Ukraine's Retreat From Avdiivka And Its Implications on Russia-Ukraine war.

M A Hossain, 

The fall of Avdiivka is the first major gain for Russian forces since May of last year. The recent decision by Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi to withdraw units from Avdiivka in the Donetsk region has changed the dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and bears a significant impact on the geopolitical landscape. 

Avdiivka is considered a strategic transportation hub for Russian forces since it captured the nearby city of Bakhmut in May of the previous year. The Ukrainian army's tactical redevelopment of defense from Avdiivka aimed to reduce the attrition of war. Gen. Syrskyi said in a statement, "Based on the operational situation around Avdiivka, in order to avoid encirclement and preserve the lives and health of servicemen, I decided to withdraw our units from the city and move to defense on more favorable lines."

According to the battle situation in Avdiivka, Russia enjoyed superiority in firepower and personnel over Ukraine. In addition, Russian forces were highly motivated to recapture Avdiivka, supported by heavy artillery bombardment, even though its fighters suffered a staggering number of casualties. There was a report that some Ukrainian servicemen fell into Russia's captivity.

However, the retreat from Avdiivka comes amidst challenges for Ukraine, including a shortage of ammunition supply. Moreover, the Biden administration is struggling to pass the foreign aid budget of US$60 billion in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Pentagon spokesman, Patrick Ryder, stated a few months back that Washington would have to choose between its combat readiness and the provision of weapons to Ukraine due to a shortage of financial resources. Additionally, at a summit in Brussels last year, EU leaders failed to agree on a four-year plan of €60 billion for Ukraine. Definitely, this uncertainty in Western support has weakened Kyiv's confidence and lowered the morale of servicemen.

As the conflict exceeded its two-year mark, Western leaders have become a bit reluctant to provide long-term and unconditional support for Ukraine. Moreover, the Hamas-Israel conflict has distracted and deprioritized the Ukraine issue for Western leaders. After the month of April, the Biden administration will have to be more calculated regarding the Ukraine issue. Mainly, if Donald Trump or the Republican Party wins the upcoming 2024 US presidential election, it could lead to a significant change in the course of the Russia-Ukraine war. A Republican president would likely reduce assistance to Ukraine and engage in diplomatic talks to end the conflict.

In my previous article, "Zelenskyy's Fate Hangs in Delusion and Illusion," I predicted Russia's extensive offensive operations with the ambition to seize new territories, which would play a crucial role in shaping the narrative that could fuel Mr. Putin's election campaign. Consequentially, this new battlefield victory in Avdiivka will enhance Mr. Putin's popularity and legitimacy among the Russian people in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. No doubt, the Avdiivka issue will present Mr. Putin as a strong leader and defender of their national interests and sovereignty against foreign interference.

The Western media also provided meticulous analysis and expressed frustration regarding the loss of Avdiivka. CNN commented that the loss of Avdiivka is an undeniable blow to Ukraine. The New York Times described the chaotic situation of the Ukrainian army's retreat from Avdiivka. A military analyst, Mykola Bielieskov from the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Ukraine, said in an interview, "Taking control of Avdiivka is an opening for Russia because Avdiivka was a crucial strong point in the Ukrainian system of defense. It protected Pokrovsk, about 30 miles (48.28 kilometers) to the Northwest, a logistical hub for the Ukrainian army."

From a military perspective, there are some tactical advantages and disadvantages of Avdiivka for Russian forces. Firstly, Avdiivka will serve as a gateway to Donetsk for Russia, acting as terrain for launching offensive operations to capture Donetsk. It also holds strategic importance for any commander to utilize as a communication and logistic hub. There is a Coke Plant in Avdiivka that will facilitate electricity supply to the Russian force. Air superiority in Avdiivka would facilitate operations for the Russian ground force. 

However, there are also challenges for the Russian force. Holding Avdiivka requires more troops due to its fortified build-up area. Mechanized infantry would face challenges due to large concrete fortifications and infrastructure. According to the intel report, Russia has very limited reserves in this region, hindering any further counteroffensive against Ukraine.

Putin stated in the interview with Carlson that Russia will not attack Poland or the three Baltic countries. If Russia maintains such strong combat capabilities and domestic stability, then it is obvious that internal pressure would be created from Ukraine to change the leadership. And, of course, from a military standpoint, the victory is now tilted towards Russia, making it a daydream for the Ukrainian force to launch another counteroffensive when logistic aid is waning.

The Ukrainian side claims that Russian forces enjoyed ten times more artillery firepower in Avdiivka. Following the Avdiivka attack, Russia is now in the driver's seat to determine regional stability and its geopolitical implications. Thus far, Russia has not initiated a nationwide war mobilization, a decisive factor for the winning side. Currently, the optimum course of action for the West could be taken by strengthening the Ukrainian military-industrial complex and providing training facilities for Ukrainian forces. Until the presidential election concludes in the USA, maintaining the 'status quo' is the most favorable scenario for both countries. Undoubtedly, Mr. Putin will be in a cheerful mood, regardless of future developments.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.  He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Pakistan Today, Pak : 29 Feb'24

2. Daily Observer, BD : 29 Feb'24

3. Indian Defence Review, India: 01 Mar'24

4. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 02Mar'24

5. The Asian Age, BD: 03 Mar'24

6. VT Foreign Policy, USA : 02 Mar'24

Is There A Significant Shift In Bangladesh-US Relations?

M. A. Hossain,

A dramatic shift in the United States' stance is being observed after the January 7 general election in Bangladesh. The Biden administration consistently stressed the commencement of a free, fair, and participatory election throughout the electoral process. Since then, the dynamics of bilateral relations have gone through ups and downs.

Recently, US President Joe Biden penned a letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, expressing to move forward with common interests in this region. Although the Biden administration explicitly acknowledges its dissatisfaction regarding the last parliament election, nevertheless, it is Sheikh Hasina who has formed a government after the last parliamentary election with an absolute majority, securing her fourth consecutive term. The content of this letter hints at a promising 'new chapter' in bilateral relations.

For the past six months, neither a delegation from Dhaka nor Washington has visited the other country for talks, as there was an understanding that visits during election time would not be appropriate. However, a delegation led by US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Afreen Akhter is now scheduled to arrive in Dhaka on February,8.

The team aims to engage with the Director General of the North America Wing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with further bilateral discussions potentially involving the foreign secretary and various other meetings. Prior to the election, the United States had expressed concerns about civil rights, freedom of expression in Bangladesh, even going as far as concluding in a post-election statement that the voting process had not been entirely free and fair.

Prof. Shahidul Haque, former foreign secretary, and Bangabandhu chair at Delhi University, believes that diplomatic behavior evolves with time and circumstances, urging for a nuanced perspective. "Each country has different priorities at different times… I think we should think of it from that point of view," he remarked.

The letter initiates with a mutual focus on regional and global security concerns, but after all, it is a matter of great significance in Biden's communication with Sheikh Hasina. Bangladesh historically emphasizes an economic pact, but the letter highlights collaboration between Bangladesh and the US in various areas, including regional and global security, addressing the Rohingya crisis, and a mutual commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. This collaboration extends to encompass economic development, climate change, and energy initiatives.

Bangladesh aspires to achieve its developed status by 2041 and has introduced various economic activities like construction of large infrastructures, radical changes in the education system. The magnitude of these endeavors necessitates not only financial support but also technical expertise, technology transfer, and educational assistance. The United States is considered a potential contributor in those areas beyond just financing.

Contrastingly, the United States, boasting a $27 trillion economy, views bilateral trade with Bangladesh, standing at approximately $10 billion, as noteworthy but not necessarily pivotal compared to other geopolitical considerations. While bilateral trade holds importance for Bangladesh, it's perceived differently by the US. The $10 billion trade volume is considered less significant in the broader context, leading to a shift in focus towards evaluating Bangladesh through a comprehensive security perspective, encompassing both core and non-core aspects.

The United States wants to keep the South Asian region stable, defying over-dependence of any nation towards China. Bangladesh, for its significant geostrategic position, is being lured by the USA to align Dhaka with Washington’s initiative for a free and open Indo-Pacific strategy. The US eyes fostering collaboration on various fronts, especially security measures.

Dhaka and Washington prioritize its security cooperation on training, information sharing, peacekeeping efforts, maritime security, and the fight against terrorism and extremism. Recent developments include the provision of state-of-the-art drones by the US to Bangladesh. Additionally, both countries collaborate on issues such as climate change, food security, and energy security.

At present, preserving regional stability is paramount. Instability in Bangladesh could have significant consequences for the entire South Asian region. Presently, the region is grappling with a critical situation. Political influence and military conflict are in this region's discourse. So, safeguarding the stability of the region is imperative and should not be compromised.

While unease preceding the election might gradually dissipate in Dhaka-Washington relations, lingering effects could surface, particularly concerning labor rights, with potential ramifications in international forums such as Brussels and Geneva.

The delicate balance between different superpowers is now more consequential than ever. For Bangladesh, it becomes exceptionally challenging to support any side fully, risking diplomatic catastrophe. Striking a balance with all global powers and maintaining its foreign policy, historic relationships, and reality becomes more imperative. Dhaka must pursue policies that align with its national interests.

In conclusion, the opening of a new chapter in bilateral relations between Bangladesh and America must lead to mutual collaboration and cooperation. This relationship will align their priorities, strengthening common objectives such as security, economic development, and regional stability. Both nations would benefit from a strengthened partnership addressing mutual concerns that have a significant impact on the global stage.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.  He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Daily Observer, BD: 25 Feb'24

2. South Asia Journal, NJ, USA: 25Feb'24

3. The Asian Age, BD : 27 Feb'24

4. The Arabian Post, UAE : 27 Feb'24

5. South Asia Monitor, India: 01 Mar'24

6. Highland Post, India: 29 Feb'24

7. VT Foreign Policy, USA : 03 Mar'24

Blinken's Cacophony and Another Clarion Call For Disrupting World Order.

M A Hossain, 

During a public forum at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken remarked, "If you are not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." He also emphasized, "It is important for us to re-engage multilaterally, and we have done that."  Almost two decades ago, the world grappled with similar rhetoric from the then-President, George W. Bush: "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make—either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." The aftermath of Bush's declaration witnessed a systematic destabilization by the West. The US-backed 'War on Terror' failed to bring peace and destabilized previously peaceful countries. In the name of the 'war on terror', the US military-industrial complex and technology giants have made huge profits through contracts with the US military and other government agencies.  Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," uncovers the heartbreaking truths behind such taunts from the United States.

 Blinken's rhetoric coincides with a period where Biden's global influence is dimming. Notably, Biden's Ukraine venture turned into a complete mess. The Hamas-Israel conflict somewhat serves as a distraction from the Ukraine debacle. However, global leaders are increasingly skeptical of the Biden administration's reliance. The attempt to open a new front in Yemen appears to mask their struggles in Israel. Biden's failure to exert control over ally Netanyahu and navigate relations with Arab nations has contributed to the skepticism. Additionally, Global South nations are becoming hesitant regarding US demands, highlighting the missteps of the Biden administration in shaping global geopolitics.

The "War on Terror," declared by President George W. Bush in 2001, exacerbated divisions globally. This conflict exposed a crusade mentality with Islamophobia and xenophobia, aligning with Samuel P. Huntington's concept in "Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order." The transformation of the war from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency and followed by nation-building missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya highlighted the inconsistencies of the West. When President Biden assumed his office, he said" the mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to be for nation-building". The statement clearly exposed his tendency to bring global conflicts, destabilizing regions and excluding rivals from the negotiation table.

Indeed, the historical record shows instances where Western leaders, including the false claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, demonstrated a pattern of deception. Similarly, the portrayal of the war in Afghanistan as successful contradicted the reality of the situation.

Blinken's rhetoric serves to highlight that the expenditure in US-led wars often functions as a means to channel money out of the tax bases of Western nations and their allies, ultimately benefiting defense contractors. This echoes President Dwight D. Eisenhower's caution about the influence of the military-industrial complex, emphasizing how the United States is influenced by its whims. The war on terror, with its questionable outcomes and financial implications, aligns with Eisenhower's concern about the complex's impact on the nation.

On the other hand, China, an economic superpower, has adopted the policy to promote multi-alignment among countries, described as 'balance diplomacy' and 'positive balancing.' Chinese foreign policies are designed in a way that appeals to countries in the Global South that feel increasingly alienated from the US-led rules-based international order. After the Saudi-Iran breakthrough, Beijing began to position itself as an impartial and trustworthy partner. China does not influence or interfere in other countries' domestic affairs and refrains from 'war-opportune economic' gains. However, since President George W. Bush launched the war on terror in September 2001, the top five US defense industry companies—Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics—have earned $2.2 trillion from Afghanistan alone. 

Blinken's statement is considered a political misadventure for the Biden administration, which reflects a broader trend of declining US influence in today's multipolar world. Economically and militarily, the Global South is emerging as a leading power, and it is challenging the traditional hegemony of the West, particularly the United States. Moreover, Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi said in Munich Conference, " The world's second-largest economy cannot be sliced out of world trade."

The struggle that the United States has faced to garner support for the 'Yemen campaign' illustrates the diminishing ability of allies to rally. The lack of nations willing to engage in a war for US interests signals a shift in global dynamics. Even longstanding allies, such as Israel, appear less inclined to align with US requirements. This growing isolation has led to the US being exposed to accusations of engaging in dirty politics, contributing to its status as a pariah nation on the international stage.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Modern Diplomacy, EU: 21 Feb'24

2. Policy Watcher: 20 Feb'24

3. Daily Times, Pak : 21 Feb'24

4. South Asia Monitor, India : 22 Feb'24

5. VT Foreign Policy, USA : 01 Mar'24

6. The Catch Line, Pak : 27 Feb'24

Trump's Next Presidency Promises a Significant Shift From The Past.

M A Hossain,

According to all recent polls, Donald Trump is projected to win by a landslide against Joe Biden or any of the Democratic Party candidates. Over the past four years, Biden has created a series of mess-ups both in the United States and worldwide due to his disastrous diplomacy—from Afghanistan to Ukraine and now Gaza. Moreover, Joe Biden has also been attempting to ignite another proxy war in Taiwan, thus pushing America into the rivalry against two powerful nations: Russia and China.

Meanwhile, political pundits in most nations worldwide have begun evaluating the potential consequences of Trump’s presidency or the fate of Biden’s decisions, including the war in Ukraine. Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during the Munich Security Conference, vowed to continue the war indefinitely and sought financial and military assistance from the United States and European nations, everything may dramatically change after November 5, 2024 this year. Donald Trump is not in favor of giving billions of dollars to Ukraine to continue its war against Russia. Trump may also make almost similar decisions regarding Israel’s ongoing war against Gaza. Many analysts suggest that Trump’s next presidency might not be good news for Hamas or its patrons, including Qatar, as he may initiate some extremely tough measures in these cases.

Donald Trump’s next presidency may bring surprises to many nations worldwide, especially Iran, Ukraine, and Palestine. While he might succeed in pressuring Zelensky into reaching a peace deal with Russia, it is still too early to predict if Zelensky will be able to do so. He would face tremendous pressure from his generals and the top brass of the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalions. Unless he convinces them, it would not be surprising if Volodymyr Zelensky is ousted from power and forced to flee Ukraine. In that case, Ukraine may enter the second phase of war against Russia under the command of its military generals and the Azov Battalions. This could indeed become a real Herculean task for Trump. Similarly, Trump’s hardline approach towards Palestinians and any punitive measures against Hamas and Qatar may generate further complications once pro-Iran forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern nations begin direct war against Israel.

As Donald Trump’s victory on November 5,2024 is becoming almost imminent, there is debate on his public perception – which at least until now says – he is arrogant, slanderous, hot-headed and reckless. He also has been cruel - to a certain degree - to illegal immigrants, particularly Muslims. Most importantly, Donald Trump during the previous term had aborted the globalist formula and restricted the US from playing the role of the world cop – America First is his mantra. Trump had mainly focused on America’s domestic issues while he initiated construction of the wall to stop migrant floodgates from South American and other nations. This particular decision had received huge criticism from the Democrats and their loyal media. As a result, when Biden won the election in 2020, he almost opened the borders thus enabling hundreds and thousands of illegal migrants to enter the United States, which now has turned into one of the major headaches for America and Americans.

With all of these track records, one may ask, shall Donald Trump show even more aggressive attitude once he sits in the Oval Office?

According to my own assessment, during the past few years of his facing continuous assault from Biden, US establishment and intelligence agency's cruel persecution, possibly Trump now realizes, the key issues that he needs to take care are very much within his own country, while none of the foreign nations or races pose threat to America - neither China, nor Russia or even Muslims.

Donald Trump possibly now also understands, unless American politicians, particularly Washington swamps are stopped for good, the country shall ultimately push towards a civil war, where 450 million weapons would come out of households thus turning the US into far-worse chaotic than Libya or Iraq.

For the post-November 5, 2024 new  POTUS, the priority should be to address crises, problems, and potential threats within their own country rather than assuming the role of a global cop. Congress President Joe Biden has extended armed conflicts worldwide, aligning with a faction of warmongers whose economic interests converge with him, and it costs lives and diminishes respect for American society. President Biden initiated controversial agendas beginning with Ukraine and concluding with Yemen, facing complete debacles everywhere and opening new war fronts as a fig leaf to conceal his failures.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in America are suffering from a leadership vacuum. Both parties face the oldest leadership in American history. This is very harmful in the American political context. As a number one superpower, the leader must have strong physical and mental appearance. Moreover, there is a wide gap in public opinion and popularity between Donald Trump and his closest rival, Nikki Haley, in the Republican Party. Similarly, there is no immediate successor to Joe Biden in Congress.

The national intelligence agencies have exhibited unprecedented political bias in American history under the last two presidents. This biased state of affairs in organizations has led to a gradual decline in America's influence worldwide. The nation is slipping away from its once-held position as the number one superpower. When state institutions display favoritism towards a political party, the governance system of that country tends to weaken, ultimately leading to collapse. Both Trump and Biden have employed similar tactics to target each other, which exhibited the erosion of democratic morality in the American political landscape.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump has pledged to resolve the conflict within 24 hours and would encourage Zelensky to implement the US-proposed deal. Trump's foreign policy stance is clear that he would prioritize from a globalist to a nationalist approach. Conversely, Biden is accused of destabilizing the Balkans and Europe, hindering their path to prosperity. This is considered one of Donald Trump's significant manifesto – maintaining peace globally. Indeed, Donald Trump stands out as the only president who actively avoided seeking war in any region. His commitment to maintaining peace and reluctance to engage in conflicts set him apart from his predecessors, making him a unique figure in recent political history. Trump aims to sustain this approach, although he has shown favoritism towards Israel in the past, and this is expected to continue. He plans to exert pressure on Iran, keeping its proxy forces occupied through third parties. It wouldn't be surprising if Trump opts for a more robust stance against Iran.

Trump's presidency has been successful in certain areas, as evidenced by the initiatives he set in motion, many of which the Biden administration has continued without minimal alterations. Notably, Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, and the Biden administration, despite promises, has made no progress on that deal. The new trade war strategy of Trump against China, has persisted under the Biden administration. Trump's one-sided policy for favoring Israel remains unchanged during Biden's tenure.  And the Biden administration could not bring any paradigm shift towards peace talks. Additionally, Trump's strict stance on illegal immigrants and political asylum seekers is a focal point in his election campaign.

M A Hossain, a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.  He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Indian Defence Review, 20 Feb'24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD: 16 Feb'24

3. The Eastern Herald, India : 16 Feb'24

4. VT Foreign Policy, USA : 01Mar'24

 

 

Bangladesh's resilience against American pressure tactics. .

M A Hossain, 

In recent years, Bangladesh has found itself in the crosshairs of American political maneuvering, as Washington employs various tactics to assert its influence over the South Asian nation. From visa restrictions to sanctions, the United States has attempted to strong-arm Bangladesh into compliance, seemingly oblivious to the historical context and the resilient spirit of its people. Such actions are result of continuous attempts and lobbying efforts of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its ally Muhammad Yunus.

The roots of this strained relationship trace back to Bangladesh’s struggle for independence in 1971, when then-President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, attempted to thwart the nation’s bid for independence and sovereignty. Despite their efforts, Bangladesh emerged triumphant, shaking off the shackles of oppression and asserting its rightful place on the world stage.

However, the scars of that tumultuous period still linger, as evidenced by Washington’s imposition of sanctions on Bangladesh in 1974. Allegations of jute exports to Cuba served as a pretext for punitive measures, leading to a devastating famine that claimed the lives of thousands. The culpability of Nixon and Kissinger in this tragedy cannot be overstated, as their vindictive actions resulted in untold suffering for the Bengali people.

In this case, they are missing two significant points. Firstly, back in 1971, during the war of independence of Bangladesh, then US President Richard Nixon – who had later been proved as a man of highest disgust and his Secretary of State Heinz Alfred Kissinger aka Henry Kissinger made frantic bids in sabotaging aspiration of liberation from the clutches of Islamabad. In the end, attempts of Nixon-Kissinger was bogged-down in the deep waters of Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh emerged as an independent and sovereign nation. Secondly, in 1974, Washington imposed sanctions of Bangladesh by bringing allegations of exporting jute to Cuba. This was America’s first sanctions on a newly-born country, which was responsible for 1974 famine. According to government’s estimation, over 27,000 people dies of this famine while unofficial sources put the figure at 1.5 million. This famine is considered one of the worst in 20th century. Meaning, Nixon and Kissinger were mainly responsible for the death of such a large number of people. In other words – by imposing sanctions on Bangladesh, American policymakers had committed crime against humanity. According to many analysts, through this sanctions, Nixon and Kissinger took revenge on Bengali people for not bowing-down to notorious desire of Washington and its attempts of foiling Bangladesh’s war of independence.

Fast forward to the present day, and Bangladesh once again finds itself in the crosshairs of American political machinations. The Biden administration, led by President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, continues to exert pressure on Dhaka, seeking to undermine the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Behind the facade of promoting democracy, Washington’s true intentions become clear: to destabilize Bangladesh and install a regime more amenable to its interests. This nefarious agenda is aided by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), accused of harboring connections with extremist elements, thereby posing a grave threat to the nation’s sovereignty and security.

It is indeed lamentable that some political leaders would align themselves with external forces bent on destabilizing their own country. The BNP’s collusion with Washington’s agenda undermines the democratic principles upon which Bangladesh was founded and jeopardizes the well-being of its citizens.

Moreover, the hypocrisy of American foreign policy is glaringly apparent when contrasted with its treatment of Pakistan. While Washington turns a blind eye to Pakistan’s descent into authoritarianism, it singles out Bangladesh for scrutiny under the guise of promoting democracy. This double standard exposes the true nature of American hegemony, which seeks to exploit weaker nations for its own gain.

In the face of such pressure tactics, Bangladesh must stand firm in defense of its sovereignty and democratic principles. The resilience and determination that fueled the nation’s struggle for independence in 1971 must guide its response to contemporary challenges, ensuring that Bangladesh remains a beacon of democracy and stability in a tumultuous world.

Ultimately, Bangladesh should not fear America’s scarecrow tactics, for the spirit of its people cannot be broken by external pressures. By remaining steadfast in the face of adversity, Bangladesh will continue to chart its own course, free from the interference of foreign powers bent on manipulation and control.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com 

This article published at :

1. The Daily Observer, BD: 15 Feb 24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD:11 Feb 24

3. The Asian Age, BD: 16 Feb'24

4. The CatchLine, Pak: 18 Feb'24

Pakistan Under the Grab of Pseudo Military Rule.

M A Hossain, 

Following the ousting of Prime Minister Imran Khan's government, a discernible anticipation prevailed among the politically astute regarding the conduct of elections in Pakistan. Even though, the constitutionally caretaker government conducted the election, but, it was evident that it failed to ensure a "level playing fields" for all parties. Former Prime Minister Imran's imprisonment followed by a crackdown on PTI leaders and workers resulted in a tense atmosphere in the election. 

The Election Commission of Pakistan strongly complained that they didn't do justice to them. PTI supporters found themselves compelled to enter the polls as 'independent candidates,' devoid of the party's familiar symbols, and encountered obstacles during campaigning. When Khan put in jail and made him ineligible to contest due to multiple convictions, there was a doubt that PTI's popularity and increased sympathy might not be exhibited at the ballot box. Consequently, the expectation was that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), led by three-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, would ascend to power, as the most confidante of the military. 

Despite the military backing, the darling of General's realization did not materialize in the Pakistani elections. After facing numerous challenges, Imran's supporters exhibited remarkable unity and unwavering determination, ultimately securing victory. Although not officially recognized as a party, their confidence in Imran Khan's leadership is undeniable, at least no single party has attained an outright majority.

While Imran's supporters secured the majority of seats, Nawaz Sharif, now aligned with the military, the country's influential and enduring power broker, swiftly moved to initiate a government formation. Discussions have commenced with key figures from the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who finished third in the polls. Despite the coalition agreement between these two parties, demonstrating support from winners of other parties is imperative to establish their majority. Consequently, efforts may be made to attract successful independents from outside the PTI fold.

Imran's party, despite being the single largest, faces obstacles in staking a claim due to the intricacies of the 'post-poll alliance,' with preference given to Nawaz Sharif's party. The final steps in Pakistan's political landscape will now be orchestrated by the military establishment. Despite the numerical disparity in seats, intervention from Rawalpindi is expected to facilitate the formation of a new alliance under Nawaz Sharif, projecting an appearance of democratic due process. This development further consolidates military control over the government, with the incumbent Prime Minister realizing that the coalition's longevity is contingent on General Munir's discretion.

Pakistan confronts a growing security challenge along its borders. Despite historical affiliations with the Afghan Taliban, Islamabad's relations with Kabul have strained due to cross-border terrorist incidents and the expulsion of numerous Afghan refugees, some of whom had resided in Pakistan for extended periods. Additionally, recent exchanges between Pakistan and Iran involve accusations regarding alleged militant bases on each other's territory. Furthermore, Islamabad has accused New Delhi of conducting an assassination campaign within its borders, which escalates tensions with its longstanding rival.

The evident reality is that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is poised to escalate its attacks in the aftermath of the elections, aiming to undermine the fragile coalition government. Anticipations suggest that in the coming spring, the TTP will significantly intensify its Pakistan Security Forces campaign, applying pressure on the new government to engage in negotiations and reach an agreement with the militant group.

Despite failing to secure a government formation, the supporters of Imran Khan are lauded for their resilient stance in an election perceived as one-sided against the influence of the powerful military. The West, including the previously criticized United States, now questions the election's integrity and calls for investigations into alleged interference. The motives behind such actions are unclear, raising skepticism about the authenticity of their 'value-based' stance. Changes in positions are evident, with varied perspectives across different countries.

Looking ahead, the political landscape of Pakistan is uncertain, influenced by Western actions and potential shifts in the military's stance. Amidst this, there are concerns that continuous political turmoil and militant attacks may pose a greater threat to the country's economy as well as its stability. Definitely, these will affect not only foreign lenders, investors, and commercial partners but also diminish public trust regardless of the political party in power.

This article published at :

1. Weekly Blitz, BD: 13 Feb24

2. Indian Defence Review: 14 Feb24

3. Good morning Kashmir: 14 Feb 24

4. Indian Defence News: 14 Feb 24

5. The Highland Post, Meghalaya: 17Feb24

Iran Takes a Step Closer to the Middle East Venture.

M. A. Hossain,

The conflict between Israel and Hamas has extended into the broader Middle East, escalating the likelihood of a confrontation between the regional power - Iran's 'Axis of Resistance' and the global power - the USA and its allies. Israel's continuous unlawful bombardment of Gaza results in new estimates of tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties every day. The Iranian-backed Shiite Quds Force has engaged in highly dangerous strikes with Israel and its patron, the US, spanning from the Red Sea to Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. This situation is contributing to the evolving political discourse surrounding the right of Palestinians to live peacefully.

Now, following the latest militia attack on Tower 22, the US military outpost in Jordan, it is thrusting President Biden into the greatest crisis of his presidency. This is not what the president or his top aides expected or hoped for. Before this, the US and Iran had avoided directly confronting each other. The US has attacked Iranian proxy forces in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, while Iran-backed militias have targeted the US and its allies in Iraq and Syria. Tehran has also struck what it dubbed as anti-Iran groups in Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan. Since the beginning of the Gaza war, it was the first time U.S. troops were killed by enemy attacks in the Middle East, increasing significant pressure on Biden and risking a new war in an election year.

The historical rivalry between Iran and the US traces back to political events, notably the 1953 CIA-backed coup that removed Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Subsequently, the relations got more strain during the post-1979 Iranian revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis. Ongoing geopolitical challenges, like nuclear programs and regional influence, has also stoked the flare. 

Iran has been consistently opposing the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East. In retaliation, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC) started building an extensive network of anti-Western and anti-Israel militias in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen over several decades. Iran provided training and funding these Shiite militia groups, and they are more accountable to the authorities of the IRGC in Tehran than to their respective governments.

The Hamas attack against Israel on October 7th, 2023, was the first step to unfold the Shia domination maneuver in the Middle East. Then came Hezbollah's endeavor to displace 70,000 Israelis with its attack on northern Israel, followed by tens of dozens of IRGC-sponsored militia strikes on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and the Houthi's attacks against commercial and military shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

In Iraq, Tehran wields significant influence on various Shiite militias closely tied to the IRGC. These include Kataib Hezbollah, Harkat al Najuba, Kataib Sayyid al Shuhada, and recently the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Iraq is also home to IRGC-funded Badar Organization, as well as Asaib Ahl al Haq. The US has deployed some 2500 troops at various bases in Iraq. In Syria, Iran has a direct presence with the Quds Force, an elite unit of the IRGC. The forces deployed after the 2011 uprising to support the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Syria also hosts the Shiite militia groups named Zainabiyoun and Fatemiyoun Brigades. The US has 800 forces in Syria as part of a mission to defeat ISIS.

In Jordan, about 3000 U.S. troops are stationed and facilitate strategic tactical advantages like intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance missions for Syria and Iraq. Lebanon is home to the most powerful Shiite militia force, Hezbollah. Hezbollah has war experience from the Iraq-Iran war. Yemen is mostly controlled by the Shiite militia Houthi. Hamas in Gaza is a Sunni militia group backed by Shia Iran. 80% of its budget comes from Iran. On the other hand, the Gulf states are also home to US troops. The US has 13,500 troops in Kuwait, 10,000 US Force in Qatar, more than 2700 troops in Saudi Arabia, and 3500 US personnel in the UAE. Turkey has 1465 US troops at Incirlik air base, and Bahrain hosts the Navy's fifth Fleet. After Hamas's incursion into Israel, Biden strengthened the US presence in the region, positioning additional air defense forces, two Aircraft carrier strike groups, and some 900 additional troops as a deterring posture.

Iran's long-cherished strategic aim is to drive U.S. troops out from the Middle East, ultimately paving the way for Iran's dominance in the region. Iran wants to play a decisive geopolitical and geostrategic role in the Middle East's perspective. On the other hand, Biden is under tremendous pressure to hit back at Tehran. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized Biden for not responding to previous attacks and appeasement gestures through nuclear talks, recent prisoner swaps, and unfreezing Iran's funds. The Biden administration has made a political blunder in offering unconditional support to Israel just after the Hamas raid. Again, Biden would be caught in another political blunder by directly retaliating against Iran. It has been a long-cherished desire by Netanyahu and his extremist cronies to drag the USA into a war against Iran and across the Middle East.

The US can't ignore the ICJ ruling that Israel must stop genocidal activities in Gaza. Moreover, Palestine and Iran issues have risked the US allies to give the USA carte blanche, especially France, Germany, Italy, and Gulf states. To counter the asymmetric attrition of the war of Iran and its proxy forces, the US needs a formidable alignment among its allies. Again, Israel's atrocities may justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine and furthermore assist anti-democratic geopolitics on the rise. It would be wise for the Pentagon to address the root causes of Palestine and put forward the two-state solution to the incumbent US legislative machinery. 

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.  He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at : 

1. Modern Diplomacy, EU: 01 Feb 24

2. The New Nation, BD: 02 Feb 24

3. Daily Times, Pakistan: 02 Feb 24

4. Eurasia Review, USA,01Feb24

5. The Asian Age, BD: 03 Feb 24

6. The Highland Post, shillong: 03Feb'24

7. The Pakistan Today, Pak : 09Feb'24