Posts by thedailyjournalist:

A picture is worth 1000 words, but how many emotions?

February 21st, 2015

 

The Daily Journalist.

 

Log on to Twitter, Facebook or other social media and you will find that much of the content shared with you comes in the form of images, not just words. Those images can convey a lot more than a sentence might, and will often provoke emotions in the viewer.

During a political campaign voters will often share their views on through pictures posted on social media. Two different pictures might show the same candidate, but they might be making very different political statements. A human could recognize one as being a positive portrait of the candidate and the other one negative. Professor ‪Jiebo Luo and his collaborators are training computers to make the same assessments.



 Source: University of Rochester

Jiebo Luo, professor of computer science at the University of Rochester, in collaboration with researchers at Adobe Research has come up with a more accurate way than currently possible to train computers to be able to digest data that comes in the form of images.

In a paper presented last week at the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) conference in Austin, Texas, they describe what they refer to as a progressive training deep convolutional neural network (CNN).

The trained computer can then be used to determine what sentiments these images are likely to elicit. Luo says that this information could be useful for things as diverse as measuring economic indicators or predicting elections.

Sentiment analysis of text by computers is itself a challenging task. And in social media, sentiment analysis is more complicated because many people express themselves using images and videos, which are more difficult for a computer to understand.

For example, during a political campaign voters will often share their views through pictures. Two different pictures might show the same candidate, but they might be making very different political statements. A human could recognize one as being a positive portrait of the candidate (e.g. the candidate smiling and raising his arms) and the other one being negative (e.g. a picture of the candidate looking defeated). But no human could look at every picture shared on social media – it is truly “big data.” To be able to make informed guesses about a candidate’s popularity, computers need to be trained to digest this data, which is what Luo and his collaborators’ approach can do more accurately than was possible until now.

The researchers treat the task of extracting sentiments from images as an image classification problem. This means that somehow each picture needs to be analyzed and labels applied to it.

To begin the training process, Luo and his collaborators used a huge number of Flickr images that have been loosely labeled by a machine algorithm with specific sentiments, in an existing database known as SentiBank (developed by Professor Shih-Fu Chang’s group at Columbia University). This gives the computer a starting point to begin understanding what some images can convey. But the machine-generated labels also include a likelihood of that label being true, that is, how sure is the computer that the label is correct?

The key step of the training process comes next, when they discard any images for which the sentiment or sentiments with which they have been labeled might not be true. So they use only the “better” labeled images for further training in a progressively improving manner within the framework of the powerful convolutional neural network. They found that this extra step significantly improved the accuracy of the sentiments with which each picture is labeled.

They also adapted this sentiment analysis engine with some images extracted from Twitter. In this case they employed “crowd intelligence,” with multiple people helping to categorize the images via the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. They used only a small number of images for fine-tuning the computer and yet, by applying this domain-adaptation process, they showed they could improve on current state of the art methods for sentiment analysis of Twitter images. One surprising finding is that the accuracy of image sentiment classification has exceeded that of the text sentiment classification on the same Twitter messages.

Comments Off on A picture is worth 1000 words, but how many emotions?

Will Europe’s imminent political change help other agendas?

February 19th, 2015

 

The Daily Journalist community opinion.

 



Even though premature, one could say Europe is reforming itself for change. Syriza in Greece won the elections a week ago, and although change is positive for some experts, it Didn’t digest well in the offices of the European Council and the IMF. Change might reverse the geopolitical structure of Europe, swept by the economic backlash during the global recession in 2008, and 2010. But we must also look at Scotland’s recent referendum to observe that some countries are starting to change their view of unity, only accepting in higher regards their individual sovereignty without obstacles. 

Larger economies like Spain with PODEMOS, or Italy with the Five Star Movement are gaining political terrain winning voters from traditional based parties. If they win the elections, many experts are unaware what economic and geopolitical consequences these transformations might result into, and will these create chain reactions in other neighboring countries that might end in an unknown paradox for the EU.    

Meanwhile Merkel, Hollande are negotiating with Putin, Russia’s military control over some Ukrainian territories to cease immediately.  We will see how Putin responds to pressure from the EU, as the ruble crumbles thanks to financial sanctions, where he might look for a military solution. But that might not be the case because China and Russia have a futuristic energy agreement that might solve Russia’s economic instability once and for all piggybacking on China’s inspiring market. 

The questions. 

1) Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics, and globalist  seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

– What denomination do these parties represent? 

-Will Europe divide itself? 

-And are these transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries? 

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway? 

3) Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

4) How should Germany and France among others respond to these reforms?  

 



Sebastian Sarbu.

(He is a military analyst and vicepresident of National Academy of Security and Defence Planning. Member of American Diplomatic Mission for International Relations.)

“Risk division of Europe is serious, because of two main trends:

The competition among Euroamerica zone (The Occident) and Euroasia zone, on one side, and the growing euroscepticism trend on other side.

An important  factor of risk inside the European Union is heterogeneity of development models, political approaches, and construction among the national states member of EU.

I agree with military unity and social, economical, cultural synergistic coexistence which meansmore security. After the removal of economic barriers, following the enlargement process of EU, the Need  for Security increased, amid the new global threats and changes.

Putin is interested to feed the extremist groups and to encourage the skeptical voices and trends, on strategic plan to play his role of false artisan of a new order ( new era postglobalisation).

The Europe of the Values is more important than an Europe of Opportunities.

Germany and France must give up their pride to achieve reforms for the benefit of the entire Europe, despite different views.”

 



James O’Connor.

(Journalist dedicated to knowledge and the power it gives the public. His expertise include American and international business, global marketing, American politics, and social issues.)

“1) Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics, and globalist seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

The victory for Greece’s Syriza will prove portentous for all of Europe under several conditions. This victory is not good for Europe as a whole and the incredulity of skeptics and globalists is warranted. Not only could it have far-reaching and immediate economic effects on geopolitical relations, it could also impact economic planning and partnerships throughout Europe in the foreseeable future to the detriment of countries that do not deserve it. Although a much-needed positive for Greece, if Spain and Italy follow Greece’s disavowal of Eurozone policies it will divide Europe to the detriment of the continent as a whole despite the immediate sociopolitical benefits Italy, Greece and Spain stand to witness in this unraveling should leftist/populist parties win their elections.

Greece, Spain and Italy are trying to refrain from socioeconomic and geopolitical codependency alike, for these nations’ codependency, particularly for Greece under Samaras’s regime, further bred unresolved financial subservience and austerity for Greek citizens. However, Tsipras’s role as iconoclast fighting for the left in not just Greece, but all countries leaning left in the Eurozone as well should be deemed a threat to Europe’s economic health, and perhaps even a phenomenon that could facilitate Russian imperialism. Greece should be ousted from the Eurozone for its plan to raise minimum wage and overhaul its labor market in spite of the EUs interdiction, particularly because it will negatively impact Germany, but this does not stand to ruin Greece’s economic health, and its leaders seem to believe this as well. Furthermore, Spain and Italy appear to be placing their feet even further in this camp.

Scotland’s referendum will only prove true and injurious if the Syriza victory engenders further leftist/populist collaboration and credibility alongside Italy’s Five Star Movement and Spain’s PODEMOS, and this is why reform should stop at Greece’s borders—the potential snowballing effect and amassing of this leftist agenda may prove dangerous not because of the merit of its movements but because of its potential to divide Europe and allow Putin room for imperialism. The denominations of each party, at least as they will impact Europe in the foreseeable future, are not yet identifiable because Europe’s currency debacle is in far too much flux to determine otherwise. New stances and opinions will form as rapidly as they will unexpectedly regarding these matters.

Europe will likely divide itself, and its division will prove injurious. The aforementioned characteristics do seem to coincide only with Europe’s Mediterranean countries, but as I noted earlier it is unclear if several Northern countries’ stances will change in light of these occurrences.

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway?

Many fear with sufficient reason that Putin intends to balkanize Western Europe and perhaps beyond if these places do not balkanize themselves first. If these countries do in fact balkanize themselves, Putin will be better positioned to forge destructive geopolitical and socioeconomic inroads. A divided Europe will make Putin a far more significant threat—especially given Russia’s occupation in Ukraine and Russia’s tension with the United States. Putin has expressed both disdain about Fascism and advocacy for Fascism throughout his political tenure in Russia. But he tends to advocate Fascist tendencies when those tendencies are positioned to serve him, and this leftist movement throughout Europe may incite him toward more Fascist ideology. Putin will seek a military solution to the crumbling ruble despite a possible future energy agreement with China.

3) Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

Although Europe’s defense spending is already exorbitant, Europe should at the very least strive to unify its military if there is no economic reconciliation in the near future, and it appears that will be the case. However, it is difficult to foretell if emerging leftist alliances will be willing to unify their militaries after potential blacklisting from the EU/Eurozone. A unified military throughout Europe will keep Putin on his laurels, and this is the foremost reason behind my argument: economic dissension does not necessarily lead to militaristic dissension, and it appears this will prove true in the near future.

4) How should Germany and France among others respond to these reforms?

Given that the European Central Bank has decided to do away with Germany’s fiscal policies—policies that characterized austerity—Germany should hold its ground with its stance against utilizing public debt to increase inflation and stimulus, while keeping at bay any effort on other nations’ part to jettison potential military ties with Germany. Essentially, Germany should disavow the ECB’s actions while still keeping ties to other nations cordial. In analyzing strictly what Germany has done, however, the ECB cannot be blamed. Germany’s role in Europe’s economic crisis has rendered these results for Germany, and these results are just. Mitigating Greek austerity sends France a very strong message: Join our cause and validate our efforts. However, Syriza and PODEMOS in particular do not have enough governing experience to easily sell France on its cause, and therefore face a very tough sale when it comes to potential alliances. Syriza’s victory may lead Europe toward a division characterized by the relinquishment of austerity, but given these groups’ lack of experience, those who place hope in these groups ability to change things for the better may be proven wrong.”

 



Jon Kofas.

(Retired Indiana University university professor. Academic Writing. International Political Economy – Fiction)

“Can the EU survive the challenges of political polarization, downward socioeconomic mobility, and geographic division between the rich core members and the poorer periphery?  The EU has been tested because of the global recession of 2008-2013, and for many EU countries continuing in 2015.

 

1. The apologists of the EU believe that nothing at all should change in the EU and it ought to continue its course as an economic and political bloc, expanding in global economic and political influence under globalization and neo-liberal policies that strengthen capital. The apologists believe the EU is not perfect but it is great the way it is and it will survive despite its problems.

2. The reformists believe that the EU has lost its way, deviating sharply from its commitments to democracy, human rights, and economic and social justice, sinking into an economic/political bloc that Germany manipulates in order to remain competitive in the world. Reformists want the EU to abandon neo-liberalism and return to its democratic roots when the inter-dependent model of integration was in effect instead of the patron-client one today. The reformists question that the EU will be able to survive if it remains committed to neo-liberalism that serves the privileged few in society at the expense of the middle class.

3. For very different reasons, Communists and right wing euro-skeptics including neo-Nazi political groups want the EU abolished. They believe that it is just a matter of time before the EU lapses into a permanent crisis and collapses. Communists see the EU as an instrument of finance capitalism pursuing anti-labor policies, while the right wingers see it as a supra-nationalist entity that threatens national sovereignty and cultural/ethnic identity with policies of multiculturalism and unprotected borders that allow Muslims to enter Europe.

 

Regardless which camp one embraces as closer to the truth, political polarization, downward socioeconomic mobility and core-periphery (north vs. South and East) division within the EU has both political leaders and the financial and corporate elites worried about the euro zone’s future. This is especially after the EU Parliamentary elections of May 2014 and the Greek election of January 2015.

Greek Prime Minister Alesis Tsipras led the center-leftist SYRIZA Party into victory, campaigning against neo-liberal EU policies, against IMF/EU austerity, and against the German-imposed patron-client model of integration. His electoral victory signaled to the rest of Europe that popular sovereignty matters in overturning policy decisions made in Brussels and imposed on the EU members. At the Davos meeting in 2015, representatives of the financial world admitted that the proof that something is not going well in the EU’s current direction is youth unemployment at 50% across the continent, stagnant economy just now trying to revive amid low energy prices, and the failure of the European governments to achieve consensus that would satisfy the dwindling middle class.

Public Debt and Dependency under the Patron-Client Model

Taking advantage of the recession that weakened all EU members, but especially the periphery members, Germany altered the integration model so that there was a massive transfer of capital from the periphery to the core ones thus helping to offset bank losses suffered during the recession. This injection of capital from the debtor periphery to the creditor core members helped to strengthen the financial and corporate sectors in order to keep them competitive with US, Japan, China, and India. The change in the integration model alienated a substantial segment of the population, resulting in the right wing euro-skeptics who argued in favor of dissolving the EU, leftists who insisted that the EU is nothing but an instrument of northwest European imperialism, and the reformists like Greece’s SYRIZA ruling party, arguing that EU must return to its founding interdependent integration model and commit itself to a strong middle class and a social safety net for the masses.

From the very inception of the EU, the interdependent integration model entailed that the stronger economies of northwest Europe, especially Germany, would be providing capital in the form of loans, subsidies, and grants to the weaker periphery southern and eastern members that lacked the ability to compete economically under a strong reserve currency favoring the core nations of the EU. This resulted in massive spending on infrastructural development, new funding for the primary sector of production, tourism and other sectors. In return for capital injections in the periphery, the core EU members secured consumers of products and services, cheap labor, cheap land, and cheap natural resources. No doubt, the major beneficiaries in the periphery nations were the larger enterprises especially those linked to EU financial, industrial and commercial interests, while the state offered some protection and benefits through various programs to small and medium-sized businesses. Advocates of this interdependent integration model argued would result in greater trade within the EU and greater upward socioeconomic mobility. This was indeed the case in the first decade of the 21st century, but the course reversed in the past five years.

Is it good for Europe to experience emerging political transformations that economic skeptics and globalists seem to highly critical, questioning their reforms and agendas?

The EU political transformations are symptomatic of economic transformations imposed by the core countries that are also the creditor members on the debtor members who have no choice but to cooperate because they use a single currency.  Because monetary policy is basically in the domain of the core countries, especially Germany, the fiscal, trade, investment, labor, social and all other policies of all EU members follow the dictates of the core members and Germany that argue in favor of maintaining a strong reserve currency. Those who favor neoliberalism and globalization under a strong EU patron-client model believe that there is no alternative to austerity, privatization of public assets, and strengthening the financial and corporate sectors at the expense of the social welfare state.

Critics from the right usually in the Euro-skepticism camp argue against the single currency and in favor of national sovereignty rather than having a massive continental bureaucracy dictate to each member nation how to conduct its domestic affairs. In other words, economic, political, and cultural nationalism take precedence over continent al integration as far as euro-skeptics are concerned because European nations are losing their identities along with their national sovereignty. With the cooperation of other northwest EU members, Germany took advantage of the recession to use the public debt issue in order to:

a) shift capital to the northwest countries from the periphery countries in the South and East to help finance the recovery;

b) impose neoliberal policies on the periphery members that would reduce them to dependencies of the core ones that would become even stronger; and

c) reduce the EU into an instrument of the core countries that would permit them to remain competitive on a global scale with the world’s strongest economies in the 21st century.

The leftist and left-center critics see an EU that has become politically conservative to the degree that all European Socialist parties, including Portugal, Spain, Greece, France, and German Social Democrats that were once Marxists are now worshipping in the neoliberal temple of globalization for the benefit of banks and multinational corporations. Behind neo-liberal policies are the titans of EU capitalism that use the banking system to launder money and avoid paying their fair share of taxes. These financial and corporate interests are behind EU monetary, fiscal, trade, investment, and labor policies, financing the campaigns of politicians that provide legislative and political cover for them. In short, the EU is nothing but an instrument of big capital, immersed in massive corruption, as the Luxemburg, HBSC, and other banking scandals have revealed.

The recession and austerity policies that followed only strengthened the core members while weakening the debtors across Southern and Eastern Europe, making it increasingly difficult to resist the dictates of Germany when it comes to any policy from raising indirect taxes that impact workers and the middle and lower income groups across EU to privatizing public property so the very wealthy could buy them for a massive discounted price. These are all part of neoliberal ideological commitment that strengthens core members and the top ten percent of the wealthy within all nations in Europe.

After several years of recession that cut deep into middle class living standards and eroded not just working class wages and benefits, but contributed to rising unemployment and dim prospects for upward socioeconomic mobility what could people except from the mainstream political parties other than more of the same? Considering there is 10.5% official unemployment in the EU, a steadily decline in middle class and workers’ incomes, and lack of prospects for the youth the EU, EU Parliamentary election results in 2014 as well as those in Greece in 2015 were not surprising. As was the case during the Great Depression of the 1930s, European voters in 2015 are seeking solutions in the left and extreme right wing opposed to the neo-liberal policies under the EU patron-client model.

What do the anti-EU parties represent?

While the ultra-right wing offers fantasy of immediate solutions of strong nation with which people identify, the left promises greater social justice. An unemployed professional, a small grocery store owner, a college graduate unable to find a job without much money or great prospects for themselves and their children can embrace the promise of a new social contract that will bring social justice, or they can embrace the mythology of the strong and pure nation-state free of foreigners, gypsies and Muslims who are the scapegoats for all calamities of Europe. The public reaction to the EU’s transformation from a democratic bloc into a neo-liberal German-dominated one was seen in the parliamentary elections of 2014, in the Greek election of 2015, and in Spain’s most popular party that is very similar ideologically and politically to Greece’s center-left SYRIZA.

Europe’s political parties of the anti-neo-liberal center-left represent the middle class and a segment of the workers that have no political voice because the European Socialist parties have embraced austerity and neo-liberalism under the German-imposed patron-client model. The fear of EU’s major political parties – conservative and Socialist both representing neo-liberalism is that reformist political parties are coming along and taking away the middle class and working class voters with them to victory as was the case in Greece. This would mean that either the mainstream political parties have to make concessions to the middle class and workers by diluting their neo-liberal agenda that only focuses on strengthening capital or they face eventual demise.

Besides the leftist and center-leftist challenge to the EU’s political mainstream, there is the rise of extreme right wing and ultra-nationalist elements that neo-Nazi parties, as in Greece where the Golden Dawn is the third largest party, to ultra-nationalist xenophobic parties as the UK Independence Party that led in the EU Parliamentary elections of May 2014. All of the right-wing euro skeptic parties oppose the EU bureaucracy, the concept of a united Europe, the appearance of trying to bring about greater social equality within EU, allowing Europe to be more open to non-Europeans and permitting greater multiculturalism, diluting national identity, excluding all illegal aliens from any social welfare program, favoring national businesses over foreign ones, ending European subsidies for EU members, and ending the supra-national state in order to strengthen the national one. The euro-skeptics from the right have stolen votes from traditional conservatives just as the left and center left took away votes from the Socialists who are now neo-liberal. The growing socioeconomic rich-poor gap across the periphery but also some core EU members is now reflected in the increasingly polarized political arena.

The results of the European Parliamentary election on 25 May 2014 should not have come as a surprise to the EU leaders, especially to Germany’s conservative Chancellor, France’s Socialist President and UK’s conservative PM, all linked together by their commitment to globalization, neoliberal policies, and strengthening the corporate welfare state at the expense of the social safety net and socioeconomic mobility of the middle classes. That Marine Le Pen’s ultra-right wing party, a camouflaged neo-Fascist xenophobic political party, won 25% of the vote and became the resounding victor indicates not only a problem for France’s debilitated Socialist Party that is hardly much different in its economic approach than any European conservative party, but Le Pen’s (Front National) FN party victory signals a serious political problem for all of Europe. If we consider that extreme right wingers in the UK, neo-Fascists and neo-Nazis across Europe increased their popularity in the EU elections, as did leftists outside the confines of the traditional leftists – Socialists and Communists – then we must ask what policies are the root cause for the anti-EU and Euro-skepticism sentiment that has become so strong.

That France has elected a neo-Fascist party to the EU Parliament and Greece among other countries opted for leftists/center-leftists sends a message to the EU of how polarized Europe has become as a result of the deep economic recession and austerity regime. This is not to suggest that the EU is about to break up or even change very much from its current neoliberal/monetarist policy orientation. After all, new nations like Ukraine are eager to join, as the behind the scenes manipulation that has been unfolding throughout 2013 and 2014 reveals. Nor is the EU about to become unstable and its reserve currency about to weaken along with its global trade relations because of political polarization. At least for now, the question is what happened that things have gone so badly for the EU mainstream political supporters and what does this signal for neo-liberalism.

As the self-proclaimed neutral arbiters of society, mainstream EU conservative and Socialist politicians opted to strengthen not just banks during the deep recessionary cycle that started in 2008, but they also used austerity measures as a means of transferring massive wealth from social welfare programs to corporate welfare. At the same time, governments used austerity as a means to sell lucrative public enterprises to private concerns invariably linked to the ruling political parties (clientist politics), invariably at low cost and to the detriment of the public interest and taxpayers. Privatization schemes that had started in the Reagan-Thatcher decade accelerated in the last five years (2009-2014) in EU because politicians argued this was the way to “save” capitalism and return society to growth and development. When the mainstream EU parties promise upward mobility across the board but deliver greater wealth concentration at the expense of the middle class and workers it is only natural to have political polarization bound to continue not just in the periphery but at the core as well.

Are EU transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries?

President Hollande’s decision to dismiss the cabinet in August 2014 after the economy minister criticized the German fiscal and monetary model imposed on all of Europe signaled the unmitigated submission of French Socialists to neoliberalism. The decision of the French Socialist government further signaled to the EU that there is no policy difference between the neoliberal direction and goals of conservative Germany and Socialist France that was once believed to be free of German influence. Announcing a new round of tax reductions to the businesses and cuts in the budget targeting social programs, Hollande, who has a mere 17% public approval, caved under the pressure of banks, financial firms and large corporations that support the German austerity model. This officially marked the end of Socialism in France as anything but a name used for public relations purposes to secure votes from those identifying with the party that once stood for class-consciousness based economic, political and social policies and its roots are in the Marxist tradition.

Although the public demanded that governments hold banks accountable, the G-20 have swept under the carpet the underlying causes for the last recession that started toward the end of 2007 in New York (Lehman Brothers) and spread to the rest of the world. Just a few years ago, the US and EU leaders were crying out for structural reforms that would not permit a repeat of the decadent and corrupt banking-insurance-investment sector crisis that took down with it the world economy, put enormous downward pressure on middle class and working class living standards and raised unemployment to double-digit levels in much of the Western World.

It is indeed rare in 2015 to hear elected officials speak about structural reforms that would place greater state regulation and controls over a neoliberal model that the political and financial elites do not question. The G-20 has not raised the issue of everyone paying taxes and trying to fight corruption as in the infamous HSBC $100 billion scandal. Yet, systemic reform was necessary so people continue to have faith in the system that brought us the banking crisis and downward economic mobility. Against the background of a revived banking and corporate sector, the talk now is how to proceed with even greater vertical growth that concentrates wealth because capital concentration that Keynes once argued was the root cause of the problem but the neoliberals see as the panacea.

Even after the latest revelations involving corporations and individuals sheltering and laundering money through banks in Luxemburg and other places with offshore accounts so they would avoid paying taxes in their own countries, the EU has done nothing. This is because EU governments and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, also the prime minister of Luxemburg remain beholden to finance capital.  The collapse of the middle class democratic consensus is symptomatic of the failure on the part of governments to fulfill the social contract and remain committed to social justice at some minimal level.

How should Germany and France among others respond to “reform”?

The term “reform” does not mean the same thing to everyone. For example, reform for leftists and centrist political groups entails protecting labor rights, protecting the small businesses and professionals, providing subsidies to small farmers, public hospitals, and public schools, protecting wage scales and social security benefits. In short, the progressive reformist wants to protect the middle class and workers through the fiscal and legal system, while maintaining a commitment to social welfare rather than corporate welfare that strengthens big business at the expense of the lower classes.

By contrast, reform to an advocate of austerity and neo-liberalism entails:

a. slashing the public sector and privatizing as many services as possible, even if that means paying contractors much higher than if government workers performed the same task;

b. curbing as many trade union rights as possible, including collective bargaining and ending any kind of government protection for workers from employer abuses;

c. raising indirect taxes and lowering corporate and income taxes on the wealthy to stimulate investment, regardless of whether the stated goal is achieved;

d. massive consolidation of all professions, from truck and taxi transport to pharmacies so that multinationals are able to enter the market thus gradually replacing the small businesses.

e. provide subsidies only to large farmers and animal husbandry operations – milk, cheese, yogurt, meat processing, while ending subsidies to the small farmer.

f. slashing wages and benefits, cutting social security and raising retirement age, and gradually ending all subsidies to public health and education, while maintaining police and defense spending at high levels, despite pay cuts for officers.

The above scenario is one to which Germany and France have responded, with both conservatives and Socialists embracing such “reforms” as necessary to make EU “stronger”. No doubt the EU has become stronger, but only the financial and corporate interests at the expense of the middle class and labor.

From 2009 until the present, all governments of Europe went along with the concept of “reform” as monetarists and neo-liberals defined it, not as the center-leftists and leftists understand it. All of Europe looked to France as the leader to offer an alternative to the German concept of reform, but the French government under Conservative and Socialist leadership has been about the same toward the EU and toward the German-imposed patron-client model of integration. Rhetoric on both the Conservative and Socialist parties notwithstanding, both simply followed the lead of Chancellor Merkel in the last five years, and neither dared propose anything different. One explanation for the subservient role of France to Germany’s neo-liberal and austerity orientation is that the French capitalist class, especially the banks, espouse the German position on monetarism, fiscal policy favoring the wealthy, labor policy intended to weaken the trade unions, and social policy intended to further transfer assets from social welfare to corporate welfare.

To deflect attention of the public from the serious erosion of their socioeconomic benefits in the last ten years, the French government has been using the race/religion/ethnicity card against immigrants from Africa, Muslims seeking a better life in the West, and gypsies who have been in Europe since the late Middle Ages. Immigration from outside the continent as well as internal migration from Eastern Europe, and especially gypsies, has inflamed European right wingers targeting Asians and African, especially of Muslim faith. The xenophobe issue is inexorably intertwined with the Muslim terrorism issue as far as many are concerned. The religion/race card has not worked and it will not work unless the government addresses the real needs of the middle class and workers that have nothing to do with roaming gypsies and militant Muslims. After all, those who really harbor hatred for foreigners, Muslims and gypsies have already turned to the far right National Front Party of Marine Le Pen.

While paying lip service to the concept of pluralism and open society that respects human rights of all people, the austerity and neo-liberal policies that Germany has been pushing and France going along entails a reality of harshness toward foreigners, especially the groups I mentioned above that are discriminated in daily life. Neither Germany nor France are prepared to embrace the definition of reform as the leftists and center-leftists – SYRIZA of Greece and PODEMOS of Spain – intend it, namely, a modicum of social justice.

Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway?

Russian President Vladimir Putin could benefit in some respects by having a divided Europe because he would be striking energy and trade deals bilaterally with greater ease instead of facing the pressure of the entire EU on Moscow. However, Russia will still have to deal with the reality of a Europe that is part of the Atlantic alliance system under NATO and this is a significant issue unlikely to change the balance of power any time soon. While Russia could temporarily celebrate a political victory in case the EU dissolves, just as the West celebrated the collapse of the USSR, in terms of the regional and global balance of power it would not mean much for Moscow and it would not elevate Russia’s global standing. On the contrary, we may actually see higher defense spending on the part of European countries, after a possible collapse of the EU than we have today and this would mean higher defense spending in Russia.

Only anachronistic-thinking Cold Warriors think in terms of Russian benefits if the EU collapses, considering that the question assumes there is an enemy no different in 2015 than under the old USSR in the 1950s. The negotiations between Putin, Ukraine President Poroshenko, Merkel and Hollande resulting in a deal intended to end hostilities is indicative of the interdependent relationship between northwest Europe and Russia. Regardless of whether a German-French brokered deal is effective, EU-Russia relations cannot be destroyed to the detriment of all parties concerned simply because the US is interested in destabilization of Eurasia through various means from diplomatic and military pressure to political and economic leverage with nations surrounding Russia.

The reality of Russia’s economic integration with the West, especially with EU, cannot be subordinated to revived and recycled US Cold War policies toward Moscow when the global balance of power is rapidly shifting from the West to East Asia. While the EU must consider its long-term economic relations with Russia, taking into account Russia’s concern about NATO encirclement policy that the US has been pursuing and Europe has been following, European governments of today and in the future cannot follow antiquated Cold War policies of confrontation when cooperation yields far greater rewards and accounts for stability at home. This is clear from the pressure European financial and corporate interests are placing on their governments to find a political solution for the Ukraine crisis.

Just below the surface of EU-US agreement on containing and encircling Russia rests the fundamental divergence of economic and geopolitical interests of the NATO partners. Europe is taking all the risks while the US is trying to reap all the rewards of an unstable and weaker Russia that would have to spend itself into poverty because of high defense procurements. What is in it for the EU, other than higher defense spending that further weakens the already weak civilian economy? The promise of waiting Russia out until it caves to US-NATO demands is an unrealistic scenario. China will never allow Russia to collapse for it is not in its interest that the West prevails in the Eurasian balance of power, and it is not in Beijing’s interest to have the US perpetually destabilizing various parts of the world as a means of exerting influence.

Public statements notwithstanding, Germany and the US had been on a collision course over the military solution Washington was pursuing for Ukraine, vs. the diplomatic one that Merkel was seeking because in the end it is Germany and EU paying the price for US aggressive foreign policy. In other words, it is not in the best economic or political interests of Germany and the EU to have a weak and unstable Russia as the US envisioned when using the Ukraine as a sphere of influence to destabilize Russia. At the same time, Russia under a quasi-authoritarian leader like Putin needs Europe as a major trading partner, and any instability in the EU, including dissolution, would not benefit Russia other than in a symbolic sense.

Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

Europe is as unified militarily as it will ever be because it is part of the Western alliance and defense system. The US knows that it is becoming increasingly very difficult to defend the existence of NATO because: a. the Cold War is over, and b. the “war on terror” is a manufactured campaign to keep the military industrial complex going strong and to maintain the political and social status quo at home by deflecting the focus of the public from issues concerning their interests. Considering that a new global power structure means that East Asia is the world’s economic center, the US hopes to use its military superiority as leverage to impose higher defense spending on its NATO partners. Europe has gone along with the US, following its foreign policy lead in Afghanistan, in the “war on terror”, in regime change in Libya and Syria, and in the Ukraine. But for how long, considering that the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were failures, NATO intervention in Libya has yielded greater instability and “terrorism”, the covert war against Syria’s authoritarian regime ended up in strengthening ISIS militants, and the covert involvement in Ukraine inadvertently helped neo-Nazis and corrupt pro-Western oligarchs.

The specific cases of US failures of military solutions to political crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and the general global US policy of destabilization are forcing European political leaders to make very difficult decisions regarding economic sanctions and raising defense spending. Meanwhile, China is benefiting by striking trade and investment deals with Russia and Europe, while the US is constantly pushing military solutions to crises at a huge cost to the West. EU leaders have to decide it China as the most constructive and stability-engendering power today and in the future as an economic and political power, or if the US pursuing recycled Cold War policies is the future. For the now and the next decade at least, the EU will remain committed to the Atlantic alliance, but longer term is questionable.

While Europe is firmly on the US side and has been since Wilson committed troops to help the allies fight Germany, I do not see the Europeans modeling the EU after the US militarily in the same respect as Germany has emulated the patron-client integration model. Nor do I see the EU dissolving and replaced by a military alliance, an idea that only extremists on the ideological spectrum would even contemplate. EU financial and political elites see the EU’s future in consolidation and expansion economically without taking the kinds of diplomatic and military risks the US engages that result in regional destabilization.

Conclusion

The EU will survive and will not break up any time soon, no matter the economic, social, political, and foreign policy challenges. The next crisis in the capitalist economy will force governments to make even greater concessions to banks and corporations at the expense of the slashing living standards from the middle class and workers. This will necessarily entail greater division within EU and greater popular opposition to its continued existence, for it will cease to serve the majority of the people and only cater to the financial elites. It will take several crisis of capitalism for the EU to collapse and not one deep recession and one left-centrist reformist regime in Athens opposing austerity, neo-liberalism and the patron-client integration model. After all, there are many countries waiting anxiously to join the EU, despite the fact that it has sharply deviated from its original mission and its interdependent integration model intended to help the economically weaker members.

It took many decades for political leaders to convince their citizens that EU membership was good for everyone and not just for banks and multinational corporations based mostly in northwest Europe. It has taken a relatively shorter time for people to judge for themselves the degree to which the EU best serves the interests of all people in all the member states and not just the core. The prevailing skepticism of whether there are really any benefits to the national economy and society as an EU member, or if membership really serves the domestic financial and political elites as well as the core EU members, especially Germany, is an issue that cannot be overcome with propaganda, but rather substantive policies resulting in real changes across Europe.

Such changes will not come because the powerful banks, insurance, pharmaceutical, defense, and other multinationals are behind the regimes of Europe and they resist any change in the patron-client integration model, and in making a commitment to social justice by strengthening the middle class and workers that have suffered high unemployment and major cuts in living standards. Along with some programs designed to reduce unemployment by strengthening businesses and providing even greater tax and other incentives to corporations to hire and keep workers, there will be a major propaganda campaign for voters to support the EU. Without tangible results in socioeconomic improvement, the result will be continued rise in the right wing and left wing political parties and disparate groups that want their countries to leave the EU or they demand a different integration model.

The contradiction of the EU is that it is trying to project itself as the most desirable bloc with the strongest reserve currency on earth, as it tries to attract new members in Eastern Europe, while at the same time, it is chocking growth and development within the periphery areas precisely because it has a strong currency under monetarist policies and neoliberal course of privatization and corporate welfare programs undercutting the middle class as the popular base of a democratic society. Survival is indeed certain for the short term, but longer terms the decline and fall of the EU under the current integration model is inevitable.”

 



Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan

(He is a retired Brig Gen from Pakistan Army, served 32 years. A veteran of ‘1971 Indo-Pak War,’ has been instructor in officers’ Pakistan Military Academy, commanded Divisional as well as Corps Artillery. He writes frequently and traveled to Europe, America, Middle East and Far East.)

“1) Europe, from the EU platform has come to conduct a very serious trial of phenomena when the soft power is potentially much more accomplishing than military options. The transformation of the political paradigm, emerging thus has seen, at least until Ukrainian conflict, the rush to seek its membership, not because they needed security essentially but were inspired by the economic incentives that EU presented to each of them. There are four such groups or entities which would remain the subject of discussion, for and against.

The predominant organ is the EU with potentials to rescue any country economy at minimal cost when the members are expected to maintain some bench marks. Second segment comprises those countries that have declined to join EU; some name them Euro-skeptics. Third group are the countries that are inclined to join EU, some on chronic wait for decades like Turkey.

Fourth actor is NATO which has been a deterrence to avert any military threat to Europe. When Balkans needed NATO intervention against Serbian atrocities, it committed its forces but the fallout has been that EU also drew the flak and was accused of arms twisting form the NATO platform. Greece is the latest dissenter to show some cracks among the EU unity. Russian reaction against US/EU bid to woo Ukraine has been the product of decades. When US seems poised to counter Russia by equipping Ukraine with necessary prowess to quell Russian-supported insurgency in Eastern Ukraine, the idea does not find sweeping approval in Europe. The Minsk conference proves the point.

2) Certainly Russia would be a beneficiary when European or EU stance shows any crack. Mr. Putin has pursued a very shrewd line of diplomacy. While he does not shy away in exchanging barbs with US, he is very responsive to Germany and France. He is capable of playing last gamble when he proves himself a good guy by yielding to EU demand of respecting Ukrainian’s territorial integrity. As a measure of reciprocity, Russia would demand relegating NATO role, away from Eastern Europe.

3) If history is any guide, Europe has the means to play a positive role from EU pedestal without any significant forces structure. The strength of EU economies is such a fine ace card that Russia would remain least inclined to confront them. It would also keep EU skeptics calm who suspect French-German honeymoon because of the troubled history Europe has, being an arena of two World Wars. Russia fears united Europe much more than it does US.

4) The line of diplomacy being followed by Germany and France to bring Russia around the dialogue table and seek concessions are well demarcated. European preference for NATO is European prerogative. However, NATO must not bear US hegemony-stamp, on the lead in Black Sea, Ukraine or Georgia for that matter. Less NATO is seen in the region, more Russia would become pliant.”

 



Claude Forthomme. 

(Passionate traveler (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)

“Once again, the questions raise such broad issues that a whole book would be needed to answer them. Still, given the importance of the issues raised, particularly the concern over the future of Europe and the European Union, here’s a first attempt at quick answers:

1) Will Europe divide itself under the combined pressure of the Greek demands for renegotiating the terms of the debt and the Ukraine crisis?

No. The Greeks do not want to exit the Euro, they have said so now many times, Varoufakis, the Greek Finance Minister even said that as long ago as May 2013 when his book “The Global Minotaur” came out. What the Greeks want is “breathing space” in the immediate, and a reset of debt conditions in the long run. As to the Ukraine crisis, we will see what happens – whether the cease-fire sticks. If it sticks, any pressure for change will evaporate, Putin will go on as before, the Franco-German “couple” governing Europe – or at least the Euro-zone – will be restored.

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway?

Yes, of course. But we need to see whether that happens. I don’t believe it will.

3)Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

The military is not a feasible option. It has been often talked about and nothing concrete has ever happened.

4) How should Germany and France among others respond to these reforms? I

I am not sure what reforms are referred to here. I leave others to respond and I might add something in the light of what others have to say.”

 



Jose Luis Chalhoub Naffah.

(He is a political scientist with a masters in international oil trading and an independent politics consultant on politics and geopolitical risk based in Venezuela focusing on Russia AMD Middle East issues. He speaks fluently English Russian Fench and Arabic. Director of BYBLOS CONSULTING a firm specializing in political risk analyses.)

“Since all the crumbling and shaking of the European Union anchored on Greece at the very beginning, my answers to these questions will be:

1.) All the nationalism and xenophobia reverberation recently shaking Europe is a symptom of a discontent against the globalist agenda that took hold of the EU in Brussels, slashing sovereignty and self determination in the european continental landmass, and given that the economic malaise started in Greece affected almost 50% of all Europe, the resurgence of nationalism in cases like Scotland, Greece, Spain, Italy, and the likes, is just a natural consequence of people not being happy of the status quo imposed by Brussels, no matter if positive or negative by any point of view from any ideology. Its just an immediate consequence.

2) These parties, undoubtedly represent a new way of doing politics, a new wave of citizens representing in the political system, and is not occurring only in Europe, but also in South-America, being it kind of a revival of the left against new forms of the political right, having mainly in Europe a very strong nationalist tone as its main flagship, against all that smells and looks Brusselian and Washingtonian. Also, like many NGO’s, these new parties could be very well influenced by foreign powers interested in the disintegration and fragmentation of the European Union and the euro as a strong currency.

3.) Depending on the will of its members, the will of the foreign powers influencing European politics as well, and the sustainability of their economies tied to the requirements of Brusels and the so called globalists and multilateral financial institutions. And last by definitely not the least, European Union will be the EU as we know it if and only if Paris and Berlin decide to sustain it or if they go apart. That way, we will know the future of the EU.

4.) Instead of a divided Europe, we would say that a Franco-German axis will be the beachhead for the Kremlin to control power in Europe, and added to that, it could be an extra sphere of influence running through the Mediterranean to the Balkans up to the Baltic that can close up to bigger geopolitical puzzle for Russia to get a grip on the European Union and take it off from the United States, leveraging full on the gas supplies, its traditional weapon of influence (Russian soft power kind of saying). Sooner than later, we could foresee rather than the old European Union, a full fledged, younger and more active and dynamic Eurasian Union absorbing and swallowing up the rest of the European landmass, if this stalemate in Europe continues for long time.

5.) Even if Europe unifies its army and military forces, and there are examples and experiences like the Euro-corps, it won’t solve any problem for Europe, since its tradition of not getting involved in foreign conflicts unless the US pushes it into them within the NATO framework, and since the public opinion and the European media is not much pro war, so this won’t be any alternative. Europe as a whole is running a high risk of disintegration as a geopolitical unified bloc more than ever before since its very inception and creation.

6.) France and Germany at the end of the day will be realigning themselves with Russia because of their high dependence on Russian gas supplies, since there is no more reliable and sustained substitutes to the Russian gas not even from Algeria, Norway, etc (call it peak production, etc). Russia has the biggest natgas reserves and production in the world. So that way, France and Germany will be on Russian side one way or the other.”

 



Héctor Sánchez Margalef.

(BA in Political Science and MA in International Relations, Security and Development by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. International Relations Professional working as a researcher at CIDOB.)

“1)  Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics, and globalist  seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

Overall yes. Movements that challenge mainstream parties and a system that seems to be stagnant are welcomed but only if they do so by respecting the rules, respecting diversity and without violence. I doubt movements like Golden Dawn in Greece or Pegida in Germany among others will contribute to a better Europe.

– What denomination do these parties represent? 

Depends on the party we are referring to. Roughly we can differentiate between Eurocritics, Euroskeptics and Europhobic.

Eurocritics are those who are in favor of European integration but do not agree with the policies carried by the European Union right now (Podemos, Syriza).

Euroskeptics are those who think integration has gone too far (the British tories, UKIP, the 5 Star Movement, Alternative for Germany).

And finally, Europhobics are those who want their countries out of the EU (French National Front, KKE (Communist party of Greece), Golden Dawn in Greece).

-Will Europe divide itself?

I do not think so because the majority of Europeans are in favor of a united Europe. However, if there were a division, it would occur between Northern and Southern Europe or between creditors and debtors.

-And are these transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries?

No, there are movements that call for a different relation with the EU also in Northern countries: Sweden Democrats, UKIP, Pegida, Alternative for Germany are also examples of movements that, despite not being all new, are gaining momentum within the European political debate.

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway? 

Yes, Putin is trying to break the European unity to soft or break the sanctions. He is even funding political parties like the National Front in France to gain influence within Europe.

3) Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

The European Union must review its European Security Strategy but it must be the result of a well thought process with the European Union leading it; no as a reaction. The same goes for the economic union. However, it looks like if there is not a deeper and full political union, the economic and military union are a chimera.

4) How should Germany and France among others respond to these reforms? 

With imagination and being open minded. Every political movement done by the Member States respond to a domestic logic. There is a need for brave and charismatic political leaders who think and act beyond electoral calculations.”

 



Francesco Brunello Zanitti.

(Specialized in Contemporary History, international relations, geopolitics of South Asia, history and politics of India. Scientific Director of IsAG, the Italian Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie (IsAG).)

“1) Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics, and globalist  seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

These political transformations are the result of a specific European policy, which favored rigorousness excluding any kind of proposal related to the renegotiation of the debt. It’s good that a democratic society expresses alternatives or modifications of this economic system. Even if in terms of principle expectations of creditors could be reasonable, this kind of European economic policy generated too high social costs, as we can see in Greece.

– What denomination do these parties represent? 

These parties represent segments of society cut off from European development: youngsters, unemployed, retired people facing huge difficulties and that cannot afford higher costs of life. Popular vote is the expression of a discontent; people see as unacceptable the fact to pay a too high price for wrong past policies.

-Will Europe divide itself? 

Europe is now facing many challenges, not only economic but also in its approach towards Russia and MENA (Middle East and North Africa). Europe should not divide itself given the construction of a multi-polar world order but the risks of a division are tangible. The risk of economic failure of Europe is concrete because a hypothetical exit of Greece from EU could be followed in future by other countries with a difficult economic situation, like for example Italy or Spain. There is not yet available a unique European voice in many fields, especially in economics and foreign policy.

-And are these transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries? 

These transformations are not only available in Mediterranean countries because we can see also in France, Germany, Austria, Netherland, Great Britain, Denmark and other Northern countries a sort of disaffection towards the idea of Europe thought up to now if we only consider recent 2014 elections for European Parliament.

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway? 

I don’t think that a divide Europe will anyway benefit Putin. Russia aims to commerce with Europe. A weak Europe was not in Russia’s interest given the great interdependence of European and Russian economies. Europe is already divided in many issues even in its energetic policy and in the approach to adopt towards Russia (for example Great Britain, Poland and Baltics States historically hope for a stronger posture against Moscow compared to Germany, France and Italy).

Maybe Russia could obtain advantages from these European divisions, utilizing them as a tactical advantage in bargain with Europe over Ukrainian imbroglio and finding alternatives for its exportations (Turkey and Greece in Europe; Egypt in Middle East; China and India in a long-period vision in Asia). However, the main challenge for today Russia is represented by NATO’s expansion, seen as a direct threat to Russian stability and influence in Eastern Europe. The real problem, according to a Russian view, is represented by US rather than Europe and Russia cannot accept a loss of influence over Ukraine.

3) Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

Given recent circumstances maybe it was better a military union. However, the problem is that European project was born in economic terms without de facto a political union. The United States of Europe is in theory a good idea, but the United States of America fought a bloody civil war for the final political and economic unification in the XIX century.

Today Europe is based on imbalances with a hegemony of Northern countries (especially Germany) which ask to other countries to adopt socio-political measures that are not suitable for the contexts of Southern States. People of the latter countries see at this fact as an unacceptable diktat. Europe doesn’t have yet a common “civil religion” that could really unify European people.

A great European State could be a good idea, but it could not rest on these bases.

Considering military aspects, Europe is already united given the affiliation of many EU countries to NATO. However there are also two elements to ponder. First of all this alliance is based on the Transatlantic relationship so it’s founded mainly on US interests rather than European one, given the stronger position of Washington in the US-EU binomial. Second, also in this case EU States are divided and national interests prevail, if we consider for example the case of Libya’s intervention in 2011, in which Great Britain and France posture prevailed over Italy’s interests. Europe should overcome internal imbalances.    

4) How should Germany and France among others respond to these reforms?  

Germany and France should take into account these reforms, seeing them not only like a challenge but an occasion to a concrete transformation of Europe, reforming the idea of this Union of countries. Historical bases of Europe are now challenged by a different world context, a multi-polar one, in which a divided Europe could be weaker and without future. Also in France there are problems with the economic severe approach adopted by Germany. These countries should recognize the need of a difficult compromise with nations like Greece, otherwise the European project could really derail.” 

 



Steven Hansen.

(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations)

“Logic is not the primary driver of events which will happen in the EU. Pundits love to put down logical arguments and chess moves of all the parties involved – but the ultimate result is mostly emotion driven. From an emotional perspective, it is unclear whether the need to stay together is greater than the desire to divide – but I believe a united Europe will continue to survive in one form or another. 

The failure in the EU is currency related. The Euro may have evolved too early in the unification process. Currency union can only be effective after there is a political union – and the EU is far from a political union. European nationalism still runs strong. I would not place a bet on what will happen to the Euro – but I would bet against a total failure of the Euro.

Europe has a long way to go in its unification process. Europe is impatient, and not waiting for the southern members to equalize to its northern members. A union requires continual support of the weaker members – and ultimately, this is what must occur.

Europe’s model is has to be Canada or the USA. Even today, each of the states, provinces or territories jostle for their position – even after the 150 to 200 years since each country was formed. The real unification of Europe requires many generations.”

 



Dale Yeager.

(President of SERAPH. He has extensive training in criminal psychology, forensic psychology, sex crimes investigation, and crime scene forensics / procedures and domestic terrorism analysis.)

“1) Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics, and globalist  seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

This is a good thing because the EU is acting like a nation rather than an economic consortium. Some of these reforms such as Greece will be disastrous. The new leadership is pushing a empirically proven failure for an economic system.

-Will Europe divide itself? 

It already has economically i.e UK and Greece and politically Ukraine.

-And are these transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries? 

No people all over Europe are flexing their Sovereignty muscles.

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway? 

Yes  he is determined to use chaos as a tool for solidifying control.

3) Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

Only NATO has any military power, the EU and UN have none.”

 



Lucas Juan Manuel Alonso. 

(PhD Economics (graduated with honours) with specializations in Research in the Management of Organizations (Methods & Techniques) and Investment & Financing, MBA Executives Degrees in International Commerce and Innovation & Management, University of Santiago de Compostela)

“1. Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics and globalist seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

Any democratic emerging political party will always be positive, not only in Europe, but in every part of the world.  Governments ruled by one-party for enormously long periods of time, laws encouraging the establishment of strong bi-partisanship in policy, religious hierarchies exercising their power in the political, university sphere and public life…and similar facts, endanger the democracy quality.  In fact, these kinds of actions (or situations) increase corruption risks endangering country’s long-term democratic transparency, because politicians can place family, relatives and friends into the State or private firms and, thus, in this way they create lobbies that ensure them a large number of unconditional voters, as well as to legislate appropriate laws in order to protect themselves and their clique of collaborators.

-What denomination do these parties represent?

In the case of Europe, these emerging political parties (it would be more appropriate to say: social-political movements) represent a wide socio-economic discomfort as a result of having suffered a long time of painful austerity measures. And, the worst of all this is that austerity measures have failed to achieve their missions, worsening the socio-economic situation in Europe.  For example, despite of austerity measures, in several European countries (mainly peripheral countries) the debt to GDP ratio was going onto a firm upward trajectory creating a possible risk of default. And there are higher unemployment rates, greater social inequalities, poorly-paid work, spending cuts in key government functions such as education, research & development, health… while, at the same time, increased expenditures on public structures which are intended to place people related to political, economic groups…., wasteful of public funds brought about by governments on opaque contracts…and others unproductive public expenditures.

-Will Europe divide itself?

While respecting all opinions voiced, I think that European policy-makers (mainly conservatives and liberals) have made the Euro area looks like an experiment in process rather than a strong socio-economic union based on socio-cultural diversity.  Take, for example, the EURO currency:  Do you understand that a currency backed by the central banks of the Euro zone depreciated so much and so fast against the U$S dollar influenced by the fact that Greece could exit from the EURO? I don’t think so.

From my point of view this sharp depreciation of EURO is a result of disorganization and lack of true leadership in the Euro area, because: Do you understand that the ECB carry out a Quantitative Easing at the worst possible moment? Quantitative Easing was necessary (very necessary) one and half year ago, when the exchange rate was EURO = U$S 1, 38 straining the socio-economic situation in the Euro area, now it is a big mistake which will be extremely damaging to the Euro zone, putting the EURO in danger of losing global confidence.  Let’s think about that Greece exits the Euro currency and its economy rebounds.  This fact could lead to trigger a domino effect across Europe and other Member States may also leave the Euro area.

-And are these transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries? Obviously, European peripheral countries -Greece, Portugal, and Spain- have suffered the crisis and austerity measures more than other European countries.  European Mediterranean countries based their economic growth mainly in tourism and construction rather than encourage creation of new competitive business-structures.

In the last years these countries tried to gain competitiveness through a strategy of low wages, which from my view is totally inappropriate, because EU should compete through the quality and added value in differentiated products. On average, these countries’ wages are not much higher than those of China. The current EU’s general mindset about labour markets is: “Unemployment is worse than create low wage jobs in places in which these are so desperately needed” This is a central prayer constantly repeated and supported mainly by liberals and conservatives policy-makers.  But, in my view, such a situation can be an option in a few very specific cases, only for short periods of time, and in economies in transition and can never, therefore, be a variable to formulate long-term economic policy.

Thus, it is necessary that working conditions to improve in the medium term, because such improvement will result in a greater competitiveness of the area or country.  Wages must be worthy to improving the living conditions of the people because this fact will lead to the creation of middle classes which would strengthen purchasing power and domestic business structures.  An example of the latter is China, where the social differences have been reduced.  Obviously, there is still a great deal to be done in this area but China has gone from being the world’s factory to become a major consumer, both in the domestic and international markets. The growing middle class is making China more competitive.  We have there an example of the positive effect in reducing huge social inequalities (countries increase its purchasing power, encourage consumption, and gain competitiveness in the international market). We have an opposite example in the European Union countries (mainly peripheral countries) where a policy of low-wages is generating enormous social inequalities and making these countries uncompetitive in global markets when it comes to labour costs.

European peripheral countries need to promote sustainable economic development by creating and/or strengthening of core productive sectors rather than austerity plans and competitiveness based only on tourism/construction, fostering new start-ups and innovative projects…Mediterranean countries’ current situation requires profound changes (very different from the current ones) to leave behind this deep stagnation and achieving socio-economic progress.  Because as a consequence of the global deep crises jointly with inappropriate economic measures and structural reforms, the income gap between a country’s richest and poorest people is enlarging and thus personal safety and rights are under serious threat in these countries, as well as the real entrepreneurial spirit (genuine enterprises) strongly discouraged.  Why am I saying “genuine enterprises”? The answer is very simple: There are many “enterprises and entrepreneurs” arising from political clientelism (cronyism and patronage), and that kind of enterprises and entrepreneurs do not generate wealth and prosperity in their societies because they are not competitive.

2. Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway?

Yes, it is possible because that situation would increase his political and economic powers.  The balance of power will be favourable to Russia because the negotiation power of governments the former Member States would be reduced.  But a question arises, to what extent, in a divide Europe, some former Member States can gain competitive advantages in key areas as a result of having a closer relationship with Russia?

But a divide Europe can be harmful to Russia because Russia is the third trading partner of the EU and the EU is the first trading partner of Russia.  Although in my view, some goods imported (in particular, oil and gas) from Russia into the European Union have bigger switching costs than those goods imported from EU into Russia and, as a consequence of this weak point, European Union becomes more dependent on Russia.  But this situation is offset in part because the EU is the most important investor in Russia; about 75% of Foreign Direct Investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States.  But at the same time, this large concentration of capital on only one market makes the EU vulnerable and dependent on Russia.  Therefore, at least for me, it is easy to see that EU has bigger switching costs resulting from imported goods and Direct Investment in Russia.

In hypothetical case of a divide Europe, Russia could establish stronger ties and preferential trade arrangements with some former Member States or another possible scenario: Russia, China and South America could provide the core of a new commercial axis and step aside EU.

3. Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

Now more than ever, it is necessary a closer unification of Europe, if not, EU could be a project doomed to failure.  Europe needs to recover its culture and welfare state and stop being a reference point about poverty, unemployment, poorly-paid works, huge social inequalities… EU cannot be a straitjacket intended to inhibit the socio-economic progress of Member States but also Member States need to establish an adequate structure to avoid corruption and to fulfill the contractual obligations.

4. How should Germany and France among others respond to these reforms?

In EU, mainly in the Euro area and especially in the Mediterranean countries the situation is tragic: higher unemployment rates, greater social inequalities, child poverty, abject poverty, growing number of food banks, energy poverty, high level of corruption, drastic spending cuts in education, research & development, health and other public necessary services, whilst, paradoxically, at the same time, unnecessary public spending increases (for example unproductive public infrastructure development and bureaucratic wastage), restrictive access to competitive education, higher tax burden on household, temporary and badly paid works… EU needs a society revitalization to protect the middle-classes and it should come from, among other things, a combination of fiscal consolidation improving equity in tax policy and structural reforms that encourage productive sectors rather than austerity plans. EU politicians should really take into account: “Progress of a country must be a balance between economic and human development” “If economic growth is being distributed on just a few people, it will never contribute to the progress of the countries that generate it” “Economic growth is not the goal itself but rather a means to reaching the goal: the progress of a country on all fronts” “Economic growth does not seem to be the problem or the solution, but a fairer distribution of wealth… isn’t it a logical conclusion?”

A key issue for policymakers should be to carry out necessary investments to promote human development with greater equity.  As it says on page 20 of the 2013 Human Development Report: “…Investments in human development are justified not only on moral grounds, but also because improvements in health, education and social welfare are key to success in a more competitive and dynamic world economy…”  In the light of this sentence, I think some important questions need to be considered: What kinds of investments in human development are being carried out in the euro-zone?  Isn’t it a short-sighted policy?  Isn’t it necessary a shift in attitudes?  Can we say that we are on the path of progress?”

 



Todd Steinmetz.

(He is a homeland security and counterterrorism subject matter expert with significant proven knowledge and practical experience in intelligence analysis, counterterrorism, physical security, and disaster preparedness, management, and response. He holds a Master of Science in Terrorism and Counterterrorism Studies. As an intelligence and security Subject Matter Expert (SME))

“1. Is it good for whom? Depending on who you ask, the Economic problems in Europe are either largely the result of irresponsible social policies in Greece or German greed.  To some degree, both are correct. In their zeal to win popular support, politicians in Greece (and beyond) did write checks the Greek economy simply could not afford and accepted loans it knew it could not cover and to find buyers for its export-based economy, Germany knew it was issuing loans to Greece that the country could not afford to repay. There simply is no “high-ground” in this scenario; both sides are at fault.

That places all involved in a decidedly difficult position. Now the Germans must either agree to live with less by curbing their exports and enacting certain trade/economic reforms, or risk losing the mechanism that provides the free trade zone the German economy relies upon by making default more attractive for EU debtors than austerity. In choosing its path forward, it should be understood that the Greek government simply cannot afford, either economically or politically, to satisfy all of Germany’s current demands or to continue along the current trajectory. Neither can other debtor nations. All of this, of course, must be done amid a rising tide of nationalism in Europe across the political spectrum.

In sum, it does not look good for the EU. Even if they find a short-term solution that kicks the can down the road a bit, the underlying problems would persist, making a replay of this scenario down the line almost inevitable.  Should that short-term deal not “punish” Greece enough for its government’s reckless policies, there is the very real chance EU governments will not only continue their reckless policies, but may default when the bill comes due.

2. A divided Europe certainly benefits Putin; how much so depends on Russia’s ability to allocate resources to exploit the opportunity. If nations, like Greece, begin pulling out of the EU, many might turn to Russia for support; expanding Russian influence within the European sphere.

3. While this approach would certainly appear to provide the strategic benefit without the economic and political confusion. However, some of the factors driving the current economic woes, including the interplay between the haves and the have not’s, would inevitably emerge with any defense deal as well. In reality, a revitalized NATO may be a better option in that regard; particularly if the concern is Russia.

4. The establishment is certainly on notice in Europe. For Germany, accepting some economic reforms and curbs to exports would at least appear more appealing than losing its free trade zone altogether; at least until it is not. As such, to a point, the preservation of the free trade zone created by the EU is of ultimate importance for the Germans. So, they should continue to hold the hard line as a negotiation tactic, but should do so with the understanding it is intended to reach a deal.

For France (and really the rest of Europe) pushing to achieve some type of deal, even if imperfect, to at least forestall the eventual disintegration of the EU would appear prudent. Even then, some of the more problematic policies would still need to be reformed rather quickly, or the can will stop rolling quickly. Should the economic woes continue over the long-term, none of this may matter anyway as the rising tide of nationalism could get so large that the EU becomes politically untenable domestically for its constituent parts.”

 



Aditya Pandey. 

(Working part-time as an activist for PETA in Bhopal. Also involved in social upliftment through innovation by being a part of UNICEF.Selected as a top tester by the UNICEF-GIS Technical Team.)

“Syriza’s win in Greece underscored the fact that Greeks are in no mood to drink the poison of austerity concocted by their Eurozone creditors. Years of austerity measures have proved futile. A quarter of Greece’s GDP has vanished in thin air, half of its’ youth are sitting in home and growth has unsurprisingly come to a grinding halt.

Austerity measures have hit the poor the hardest.Soup-kitchens can be easily spotted on every nook and corner of the country. Syriza’s pro-poor and anti-austerity stance helped it to an emphatic win over its rivals. It won’t be illogical to compare Alexis Tsipras’ win with Arvind Kejriwal’s thumping victory in Delhi Assembly elections.

Both leaders had a clean message that reached people’s ears. Syriza has sent a clear message to its’ largest creditor, Germany that it won’t be black-mailed any more. People are loving the fact that for first time someone is taking a stand against Germany which was the chief architect of austerity plans that bled Greece dry. I think Syriza’s win has brought much needed respite for poor. It would be great if Syriza could renegotiate the bailout deal and bring to the fore the fact that austerity measures have failed. Obviously, Germany won’t accept this fact because that would undermine Germany’s economic grip over its’ peers.

Ukraine- the center piece of Russia’s political ambitions is spiraling into a full blown crisis. Pro-Russian rebels backed by Russian military have been gaining on Ukraine’s territory. Greece under Syriza has refused to continue sanctions on Russia. This shows a crack in the Eurozone. A divided Europe would serve Putin’s interest more than anyone. Europe had been inactive in lending any help to Ukraine but the recent talks of ceasefire between Putin and Poroshenko brokered by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande proved otherwise. Germany was concerned that talks in Washington of arming Ukraine could lead to a full blown war. Therefore, it was right for Germany and France to step in. ”

 



Dr. John Bruni.

(open source intelligence and security consultancy) based in Adelaide, South Australia, formerly served as Special Military Researcher Adviser at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR))

“1) Is it good overall for Europe to experience these emerging political transformations that economic skeptics, and globalist seem to highly critic questioning their reforms and agendas?

These transformations are the inevitable consequence of poor governance at the European national and EU levels. Electorates in established territories are sick of being run by faceless, economically dry EU technocrats in Brussels and now, the compliant and weakened national governments among existing European nation-states are seen as no more that the flaccid intermediaries of the Euro zone. The unfortunate thing for Europe is that the institutions running the Continent have long lost any sense of legitimacy. We are now entering a time of existential crisis for Europe. The still largely subterranean, yet politically influential ‘hard right’ is breaking from its chains and is find more ground among the politically disenfranchised, targeting immigrant groups who are perceived to be taking away jobs and diminishing established European cultural norms. But so is the ‘extreme left’ which is finding fertile ground in recruiting people to resist EU and ‘national’ economic policies that have impoverished the European middle classes, resigned working class families to a life on welfare or permanent un/underemployment.

Then we have the separatist groups. Whether from Scotland, Spain, Italy or elsewhere, these groups are the new ‘political centre’. Finding succor in the ancient sub-national identities that ruled European politics and society for millennia, separatist groups are anti-state because the nation-state in Europe is weak, penetrated by lofty, unworkable, poorly executed, ‘centralized’ planning from Brussels. In a supreme irony the Continent of Europe looks sick and tired because those running the EU institutions are creating for themselves a ‘New Byzantium’. In another irony, Europe only thrived when empires, kingdoms, principalities, and later, nation-states, were masters of their own fate. Savage wars were fought for the right to retain this sense of freedom.

Now, 24 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe’s last major threat to centralize the Continent by force, Western Europe has successfully created a new centralizing mechanism, the EU. No war was threatened or acted upon to create this centralized mechanism, only the promise to enrich everyone, no matter what country they came from, by breaking down traditional mercantilism, and internal barriers to free trade. However, in this new experiment to centralize and streamline Europe, ‘the people’, the non-elite, do not feel connected to ‘Eurocratic’ aspirations and are tapping into their revolutionary heritage. To the EU ‘aristocracy’ the European people, whether Greek, Italian or German are mere pawns in their strategic calculations. This situation can only end in chaos and carnage.

– What denomination do these parties represent?

A wide spectrum of the disadvantaged and disenfranchised.

-Will Europe divide itself?

Yes, it has to. The current configuration will be continually attacked from within leaving the EU, a ‘democratic institution’ with few good choices. Either bribe the biggest threats in the hope they will simply go home and have a good life, or create for itself a repressive instrumentality that will be the 21st Century equivalent of the Gestapo or the KGB. Given current national security laws and their intrusive nature, ostensibly designed to keep us safe from the ‘Muslim threat’, that latter option may evolve as the only real option for a fracturing Europe. It is after all unlikely that the ‘Eurocracy’ in Brussels will ever own up to its role in tearing contemporary Europe apart, reform themselves to be less onerous or vote themselves out of a job. Eventually a violent show down has to happen for a new order and sustainable stability to re-emerge.

-And are these transformations only shown in economies that show similar characteristics, mostly Mediterranean’ that share differences with Northern European countries?

Europe has never been a homogeneous entity, socially, politically or economically. Its heterogeneity is carved into its genes. Historically many have tried to corral the highly competitive diversity of Europe into one centralized basket. The last three attempts in the modern era were Napoleonic France, NAZI Germany and the USSR. These attempts were by force of arms, and in the latter case, because of nuclear weapons, by subterfuge. But all failed since all attempts at centralization failed to realize that Europeans would in time rebel against being homogenized into a French, German or Russian political and cultural subset.

This sort of centralization can only really have legitimacy among people who share common language, culture and religious affiliation, say in the mould of the late 19th Century empires. Today’s EU suffers from coming to grips with this reality as well. While unity in the EU was based on nation-states voluntarily subsuming much of their sovereignties to Brussels, in the hope of superseding nation-states as principle organizing structures, every member-state to the EU had vast differences in economic wealth, industrial capacity and agricultural output and therefore, economic potential. You might be able to adjust the figures on fancy computer spreadsheets to say otherwise, but one cannot escape this reality on the ground. Contemporary Europe is rife with differences. Differences in means of production, labor laws, efficiency in production, business culture and these divisions are stark between northern and southern Europe. One can hope that redistributing wealth from the richer to the poorer economies can flatten out some of these differences, but this policy setting cannot change people, their work ethics and habits, many of them formed over centuries of dealing with highly localized issues.

2) Would a divided Europe benefit Putin in anyway?

Europe’s natural state historically is to be divided. The Hapsburgs tried forging a Europe-wide empire 1440-1780. Napoleon tried 1799-1815 through military force and Adolf Hitler 1939-45. For much of the Cold War, 1947-91, Europe stood on the precipice of being absorbed or conquered by the Soviet Union. From 1993-2015, the European Union forged a process of voluntary unification by using trade and economics rather than war. The problem with the latter experiment was that all European nation-states who signed up to the EU project essentially did so in order to help the nation-state survive.

The EU technocrats on the other hand came from a position that the most destabilizing entity was the nation-state. Does this situation give Putin advantage? Perhaps. But memories of Russian occupation of Eastern Europe during the Cold War are still fresh. Franco-German co-operation, while the bedrock of a stable Western Europe, has its own problems. Britain wants to maintain a sense of splendid isolation from Continental politics. It seems that this fractured underbelly only serves to heighten America’s attractiveness as a hedge against Russian machinations for most European countries.

3) Should Europe unify only its military, but not their economies given the recent circumstances?

Europe should do neither. A divided Europe only gives an external (or internal European power) temporary advantage. Washington and Russia during the Cold War felt frustration in dealing with their own sections of Europe. No continental hegemon ever enjoyed total control. Soviet leaders, Hitler and Napoleon managed restive populations that were never entirely comfortable with being the ‘underdog’. The Hapsburgs had to contend with forever shifting alliances and counter alliances to keep on top.

Therefore, letting European states remain free and independent is almost a guarantee for their survival. A balance of power model whereby the largest and most influential states exert the greatest influence on European affairs is a more geopolitical natural setting for the Continent. Sometimes the mechanism will fail and lead to wars or skirmishes, but in doing so cultural and political independence remains and this ‘rebalancing’ may lead to renewal.”

 



Prof. Nake Kamrany.

(He  is an eminent Afghan-American development economist with superior experience in economic development who is held in high esteem by the international development community, Afghan leaders, scholars, the private sector and intellectuals. He is one of the founders of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, Nebraska.)

“You have certainly raised pointed questions about Europa issues.  However, the Europeans Havre reached a political. social  and economic maturity to resolve difference through diplomatic means and move forward.

My concern lies with relations between U.S. and Western European countries on the one hand and those of the  Islamic  countries of the Middle East including ISIS, THE TALIBAN and many other autonomous and indigenous groups.

The real problem is not only communication but it is structural.  I am dubious about the current approach of using drones and airpower to subdue the opposition.  It is clear that they are retaliating although they are sustaining enormous damages in blood and wealth.

My concern is that the situation will extend into the long term future  as it did in Afghanistan  where the U.S. was engaged for 14 years and it is continuing.  Part of the structural differences is the cultural dissonance.  When members of the family of the villagers are killed by air-power and drones a sense of revenge is created and that sense could go on for a long time.  There is also no doubt that many innocent villagers are being  killed , maimed and their properties are destroyed.

It follows that the west must go back to the drawing board and re-examine how a political resolution could be found possibly substitute the prevailing intractable wars and terrorism  in several countries.  It can be done but it will take vision, leadership, cultural differences  and an assessment of the art of the possible.  Instead of killing them let us try persuading, educating, and giving peace a chance.”

Comments Off on Will Europe’s imminent political change help other agendas?

The ‘Normandy Quartet’ meets to negotiate Ukrainian sovereignty

February 11th, 2015

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



The four leaders gathered Wednesday in Minsk to negotiate peace in Ukraine and  will sign a joint declaration supporting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, as confirmed by a source in the Ukrainian delegation.

The same source reported that it is preparing a paper on the ‘contact group’ comprising Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, where the commitment of all parties will assert to respect the ceasefire accord in Minsk, Belarus, last September and signed by both the Government of Kiev and pro-Russian separatist leaders of this country.

According to Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir MAKEI, the statement is being studied both by the leaders of the ‘quartet of Normandy’ as pro-Russian separatists have also met Wednesday with representatives of Kiev in Minsk. “To achieve a positive  document outcome that requires approval of all participants,” said MAKEI.

Federalization but no greater autonomy

So far, we have been learning some aspects of the quadripartite negotiation. Thus, for example, has been leaked that the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, flatly rejected a proposal of federalization for a Ukraine Russia agreement. The tug of war could end, according to some sources, with the acceptance by the Kremlin broad autonomy for the Donbas.

The separatists went directly for the independence of Kiev. The four leaders who participated in the summit are: Ukrainian Petro Poroshenko; Russian leader Vladimir Putin; German Chancellor Angela Merkel; and French President François Hollande. The leaders broke protocol to hold informal consultations before the start of the summit itself.

From the outset, when descending a staircase to the first floor of the building to be photographed for a few seconds in front of the flags of the four countries, cameras could see how Poroshenko marched flanked by Merkel and Hollande, while Putin was visibly isolated from the trio.

Attack on a hospital in Donetsk

Meanwhile, coinciding with the development of the summit in Minsk, It has continued conflict in eastern Ukraine. This afternoon, a hospital has been hit by a bombing in the center of Donetsk, a stronghold of pro-Russian separatists, killing a civilian, as reported by the separatist authorities. “A shell landed in the hospital number 20, causing a fire in a laboratory and the Department of Neurology. A pedestrian who was out of the hospital was killed,” said Iouliana Bedilo, spokesman for the separatist government, claiming that there had been “no fatalities within the hospital. “

Comments Off on The ‘Normandy Quartet’ meets to negotiate Ukrainian sovereignty

Elisa López Aguado answers questions about Spanish political party PODEMOS

February 10th, 2015

 

Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.

 

 



Elisa López Aguado

She has worked as a journalist in several media, 

from a multisource video agency or a local radio channel in the US to a prestigious national TV in Spain.

She is now part of a Financial Communications Department in Madrid.

 

1) What does PODEMOS offer to Spain that the PSOE or PPV do not? Why is Pablo Iglesias considered the new hope for Spain’s youth?

PODEMOS sells a beautiful speech inspired by a “real-social-conscience-perspective” its leaders say they have. This new party aims to change Spanish political atmosphere, end with corruption and save Spain from its still alive economical crisis –even it is way lower than a couple of years ago. What is supposed to differentiate PODEMOS from PSOE or PP is truth and the change ambition. Even though PSOE is a left-wing party, PODEMOS says it is asleep and not fighting for citizen’s real rights.

On the other hand, PP, now governing, is a liar for them. There have been a number of politicians from that party involved in big corruption cases and thus they say PP just wants to be powerful no matter what and betray the citizens that gave them the power. It is not that Pablo Iglesias is considered as the new hope for Spain’s youth, because he is not acclaimed like that. The point is he is seen as a chance to change from a two-party system to more possible alternatives in the country so citizens can really use their right to vote.

By an increase of the offer of real parties in the political sphere, citizens would be able to put their priorities first when completing ballots and not turn to the tradition we had in Spain, which was “If the current government has done it wrong, I will vote to the other party, and when the other party fails in governing again, I will come back to the other party”.

2) How did PODEMOS gain so much political terrain in such short period of time?

PODEMOS appeared in the perfect moment to compete as a real alternative to an asleep PSOE that does not stop PP and a corrupted core in PP that has touched the whole party. Also, crisis always lead to revolutions, people get tired of arguments and bureaucratic solutions and want to see real changes on the streets. That is the reason why PODEMOS is gaining so much political weight in statistics and questionnaires, because “they allegedly have no past” and want to give Spanish society a good solution to its problems.

3) A lot of socialist voters are turning to PODEMOS, does PODEMOS plan to help the working class by heavily taxing the wealthy (Corporations, Monopolies…)?

It is true they want to control the wealthy more, logically, so their fortunes are well-declared in Spain and taxes evasion is not that easy. By doing that, the tax income would increase and could be reverted on social politics –such as decreasing working hours from 40 to 35 or establishing retirement at 60– that are difficult to work out and need backing. Nevertheless, the working class would obviously still need to pay taxes, and it is not that clear they would be lower.

4) How does PODEMOS plan to keep up with pension plans, employment, and get rid of the Spanish brick bubble that has damaged the Spanish economy?

That is the problem. Their program is a utopia. [The Spanish brick bubble is not longer a problem, though, it exploded in 2008 and the sector is now recovering little by little.] For keeping up with pension plans and employment they just have positive ideas on their fliers that have no development long-term plan or sustainability. Actually, PODEMOS recognized the program they presented in Europe “was not realistic” and needed to be reedited.

They pretend to decrease the hours of work from 40 to 35 and retirement age to 60 years old instead of 67. How could that be possible? We could assume those extra benefits that could maintain that new economical panorama would come from the benefits of the sectors –such as telecommunications, energy, education, transportation or pharmaceutics– they want to expropriate or the extra taxes the State would get from the wealthy.

5) According to a lot skeptics in the EU, PODEMOS is not a viable option to rule Spain. Do you agree?

Related to the previous question, I agree to those who say PODEMOS is not a real viable option. If they win, apart from having convinced people with empty rhetoric, it is because –I can tell you– we have no democratic culture yet. Sadly, even though we want to tell ourselves Spain is mature enough in terms of politics, almost nobody reads the programs or ask him/herself about the origin or future purposes of the party.

Also, since Pablo Iglesias has always thrown the idea of the complot PP and PSOE have to stop their rise, the negative information brought up by the media is thought to be a part of it. In a more European context, PODEMOS is not viable for one of the solutions they offer to exit the crisis. They say the debt Spain has with the EU should not be paid even though those credits the EU gave the country were indispensable to solve the biggest problems we faced. It is very similar to the new Greek Government. Tsipras spreads the same values and is generating refusal in Europe, so the equation tells us that same thing would happen with Iglesias.

– President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, IMF president Christine Lagarde, and European Commission president Jean Juncker oppose change in Spain with PODEMOS. Will it affect the relationship with the EU if PODEMOS wins?

As I said in the previous question, I do think so, it would be damaged.

– A lot of EURO skeptics have turned against Germany and France for imposing their rule over other countries with less financial power like Spain. Is there a possibility that Spain leaves Euro?

I don’t believe so. As long as I know, leaving the Euro would not only leave Spain out of league in terms of commercial relationships with the EU but also worldwide. Nowadays, I think our PIB is 60% based in foreign trade. The peseta is way cheaper than dollars, for example, so all the commercial operations we develop now in Euros and thanks to which Spain gets high benefits would, simply, be reverted.

6) Will PODEMOS give Catalunya, and the Basque Country leeway to declare independence from Spain following the track of PSOE?

Yes, as they proclaim citizens right to convoke referendums to decide about every matter.

7) PP and PSOE accuse PODEMOS of lack of preparation. On their view, PODEMOS capability to improve Spanish politics is far from realistic, claiming it’s not organized well.  What does PODEMOS response about these allegations?

PODEMOS wants to erase traditional parties such as PSOE and PP from the political sphere since they “haven’t acted in benefit of Spanish citizens but betrayed them”. PODEMOS calls those party members “casta”, which means “caste”, a despicable powerful social group. Pablo Iglesias’ party believes they represent a sort of conspiracy against the rise of PODEMOS so they don’t get wings to fly, and they turn to that idea every time PP and PSOE accuse them of lack of preparation. PODEMOS responses saying they are afraid of change and that they know they are perfectly organized, but they do not prove their efficiency with facts.

8) Other critics point out that PODEMOS is a hidden communist ideological party. Has PODEMOS classified itself more towards socialism, communism or neither? If it’s not communist why do critics compare Pablo Iglesias with Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela, or SYZIRA in Greece?

PODEMOS claims they are different, they are the change. They never pronounce the words socialism or communism but they obviously tend to those ideological positions and that’s why critics compare Pablo Iglesias with Maduro and Tsipras. Iglesias supports both leaders’ ideas even though sometimes he tries to hide his link with Chavism, but it is true.

9) Will Spain and US friendship be jeopardized with PODEMOS on power? What does PODEMOS expect from the US in response, if PODEMOS wins the elections?

I do think that friendship can be jeopardized, just as the one between Venezuela and the US.

10) What would Spain look like in the future with PODEMOS in power, if they indeed win the elections?

I feel very pessimistic about this. Extreme ideologies never bring good times to countries and History has my back on this. I do not have the authority to forecast, but I imagine a general long-term blocking from the main economies we have had relation with that would damage Spain if PODEMOS won the elections. Also, a surreal popular feeling among Spanish population, thinking of “less working, less compromise leads to better life-quality”,  idea that would separate social classes even more and could increase levels of poverty in our country –like what happened in Venezuela.

The only positive consequence I try to see among all this is political parties could be more conscious about transparency, being legal and not corrupt, not betraying citizens’ trust on them… That is happening nowadays as a result of lacking moral leaders. Sincerely, PODEMOS has given importance to the idea of being transparent by bringing the debate back to public opinion. Despite that fact, I have seen PODEMOS leaders also have a dark past so I am not confident. Juan Carlos Monedero, for example, has been paid by the Venezuelan Government for consultancy and then he had to elaborate a complementary tax declaration after the Treasure warned him they knew he had extra-profits from that activity. Is that a proper behavior from one of the leaders of the party that wants to rule Spain? Answer yourself.

Comments Off on Elisa López Aguado answers questions about Spanish political party PODEMOS

Hector Margalef answers questions regarding Spanish political party PODEMOS

February 9th, 2015

 

Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.

 

 



Héctor Sánchez Margalef

He is a political scientist and expert of Spanish politics. 

 

1) What does PODEMOS offer to Spain that the PSOE or PPV do not? Why is Pablo Iglesias consider the new hope for Spain’s youth?

It is true that young people in Spain who are not seeing their hopes regarding jobs fulfilled and have been hit hard by the economic crisis have turned to Podemos, but not all think Pablo Iglesias is the new hope for Spain’s youth; the driving feelings are more close to anger, desperation and a wish for a real change than hope.

What Podemos offer is more or less the same that PSOE or PP are now offering. The think is that while Podemos is politically virgin, PSOE and PP have lost their credibility. They have been taking turns in the government since the return of the democracy and can be easily blamed of the problems and of the corruption scandals of Spain. We shall see if Podemos it is indeed different if it comes to power.

2) How did PODEMOS gain so much political terrain in such short 

It is easily explained by an economic crisis that hit Spain very hard and it became a political, social and institutional crisis. The incapacity of the mainstream parties to offer short term solutions to fight back the economic crisis together with the corruption scandals made the way for them.

Podemos’ discourse, simply and plain, can be attractive to people who has suffered the economic crisis with different intensity.

Another thing that should be noted is that a recent poll shows that 45% of people who may would want to vote for Podemos claim that will do so because they have a feeling of disappointment with other parties, including the party they voted the last time. 35% will vote Podemos because they feel it close to their ideology and the 20% left because of the options combined.

So, the explanation should be that they gained political terrain because of an economic crisis that has become social, political and institutional combined with the disillusion with the mainstream parties and the corruption scandals that have hit them.

3) A lot of socialist voters are turning to PODEMOS, does PODEMOS plan to help the working class by heavily taxing the wealthy (Corporations, Monolopolies…)? 

They say so. The idea is not that this will only help the working class but the whole country. We will see…

4) How does PODEMOS plan to keep up with pension plans, employment, and get rid of the Spanish brick bubble that has damage the Spanish economy? 

Theoretically they will do so increasing the income instead of carrying on with the cuts. They pretend to undertake a progressive fiscal reform and fighting fiscal fraud and fiscal evasion.

However, Spain has a structural problem that needs to be addressed. That is that political elites must compromise with the people they represent instead of caring for themselves; many politicians benefited from the brick bubble wasting money that could have been used to other ends.

Spain has a relatively competitive economy which should allow the government to pay pensions, fight unemployment and preventing the creation of another bubble if politicians are honest, do not mismanage resources, EVERYBODY pays its taxes and there is a fair redistribution of resources.

5) According to a lot skeptics in the EU, PODEMOS is not a viable option to rule Spain. Do you agree?

No, Podemos is an option as it may be any party who runs for elections. Spanish citizens will decide who is a viable option to rule Spain regardless the EU.

– President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, IMF president Christine Lagarde, and European Commission president Jean Juncker oppose change in Spain with PODEMOS. Will it affect the relationship with the EU if PODEMOS wins?  

The same happened with Syriza. The European institutions campaigned against them but they won the elections. EU representatives should accept any government democratically elected; despite taht EU “does not like new faces”. In case they were elected, it may not affect the relationship between the EU and Spain beyond disagreements that occur in any relation and negotiation and that includes restructuring the debt or any similar Podemos’ proposal.

– A lot of EURO skeptics have turned against Germany and France for imposing their rule over other countries with less financial power like Spain. Is there a possibility that Spain leaves Euro? 

Absolutely no

6) Will PODEMOS give Catalunya, and the Basque Country leeway to declare independence from Spain following the track of PSOE? 

I do not know, one thing is what you say when you are in the opposition and a very different think is what you say and do when you are in office. What we do know is that in its discourses, Podemos shows a significant component of Spanish patriotism but in his first meeting in Catalunya last December he said he did not want Catalunya to leave Spain but he is willing to listen and allow a referendum so the Catalans decide whether they want to stay in Spain or leave. If it was only to gain support in Catalunya, we cannot tell yet

7) PP and PSOE accuse PODEMOS of lack of preparation. On their view, PODEMOS capability to improve Spanish politics is far from realistic, claiming its not organized well.  What does PODEMOS response about these allegations? 

They respond that they will be better, more democratic and more transparent that either PP or PSEO again from political virginity. In any case, the machinery of the state will continue working so the state will not collapse; and PSOE went through a similar experience when they came to power in 1982.

8) Other critics point out that PODEMOS is a hidden communist ideological party. Has PODEMOS classify itself more towards socialism, communism or neither? If its not communist why do critics compare Pablo Iglesias with Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela, or SYZIRA in Greece?

It is true that Podemos founders come from a communist tradition; however, I would classify them on the eurocommunism which at the same time is not that far from the social democracy of the second half of the XX century. If they have a hidden communist agenda we cannot tell; but it is true that since polls have given them possibilities to enter government, they have moderated themselves claiming they are neither left nor right-wing but a cross-cutting party beyond ideology which pursues to give the Spanish people what have been taken from them. That is public education, public health, pensions, care system, end the corruption, democratize the judiciary system and stop the cuts on public services.

Regarding the second question, first of all, I would not compare Syriza in Greece with Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. With that said, it is true that before founding Podemos, Pablo Iglesias and its fellows showed their sympathies for Venezuela’s regime and they also have advised Bolivarian regimes in the past (Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador). However, they have stopped making references to Venezuela and other Bolivarian regimes claiming that they know that Spain is not Venezuela, softening their messages calling themselves social democrats and taking Syriza as a reference, which, in my opinion, are not communist either despite they come from a communist tradition. If they have changed their references out of convincement or in order to collect more votes I do not know. But I think they know that replicating Venezuela’s regime in Spain is impossible; people would not allow it and their voters will turn their back on them.

9) Will Spain’s and US friendship be put in jeopardy with PODEMOS on power? What does PODEMOS expect from the US in response,  if  PODEMOS wins the elections?

When Jose Luís Rodríguez Zapatero was elected president, the relations with Bush administration were tense and then they returned to normality when Obama was elected president. At the end of the day pragmatism have always prevailed in the US-Spain relations, so Podemos would probably expect the same as any government democratically elected would expect.

10) What would Spain look like in the future with PODEMOS in power, if they indeed win the elections?

This is political fiction and I cannot know. However the situation of Spain in the future will depend very much on the context, especially if the economy starts to recover. Theoretically, elections should be held at the end of the year and much can happen. The tide can turn against Podemos the same it has favored them.

Comments Off on Hector Margalef answers questions regarding Spanish political party PODEMOS

Merkel and Hollande meet with Putin

February 7th, 2015

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



In a desperate attempt to achieve peace in eastern Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande, traveled to Moscow on Friday for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The goal is for the separatists to commit to a new protest for peace. During the afternoon the three leaders had dinner together without commenting after three hours of talks , behind closed doors, unaccompanied by advisor and with only the aid of translation services.

The plan, according to some leaks is based in past Minsk agreements that brought the ceasefire in September. But according to some media, it includes both the deployment of peacekeepers as recognition of the new contact line separating the territory dominated by the pro-Russian forces. Now the rest of Ukraine. Kiev has displayed discontent on both demands, which has already tried to mark their territory remembering not to accept their territorial integrity and sovereignty from being conditioned by third parties. The presence of peacekeepers could mean a de facto recognition of the breakaway territory, freezing a conflict that Kiev hopes to leave behind some day and be integrated into European structures.

A diplomatic source said that the outcome of the talks could depend on the new sanctions prepared by the European Union against Russia that were more or less severe. Russian Deputy Defense Anatoly Antonov, could be included in the list of individuals and entities subject to sanctions by the European Union, according to diplomatic sources cited by Reuters. The fact that Antonov participates in Security Conferences held in Munich and whose Ukraine agenda is one of the main topics given.

So far we know little more than the names of the 19 people and 9 entities who will join this list, the EU expanded regularly the list since last March, after the incorporation of Crimea to Russia announcing a ban on entry into the Community and freezing of assets to people they accused of violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Brussels has realized that sanctions hurt Russia but not bow to Putin. But fears that the supply of arms to the Ukrainian side by the US divides the EU and especially to relaunch the conflict into an all out war.

The expectations of progress were low before starting. Especially since the recent progress made by the rebels have left old peace agreements reached in Minsk, which drew a line against the secessionists which have moved west, stealing 500 square kilometers of land. But Europe needs a deal more than the US. And it is seeking ways to normalize relations with Moscow, as explained by the European Union ambassador in Russia, Vygaudas Usackas. The atmosphere in Moscow was tense from the outset, with Merkel and Hollande starting directly from the aircraft steps towards the Kremlin, without traditional receptions for foreign leaders.

Meanwhile the pro Russian rebels and Ukrainian authorities agreed Friday to create a humanitarian corridor to allow the exit of civilians trapped in the town of Debaltsevo, next to the front line and that these days is the epicenter of the fighting in the eastern Ukraine. It has been two weeks that the city has been hit by heavy shelling.

The pro-Russian territory tries to steal Kiev. These days have gone and it took Vuhlehirsk, a rural village 10 kilometers west. Last night were trying to capture Debaltsevo, which is vital because it brings rail two main strongholds: the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk.

During the afternoon dozens of buses traveling in convoy Debaltsevo, both from territory under rebel control and the government to take people and put it out of danger. The Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, US Vice President Joe Biden and President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, leveraging the Munich Security Conference.

Comments Off on Merkel and Hollande meet with Putin

Wealth: Having it all and wanting more

February 3rd, 2015

 

 

By OXFAM.

 



To read report click here.

Comments Off on Wealth: Having it all and wanting more

US reinforcing arms to Ukraine

February 3rd, 2015

 

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



 

On December 11, the US Congress passed the Support Ukraine Act that Barack Obama signed two days later, under which the US would provide $USD 350 million  in arms to the Government of Ukraine .

The US government, however, added that it would not implement the willingness to give peace a chance. But last Saturday, negotiations between the pro-Russian separatists, the Ukrainian government and Russia collapsed. And the United States has decided that perhaps is time to implement a plan to surrender weapons to the country.

So believes the Secretary of State, John Kerry, who will visit Kiev after tomorrow, the Chief of Staff, General John Dempsey, and Secretary of Defense functions, Chuck Hagel will also be present. The key, however, is not in them, but in the national security adviser, Susan Rice, who will have more influence over Obama and so far has opposed giving weapons to Kiev.  However that may be changing position as reported yesterday ‘by The New York Times.

The publication of the news of The New York Times’ has not been the only ‘chance’ on Kerry pre-trip. Yesterday it was presented in Washington a report that demands the surrender of weapons to Ukraine by 3,000 million (2,660 million) over the next three years.

The authors of that study are more than just experts. These include, for example, Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense with Obama and Pentagon chief candidate if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2017; Jim Stavridis, commander of NATO to less than two years; Ivo Daalder, Obama’s former ambassador to NATO; and Steve Pifer, advisor to Bill Clinton for the former USSR and former ambassador to Ukraine.

The paper was presented at the think tank Atlantic Council, an organization created by Democrats and Republicans in 1961 to generate support for NATO between civil society and with the collaboration of the former Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar. It was in part presented by Brookings Institution, the ‘think tank’ of the ‘hawks left’, ie the Democratic supporters to intervene in other countries, which has on its roster of experts the former secretary general of NATO, Javier Solana.

And if there was any doubt about the tone of the study, one of its authors, former advisor Bil Clinton Strobe Talbott, began the presentation by stating that “the way to define what is happening in Ukraine is an act of war imposed by the Russian Federation. it is a direct invasion of Russia (…) and a massive occupation of the territory, which goes far beyond Crimea. ”

 

Antitank weapons and drones

The reports suggests what weapons Kiev’s requires to defend itself, which are exactly the same as those included in the Law on Support to Ukraine. These include anti-tank and anti-armor vehicles to replace those with Ukrainian forces, which have 20 years old weapons; ammunition and small arms; radar to identify and reach artillery batteries; fire control systems and target identification; systems to interfere the UAV drones- -Aircraft being used by pro-Russian; control equipment and weapons guidance; drones; and communications equipment.

So far, the US has officially limited to delivering ‘non-lethal’ systems to Ukraine as night vision equipment and communications networks to help a country whose armed forces had, in the early stages of the war use mobile phones to communicate with each other. In fact, US weapons can not be integrated into the defense systems of Ukraine, in part because they are too sophisticated and partly because this country has an inherited defense of the Soviet Union. That would require Washington to purchase from Central European countries former Warsaw Pact computer and transfer it to Kiev.

Comments Off on US reinforcing arms to Ukraine

Antonis Samaras appeals to voters to remember the ghost of the Civil War

January 24th, 2015

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.



Its Antonis Samaras turn. The Greek prime minister has closed this Friday his campaign at a rally in Athens with the same goal as Alexis Tsipras: Get 600,000 Hellenes and convince the undecided to vote for his (party) the conservative New Democracy.

It has several advantages in its favor. His government has returned to Greece on a path of growth. The country’s GDP expanded 0.7% in the third quarter of 2014 and has earned also two record consecutive primary surpluses (before the payment of interest on the debt) in 2013 and 2014. Unemployment has fallen in the last months of his term by 27.4% in 2013 to 25.8% achieved last year. This data was obtained, according to the opposition, with a high social cost to the country.

But the leader of New Democracy has focused his last speech to discredit his rival, Tsipras accusing the party of “serving the lobby of the drachma” and parasols to be putting the “windfall” involving the recent decision of the Central Bank Bank (ECB). With the ceremony held on Friday afternoon has tried to counteract the effect of massive campaign rally held Thursday by Alexis Tsipras in central Athens.

Samaras rally was held at the sports center of Paleo Faliro, in Hall which hosted the taekwondo competition of the 2004 Olympics, an easier place to fill the squares of Athens. “I picked up the game in the middle of the storm,” the candidate defends, adding that “we are out of the memorandum and no longer need bailouts”.

Samaras has promised that once won the elections, the government will negotiate the last fringes of the rescue and then begin to reverse the economic “injustices” that “had” to commit in recent years, reports Europa Press.

Moreover, the Greek prime minister has said that conclude negotiations with partners in the troika by the end of February when the extension expires rescue for Greece to receive credit below- -agreed reinforcements. Greece also called Juncker get funding plan and will benefit from buying bonds announced yesterday by the European Central Bank.

Samaras will face the polls on Sunday starting at a disadvantage in polls regarding the radical left. A poll released Thursday gave Syriza six points ahead of New Democracy. Samaras hopes to turn over those predictions this weekend. What will you do with your program in hand, which was based on tax cuts as some sections of VAT and income tax. It will also reduce the rate of companies 26% today to 15% to attract investment.

Comments Off on Antonis Samaras appeals to voters to remember the ghost of the Civil War

The Islamic State wave of executions

January 24th, 2015

 

 

Posted by The Daily Journalist.

 

The Islamic State has released photos that  show militants executing gay men by throwing them from the top of a tall building in Mosul, Iraq.

The crowd awaits the free-fall of the convicted homosexual.



Bellow the man about to be thrown off the building by what appears to be two Islamic State officials.



The text at the bottom appears to reference the prisoner as “one of Lot’s people.” The reference is to the biblical inhabitants of Lot’s towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose people sinned and were punished by God in the Old Testament for committing sexually deviant acts.

The picture bellow shows the tied man in free-fall seconds before he breaks his skull.



The next picture shows two dead men after been thrown from the tower.



The next photo shows an Islamic State official condemning those facing death for breaking Islamic law.



 

The two blindfolded men, shaved by Islamic militants, are crucified for their apparent believes in Christianity.



The picture bellow shows the Islamic militants shooting the men crucified on the back of their heads.



 

The next photo shows blinded woman wearing a burka about to be stoned to death after been accused of committing adultery.



The next photo show Islamic militants stoning the woman.



The final photo shows here body covered with a blue tarp.



Comments Off on The Islamic State wave of executions

Afghanistan: Triumph or failure?

January 3rd, 2015

 The Daily Journalist community opinion.

 



 

6 trillion dollars later, most media outlets have set decreed the official end of the US intervention in Afghanistan (2001-2014), but The Daily Journalist can confirm that close to 10,000 US soliders are kept deployed in Afghanistan, mostly in Kandahar, on the Helmand province. Over 4,000 young US veterans have died  and over 30,000 Taliban members have been killed over the past 13 years, but what was the ultimate goal in Afghanistan?  

1) In your view: Did the United States win the war in Afghanistan?

2) What is the view worldwide of the US intervention in Afghanistan after a decade of war? Positive or negative in your view?

3) Did you ever support the intervention in Afghanistan?

4) ) With less US troops on the ground and will  Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-E-Taiba and the Taliban in Pakistan who are openly reinforcing the Taliban in Afghanistan, will it become even worse?

5) What does the future hold for Afghanistan?

 

 



David Isenberg.

(During 2009 he ran the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers project at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. He testified before Congress on labor trafficking by a KBR subcontractor. He is a Senior Analyst at Wikistrat. His affiliations include the Straus Military Reform Project and the Independent Institute. He is a US Navy veteran)

1) If winning is defined as achieving your strategic goals, i.e. destroying al-Qaeda, eliminate Afghanistan as an Al Qaeda staging area, making Afghanistan into a stable state, then, no, the U.S> did not achieve its goals. 

2) Generally negative. Most other countries, not being as emotionally or militarily  invested in Afghanistan, as the United States, can see that the U.S. did not achieves its goals (see above point) and, for those who aided the U.S., they have now become, subject to AQ attacks.

3) Initially yes, on the basis that it would be a limited campaign to destroy Al Qaeda. Once it turned into national building I dropped my support.

4) Yes, many of the so-called gains in Afghanistan are, at best, shaky and tenuous. I foresee continued violence for years to come.

5) Many of the adjoining countries – India, Pakistan, Russia, will be intervening there to secure what they see as their national interest. There will be a diminution of the effectiveness of the central government and power will accrue to regional governors/warlords.

 



Jamil Maidan Flores. 

(He has been speechwriter to the President and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Indonesia from January 1992 to the present—a period of more than 22 years. He has served under five presidents (Suharto, Bacharuddin Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) and four foreign ministers (Ali Alatas, Alwi Shihab, Noer Hassan Wirajuda and Marty M. Natalegawa)

1) It’s clear to my mind that the US and the NATO did not win the recently officially concluded war in Afghanistan. The Taliban is still very much around and can still inflict massive carnage given the opportunity. It can still host elements, even cells of foreign terrorist organizations and, under favorable conditions, threaten the government in Kabul. In fairness to the US and the NATO, nobody wins this kind of war any more; it is too asymmetrical for a clear victory by the stronger side. You may even be able to wipe out this generation of the Taliban, but you cannot erase the possibility of future incarnations, or the rise of new players to take up the battle, as happened in Iraq. The killing of Osama bin Laden—in Pakistan– provides some kind of consolation, but that’s all. A consolation. The Al Qaida did not die with him. Instead it multiplied itself.

2) I once thought that in the beginning there was sufficient popular support in the international community for the war effort of the US and the NATO in Afghanistan—at least in the very beginning—but I was wrong. Poll after poll on public opinion in various countries showed that the war was unpopular. This is quite sad because it means that from the very beginning, most people did not mind the Taliban having their brutal way with the Afghan population.

3) I did think that the launching of military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan deserved international support because no ruling government should be allowed to coddle and nurture Al Qaida, and besides there was legal basis for that military action (Article 51 of the UN Charter). I was further convinced of the legality and wisdom of the action when the UN Security Council established the International Security Assistance Force, to which 44 countries contributed troops and materiel.

As the years and months passed, however, I began to think that the overall war against terror wasn’t being pursued right. Too many human rights violations. It didn’t take long for me to realize that a US and NATO victory in Afghanistan was impossible, and that when they have done all that could be done, the main body of US and NATO forces should pull out of the country, leaving just enough troops and sufficient support to prevent or at least make it extremely difficult for a resurgent Taliban to threaten the life of the government in Kabul.

4) All these forces will certainly be looking for an opportunity to help the Afghan Taliban carry out a surge that will sweep toward Kabul a la Isis in Iraq and Syria.  These opportunities can only be the principal result of the negligence, incompetence and corruption on the part of the new Afghan government and its successors, and the Afghan military. If these opportunities are created for the Taliban and its supporting forces, not even the new security deals with the US and NATO will save the government in Kabul.

5) The future of Afghanistan depends on how well the new government and its successors, and the Afghan military will perform. The brief career of the late freedom fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud proves that the Taliban can be beaten in the battlefield and in the battle for hearts and minds of the people by a competent leader. If the current political, military and other leaders of Afghanistan can emulate to some degree the kind of leadeship that Shah Massoud wielded, the future of Afghanistan is bright.

 



David W. Kearn. Jr.

(He is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Politics at St. John’s University in New York. He was published by the RAND Corporation in 2012 after he concluded a year-long Stanton Nuclear SecurityFellowship in RAND’s Washington, DC office. His research interests include international relations theory, US foreign policy, military innovation, and arms control)

1) The initial primary objective of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan was to destroy the core of Al Qaeda and its infrastructure there and remove the Taliban government from power because it had given sanctuary to Al Qaeda and its leaders.  This objective was clearly achieved, in relatively short order, by the United States military and its coalition partners. 

Moving from the very clear, limited objective, the Bush administration attempted to work with Afghan parties to help build a new Afghan state, despite the skepticism that then-candidate George W. Bush expressed concerning “nation building” exercises undertaken during the Clinton administration.  In all fairness, there was a relatively large, bipartisan consensus in Washington that helping cooperative Afghans build a stable government to prevent a potential return of the Taliban (and a sanctuary for AQ) made strategic sense, but soon the Bush administration would shift its focus to Iraq.  It seemed likely at the time and has only become more apparent in hindsight that this was a catastrophic mistake.  The decision to launch a war against Saddam Hussein would necessarily remove resources from the Afghanistan mission, but it is perhaps more important that the focus of Washington policymakers shifted to Iraq, undermining what may have been possible in Afghanistan.  

To sum up – the United States won the war in Afghanistan but the nature of the peace remains an open question. 

2) This is difficult to answer, but I think it is really important not to conflate Afghanistan with the Iraq War.  While some may reflexively oppose the use of military force by the United States anywhere, at any time, the United States clearly had broad support (in both domestic political and international terms) for the intervention in Afghanistan.  Al Qaeda had used the sanctuary provided by the Taliban to launch a large-scale terrorist attack against the United States.  The U.S. clearly had legitimate cause to attack Afghanistan.  After over a decade of involvement, the views of the intervention are less clear, and I would expect that this would be reflected in surveys of public opinion.  It is really a mixed bag.  The Taliban was brutal regime that no one wants to see resume power, but there are clearly limits to what can be achieved by an outside power on a society that has been so fractured and divided by decades of violence. 

3) Absolutely.  After the September 11 attacks it was clear that Al Qaeda had to be destroyed and that Afghanistan could no longer be allowed to be a sanctuary for a terrorist group that had struck the United States.  It is less clear whether the counter-terrorism mission necessitated a post-conflict reconstruction/stabilization campaign, but the current limited U.S. commitment seems to provide a “back stop” that could support Kabul while avoiding the problems of a full withdrawal.     

4) This is difficult to say.  Pakistan has seemingly taken strong steps against its own militants, so perhaps that external dynamic will be less important moving forward.  At some point the Afghan security forces and the Afghan military will have to really fight their own battles against the Taliban, and that will provide the ultimate answer on the effectiveness of U.S. efforts.  Unfortunately, the record is not particularly encouraging, and this residual force seems like a hedge against what transpired in Iraq after the removal of troops.  But an open-ended, large-scale commitment of troops was simply unsustainable, so again, this current policy seems prudent, if unlikely to achieve much more than maintaining a tenuous status quo.

5) Sadly, it seems highly unlikely that Afghanistan will see peace anytime soon.  The Taliban represents a strong enough force to continue to play a spoiler role in any national political reconciliation.  As long as the United States support the regime in Kabul, however, it is unlikely that the Taliban could threaten to consolidate power over the entire nation.  Until the Taliban – or more constructive/less radical elements of the Taliban’s base – decide that negotiation may be preferable to violence, the conflict is likely to continue.  Therefore we are likely to see a relatively weak central Afghan government, relegated primarily to Kabul and surrounding areas, and fairly strong local and regional leaders that may choose to cooperate with Kabul or follow their own agendas depending on the issue.     



 



Anna Corsaro. 

(She is a Crisis and Homeland Security Advisor for Governments, Corporations and NGOs leading a Team of Experts. She has worked as Multi Unit Hospitality General Manager, CEO, Board of Directors, Government Consultant, Special Adviser for Secretary of Embassy,Consultant for a Law Enforcement Agency)

1) Absolute poverty has risen by about ten percentage points in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war; life expectancy has fallen to 44 years, infant mortality has increased to reach 150 per thousand, the literacy rate is around 30 %. At the moment of Mullah Omar’s ban on poppy cultivation in 2000 there were 82 thousand hectares devote.

Today there are 123 thousand after peaking at 193 thousand in 2007, and amazingly the drop was a mere result of a crisis by overproduction. Today Afghanistan is also a direct exporter of 400 tons per year of heroin. The institution are corrupted now as they were in during the Karzai era, terror attacks haven’t ceased and the human rights violations are common place. 2014 has been one of the bloodiest years of the war, with the victim count of almost 10,000 and the Taliban are far from being defeated. I cannot define this a victory.

2) Its definitely negative. According to an independent survey of the Pew Research Center even 52% of the veterans don’t think that the war was worth it. Opinion of civilians are more negative, especially outside the United States.

3) I do support the battle against terrorism, I did not support any intervention in Afghanistan because I do not support wars that make use of the excuse of terrorism to pursue a hidden agenda.

4)  The Taliban are still a powerful presence after 13 years of facing superior military forces. They will probably reinforce their presence, but this is a consequence of the incapacity of defeating them after all this time.

5) Historically peace in Afghanistan has always brought as problematic as wars, often times accelerating the conditions that lead into new conflicts. That happened after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989. The following government did not receive any real support from the international community,  collapsing not long after paving the way for the rise of the Taliban. It is possible that tomorrow the situation will be exactly like yesterday, with the Taliban getting stronger.

 



Jon Kofas.

(Retired Indiana University university professor. Academic Writing. International Political Economy – Fiction)

1) The US had lost the war in Afghanistan as soon as it invaded, despite individual battles won against Afghan rebels allied to various warlords and groups as we will see. Ideologues blinded by rationalizations intended to justify the military solution-oriented US policy, certain corporate interests profiting from war (charging $10 per bottle of water for the troops), the Israeli lobby, and the US media along with an assortment of right-wing think tanks refused to see it ten years ago as they do today. Perhaps it was the idea that the US had just “won the Cold War”, so why could it not win against Muslim rebels in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Despite the futility of this war that carried a very heavy price for the people of the invaded land, the US continued presumably to save face and to show that indeed a real effort had been made before withdrawal that left behind a land more divided than ever. Remnants of die-hard Cold War mindset, right-wing ideology, and the symbolism of another American loss transcend pragmatism among US policymakers – Republicans and Democrats alike. Even if Obama had ordered an additional 100,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2010 to the existing 50,000 troops on the ground, the US could have never kept Afghanistan in its sphere of influence once the troops withdrew. Besides, did the US have the luxury of massive defense spending without any tangible results to show for it? 

That the US has recently signed a bilateral agreement with Kabul, parallel to the one Kabul signed with NATO, is an indication of its failure to find a political solution and that it sees no alternative to military occupation, at least in the next few years. Meanwhile, the rebel activity has not and will not stop. Just as the US could not win the war in Vietnam against the Communist North, similarly, it could and cannot possibly rely on a military solution to Afghanistan, an Islamic country with deep suspicion if not tremendous hatred for the secular imperialist West that has invaded the country since the First Opium War and tried to deprive it of its national sovereignty in every domain from political to economic.

2) Without any doubt, Muslims throughout the world opposed US military intervention as they continue to do, considering there is no substantive change in US foreign policy. In the non-Muslim world, there was never much support for US militarism as the election of 2008 proved when Obama candidly admitted that the US had become very unpopular throughout the world, but he would change all of that by changing US foreign policy. The unpopularity of the US persists because human rights organizations have charged US-NATO forces have used white phosphorus, a napalm-like chemical to combat the rebels of Afghanistan, and drones kill mostly civilians. These constitute war crimes for which the US and its NATO partners will never answer at the International Court of Justice.

In the June 1984 issue of the State Department Bulletin, the US raised the issue of chemical weapons use in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. The US argued that chemical weapons use constitutes “a violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, related rules of customary international law, and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.” Moreover, the US took its case before the UN General Assembly at a time that Reagan’s defense secretary was talking about ‘limited nuclear war’ as ‘acceptable’ as long as it does not take place in the US. That was then when the Soviets had troops in Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the CIA encouraged Afghan warlords to have peasants grow heroin along with hashish that was sold to Soviet troops. Under US military presence in Afghanistan, warlords have used the exact same strategy on NATO troops that they used on Soviets. This was one problem facing NATO that knows better than anyone the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause.

Another problem is that in June 2009, the US media reported that Afghan rebels were allegedly using white phosphorus. But who exactly produces white phosphorus? We know that Israel has used it against Palestinians. The chemical decomposes the human flesh like a strong acid poured. If Afghan rebels acquired white phosphorus, then who provided it for them? China and Russia may be candidates, but not the only ones, if they have any role at all. 

The Obama election in 2008 did in fact bring about a change in US perception because the rest of the world believed the new president would in fact change the course of foreign policy from militarism and unilateralism to multilateralism and diplomatic solutions to crises. The world believed that the American culture of covert and overt interventionism would come to an end and a new era had dawned in Washington when Obama took office.

The only change from Bush to Obama was reduced reliance on “boots on the ground” and shift to greater reliance on technology, including drones, and contractors working for DoD. Given that there was no policy change and the US continues on the path of neo-imperialism in Afghanistan as in the greater Middle East area, world public opinion toward the US is right back where Bush left it in 2008. While people in public opinion polls like many aspects of American society, they deplore its foreign policy. Anti-Americanism as a political and cultural phenomenon remains very strong in most of the world. This is not just among the media and governments, but among the people as well.

3) I never supported the war in Afghanistan because a military solution to a political problem results in mass destruction where the victims are mostly innocent civilians. Not just on moral grounds, but practical ones, including nebulous publicly stated goals about US delivering “freedom and democracy”, always at gunpoint. The idea that the US could “win the war on terror” by invading Afghanistan was as absurd in the planning stages, as irrational in its motivations and execution as the current plans to maintain a regime of military occupation on a more limited basis for the next three years.

When Bush announced the invasion I believed and I still maintain today that war would accomplish absolutely nothing, including the publicly-stated goals of the Bush administration and the rationalizations Obama provided for continuing the war. Other than an immense cost to the US budget and civilian economy from which resources were diverted, and other than the absurd “war on terror” regime that replaced the Cold War, the national interest measured in terms of what is best for the totality of the American people has been damaged very seriously under Bush and Obama. It is beyond doubt that besides a handful of US corporations, the beneficiaries of the US invasion in Afghanistan were Iran and China. As the US was spending enormous amounts of money on a futile war, China was focused on building its civilian economy which is now the world’s number one.

Taking advantage of its geographic proximity to Afghanistan and given its interest in raw materials, China was striking deals with Kabul that it may not have the opportunity to secure if it were not for the pro-US regime. In return for some Chinese aid for infrastructural development similar to what China does in Africa, Afghanistan has signed deal for mining operations, mostly copper that China needs. In due course, Afghanistan will become an economic satellite of China, but closely linked politically to Pakistan and with ties to Iran as well. While the US invaded with the goal of limiting Iran’s role in the regional balance of power, the exact opposite took place, as the government in Tehran strengthened its position with weakened neighbors.

There are over one million Afghan refugees in Iran that the government has used as a bargaining chip with Kabul. Moreover, Iran had backed insurgent groups. The US realization that it needs Iran to stabilize Afghanistan, along with Syria and Iraq, of course, is an admission of its shortsighted militarist-oriented foreign policy that precludes political solutions as a priority because it deems destabilization would work to its benefit.   

4) The US-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement was signed on 30 September 2014, the same day that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement was signed. This is in essence a continuation of the status quo, with Afghanistan remaining a strategic satellite of the US-NATO. The alternative would be to leave completely and permit Iran to enjoy some influence with Pakistan possibly reducing the country into its satellite after reaching an agreement with the Taliban. While US-NATO troops would not formally be engaged in combat operations on the ground, they would have “training and advisory roles” largely to combat “terrorism” which may require US Special Ops forces engagement.

Drone missions that many governments and human rights organizations have castigated as war crimes will continue not only in Afghanistan but Pakistan well. Only at the end of 2017 would the US “consider” reducing its military role into what it calls “normal” but without specifying it. This is a prescription for continued bloodshed in Afghanistan to the detriment of the people as well as neighboring Pakistan. The Taliban and warlords are not losing their strength, but gaining as the military occupation persists. While the symbolism of Osama Bin Laden’s death may have been significant for the US, the level of Islamic unconventional warfare (terrorism) has actually increased since the US declared “war on terror”, reminiscent of the “war on drugs”, the other US success story on the domestic front! Why would al-Qaeda give up its operations in Afghanistan until there is removal of foreign forces and a political solution coming from inside the country with regional powers as supporting players?

As far as the Pakistani-based Lashkar-E-Taiba, it is highly unlikely that the government in Pakistan can do very much about it, given that the government has a history of creating and cooperating with insurgent groups to achieve its foreign policy aims. Why would Pakistan give up another foreign policy leverage it has in its arsenal?  How likely is Pakistan intelligence, ISI, to give up its valuable links to Lashkar-E-Taiba just because the US and NATO are opposed to this “terrorist organization”? When militant Islamic groups look at the success of ISIS why would they not be encouraged? 

5) The future of Afghanistan in the next three to five years looks very much like the past, namely, unstable unless there is a regime able to forge some kind of consensus among the disparate tribes and coopting the warlords into the political process. An estimated 200 warlords in charge of militias call themselves freedom fighters just as they did when the US supported them against the Soviet-backed secular regime in the 1980s. These warlords are in many respects the local power that is much more powerful than the Taliban and al-Qaeda combined, largely because they are grassroots with local support and sources rooted in the heroin economy.

What kind of regime can forge a functional consensus in Afghanistan so that the country’s rebuilding could start and the people enjoy relative peace and reconstruction of their country and their lives? First, any strictly secular regime would fail, so it would have to one that takes the religious and tribal traditions into account of the disparate groups. Second, massive aid of such an inclusive regime from different sources, including China, Pakistan, India, Iran, as well as the EU, US, and oil-rich Arab countries would have to flow into the country to rebuild it and secure a sustainable legitimate economy instead of the illegal one rooted in corruption.  

Without the strategic cooperation of Pakistan and Iran, and without the tolerance of its close neighbors, including India, China, and Russia, there cannot be a stable regime in Kabul. How likely that we would see stability in Afghanistan? I suspect that when the economy begins to improve at a rapid pace and peoples’ lives improve, stability is inevitable. However, this will not come any time soon, because it is highly unlikely for the warlords and Taliban to be appeased unless they continue to have a political and economic stake in the new regime.
Externally-imposed solutions such as the US interventionist model will end in unmitigated failure. 

Only domestic players, with the assistance of regional powers can make Afghanistan stable, not permanent military occupation. This does not mean that the world ought to turn a blind eye if a tyrannical regime emerges. However, there is a huge difference between genuine international cooperation intended to help bring about the best form of government in Kabul, and US military intervention. While the permanent US military occupation, with NATO backing leaves no room for optimism, the US-Iran rapprochement is a good beginning for international cooperation at the same time that China’s economic presence is also a source of relative stability and promise for Afghanistan’s future.

 



Hossein Amiri.

(Used to work For Tehran based Mehr News Agency in Iran. He now working for Young Journalist Club (YJC). He specializes on Middle east, US, And Russian Foreign policy)

1. To me yes because Afghanistan now is safer than before.  The US lead a coalition attack and now the Taliban has nothing to say in the country. Al Qaeda has fled from Afghanistan. The bad thing is that Al Qaeda has lost its perch in  Afghanistan and dispersed around the world. The US negotiated with the Taliban in Qatar, and this made them more civilized than before. We can see the implications of the negotiation in the Afghan Taliban branch position against the Pakistani Version’s of the school attack.

2. No matter who are against a move or who are pro, the results presently show a positive change. Many people sat behind windows drinking tea, printing some prescription for all local and global Issues which usually all are based on a Marxist ideology. This mentality has devastated half of the world for nearly half of the century.

3. Yes. Intervention is not usually bad. See the Balkan’s case. when NATO intervened and save many Muslim life’s. even though at that point it was late.

4. Sure no doubt.

5. They are in the right track with many challenges ahead.

 



Dr. John Bruni.

(Director of SAGE International, open source intelligence and security consultancy based in Adelaide, South Australia, formerly served as Special Military Researcher Adviser at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR))

1) The United States did not win. The intervention was poorly planned from 2002 onwards. It sought to restructure Afghanistan into the semblance of a modern nation-state in the hope that the forces of light will defeat decisively the forces of darkness, as represented by the Taliban. This presupposed that Afghanistan was once a country in the Western sense, which of course it wasn’t. Had it been a functioning state as the West understood, foreign advisers may have been able to tap Afghan national traditions and re-created something akin to a stable, non-democratic autocracy. Such a state, hypothetically, could have undertaken most of the counter-insurgency fighting earlier on, say by 2005-06, and, post-Taliban, formed the basis of true national independence for the Afghan state.

That would have been a victory, had it been achieved. Complicating matters further was the Pakistani equation where rogue (and not-so rogue) elements of the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agency sought to undermine US and Coalition objectives whenever real or perceived Pakistani national interests were threatened. Pakistan has long considered Afghanistan as its ‘backyard’. There was a degree of wilful ignorance on behalf of Washington not to take this into account. A US victory in Afghanistan would have meant being able to accommodate Pakistani national interests especially as they relate to countering Indian stratagems in Afghanistan. As the US considered itself and its Western allies the strongest, most powerful force on the ground, the prevailing attitude that this powerful foreign force could in effect dictate events militarily in Afghanistan and effect the behaviour of powerful, stubborn interests in Islamabad was ambitious and arguably prevented a clear-cut US victory.

2) Generally negative. People love a war that goes well, in spite of the fact that they seldom do. We in the West are still haunted by what was achieved during World Wars I & II. As terrible as these conflagrations were, there were clear winners and losers. Clear good guys and bad guys. Even the Cold War held onto the generally simple view of how conflicts can be just and justified. This sort of clarity is good for a public’s psychology.

We all want to know that our investment of blood and treasure ‘did good’. What is bad for a public’s psychology is when at the end of a long war, like the Afghan war was, the best we leave behind is a frail, corrupt elite and an enemy that hasn’t actually been beaten – only marginally contained. People are likely to reflect badly on this sort of outcome because they don’t do ambiguity well. The only people who do well with ambiguity are politicians, spin doctors and advertisers since they are largely comfortable with amorality and with twisting the truth to create something more palatable. Ideologically motivated historians will also tend to come out of the woodwork after a while and justify why certain political leaders took the decisions they did during the Afghan war. In the end, all these historians will do is muddy the waters further. Hardly a good end to a war, hardly a good way for the public to remember it.

3) No. I supported the initial punishment of Al Qaeda and the Taliban for 9/11 which began in October 2001 and was generally accomplished by December 2001. This phase of the Afghan mission was clear and unambiguous. The Taliban gave shelter to Al Qaeda and that could not go unpunished after the crime of 9/11. As far as the rest of the war is concerned, it was ‘mission creep’ on steroids. It accomplished little the US or the West wanted, but it certainly enhanced deep instabilities within the existing fractured societies of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These instabilities will take years of concentrated effort to re-stabilise. Should war or insurgency break out again, as in time it surely must, a bankrupt West will not be able to keep fragile elites upright, nor will they be in a condition to militarily intervene to protect them. Had the US kept to its initial laser-like focus on using the CIA and local proxies to throw the Taliban out of Kabul and most of the other Afghan cities, and break the logistical back of Al Qaeda Central, local forces could have taken care of the rest. The US could have pulled out, justifiably claimed a clear victory and the ensuing vacuum within Afghanistan would have forced local militias to combine in some fashion to form a government. Had they fallen back into civil war, that then would have been for the Afghan people to sort out. It was not for the US and the West to ‘fix’ Afghanistan.

4) Yes, quite possibly. There is weakness in Kabul and weakness in Islamabad and out of these two sets of weakness, transboundary alliances between Afghan and Pakistani militants will seek to exploit what they may sense as ‘blood in the water’. The only caveat here really is Pakistan.

The recent school massacre in Peshawar will harden the resolve of the Pakistani military to exact revenge. We should not underestimate the amount of brutality the Pakistani Army can dish out to militant groups, even against the famed fighters of the Northwest Frontier Province. And yet, Pakistan has to chose its ground carefully. There are too many simultaneous national security missions it has to cope with and focusing on one to the exclusion of others will reveal vulnerabilities.

5) Short-term, continuing instability, medium-term possible (Taliban or non-Taliban Pashtun) dictatorship followed by renewed civil war.

 



Claude Forthomme. 

(Passionate traveler (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)

1) No, at best it was a draw but it probably should be considered a defeat. Just one example to prove the point: the situation of women. It barely improved while the Americans were there and it is now poised to deteriorate fast.

2)  Definitely negative.

3) No. It would have been far better to negotiate with the Afghan authorities if there was solid evidence that the country was harboring Al Qaeda bosses (which appears to be the case). A full-out war was a totally disproportionate response.

4) Yes, much worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

5)  Dire. More of the same. A repeat of what happened after the Soviets left. In some countries, this kind of situation can last forever, look at Somalia or Sudan.

 



Steven Hansen.

(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations)

Having lived most of my working life outside of the USA, I have long realized American perceptions of the world is incorrect. American foreign policy is guided by officials who have not lived in outside of the USA except maybe for short periods of time behind the walls of a USA embassy shielded from the real country and culture they were in.

The American people believe the world wants to be like the USA – and the news is that it does not. Sure everyone likes certain elements – but not the whole enchilada. American style democracy is questioned as the global community sees the outright lies and distortions of the American leaders. The American actions are watched closely, and the real lack of fair play in its International dealings is obvious.

Ah Afghanistan …..

From a practical standpoint, the USA has never been able to prop up a corrupt government. One cannot fight irregulars (USA calls them terrorists) with regular army as there is no way to identify the enemy. I believed it was a mistake to send troops into Afghanistan. I might have been open to destabilizing the Taliban – if an end game was feasible (but I doubt this was so).

There is no feasible end game to this conflict. The country is tribal – and anyone who has lived in tribal countries knows you need a powerful leader like a Tito or Saddam Hussein to hold a country together. Afghanistan is not a real country – and I do not see how it can survive in any form based on the current lay of the land.

 



Seyed Mostafa Mousavipour.

(His research focus/interest is terrorism, fundamentalism, and sectarian violence in South Asia and the Middle East)

A thirteen-year inconclusive conflict that had been unnecessarily prolonged,  the US war in Afghanistan was definitely another glaring mistake of American foreign policy on a global scale. The outcome of such a myopic policy,  if anything,  was establishing global terrorism as a pretext for US imperialistic escapades – a reason for American military presence in the four corners of the world in defense of their national security.

To discuss the goals of this campaign,  one should look at it from two distinct perspectives: 1) The widely stated goal – that of spreading democracy by eliminating the threat of extremism and jihadist militancy rife in Afghanistan end the neighboring Pakistan; and 2) the latent less publicized goal – that of introducing terrorism as an international scourge jeopardizing the free world and establishing the US as a force for good fighting this evil. 

As far as the first goal is concerned, American venture was nothing but a total fiasco of tremendous proportions. The resurgence of militancy in Afghanistan at the behest of al Qaida-affiliated Haqqani Network,  the inadequacy of Afghan National Army and Police to reign in the extremism,  the regrouping of thousands of jihadists under new splinter factions in Pakistan’s tribal belt,  the TTP’s growing anti-western ideology and, in a nutshell,  the deep-rooted insecurity in Afghanistan and Pakistan is what is left after the 2015 drawdown of coalition forces. 

As regards the second goal,  the US was rather successful in that it freely deployed military force on different global stages in the post- 9/11 Era without feeling obliged to go through international conventions. By simply labeling some regional conflicts as the extention of international terrorism, American military campaign move unchecked across the globe in pursuit of democracy and peace. 

The outcome of these policies,  however,  has so far been grave security disasters, the results of which, are here to haunt the world for the years to come. The scourge of terrorism and religious militancy has developed on a faster pace into the Middle East and North Africa causing these regions to plunge further info the abyss of sectarian carnage and ethnic crisis. The emergence of the ISIL is the latest in a series of severe backlash to failed governance in the wake of foreign intervention. 

Indeed, the future of Afghanistan is pretty much bleak. The impact of long foreign troops’ presence was nothing but robbing the Afghan society of it’s vibrancy. A country that has nothing to hold the national fabric together.

 



David Swanson.

(He is working to end all war at http://WorldBeyondWar.org. He is the host of  Talk Nation Radio. He has been a journalist, activist, organizer, educator, and agitator.   He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including press secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign, media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association,and three years as communications coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)

1) You cannot win a war, and even those who imagine such a thing require that the war be over first, which this one is not. It’s had a name change. The war goes on, a loss for all involved. 

2) The U.S. has a commanding lead as the nation most widely considered the greatest threat to peace http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/greatest-threat-world-peace-country_n_4531824.htmlSome approve of the war on Afghanistan, including some in Afghanistan. But the big picture, I suspect, is captured by that poll. And a big part of it, I suspect, is the use of drone wars that have spread out from Afghanistan during the Obama years.

3) No.

4) Quite likely. But the U.S. troops have to leave sometime, and if they waited even longer, the result would be even worse, not mitigated. This has been the prediction of many in Afghanistan for years and years now: the longer this occupation goes on, the greater the resulting catastrophe when it ends. 

Of course, this is not necessary. There are tools that could help Afghanistan, and they cost much less than war. But the Pentagon does not have them. They involve nonviolence, aid, and diplomacy.

5) That is up to the people of Afghanistan and the people of the world who have the power to compel their governments to help and to organize to help directly.

 



Ruslan Trad.

(Syrian-Bulgarian. Based in Sofia. Founder of Forum for Arab Culture. Freelance Middle East analyst and lecturer. Co-founder of Global Voices in Bulgaria)

1) We can not talk that there is winners by the war in Afghanistan. At least we can not talk that the US is victorious. On the one hand – this war is very expensive for the US, not only financially, but also politically. On the other hand – the war in Afghanistan is not over and we can not talk about this war in the past time. There are many security problems in the country and I think that the US will not withdraw its presence for very long time. The recent events in Pakistan confirming these fears.

The US made a very big mistake – they sponsored the mountain clans. It must support a central government in Kabul, to avoid de-fragmentation, which could lead to further destabilization.

2) The war in Afghanistan has always brought more negative comments and emotions among the public – not only in Afghanistan but also in the US and the Western world. This pessimism and negativity stems from the first moments of the war – this war can not be defended (if any war can be defended). Bush made a mistake – a big mistake. The Taliban regime perhaps could be removed with other methods and factions. Instead, the US attack without evidence that the Taliban was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The society is not convinced of the truthfulness of the actions. Another point is that the war has led to an escalation of tensions, enhancing drug traffic etc… These elements are negative for all except man in power. 

3) Never.

4) This is a complex issue. Unfortunately, the tension and the strengthening of radical groups are a consequence of the invasion of Afghanistan – like in Iraq. At the same time, the reduction of US and allied forces in Afghanistan will lead to the strengthening of the Taliban and other groups. This issue needs to be very careful discussed and must be coordinated with local authorities and the government in Kabul.

5) Unfortunately we can not prophesy. But we can try to say what might happen in the coming months depending on the facts. Afghanistan’s future is not clear. More pessimism than optimism. It is very important that the authorities in Kabul to be supported. It is important to avoid populism. It is important to prevent a new war. The consequences of the war of 2001 are strong – they has shaken the entire Afghan society. NGOs are also important for the development of society – they must have a chance to have a voice in making government decisions. In the near future, Afghanistan has to deal with the Taliban. Taliban must be repelled from regions where they are still strong – the government presence should be established in mountainous areas. Maybe there will be an escalation of clashes and in this case Americans should participate only as a supporting element. 

We must look at the history of Afghanistan – there are many answers in the old books.

 



Todd Steinmetz.

He is a homeland security and counterterrorism subject matter expert with significant proven knowledge and practical experience in intelligence analysis, counterterrorism, physical security, and disaster preparedness, management, and response. He holds a Master of Science in Terrorism and Counterterrorism Studies. As an intelligence and security Subject Matter Expert (SME),

1. This depends largely on how one defines the objectives of the campaign, as well as the term “winning.” America’s stated objective when the war began was to dismantle al-Qaeda, as constructed at the time, and deny it a safe haven in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power.  They largely achieved these objectives: the Taliban exists, but is no longer in power, much of the original al Qaeda core responsible for 9/11 is either dead or in custody, and I doubt anyone would called Afghanistan “safe”, for anyone. Nevertheless, the broader stabilization and rebuilding effort has clearly failed up to this point, the Taliban are still very much a threat to the government, which is both corrupt and entirely reliant on foreign support for their grip on power. All of that said, when discussing the war in Afghanistan, it is important to recognize that, despite the theatrics, the war is clearly not over; as such, we cannot definitively declare a result.

2. The “world view” according to whom? My guess is that on a macro level, the war in Afghanistan is unpopular overall. That may not mean much though. If one takes an international poll on nearly any American decision, particularly one involving war, the majority abroad will oppose it. That is just the nature of being a world power. When one looks closer, the feelings are no doubt more mixed, largely resting on one’s view toward the U.S., their level  of concern regarding Islamist militancy, and war in general.

3. Yes. al Qaeda killed more people on 9/11 than the Japanese during the attack on Pearl Harbor, the latter an event that propelled the U.S. into WWII. Although the Taliban said that if they were given proof, they would turn Bin Laden over, they did not promise to pursue al Qaeda more broadly. Although I supported intervention, I would have favored a more restricted approach. To assume the U.S. could successfully install a pro-western (non-Islamist) government in Afghanistan defies pretty much all of human history.

4. Following the massacre at the school in Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban went to great lengths to distance their group from the Pakistani Taliban. As a result, I would not expect to see much coordination or involvement between the two in the near future. However, although the Pakistani government has finally promised to take the gloves off when dealing the Pakistani Taliban, I fully expect many of those who support the Afghan Taliban, both within Pakistan and abroad, to continue to do so. I would also expect many of the elements we currently call al Qaeda to attempt to regain a foothold in the country; the propaganda value alone will be too great to ignore.

5. The prospects for the future of Afghanistan are admittedly bleak. The “nation’s” geography, prevalence of Islamic militancy, and history of warlordism will always plague any effort to install a strong central authority. How bad it gets will largely depend on the level of foreign support the nation can sustain going forward as the government is entirely reliant on that support to survive. Regardless, this support cannot continue forever. As a result, the nation appears condemned to struggle. At this point, the only real long-term choices appear to be a weak and corrupt central authority, tribal based warlordism, or the Taliban.

 



C. Bonjukian Patten.

(I am a Financial Consultant with my own Bookkeeping/Office Management LLC working in the Greater NYC Area for clients in a cross section of industry)

America never learns from other countries mistakes. Afghanistan was a bust for the British and for the Russians; so what made America think she could go in there and teach these thugs a lesson? One person –  George Bush Jr. He was a cowboy from Connecticut who didn’t listen to anyone including his sidekick Cheney who would have probably loved to send an Atom Bomb into Kandahar to get rid of all these radicals. We lost the war there because we could never win so in fact I believe, 4000 young Americans died for nothing. Just like all wars.

The world views America with a sour eye and I was furious that we ever went to war with this country because it was not Afghanistan nor was it Iraq who bombed America on 9/11. It was Pakistan and they even harbored that murdering “prophet” from hell BIN LADEN.

America needs to get out of Afghanistan and let these people rot and kill each other. We have enough problems here at home to take care of.  We’ll probably arm the Afghan’s against their own terrorists but in my head, if I were POTUS, I would drone Pakistan and take it out of existence forever. Pakistani’s are up to  and India, their neighbor to the north, hates them as well.

Pakistan is like the bully who could. It harbors Taliban and other bullies and they do it openly as you have written. They are also responsible for much of the “human trafficking” that goes on in the world. Anything to exploit others while they lean heavily on their cult religion of Islam.

I don’t really care what happens to Afghanistan in the future. There is nothing to export from there, but hate of the world. Better it be gone to Earth than allowed to exist among us.

 



Jaime Ortega.

(President of the daily Journalist)

Afghanistan was hardly defined as war. Afghanistan was an unplanned military mission to respond to 9-11 as an immediate need to counter-react to a horrible event, based on paranoia by means of blaming a country classified as a potential threat to US goals. For the US, this was mainly to show global dominance after suffering the backlash of an epic catastrophe difficult to overcome, and hard to digest. After 6 trillion $USD spent, there has been no porpoise for intervention other than to kill Osama Bin Laden, and eliminate Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. For years, prior to 9-11 Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) ran free in Yemen terrorizing people, even bombarding the US embassy in Abuja Nigeria, showing an increasing desire to attack US targets on its soil. Only one man by the name of John O’Neill, had gathered sufficient intelligence to conclude Al-Qaeda aimed their scope at the twin towers to capitalize a major terrorist attack in late 2001; O’Neill’s case was dismissed, and the FBI alongside with the Clinton’s ignored the facts, only to feed on their pragmatic peaceful geo-political agenda to pursuit personal self-ego.

They denied access to several Intelligence agencies from aggressively interrogating and conducting investigations of High Valuable Targets (HVT’s) staying in the Arabian Peninsula prior to 9-11, fearing what ripple effect might cause with Arab diplomacy. 9-11 could had been prevented with the right leadership! George W. Bush inherited the Clinton‘s fiasco, and instead of attacking the aid coming from Oman, Yemen, UAE or even Saudi Arabia they took on tribal Afghanistan that presents no national interest. The Arabian Peninsula has been the flowing nectar where terrorist seek financial support, and the US Government ignored the real situation and continues to do so to this day, by turning the blame on a few hornets in Afghanistan. Not long after war was declared, the CIA and JSOC skimmed through Afghanistan like wildfire capturing Kabul in a matter of days only to push a few thousand Afghani Jihadist to Pakistan for safe-haven. Then out the shadows of the unknown, without any political background, a man by the name of Hamid Karzai, jumps into spontaneous existence chosen by the Bush administration as a hybrid democratic contender to later be elected prime minister.

After all the great opportunities the US gave the Afghani prime minister, he ended up despising US foreign policy as Vice-President Joe Biden, and Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham noted on their visit a few years back when they met in his office. Hamid’s brother, Walid Karzai was the governor of Kandahar and was accused by US Intel of becoming an uncontrollable corrupt leader. Democracy, ended up turning corrupt. Meanwhile across the Afghani border, for more than a decade without significant distinction prime ministers Pervez Musharraf, Zardai, and Nawaz Sharif doubled played the US for most of the war; They used the Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI) which financed and gave rise to the infamous ‘return of the Taliban’ back in the North Eastern provinces, under guidance of Al-Qaeda. As a key figure Pakistani intelligence alerted terrorist ahead of time, helping them elude US drone strikes. Pitifully not one US general had a concluding strategy into what was that they were doing in Afghanistan, as the main focus was killing insurgents that jumped back and forth from the Pakistani border.

The Pentagon and the executive office were deeply divided in what strategies would work well in Afghanistan. The Obama administration vainly took the warnings given by Dave Petraeus, General Lute, Admiral Michael Mullen, and even Obama’s former National Security adviser Gen James Jones about the dangers of not dealing with Afghanistan. The fact there was a contended division between generals and wannabe politicians, shows the ‘my-way or the highway’ attitude the president had on 2009, having absolutely no clue about military knowledge. Obama mostly guided himself via personal intuition. Looking for a soluble solution, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates with the blessings of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to fire former General David McKiernan on the basis that Afghanistan needed a new facelift. The punch-line of such abrupt change of command became evident when Afghanistan noticed the same troubles it presented before, with the now newly appointed former General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal as much as McKiernan opted for more troops to regain security of the country with the exact same solution,  so the facelift was nothing but a numb fachade by the Obama administration to remove a former Bush general for an Obama general. McChrystal offered his resignation not long after, for publicly expressing his discontent of the Obama Administration plan to not send troops to Afghanistan. If you look at the individual stories of each general deployed to Afghanistan, it almost look like it was impossible for them to do their job without presidential interruption. The death of General Harold J. Greene was in my opinion a summary of the disastrous campaign Afghanistan has proven.

In my opinion despite the casualties, it wasn’t war, it was literally a circus without a real strategy targeted to the wrong country. And if you ask me, did Osama Bin Laden die in the hands of US special forces? Well, for the most part I don’t believe Iranian sources because they deny the Holocaust, but Iranian Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi on 2010 claimed Osama Bin Laden died as a cause of disease which was what the US suspected prior to operation Geronimo because he stopped releasing videos after 2006. But I don’t believe Heydar’s side of the story over the CIA‘s version.

I do believe what Prime Minister Bengazi Bhutto declared on a video conference before her assassination when she publicly stated on live television to reporter David Frost that “Osama Bin Laden died back in 2007 murder by a man called Omar Sheikh.” She wanted democracy, was pro US ally, a straight shooter who had many enemies inside and outside Pakistan that did not like her reforms. I have to respect that. So in my opinion, reading closely up to five different reports of Osama‘s death prior to his ‘official’ death in 2010, has made me question many things. And just because the US claims they killed him, it doesn’t mean anything. Obama has lied more on all his political promises, than Bhutto did on her side of the world before her assassination. For that alone, I question his integrity and reliability. So the jury is still up on that one, and that largely affects the Bush mission in Afghanistan.

1- The term ‘war’ , doesn’t reflect the ‘mission’ in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is considered a unified country — but inside Afghanistan there is no such unification. The Afghan tribes have never had a central government, they are nine significant tribes which include the Pashto, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch, Nuristani and other smaller tribes…Each marks a different territory inside Afghanistan. These tribes have warred each other in the past. The US was really fighting the Tajik and the Pashto for their links with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US was not really taking on all the tribes which would mean the entire Afghani tribal population. Therefore the invasion was more or less a mission not really a war. If it was a war, it was mostly targeted at the Pashto and Tajik tribes, not all tribal Afghanistan. That’s why the US occupation in Afghanistan had a hard time sorting their enemies because not all tribes were against the US invasion.

For a decade the US was partly successful in trying to establish a democratic Afghanistan. Of course what I mean is Kandahar and Kabul which are more or less run by opium trade, and corrupt officials. But there were significant changes made. Tribal clans have unified more since the US intervention, cooperating to benefit from each other. Also the US has given a small gateway to install future western business inside the capital. Other than that, the Taliban has not been defeated, and Al-Qaeda hides in Pakistan ready to regain control after the US full intervention ends.

2- The US never exterminated the Taliban, and the Taliban are no different than Al-Qaeda other than they only posses a regional threat to the US. So the US mission was never accomplished. Also if you ask US veterans deployed to Afghanistan what was their ultimate mission, one thing they all agree on is that it was unclear from start. Don’t ask US generals because they are still pending on Obama’s empty promises.

3- The Twin Towers collapsed because the former Clinton administration lived on a global limbo of diplomatic fairy tales. What happened in 9-11, was caused mainly because the funding came from the Arabian Peninsula. But since bureaucrats entail a global crusade on implementing foreign diplomacy when facing a threat, they rather not sacrifice their relationship with the country directly involved in the issue. No president had the guts to face the Arab lands, because the US holds so much petroleum interest that it doesn’t want to get involved or accept the real trouble they ultimately indirectly created.

I supported going to the Arabian Peninsula to prevent terrorist groups from getting aided by rich undisclosed fundraisers, but not Afghanistan which is nothing more than a regional threat. Afghanistan has training camps for terrorist, so what? So does Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Nigeria, Chad… Why not go there?

4 and 5- When the US military packs their bags, Afghanistan is underway for chaos. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban will regroup stronger than ever, with more battleground experience just like ISIL in Iraq. I predict some ISIL militants will join. There will be a unification of jihadist cells in Afghanistan, and they will regain possession of the country in no time. The weak central government wont stand a chance. Pakistan will fight a double edge war, trying to contend the rise of insurgents from gaining control of the country; They will also eliminate training camps in Afghanistan, which will only infuriate the tribes involved to also react. I think India might even truce with Pakistan on this one to fight the rise of the new insurgency together.

 

Franceline Morataya helped with this article.

Comments Off on Afghanistan: Triumph or failure?

Dilma Rousseff wins the elections in Brazil

January 2nd, 2015

 

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.



 

Despite facing a start on her command that will be marked by a severe adjustment of public spending demanded by economic difficulties, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff mentioned subtly yesterday at her inauguration “patience, courage, persistence, balance and humility ” to their citizens and their government. As they will employ to economic difficulties after a 2014 closed with a pyrrhic 0.2% GDP growth, according to analyst estimates.

Rousseff has emphasized that the start of her mandate “goes through an adjustment in the public accounts, increased domestic savings, expanding investment and raising the productivity of the economy” and that “she will do that with the least sacrifice for the population, especially for the most needy. ”

On the same day his new ministers sworn in, including Joaquim Levy, in Finance, leading the liberal and austere rotation of the government to restore the credibility of markets. Rousseff the new prime minister of Brazil embraced her last four years facing the country with a positivist message perfectly detailing many of the gains won by her government and predecessor Lula, and the measures that the Brazilian government should take. Especially to combat corruption and poor public services, today major challenges beyond government to resume the path of growth that led in recent years to become a world economic power will be part of that change.

To stop the recession of recent years, the Minister Guido Mantega lead a policy of excessive control and injections of Central Bank’s in the Brazilian economy. This blame led for international context of financial turmoil, as the president and the Workers Party (PT).

Lately, splashed by government forces as they get to know the details of the corrupted  frame involving state petro-giant Petrobras, which would have diverted illegally 3,000 million euros of public money conjunction with construction companies and illegally paying politicians in several parties.

Roussef wants to stop corruption at all cost  “we never punished and with such transparency government corruption” and recalled the recent creations of “tougher laws” and “greatest internal control” conducted by institutions. It has also called for a “national pact against corruption” and has committed to create a law to become crime electoral funding made in Brazil. “We must root out corruption, that offends or humiliates honest workers” the prime minister said.

The ceremony started with a walk in the presidential car that led the president to the House of Representatives, where she has sworn in and has made an optimistic 40-minute speech alternating review of conquest and exploration of measures. Much burning were the words of Rousseff to 30,000 supporters and party members who attended the event at the Esplanade of Ministries and have cheered both the president and his predecessor Lula da Silva.

After  a bathing mass, Rousseff was hailed by leaders like Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, José Mujica, of Urguay, the Chilean Michele Bachelet and Evo Morales of Bolivia, as well as US Vice President Joe Biden. Relations with the greatest world powers, as is clear from the words of Rousseff, should be “tuned” after tensions arising from espionage that was submitted by the President filtration the NSA 2013.

Dilma highlighted the importance of the United States, “also applies to the European Union”, but these words came after once again stand out that “priority” will be the relations with Latin America and the BRICS members, forum bringing together emerging powers and recently created a common development bank to offset US dominance of the International Monetary Fund. Rousseff also recalled its policy of “non-intervention” and “respect for sovereignty” in international conflicts.

Picking the request of the streets in the historic protests in June 2013, Rousseff has stated that “the Brazilian people want more security, education and health” and did not seem to shrink by fiscal constraints in promising more money for education. It will according to the president’s deployment of more medical specialists to strengthen the public health system and the integration of regional and national authorities in the fight against drug trafficking and violence.

The president has endorsed the proposed electoral reform the constitution to Brasilia that has the power to make the guidelines on public security, today issued by each of the States. It is very difficult to imagine how Rousseff will get deepen on Brazil “more prosperous and just” a new reality of tight belt and stagnant economy after the previous waste.She closed her speech with: “The impossible becomes far only from miracles which are left to resolve for later.”

Comments Off on Dilma Rousseff wins the elections in Brazil

Marc A. Medley answers questions about African-American concerns

January 1st, 2015

Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.

 

 



Hello. By way of introducing myself, I am Marc A. Medley and amid many other responsibilities, I am a radio talk show host. I host The Reading Circle with Marc Medley each Saturday at 6:00 a.m. ET on WP88.7 FM and gobrave.org. As I answer these questions, I offer the disclaimer that I am not speaking as the spokesperson for the African American/Black community. I am speaking solely based on my opinions and beliefs. In too many instances when one African American/Black person speaks, it is taken that he/she is speaking for the entire race, when indeed that is not the case. I cannot speak for how other African Americans may feel as I can only speak what I believe or voice my opinions or concerns. So as I answer these questions, please keep in mind the views and opinions are solely my own and are not affiliated with my hosting of my radio show or my profession as an elementary school principal. These responses are my own.

 

(Q) There is no question that African Americans suffered a battery of discriminatory behavior that has negatively scarred U.S. history. Have things changed?  

(A) Historically, things have changed; however it seems the more things change the more things stay the same. For example the recent events around the country are very reminiscent of the events that were occurring in the 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, some of the verbiage on the signs are the exact same words. Even when listening to the words and music to songs such as What’s Going On by Marvin Gaye, we see that the same song lyrics would apply in 2014 heading into 2015.

(Q)According to Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. history has not being fair (http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html).  As other books show, one third of slave masters were also African Americans according to not just his, but other African American scholars. What is your take on this? Is this research bias and why if you agree? 

(A) After quickly skimming the article mentioned in the question, what popped into my mind was this whole notion of green power surpassing both black and white power. It seems just as economics was a part of whites owning slaves, because power was also a part of that, economics factored into African Americans being slave masters as well. That’s the only thing I could think of that would lead one African-American to be the slave master of another, yet still today we have black on black crime.

(Q) They were other minorities that came later on the “Great Arrival” years that also suffered from these persecutions. That includes Germans and also Italians. How did they manage to go through? 

(A)For every other race, there was the ability to get by or to “pass” because of the color of their skin. Germans and Italians looked like any other white person; however, African-Americans can never hide the color of his or her skin. The fact that the Germans, Italians and other groups possessed Caucasian skin, they were able to assimilate with the masses. It is the same thing that feeds into white privilege.

(Q) Was Eric Garner’s, case significantly different than that of Michael Brown, and were both cases trialed differently considering the evidence? Was Derek Wilson’s case evidence solid to support his release?  

(A) The similarities for me is the fact that both Eric Garner and Michael Brown were allegedly breaking the law. There is no question that the laws they were breaking were no cause for them to deserve to die; however they were breaking the law nonetheless. I work with children every day and the message I work to get across to them is, do not do anything to cause your path to cross with the police, because once the police become involved you have no control over the direction that events will take. So the best thing is not to do anything that will cause your involvement with the police. On rare cases will someone who has not done anything illegal encounter with the police, particularly facing police brutality. That is not to say that it has not happened, because it has; however it is extremely rare compared with someone who has broken the law and is now encountering with the police. I am not sure on how solid the evidence was one way or the other so therefore I will refrain from commenting on that portion of the question.

(Q) Has the media considering both cases done an aesthetic job on their quest to make good news from Ferguson case a reliable story?  

(A) Unfortunately, good news does not sell. The media has done everything in its power to stoke the flames, no pun intended. Stories such as Ferguson and all of these other cases feed into ratings which feed into advertising dollars. The media has a vested interest in keeping stories like these going.

(Q) In your opinion, why did the cop who chocked Eric Gardner did got indicted by the jury? Was it a fair process?

(A)  The results of this trial baffled me as have many others particularly when a video is involved. Obviously the jury had something that we lay viewers did not have in order for them to come to the decision or they knew of some loophole that we did not know of that would allow them to go against what everyone in America and around the world saw on the video. During the O.J. Simpson trial when he was acquitted, the jurors were called all types of names including stupid, ignorant, crazy, etc. etc. etc. yet I did not hear the jurors in either the Gardner or Brown case called any of those names.

In fact, during the O.J. Simpson trial there was talk of changing the entire jury selection process based on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, again I heard no talk of that with the Gardner or Brown case. The only difference was this was now an African-American who was being acquitted of a crime most people thought he committed. The tables were turned and because the tables were turned something must’ve been wrong with the jury or selection process, yet, historically the majority of white criminals were set free by white juries. It is for this reason we are seeing or experiencing the reaction that we are experiencing to the Gardner, Brown, Martin and so many other cases dating back to Emmet Till and before.

(Q) Overall, cops have a bad reputation. And many of them, evidently go a step too far when indicting a quick judgment. Are cops in your opinion a good leeway for justice? Would African American communities be better off without them patrolling their neighborhoods?

(A) I just posted on Twitter today, if we were all doing the right thing there would be really no need for policing other than to provide assistance in a medical emergency. I believe just as with any other profession you have good cops and you have bad cops; no different from you have good teachers and you have bad teachers, no different from you have good preachers and you have bad preachers no different from you have good lawyers and you have bad lawyers no different from you have good media and you have bad media. So the question is not are they a good leeway for justice because they are doing their jobs.

Their jobs are designed to do what they are doing and it ought to be up to us to not break laws to cause ourselves to cross their paths as a result of our breaking laws. To answer the last part of the question…… no, African-American communities would not be better off if the police were not in their communities. African-Americans are human beings just like anyone else, so unless no neighborhoods were patrolled, then African-American neighborhoods ought not to be treated any differently. Either we are all patrolled or we are none patrolled.

(Q) Ethnic differences seem to be a big issue everywhere in the world. But in America, recent statistics show that African American crime rates on average, top any other ethnic group. Here is data that supports the following brought by the FBI, “According to the BJS non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009, with whites 34.2%, and Hispanics 20.6%. The incarceration rate of black males was over 6 times higher than that of white males, with a rate of 4,749 per 100,000 US residents.” Why is the African American crime rate that high? And is it fair to point and admit that as of today, African Americans are the most disruptive ethnic group in the US?

(A) The answer to why the African American crime rate is so high is a dissertation in and of itself. There are too many variables including what I mentioned earlier this whole notion of white privilege that has been experienced by the white community from the beginning. Even with that being said I refuse to make excuses for anyone committing a crime, but do realize everything that has occurred between the ethnic groups contributes to what we are seeing today. To quote Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.” In other words, everyone is being affected indirectly by the ethnic group that was so affected directly as a result of slavery.

(Q) Has the drug world altered the crime rates in black American communities since its early introduction in the 70’s?

(A) This is going to be probably a standard answer to that question but it happens to be the truth; cheap drugs such as crack was introduced in the African-American community, and many of the “salespersons” ultimately wind up being arrested, while the suppliers who generally are hidden or undercover living in suburban areas never get caught.

So you have a high number of African-Americans going to jail a $10 vial of crack or a $10 bag of weed while the supplier is sitting in a 5 to 10 bedroom luxury house, working on Wall Street, driving a Mercedes and is not a suspect. African-Americans who are being arrested in these communities are not bringing these drugs into the country. So yes, it has altered the crime rate, as you have a volume of individuals who are being arrested for the low-cost drugs while drugs such as heroin, PCP, cocaine, etc. etc. are in the homes in the suburbs and are not distributed on the streets.

(Q) According to the FBI 2014,”93% of blacks are killed by other blacks,” and apparently only 30% who are suspect for murder charges are never caught (shows something about police effectiveness). Should those statistics reflect the black on black crime phenomena to not be taken into bigger headlines, considering the mainstreams medias attention only showing cases of whites on blacks, that only accounts to less of 2%, of black murder rates? 

(A) Black on black crime is not a media sensation, and the only reason a white on black killing is a media sensation is because of the historical nature of race relations. At the end of the day, a life is lost whether it was lost by the hands of a white man with a gun or a black man with a gun, a life was still lost. That’s why I started the hash tag #haveregardsforalllives. A life is a life is a life.

(Q) They are other ethnic minorities who also live on Ghettos or poor income areas when they first moved to the US, for opportunities. Let’s look at Africans from Somalia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Togo, Senegal, Somalia…As minorities they also hold good levels of education. How can it be, that considering the crime rates, these new ethnic groups have is there significantly lower average crime wise than African Americans Per ca-pita? (on average they share the exact same neighborhoods)   

(A)When these groups come to the US, they are so appreciative of the opportunities afforded here compared to the opportunities afforded in their countries, they are more than willing to do what is necessary to move ahead, and in fact, in many instances they see what we do here as easy particularly when it comes to education. Secondly, members of these groups are not going to do anything that might get them sent back to the country they came from and being arrested or getting into legal trouble is one of the easiest ways to be deported.

(Q) The above also shows that most of the “African” minorities have a higher level of income, and relevant employment levels, compared to those of African Americans. If racism is indeed a problem, how could you explain these minorities doing fairly better on terms of success (employment, job creation, education, lower crime, higher standard of living…)?

(A) African-Americans born in the U.S .have nothing to compare to. Africans and others coming from other countries compare what it is like in their country to what it is like in our country and as a result are willing to do whatever it takes to succeed. Unfortunately, and this is strictly my view based on my experience, too many African-Americans born in the U.S. take what we have for granted. Others coming from other countries do not take what we have here in the U.S. for granted and are grateful to do what is asked of them to succeed.

(Q) The introduction of rap music concerns people. Does it not influence negativity the resurgence of gangs, since these cultures follow a stereotype with a dress code, that not only degrades women on their lyrics, but exalts money, deals with drugs, and revolves on a world of violence to resolve personal conflicts? Does the African American community condone these movements and their apparent lyrics that define their personal urban culture? 

(A) As I said in my disclaimer, I do not speak for the entire African-American community, as I speak for myself. With that said, in my view there is no question that the negative rap music has a negative influence because words are powerful. Generally, what you take in subconsciously manifests its way outwardly. If the only thing you listen to is about killing, raping, name-calling, etc. etc., eventually that’s what you’re going to do.

I share with the young ladies that I speak with the fact that they control the power in terms of the sales of negative rap music. What I mean by that is if each time they were going out on a date or in a car with a young man that was playing that type of music that was degrading to women, they were to let the young man know that if you’re listening to that you cannot be with me; eventually the young man would stop buying that type of music. As long as the females sit and listen and except music that is obviously degrading them it will continue. What you allow will continue.

(Q) Finally, is race and crime a formula for stereotypes that degrade the innocent? That is, if African American crime rates stall high enough as the statistics clearly show, is it not going to draw more police surveillance and more chances to mistakenly target innocent people? If African American crime rates fell to a record low, and ethnic stereotypes continued, would it not be a more conclusive argument regarding ethnic intolerance from cops considering crime would no longer be an issue? What can it be done to achieve that goal to eliminate that stereotype and what do you suggest?

(A) First thing, there is no such thing as a good stereotype. When it is all said and done, we all regardless of race, color, or ethnicity need to follow the laws of the land. At the same time, qualified people of all races need to be hired based on qualifications and not on skin color. Unfortunately there were too many times when the most qualified person was indeed the African-American and he or she did not get the job because he or she was African-American.

When this happens time and time and time again, there is nothing left but crime. That is what I was speaking about in my earlier answer concerning the variables that feed into the high crime rates. Again, I am by no means excusing crime or breaking the law, however; there are too many variables to even begin to discuss why crime rates are where they are within the African-American community. It baffles my mind of the crime rate in the United States period, let alone when you start breaking down race, gender, and ethnicity. I really don’t understand why folks just can’t do the right thing.

 

Comments Off on Marc A. Medley answers questions about African-American concerns

Profiling an enigma: The mystery of North Korea’s cyber threat landscape

December 28th, 2014

 

By HP Report.

 



To read report click here: Profiling an enigma: The mystery of North Korea’s cyber threat landscape

Comments Off on Profiling an enigma: The mystery of North Korea’s cyber threat landscape

Raul Castro announces new bilateral relations with the U.S.

December 20th, 2014

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



Raul Castro: Cuban leader. 

While President Barack Obama announced the details of a historic change in relations between the US and Cuba. In Havana President Raul Castro has confirmed the restoration of diplomatic relations after the release of US contractor Alan Grossand. The story was revealed on Tuesday, who spoke personally with the US leader an unprecedented gesture in 56 years of Castro’s dictatorship.

“We have held talks at the highest level, including a telephone conversation with President Barack Obama to discuss matters of interest between the two countries,”Castro said in a televised message.

Both leaders agreed to release Gross in exchange for three Cubans serving sentences in the United States since 1998 on charges of espionage. Both Gross as the three Cubans, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero, are  already safe on their respective countries.

Castro recalled that his country often expressed the political will to hold talks with the US to resolve mutual differences “in a respectful dialogue and sovereignty” and “without giving up any of our principles.”

“As once Fidel (Castro) said, the three heroes return to the motherland. Well today they arrived in our country Gerardo, Ramón and Antonio” he said while acknowledged the gesture of Obama’s releases. “This decision by the president deserves respect and recognition of our people,” he added.

The Cuban president has not revealed how evolved the talks that led to this exchange of prisoners came about. Castro has revealed that Gross did not travel alone, but was accompanied by a “Cuban citizen” who spied for the United States, although he did not reveal his name.

Sources aware of the return have assured thanks to a highly rank former intelligence Cuban officer the revealing identity of Ana Belen Montes, the principal analyst at the Pentagon Cuban themes agent. Montes was arrested shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001. She now meets 25 years in prison.

In addition, Cuba also agreed to release 30 political prisoners by the United States that “expressed interest”. On the other hand, thanked the support of the Vatican and Pope Francis “to improve relations between Cuba and the United States” and the Government of Canada.

Castro has not made direct references to plans that President Obama has announced in the direction of normalizing trade ties, such as local banks between the two countries, the use of US credit cards in the communist island and the increase in the number of licenses for Americans to travel freely to Cuba.

However, he referred to the topic in general and very politically oriented manner. “The embargo must end. The US president can modify his application to use his executive powers. We have proposed to the US government to take mutual steps to normalize ties between our based on the principles of international law countries and the letter UN “stressed to Castro.

He has also promised that it will collaborate with its northern neighbor in the framework of multilateral organizations including the United Nations. “I urge the United States to remove obstacles that restrict the links between our people, families and citizens of both countries, including direct flights and also direct postal links”suspended seven years ago, he emphasized.

This is possible, he said, because “the contacts show that it is possible to find a solution to many problems. We must learn the art of living ina civilized manner with our differences,” concluded the president, with the promise that he will address a  publicly discourse “soon.”

Comments Off on Raul Castro announces new bilateral relations with the U.S.

Australian prime minister says “lesson to be learned”

December 16th, 2014

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



A lawyer and the store manager are the two hostages who were killed Monday in the kidnapping in a cafe located in the financial center of Sydney, which ended with the intervention of the police and also left six injured, local media reported today.

Katrina Dawson an Australian lady, 38, exercised legal work in Sydney. She was the mother of three children, and his compatriot Tori Johnson, 34, worked as a property manager, who also was assaulted, according to local ABC.

Channel 9 local television reported that Johnson allegedly attempted to disarm the hijacker, identified as Man Haron Monis or Sheikh Haron, when he started shooting, prompting police intervention. Police have not given details of what happened inside the local Lindt Chocolate Cafe, located in the finance area ‘Martin Place.’

The injured are five women, three of them with gunshot wounds, and a police officer is treated at the nearby hospital. They all remain in stable condition, police confirmed in a statement.

The call came from Sheikh Haron Monday morning over coffee, and kidnapped 17 people who were inside, between staff and customers.

Among the hostages Brazilian entrepreneur Marcia Mikhael, who during the kidnapping wrote on his Facebook page that the kidnapper “is now threatening to kill us. We need help now. The man wants the world to know that Australia is under attack by the Islamic State. “The police intervened elapsed nearly 17 hours of kidnapping.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and President of New South Wales, Mark Baird, ordered to hoist the national flag half mast on public buildings as a sign of respect and mourning the two “innocent victims”. The Martin Place pedestrian street is filled with wreaths, one of them a bouquet of roses deposited by the citizen Allen Jing, 25, who in tears said she  was a regular customer of the assaulted shop. “It’s hard to explain how you feel about something like this, I think I’m just happy to be alive,” Jing told local ABC.

The authorities investigating the facts, keep the area closed surrounding the financial heart of Sydney’s Martin Place pedestrian street, near the Australian Reserve Bank; while the US consulate in the city announced yesterday that no one would serve the public given the tragic events. “There are lessons to be learned and decide after harsh realization of this sad incident which we must learn,” said Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, at a press conference in Canberra.

Abbott said the attacker had “a long history of violence, extremism obsession and mental instability”. The hijacker was an Iranian radical who came to Australia in 1996 and was granted political asylum. He changed his name, Manteghi Bourjerdi, by Man Haron Monis and adopted the title of Sheikh Haron. In recent years he starred in numerous protests against Australia’s military intervention in Afghanistan, in addition to outstanding accounts with the law for violence and sexual assault, among other charges.

Australian police defended its armed intervention in the kidnapping. “If there were (the police) is entered would be more dead. They have saved lives,” said Andrew Scipione, Police Commissioner of New South Wales. “They had no choice,” said Police Commissioner, while authorities have opened an independent investigation to clarify happened that could last “weeks”.

Comments Off on Australian prime minister says “lesson to be learned”

Did Black People Own Slaves?

December 12th, 2014

 

 

By Henry Louis Gates Jr.

 

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black “masters” were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?

The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them—motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people “as an act of exploitation,” primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did. The evidence shows that, unfortunately, both things are true.

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,” Halliburton wrote.

Perhaps the most insidious or desperate attempt to defend the right of black people to own slaves was the statement made on the eve of the Civil War by a group of free people of color in New Orleans, offering their services to the Confederacy, in part because they were fearful for their own enslavement: “The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815.”

These guys were, to put it bluntly, opportunists par excellence: As Noah Andre Trudeau and James G. Hollandsworth Jr. explain, once the war broke out, some of these same black men formed 14 companies of a militia composed of 440 men and were organized by the governor in May 1861 into “the Native Guards, Louisiana,” swearing to fight to defend the Confederacy. Although given no combat role, the Guards—reaching a peak of 1,000 volunteers—became the first Civil War unit to appoint black officers.

When New Orleans fell in late April 1862 to the Union, about 10 percent of these men, not missing a beat, now formed the Native Guard/Corps d’Afrique to defend the Union.

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people.

So why did these free black people own these slaves?

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves.

Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that “it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes.”

In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.

If we were compiling a “Rogues Gallery of Black History,” the following free black slaveholders would be in it:

John Carruthers Stanly—born a slave in Craven County, N.C., the son of an Igbo mother and her master, John Wright Stanly—became an extraordinarily successful barber and speculator in real estate in New Bern. As Loren Schweninger points out in Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915, by the early 1820s, Stanly owned three plantations and 163 slaves, and even hired three white overseers to manage his property! He fathered six children with a slave woman named Kitty, and he eventually freed them. Stanly lost his estate when a loan for $14,962 he had co-signed with his white half brother, John, came due. After his brother’s stroke, the loan was Stanly’s sole responsibility, and he was unable to pay it.

Antoine Dubuclet and his wife Claire Pollard owned more than 70 slaves in Iberville Parish when they married. According to Thomas Clarkin, by 1864, in the midst of the Civil War, they owned 100 slaves, worth $94,700. During Reconstruction, he became the state’s first black treasurer, serving between 1868 and 1878.

Andrew Durnford was a sugar planter and a physician who owned the St. Rosalie plantation, 33 miles south of New Orleans. In the late 1820s, David O. Whitten tells us, he paid $7,000 for seven male slaves, five females and two children. He traveled all the way to Virginia in the 1830s and purchased 24 more. Eventually, he would own 77 slaves. When a fellow Creole slave owner liberated 85 of his slaves and shipped them off to Liberia, Durnford commented that he couldn’t do that, because “self interest is too strongly rooted in the bosom of all that breathes the American atmosphere.”

Most of us will find the news that some black people bought and sold other black people for profit quite distressing, as well we should. But given the long history of class divisions in the black community, which Martin R. Delany as early as the 1850s described as “a nation within a nation,” and given the role of African elites in the long history of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, perhaps we should not be surprised that we can find examples throughout black history of just about every sort of human behavior, from the most noble to the most heinous, that we find in any other people’s history.

The good news, scholars agree, is that by 1860 the number of free blacks owning slaves had markedly decreased from 1830. In fact, Loren Schweninger concludes that by the eve of the Civil War, “the phenomenon of free blacks owning slaves had nearly disappeared” in the Upper South, even if it had not in places such as Louisiana in the Lower South.

This article was originally posted in the Root.com

Comments Off on Did Black People Own Slaves?

GCHQ Cleared to Spy by Review Panel Judgment

December 10th, 2014

By Mr. Justice Burton.  

 

 



 

To read repor please click here: GCHQ Cleared to Spy by Review Panel Judgment

Comments Off on GCHQ Cleared to Spy by Review Panel Judgment

Russia heading to another recession

December 4th, 2014

 

 

 

By The Daily Journalist.

 



President Vladimir Putin likes to talk in public about the heroic character of the Russian people, pointing at the military muscle and remembering the greatness of the imperial past. But from the tanks he broke into Crimea, and the increases in teacher salaries or new media propaganda to be finally crowned as a global alternative depends on a black substance his country treasures; Not because of any battle or no elite talent. This treasure is safely underground and is called oil.

A barrel of oil has been for the Russian leader a magical power wand which has made possible the military resurgence of Russia, improvements in pensions and public salaries to pick a consumption-driven economy. But Russia has just revised downwards to $80 per barrel, the oil price forecast for next year. Dreams 2015 had been built over a barrel to be hypothetically at $100, but the reality has alarmed analysts despite government efforts to build confidence.

Igor Sechin, chairman of the Russian oil company Rosneft and one of the ‘energy bishops’ of Russia stated Putin recently said that Russia could “survive” with a barrel of oil up to $60. “I also think it could survive a Mike Tyson punch in the face and that does not make it a good idea,” cried the analyst Mark Adomamis while the Russian media set the band before the injury.

negative growth

Russia will experience negative growth next year and looks set to recession because of international sanctions and especially the fall in oil prices. Both factors have led to a sharp depreciation of the ruble. The Ministry of Economy has reviewed this week lower growth forecasts for 2015 and has admitted that the Russian GDP will contract by over 0.8%. Oil exports next year will decrease by five million tons.

And the alarming capital flight and high inflation will further cloud the outlook. The disposable income shrinks by 2.8%, which has affected consumption and especially tourism, with a particularly negative impact on some popular Russian countries like Spain.

Russia is increasingly dependent on the energy business

The problem with oil is related to the sanctions that are causing the part of the Russian economy that is not tied to oil and gas to get smaller. Russia is increasingly dependent on the energy business, which provides half the budget. So there are afraid of a drop of oil. The collapse in oil prices is recalled in the mid-eighties, when the USSR ran out of money.

The draft budget for 2015 priced at $100 per barrel and below the barrier the government can not meet the program being marked as contemplated. Already protests from teachers and doctors in Moscow have closed restaurants and pessimism has returned to settle in the long hospital of Russian society with bad omens.

The year of Putin

But while the Russians are getting worse, Russia is increasingly power is growing after an incomparable year after they had ‘recovered’ Crimea; slowing the passage to the West in Ukraine and has been invoked before an increasingly weak and indecisive Obama on Syria. The popularity of Vladimir Putin has returned to skyrocket, and absences on the shelves, have yet reliable damage their image leader.

Although the national treasury is poised to become loose change, the collapse of the ruble serves to cushion this problem. If the barrel returns slightly above $ 80 the budget deficit would be only 1%, as calculated by economists. But with the current collapse Putin can be confronted with a bitter dilemma: either uses its reserves for help or starts to break his campaign promises.

Imports are becoming un-affordable by the collapse of the ruble

Another problem is that with a weak ruble imports start making it unaffordable, and Russia is a country that imports half of what they eat. The Russian economy grew two or three years ago to 4%. Moscow hopes reserves 454,000 million, but the government stopped saving for tomorrow in 2011 to improve pensions, salaries of officials and the military.

Russian oil is not as cheap to extract as it is in Saudi. So low prices can make falling interest in exploiting these deposits or invest in them. And there is another major problem: the sanctions have made foreign companies whose technology Russia requires to exploit its resources set to be put off.

But Russia still does not wrinkle and the head of Rosneft surprised colleagues, giving OPEC a very clear message: Russia will not reduce their production even if the price falls below $60 a barrel. The ‘valid’ Russian oil believes that low oil prices may do more damage to economies that obtain oil at a higher cost. Above Russia is in these United States parameters, which has challenged the conventional oil markets

Comments Off on Russia heading to another recession

Is Vladimir Putin pushing for conflict?

November 22nd, 2014

 

 

The Daily Journalist Community Opinion.

 



Recently, Russia has shown an alarming scale of fighter jets illegally flying through EU NATO airspace. Turkey, Norway, Belgium and Sweden among the countries who detected these Russian jets.

Just by watching the recent APEC event, it seem to me as if Obama was angry at Putin, who rubbed the US presidents back, who not once maintained eye contact with him. Tension on the rise.

With the annexation of Crimea and also the financial and secretive military support to encourage a revolution in Ukraine, Russia is showing a worrisome face to the west. The expulsion of Russia from the G8, and the EU trying to provide Ukraine with Energy has not digested well in Moscow.

Putin wants to reestablish the Russian empire — A dream of his peer Khrushchev.

In my opinion, NATO and the US look relatively weakened on their military campaigns on the Middle East.  And Putin is watching it, testing the murky waters inside the EU, who outside of France, and Germany have a weak military.

1. Is Russia showing signs of conflict given the recent moves? If yes, why? If not, why? 

2.  Would the EU adopt a more aggressive approach to Moscow’s latest international violations?  And do you expect more violations to come?

3.  Would it be on Putin’s interest to one day take over Europe, if the right opportunity arrives since he is an advocate of Khrushchev dream to reestablish a Russian Empire? 

4. What do you preview next on Russia’s relation with Europe? Improvement or conflict? 

 



Claude Nougat. 

(Passionate traveler (80 countries+) 25 years experience in United Nations: project evaluation specialist; FAO Director for Europe/Central Asia)

“Yes, Putin is certainly aiming high on the international scene. And growling like a bulldog. Crimea was not enough, now he needs a corridor to reach it, therefore he wants Eastern Ukraine too.

His “expulsion” from the G8 must have hurt his pride. Incidentally, that was a very silly move on the part of G8 leaders – never shut the door on a group member, dress him down, sure, but don’t kick him out, you’re cutting off one essential avenue for dialogue, something you should NEVER do if you have any sense of diplomacy, or any sense at all.

But Putin is a pragmatic guy, he is surely responding more to (presently suppressed) internal opposition (though it was pretty lively a couple of years ago) than to any snub from G20 leaders or remonstrations from Merkel. She is supposed to be the only European leader in his confidence – personally, I doubt it; she is simply playing an ugly double game because for Germany the Russian market is terribly important, particularly as a provider of energy.

Is Russia aiming to conquer Europe or expand in any other way beyond that ugly business in Ukraine? I doubt it. Putin dreams of Big Russia, true, these are Tsarist dreams. Putin and Catherine the Great… But such dreams also offer the right ideology to get the physical on-the-ground space he needs to tie Crimea (where his navy is stationed) to mainland Russia.

The tsars never wanted to conquer Western Europe and neither does he. Perhaps the Baltic States, Poland and Hungary are more at risk, perhaps Serbia would like to become close buddies with Russia (the big slav brother) but the European Union is a bulwark. Putin can never overcome that economic power:  his economy is seriously unbalanced (too much linked to energy) and is now flailing due to economic sanctions from the West. And his army is certainly not what it used to be if you compare it to Krushev’s days (remember how the USSR displaced the US in the race to outer space with is Sputnik?).

Because even if the US continually makes mistakes in the Middle East, even if it is looking more towards China than Europe, it is still a fact that any frontal attack on the West would cause NATO forces to descend on Russia like a ton of bricks – or rather, with waves upon waves of smart brimstone-style missiles and bombs. And I wouldn’t want to live in Moscow, watching the robotic kind of war that the US and NATO are capable of unleashing..”

 



Steven Hansen.

(Publisher and Co-founder of Econintersect, is an international business and industrial consultant specializing in turning around troubled business units; consults to governments to optimize process flows; and provides economic indicator analysis based on unadjusted data and process limitations)

“I think this whole line of questions is wrong. it is like discussing what is happening today in the Middle East without going back and understanding how we got there.

Russians view the world as those they trust (friends), and those they do not trust. The West, lead by the USA is nobody’s friend. Their foreign policy is myopic and self centered.

The USA is backing Russia into a corner – treating them like dirt for the last 20 years since the breakup of the Soviet Union. The actions today are not a new strategy per se, but realization and action to block the West from further actions which are not in the interests of Russia.”

 



Dr. John Bruni.

(open source intelligence and security consultancy) based in Adelaide, South Australia, formerly served as Special Military Researcher Adviser at the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR))

“Re Question 2 – The EU is organizationally incapable of acting aggressively. The EU is not a military alliance, nor does it have the power to declare a state of military hostilities on behalf of its constituent member-states. It does, however, hold the trump card of sanctions over Moscow, and this is biting Russia and Putin’s inner circle presently.

The central question is, will the sanctions regime placed on Moscow create the conditions for Putin’s removal and the ‘democratization’ of Russia’s body politic? It is a waiting game. Russia, being interlinked to Western Europe through its stranglehold on energy supplies and energy distribution networks, can manipulate the flow of energy and affect Europe’s anaemic economic recovery.

Brussels on the other hand may believe it has a larger ‘war chest’ to punish Russia and a more resilient socio-political base to weather any Russian stratagem regarding Moscow’s potential manipulation of Europe’s energy market. The latter will depend on how the Russian oligarchs feel about taking more economic hits to their bottom line for their support of Putin’s confrontational gambit.

Re Question 4 – In the fullness of time, the EU and Russia will come to a mutual understanding and relations will improve. But this is still a long way off. If Putin is removed from the presidency of Russia, this will be followed by political turmoil in Russia that may in fact make the country a less reliable international partner, and, at least in the short-term, more belligerent toward the West.

But the political, strategic and cultural divisions between West and East will remain irrespective of any general improvement in relations. Russia is a very different international actor to the states of the West. Even were Russian diplomacy to become more conciliatory, Moscow’s needs and views of itself will make it lurch from bouts of cooperation to bouts of confrontation with the West.”

 



Olga Karatch. 

(Master of Arts in Political Sciences, European Humanitarian University, Vilnius, Lithuania Graduate, Russian Philology, Masherov University, Vitebsk; with Red Diploma)

“Why is Russia behaving like that? Why are economic sanctions so ineffective and fail to bring the presupposed results?
Today, the main Russia’s national idea, which explains Vladimir Putin’s strikingly high popularity ratings, is the idea of revenge, and, in a certain sense, the idea of revising the outcomes of World War II.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, which considers itself a “country that had defeated fascism”, was surprised to find out that the “victors” live worse than the “losers”; and Russia, as a power, is far from playing the leading role in the modern world. Since then, the Russian elite has been trying to “catch up and overtake” the West; however, obviously, too great cultural differences and different understanding of what it means to respect and influence; and what it means to humiliate others have thrown Russia into the abyss of self-isolation – now, it is not very much interested in the opinion of the West.

Besides, every resident of Russia knows quite well that living in the state of Cold War is quite usual and normal for him or her. What they cannot do, is to live in the state of peace. Therefore, Russia will continue playing the war and demonstrating the Cold War attributes by returning to familiar cultural codes and by frightening European citizens with the KGB and ice-axes like the one Trotsky was killed – aiming to put pressure on their governments in order to keep them away from conflicts, thus, distancing from the areas of Russia’s interests.
Russia cannot stop, just like the Soviet Union could not.

Thus, be ready to see new aggressive actions – “we’ll show them the gruel” – this succinct phrase is explaining everything. Putin lives as if in those days when GDR was under the USSR; and he dreams of returning those days and those positions; and it means that Europe has pretty plenty surprises still upcoming.

The dream of Khrushchev was to bury Europe and the West ideologically, that is, to prove the advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist one. The only way to prove it is by conquering and capturing Europe. That is why Khrushchev kept 20,000 tanks and strategic nuclear weapons in Eastern Germany; and that is why Soviet tanks were in Prague in 1968. Vladimir Putin is in a more difficult situation now – his system is not a socialist one, and it is too late to use nuclear weapons; however, ideologically, Putin is trying to inherit Khrushchev’s ideas. And this is the most dangerous thing – especially for Russia’s neighbours, because the revival of USSR will start with annexing them.

Moreover, Russians are sincerely bewildered by the fact that other nations are not eager to join Russia; they get offended by this reluctance to join. The danger is twofold here – it is not clear at all what a mess is in the heads of the Russian elite, which lives, on the one hand, with the images of armoured spearheads of 1968, and, on the other hand, has plenty of real estate in London.
It makes no sense for Europe to be afraid of an armed conflict, because Russia is already different. For example, today the flagship of its

Baltic Fleet is an auxiliary vessel; and the closest tank to Europe is stationed in Pskov. However, Putin has and relies on other weapons – the Europeans’ fear of these tanks and the KGB. Putin will make use of the of carrot and stick policy to make Khrushchev’s dream true: in the morning Europeans will be frightened with aircrafts and submarines, and in the evening, just as Nikita Khrushchev had dreamed, the pipelines stretched across Europe will be used to sell gas and oil – for Russian elites to buy still more real estate objects and yachts.”

 



Michael Anderson.

(Research interests have included computer simulation of manmade systems, decision theory, and the structure of invisible colleges. Member of the Association of Ancient Historians Member of The American Philological  Association)

“1. Russia is stirring things up because they are unhappy about the sanctions. This is their historical reaction. They want to push on the west and measure the west’s reaction to them so they can see how far they can go. They are too tied to the west economically to completely isolate themselves so, for them, the place to be is just short of that point.

2. The EU is in a precarious position because of the economic ties it has with Moscow. It must figure out how to show it’s strong and independent without disrupting business interests. Moscow will continue violations as long as it suits their agenda.

3. We’re probably beyond the time of countries taking over other countries so I do not see that as Putin’s goal. The takeover of Europe ultimately failed because it had such a negative impact on the Russian economy. Having said that, Putin would love to control Europe economically to further Russian interests.

4. We’re in a period of phase where the players are trying to figure out what to do next. Eventually things will sort themselves out, Putin will back off, and the sanctions will be lifted. For now he has to pretend that they are not hurting him.”

 



Jamil Maidan Flores. 

(He has been speechwriter to the President and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Indonesia from January 1992 (present)—a period of more than 22 years)

“1. If you mean to ask whether Putin intends to engage in an open warfare with the NATO, I say that is not probably the case. Russia does not have the economy to be able to take on NATO.

2. In the face of violations of international law by Russia, the EU will try to show a firmer hand. But probably the EU reaction will not be strong enough to stop Russia’s probing aggression. Russia will then continue with the violations, calibrating them so that they are not threatening enough to trigger an all-out war. But it can miscalculate and therein is the danger. It can unintentionally trigger an all-out war.

3. I don’t think Putin is deluded enough to believe Russia can swallow up Europe the way it devoured Crimea. But Putin will continue to destabilize Europe because he can do it and that’s all he can do. That’s why I think the tensions will be there for a long long time. Until Putin miscalculates or the sanctions become unbearable to the Russian people.”

 



Allen Schmertzler.

(He is an award winning and published political artist specializing in figurative, narrative and caricatured interpretations of current events)

“Without a doubt, Putin is looking for any weakness to rebuild and expand Russia’s sphere of influence and dominance. Let’s remember that a Russia, under severe economic duress coiled back into itself, leaving it’ satellite nations such as Cuba starving for money and Russian support.

With energy revenues, Russia is economically resurgent, providing a more secure format upon which to flex as much muscle again in its sphere. Also, without doubt, the West, especially USA, will not challenge Russia militarily. Economic and diplomatic sanctions are only elbows with sting but no knockdown.

Russian-US relations have been sour, at least since Edwin Snowden took up asylum residence in Russia. Sadly, Russia can grab the Ukraine and any other former region with localized resistance, but will not find itself confronted by direct western military forces. There is a long history of the U.S. Implying it would intervene to help “freedom” fighter, but mostly the U.S. has an addiction to deploy our military to provide military cover to right wing dictators who benefit our economic interests.”

 



Jon Kofas.

(Retired university professorm, Academic Writing, International Political Economy – Fiction)

“It certainly does appear that Vladimir Putin may be much stronger than the capabilities of Russia could possibly carry him. This is an impression that the US and EU governments and Western media have created in order to build up the “monstrous threat” that the Russian bear represents once again after a period of hibernation during the 1990s and early 2000s.

With the total mess in the Middle East where the US became involved militarily and indirectly only to create much bigger problems than it proclaimed it wished to solve, the Ukrainian crisis looks even worse than it really is for the US and EU. After all, Obama had no choice but to work with Iran at some level, and to water down his commitment to remove Assad from power, considering that Turkey has been playing all sides, including the US and Saudi Arabia that had been providing financing for the rebels in Syria.

Upon closer examination, the US and NATO are the most potent military force in the world. However, the question is whether military force can be used as a deterrent instead of diplomacy to solve what are in essence political issues. Have military solutions really worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is time for yet another one in Ukraine? Is Russia so adamantly opposed to a political solution that it will not sit at the negotiating table?  Is the US really interested in testing the limits of Russia’s military power and China’s diplomatic resolve in backing Moscow over Ukraine?

1. Russia has indeed displayed its predisposition toward military resolution to the current crisis over Ukraine, which in the view of Moscow is a crisis between Russia and the West that wishes to impose a strict containment policy on Russia. However, this is because Moscow feels that the West refuses to permit Russia a sphere of influence that Russians regard historically theirs. Besides, if Moscow agreed to everything Washington demands over Ukraine, which former Soviet republic is next in line for integration with the West?

While there are constant reports of Russian military exercises everywhere from the Mediterranean and Baltic to the border of the Ukraine and Australia, exactly what do these military exercises mean, other than to send a symbolic message? I would like to emphasize that Russia under Soviet rule was always more about displaying its military power and about making noise than actually carrying out military campaigns. The history of Soviet intervention was always limited to Communist regimes.

It is true that Russia has no qualms moving militarily when it comes to its own borders, but only if it faces a threat to what it defines as “national security” zone. Let us keep in mind that Russia from Czar Peter the Great until the present has always had a policy of “continental imperialism” (expansion within Eurasia) in comparison with European imperialism that was always “extra-continental” involving territories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Having said this, Moscow is acting largely out of a defensive posture because Putin feels the US and EU have been ganging up on Russia, encircling it to contain it and not permitting a zone of influence Moscow regards as its historical right. Attempting to integrate Ukraine in the Western zone of influence would be comparable to Russia trying to integrate Mexico into its zone of influence. After all, there is the Cuban example.

2. I seriously doubt that Germany and France are interested in a conflict with Russia, especially now that they realize sanctions have backfired and Russia’s decision to float its currency has come back to haunt EU. Having spent billions defending the rubble, Russia opted for a floating currency, thus ending the euro-dollar pegged currency. This move forces all currencies on a downward path, but places special burdens on Europe and especially on Germany that relies heavily on Russia for energy and as an export-import market.  Considering that EU is faced with a contracting economy at this juncture, and considering that major businesses including European defense industry, refuse the take the fall because the US wants sanctions on Russia, EU governments feel the squeeze from their own business community.

Russia will have a competitive advantage because of the floating decision which comes at a time that EU economy is stagnant and undergoing enormous global competition. Putin has in effect neutralized Germany and France forcing them to distant their policies from the US aggressive diplomacy/military-solution option. The risk/benefit ratio for France and Germany is to determine how far it can go along with US policy before striking out on their own and proposing some kind of solution over Ukraine that both Moscow and Kiev can live with.

3. The simple answer to this scenario is absolutely no chance. It is true that there are Russian nationalists with dreams of a large Russian empire, but even the most delusional nationalists have the sense to realize EU means NATO and nuclear weapons.  Russia is only interested in recovering a part of its lost glory from the past, but within reason and that means within Eurasia, and not beyond it.  It is interesting that Western politicians and analysts in the media play up this card of making Russia a much more aggressive power than it really is simply because they are interested in strengthening their own defense budgets. What a better way to convince public opinion to accept more military spending, as the US insists must take place, than to present Russia as an aggressor whose long term goals are to take Paris and Berlin. The scenarios are simply absurd and serve only the defense industry, as well as governments shifting the public’s attention away from domestic issues like unemployment and low living standards for workers and the middle class.

4. For now, there seems to be no easy answer and the stalemate will continue. Nothing so far seems to satisfy Moscow, Kiev and Washington as far as a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, but things can change in a few weeks or a few months. The pessimists fear that as a result of the lingering cat-and-mouse games between Moscow and Kiev the result may be escalation toward conventional war that would then invite NATO intervention on a limited basis, that would then invite China to side with Russia and then we are faced with a very serious scenario for WWIII. I do not want to dismiss this as absurd because anything is possible when no government is willing to make concessions at the negotiating table.

However, with all due respect to Ukraine, is this country worth going to war as far as Russia, the US, and especially the EU are concerned? How many French and German politicians and military officers would answer yes to this question?  True, the British will always side with the US as they have historically, but even they have to think of the dire consequences confronting Russia. And for all this for Ukraine and for what it may mean if Russia scores a few more points toward the realization of its dream in restoring the former glory of the USSR?

I like believe that even the most hard-headed ideologues in Moscow, Washington, Kiev, and London are driven by a greater sense of national responsibility and continue to retain some modicum of their rational faculties so they would never go to the brink.  My prediction is a resolution that will probably come after Franco-German pressure on Washington and Moscow. China may play a role here because it wants a more tamed Russia, and certainly a less adventurist US trying to destabilize various regions around the world where China needs to expand its business. Improvement between Russia and EU are inevitable because of geography and common economic interests. As Erick Fromm noted in his famous book about the madness of the Cold War, May Man Prevail, we still have political solutions to pursue through negotiations, because in the last analysis the alternative is madness.”

 



Shaukat Qadir.

(He is a part-time journalist and Consultant on Security related and political issues. Currently, he is a consultant (Adviser) on the Awareness program of the National Accountability Bureau in Pakistan)

“1) In my view, there is a little more to the background perspective. Indeed Putin seems to have snubbed Obama, perhaps deliberately. Yes, it seems as if Obama is upset with it. Putin does want to regain Russia’s lost stature—–it is but natural and the US is overstretched and (temporarily) in a weakened position, perhaps at par with Russia for the time being.

2) Therefore, it is my view that Putin is using this “window of opportunity” to test the waters. If the US is weakened and overstretched, Putin is fully conscious that, in the event of another conflict, it can regroup and, Russia is in no position to challenge the US militarily—-not for the foreseeable future. Putin will ensure that Russia remains short of a conflictual situation.

3) It is for the EU to decide how far it is prepared to ignore Russia’s aggression but, I think that it should draw its own “Red Lines” and, without announcing the lines, let Russia know that Red Lines have been defined. Defense and diplomacy are linked by an umbilical cord and there is always a delicate balance between throwing down the gauntlet and a muted threat of response

Without challenging Russia, the EU should warn it. Perhaps the best way of achieving this is by quietly re-positioning its forces to a more offensive position. It is in this regrouping and re-positioning that the US can indicate its position. Token forces of US Eastern Command should be moved—-perhaps in an “exercise mode”. Not towards Europe but merely to indicate readiness to support EU if it is forced to respond to Russian aggression. By not stating its Red Lines, EU leaves Russia guessing. It is important to make Putin uneasy.

3) In my view Russia’s dream of annexing Europe is, for the foreseeable future, an un-realizable dream. And Putin is certainly a pragmatist. He might dream big but I think he knows that he is not likely to see such a dream come true in his lifetime.

4) I think Russia will continue to test the waters in Europe. That is why I suggest the response of a “muted” threat by EU backed by the US.”

 



Lucas Juan Manuel Alonso 

(PhD Economics (graduated with honours) with specializations in Research in the Management of Organizations (Methods & Techniques) and Investment & Financing, MBA Executives Degrees in International Commerce and Innovation & Management, University of Santiago de Compostela)

“1. In answering this question, I refer in part to what I say in the second question. Meanwhile a ceasefire agreement cannot be reached, we continue to witness of Moscow and Kiev accusing one another. But according the main international news agencies and international reference bodies, yes, clearly, Russia is showing signs of conflict. Why? I think that the most likely reason seems to be because Russia wants to reinforce its political influence on Ukraine.

2. United States is playing a somewhat more predominant role on the Ukraine crisis than the European Union. Yes, obviously EU should adopt a more aggressive approach due to the fact that the EU has a more vital stake in the Ukraine crisis than the US. But, a major question arises: to what extent EU has power to apply some sort of sanctions against Russia? Because, as a result of goods imported (in particular, oil and gas) from Russia into the European Union, as well as its Direct Investment in Russia (it is precisely for these reasons that the European Union have big switching costs), the EU becomes more vulnerable and dependent on Russia than vice versa. With this economic-political scenario, the EU’s possible sanctions against Russia in reaction to the Ukraine conflict are very limited.

It is expected that Russia will continue to help separatist rebels in Ukraine. The first step, in order to resolve the conflict, is to declare a ceasefire, and the ceasefire outlined by the Minsk protocol is the only way out of the conflict. Thus, sanctions against Russia should be in place until the Minsk agreements are fully implemented.

Meanwhile a ceasefire agreement cannot be reached, we continue to witness of Moscow and Kiev accusing one another about facts such as, ceasefire violation, sending soldiers and weapons to help separatist rebels, increasing in social violence in the region, hostilities against the separatists,…etc.

May be we would like to hear what the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (which is monitoring the ceasefire) has to say in this respect.

3. I don’t see it as a possible hypothetical scenario. Additionally I think, in our days, there can be no military solution to this type of conflicts and these need to be resolved only through political and diplomatic means.

4. As I see it, the economy will be a stabilizing force for the current political tensions among Europe and Russia. Thus, the economy will become a key step towards a better understanding of the challenges ahead. Mainly on the European Union, Russia is the third trading partner of the EU and the EU is the first trading partner of Russia. Although in my view, some goods imported (in particular, oil and gas) from Russia into the European Union have bigger switching costs than those goods imported from EU into Russia and, as a consequence of this weak point, European Union becomes more dependent on Russia. But this situation is offset in part because the EU is the most important investor in Russia; about 75% of Foreign Direct Investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States.

But at the same time, this large concentration of capital on only one market makes the EU vulnerable and dependent on Russia. Therefore, at least for me, it is easy to see that EU has bigger switching costs resulting from imported goods and Direct Investment in Russia. Russia might not respect all its WTO commitments and disrupt a long trade relation, as well as to establish stronger ties and preferential trade arrangements with China. Another possible scenario: Russia, China and South America could provide the core of a new commercial axis and step aside EU.

European economy remains stagnant and in my view, mainly in the euro zone, unemployment rates will continue to rise or, at best, with only cyclical and insignificant downward variations. The main reasons for this are very simple: Member States with highest unemployment rates have (and they will continue to have) economic growth rates that are insufficient to generate employment, as well as unproductive organizational structures.

And, I am afraid that the strongest economies in Europe are going to suffer a steeper economic downturn. In fact, in spite of measures such as precarious and poorly-paid work, labour flexibility, less costly hiring, cheaper dismissal, different modalities of hiring (…etc.), there will be not any significant effect on employment but, undoubtedly, these measures are going to reduce consumer spending (less purchasing power of the middle classes) without increasing investment spending (investors are more likely to save than invest).

As a result, if European Union (mainly the euro zone) continues to follow the same policy rhetoric, it is perfectly clear that we will be facing a future of economic stagnation, greater unemployment and inequality, increase in the fiscal deficit and public debt. In my view, this situation can lead Europe to an unending vicious circle through which Russia can be able to take political and economic advantage.”

 



Tony Greenstein.

(He has been a political activist for all his adult life, mainly focusing on Palestine, anti-racist and anti-fascist activities)

“The question is premised on a wrong set of assumptions.  Russia’s actions are defensive not aggressive.  Nothing it did in Crimea wasn’t done by the West in Kosovo.

Russia’s actions are defensive.  It took over Crimea (which historically was part of Russia) because it’s  only naval base is in the Crimea (Sebastapol) and it would be unthinkable for NATO to take it over.

It was the West (EU and US behind it) which overthrew a democratically elected leader in the Maiden demonstrations (which it encouraged and financed) after a trade agreement with the EU was rejected by the President in favour of one with Russia.  The first thing the new Ukrainian parliament did was to withdraw Russia as an official language.

The fact is that the Russian people of East Ukraine support breaking away.

NATO (why does it even exist after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact?) has increasingly expanded into  Easter Europe right up to Russia’s borders, making Putin and co. very scared.  The suggestion of taking over Europe is a reversal of reality.  Who has bases in about 50+ countries?  Who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, destabilised Southern America, argues with China over obscure islands nr Vietnam and of course played utter havoc in the Middle East?  What right did the   UK and France, with US support, have to bomb Libya?  The agenda was quite clear, to be rid of the secular authoritarian regimes of the Middle East.

I hold no brief for monsters like Assad and Saddam Hussein but people in Iraq today say that the situation is far far worse.  The US introduced a confessional divide and rule, as it has tried to do in Syria and as its armed watchdog Israel seeks to do.  You will notice that there is nothing Israel does that merits the slightest criticism in the UN.  One wonders why not (& no it’s not ‘the Jews!)”

 



Jaime Ortega-Simo. 

(The Daily Journalist president and founder) 

“1) Militarily wise, It will be hard for the EU, to eventually keep up with Russia without promoting more internal unity; that means the non-separation of regional cities or countries from their countries of origin and unions, solving national policies and disputes related with sum- ministration of wealth for the working class, and regulating new strategies for quick economic growth within regional and bordering partners… Only there, will the EU achieve the dream of building new military to protect its interest to secure the Euro from outside threats. With Putin in-charge, Russia is pushing for the Euro Asian Union to become a financial power and regulate trade in South Central Asia.

In my opinion, despite the accusations of Moscow to make Kiev look guilty during the MH17 shoot down, I have no questions the FSB was behind the incident. Perhaps the perfect excuse for Putin to gain support from the EU, and take control over Eastern Ukraine. It is true Eastern Ukraine does not feel represented by its own government, but only a minority supports joining Russia.

Crimea and Ukraine, are no doubt direct objectives for Putin to envision a new Russia. Belarus, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Chechnya…will eventually become other future targets to expand the new Soviet Union.

Russia plans to push a monetary currency on their quest to unify Euro Asia, but they also want a new physical empire which will consist of countries in Eastern Europe. A two headed hydra.

Russia spends yearly over +84Bn $USD, which they take out from social programs on eastern provinces that don’t get much attention due to their isolation and distance from Moscow–Siberia is an exception. Currently Russia is the country with 3rd largest military expenditure, and unlike the era of Boris Yeltsin, Gorvachov and his predecessors, Putin is focused on equipping his troops with ultimate technology by spying, using cyber-intelligence to breach the EU, and EEUU. Something China has increasingly continue to successfully achieve during Obama’s administration for the past 7 years, right after Bush left office. Russia has noticed a few breaches in US Intel that will help their military absorb more military information.

2) The EU is not prepared to engage in conflict with Russia. Merkel, Cameron, Hollande,….Don’t look to promiscuous to use force that is ‘not’ in the form of financial sanctions. No one is adopting or promoting revitalizing strategies which deal with military intervention, and Putin understands the problems very well, just by looking at how the EU deals with terrorism in the Middle East. When I look Van Rampuy, Jean-Claude, Juncker…I don’t see anything that would protect and secure, EU interest in the future. The EDA, for what is worth, needs to restructure a big army to defend itself,  but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

3) He is already in the process of reestablishing a new Euro-Asian-Union, which headquarters will be located in Moscow — Trying to mimic Brussels on the EU. Currently Azerbaijan, is meditating whether or not it will be a better idea to join forces with Russia financially speaking. So the present process is already happening financially, and Geo-politically.

4) We’re headed for conflict, and if the EU does not recover financially, Russia will try to twitch like pincers the already wobbling EU economy, even if in the process that means hurting themselves also. Indisputably, their military budget  shows Putin’s intention to one day head on a straight collision with European interest.

The problem resides that most People think Putin is a normal guy, with his heads in his shoulders, but in my opinion he has the typical traumas of a narcissistic personality disorder. He thinks he is Napoleon, and just alike Hitler he is entitled with the vision of destiny. That makes him a dangerous man. Putin will lead his ship where he wants, how we wants, and no one inside Russia’s Federation Council will stop his will, just as he stopped and jailed those Oligarchs who opposed his view.

EU will be more secure without Putin.”

Comments Off on Is Vladimir Putin pushing for conflict?