(Russian troops during military exercises in the Arctic region)
In response to the Scramble for the Arctic, the Russian government adopted a forward-looking strategy, encompassing economic, ecological, and military dimensions. Economically, Russia committed substantial investments to propel Arctic development, focusing on cutting-edge technologies for transportation. The iconic Kharkovchanka vehicle became a symbol of this effort, with ongoing research aimed at creating an advanced model tailored to the Arctic environment. This push aimed not only at resource extraction but also at establishing Russia as a technological leader in Arctic exploration. A significant aspect of Russia's Arctic strategy involved intensive research on optimal methods for extracting untapped Arctic resources. This research was not only economically motivated but also underscored a commitment to sustainable and responsible resource exploitation, aligning with international expectations for environmental stewardship. Recognizing the environmental vulnerability of the Arctic, the Russian government invested in ecological research. This commitment demonstrated a proactive approach to balance economic development with ecological preservation. By understanding and mitigating the impact of human activities on the delicate Arctic ecosystem, Russia aimed to set a global standard for responsible Arctic development.
In a bid to diversify economic activities and showcase the Arctic's unique offerings, Russia actively promoted Arctic tourism. The government envisioned the Arctic as a destination for international tourists, fostering economic growth in the region. Through careful management and sustainable practices, Russia sought to strike a balance between economic interests and the preservation of the Arctic's natural beauty. Militarily, Russia took strategic measures to fortify its position in the Arctic. The establishment of a Northern Fleet Strategic command signified the region's paramount importance in the nation's defense strategy. Rigorous training programs were implemented to equip troops and specialized army units with the skills necessary for Arctic warfare. Reactivating Soviet-era bases in the Arctic not only bolstered military readiness but also reasserted Russia's historical presence in the region.
To propel Russian pop-culture onto the global stage and avoid the pitfalls of cultural isolation, the Russian government adopted a dynamic strategy encompassing various entertainment mediums. Drawing inspiration from successful models like Japan's J-Pop and anime industry, the focus extended beyond historical literature to embrace contemporary, globally appealing content. R-Pop was promoted as a distinctive Russian cultural product, leveraging the universal appeal of pop music. Collaborations with J-Pop and K-Pop artists were encouraged to facilitate cross-cultural exchanges and broaden the genre's global influence. Partnerships with companies like Hudson Soft/NEC were established to gain a foothold in the Japanese video game market. Russian characters, including mythological figures, were incorporated into video games to infuse cultural elements and enhance market penetration.
The creation of Russian graphic novels and anime was stimulated by tapping into the existing anime and manga fandom. Russian, Chinese, and Japanese mythological characters were integrated to diversify content and appeal to a broader international audience. Support for Russian animation studios as auxiliary contributors to anime production was provided. Russian animators and voice talent were encouraged to participate in the global animation industry, fostering connections and creating a unique brand for Russian animation. Investment in translating and promoting Russian pop-culture content increased global visibility. Online platforms dedicated to Russian animation, analogous to a Russian YouTube, were created to facilitate the international dissemination of content. Regional competitions for domestic animators were organized, allowing popular votes to determine winners. This approach engaged the local fanbase and encouraged the creation of authentic Russian animation content. Integration of animation and comic clubs into schools through collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Culture took place. Additional funding for equipment was provided, fostering a new generation of animators and creators. Authentic Russian movies were promoted for both domestic and international markets. Traditional Russian songs were incorporated into films and cartoons to showcase the rich cultural heritage. Pop-culture was used as a tool for cultural diplomacy. Authentic Russian movies, animation, and music were promoted globally to enhance soft power and foster positive international perceptions. A centralized online platform for Russian animation was created, offering a diverse range of content. This platform served as a hub for creators, enthusiasts, and audiences, contributing to the growth of a distinct Russian animation industry.
In the continuous journey towards digitalization, the Russian government strategically embraced a multi-pronged approach to cultivate a dynamic and competitive digital ecosystem. At the forefront of this strategy was the active promotion and development of indigenous media and social media platforms. Drawing inspiration from the Digital Silk Road initiative, Russia sought to diversify its global digital footprint by nurturing platforms like VKontakte, which already enjoyed a substantial user base among Russian speakers. This not only fortified existing digital strongholds but also stimulated innovation and healthy competition within the Russian tech landscape. Recognizing the transformative potential of the digital marketplace, the government actively worked towards establishing a proprietary digital payment method. This initiative aligned with the evolving trends in online transactions, aiming to create a seamless and secure financial ecosystem for users. Collaboration remained a key theme in Russia's digitalization agenda. The government actively facilitated partnerships between various tech companies, fostering the creation of new and innovative digital services and products. This collaborative spirit strengthened the interconnectedness of the Russian digital space, providing users with a comprehensive and diverse range of technological solutions. In the realm of education, Russia devised an ambitious 5 to 8-year plan to achieve full digitalization in schools. The focus was on ensuring widespread access to computers, preferably sourced from domestic producers, in urban schools. This initiative not only enhanced digital literacy among students but also laid the foundation for a tech-savvy generation.
To empower entrepreneurship in the e-commerce sector, the government extended generous loans to aspiring business owners. Simultaneously, efforts were underway to foster cooperation between tech companies and various domestic enterprises, streamlining the delivery and sale of products through digital platforms. Crucially, the Russian government recognized the importance of preserving internet freedom. While addressing illegal and harmful content remained a priority, there was a deliberate effort to avoid excessive internet policing. This approach was designed to maintain a balance, allowing individuals considerable freedom to navigate the digital space. Importantly, Russia was cautious in its dealings with external demands, particularly from China, to avoid cultural policing. This strategic decision aimed to preserve Russia's unique cultural output in the digital realm, ensuring that the nation's digital landscape reflected its diverse heritage. In summary, Russia's comprehensive strategy for digitalization encompassed innovation, support for domestic tech giants, collaborative efforts, robust digital infrastructure, and a careful balance between internet freedom and responsible governance. This approach positioned Russia as an influential and competitive player in the ever-evolving global digital landscape.
(Russian tourists arriving to Turkey)
In the realm of economic collaboration, fostering a robust partnership between Russia and Turkey is essential for mutual growth and stability. Some key initiatives to deepen cooperation include encouraging and facilitating reciprocal investments, promoting economic ties that benefit both nations, and establishing mechanisms to support Turkish investment in Russia and vice versa, with a focus on infrastructure projects. On the industrial front, both countries can promote the export of Russian industrial products to Turkey, including automobiles, computers, and machinery. Exploring opportunities for joint ventures and collaborative manufacturing projects will further enhance industrial cooperation. To facilitate trade, the two nations can actively pursue a comprehensive trade deal, potentially involving the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). This would ensure the smooth flow of goods and services between the two countries, enhancing economic integration. Energy collaboration is another significant area for cooperation. Initiating energy cooperation agreements and exploring the possibility of supplying Turkey with Russian energy resources can contribute to both nations' energy security. Joint ventures in renewable energy projects will also play a role in sustainability efforts.
Promoting tourism between Russia and Turkey through joint campaigns and initiatives to enhance travel infrastructure is crucial for boosting people-to-people connections. Additionally, both nations can collaborate on military endeavors, including the export of Russian military hardware to Turkey and joint military exercises to foster a strategic defense partnership. On the geopolitical front, strengthening diplomatic coordination and exploring joint initiatives in the Middle East will contribute to a unified stance on regional issues. Both countries can also collaborate closely on counterterrorism efforts, sharing intelligence and coordinating strategies to combat shared security threats.
Investing in regional development projects and joint initiatives to address economic, cultural, and security challenges in neighboring regions will further solidify the partnership. Encouraging cultural and educational exchanges, supporting language programs, and establishing academic partnerships will enhance mutual understanding.
On 13 May 2005, protests erupted in Andijan, Uzbekistan. At one point, troops from the Uzbek National Security Service (SNB) fired into a crowd of protesters. Estimates of those killed on 13 May range from 187, the official count of the government, to several hundred A defector from the SNB alleged that 1,500 were killed.The bodies of many of those who died were allegedly hidden in mass graves following the massacre.
Three narratives concerning the events exist:
The Uzbek government said the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organised the unrest and the protesters were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Critics of the government argue that the Islamist radical label provides a pretext for maintaining a repressive regime in the country.
A third theory is that the dispute was really an inter-clan struggle for state power.
The Uzbek government did however acknowledge that poor economic conditions in the region and popular resentment played a role in the uprising. Troops may possibly have fired indiscriminately to quell a prison break. It was claimed that calls from Western governments for an international investigation prompted a major shift in Uzbek foreign policy favouring closer relations with autocratic nations, although the Uzbek government is known to have close ties with the U.S. government, and the Bush administration had declared Uzbekistan to be vital to US security because it hired out a large military base to US military forces. The Uzbek government ordered the closing of the United States Karshi-Khanabad Air Base and improved ties with the People's Republic of China. The protesters initially asked for the release of 23 local businessmen who were arrested on 23 June 2004 and charged with "extremism, fundamentalism and separatism". The police subsequently charged them with membership in Akromiya, an organization the government has designated and banned as terrorist. The businessmen denied the charge, saying they were arrested because of their growing support among the local populace. Some accounts suggest that the arrests occurred as part of a purge of allies of Andijan's long-time provincial governor, Kobiljon Obidov, who had been impeached and replaced with Saydullo Begaliyev, allegedly at the behest of President Islam Karimov.
Melissa Hooper, a US lawyer in Tashkent who worked with the defense in the trial, said on 14 May, "This is more about [the businessmen] acquiring economic clout, and perhaps refusing to pay off the local authorities, than about any religious beliefs". Andrei Grozin, head of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan Department of the Institute of CIS Countries, said in an interview conducted by Rossiiskaya gazeta that authorities used the trial to "take away the business of several entrepreneurs under a clearly trumped-up pretext". During the trials, protests in front of the courthouse were common. On 10 May another demonstration occurred involving at least 1,000 people. The protesters, mainly relatives of the defendants, videotaped the demonstration, which the police did not interrupt. Demonstrators lined the streets around the courthouse, with women on one side and men on the other. By 11 May over 4,000 demonstrators had gathered to hear the verdict. Prosecutors had asked for prison terms ranging from three to seven years for 20 of the accused, offering to free the remaining three. However, the government postponed the scheduled sentencing.The government arrested some of the protesters and relatives of the defendants late on 12 May.
On the night of 12 May or early in the morning of 13 May armed men attacked the prison where the businessmen were held and freed them, along with hundreds of other prisoners, many of whom were charged with similar charges; several prison guards were killed. The armed men, including the 23 defendants, also took over the regional administration building in Andijan, and took at least twenty law enforcement and government officials hostage, including the Head of the Prosecutors Office and the Chief of the Tax Inspection Authority. The militants unsuccessfully tried to seize the National Security Service (SNB) headquarters in the city. They demanded the resignation of President Islam Karimov. Karimov's press office said that "intensive negotiations" proved fruitless. "The militants, taking cover behind women and children, are refusing any compromise", the statement said. Encouraged by the prison break, even more protesters gathered in the central square to voice their anger over growing poverty and government corruption, speaking at microphones that were installed at Babur Square. Though government officials blocked the roads to Babur Square in the morning, they let people through on foot. Someone (it is unclear who) set fire to the Babur theater and cinema. Government soldiers blocked the streets to the prison. Shooting incidents began in the morning; there was at least one exchange of gunfire between armed civilians and troops. But protesters remained on the square, apparently because of rumors that Karimov was coming to address their demands or because attempts to exit the square or surrender were refused.
Around 17:00 or 18:00, the government launched a major offensive on the square without warning. There are reports that the protesters used government hostages as human shields in the front row as they tried to escape. According to Human Rights Watch, the government then sealed off the perimeter of the protest and opened fire. Some reports indicate indiscriminate firing by government troops, including the use of snipers, automatic rifles, and armoured personnel carriers. It is unclear whether Karimov personally ordered the attack. Galima Bukharbaeva, a journalist for IWPR, witnessed a "mass of dead and wounded. At first, one group of armoured-personnel carriers approached the [city] square, and then another group appeared. They opened fire without mercy on everyone indiscriminately, including women and children. The crowd began to run in all directions. We dove into a ditch and lay there for a while. I saw at least five bloody corpses next to me. The rebels who are holding the provincial administration opened fire in response. They intend to stand to the end! When we got out of the ditch, we ran along the streets into the neighbourhood and now we're looking for a place where there's no shooting. But shots can be heard everywhere...".The Uzbek government disputes this and states that only "terrorists" were killed.
(Participants of the anti-government protests in Andijan)
Several foreign news sources estimated the dead in Andijan as numbering between 400 and 600, with civilians accounting for almost all the victims. Some reports stated that troops had systematically shot the wounded after the first shootings. Uzbek President Islam Karimov "placed blame for the unrest on Islamic extremist groups, a label that he has used to describe political opponents in recent years and that his critics say is used as a pretext for maintaining a repressive state". A press release from the government stated that "As a result of the clashes, 9 people died and 34 were injured". The government-controlled media within the country broadcast only brief statements regarding the crisis. In its news bulletins, Uzbek State TV said "an armed group of criminals" had attacked the security forces in Andijan: "The bandits seized dozens of weapons and moved on to attack a correctional colony, setting some convicts free". Describing the rebels as "extremists", they claimed that nine people had been killed and 34 wounded during the clashes. The local radio station had reportedly been taken off air. Authorities also blocked foreign TV news channels, including CNN and the BBC News. Despite the violent crushing of the protests, the following day thousands reappeared to demonstrate. Huge crowds shouted "killers, murderers", and again demanded the president step down. One man, speaking of the previous days' events, said, "People were raising their hands up in the air showing they were without arms but soldiers were still shooting at them". On 14 May thousands seeking to flee the country stormed government buildings in the eastern frontier town of Qorasuv, 50 km east of Andijan. They torched police offices and cars, before attacking guards on the Kyrgyz border. Uzbek troops sealed off the town. Authorities in Kyrgyzstan turned 6,000 Uzbeks away. Uzbek army helicopters were seen circling overhead.
Saidjahon Zaynabitdinov, head of Appeal, an Uzbek human rights organization, said 200 people were killed in Pakhtabad district on 14 May when government troops fought with a group crossing the border into Kyrgyzstan. On 21 May police arrested him. According to The New York Times, "[T]here were reports of skirmishes in or near Andijon and of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of refugees making their way to Kyrgyzstan. There were indications that the Uzbek government, which normally maintains strict order, did not have full control of a portion of the valley." Numerous journalists were forced to flee the country following their coverage of the massacre, including Galima Bukharbaeva and German reporter Marcus Bensmann. The state charged these journalists in absentia with "providing informational support to terrorism". Peace Corps Uzbekistan closed its post in response to increased security threats, according to policy that corresponds with the security level of the in-country United States Embassy. On 16 May several foreign news sources estimated the dead in Andijan as numbering between 400 and 600, with civilians accounting for almost all the victims. One report stated that troops had systematically shot the wounded after the first shootings. A press release on the same day on the official government website continued to maintain that "As a result of the clashes, 9 people died and 34 were injured". In 2008, defector Ikrom Yakubov, a major in the SNB at the time of the incident, alleged that 1,500 people were killed – over twice the highest number estimated by outside observers.
In October 2005 an Uzbek court found several Kyrgyz citizens guilty of several crimes revolving around involvement in the Andijan massacre. The government denied access to observers and refused to identify the defendants as the trial proceeded. In a 60-page report based on 50 interviews with victims and witnesses of the Andijan crackdown, Human Rights Watch said the killing of unarmed protesters by the Uzbek government on 13 May was so extensive and unjustified that it amounted to a massacre. The song "Anda Jonim Qoldi Mening" (English: Over There Remains This Soul of Mine) about Andijan by Sherali Jo'rayev was popularized by the incident. The line Andijonim qoldi mening (meaning my Andijan remains) from the poetry of the first Mughal emperor Babur, a native of Andijan, was one of the most used phrases on the Uzbek-language internet after the uprisings. Several documentary films have been made about the Andijan uprising and its impact on the lives of those caught up in it. In 2010, the British journalist Monica Whitlock, who was the BBC correspondent in Uzbekistan at the time, made the 55-minute film Through the Looking Glass. The film incorporates testimony from survivors, who speak for the first time five years after the massacre. In 2012, the Danish journalist Michael Andersen completed the 80-minute film Massacre in Uzbekistan.
(During the election campaing Angela Merkel promised a new beginning - both for Germany and the European Union)
On 30 May 2005, Angela Merkel won the CDU/CSU nomination to challenge Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of the SPD in the 2005 federal elections. Her party began the campaign with a 21–point lead over the SPD in national opinion polls, although her personal popularity lagged behind that of the incumbent. However, the CDU/CSU campaign suffered when Merkel, having made economic competence central to the CDU's platform, confused gross and net income twice during a televised debate. She regained some momentum after she announced that she would appoint Paul Kirchhof, a former judge at the German Constitutional Court and leading fiscal policy expert, as Minister of Finance. Merkel and the CDU lost ground after Kirchhof proposed the introduction of a flat tax in Germany, again undermining the party's broad appeal on economic affairs. This was compounded by Merkel's proposal to increase VAT to reduce Germany's deficit and fill the gap in revenue from a flat tax. The SPD were able to increase their support simply by pledging not to introduce flat taxes or increase VAT. Although Merkel's standing recovered after she distanced herself from Kirchhof's proposals, she remained considerably less popular than Schröder, who had been perceived as the more generally competent and trustworthy candidate. The CDU's lead was down to 9 percentage points on the eve of the election, with Merkel having a significant lead in popularity based on opinion polls. On 18 September 2005, Merkel's CDU/CSU and Schröder's SPD went head-to-head in the national elections, with the CDU/CSU winning 35.2% (CDU 27.8% / CSU 7.5%) of the second votes to the SPD's 34.2%. The result was so close that both Schröder and Merkel initially claimed victory. Neither the SPD–Green coalition nor the CDU/CSU and its preferred coalition partners, the Free Democratic Party, held enough seats to form a majority in the Bundestag. A grand coalition between the CDU/CSU and SPD would face the challenge of both parties demanding the chancellorship. However, after three weeks of negotiations, the two parties reached a deal for a grand coalition whereby Merkel would become Chancellor and the SPD would hold 8 of the 16 seats in the cabinet. The deal was approved by both parties at party conferences on 14 November 2005.
Merkel was elected Chancellor by the majority of delegates (397 to 217) in the newly assembled Bundestag on 22 November 2005, but 51 members of the governing coalition voted against her. Reports at the time indicated that the grand coalition would pursue a mix of policies, some of which differed from Merkel's political platform as leader of the opposition and candidate for Chancellor. The coalition's intent was to cut public spending whilst increasing VAT (from 16 to 19%), social insurance contributions and the top rate of income tax. When announcing the coalition agreement, Merkel stated that the main aim of her government would be to reduce unemployment, and that it was this issue on which her government would be judged.
Angela Merkel's grand strategy to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape involved skillfully playing Russia and the United States against each other for the benefit of Germany and the European Union. This nuanced approach reflected Merkel's pragmatic understanding of power dynamics and her commitment to advancing European interests in an increasingly competitive international arena. One key aspect of Merkel's strategy was maintaining a delicate balance between Russia and the United States. Recognizing the importance of constructive engagement with both powers, Merkel aimed to position Germany as a mediator and intermediary. By fostering economic ties with Russia and simultaneously strengthening diplomatic relations with the United States, Merkel sought to leverage Germany's strategic position as a bridge between East and West. Economic diplomacy formed a central pillar of Merkel's approach. By cultivating economic partnerships with Russia, Germany enhanced its influence in the East while bolstering its economic strength. At the same time, Merkel understood the significance of transatlantic trade and investment, and she worked to deepen economic ties with the United States. This economic dexterity allowed Germany to capitalize on opportunities from both sides, contributing to its own prosperity and reinforcing its pivotal role within the European Union. Merkel's geopolitical finesse was evident in her efforts to extract strategic advantages from the competition between Russia and the United States. By positioning the European Union as a cohesive bloc, she sought to negotiate favorable terms and agreements with both powers. Merkel aimed to exploit the diverging interests of Russia and the United States in Europe, extracting concessions that served the economic and political interests of the European Union.
Energy security played a crucial role in Merkel's strategy. Germany's push for renewable energy sources not only aligned with environmental goals but also served as a geopolitical tool. By reducing dependence on Russian energy supplies, Merkel aimed to diminish Moscow's leverage over European nations. This move enhanced the geopolitical autonomy of the European Union, positioning it as a more resilient and self-sufficient actor on the global stage. Merkel's grand idea involved turning the competition between Russia and the United States into an opportunity for Germany and the European Union. By skillfully navigating the delicate balance between the two powers, she sought to maximize economic gains, enhance European unity, and strengthen the geopolitical position of the European Union in an ever-evolving international landscape. In this geopolitical dance, Merkel employed soft power and diplomatic finesse to unite European nations under a common agenda. By presenting a united front, the European Union became a formidable force, capable of influencing global affairs and asserting its interests. Merkel's commitment to fostering unity within the European Union was a strategic move to consolidate power and enhance the bloc's ability to navigate the challenges posed by a resurgent Russia and an assertive United States. Moreover, Merkel recognized the importance of technological innovation in maintaining a competitive edge on the global stage. She advocated for increased investment in research and development, positioning Germany as a leader in technological advancements. This not only boosted Germany's economic prowess but also strengthened the European Union's overall resilience in the face of geopolitical uncertainties.
As Merkel steered Germany and the European Union through this intricate geopolitical landscape, her grand strategy encompassed not only economic and diplomatic dimensions but also a commitment to shared values. By emphasizing the importance of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, Merkel sought to distinguish the European Union as a beacon of stability and progress in an ever-changing world. In the realm of security, Merkel promoted a collective defense approach within the European Union. Recognizing the challenges posed by regional instabilities and potential security threats, she advocated for a stronger and more integrated European security architecture. This included collaborative efforts in intelligence-sharing, joint military exercises, and the development of a robust defense capability. Merkel's vision was to transform the European Union into a security provider, capable of safeguarding its members and contributing to global stability. Merkel's grand strategy was not only about playing the long game in international relations but also about shaping the future trajectory of the European Union. Through her leadership, Germany and the European Union aimed to navigate the complexities of a resurgent Russia and a shifting global order, emerging not just as economic powerhouses but as influential players shaping the course of international affairs.
(Destruction in London after the terrorist attacks)
The 7 July 2005 London bombings, also referred to as 7/7, were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks carried out by Islamist terrorists that targeted commuters travelling on London's public transport during the morning rush hour. Three terrorists separately detonated three homemade bombs in quick succession aboard London Underground trains in Inner London. Later, a fourth terrorist detonated another bomb on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. The train bombings occurred on the Circle line near Aldgate and at Edgware Road, and on the Piccadilly line near Russell Square. Apart from the bombers, 52 UK residents of 18 different nationalities were killed and more than 700 were injured in the attacks. It was the UK's deadliest terrorist incident since the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 near Lockerbie, and the UK's first Islamist suicide attack. The explosions were caused by improvised explosive devices made from triacetone triperoxide, packed into backpacks. The bombings were followed two weeks later by a series of attempted attacks that failed to cause injury or damage. At 8:49 a.m. on Thursday 7 July 2005, three bombs were detonated on London Underground trains within 50 seconds of each other: The first bomb exploded on a six-car London Underground Circle line train, number 204, travelling eastbound between Liverpool Street and Aldgate. At the time of the explosion, the train's third car was approximately 100 yards (90 m) along the tunnel from Liverpool Street. The parallel track of the Hammersmith & City line between Liverpool Street and Aldgate East was also damaged in the blast. The second bomb exploded in the second car of another six-car London Underground Circle line train, number 216, which had just left Edgware Road and was travelling westbound towards Paddington. An eastbound Circle line train that was passing next to the bombed train was also damaged, as was a wall that later collapsed.
A third bomb was detonated on a six-car London Underground Piccadilly line train, number 311, travelling southbound from King's Cross St Pancras to Russell Square. The device exploded approximately one minute after the service departed King's Cross, by which time it had travelled about 500 yards (450 m). The explosion occurred at the rear of the first car of the train, causing severe damage to the rear of that car as well as the front of the second one. The surrounding tunnel also sustained damage. It was originally thought that there had been six, rather than three, explosions on the Underground network. The bus bombing brought the reported total to seven; this was clarified later in the day. The incorrect reports were later attributed to the fact that the blasts occurred on trains that were between stations, causing wounded passengers to emerge from both stations, giving the impression that there was an incident at each. Police also revised the timings of the tube blasts: initial reports had indicated that they occurred during a period of almost half an hour. This was due to initial confusion at London Underground (LU), where the explosions were originally believed to have been caused by power surges. An early report, made in the minutes after the explosions, involved a person under a train, while another described a derailment (both of which did occur, but only as a result of the explosions). A code amber alert was declared by LU at 9:19 a.m., and LU began to close operations by ordering trains to continue to the next station and, to remain at that station and detrain passengers.
The four suicide bombers were later identified as: Mohammad Sidique Khan, aged 30. He lived in Beeston, Leeds, with his wife and young child, where he worked as a learning mentor at a primary school. Khan detonated his bomb on the number 216 train, killing seven people, including himself. Shehzad Tanweer, aged 22. He lived in Leeds with his mother and father, working in a fish and chip shop. He detonated his bomb on the number 204 train. Eight people, including Tanweer, were killed by the explosion. The explosion also injured future Paralympic athlete Martine Wright who was commuting to work. Germaine Lindsay, aged 19. He lived in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, with his pregnant wife and young son. He detonated his device on the number 311 train. The blast killed 27 people, including himself. Hasib Hussain, aged 18. He lived in Leeds with his brother and sister-in-law. Hussain detonated his bomb on a bus. Fourteen people, including himself, died in the explosion in Tavistock Square. Three of the bombers were British-born sons of Pakistani immigrants; Lindsay was a convert born in Jamaica. Charles Clarke, Home Secretary when the attacks occurred, described the bombers as "cleanskins", a term describing them as previously unknown to authorities until they carried out their attacks. On the day of the attacks, all four had travelled to Luton, Bedfordshire, by car, then to London by train. They were filmed on CCTV arriving at King's Cross station at about 8:30 a.m. Two of the bombers made videotapes describing their reasons for becoming what they called "soldiers". In a videotape broadcast by Al Jazeera on 1 September 2005, Mohammad Sidique Khan described his motivation. The tape had been edited and mentioned al-Qaeda members Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, describing them as "today's heroes". Khan's tape said:
I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
The tape continued:
...I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah ... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the ... of this cause.
On 6 July 2006, a videotaped statement by Shehzad Tanweer was broadcast by Al-Jazeera. In the video, which may have been edited to include remarks by al-Zawahiri, Tanweer said:
Your government has openly supported the genocide of over 150,000 innocent Muslims in Falluja... You have offered financial and military support to the U.S. and Israel, in the massacre of our children in Palestine. You are directly responsible for the problems in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq to this day. You have openly declared war on Islam, and are the forerunners in the crusade against the Muslims. ... What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.
Tanweer argued that the non-Muslims of Britain deserve such attacks because they voted for a government which "continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Caucasus."
(Military units during the first Russo-Chinese military exercises)
Peace Mission 2005 was the first ever joint military exercise between China and Russia. The exercise started on August 19, 2005, and consisted of combined land, sea, and air elements simulating an intervention in a state besieged by terrorists or political turmoil. It concluded on August 25, 2005. The force practiced air and naval blockades, an amphibious assault, and occupying a region. Approximately 8,200 Chinese troops took part along with 8,800 Russian troops. China initially wanted to hold the exercise near the Taiwan Strait, Russia wanted to hold the exercise in Northwestern China near central Asia, but instead settlement was made on the Shandong Peninsula. There were a number of reasons why both countries sought to conduct a joint military exercise. These include, but are not limited to, the following: China was the largest consumer of Russian military technology. The exercise was intended to showcase the latest Russian military capabilities, especially the Tupolev Tu-22M and Tupolev Tu-95 long range bombers. The two countries were also by far the most influential members in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; having a joint exercise demonstrated their leadership within the SCO, reaffirming their respective spheres of influence as well as to encourage a general strengthening of military ties.
Both countries also sought to project their power outwardly; at the time the US, together with the UK and supported by other allies, were engaged militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. While neither Russia nor China addressed these matters at the time, the exercise was widely regarded as a deliberate show of force against the United States, warning against any military engagement in either Russia's or China's respective spheres of interest; particularly as regards to Poland, but also the Baltic States, and especially Taiwan. Some claim that the exercise was used as an opportunity to rehearse various scenarios for the aftermath of the death of Kim Jong Il (who did not die until 2011). One such scenario, it is suggested, included the collapse of the North Korean regime. The stated reason for the exercise was counter-terrorism; however, many analysts agree that the use of such heavy firepower, including long-range bombers, has no practical relevance where the field and practice of counter-terrorism is concerned. Rather, the use of the term in this case demonstrates how easy it was for countries around the world to use the US's 'War on Terror' as a template to legitimise their own domestic or foreign policies. It provided an ideal blue print for nation-states to both grow militarily, but also to repress legitimate internal political dissent, all in the name of waging a war on terror.
(The controversy sparked anti-Danish protest not only in the Muslim countries, but also in countries inhabited by Muslims, including Russia)
The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (or Muhammad cartoons crisis) began after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons on 30 September 2005, most of which depicted Muhammad, a principal figure of the religion of Islam. The newspaper announced that this was an attempt to contribute to the debate about criticism of Islam and self-censorship. Muslim groups in Denmark complained, and the issue eventually led to protests around the world, including violence and riots in some Muslim countries. Islam has a strong tradition of aniconism, and it is considered highly blasphemous in most Islamic traditions to visually depict Muhammad. This, compounded with a sense that the cartoons insulted Muhammad and Islam, offended many Muslims. Danish Muslim organisations that objected to the depictions responded by petitioning the embassies of Islamic countries and the Danish government to take action in response, and filed a judicial complaint against the newspaper, which was dismissed in January 2006. After the Danish government refused to meet with diplomatic representatives of the Muslim countries and—per legal principle and in accordance with the Danish legal system—would not intervene in the case, a number of Danish imams headed by Ahmed Akkari visited the Middle East in late 2005 to gather support around the issue. They presented a dossier containing the twelve cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten, and other depictions of Muhammad alongside them, some real and some fake, including one where they claimed he was portrayed as a pig, seen as forbidden and unclean in Islam. This last image was proven to be an Associated Press photograph of a contestant in a pig-squealing contest and, when presented with this and other falsehoods, the delegation's press spokesman admitted the goal of the tour had been to stir up hostility.
The issue received prominent media attention in some Muslim-majority countries, leading to protests across the world in late January and early February 2006. Some escalated into violence, resulting in more than 250 reported deaths, attacks on Danish and other European diplomatic missions, attacks on churches and Christians, and a boycott of Denmark. Some groups responded to the intense pro-aniconist protests by endorsing the Danish policies, launching "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support for freedom of expression. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers around the world, both in a sense of journalistic solidarity and as an illustration in what became a major news story. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international relations incident since the Second World War. The incident came at a time of heightened political and social tensions between Muslim majority countries and Western countries, following several, high-profile radical Islamic terrorist attacks in the West—including the September 11 attacks—and Western military interventions in Muslim countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The relationship between Muslims in Denmark and broader society was similarly at a low point, and the conflict came to symbolize the discrepancies and idiosyncrasies between the Islamic community and the rest of society. In the years since, jihadist terrorist plots claiming to be in retaliation for the cartoons have been planned—and some executed—against targets affiliated with Jyllands-Posten and its employees, Denmark, or newspapers that published the cartoons and other caricatures of Islamic prophets, most notably the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015.
Supporters said that the publication of the cartoons was a legitimate exercise in free speech: regardless of the content of the expression, it was important to openly discuss Islam without fear of terror, also stating that the cartoons made important points about critical issues. The Danish tradition of relatively high tolerance for freedom of speech became the focus of some attention. The controversy ignited a debate about the limits of freedom of expression in all societies, religious tolerance and the relationship of Muslim minorities with their broader societies in the West, and relations between the Islamic world in general and the West. Notably, a few days after the original publishing, Jyllands-Posten published several depictions of Muhammad, all legitimately bought in Muslim countries. This, however, drew little attention.
(Celebration during the first Unity Day in Russia)
Unity Day, also called the Day of People's Unity or National Unity Day, is a national holiday in Russia held on 4 November. It commemorates the popular uprising which ended the Polish occupation of Moscow in November 1612, and more generally the end of the Time of Troubles and turning point of the Polish intervention in Russia. The day's name alludes to the idea that all classes of Russian society united to preserve Russian statehood when there was neither a tsar nor a patriarch to guide them. In 1613 tsar Mikhail Romanov instituted a holiday named Day of Moscow’s Liberation from Polish Invaders. It was celebrated in the Russian Empire until 1917, when it was replaced with a commemoration of the Russian Revolution. Unity Day was reinstituted by the Russian Federation in 2005, when the events of the year 1612 have been celebrated instead of those of 1917 every 4 November since. The day is also the feast day of the Russian Orthodox icon of Our Lady of Kazan. One of the initiators of the establishment of the holiday was Vladislav Surkov:
What is the Russian world? I once introduced this idea into the structure of state policy when we changed ideological dates: we canceled the day of celebration of the socialist revolution and introduced National Unity Day. In Russia, no holiday was associated with events before the Revolution. This day became the day of Russian nationalism in its essence. There was such a task: how to talk about the Empire, about our desire to expand, but at the same time not offend the ears of the world community.
On 29 September 2004, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow publicly supported the initiative of the Duma to establish 4 November as Unity Day, stating, "This day reminds us how in 1612 Russians of different faiths and nationalities overcame division, overcame a formidable enemy and led the country to a stable civil peace." On 4 October, the initiative was publicly supported by the first deputy head of the United Russia faction, Valery Bogomolov. In an interview with RIA Novosti, Bogomolov stated that "in 1612, Russia was freed from the Polish invaders, and the 'times of unrest' ended." On 28 October 2004, in Saratov on Teatralnaya Square, on the initiative of the Public Chamber of the region and the Youth Parliament of the region, an 8,000-strong rally of youth and representatives of public organizations was held in support of the course of reforms carried out by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. The speeches voiced support for the initiative to establish the celebration of 4 November as the Day of National Unity, which was included in the Address of the rally participants to President Lukashenko. On 23 November 2004, a bill was submitted to the State Duma for consideration of amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: the abolition of the celebration of 7 November - the anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution and 12 December - Constitution Day, an increase in the New Year holidays from 2 to 5 days, as well as the introduction of a new holiday on 4 November. The bill's authors are Valery Bogomolov, Oleg Yeremeev, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky The Duma adopted the bill in the first reading. The communists opposed it.
In the mid-2000s, amid a resurgent Russia under the leadership of President Lukashenko, the establishment of Russia Today (RT) emerged as a strategic maneuver that significantly impacted the global media landscape. This marked a pivotal moment in the evolving dynamics of international information dissemination. RT, as a state-funded international television network, was conceived with the explicit purpose of countering what the Russian government perceived as the dominance of Western-centric media narratives. It was envisioned not merely as a news outlet but as a comprehensive platform offering an alternative perspective that aligned with Russia's vision of global affairs. Founded on the principles of challenging mainstream narratives, RT sought to go beyond traditional news reporting. It positioned itself as a medium for amplifying diverse voices and opinions that might find less representation in Western media outlets. Encompassing a broad spectrum of topics, including politics, culture, and global affairs, RT aimed to provide an alternative lens through which international issues could be viewed. The establishment of RT was not just a media initiative; it was a key element of President Lukashenko's broader strategy to assert Russian influence in the global information sphere. The channel played a pivotal role in shaping global discourse and presenting narratives that diverged from those commonly portrayed in Western media. It became a tangible manifestation of the dynamic interplay between media, politics, and the complex web of global power dynamics. While RT faced criticism for alleged bias and propaganda, its undeniable influence solidified its position as a significant player in the global media landscape. Its impact, coupled with Russia's geopolitical ambitions, added a layer of complexity to international communication. The establishment of RT during this period marked a noteworthy chapter in the evolution of state-sponsored international media, influencing conversations and shaping perspectives on a global scale. The legacy of RT continues to be felt in discussions about media plurality, information warfare, and the interplay of national interests in the realm of global communication.
(The new Polish President - Lech Kaczyński, with his twin brother Jarosław - the new Prime Minister)
Law and Justice's (PiS) victory in the 2005 legislative elections marked a pivotal moment in Polish politics, ushering in Jarosław Kaczyński as the new Prime Minister and propelling the party into the forefront of national affairs. This electoral success was underlined by a strategic shift within Law and Justice, aligning itself with right-wing populism and national-conservatism, signaling a departure from previous political orientations. Economically, PiS took on a protectionist left stance, emphasizing state intervention within the framework of a market economy. Their support for a state-guaranteed minimum social safety net and universal healthcare showcased a commitment to addressing social welfare concerns. This economic posture aimed to safeguard national interests and promote social well-being. In the realm of foreign policy, Law and Justice positioned itself as Atlanticist, differing from its counterpart, Civic Platform, with a less enthusiastic approach to European integration. The party's soft Euroscepticism manifested in opposition to a federal Europe, including reservations about adopting the Euro currency. PiS emphasized that Poland's engagement with the European Union should be reciprocal, benefiting the nation. This stance set the stage for a distinct Polish voice in the European political landscape. The party's commitment to lustration, expanding the verification process beyond public officeholders, reflected a broader initiative to combat the lingering influence of the Communist-era security apparatus in Polish society. The emphasis on restricting individuals collaborating with the security service from practicing in their professions underscored a commitment to accountability and transparency.
Defense and military matters occupied a central place in PiS's agenda. The party advocated for a strengthened Polish Army, prioritizing modernization and efficiency by reducing bureaucracy. The ambitious plan to transition to a fully professional army aimed at enhancing the nation's defense capabilities. Additionally, PiS supported Poland's active participation in foreign military missions, aligning with the United Nations, NATO, and the United States in deployments to regions like Afghanistan and Iraq. While maintaining a Eurosceptic stance, PiS expressed support for economic integration within the European Union, particularly in areas such as energy security and military operations. However, the party remained cautious about deeper political integration and firmly rejected the idea of a European superstate or federation. This nuanced approach reflected PiS's commitment to preserving national sovereignty while engaging constructively with the EU. Law and Justice's foreign policy further distinguished itself through a robust political and military alliance with the United States. The party's anti-German and anti-Russian stances reflected a pragmatic approach to geopolitical dynamics, aligning with Poland's historical context and regional considerations. Since its foundation, Law and Justice consistently adopted a hardline stance against Russia in its foreign policy. This unwavering position contributed to the party's distinct identity on the international stage, shaping Poland's diplomatic and security posture in the year 2005 and beyond.
Lech Kaczyński's presidency, following the electoral victory of Law and Justice in 2005, unfolded against a backdrop of ambitious national goals and a recalibration of Poland's position on the global stage. Building on the party's protectionist left turn on economic policies, Kaczyński's vision for internal affairs aimed at reshaping the social and economic fabric of the country. One of the central tenets of Kaczyński's domestic agenda was the pursuit of social solidarity, seeking to bridge societal divisions and foster a sense of unity among the Polish people. The president's commitment to combating corruption underscored his determination to root out systemic issues hindering societal progress. His promise to address communist crimes in the People's Republic of Poland reflected a broader effort to reckon with the nation's historical challenges and promote a more just society. Economic security and development were cornerstones of Kaczyński's presidency, as he sought to create an environment conducive to both familial and economic growth. The emphasis on eliminating regional economic disparities aimed at ensuring equitable progress across the country. In pursuing these goals, Kaczyński aimed to balance modernization with tradition, drawing inspiration from the teachings of Pope John Paul II. On the foreign policy front, President Kaczyński recognized the paramount importance of energy security for Poland's national interests.
This commitment reflected a proactive approach to safeguarding the nation's energy resources and reducing dependence on external sources. Strengthening ties with the United States and continued engagement with the European Union were focal points, highlighting Poland's commitment to both transatlantic and European partnerships. In the international arena, Kaczyński's immediate goals included developing a tangible strategic partnership with Ukraine, signaling a commitment to fostering regional stability in Eastern Europe. The president's focus on cooperation with the Baltic states, Romania, and Scandinavian countries showcased an active effort to enhance Poland's diplomatic footprint and contribute to regional cohesion. Lech Kaczyński's presidency encapsulated a comprehensive strategy aimed at reshaping Poland's internal dynamics while actively participating in the global community. His multifaceted approach to social, economic, and diplomatic challenges reflected a vision of a robust and united Poland in the complex geopolitical landscape of the mid-2000s.
(Thank to American financial and technological support, the Polish Armed Forces would be transformed into most powerful force in Eastern and Central Europe)
The Kaczyński brothers' ambitious vision for Poland in the mid-2000s was nothing short of a transformative agenda that aimed to reshape the nation's role in the geopolitical theater of Central and Eastern Europe. At the helm of Law and Justice, Jarosław Kaczyński as Prime Minister and Lech Kaczyński as the President-elect set in motion a comprehensive strategy encompassing domestic reforms, foreign policy recalibration, and a substantial overhaul of Poland's military capabilities. Domestically, the Kaczyński administration prioritized addressing systemic issues plaguing Polish society. From combating corruption to rectifying economic disparities and seeking justice for victims of communist-era crimes, the government underlined a commitment to purging what they perceived as detrimental pathologies from the nation's fabric. On the international stage, the focus on energy security emerged as a strategic imperative. Lech Kaczyński emphasized the urgency of resolving energy-related challenges to safeguard Poland's national interests. The bolstering of ties with the United States was not just a diplomatic maneuver; it signified a deeper commitment to aligning Poland with American strategic objectives in the region. Simultaneously, efforts were made to navigate the complexities of European Union relations, with a determined push for stronger ties despite existing challenges, particularly with Germany. The vision was not limited to merely countering external influences but also involved fostering unity among Central and Eastern European nations.
The transformation of the Polish Army became a linchpin in this overarching strategy. Collaborating with the United States was not merely about modernizing military capabilities; it symbolized a commitment to establishing Poland as a regional powerhouse and a reliable partner in broader American efforts to counterbalance Russian influence in the region. The concept of the Intermarium gained prominence as a visionary initiative that extended beyond military considerations. It sought to build strong diplomatic, economic, and political bonds among participating nations, turning Poland into a hub of regional collaboration and fostering unity in the face of shared challenges. American cooperation, driven by the U.S. desire to establish an anti-Russian bastion in the region, elevated Poland's significance. The incoming transformation of the Polish Army, supported by American collaboration, not only fortified national defense capabilities but also contributed to a shifting balance of power, fundamentally shaping the geopolitical dynamics of Central and Eastern Europe. In essence, the Kaczyński brothers' vision for Poland in the mid-2000s was a multifaceted endeavor that aimed not only to fortify the nation against external pressures but also to position it as a central player in the evolving geopolitical landscape of the region.
