Day: June 7, 2024

(RFE/RL) — French President Emmanuel Macron says he wants to finalize the creation of a coalition of military instructors for Ukraine and begin Kyiv’s EU accession talks by the end of the month.

Speaking on June 7 at a joint news conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Macron said several of France’s partners had already agreed to take part in the coalition of instructors.

“We will use the days to come to finalize the largest possible coalition to implement Ukraine’s demand,” Macron said.

Ukraine’s top commander said last week he had signed paperwork allowing French military instructors to soon access Ukrainian training centers. Russia responded by saying they would be a “legitimate target” for Russian armed forces.

Kyiv has been pushing Europe to increase military support in recent weeks after Russia began gaining ground on the battlefield, particularly in Ukraine’s eastern Kharkiv region.

However, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters in a conference call on June 7 that because of a recent infusion of U.S. aid, the Ukrainians have been able to “thwart Russian advances,” particularly around Kharkiv.

“The Russians really have kind of stalled out up there, basically,” Kirby said. “Their advance on Kharkiv is all but over because they ran into the first line of defenses of the Ukrainian armed forces and basically stopped, if not pulled back some units.”

In his joint news conference with Zelenskiy, Macron also addressed EU accession talks, saying France “continues to support Ukraine in all areas, including on the European level by seeking to have the effective launch of membership negotiations by the end of the month.”

He added that;France also wants;an “irreversible path” to NATO membership for Ukraine.

Macron also said that France is on the side of peace but said it would not come through surrender.

“We are for peace, according to international law, which allows the people who are attacked to defend themselves,” he said in response to questions about possible concessions by Russia and whether it is time to start negotiations with Moscow.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said earlier on June 7 in St. Petersburg that Russia is “ready for talks” with conditions, including taking into account the “realities of today” — an apparent reference to Russia’s illegal annexation of four regions in southeastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Putin also again claimed that Ukraine’s leaders “have lost their legitimacy,” referring to the postponement of Ukrainian elections.

“It seems like we are dealing with the usurpation of power,” Putin said, speaking to business leaders at an economic forum.

Putin has previously questioned whether Zelenskiy has the legitimacy to negotiate on Ukraine’s behalf because his five-year term in office was supposed to end on May 20.

An election was to have taken place on March 31 but was postponed because the country is still under martial law. Under the Ukrainian Constitution, Zelenskiy must continue to perform his duties until a new head of state is elected.

Zelenskiy responded to Putin during the joint news conference, saying his legitimacy is recognized and determined by the Ukrainian people, adding that Putin’s legitimacy “is recognized only by comrade Putin.

By David Hutt

Before U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin arrived in Cambodia this week, the Pentagon had indicated that the talks wouldn’t yield “significant deliverables.” Despite some media predictions of a U.S.-Cambodia rapprochement after years of testy ties, Cambodia’s elite politics impose limits to how far relations can recover.

Austin’s;visit;to Phnom Penh came during a trip to Southeast Asia for the annual Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore the previous weekend, and Cambodia was one of the few regional countries he had yet to visit.;

In July, Cambodia will take over; the coordinating role for U.S.-ASEAN Dialogue Relations for the next three years, charged with; facilitating talks between the Southeast Asian bloc and Washington. Thus, there are incentives for the U.S. to engage a little more with Phnom Penh.

Ahead of Austin’s arrival, Sun Chanthol, one of Cambodia’s deputy prime ministers, mentioned that Phnom Penh might allow the resumption of “military-to-military” relations in the form of joint exercises on humanitarian and disaster relief. According to a Pentagon readout, Austin discussed the “resumption of military training exchanges on disaster assistance.”;

However, this is relatively low-level stuff.

In 2017, amid an authoritarian consolidation of power and crushing of the opposition by the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) that drew U.S. criticism, Phnom Penh canceled the annual joint military drill “Angkor Sentinel” with the U.S., claiming Cambodian troops were needed to manage local elections.;

Superficial rapprochement

Since then, Cambodia has conducted;military drills;with China instead. It is unlikely that Angkor Sentinel will return anytime soon.

Recent U.S.-Cambodia rapprochement has been superficial at best. President Joe Biden voiced appreciation that Cambodia condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a move orchestrated by then-premier Hun Sen, which cost Cambodia little but gained international favor.;

Because Cambodia held the ASEAN chairmanship that year, Western leaders were forced to parley with Phnom Penh – and some presumably liked what they were told.;

And in a case of judging someone’s action by their reputation, not the other way around, almost every Western capital leapt onto the narrative that the change of leadership in Cambodia last year – when Hun Sen, the prime minister since 1985, handed over power to his West-Point educated son, Hun Manet – was a convenient moment to change tack.;

Indeed, since then, France and Australia have taken the approach long favored by Japan and now won’t say anything bad about Phnom Penh. The European Union got a taste of some environmental policies in Cambodia and now thinks it’s a green partner.;

Elusive balance

In Washington, many of the American politicians who were most interested in Cambodia’s domestic politics, as opposed to its role in world politics, have either passed away or left office. Among them, Dana Rohrabacher left in 2019 and Steve Chabot in 2023.

The question now is whether the U.S.;can;improve;relations;with Cambodia – which means Cambodia making its relations with the U.S. and China more balanced.;

The answer requires a better understanding of why Cambodia aligned with China in the first place.;

There are two common explanations. One holds that American interference in domestic affairs, particularly democracy-building, pushed Phnom Penh towards China’s “no strings attached” engagement.;

The second is economic necessity: China has provided capital that others could not. By one estimate, China;invested;around $12 billion between 2011 and 2021, building motorways, ports, railways and other critical infrastructure. Without this money, Cambodia would have struggled to develop such infrastructure or would have had to borrow extensively.;

While Chinese investment was a no-brainer for Phnom Penh, losing it wouldn’t be catastrophic; the CPP government won’t collapse if a Chinese state-run company doesn’t build another motorway,;

However, both explanations are too simplistic, too focused on conventional governance.;

Delicate balancing act

Cambodia remains effectively a feudal system with a complex balance of power among the political nobility and economic barons. The Hun family is at the top, but other elite families have their own power bases, while the tycoons who finance the political system wield considerable influence.;

The entire state system is held together by an intricate and delicate balancing act. For all of Hun Sen’s strength, he had to plan his son’s;succession;for more than a decade and other political nobles only agreed to it after he doled out thousands of patronage positions and agreed to;everyone;handing over power to their own children or proteges.

These moves meant that the financial interests and the patronage networks of everyone remained untouched by the reshuffle. There was no consolidation of power by the Hun family.;

This has been the system for decades. Since 2010, however,;Chinese capital;has raised the stakes. Now we’re talking about billions, not millions, of dollars flowing at the top of the political system, which has made the dominant clans more powerful yet has made any potential dispute between them far more perilous.;

Each clan and network has its own Chinese patron.;The clan of Tea Banh, the former defense minister, which controls the defense ministry and some of the southern provinces, including Sihanoukville, is perhaps the closest of the clans to the Chinese military, for instance. Sihanoukville has long been a hotbed for Chinese organized;crime.;

Thread of Chinese money

The challenge for the U.S. is how to alter a;situation;where the entire state fabric of Cambodia is intertwined with Chinese money. It’s not the case that a few cabinet ministers can sit around a table, decide that maybe Cambodia has become a little too dependent on China and come up with a few balancing policies.

If Prime Minister Hun Manet; even considers resetting foreign relations, that would step on the toes of other political nobles and economic barrons. That in turn would upset the intricate balance that stops all of the elites from going after each other.

If a certain powerful family has a vested interest in China having exclusive access to the;Ream Naval Base, for instance, does another powerful family risk fratricide by too forcefully opposing this?

Consider also the illegal cyber-scam industry, a major issue for Cambodia and which will likely soon become a new front in U.S.-China tensions.; A;report;by the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) estimates this industry in Cambodia is worth at least $12.5 billion annually, nearly half the country’s formal GDP.;;

Almost certainly some of Cambodia’s most important families are connected. After all, you don’t build an industry worth that much without political support, and no self-respecting Cambodian elite would pass up the opportunity of making billions of dollars from it.;

The USIP report; notes:: “Beijing has found in countries such as Cambodia and Laos that leaders will align closely with China politically in exchange for Beijing ignoring lucrative criminal activity.”;

Indeed, it’s a case of the tail wagging the dog. The Chinese government is permitting the industry, which scams Chinese citizens of tens of billions of dollars each year, for geopolitical reasons.

How does America suppose it can wean Cambodia off its dependency with China when a key cause of this situation is not normal government activity, such as investment and trade, but criminality?;

How does it convince the powerful in Phnom Penh to end this dependency when Cambodia’s rulers know that doing so would spark major tensions between elites?

David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. He writes the Watching Europe In Southeast Asia newsletter. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of RFA.

Key prosecution witness says he bribed New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez  CNN International

Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan Rejects Russian Threats to Armenia  Armenian News by MassisPost

By Nikolas K. Gvosdev

(FPRI) — Speaking at the June 2024 Shangri-La Dialogue, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin heralded the emergence of “a set of overlapping and complementary initiatives and institutions propelled by a shared vision and a shared sense of mutual obligation.” This was not not a single alliance following the 20th-century model of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but a “new convergence” between the United States and like-minded partners. This concept is grounded in a vision presented by US Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel in remarks delivered at the US Naval War College in February 2024, where he defined this “latticework” approach in greater detail. 

It is a common trope in national security affairs for senior US officials to stress that the United States, in coping with major global challenges, will work with “allies and partners” to achieve solutions. Often in briefings and testimony, the phrase is spoken as if it is a single compound word, “allies and partners,” with the implication that there is no real difference between the two. And yet there are important and critical differences beyond the merely semantic. Expecting partners to behave like allies is an approach fraught with risk.

Some countries actively seek alliance with the United States and understand that for the benefits of that expanded relationship, they are expected to try and bring into alignment a whole host of domestic and foreign policies with US preferences (or those of the multilateral organization as a whole). For a country, for instance, to join the North Atlantic alliance, it is insufficient to pledge mutual defense assistance. Conditionality for NATO accession requires a whole host of policy milestones, including on democratization, civil-military relationships, economic structures, and so on.;

Yet the achievement of US national security goals—both in terms of dealing with transnational problems like climate change, pandemics, and energy security and geopolitical challenges posed by revisionist powers—requires the assistance of a larger coalition of states beyond formal allies. Thus, as Jada Fraser and Mohammed Soliman have noted, a trend has emerged where the United States looks beyond its formal treaty partners to develop ad-hoc networks: smaller, flexible coalitions of states that can act on specific sets of issues. Similarly, Ash Jain and Matthew Kroening sketch out a “Democratic Trade and Economic Partnership” that accepts the necessity of different tiers: a core group of allies who can pursue closer integration but also a network of partners who associate with the partnership without taking on the obligations of full participation.

The challenge, however, is for a US national security establishment that increasingly defaults to a binary approach (“you are with us or you are against us”) to be able to navigate the gradations of allies and coalition partners—partners are not necessarily embryonic or unconsummated allies. It requires accepting that a partner who is aligned on one issue (or in one geographic theater) may be at odds with the United States in other areas—and how to ring-fence cooperative efforts from disruptions that arise from those disagreements in other areas.

Martin Skold;makes it clear that the United States must be able to understand the difference between “alliance diplomacy” and what he calls “entente diplomacy.” This means, in part, to avoid the temptation to take a minilateral format devoted to cooperation on a specific issue—say, dealing with illegal fishing—and trying to expand it to cover a wider agenda. It means accepting that even if Vietnam makes little or no progress on transitioning towards a true multiparty democracy, Hanoi can be a useful partner in helping to diversify important global supply chains from running through a Chinese chokepoint. By definition, an entente recognizes that a formal alliance is not feasible, but that the participating states share common understandings about specific problems and challenges and wish to work together.

An entente approach, especially in hard security matters, can facilitate what;Theresa Fallon;and others call “strategic intimacy”: falling below the level of a formal alliance but suggesting deeper collaboration than a strategic “partnership.”;

The United States expects major disagreements with allies to be rare. But with partners, there may be a range of domestic and foreign policy divergences. Learning how to accommodate and navigate those differences in light of the overall pacing challenges of China and the climate will test whether the United States can build on these new convergences Austin and Emanuel have identified.

• About the author: Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a 2024 Templeton Fellow and the Director of the National Security Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also a Senior Fellow in the Eurasia Program and Editor of Orbis: FPRI’s Journal of World Affairs.
• Source: This article was published at FPRI

The US government-affiliated Ukrainian web publication “Data Journalism Agency” (TEXTY) has just;released a report;attacking hundreds of prominent American individuals and organizations as enemies for not supporting sending more US money and weapons to Ukraine.

The report, titled “Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it,” intends to smear American politicians, journalists, and social media influencers as tools of Russia, writing:

“Most of the people in our study do not have direct, proven ties to the Russian government or propagandists. However, the arguments they use to urge authorities to distance themselves from Ukraine echo key messages of Russian propaganda aimed at depriving Ukrainians of the ability to defend themselves with Western weapons and funds. (emphasis added)“

Although the “enemies list” purports to correct disinformation about Ukraine spread by those on its list, the report itself is full of crude disinformation. For example this bit:

“Even long-debunked myths continue to surface, such as claims of Nazi dominance and American Biolabs in Ukraine and the portrayal of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity as a coup.“

The organization’s assertion that these claims are “long-debunked” may be wishful thinking, but back on planet reality even mainstream, pro-Ukraine media sites in the US wring their hands over the disturbing, extremist images coming out of the country. For example, NBC News;wrote;that, “Ukraine’s Nazi problem is real, even if Putin’s ‘denazification’ claim isn’t.” Newsweek;wondered, “Why Have So Many Neo-Nazis Rallied to Ukraine’s Cause?” Even before the current conflict, mainstream pro-Ukraine publications such as Reuters worried in 2918 about “Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem.”

As to the biolabs, none other than Mother of the Maidan Victoria Nuland;admitted in a US Senate hearing;that there were biolabs in Ukraine. Ah, but one may counter that these were not “American biolabs.” In fact with the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop now absolutely confirmed during his trial, a;report;by the New York Post two years ago based on the laptop also must be considered accurate. According to the article, “Russia’s assertion that President Biden’s son Hunter was ‘financing . . . biological laboratories in Ukraine’ was based in truth, according to e-mails reviewed by The Post.”

And on whether the Maidan events of 2014 were a “Revolution of Dignity” or a coup, we again only need turn to Victoria Nuland’s;infamous phone call;with US Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, for all the evidence needed that the US was micromanaging the removal of an elected leader and replacing him with hand-picked US puppets.

The report also includes such prominent American politicians and journalists as Sen. JD Vance, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Col. Douglas Macgregor.

Even our friends at Antiwar.com…and your own correspondent (!) find ourselves appearing on the Ukrainian “enemies list”:

As the report states:

“There are 391 individuals and 76 organizations in our list. These include politicians, political movements and groups, media and journalists, experts, and think tanks (some individuals appear in multiple categories).“

Perhaps what is most shocking about this attack on American citizens is the fact that the Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) has a long affiliation with the US Government itself! In fact, the founder of the publication Anatoly Bondarenko appears;prominently on a US Government website;as a participant in the US State Department’s “TechCamp” project.;

The Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) is listed as an “Implementing Partner” of the US Agency for International Development’s Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services/ TAPAS Project.

The Ukrainians seemingly love to make lists of their “enemies.” One of their most notorious of these is the infamous “kill list” put out by the;Mirotvorets Center;in Kiev. From that list several have already been murdered by Ukraine,;including prominent Russian journalist Daria Dugina.

One wonders how, for example, former US President Donald Trump and dozens of members of the US Congress will react when they hear that US tax dollars are being sent to Ukraine for US-backed Ukrainian organizations to make “hate lists” and “kill lists” of patriotic Americans like themselves.

• This article was published at RonPaul Institute

Ukraine can now use U.S. weapons to strike at targets inside Russia. That permission comes with numerous asterisks. The targets are geographically restricted to the northeast region across the border from Kharkiv, for instance, and Ukraine has only received the go-head;to use;short-range missiles.

Other Ukrainian allies are less cautious. The Netherlands has authorized Ukraine to use its recently delivered F-16 fighter jets to;strike pretty much any military target;inside Russia. France is considering the dispatch of military trainers to Ukrainian territory (previously it was conducting such trainings outside of Ukraine).

This relaxation of restrictions has prompted yet;another series of threats;from the Kremlin that it will attack NATO directly or use tactical nuclear weapons within Ukraine. Yet, it is precisely because Russia has made these threats repeatedly—and not followed through on them—that has made it;easier for Ukraine’s allies;to cross the purported “red lines” and supply ever more offensive weapons.

Russia has been brazen and incautious in many ways: invading Ukraine in the first place, committing widespread war crimes, and throwing wave after wave of infantry into the line of fire with its “meat-grinder” tactics. But it has also been fundamentally cautious by not directly engaging NATO forces, escalating the current conflict beyond Ukraine’s borders, or introducing nuclear weapons onto the battlefield.

The Biden administration has certainly devoted a considerable amount of money to the defense of Ukraine and has gone to great lengths to solidify the sanctions regime against Russia. But it, too, has been fundamentally cautious by holding back certain weapons systems from Ukraine, not offering to police a no-fly zone over the country, and not even considering the introduction of U.S. or NATO troops on the ground.

Despite this cautiousness on the part of both Russia and the United States, can the conflict in Ukraine still spin out of control to become a world war with the possible use of nuclear weapons? And does the possibility of Armageddon mean that an immediate peace has become more important than adherence to international law or a minimum of justice for the victims?

Prospects for Peace

Later this month, Switzerland will convene representatives of over 100 countries to discuss Ukraine’s 10-point peace plan. Russia’s not invited, and China doesn’t plan to attend. Nor will Joe Biden be there, much to Ukraine’s disappointment.

The 10-point plan requires Russia to abandon the territory it has occupied in Ukraine. Right now, Russia is not interested in negotiating along those lines. Any peace proposals coming out of the Kremlin are predicated on Russia;keeping what it has already seized.

Ever since;a set of negotiations;that began (and ended) shortly after the 2022 invasion, neither warring party has been interested in compromise. Ukraine believes that it has international law on its side. Russia is confident that it has superior force on its side. And the Kremlin is also convinced that a punishing stalemate will either undercut Ukrainians’ will to resist or their allies’ willingness to maintain military and monetary support.

Indeed, Russia’s recent battlefield victories, however modest, have prompted a number of commentators on this side of the Atlantic to push harder for a ceasefire in the conflict. They do so confident that they are speaking in the best interest of Ukrainians (and world peace).

“Taking advantage of Putin’s apparent openness to a ceasefire and striking a deal now, however unpleasant, will be better for everyone: for the state of Ukraine, for its people, and for the safety of the entire world,”;writes;Branko Marcetic.

That certainly sounds beneficent, even though the “unpleasant” aspects will fall entirely upon the shoulders of Ukrainians.

But let’s take a closer look at the assumptions behind the push for a ceasefire in the Ukrainian conflict, which comes from a motley crew of peaceniks, realists, and right-wing zealots.

Ceasefire Later

The assumptions behind the “ceasefire now” contingent fall into the following categories:

• Ukraine is on the defensive and at risk of losing everything
• Public opinion in favor of the war is softening inside Ukraine and in the West
• It’s just a dispute over territory—surely the two sides can compromise
• Vladimir Putin can be trusted to hold to his side of any bargain
• The risk of nuclear war is great, either in the case of Russia being “backed against the wall” or if the West crosses a red line to save Ukraine from collapsing

Let’s address each assumption in turn.

Ukraine Is Near Collapse

There’s no question that Russia has an advantage over Ukraine in terms of firepower and size of army. It has been bringing in as many as;30,000 new recruits;each month while Ukrainian soldiers at the frontline can only dream of demobilization as the latest wave of new conscripts dribbles in. Over the last few months, Russia has used these advantages to take some territory in the Donbas (around Avdivka), open up a new front northeast of Kharkiv, and battle to regain Robotyne in the south.

But if you look;at the maps, the amount of territory that Russia has gained is marginal—and it has done so at great expense to personnel and military hardware. The most heralded advance, in the direction of Kharkiv, stalled even before the U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to attack targets on the other side of the border where Russian troops have massed. After encountering considerable Ukrainian resistance, Russian troops have begun;digging in around;the Ukrainian town of Vovchansk, after destroying bridges that Ukrainian forces could have used to counterattack and Russian forces could have used to move even closer to Kharkiv.

The window of opportunity for Russian forces to take advantage of the delay in resupplying Ukraine has effectively closed. There was;never much threat;that Russian troops could have taken Kharkiv, if that was ever their goal. At best, Russian forces will expand control over Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, one of President Vladimir Putin’s stated objectives.

At the same time, Russian;continues to attack;energy infrastructure and other civilian targets throughout Ukraine. It has done so effectively because it has air superiority and Ukraine was running out of supplies for its air defense. But with the;delivery of the F-16s;from The Netherlands and Belgium, along with Patriot missiles;from the United States;and another system;from Germany, Ukraine will be better able to defend itself and, eventually, challenge Russian air superiority.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian attacks elsewhere have compromised Russia’s ability to wage this war. It has;taken out radar installationsthat Russia has used to target Ukrainian positions. It has reduced the Russian navy in the Black Sea by a third. It is turning Crimea;from an asset to a liability;by targeting all the military infrastructure Putin has placed there.

So, Ukraine is not on the verge of collapse, though it certainly faces considerable strains as a result of the war and the destruction of civil infrastructure.

The Softening of Public Opinion

Vladimir Putin isn’t waiting for people in the West to tire of the war in Ukraine. He is actively conducting disinformation campaigns to speed that development.

Czech intelligence recently uncovered the latest Russian effort to pour money into the pockets of far-right politicians in Europe who communicate messages favorable to the Kremlin. Started by a former pro-Russian Ukrainian politician, Voice of Europe;used “interviews”;as a way of contacting members of the European far right, strengthen their efforts domestically, and grow the bloc of pro-Russian voices in the European Parliament.

Perhaps the most prominent of these is Petr Bystron, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland’s spokesperson on foreign policy issues. In one recording, Bystron “can be heard complaining to a Voice of Europe official about the difficulty of transporting tens of thousands in cash to his vacation home in Mallorca.” He’s now being investigated on charges of corruption and money-laundering.

Despite this Russian campaign, public opinion hasn’t budged much. In the;spring 2024 Eurobarometer poll, the same 60 percent of respondents supports providing military equipment as they did in the fall 2023 poll. Much larger majorities continue to support sanctions against Russia (72 percent today compared to 72 percent in the fall) and provide financial support to Ukraine (70 percent today versus 72 percent in the fall). Obviously, these results;differ from country to country, with Hungarians and Italians largely opposed to military assistance while those in northern Europe strongly supporting it.

In the United States, despite the delay in getting the legislation to a vote, an overwhelming majority in the House supported the aid package to Ukraine: 311 to 112, with all the opposition coming from Republicans. But even Republicans are finding their courage to stick up for Ukraine, with the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul (R-TX),;aggressively pushing;the Biden administration to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons. McCaul’s performance suggests that even if Donald Trump wins in November, the mandarins of his party might still marginalize the MAGA caucus on the issue of Ukrainian assistance and join with Democrats to overcome any presidential vetoes.

At the level of U.S. public opinion, the only change has been;among Republican voters. After a dip in 2023, 36 percent of Democrats believe the United States doesn’t provide enough assistance to Ukraine—compared to 38 percent immediately after the invasion. Republicans, on the other hand, have gone from 49 percent holding the “insufficient aid” position to 13 percent today. Trump and congressional allies like J.D. Vance (R-OH), with a lift from the usual Russian disinformation campaigns, have been responsible for this turnaround in Republican sentiment.

And then there’s the most important public opinion of all: Ukrainians. Overwhelming majorities back the current government, its military, and the objective of not giving up any territory to Russia. As Mark Temnycky;writes;in;The Kyiv Post, “Ukrainians would like nothing more than for the conflict to end. But public opinion polls show that the war needs to end on Ukraine’s terms.”

Stop Squabbling over Land

In his interview with Tucker Carlson in February, Putin;went deep into history;to argue that Ukraine has always belonged to Russia, which was the real reason for the invasion, not the threat of NATO expansion. The Ukrainian government, meanwhile,;provides its own history lesson;to demonstrate that Ukrainian language and culture, as well as control over a particular swath of land, goes back hundreds of years.

Don’t be misled by these dueling versions of history. The Russian government wants to create an enormous buffer between itself and the West by transforming Ukraine into a “friendly” neighbor with a puppet government or, at the very least, a dysfunctional state that doesn’t pose a security threat and can’t get its act together to join the European Union.

Ukraine, of course, wants to defend its sovereign borders. But what motivates Ukrainians to fight on is the prospect of living under Russian rule. Ukrainians in occupied territory have been;tortured and killed. Children have been;whisked away;to Russia for adoption (leading to last year’s International Criminal Court arrest warrant for both Putin and his ;commissioner for “children’s rights”). Journalists have been jailed (at least 28 of them). Democratic institutions;have been gutted.

This is what the war is about: a battle between imperial barbarism and democratic civilization (however imperfect).

Trust Putin!

Countries with democratic administrations can’t be trusted to abide by treaties. Obama fought hard for the Paris climate deal; Trump nixed it. From the outside, it just looks like the United States is an unreliable actor.

Russia is not democratic. It hasn’t had free and fair elections during the Putin era. But that also means that Putin, effectively leader for life, can be expected to follow through on a commitment since he won’t be replaced in office or face any serious political opposition from the Duma.

But Putin can’t be trusted, certainly not on issues related to Ukraine. He has clearly stated that he holds Western powers in contempt and has no use for international law if it doesn’t serve his purposes. He thumbed his nose at the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States, and the UK. He has paid;no attention to the Geneva Conventions—regarding treatment of prisoners of war—or any of the other human rights conventions that he has violated in his war in Ukraine.

Putin can’t even be trusted to respect force. He invaded Ukraine knowing full well that he was potentially bringing his country into direct confrontation with a much stronger, nuclear-capable alliance. He rolled the dice nonetheless. The lack of democracy in the country, in this case, makes it even less likely that he will be forced to change his position.

We’ll All Be Blown Up!

Nuclear war has been a sword of Damocles hanging over the human race since the first atomic bombs were developed. Deterrence has more or less held the peace, though any number of near-misses;nearly destroyed;the planet anyway.

A direct confrontation between the United States and Russia carries with it an enormous risk of escalation and apocalypse. Fortunately, both sides have gone to some lengths to avoid a direct confrontation over Ukraine. NATO hasn’t sent troops into battle; Russia hasn’t bombed supply lines in NATO countries. The United States has done what it can to limit Ukraine’s ability to strike at targets deep in Ukraine; Russia has not invaded the Baltic countries. Neither side has introduced tactical nuclear weapons into the conflict.

And there is good reason to believe that both sides will continue to do their part to keep the sword of Damocles in place. Putin is a greedy megalomaniac, but he is not a suicidal lunatic. The U.S. government is not (yet) ruled by a madman.

But what if Putin is “backed into a corner”?

The only corner that Putin will be backed into will be at the hands of his own people, who at some point in the future may decide that they’ve had enough of his kleptocratic rule. Both Ukraine and the United States are clear about the risks of destabilizing Russia, so their “maximalist” positions are limited to returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders.

Nuclear war remains a global threat, particularly around flashpoints like the Taiwan Strait, between India and Pakistan, and around Israel. Certainly, the risk of escalation to nuclear war is non-zero in Ukraine. But so far, the two nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, have demonstrated considerable reluctance to escalate.

Give Us Peace…

So, there is no political support for a ceasefire right now in Kyiv or Moscow. Ukraine is not in such desperate straits that it will trade land for peace, and Ukrainians support a continuation of the war despite all the hardships they must endure. The alternative, living under Russian rule, is simply unacceptable, and Ukrainians don’t trust the Kremlin to abide by any agreements.

Whatever scenarios transpire in Ukraine today—Russian gains, stalemate, Ukrainian gains—the best results will be gained if Kyiv has the stronger position at the negotiating table. And that, as Raj Menon;writes in a powerful piece;in;Foreign Policy, requires “that Ukraine boost its bargaining power by ending Russia’s momentum, mounting its own counteroffensive, and retaking more territory.” That, in turn, means that the United States and allies must supply Ukraine with what it needs to stop the advance of imperial barbarism.

St. Augustine, in the full flush of youth, famously said, “Lord, give me chastity…but not yet.” The same can be said about the conflict in Ukraine. Give us peace, but not yet.

• This article was published at FPIF

Russian commentators have occasionally suggested that Russia faces “a second generation” problem with its immigrant communities like the one that has affected societies in Europe and elsewhere (windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2013/10/window-on-eurasia-moscow-experiencing.html,;windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2016/06/russia-now-faces-growing-second.html;and;windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2021/09/russia-now-confronted-by-second.html).

The first generation of immigrants may not speak well the language of the place to which they have moved, but almost all of its members are committed to getting along with those around them and improving their lives through work. Some in this generation become radicals but far fewer than those in the generation of their children.

The latter typically know the language and mores of the majority population in the places to which their parents moved and they themselves live, but they feel they are not getting ahead or respected as much as they should be even for efforts to adapt. And as a result, they are far more likely to become radicalized.

Now, the Center of Islamic Studies of Tatarstan’s Academy of Sciences has completed a four-year study of immigrants to that Middle Volga Republic, a group that now numbers some 400,000 people. The center’s direction, Rinat Pateyev, says its research confirms the existence of a second generation problem there (milliard.tatar/news/v-nekotoryx-regionax-rossii-tataram-uze-vmenyayut-cto-oni-usli-iz-mecetei-otdav-ix-na-otkup-cuzim-5600).

While younger Tatars are not attending mosques in anything like the percentage of their parents, he says, the study finds that the younger generation of immigrants are far more likely to do so. As a result, in some Kazan mosques, this group forms more than three-quarters of those taking part in services.

Pateyev notes that this is not about ethnicity, however, but about the experience of moving from rural areas from which most of the Central Asians in Tatarstan come into urban ones and that what is happening now occurred among Tatars moving from rural places either in the republic or beyond its borders earlier. 

For these younger arrivals, the mosque becomes a center of social life and helps them to maintain a sense of identity and solidarity. Some but far from all who come from this generation and who attend mosque become more isolated from the broader society than are their parents, are radicalized and turn to crime.

According to the Kazan political scientist, this pattern is typical of all groups moving from rural areas to urban ones and will continue as long as people move into large cities. And consequently, blaming what is a social phenomenon on ethnicity or religion alone, as many Russian officials do, is a fundamental mistake.

We all know that when;Christopher Columbus;landed in ‘America’ in 1492, he thought it was India. Much less is known about the Portuguese navigator;Vasco Da Gama;who was the first to reach the real India in 1498.

This ‘discovery’ was due to the sponsored expeditions by the Portuguese Prince Henrique/Henry (1394-1460), the third son of John/João I, King of Portugal, and Philippa of Lancaster, the daughter of John of Gaunt of England.

His sister,;Isabella, was the third wife of;Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy and Count of Flanders, consolidating Portuguese interests in the Low Countries. Their son was;Charles the Bold, the last Valois duke of Burgundy. Isabella’s family ties with the English royal family were also useful in ending the Flemish-English trade war (1436-1439). In 1439, the Duchess acted as head of the Burgundian delegation that negotiated the cloth trade, and the colonization of the Azores by a group of Flemish people was also a result of her involvement.

Henrique was the first European to methodically explore Africa and the oceanic route to the Indies as early as the mid-1420s. From his home in the Algarve in southern Portugal, he sought opportunities to participate in the West African trade, especially the trade in gold and enslaved persons, and to establish potentially profitable colonies on under-exploited islands, the most successful of which he helped establish in Madeira.

Nicknamed the Navigator, Henry paved the way for the modern world. He did not undertake sea voyages himself, but he financed and planned these expeditions to expand Portugal’s territory and wealth and to spread Christianity. His actions led to the European Age of Discovery, and also initiated the process of European colonization, capitalism, and ultimately the transatlantic slave trade.

This was partly possible thanks to the collaboration with Flemish carpenters and maritime craftsmanship, which his sister Isabella introduced to him. They helped the Portuguese develop better seaworthy ships for circumnavigating Cape Bojador and the Cape of Good Hope.

That is the essence of the;monograph;by;João Paulo Oliveira e Costa, history professor at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, which I discovered during a recent trip to Portugal. As the title of this monograph indicates, Henry was “the forerunner of globalization.”

The analysis is in the same line as Howard French’s book already discussed;here.

João I

Until 1249, parts of Portugal, and most of what is now Spain, were a caliphate known as;Al-Andalus. Muslim Berbers (Moors) from North Africa invaded much of the Iberian Peninsula in the early eighth century and conquered it from the Christian;Visigoths, a Germanic people.

Islamic rule was not the only obstacle to;Portugal’s independence. In 1095, Portugal seceded from the Kingdom of Galicia. Alfonso Henriques, son of Count Henry of Burgundy, proclaimed himself King of Portugal in 1139. The Algarve was conquered from the Moors in 1249 and Lisbon became the capital in 1255. Portugal’s borders have remained virtually unchanged since then.

During the reign of King João I, Henry’s father, the Portuguese defeated the Castilians in a war for the throne (1385) and entered into a political alliance with England (by the Treaty of Windsor in 1386). To this day, Portugal remains culturally more oriented towards England than neighboring Spain.

John’s long struggle with Castile and the need to form a new aristocracy caused serious financial problems, but he rallied his people around his throne and gained a reputation as a prudent leader and an astute statesman. Thanks in part to Queen Philippa, influenced by English traditions, John’s court also became known as a center of culture.

Ceuta 1415

In 1415, Portugal invaded;Ceuta, a fortified city in Morocco. The justification for the invasion, which was seen as a military and religious crusade, was that the port city was a haven for pirates. João I placed his three sons in charge of the expedition, as a challenge to earn their knighthood.

In addition to pirates, Ceuta was also the place with a vibrant trade. Henry learned of trade between North African Muslims and West Africans and Indians. This new knowledge about Africa and Asia aroused his interest.

As a devout Christian, he wanted to defeat Muslims and spread Christianity in a permanent holy war. But his planned expeditions required a large investment for a relatively poor country. The country’s thriving merchant class, which also included a prominent Jewish community, became the financing power for Henry’s costly projects. The Catholic Church also offered support.

Henry brought together sailors, ship designers, astronomers, mathematicians, navigators and cartographers at Sagres, his base on the southern coast of Portugal. This also included Jews, Muslims and Flemish. Much of their geographical knowledge was based on the work of the ancient geographer Ptolemy and the Arab scholars who continued his work.

Many of the instruments that became essential for navigation on the open sea were adaptations of instruments used, sometimes by people from different cultures, for other tasks, such as the compass, the hourglass, the quadrant and the astrolabe.

The;caravel, a small maneuverable ship that could sail against the wind, was perfected in this way thanks to Flemish craftsmanship.

Past Cape Bojador

After all, one of the major problems that Henry faced in his competition with the Spanish to find a suitable sea route to the Indies was the rough waters off;Cape Bojador. Located in what is now Western Sahara (a disputed territory held by Morocco since 1979), the current in this part of the coast moves south, making sailing to Europe difficult. The bigger obstacle may have been superstition, as the cape’s original name in Arabic is Abu Khaṭar (ابو خطر), meaning ‘father of danger’.

Among the;expeditions;that Henry sponsored, Portugal colonized islands off the coast of West Africa, including the largely inhabited Canary Islands, as well as the uninhabited islands of the Azores and Madeira.

In 1434, a;navigable route;around Cape Bojador was found by the Portuguese sailor Gil Eanes. This was considered a major breakthrough for European explorers and traders heading to Africa and later to India. A first attempt by Eanes in 1433 resulted in failure. But at the command of Prince Henry the Navigator, Eanes tried a second time and proved successful.

But Henry needed money to keep his expeditions going. The prince wanted access to West African gold. West Africans, however, retained control of local gold reserves, only willing to trade mainly gold dust with the Portuguese during Henry’s lifetime.

Slavery

Therefore, the economic impetus shifted to another resource:;enslaved people. The Portuguese began systematically raiding settlements on the island of Arguin to kidnap local residents. These Africans were enslaved and brought to Lisbon. In 1448, the Portuguese built a fort, warehouse and trading station on the island, located off the coast of what is now Mauritania.

In the early 1650s, enslaved Africans were forced to build and farm sugar plantations in Madeira. Plantation economies focused on a single cash crop to make profits. This plantation system was repeated in other;Portuguese colonies. African prisoners were taken from the mainland and the Cape Verde Islands, off the coast of Senegal, where they were forced to work.

Global colonization

By the time of Henry’s death, in 1460, the Portuguese had reached what is now Sierra Leone. However, many of Henry’s ambitions were also shared by his successors. The Portuguese founded colonies along the west and east coasts of Africa.

In the years that followed, the Portuguese created trading ports as far away as Japan. Portuguese navigators also ventured to India, Malacca, Thailand and kingdoms along the Indian Ocean.

Beginning in the 16th century, the Portuguese established sugar plantations in Brazil, using enslaved workers shipped across the Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa. With its large-scale forced transport of captured Africans to the Americas, Portugal, along with rival Spain, created what would become the;transatlantic slave trade. This involved all European colonists, including the British, Belgians, Dutch, French and Spanish. However, the starting point, both historically and geographically, was Portugal.

After all, while Henry opened up trade and connected different peoples and cultures, his colonization efforts led to some of humanity’s greatest atrocities. Historically, colonization has resulted in a loss of resources, land, life, religion, culture and autonomy for the indigenous people who were colonized.

This attitude became evident with the signing of the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1495, which divided colonization claims in the Western Hemisphere between Spain and Portugal without regard or consultation with the indigenous nations and people groups living there.

The blind spot

“The modern world would not exist without slavery,” Howard French already stated in his ‘Born in Blackness‘.

Yet it is striking how absent this history remains in contemporary Portugal. The national school curriculum, museums and tourist infrastructure essentially amount to a grandiose display of the country’s 15th to 17th century ‘discoveries’ in Africa, Asia and the Americas, and a selective memory of its 20th century colonial exploits in Angola , Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, São Tomé and Principe, Goa, Macau and East Timor.

In Lagos, the port where the first enslaved Africans disembarked from Portuguese ships in 1444, the only acknowledgment of this history in the city’s popular, touristy center is a hard-to-find little museum called the ‘Slave Market’, which opened in 2016 in collaboration with UNESCO.

Al Jazeera, which focuses extensively on this issue, offers a good overview of the problems that Portugal still struggles with today in terms of culture and racism.

Collecting data on race and ethnicity is still illegal under the current Portuguese Constitution. This clause in the constitution, intended to make up for the explicit racism of the Portuguese colonial dictatorship that was overthrown in 1974, has become a major sticking point for anti-racism movements in Portugal. It means that there is no official information about the population numbers of ethnic minorities. The lack of these data make it difficult for activists to argue for greater investment in public services for Afro-descendant and other racialized communities, or to prove the existence of racial bias and structural inequality.

Portugal’s increasingly assertive and politically engaged black population, now in its second or even third generation, is today at the forefront of a Portuguese society pushing for a more nuanced and complicated version of history to finally be told. This;Movimento Negro;also draws more attention to the ongoing legacy of structural racism – in terms of police brutality, equal access to housing and education, and political representation.

But, says sociologist;Cristina Roldão: “From people in authority and from the man in the street you still hear the idea that Portuguese colonialism was different, benevolent and gentle. That idea is still common, but it is far from reality.”

Reference:

João Paulo Oliveira e Costa, Henry, The forerunner of globalization, Faro, Portugal: Direcção-Geral da Cultura do Algarve, 79pp. (ISBN 978-989-99521-0-2)

NPR News: 06-07-2024 9PM EDT

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy