Connect with us


US denies Zimbabwe’s claims it is militarizing Zambia



AFRICOM Chief Refutes Allegations of Establishing a Military Base in Zambia

The head of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), General Michael Langley, firmly denied allegations made by Zimbabwean government officials that the United States is militarizing Zambia and planning to relocate AFRICOM operations from Germany. Speaking at an online press briefing, Langley addressed these claims directly from an African Chiefs of Defense Conference in Botswana.

US-Led Military Conference in Botswana: Africa’s Defense Chiefs to Tackle Security Challenges

Langley categorically dismissed the notion of the U.S. establishing a military base in Zambia. “That’s absolutely false,” he stated. “We have no bases in Zambia. We have no plans to put one there.” He reiterated that the U.S.’s strategy in Africa is “African-led and U.S.-enabled,” emphasizing deep partnerships and increased security cooperation without a physical military footprint in Zambia.

Zimbabwean officials have not commented on Langley’s remarks. However, Rutendo Matinyarare, chairperson of the pro-government Zimbabwe Anti-Sanctions Movement, alleged that Langley held a briefing in Lusaka and that American military equipment had been observed at Zambia’s airport. Matinyarare questioned, “What are these weapons doing in Zambia?”

Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema refuted claims of U.S. militarization, clarifying that Zambia’s army engages in exchange programs with multiple countries, including the U.S. He stressed that these programs should not be mistaken for the establishment of a U.S. base.

Zambia has sought the intervention of two regional bodies, the African Union and the Southern African Development Community, to mediate talks with Zimbabwe. Both nations are members of these organizations. The tension reportedly stems from comments made by Zimbabwean President Emerson Mnangagwa during a trip to Russia, accusing the U.S. of militarizing Zambia to consolidate regional power and isolate Zimbabwe.

Western countries imposed travel and financial sanctions on Zimbabwe’s leadership and affiliated companies in the early 2000s due to alleged election rigging and human rights abuses. Although the U.S. recently lifted sanctions on most Zimbabweans, prominent figures, including Mnangagwa, remain on the list.

Langley noted that the defense conference provided a platform to address top regional security challenges throughout Africa. He highlighted that African partners wanted to host the conference to take ownership, while AFRICOM and the U.S. government participated due to shared values and objectives aimed at enhancing stability, security, and prosperity on the continent.

General Langley’s firm denial of Zimbabwe’s claims underscores the U.S.’s commitment to security cooperation in Africa without establishing military bases. As regional tensions persist, the role of diplomatic dialogue and multilateral mediation remains crucial in addressing and resolving misunderstandings between neighboring nations.


Latvian Foreign Minister: Putin is Counting on Western Fatigue



In the shadow of a brutal missile attack on Ukraine, NATO leaders convened in Washington, reaffirming their support for Ukraine amid ongoing Russian aggression. Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze, in a candid interview, stressed the importance of Western unity and unwavering support for Ukraine.

Reflecting on Latvia’s 20 years in NATO, Braze highlighted the importance of deterrence and defense, noting that while there is no immediate military threat to the Baltics, a victory for Ukraine is crucial in preventing further Russian aggression. She emphasized the need for a robust policy to contain and degrade Russia’s military capabilities, underscoring that NATO’s strength lies in its collective security and proactive measures.

The recent missile strikes, including the devastating attack on Kyiv’s Okhmatdyt children’s hospital, underscore the barbarity of the Kremlin. Braze called for increased air defenses and the lifting of restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to strike legitimate military targets within Russia. She reiterated that such attacks only reinforce the need for comprehensive support to Ukraine, including advanced military capabilities like long-range precision strikes.

As the summit discussed Ukraine’s path to NATO membership, Braze emphasized that winning the war is the crucial first step. Victory for Ukraine, defined by its sovereignty and independence, is the ultimate goal. This commitment to Ukrainian victory is shared by all NATO allies, who are united in providing the necessary military aid and support.

Braze acknowledged the challenges faced by Ukraine, noting the resilience and success of Ukrainian forces in defending their territory against a nuclear-armed neighbor. The ongoing war, now in its third year, has defied Russia’s expectations of a quick victory. The unwavering support from the West has been pivotal, and Braze assured that this support will not waver.

Putin is counting on the West to grow weary, but Braze made it clear that this is not going to happen. The determination to support Ukraine remains steadfast, with a clear understanding that Ukraine’s fight is a fight for the principles and security of the entire transatlantic alliance. The predictability and sustainability of this support are crucial in ensuring that Ukraine can continue its defense and ultimately achieve victory.

In conclusion, the NATO summit highlighted the critical role of Western unity in confronting Russian aggression. Latvia’s Foreign Minister Baiba Braze’s insights underscore the necessity of continued, unwavering support for Ukraine. As NATO reinforces its commitments, the message is clear: the transatlantic alliance stands firm, and Putin’s hopes for Western fatigue are in vain.

Ukraine Strikes Back: Six Russian Regions Attacked

NATO Declares Ukraine’s Path to Membership ‘Irreversible’

Continue Reading


China’s Bold Move: 66 Military Aircraft Encircle Taiwan in Largest Show of Force This Year



Taiwan’s defense ministry reported a staggering 66 Chinese military aircraft encircling the island within a 24-hour window—the highest number recorded this year. This provocative move followed closely on the heels of Beijing’s naval exercises in nearby waters, showcasing a bold display of military prowess that has alarmed observers around the world.

China, which steadfastly claims Taiwan as part of its territory, has never renounced the use of force to achieve reunification. The latest sortie comes amid a backdrop of increasing political friction and military posturing. Just a day earlier, Taipei had detected Chinese aircraft moving toward the western Pacific for drills with the PLA aircraft carrier Shandong, a clear signal of Beijing’s strategic ambitions.

According to Taiwan’s defense ministry, the detected aircraft, along with seven PLAN vessels, were operational until 6 am on Thursday. Of the 66 aircraft, 56 breached the sensitive median line in the Taiwan Strait, a narrow waterway that serves as a buffer zone between the island and mainland China. This blatant violation underscores the intensifying pressure Beijing is exerting on Taipei.

Military experts suggest that this show of force is a direct response to recent political developments, including a meeting between Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te and Washington’s new de facto ambassador to Taiwan. “Beijing is flexing its military muscles to express displeasure at the support Taiwan receives,” noted Su Tzu-yun from Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research.

The current record sortie surpasses a previous peak in May when China dispatched 62 military aircraft and 27 naval vessels around Taiwan during military exercises following Lai Ching-te’s inauguration. Beijing labels Lai a “dangerous separatist,” and his administration’s ties with the United States have further strained cross-strait relations.

In an interesting twist, Taiwan’s defense minister Wellington Koo observed that the Shandong carrier had not traversed the usual Bashi Channel, but had instead navigated further south via the Balingtang Channel toward the Western Pacific, a move likely intended to complicate tracking efforts. This maneuver was corroborated by Japan, which confirmed that the Shandong, accompanied by three other PLA navy vessels, was located southeast of Miyako Island, with fighter aircraft and helicopters observed taking off and landing on the carrier.

The Philippines also noted a China-Russia exercise in the Philippine Sea, heightening regional military tensions further. This comes amidst a series of confrontations over the disputed South China Sea, an area fraught with overlapping territorial claims and strategic significance.

As China continues its aggressive posturing, the stakes in the Taiwan Strait grow ever higher. The international community watches closely, aware that any miscalculation could lead to a broader conflict. Taiwan, undeterred, remains vigilant, prepared to respond to any threat to its sovereignty. The geopolitical chess game in the Asia-Pacific region has entered a perilous new phase, with the next move uncertain but undoubtedly consequential.

Continue Reading


U.S. to Complete Withdrawal from Niger Base on Sunday



The United States is set to complete its withdrawal of forces and equipment from an air base in Niamey, the capital of Niger, by Sunday, marking the occasion with a joint ceremony. The next phase involves the exit from a Niger drone base, scheduled for completion in August.

These departures comply with a September 15 deadline agreed upon by the U.S. and Niger’s ruling junta. The new military leaders of Niger ordered U.S. troops to leave following a coup in Niamey last year. Major General Kenneth Ekman, who is coordinating the exits, indicated that most U.S. forces will be relocated to European locations, though small teams have been moved to other West African countries.

Despite withdrawing some valuable equipment from the bases, the U.S. is not destroying the equipment and facilities left behind. Ekman emphasized the importance of leaving things in good condition, saying, “Our goal in the execution is, leave things in as good a state as possible. If we went out and left it a wreck, or if we went out spitefully, or if we destroyed things as we went, we’d be foreclosing options that both nations need for the future. And our security objectives are still entwined.”

The withdrawals, particularly from the drone base, represent a significant setback to U.S. counterterrorism missions in the Sahel. This vast African region is plagued by insurgents linked to al-Qaida and Islamic State groups. Ekman, who is the director of strategy at U.S. Africa Command, noted that other African countries concerned about Sahel-based insurgent threats have approached the U.S. for partnership in combating militants.

“Niger was immensely helpful for us as a location because it was in the Sahel and it was adjacent to those areas where the threat is most concentrated,” Ekman explained. The challenge now will be accessing the area from outside Niger, complicating U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

As the U.S. adjusts its strategy in West Africa, the focus will be on maintaining regional security and countering extremist threats despite the logistical hurdles posed by the withdrawal from Niger.

Continue Reading


Russia Threatens Nuclear Doctrine ‘Amendments’ Amid Ukraine War



Russia Threatens Nuclear Doctrine ‘Amendments’ Amid Ukraine War

A top Russian official has suggested that the ongoing war in Ukraine necessitates changes to Moscow’s nuclear doctrine. Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, emphasized the need for these amendments, reflecting growing international concerns and debates surrounding the doctrine, which currently allows for the use of atomic weapons if Russia perceives a threat to its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has maintained an ambiguous stance on nuclear weapons. Although he has asserted that nuclear weapons are unnecessary for achieving his goals, recent drills involving tactical nuclear weapons in southern Russia and Belarus signal otherwise. During the St Petersburg International Economic Forum last month, Putin described the nuclear doctrine as a “living instrument” and hinted at possible modifications, stating that Moscow is closely monitoring global developments and does not rule out changes to its nuclear policies.

High-ranking Russian officials, including former president Dmitry Medvedev, have frequently issued nuclear threats, while Kremlin propagandists have suggested missile strikes on Western countries allied with Ukraine. In an interview with the Russian foreign policy magazine International Affairs, Ryabkov argued that the traditional concept of nuclear deterrence is no longer fully effective due to the Ukraine conflict. He hinted at the need for “conceptual additions and amendments” to the doctrine, though he did not provide specific details.

Ryabkov mentioned that these changes would eventually lead to “more concrete approaches” regarding the potential escalation by Russia’s adversaries, reiterating the Kremlin’s narrative that the West is escalating the conflict initiated by Putin.

The discourse around Russia’s nuclear doctrine has intensified recently. Dmitri Trenin, from the Moscow think tank Institute of World Economy and International Relations, suggested last month that the doctrine should be modified to allow for the first use of atomic weapons if “core national interests are at stake.” He argued that this change is necessary to persuade the West that provoking conflict with Russia would not leave them comfortable and fully protected.

The persistent threat of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons has influenced the cautious balance maintained by the U.S. and NATO allies in supplying Ukraine with weapons to counter Moscow’s aggression without risking further escalation. Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, stressed the importance of resuming the suspended Russian-U.S. dialogue on nuclear risk reduction and arms control to avoid nuclear miscalculation. He also called on the U.S. and NATO members to refrain from making rhetorical threats of nuclear retaliation, avoid provocative nuclear exercises, and rule out mirroring Russia’s counterproductive moves.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the potential amendments to Russia’s nuclear doctrine pose significant implications for global security. The international community remains on edge, closely watching how these developments might reshape nuclear strategy and the broader geopolitical landscape.

Continue Reading


NATO to Discuss Russia-North Korea Military Cooperation



As military ties between Russia and North Korea deepen, NATO allies seek stronger security partnerships with South Korea and Japan.

The upcoming NATO summit in Washington from July 9 to 11 will tackle the pressing issue of deepening military cooperation between Russia and North Korea. The meeting will see the leaders of 32 NATO members, along with representatives from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, known collectively as the Indo-Pacific 4 or IP4, discussing enhanced security collaborations to counter this emerging threat.

The growing military cooperation between Russia and North Korea has raised alarms among NATO allies. Analysts anticipate that NATO’s discussions with Japan and South Korea will prominently feature concerns over this alliance. Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation, noted that the Russian-North Korean agreement poses significant challenges for both NATO and Northeast Asian countries. Bennett suggested that the summit could become crucial if intelligence indicates North Korea is sending military personnel to support Russia in Ukraine.

The mutual defense pact signed last month by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has fueled speculation about potential North Korean involvement in Ukraine. Reports suggest North Korea might dispatch army engineers to Russian-occupied Donetsk to aid in rebuilding efforts. The U.S. Pentagon has warned North Korea against sending troops, with Pentagon press secretary Major General Patrick Ryder stating that any North Korean forces would become “cannon fodder” in an illegal war.

Despite Moscow and Pyongyang denying any arms exchanges, both Washington and Seoul estimate that North Korea has sent around 10,000 containers of munitions to Russia. This situation has led to heightened vigilance and strategic discussions within NATO about the implications of closer Russia-North Korea relations. Matthew Brummer, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, highlighted the risks and opportunities presented by this alliance, suggesting it could drive a wedge between China and Russia.

The evolving axis between China, Russia, and North Korea has prompted a reevaluation of security links between Europe and Asia. Brummer expects increased NATO involvement in East Asia, particularly with Japan, which holds significant latent military power. Beijing, wary of NATO’s activities, has expressed concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion potentially undermining regional peace and stability. Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, stated that NATO’s inroads into the Asia-Pacific region could provoke division and confrontation.

While NATO’s primary focus remains on defending Ukraine, analysts suggest that joint military exercises with East Asian partners might occur in the context of the Korean Peninsula. This approach offers a diplomatically easier entry point compared to direct involvement in China-related issues. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force has already announced joint drills in July with Germany, Spain, and France, all NATO members.

Bilateral arrangements between South Korea and individual NATO countries could also be on the horizon. David Maxwell, vice president of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy, mentioned that several NATO countries are member states of the United Nations Command, which was established during the Korean War to counter North Korean aggression.

Despite these initiatives, there are limits to NATO’s capacity for involvement in the Indo-Pacific. Barry Posen, Ford international professor of political science at MIT, pointed out that most NATO countries are focused on the Atlantic region, with limited projection capabilities beyond that. William Ruger, a nonresident senior fellow at Defense Priorities, emphasized that the U.S. has insufficient capabilities to simultaneously address security concerns in both Europe and Asia.

As NATO prepares to address these complex challenges, the outcomes of the summit will shape future strategies for countering the Russia-North Korea alliance and strengthening ties with key allies in the Indo-Pacific region.

Continue Reading


Xi and Putin Unite at Central Asian Summit to Challenge U.S. Hegemony



Leaders of China and Russia Strengthen Ties Amid Growing Influence in Central Asia

In a bid to counter what they see as U.S.-led dominance on the global stage, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin held pivotal talks at a security summit in Kazakhstan. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, which aims to address Eurasian security concerns, saw both leaders reaffirming their partnership and discussing strategies to enhance their influence in the region.

Established in 2001 by China and Russia, the SCO serves as a forum for these two powerhouses to project their influence across Eurasia. Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov highlighted the significance of this gathering, emphasizing that the SCO, along with BRICS, represents “the main pillars of the new world order,” advocating for genuine multilateralism in global affairs.

The BRICS coalition, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, recently extended invitations to six more countries: Argentina, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, underscored the importance of the SCO summit, stating it would “build more consensus among all parties and promote security, stability, and development of member countries.”

This summit also provided Kazakhstan and other Central Asian nations an opportunity to bolster their ties with these influential neighbors. Notably, the timing of this summit is crucial as China and Russia continue to deepen their relationship. In 2022, China declared a “no limits” partnership with Russia, and since then, Beijing has portrayed itself as a neutral actor in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Xi and Putin last met in May when Putin visited Beijing. Since then, China has extended diplomatic support to Russia and emerged as a primary market for Russian oil and gas. Despite their burgeoning ties, Central Asia remains a contested space for both countries. For Russia, the region comprises five former Soviet republics with deep-rooted cultural and economic ties. For China, Central Asia is crucial for its Belt and Road initiative, raising concerns over potential threats to Russia’s influence.

Analysts suggest that the summit’s discussions may have underlying implications, as both nations need to balance their competing interests in Central Asia while pursuing closer cooperation.

Eoin Micheál McNamara, a research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, noted that the SCO allows China and Russia to engage in collective dialogue with Central Asian states, helping manage mutual suspicions about each other’s intentions in the region.

“The SCO is therefore useful to keep the China-Russia alliance together as a force in wider great power politics,” McNamara explained. Carol Saivetz, a senior fellow at MIT’s Security Studies Program, anticipated that participants would discuss security in abstract terms and focus on economic projects. Historically, there was an implicit understanding that China would handle economic issues while Russia acted as the region’s security guarantor. However, with the ongoing war in Ukraine, China might exploit the instability to expand its influence.

Saivetz highlighted Xi’s early arrival to meet with Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and his subsequent visit to Tajikistan’s capital, Dushanbe, as indicators that China is not limiting its options to multilateral formats or Moscow. Despite the war in Ukraine overshadowing the summit, public discussion on the topic is unlikely due to differing opinions among Central Asian states.

Tina Dolbaia, a research associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that discussions about the Ukraine war would probably occur behind closed doors. She emphasized the relevance of the Ukraine conflict to the power struggle between China and Russia in Central Asia. “Putin is currently willing to underestimate and overlook China’s rising role in Russia’s ‘backyard’ due to the importance of countering the West in Ukraine and establishing a multi-polar world order,” Dolbaia explained.

Despite the significant influence wielded by China and Russia in the region, Central Asia’s loyalties are not firmly aligned with either. Dolbaia noted that Central Asian countries understand the need to navigate their relationships with both powers carefully. As the SCO summit concludes, the delicate balance of power in Central Asia remains a focal point for both Beijing and Moscow, highlighting the intricate dynamics of their partnership amid growing global tensions.

Continue Reading


Is an Israel-Hezbollah War Inevitable?



By signaling its unwavering support for Tel Aviv in any potential campaign, Washington may be edging this looming conflict closer to reality. The exchanges of fire between Israel and Hezbollah have been a persistent feature over the past eight months, recently intensifying to an alarming degree. This situation has the potential to escalate into a full-blown war in two primary ways.

One possible route to escalation is for the current tit-for-tat exchanges to spiral out of control, leading to an unintended and uncontrollable conflict. This could occur as each side attempts to deter future attacks by responding forcefully to the most recent ones. The second potential path to war would be a deliberate decision by one side to engage in full-scale conflict. Hezbollah is unlikely to choose this route. The organization has made it clear that its actions are in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza and in support of Hamas, rather than a desire for an all-out war with Israel. The 2006 conflict, which resulted in significant human and material costs for Hezbollah, serves as a cautionary tale.

Iran warns Israel of ‘obliterating’ war if Lebanon attacked

Israel, on the other hand, might consider launching a full-scale war in Lebanon in the coming months if the situation does not spiral out of control first. Reports suggest that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has conveyed to Arab officials his belief that Israel is intent on invading Lebanon. Such an invasion would likely be driven by internal political and emotional factors rather than a clear-eyed assessment of Israeli security interests.

One of the driving factors behind this potential escalation is the plight of approximately 60,000 Israelis displaced from northern Israel due to security concerns. These individuals represent a significant political force advocating for decisive action to improve security and allow their return. Although a full-scale war might initially worsen the security situation, there is a misplaced hope that aggressive military action could lead to a long-term solution.

The personal political and legal situation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also a major factor. Netanyahu’s hold on power and his ability to avoid corruption charges may hinge on maintaining a state of war. With the “intense phase” of the war with Hamas seemingly drawing to a close, Netanyahu might see a new conflict with Hezbollah as essential to his political survival. His coalition partners, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, are also hardliners who favor military action against Hezbollah.

US warns Israeli offensive in Lebanon could bring wider war, draw in Iran

An additional factor is the belief among some Israelis that southern Lebanon is part of “greater Israel” and should be subject to military conquest and settlement. While this idea is on the fringe, it has gained some traction in recent years.

Israel’s previous military operations in Lebanon suggest that a new conflict would not achieve lasting security. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982, maintaining an occupation of southern Lebanon until 2000. Despite these efforts, Hezbollah remains a formidable force. The 2006 war demonstrated Hezbollah’s resilience, and the group has only grown stronger since then. Estimates of Hezbollah’s rocket and missile arsenal suggest it could inflict significant damage on Israel, despite the sophistication of Israeli air defenses.

The Biden administration genuinely seeks to avoid a new Israel-Hezbollah war, but its efforts face significant challenges. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which aimed to resolve the 2006 conflict, provides a potential framework for peace. However, the current negative atmosphere and Hezbollah’s solidarity with Gaza Palestinians complicate these efforts.

UN Chief Warns: Lebanon Cannot Become Another Gaza

The administration’s declaratory policy, including assurances of support for Israel in the event of a conflict, may inadvertently encourage Israeli aggression. If a full-scale war does break out, the world is likely to view the United States as complicit, leading to diplomatic isolation and increased anti-American sentiment.

Ultimately, an Israeli invasion of Lebanon would likely result in extensive destruction without achieving long-term security. Instead, it could further entrench Hezbollah’s role as a defender against Israeli aggression and exacerbate regional instability. The Biden administration’s challenge is to navigate these complex dynamics and prevent a conflict that would have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the region and beyond.

Continue Reading


Russia Arming Houthis: A New Threat to Somaliland’s Security and Global Internet



How Moscow’s Support for Yemen’s Rebels and Attacks on Submarine Cables Could Destabilize the Red Sea and Somaliland

In a provocative and highly controversial move, Russia’s potential provision of weapons to the Houthi rebels in Yemen threatens to escalate tensions in the already volatile Red Sea region. This development, coupled with the looming threat to submarine internet cables critical to global communications, could have far-reaching consequences for the Gulf of Aden, Somaliland, and the broader international community.

Russian state media figure Vladimir Solovyov recently suggested that Moscow should arm the Houthis to retaliate against Western support for Ukraine. This statement comes amid ongoing clashes between Iran-aligned Houthi rebels and Western forces in the Red Sea. The Houthis have been targeting ships, including a recent missile attack on the British-registered Rubymar vessel, escalating the conflict in a crucial maritime corridor.

If Russia follows through on Solovyov’s suggestion, it could transform the balance of power in the Red Sea. The Houthis, already emboldened by Iranian support, would gain access to more sophisticated weaponry, potentially including semi-submersible unmanned boats and advanced firearms. This could significantly increase the threat to international shipping and military assets in the region, leading to a broader conflict involving the Gulf states and their allies.

Adding another layer of complexity is the potential disruption of submarine cables, which are the backbone of global internet connectivity. These cables, spanning over 1.4 million kilometers of ocean floor, carry a significant portion of the world’s internet traffic. The Red Sea alone hosts around 16 cable systems that connect Europe to Asia, transporting data for up to 2.3 billion people.

The Houthi rebels have been accused of planning attacks on these crucial communication links. An incident in February 2024 saw the interruption of four internet cables in the Red Sea, impacting 25% of internet traffic between Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. While the Houthis denied involvement, suspicions remain high, given their history of targeting infrastructure in the region.

The deliberate targeting of submarine cables by the Houthis, potentially with Russian backing, could disrupt global communications, affecting everything from financial transactions to military operations. Such an attack would be a clear act of cyber warfare, with profound implications for international security and economic stability.

For Somaliland, the geopolitical stakes are particularly high. The unrecognized state has been seeking greater international legitimacy and support, notably offering the strategic port of Berbera as a military base to the United States. However, U.S. policy has been ambivalent, failing to capitalize on this opportunity while opposing Somaliland’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ethiopia.

As Russia and China expand their influence in the region, Somaliland’s strategic importance grows. If the U.S. continues to neglect Somaliland, it risks losing a critical ally in the Red Sea to its rivals. Recognizing Somaliland and strengthening military and economic ties could counterbalance the influence of Russia and China, ensuring that the Red Sea remains a stable and secure maritime corridor.

The Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, also have a vested interest in the stability of the Red Sea. The disruption of submarine cables and the arming of the Houthis could threaten their economic and security interests, given their reliance on secure maritime routes for oil exports and other trade. Increased Houthi capabilities could lead to more frequent and severe attacks on shipping, potentially closing critical chokepoints like the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

The current U.S. administration faces a critical decision point. The neglect of Somaliland and the failure to adequately address the threats posed by Russian and Iranian activities in the Red Sea could have dire consequences. It is imperative for the U.S. and its allies to reassess their strategies in the region, taking decisive steps to support Somaliland’s quest for recognition and stability.

Strengthening military and intelligence cooperation with Somaliland could serve as a deterrent to Russian and Iranian ambitions. Additionally, enhancing the protection of submarine cables through international collaboration and advanced surveillance technologies is crucial to safeguarding global internet infrastructure.

The convergence of Russian support for the Houthis and the threat to submarine cables represents a significant and growing challenge for the international community. The potential for increased conflict in the Red Sea, coupled with the risk of major disruptions to global communications, demands urgent and coordinated action from Western governments.

Ignoring these threats could lead to a destabilized region, with far-reaching impacts on global security and economic stability. It is time for the West to recognize the strategic importance of Somaliland and the need for robust responses to the emerging threats in the Red Sea. Only through proactive and concerted efforts can the balance of power be maintained and the interests of the international community safeguarded.

Continue Reading

Most Viewed

You cannot copy content of this page