governments and the national decay they have bought upon his country. Rich in charisma and wit, his hilarious rants tallied up to millions of views on popular American conservative accounts. An overnight star, whose spotlight in the online conservative mainstream peaked with a Tucker Carlson feature interview in mid-September, accumulating a whopping 427 million views. Milei provided a clear, concise plan to purge the poisonous Marxist features of political society and repair the economy with radical libertarian policies. He has since won his election in mid- November 2023.

Subscribe now

Now, where critiques lie from right wing dissidents who are sceptical of Zionist American influence in the fact that he revoked Argentina’s entry to BRICS, adopted the US dollar and his obsession with Judaism mixed with his devotion to Israel; a country with little geopolitical significance to Argentina. This coupled with the swift rise in popularity from American conservatives promoting his interviews gave an impression of astroturfing.

How are these policy goals covertly in American interests? Beginning with the rejection of BRICS admission Milei has done his part to shore up the continuity of the Swift economic system, which America effectively controls, and which BRICS seeks to rival as an alternative. BRICS was catapulted into mainstream political discourse when Russia suffered the enormous sanction campaign as consequence of the Ukraine War. Ever since BRICS has steadily built a narrative that it will be capable of rivalling the Swift system imminently, just last week BRICS added Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to its coalition. This expansion will bring the combined population of BRICS nations to 45% of the global population, almost 28% of the global economy and significantly, 44% of global crude oil trade. Milei’s decision to refrain from entering has kept Argentina’s massive natural resource reserves, the world’s fourth largest shale oil reserve and second largest shale gas reserve out of BRICS.

Secondly, by adopting the United States Dollar this improves the status USD enjoys as the reserve currency of global trade and counters the decrease in demand for USD by syphoning the 45 million Argentinians into using it for daily transactions. Since being swore in Milei has cooled off on the dollarisation promise, declaring it a medium-term goal in an effort to not shock its domestic market too drastically. Experts suspect that Milei may implement this in a year or so depending on the initial success of the economic transition.

Subscribe now

Milei articulates these policy directions as being in Argentina’s best interest, while conveniently serving American interests simultaneously. A litmus test for the puppet theory will be how relations with Russia will function and whether Milei will supply Ukraine with lethal aid, a decision to arm Ukraine against one of the US’ greatest geopolitical rivals, Russia, will give us a good clue as to how genuine Milei really is. Russia and Argentina have a reasonably significant trade relationship, Argentina exported $860 million dollars’ worth of goods to Russia in 2021, while Argentina imported $450 million from Russia. Therefore, if Milei is willing to risk this trading partner over a geopolitically meaningless conflict for Argentina’s interests, where he should be desperate to squeeze as much economic prosperity as he can to prove the success of his radical economic reforms, it will provide a clear insight into his priorities.

Presently there is a positive outlook on the future relations between the two states. Milei sent a letter to each of the original five BRICS members to officially inform them of the decision to reject admission, but also reaffirming commitment to strengthen ties in terms of trade and investment. However, in December reports arose claiming Milei intended to send old Soviet helicopters, that are capable of military operations, to Ukraine. Russian ambassador to Argentina, Dmitry Feoktistov, believes the reports are false and that Milei has committed to maintain neutrality in the conflict. It will be interesting to observe, especially if the shift in policy proves to be fruitful and Milei will feel more confident in risking upsetting the Russians.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Last December, Chinese president Xi Jinping visited the United States of America for a meeting with American president Joe Biden, Xi’s first trip to US in six years. The aim of the trip being to smooth over the rocky few years that US-China relations have endured in the post covid era. Anti-CCP rhetoric has grown increasingly commonplace in political discourse over the last few years, highlights in this evolving antagonism include a ramping up trade war, the Covid Wuhan origin investigation and a Chinese balloon being shot down over the United States.

Subscribe now

Both delegations noted a positive meeting between the two leaders who were eager to display constructive diplomacy. China in particular mentioned, in their official report posted on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, hopes that the meeting would be a clean start for relations and set a course for improving and developing relations. The meetings went well and the two heads of state agreed to continue regular contact and agreed to work together on the Fentanyl issue plaguing America, resume military communication and begin discussions on the dangers posed by artificial intelligence.

All this may seem rather paltry on the surface but in actual fact it is a very positive outcome - especially for Biden who is in dire need of a success in the realm of foreign policy following the Afghanistan withdrawal, war in Ukraine and the Israel invasion of Gaza. These examples of incompetent diplomacy are going to count as major strikes against Biden going into the 2024 election.

Subscribe now

Xi Jinping used the summit to reassure foreign investors that China is a reliable business partner, a pressing task as China grapples with domestic economic issues. Xi wants to present China as a global power and is succeeding, China is beginning to carry serious political weight now, especially in the Middle East where it has entered numerous trade relations. Of particular note is China’s relationship with Iran and the Taliban-led Afghanistan government; China has tripled its imports of Iranian oil over the last two years, and entered a deal with Afghanistan to expand oil imports worth over 150 million USD per year. Lastly, China flexed its newfound geo-political sway by cementing a surprisingly peace agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two adversaries who were locked in a cold proxy war over the past four decades. This peace was, frankly, ground-breaking - the United States have been officially seeking peace in the region since its first Gulf War in 1991, and yet it was China who made tremendous progress, seemingly out of the blue.

Subscribe now

Friction between the two nations will inevitably grow, as in any case where the American global hegemon finally has a competitor, but for now both leaders are focused on peace and strengthening ties. This comes at a high stakes time with the Taiwan general election in January and the US election in November; both will have important geopolitical consequences and will shape US-Sino relations for years to come.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Subscribe now

In February 2024 Indonesia will hold its highly awaited presidential and parliamentary elections. The United States and China are vying for influence over the new government. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country and boasts a massive economy, which is predicted to become the sixth largest by 2027. These upcoming elections will be a key struggle between the West and China in its trade cold war over the highly strategic Indo-Pacific region and the electoral outcome will have far-reaching complications.

Traditionally Indonesia has pursued a non-alignment foreign policy, which was maintained all throughout the Cold War. This direction was implemented by Indonesia’s first president Sukarno, who even held conferences for emerging economies, such as the numerous African and Asian states, seeking to avoid being drawn into ideological conflicts and trade wars. However, former Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan is considered as a close ally of the United States and will end Indonesia’s non-aligned history.

Subscribe now

Recent polling puts his favourability around 20-24%, while the favourite Prabowo, who supports non-alignment, enjoys around 35-40%. A third candidate Ganjar also has round 20- 30% favourability. Current incumbent president, Joko Widodo is ineligible to run for another term as the Indonesian constitution limits a president to two terms. China will be very interested in keeping Baswedan from winning and the United States attaining a strong influence over the Southeast Asian state.

In the 2017 Jakarta governor elections, Baswedan ran a campaign appealing to hardliner Islamist voters and attack his opponents’ Christian beliefs. Since he has attempted to rebrand himself as more moderate. Interestingly a controversy is surrounding Prabowo, his key opponent and leader in the polls, and his ticket choice for vice president is the son of the incumbent president Joko recently allowed by a loophole created by the Indonesia high court. Polling firms are beginning to report a rising sentiment against this perceived nepotism, which could end playing into the West’s pick Baswedan.

Subscribe now

Indonesia enjoys good relations with both China and the United States. Over the past few months Indonesia has conducted deeper comprehensive partnerships with both. China in particular plays an important role in Indonesia’s economy and rise as regional power. An Baswedan election victory could jeopardise this by running trade and investment ties with China. Indonesia is an important partner in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and they have very good relations, even to the point where China allowed Indonesia to refinance their loans in a favourable manner.

With the election in just three months these factors, identity politics and nepotism, coupled with Western influence with propaganda warfare could result Baswedan gaining in the polls.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

On November 22, Dutch voters hit the polls to vote in the 2023 Dutch general election to elect members to their House of Representatives. This was an earlier than expected election following the collapse of the previous conservative liberal VVD party led coalition government and resignation of prime minister Mark Rutte earlier in July over failing to reach an agreement regarding refugee intake.

Subscribe now

Dutch politics has always been heavily fragmented, the Netherlands have had coalition governments for more than a hundred years. In recent decades the popularity of major parties, centre-right and left, have experienced steep decline. In the 1980s these two parties would receive more than 80% of the vote, whereas now combined they barely secure 40% of the nation’s voter share. Of course, this trend is happening across continental Europe, but it is accentuated in the Netherlands where up to 20 parties have an elected member in the previous collapsed parliament, the complicated coalition negotiations of which took 10 months to agree upon. An incredible 26 parties participated in the election last week.

The question this article seeks to explore is what Australian dissidents can learn from the rise and electoral victory of the national-populist party PVV. I believe it is demonstration that a minor party focussed on a single issue can succeed in the right circumstances. Now, obviously as mentioned above Dutch politics have always had a strong multi-party system, this stands in stark contrast with Australia where, while also allowing multiple parties to run, our Westminster system allows two major parties dominate year after year.

Subscribe now

Australian and Dutch voters share similar political concerns; immigration, high international student intake, housing crisis, inflation and the erosion of national culture. PVV received signifiant support for its staunch opposition to immigration and Islamification of the Netherlands - if a minor party in Australia were to adopt similar stances and combine them with a clean and professional presentation, they would likely garner similar support to the PVV. Research and polling on the Australian public’s opinion of immigration is rare, but the data that is available clearly indicates a majority opposed to present and greater levels of intake. It would be very interesting to observe a minor party with narrowly focussed rhetoric centred around immigration and rejuvenating Australian culture. Both Liberal & Labor are not going to budge on mass migration, many voters already feel disillusioned with these options, polling data shows that in recent years increasing amounts of the vote share has been given to independents and minor parties. One could expect this voting bloc of dissatisfied citizens to only grow as the ongoing record high immigration and student visa policy start to effect everyday life and worsen the housing crisis.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

Watching the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and pouring over the maps a landmark caught my curiosity. Southeast of Gaza city, where the crux of the fighting is currently ongoing, just 30 minute drive is a monument to the ANZACs. The Australian and New Zealand involvement is often focused on Western Europe and Gallipoli, my time in school particularly did not make any mention of the ANZAC battles through the Levant region. After a diving into the history of the war here I was astounded that it is not a part of common knowledge, not only for significance in a strategic sense but purely for their captivating and brilliantly executed manoeuvres.

The ANZAC’s were originally deployed to Egypt to defend from the Ottoman and German offensive which aimed to capture the Suez Canal, most of which had served previous in the Gallipoli campaign. By capturing the canal, the Axis would starve the Allies of resources, mainly oil. In 1915, these opening invasions were repelled by the British and ANZAC’s. In the next year following the Allied forces earned a significant victoriy in Romani to the east. In order to completely secure the Suez Canal, and assure the supply chain of the Allies in the Western theatre, the allied forces would have to capture Palestine, Jerusalem and much of Ottoman Syria.

After Romani, the next significant battle was fought over Gaza City. The German-led Ottoman’s were deeply entrenched and well-fortified. Two major battles occurred in March and again in April of 1917 resulting in Allied defeat, failing to capture the city both times. The ANZAC forces had been deployed to secure the flanks during both invasions, feeling underutilised and not involved. To break this stalemate over Gaza, Allied command looked to the far end of the Ottoman defensive line. Unable to break through at Gaza they sought to penetrate the enemy line at the far end in a small, isolated desert town called Beersheba, now Be’er Sheva, and be able to exert more pressure on Gaza.

The battle plan was very complicated, the British XX infantry corps would attack Beersheba in conventional means from the east. But the ANZAC light horsemen would charge from the west, to execute this they would have to march in total darkness at night for 40-56km to circle around the town. Preparing for the battle was complicated, Beersheba is over 40km from the coast so supplying the men and horses with water was extremely difficult. Soldiers could only carry a limited amount in their battle packs and they marched then deployed for the battle in harsh desert conditions where water was extremely scarce. The command knew if they failed to take Beersheba or if retreating Ottoman forces sabotaged the water springs many of their soldiers and horses would suffer severe dehydration and endure many casualties.

At this point in World War One, calvary tactics had changed significantly. Gone were the days of mass calvary charges due to the use of machine guns and pivot to extensive trench warfare. Early on the Allies understood how detrimental charges were, enduring heavily loses in battles on the Western front. However, desperate to break the stalemate the British command were persuaded by Australian leadership to trust them to succeed. The Battle of Beersheba begun with heavy allied shelling on Ottoman positions and the British infantry began the main assault from the west and the horseman marched on the opposite side. Expecting the horseman to dismount, as horse infantry had often done at this point in the war, instead the Ottomans were charged and caught off-guard, scrambling to realign their machine guns and artillery. The horseman charged through machine gun fire, shells exploding around them and shrapnel scattering in all directions. Upon reaching the Ottoman trenches a segment of the ANZAC’s dismounted and heavy hand-to-hand ensured. Amazing reports of the cavalry vaulting the trenches to push on and fight deeper in Ottoman groupings to prevent resource sabotage and prevent artillery piece evacuation paint the heroic image of the ANZAC soldiers. The battle of Beersheba was a success and the water springs were captured mostly undamaged. This provided 60,000 allied troops with a reliable water supply. Leading to the fall of the Ottoman defensive line and eventually the Allied victory in the Third Battle of Gaza. This famous battle deserves to be remembered and it’s heroes celebrated.

-The Charge of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba, 1917. Painted by George Lambert in 1920.

Lest we forget.

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

In every conflict, no matter the location, period in history or particularities of the warring Nations the underlying motive, when all jingoism and propaganda boiled away is difference. Although difference does not necessitate armed conflict, conflict would not arise were difference absent. Whether this be an irreconcilable difference in culture, the militant dedication to different Gods, a gaping difference in access to natural resources or strategic locations - difference creates opportunity for disagreement and conflict.

Subscribe now

The War in Ukraine is no exception. Underlying all the events that have unfolded since Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a special military operation in February this year is the same fault-line beneath so many conflicts in human history, two peoples with too much difference are crammed too close together. And yes, this is despite the fact that Ukrainians and Russians share an overwhelming amount of their culture, history, language, traditions and values. The imbalance between the two nation’s military capabilities, administration, geographical location and the relatively tiny amount of history that has driven a wedge between the nations have created a situation where war was considered necessary.

Further, if you think the difference between Russia and Ukraine is laughable, just wait until you hear about the sharp divide that runs between the southeast and northwest of Ukraine. Despite once being within the same nation, various territories in Ukraine’s southeast this year voted to split from Ukraine’s Northwest to join Russia.

Subscribe now

The United States and NATO powers have exploited this natural friction as a power move against the Russian state. This is a feature of great power politics, and the West has a history of meddling in conflicts to maintain the status quo in Europe and in Russian, such as the 1853 Crimean War.

The fact that this fissure existed prior to NATO involvement is an argument against multiculturalism. Why didn’t these societies simply become a cosmopolitan melting pot living in harmony, peace and prosperity? What lead Ukraine to banning the Russian language? The differences between Russia and Ukraine are minuscule - so much so that portions of the Ukrainian SouthEast joined Russia without any meaningful changed! In light of this, how can Western leaders expect positive outcomes from our multicultural experiment in which peoples with severe and pronounced cultural differences are bought together?

Subscribe now

To anyone paying attention, the impending Ukraine/Russia-style culture clash in the West is obvious, just as it was to those living in Ukraine. As early as 1992, many were able to predict the coming Russia-Ukraine conflict due to the escalation in Crimea:

Western media loves to repeat Putins quote when he stated that, “the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.” However, perhaps to the surprise of many in the West, many Russians share this sentiment with their President: in the Soviet Union, if nothing else, Russia was united. In the 21st Century Russians are separated, living apart under a slew of very modern states, Ukraine being only one example. Much like the Austro-Hungarian empire, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, Yugoslavia and as of 2022, Ukraine, multiculturalism breeds conflict. Australia, and the rest of the Western world would be wise to learn this lesson from history.