Russia’s ‘hybrid’ wars and China’s belligerent expansionism

A game about he Russian tactic of maskirovka, Moscow’s hybrid war

The Wikileaks revelations described the Russian Federation as a ‘Mafia state’, but is this really such startling news? It was obvious soon after a drunken Yeltsin virtually gifted the resource-rich state industries to highly-placed and cunning apparatchiks that Russia resembled the Wild West rather than developing a conventional system of government for the world’s largest state. Bloomberg’s article here details the the effect of hybrid wars on the Russian economy.

Yeltsin’s actions, and the failure of the political classes to stop him, robbed the extremely poor of the true value of the nation’s assets, running into hundreds of billions of pounds. The instability inherent in what amounts to an unsound economic policy brought about massive losses to these new super-rich a couple of years back because of the volatility of the Russian market. The last decade has also seen oligarchs being jailed or fleeing the country altogether, their underlings being murdered and press freedoms curbed – even to the extent of organised murder of journalists – to stifle debate and possible dissent. 

China is attempting to expand its territory and increase its natural resources, against the wish of smaller nearby states.. Artificial islands are under construction in the disputed South China Sea as the Chinese state makes relentless efforts to expand it’s geographical boundaries at the expense of its neighbours. In 2012 the Communist Party reclassified the South China Sea as a “core national interest”, placing it alongside such sensitive issues as Taiwan and Tibet. It means China is prepared to fight to defend it. 

Beijing’s claim includes the Spratly Islands, Scarborough Shoal and the Paracel Islands and the area it encompasses comprises an “expanse stretching right up to the coasts of the Philippines and Vietnam and even Borneo.” The vast majority of the South China Sea is claimed by the Chinese, in an area which is demarcated on maps by the ‘nine dash line’. 

This territorial ultimatum by China is yet another example of the Asian superstates flexing their muscles knowing that their surrounding neighbours are too small and weak to make a stand. To resolve this imbalance these countries are forced to align themselves with the US, or as in the case of Ukraine, the EU, in order to make the playing field more even. Of course, alignment with the US is deeply unpopular to the world at large, paradoxically because they see the US as ‘the bully’ or thinking of itself as ‘the world’s policeman’. Such arguments provide no resolution to the problem of the balance of power between smaller states and superstates, nor the possibility that China and Russia will almost inevitably seek to take advantage of the weaknesses of more democratic states and their unwillingness to stand up to them.

The most alarming aspect of this new world is that, in twenty-five, maybe fifty years, it will be Russia that will have the single largest economy – along with China – and they will probably be calling the shots (no pun intended). Many in Europe fear the spread of Islam, and their fear may be justified if it concerns those involved in terrorism. What the fundamentalists should fear – along with us – is the new world order that is about to emerge. The freedoms that we cherish and that the Islamic fundamentalists despise may be swept away by these countries as they expand, but the paradox will be that none of us will gain from a ‘Mafia’ overlord and fledgling democracy overseen by a proletariat in the coming generation. You only have to look at human rights in China, and the treatment of the Uighur Muslims in Urumqi, and what happened in Georgia and Azerbaijan to realise what the future may bring. These superstates are slowly expanding and will become larger as time goes on. We are feeding crocodiles here and weill will be on their menu in the future.


Will the Muslim-on-Muslim war now come to Britain?

When listening to the news about Islam in the UK, a term that is frequently heard is ‘British Muslim’, but I have been saying for almost a decade now that such a notion – certainly not just a name – is anathema to those who live in Muslim lands. Islam does not recognise frontiers and neither does it allow the gradation of being Muslim, which is exactly what the term implies, that is, if you are a British Muslim, then there must be something about the Islam that you follow that is different from other Muslims and their beliefs. In short it is considered heretical.  We in the West have acknowledged this subtle distinction for over a decade now, as it has been currency since the aftermath of 9/11, but the shift is not so subtle for hard-line Muslims abroad. Their core belief is ‘either you are a brother, or you’re not’. 

Muslims based in western democracies have had a hard time since 2001, as non-Muslims have attempted to elicit from them the condemnation that most people in a democratic society would want to hear, from those who share a religion with fundamentalist terrorists. That can’t have been easy as they grappled with the political and religious implications of what was taking place. Worse was to come.

British police issued a warning on Friday to prominent Muslims in the UK of a video made by extremists linked to Somalia’s al-Shabaab militants, which reportedly threatens the lives of prominent British Muslims who it claims are “enemies of Islam.” Don’t underestimate the threat therein: it is not just aimed at Britain and the deportation of Abu (the Hook) Hamza as it names several prominent Muslims that condemned terrorist attacks, such as the murder of Lee Rigby. They argue that  ‘British Muslims’ have assimilated into British society, thereby acquiring a bastardisation of the straight path – al mustaqeem – that the radicals deem is Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad is supposed to have lead a perfect life and the Qur’an is supposed to be the ‘perfect word of Allah’ thus neither can be changed, not by a covenant nor failure to emulate the Prophet in all his beliefs and deeds. An example of this is the Prophet’s marriage to 6 year old Aisha, which he consummated when she was 9. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that that is what happened 1,500 years ago and, indeed, many European kings contracted marriages to children in the middle-ages, though normally for the purposes of ensuring peace. However, the Prophet’s ‘protected’ and ‘perfect’ life leaves many arguing that what was good enough for the Prophet is good enough for them. This is but one example of the difficulties facing Islam in the 21 century.

The fact that Muslims are making jihadist death threats to other Muslims means that they no longer consider them to be following the faith – al mustaqeem – and thus they are kafireen because they are deemed to be ‘denying’ their religion.  This is indeed a serious and unprecedented development because now the intimidation and even execution of ‘British’ Muslims may well follow in the wake of this watershed threat.