Thursday 5 September 2024

FRANCE HAS FINALLY GOT A PRIME MINISTER

5 September 2024


You gotta hand it to Jupiter. First Macron made an alliance with the Left to stop Le Pen winning. 

Now he's made a deal with Le Pen to keep the Left out of power. 

Brilliant...he, well Macron's party, came in third by votes cast (Le Pen, of the "far" right, got a third of the votes, the Left a quarter)

Yet despite getting third place, he managed to snooker the other two to keep his party in power.

Another irony. Barnier, 73, will be the oldest PM of France's Fifth Republic, while he succeeds Gabriel Attal, the youngest, who was appointed only eight months ago.

Brilliant!

=====

1. Background on Macron's Electoral Strategy

- After a poor result in the European elections, Macron called for a parliamentary election. 
- His goal was to weaken both the far-left and far-right, which he considered extreme, although this view is debatable - how can a party be described as far right if a third of the country votes for it?

2. Election Results

- Macron's plan backfired. Approximately a third of the electorate voted for Le Pen's National Rally, while a quarter supported the left.
- As a result, Macron's party found itself in the minority in parliament.

3. Deal with the Left

- For the second round of the election, Macron made a deal with the left - they ganged up on the National Rally to exclude it from power. In seats where there was a possibility that one or the other wood win the other stepped aside. This is called the Republican front or the Republican barrier. It works where one party had a chance to win, the other would step down to avoid splitting the vote. 
- This strategy worked, with the left gaining the majority of seats, followed by Macron's party I think and Le Pen's National Rally.:

a. New Popular Front (NFP): A left-wing coalition led by Mélenchon, won 188 seats, becoming the largest bloc
b. .nsemble! (ENS): Macron’s centrist alliance secured 161 seats, a significant drop compared to previous elections.
c. National Rally (RN): Marine Le Pen’s far-right party captured 142 seats, marking substantial gains from earlier results.

4. Cross-Party Complications

- Despite this, Macron was still in a minority position in parliament.
- He then double-crossed Mélenchon by refusing to support a left-wing Prime Minister, even though the left had the most seats. 
- Macron couldn't support a candidate from the right either due to the Republican front.

5. Outcome: a compromise

- Instead of accepting a far-left or far-right candidate, Macron convinced the right-wing to partially support his programme.
- He appointed a centrist Prime Minister, Michel Barnier, ensuring that his party could still effectively run parliament, despite finishing third in terms of seats.

First Interview with Barnier following his Appointment

https://youtu.be/Ia5Ag8lvWp4?si=14v6STI3G4lLFlvT

Comment

1. Macron’s Leadership Criticism

- The writer criticises Emmanuel Macron for being arrogant and self-serving.
- They argue that Macron’s recent political decisions, particularly appointing an elderly right-wing Les Républicains Prime Minister, do not align with the people's will.

2. Betrayal of the Left

- Macron's reliance on left-wing votes to block Marine Le Pen in previous elections is viewed as a betrayal since his policies now appear similar to hers.
  
3. Democratic Concerns

- The lack of compromise by the leftist **NFP** coalition has hindered government formation, and there are concerns about Le Pen's future success threatening democracy.

4. Pessimistic Outlook

- The author fears Macron will be seen as the person who undermined the French Republic, similar to how **Napoleon** did after the Revolution.

Sunday 1 September 2024

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

1 September 2024


A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

1. The End of the Cold War, Initial Cooperation, The Birth of NATO Epansion (1989-1999)

- End of the Cold War: The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War. This period was characterised by a brief optimism for a new era of cooperation between Russia and the West, with hopes for Russia’s integration into the global economy and security framework.

- Initial Cooperation: During the 1990s, under President Boris Yeltsin, Russia sought closer ties with the West, focusing on economic reforms and integration into global markets. The West, in turn, provided financial aid and assistance to support Russia’s transition to a market economy. Cooperation on nuclear disarmament and arms control was also significant during this time.

- NATO Expansion: However, tensions began to surface as NATO expanded eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact countries and even some former Soviet republics. The first idea was generated by President Clinton in 1994 and officialised in a document written by Brzezinski in 1997 for NATO expansion explicitly including Ukraine. 

Russia viewed this as a threat to its security and a violation of verbal assurances from Western leaders (notably James Baker, Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush), "not one inch East") ie that NATO would not move eastward. This issue laid the groundwork for growing distrust between Russia and the West.

2. Growing Tensions and Russian Resurgence (2000-2014)

- Putin's Rise and Assertiveness: Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in 1999 marked a significant shift in Russian foreign policy. Putin sought to "make Russia great again", in today's parlance, ie restore order and pride after the chaos of the 1990s, to reassert Russia’s influence globally and to reverse the perceived decline of the 1990s. Under his leadership, Russia became increasingly critical of NATO’s expansion and the West’s influence in Russia’s neighbouring states.

- 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit: At the Bucharest Summit, U.S. President George W. Bush discussed the aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance. NATO did not extend a formal Membership Action Plan (MAP), but the summit's final declaration included a significant statement: "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO." Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, observed that Russia would see this as a declaration of war.

Georgia War and the Rose Revolution: In 2008, Russia intervened militarily in Georgia to support the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after Georgia attempted to reclaim these territories. The CIA and other government agencies had historically provided significant support to Georgia, especially after the Rose Revolution in 2003, which brought the pro-Western Mikheil Saakashvili to power. This support included military aid, training for Georgian forces, and intelligence-sharing, aimed at strengthening Georgia's defense forces and assisting its integration with Western institutions such as NATO. The West condemned Russia’s actions but took no direct military action.

- Ukraine and the Orange Revolution: Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought a pro-Western government to power, was another significant point of contention. Russia viewed Ukraine as a key part of its sphere of influence, part of its "near abroad", and was deeply opposed to its potential integration into NATO and the European Union.

3. The 2014 Crisis, the Minsk Accords, and Escalation (2014-2021)

- 2014 Ukrainian Revolution: In 2014, Ukraine experienced a significant political upheaval when President Viktor Yanukovych, who was pro-Russian, was ousted following mass protests. The West supported this revolution, Victoria Nuland was present on the ground and is recorded in conversation 10 days before Maidan discussing who she would like to see as the new President. Maidan was triggered by Yanukovych’s decision to reject an EU association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia. Russia, however, identified this as a Western-backed coup that installed a government in Kyiv hostile to Russian interests.

- Annexation of Crimea: In response, Russia swiftly annexed Crimea, citing the protection of ethnic Russians and strategic interests, particularly the naval base in Sevastopol. This move was condemned by the West and led to the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia.

- War in Donbas and the Minsk Accords: Following the annexation of Crimea, pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region declared independence, leading to a conflict with the Ukrainian government. The Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015 were negotiated to end the fighting and establish a framework for peace, including a ceasefire and political reforms in Ukraine, such as greater autonomy for the Donbas. However, this accord was not fully implemented, Angela Merkel has recently stated on the record that there was never any intention to implement Minsk and it was merely it was merely there to provide time for the West to arm Ukraine. 

- Continued Tensions: Under the new President, laws were passed to outlaw the Russian language, Kiev began shelling the Donbas and Ukraine was able to build its first army.

So despite the Minsk Accords, fighting in the Donbas persisted, with over 14,000 deaths primarily among civilians. Russia continued to support the separatists, while the West imposed further sanctions on Russia and provided limited military aid to Ukraine. 

These sanctions, however, had unintended consequences: while they were intended to weaken the Russian economy, they instead led to economic resilience in Russia, which adapted by strengthening domestic industries and forging new trade partnerships, especially with China and other non-Western countries. Meanwhile, Europe, particularly Germany, faced economic challenges, including energy shortages and rising costs, due to its reliance on Russian energy.

4. The 2022 Incursion into Ukraine

On 21 December 2021, President Putin published a framework for resolving the dispute and invited the West to negotiate the west did not respond.

- Objectives of the Russian Incursion: On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a Special Military Operation into Ukraine, citing three primary objectives:

  1. Protection of Russian Speakers in Donbas: Russia claimed it was acting to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas, who, according to Moscow, had endured eight years of shelling by Ukrainian forces, resulting in 14,000 deaths. Russia portrayed this as a humanitarian intervention.
  2. Insistence on Ukrainian Neutrality: Russia demanded that Ukraine remain a neutral state, explicitly rejecting its potential membership in NATO. Moscow viewed Ukraine’s possible alignment with NATO as an existential threat, given the proximity of Western military forces to Russian borders.

  3. Removal of the Kyiv Government: Russia sought to remove what it called a “fascist” government in Kyiv, which it argued had been installed by a Western-backed coup in 2014. According to Russia, this government posed a direct threat to Russian security and the ethnic Russian population in Ukraine.

It is called by Russia a "Special Military Operation" because it is not a war against the people of Ukraine who Russia considers to be its brothers and sisters but against the regime in Kiev and its arned forces.

- Istanbul Near-Accord (April 2022): Early in the incursion, peace talks between Russia and Ukraine were held in Istanbul. These negotiations nearly resulted in an agreement, with Ukraine reportedly willing to commit to neutrality in exchange for security guarantees. However, the talks ultimately broke down, with both sides accusing each other of bad faith. The breakdown of these negotiations led to the continuation and intensification of the conflict.

5. Conclusion

- Long-standing Grievances and Strategic Interests: Russia’s 2022 incursion into Ukraine is the culmination of years of deteriorating relations with the West, driven by grievances over NATO expansion, the perceived betrayal of post-Cold War agreements, and the West’s support for political movements in former Soviet states like Ukraine. The failure of the Minsk Accords and the breakdown of the Istanbul talks further deepened the conflict.

- Geopolitical Objectives: Russia’s actions are rooted in a desire to protect its strategic interests, ensure Ukraine’s neutrality, and reassert its influence in the post-Soviet space. The incursion reflects Russia’s broader challenge to the post-Cold War security order in Europe, which it views as dominated by the West and detrimental to its security.

- Sanctions and Economic Impact: The Western sanctions imposed on Russia after the annexation of Crimea and during the 2022 incursion were intended to cripple Russia’s economy. However, these sanctions backfired to some extent. Russia strengthened its economy by boosting domestic production and forming new trade partnerships. Conversely, Europe, particularly Germany, faced significant economic challenges due to its dependence on Russian energy, leading to rising energy costs and economic strain.

- Ongoing Conflict: The conflict in Ukraine remains unresolved, with significant implications for global security, the balance of power in Europe, and the future of international relations. The incursion has deepened the divide between Russia and the West, making any near-term reconciliation highly unlikely.

September 2024: fortunately Russia is winning on the battlefield otherwise we would be heading for nuclear exchange and World War 3.

WHY AMERICA SUPPORTS ISRAEL

1 September 2024




WHY AMERICA SUPPORTS ISRAEL

The United States provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in military aid, which is given, not lent. This support is rooted in strategic, political, and ideological reasons. 

Israel is a key ally in the Middle East, helping the US maintain regional stability, safeguard oil supplies, and counter threats from hostile states like Iran. 

The aid also strengthens the US-Israel military and intelligence partnership, supports Israel's role as a stabilising democratic force, and reflects a historical commitment to ensuring Israel's security. 

Additionally, the strong domestic political support for Israel in the US, combined with mutual benefits in defence and technology, further justifies this ongoing assistance.

1. Strategic Alliance and Regional Influence


- Military and Intelligence Cooperation: The United States uses its close alliance with Israel to maintain a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Israel's military capabilities and advanced intelligence services are key assets for the US, helping to monitor and counter potential threats from other regional powers like Iran, which could disrupt oil supplies and trade routes.

- Technological and Defence Collaboration: Israel is a major partner in the development and testing of advanced military technologies, including missile defence systems like Iron Dome. These technologies not only protect Israel but also enhance US military capabilities in the region, ensuring the protection of vital interests like oil infrastructure and shipping lanes.

2. Securing Oil Supplies and Trade Routes

- Regional Stability: By supporting Israel, the US helps ensure a balance of power in the Middle East that discourages aggressive moves by other states that could threaten the flow of oil. Israel’s military strength acts as a deterrent against regional conflicts that could disrupt oil supplies.

- Protection of Shipping Lanes: The Middle East’s trade routes, especially through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, are crucial for global oil shipments. The US, through its alliance with Israel, helps ensure these routes remain open and secure. Israel’s location provides a strategic advantage, allowing the US to project power and respond quickly to threats in these critical areas.

3. Geopolitical Leverage

- Countering Regional Rivals: Israel serves as a counterbalance to countries like Iran and Syria, which may oppose US interests. By supporting Israel, the US can exert pressure on these rivals and contain their influence, which is crucial for maintaining control over the region’s resources and political landscape.

- Influence on Arab States: The US-Israel relationship also influences other Arab states. While many of these states historically viewed Israel as an adversary, the shifting alliances, especially in recent years with the Abraham Accords, have seen some Arab states normalise relations with Israel under US mediation. This bolsters US influence over these countries and helps secure their cooperation in maintaining regional stability and oil flows.

4. Maintaining US Hegemony

- Power Projection: Israel is a key ally in the US strategy to maintain its hegemony in the Middle East. The presence of a strong, technologically advanced ally like Israel allows the US to project its power across the region, deterring adversaries and ensuring that the region remains under US influence.

- Diplomatic Leverage: The US leverages its support for Israel in international forums to maintain its broader geopolitical objectives in the Middle East. By positioning itself as Israel’s primary ally, the US gains significant diplomatic influence, which it uses to shape regional politics and protect its interests, including the uninterrupted supply of oil and the security of trade routes.

5. Conclusion

- Comprehensive Strategy: The US uses its relationship with Israel as a multifaceted strategy to ensure its control over the Middle East. This includes safeguarding oil supplies, keeping trade routes open, counterbalancing regional rivals, and maintaining its geopolitical dominance. Israel's strategic location, military prowess, and intelligence capabilities are critical to these efforts, making it an indispensable ally in America's broader Middle East policy.

Extent of US Financial Aid to Israel

1. US Financial Aid to Israel

- The United States provides Israel with approximately $3 billion annually in aid. This figure is mostly in the form of military assistance, and it is given, not lent, meaning Israel does not have to repay this money.

- Details of the Aid:

  - Military Assistance: The bulk of the aid is provided through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which Israel uses to purchase American-made military equipment and services. This strengthens Israel’s defence capabilities and ensures that the country maintains a qualitative military edge over its regional adversaries.

  - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): In 2016, the US and Israel signed a ten-year MOU, covering fiscal years 2019-2028, which pledges $38 billion in military aid over this period. This equates to roughly $3.8 billion annually, slightly more than the previous agreements.

2. Reasons for US Aid to Israel

- Strategic Alliance:
  - Regional Stability: Israel is a key ally in the Middle East, a region of critical importance due to its strategic location and vast oil reserves. The US views Israel as a stabilising force in a volatile region. By ensuring Israel’s security, the US helps maintain stability in the Middle East, which is vital for global energy supplies and trade routes.

  - Military and Intelligence Partnership: Israel provides the US with valuable intelligence on regional threats, including terrorist groups and hostile states like Iran. The military aid helps Israel act as a deterrent against these threats, indirectly contributing to US security interests.

- Political and Ideological Reasons:

  - Support for a Democratic Ally: Israel is often referred to as the only stable democracy in the Middle East, ( even while the non-Jewish population does not play a significant part in electing governments and determining Israeli government policies). The US sees supporting Israel as part of its broader mission to promote democracy and human rights around the world, even though this narrative is debated and contested in various circles.

  - Domestic Political Support: There is strong bipartisan support for Israel in the US Congress, influenced by a combination of factors, including the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC, cultural and religious ties, and the importance of the Jewish-American community in US politics.

- Historical and Moral Commitment:

  - Post-Holocaust Support: The US has historically supported Israel since its founding in 1948, partly as a response to the horrors of the Holocaust. This support has been framed as a moral obligation to ensure the security of the Jewish people.

- Economic and Technological Collaboration:

  - Technological Exchange: Israel is a leader in high-tech innovation and defence technology. The close relationship between the two countries fosters collaboration in these areas, benefiting both US and Israeli industries. A significant portion of the military aid is spent on US defence contractors, which bolsters the American defence industry.

3. Conclusion

- Comprehensive Benefits for the US: The US provides Israel with $3 billion annually, largely because it sees Israel as a strategic ally that helps maintain stability in the Middle East, supports US security interests, and aligns with American political and ideological values. The aid is a reflection of the deep and multifaceted relationship between the two nations, underpinned by both strategic considerations and a strong domestic political consensus.