INNER SANCTUM VECTOR N360™©UNKRANIANCRISIS

S u m m e r 2022

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

UKRANIAN CRISIS LONG-RANGE REPERCUSSIONS

GIANCARLO ELIA VALORI

OUR PRAYERS AND SUPPORT ARE WITH THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE

1

“It’s the responsibility of a Technology Publication to share new ideas and challenge the status quo.

2

And when a Publication fails to include different experiences, beliefs, and ideas, they miss out on a true perspective of our Global Environment.”

Linda Restrepo Editor/Publisher

3

4

5

The

situation in Ukraine has

suddenly changed. After the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the State Duma, the Council of the Russian Federation, and the Russian Federal Security Service pushed President Putin to recognize the independence of the Doneck People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic, on February 21, 2022, local time, he delivered a national video speech, announcing the recognition of the two places as independent countries and signing relevant Presidential agreements and decrees.

W hat

is Russia's reason for

making this move? Since US President Biden took office, the geopolitical game between the United States and Russia has intensified in Ukraine: why should Ukraine be the pivot of the issue?

The Ukrainian crisis is a new round of adjustment in the post-Cold War international situation. Because of its unique geopolitical status, Ukraine is fostering long-term rivalry between major world powers with the so-called “butterfly effect”.

From the US perspective, the memory of the Cold War, hostility, and bias against Russia do not want Russia to intervene militarily in Ukraine or ease the crisis there. Ukraine must be used as a pawn to contain Russia.

This contradiction has made the European Union more dependent on the United States for security, thus having the effect of weakening Russia and at the same time Europe as a continent.

On the Russian side, its military situation in Ukraine is an act of defense to avoid finding itself with nuclear warheads south of Moscow.

R us s i a

does not

tolerate the EU and US political interference in Ukraine, as it undermines the geopolitical space of the Russian-led “Eurasian Union”. It is a project designed to achieve market and resource integration of the CIS countries, which have reshaped the status of Russia as a regional power, and Ukraine - which has a very strong manufacturing and production base - is the most critical link.

The implications of the Ukrainian crisis also concern China. At a time when the United States intervenes everywhere but fails to solve problems - thus causing increasing chaos - China, too, feeling besieged by the United States, needs to devise a constructive strategy to change the existing international order that is unfavorable to it and emerging market countries.

Since the beginning of 2014, Ukraine - a country hardly visible at the time - has become the focus of the global debate.

In February 2014, Ukrainians overthrew the legitimately elected President, Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, through an unconstitutional uprising. Later, unrest developed quickly and reached a climax.

Firstly, with the Russian military forces’ intervention, Crimea declared independence and joined the Russian Federation by a referendum. In Eastern Ukraine, a separatist movement began with the aim of withdrawing from the country (where the Russian minority accounts for 17.3% of the population), leading to the outbreak of civil war.

The country got out of control: not only did the Eastern part fall into a state of intermittent wars, but the State lost the ability to control its destiny in the competition between the great powers, and became cannon fodder in their game.

Behi nd

the conflict in

Ukraine, there is not only the relationship between Kiev and the Eastern region, as well as the escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but also the dispute between Russia and the United States of America. The Ukrainian civil war has not only resulted from internal divisions caused by the government's policy

of overthrowing the legitimately elected President but has also been a proxy war between Russia and the United States.

The United States was the planner of the February 2014 “revolution” and the Ukrainian regime's external supporting force in the civil war, while the referendum in Crimea and the separatist movement in the east had Russian influence behind them. Russia supplied weapons and equipment to the Russian separatists, and the United States and NATO supplied many weapons and war materials to the Ukrainian government forces. Western "mercenaries" were also in the Ukrainian government forces, but not making the same fuss as the European "volunteers" who fought in the ISIS ranks.

The

The United States - which is

training the Ukrainian government’s troops – previously send at least 300 soldiers to Ukraine.

The conflict between Russia and the USA in Ukraine has gradually moved from behind the scenes to the frontline.

Not long ago, former President Obama admitted that the United States had a political involvement in the regime change in the February 2014 “revolution” in Ukraine.

9 9

The Ukrainian issue is the turning point in the long-term conflict between Russia and the US-led West. Behind the crisis, there is the historical entanglement between the United States and Russia in the post-Cold War period.

W ithout

considering

the above, it is hard to gain a deep understanding of the struggles taking place in that country. In the first twelve years after the Soviet Union’s implosion, Russia eagerly and naively wanted to integrate itself into the Western world dominated by the United States.

Although Yeltsin's policy of radical Westernization led to an unbearably bleak decade for Russia, Putin did not give up his efforts to forge close ties with the West in his first two terms.

During Putin's honeymoon with George W. Bush Jr.’s Administration, Russia strongly supported the United States' counterterrorism strategy and devoted many diplomatic resources to strengthening relations with the West. In a NATO speech, Putin said: “We have nothing to gain from confrontation with the world. Russia is back into the mainstream of civilized nations. It needs nothing but its voice to be heard; everyone’s national interests are respected’’.

Nevertheless, a Russia with full selfsustaining diplomatic and military capabilities has always been a US concern.

10

The Russian sphere of influence radiates to the surrounding CIS countries and has gradually become a dominant force. The United States did not tolerate it, although Russia did not challenge the White House’s global power.

Nevertheless, the memory of the Cold War in the US strategic construct and the resulting hostility towards Russia made the USA miss the opportunity to incorporate Russia into the Western international system.

We have seen the United States ignore its commitment vis-à-vis Russia whereby NATO would not expand eastwards when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and gradually the USA eroded the former Soviet Union's leeway and sphere of influence.

Eastern Europe and the Baltic States were later included in the EU and NATO. The Bush Administration announced its unilateral withdrawal from the USRussian Treaty on the Limitation of AntiBallistic Missile Systems, and then set up anti-missile and radar monitoring systems covering the entire territory of Russia, from Poland to the Czech Republic, to the detriment of the strategic nuclear balance between the two countries.

At the same time, what was even more intolerable for Russia was that the United States was trying to control the CIS countries’ regimes through political infiltration and unconstitutional riots.

In 2003, the USA supported the proWestern Georgian Saakashvili in his rise to power. From 2004 to 2005 it followed suit in Ukraine, supporting Yushchenko's government. Russia, which at the time was regaining its strength, adopted a more patient and moderate attitude, curbing protests and countermeasures against the aforementioned US offensive strategies.

In

the eyes of Putin’s government

and of most Russians, however, the US behavior completely ignores the Russian security concerns and continues to compress and weaken the Russian strategic space for its survival and development. Before the outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict, the basis of strategic trust in Russia-USA relations had long vanished over the years.

The

Ukrainian crisis has become

the trigger for the quick deterioration of Russia-USA relations, thus turning Russia's defensive tactics towards the United States from a moderate resistance into a stern factual warning, as the United States has challenged the Putin government’s strategic bottom line in two ways.

Firstly, Russia cannot stand idle faced with the political situation in which the West controls its surrounding strategic buffer zone, thus enabling NATO to expand eastward to the CIS countries to threaten the security of its borders, and above all, it does not want to give the United States any opportunity to turn Ukraine into a military beachhead to contain and threaten - with the nuclear weapons on its borders - the Russian State.

Although the apparent cause of the February 2014 “revolution” was that Yanukovich was obstructing Ukraine's accession to the EU, NATO and the EU could not simply be mistaken, with the latter acting as a cover for entering the former, which is a military organization.

The historical experience of integration of the three Baltic countries (plus Georgia in fieri) into the Western system and Russia's security anxiety over Ukraine's inclusion in NATO are evident because once the Ukrainian government has fully turned to the West and placed itself at the US service, it can no longer be as independent and non-aligned as before.

Secondly, from the Putin Administration's viewpoint, Ukraine's inclusion in the EU - by the US will - is intended to undermine the Russian-led “Eurasian Union”.

11

The “Eurasian Union” is an important commitment of Putin's third term, and hopes to achieve market and resource integration in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), as well as reshape the status of Russia as a regional power. With a population of 45 million people and a good industrial base, Ukraine is the most crucial part of it. The United States and the West see the “Eurasian Union” as an expression of Russia's ambition to geopolitically rebuild the Soviet-Russian empire. The US global hegemony - the so-called “manifest destiny” - cannot accommodate the dream of a regional power that Russia is unwilling to give up.

This, too,is a structural contradiction between the United States and Russia.

The Western world describes Russia's military involvement in Ukraine as an aggressive expansion, but from Russia's viewpoint, it is a defensive measure: the country must face security threats as another power is about to intrude into its strategic zone.

Putin’s government has responded to Western economic sanctions with countermeasures. It has formulated new military guidelines to redefine national security threats.

12

It has announced the suspension of the implementation of the Conventional Forces Treaty in Europe and has even rejected the deterrence of Russia as a nuclear power. Putin's government and the Russian society seem to be prepared to face or endure long-term Western sanctions.

The United States does not want a solution according to a political agreement favorable to Russia.

The conflict in Ukraine has turned NATORussia relations from post-Cold War cooperation to a return to it.

At

the NATO Summit of September

4, 2014, Russia was identified as NATO's “adversary” for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Later Russia revised its military guidelines to list NATO and the United States as the main threats to the country's national security.

The Crimea issue and the Ukrainian crisis have further undermined the already fragile strategic mutual trust between Russia and the United States, and this situation is unlikely to change substantially in the short term.

The Ukrainian conflict has also triggered significant changes in Russia-Europe and USA-Europe relations. The United States successfully used the Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash (caused by Russian separatists on July 17, 2014) as an opportunity to force Europe, Japan and Australia to impose severe sanctions on Russia. This shows again that Europe has no ability to change or influence the US decision-making process in the relationship between great powers.

Putin has made Europe a top priority of his diplomacy for many years, especially during the Putin-Schröder-Chirac Troika era. He had established a tacit cooperative relationship with Germany and France in international affairs, which - to some extent - limited the unilateral US hegemony.

Thi s

valuable interaction has

continued in personal relations with the current leaders of Germany and France.

But after the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, the EU - which, as stated earlier, lacks well-defined and legitimately elected political leadership and military autonomy - took NATO as its strategic priority, and chose a servile policy towards Russia in line with the US interests.

The Ukrainian crisis, however, was not enough to shake the fundamental relationship between Russia and real Europe, not the Europe of politicians and institutions. There is no structural political contradiction between Russia and Europe. Quite the reverse.

Economic ties are very close. The economic losses caused by Western sanctions against Russia are mainly borne by EU Member States and now most of these countries would not want sanctions.

EU

countries have lost tens of

billions of dollars due to the conflict in Ukraine, which is undoubtedly worse for the European economy that has been stagnating for two years, thus adding to the pandemic problems.

The Greek issue and religious extremism are currently the main problems facing Europe. Major European countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are reluctant to carry the burden of Ukraine to bow to the US “manifest destiny”.

Russia has taken advantage of the differences within the EU on the RussiaUkraine issue to try to loosen relations with European countries, differentiating them internally and showing the contradictions between these countries and US wishes.

13

Through the Ukrainian crisis, the United States has successfully reshaped the former “Soviet Communist beast” with Russia as Europe's “enemy”, strengthening the EU countries’ security dependence on the White House.

The

relationship of trust

between the United States and Europe, however, is developing in the opposite direction, as the United States is trying to weaken Russia and - at the same time - the EU’s economic strength and “ethical” status.

Looking away from Europe, the continuation of the Ukrainian crisis and the deterioration of USA-Russia relations will certainly influence the positioning of US strategy in Asia-Pacific and China. If the Ukrainian conflict were to continue and turn into a long-term tug-of-war, the USA could change it's current “back to Asia” strategy, which focuses on containing China. From the Realpolitik perspective, the structural contradiction between China and the United States is based on changes in the balance of power and is much more important than the strategic contradiction between the United States and Russia.

There is no misunderstanding about China’s and the United States’ strategic intentions.

China, whose strength is steadily growing, is seeking a corresponding international status, trying to change the US unipolar international order in favor of a multipolar one, which is what the White House is most concerned about and cannot accept.

Therefore, the US policy of containing China in the Asia-Pacific region and Russia’s continued weakening in Europe would go hand in hand. Given avoiding the weakening of its dominance in key strategic regions, the United States has done its utmost to prevent China and Japan from cooperating in Asia, while in Europe - it has tried to prevent Russia and the EU from achieving strategic reconciliation and mutual trust - over and above the long-standing and fruitful trade relations.

The

United States, whose very

costly relative power of expansion is declining - with the American people that, unlike the New England elites, have always preferred isolationism and non-intervention abroad - is pushing the international community and regional powers to confront China and Russia to maintain the legitimacy of its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe.

This has proved to be destructive rather than inspiring: just think of the outcomes in Iraq and recently the flight from Afghanistan. Moreover, after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the US-led NATO has continued to expand. This expansion, which has reached as far as Ukraine, is a warning to China that the USA has a deeply rooted realistic geopolitical thinking and mindset when dealing with major relations with countries with their power and strength.

The pressure of the international system led by the United States also against Russia is the reason why China and Russia have come closer.

Bot h

countries have worked

hard to be recognized and accepted by the international community on equal terms and conditions, but the West - in the service of the United States - cannot tolerate the ideas advocated by nationStates with great power aspirations.

They cannot accept them based on their characteristics, development model, and political way of managing society.

The United States and the EU are used to seeing China and Russia as a set of universally applicable stereotypes and a "we are good, they are bad" way of thinking, interfering in both countries

internal affairs, using the power of international discourse to attack Chinese and Russian societies, and using all kinds of defamation and demonization at a high political level.

Although Russia had problems in the process of democratic transition, its basic social values and its political system are not fundamentally different from those of the West. Quite the reverse. They are much better than the political systems of US and EU wellknown friends. Although China and Russia have different religions, cultures, and political systems, they have established relations of mutual respect, equality, and independence between major powers - the kind of real independence that is hard to find in the EU itself.

The

nature of Sino-Russian

relations is different from the unequal relations between the United States and its European, Japanese and oceanic allies: the two countries do not impose themselves, nor do they point the finger at each other, nor does one give orders to the other, as happens in Italy and many Western countries.

15

Volodymyr Zelenskyy President of Ukraine

They respect each other's independence and take the geopolitical core of mutual interests into account as reliable partners.

At

the same time, current Sino-

Russian relations are also different from those of Sino-Soviet subordination, based on ideological “friendship” since the 1950s. They are relations of equality and mutual assistance based on the strategic interests of both countries, and not just one, as is the case in the West.

Preserving and deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia will be the trend and direction of efforts for a long time to come. This is not only in response to the Cold War mentality that is characterized by the arrogance and preconceived ideas typical of the West.

Sino-Russian strategic cooperation and the interesting relationship is long-term and structural and has an intrinsic foundation and value. The Ukrainian crisis is only a catalyst for promoting Sino-Russian relations. Since his second term in office (2004-2008), Putin has taken advantage of China's rise to revitalize Russia. Since then, SinoRussian strategic cooperation relations have progressed quickly.

Although there are objective obstacles to deepening these relations, trust between the parties has strengthened, especially since the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis. Russia's eastward strategy and China's westward strategy have begun to increasingly intersect.

From a practical economic perspective, the Ukrainian crisis and Western sanctions may firstly lead to changes in the global energy model, and the layout of the Russian energy export market has already started to shift towards Asia.

For

China, which has huge

energy needs and seeks to diversify risks through multiple channels, this is an opportunity. China has recently signed a gas agreement with Russia after ten years of negotiations. Western sanctions will certainly force Russia to develop an ever deeper financial relationship with China.

Russian business tycoons are already starting to switch to the credit cards of China UnionPay (the only credit card issuer authorized in the country), converting more US dollars into Hong Kong dollars and depositing them in Chinese banks in Hong Kong.

W hile

Sino-Russian

bilateral trade, investment, and loans have started to increase the scope of deals denominated in local currency and Russia accepts payments in renmimbi yuan. The scope of the renmimbi yuan is expanding, which will have a major impact on the internationalization of this currency. Western sanctions have already led the Putin government to start promoting the Russian market’s diversification in terms of economic strategy.

Economic countermeasures against Europe entail the large-scale transfer of the market for agricultural products elsewhere and may continue to expand in the field of industrial products. Fast expansion and penetration in the construction of high-speed railways, agriculture, military technology, satellite navigation systems, ports, logistics, IT industry, manufacturing, nuclear energy, and many other fields.

Since China and Russia also have common strategic needs that go beyond economic interests, relations between the two countries are increasingly limited to mutual benefit and pragmatic cooperation on a purely economic level.

China and Russia are facing the combined forces of the US-led alliance system in East Asia and Europe, respectively.

The East China Sea, South China Sea, and Ukraine are only specific points of struggle. The central problem is that - as great military powers with a long history and civilization - neither China nor Russia can accept the path laid out by the United States and the West to determine their internal affairs and foreign policies.

From

a defensive

viewpoint, the strategic mutual assistance between China and Russia provides mutual support and solidarity in the face of reality and public pressure in Western countries. During the Ukrainian crisis, Chinese officials endeavored to ease the RussianUkrainian friction and the situation in the country. When the West implemented economic sanctions and political isolation against Russia, China always opposed the encirclement and political repression and provided strong support to Russia.

In the future, China may face a problem similar to the Russia-Ukraine one due to the issues related to Taiwan, the South China Sea, and Diaoyu Islands. Hence it will need loyal allies.

Background Picture: Russia vs Ukraine flag on cracked wall, concept of war between Russia and Ukraine, silhouette of soldiers on Russia vs Ukraine flag.

19

Over

the last two decades and until a few months ago -

from the viewpoint of concrete actions - we have seen that the US strength has gradually lost the ability and willingness to create constructive situations of world peace and prosperity, creating instead situations of conflict that worsened the scenario. The United States used the South China Sea, the Diaoyu Islands, and Ukraine to fuel disputes in Asia and Europe and start a series of color uprisings in Europe - and then the “Arab Springs” in the Middle East, West Asia, and North Africa - but it was later unable to remedy the situation, as demonstrated in Afghanistan.

At

a time when the United States intervenes everywhere but

fails to solve its self-created problems, there are only chaos and winds of war. This requires that cooperation between Russia and China should not be limited to bilateralism, but should also further unite regional powers such as India, Brazil, and the Republic of South Africa and play a greater role in the mechanism of cooperation in emerging markets and in the public and political spheres of countries that can still call themselves independent.

21

21 21

Edificio Valori At Peking University

Giancarlo Elia Valori and Yitzhak Rabin

Giancarlo Elia Valori and Shimon Peres

Giancarlo Elia Valori and Papa Giovanni Paolo II Giancarlo Elia Valori and Jacques DELORS, President of the European Commission 1985 /1995

Giancarlo Elia Valori and Jiang Zemin,President of of China 1993 to 2003

Giancarlo Elia Valori and Jacques Chirac, President of France 2007 and Bernard Esambert

Giancarlo Elia ValorI and Papa Giovanni Paolo II

Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is a worldrenowned Italian economist and international relations expert, who serves as the President of the International World Group.

In 1995, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem dedicated the Giancarlo Elia Valori chair of Peace and Regional Cooperation. Prof. Valori also holds chairs for Peace Studies at Yeshiva University in New York and at Peking University in China.

Among his many honors from countries and institutions around the world, Prof. Valori is an Honorable of the Academy of Science at the Institute of France, as well as Knight Grand Cross and Knight of Labor of the Italian Republic.

26

EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES CYBERSECURITY

Linda Restrepo is Director of Education and Innovation Human Health Education and Research Foundation. She has been a recognized Women in Technology Leader Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence.

Restrepo's expertise also includes Exponential Technologies Management, Computer Algorithms, Research, Implementation Management of Complex Humanmachine Systems. Interstellar exploration and Mars Human Habitats; Global Economic Impacts Research. Restrepo is President of a global government and military defense multidisciplinary research and strategic development firm.

29

She has directed Corporate Technology Commercialization through the US National Laboratories. Emerging Infectious Diseases, Restrepo is also the Chief Executive Officer of Professional Global Outreach. Restrepo has advanced degrees from The University of Texas and New Mexico State University.

TECHNOLOGY IN THE MAKING

INNER SANCTUM VECTOR N360™© LINDA RESTREPO

|

PUBLISHER - EDITOR

TECHNOLOGY IN THE MAKING DISCLAIMER: This Magazine is designed to provide information, entertainment and motivation to our readers. It does not render any type of political, cybersecurity, computer programming, defense strategy, ethical, legal or any other type of professional advice. It is not intended to, neither should it be construed as a comprehensive evaluation of any topic. The content of this Presentation is the sole expression and opinion of the authors. No warranties or guarantees are expressed or implied by the authors or the Editor. Neither the authors nor the Editor are liable for any physical, psychological, emotional, financial, or commercial damages, including, but not limited to, special, incidental, consequential or other damages. You are responsible for your own choices, actions, and results.

LINDA RESTREPO

|

PUBLISHER - EDITOR