China-Russia Alliance for World Peace?

Emergence of China and Russia with (Limitless Friendship) be Free of Problems and Live in Peace in The World?

by Kazi Anwarul Masud

 

February 19, 2024

 

4 mins read

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have signed a new agreement at the Kremlin in Moscow. [Vladimir Astapkovich/Kremlin]

RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE

The world is full of problems that engulf both the North and the South parts.  In the North, the world is inflicted by the Russian imbroglio compounded by the Russian invasion of Ukraine supported by the Western world, mainly the United States of America, by supplying Ukraine with arms and ammunition. This begs the question of whether the USA regardless of the number of nuclear weapons the two countries possess, considers Russia as a second-rate power and is convinced that Russia will not use nuclear weapons to bring about the end of humanity and of Russia itself.

EMERGENCE OF CHINA AS A WORLD POWER

In the Southern part of the world, an emergent China is staking its claim to replace the suzerainty of the US and be the leader of the South. Xi-Jinping’s China appears to be different from the one that Mao Tse Tung had once dreamt of and later changed his mind due to the Korean War. In March 2023 Cambridge University Press published Mao Zedong and the Taiwan Strait Crises which encapsulated the events of 2020, the world witnessed rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait as China launched ‘gray-zone’ warfare and sent warplanes across the median line. The US followed suit by dispatching Navy warships to pass through the Taiwan Strait. The media was flooded with concerns about another Taiwan Strait crisis. People wondered if the Xi Jinping administration would invade Taiwan, as well as how the US would respond as events unfolded.

Since his inauguration as President of the People’s Republic of China in 2013, Xi Jinping has incorporated many of Mao Zedong’s strategies into his own, often promoting himself as a great figure. For example, Xi created a ‘Little Red Book’, and made pilgrimages to Yan’an. The current circumstances have reminded us much of the Taiwan Strait crises of 1954–1955 and 1958, in which Mao played a dominant role. However, looking back at both cases, Mao never intended to invade Taiwan (Formosa) nor fight against the US, and both crises ended through diplomatic compromise instead of war.

In March 1949, Mao Tse Tung ordered his generals to add Taiwan to the list of strategic objectives to be captured. Previously, the strategy for 1949 had been to seek the “liberation” of nine provinces in China. After the dramatic series of battlefield victories, the list of provinces to seize by the end of the year was expanded to seventeen, including Taiwan.  It would be good to remind leaders in Beijing of this fact and encourage them to look for peaceful solutions along those lines. Their current policies can only lead to conflict.

ISRAELI GENOCIDE IN GAZA

Another problem in the world is the alleged genocidal activities being carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces in occupied Palestine. In a recent article, the Washington Post reported that Israel appeared before the International Court of Justice in The Hague to face accusations it is committing genocide in Gaza in a case that could impact the trajectory of the war. South Africa, which brought the case, alleges that Israel is violating international law by committing and failing to prevent genocidal acts “to destroy Palestinians in Gaza.” Israel has rejected the allegations — as has its most important ally, the United States.

The ICJ case adds to international pressure on Israel to scale back or end its war against Hamas, which health officials in Gaza say has killed more than 23,000 people — many of them women and children. The war also has rendered much of the enclave uninhabitable and pushed the population to the brink of famine.  From recent reports, it becomes evident that Israel is determined to exterminate Palestinians from their homeland. Israeli Prime Minister and his right-wing government have made it clear that the two-state theory of free Palestine and Israel is not acceptable to them. Many critics have found it unacceptable Benjamin Netanyahu’s quotation of a prophet that after many years the Jews have returned to their homeland and for them to stay forever.  

CAN XI-JINPING PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES

 In January 2024 Xi- Jinping delivered an important speech at Chinese the Communist Party for resolutely winning the tough and protracted battle against corruption. He emphasized that emphasized that in the new journey of anti-corruption, the CCP must continue to make efforts and advance in depth in eradicating the soil and conditions that cause corruption problems. The general requirement would be to persist in promoting the policy of not being afraid of corruption, not being able to be corrupt, and not wanting to be corrupt, deepening the treatment of both symptoms and root causes, systematic treatment, constantly expanding the depth and breadth of the anti-corruption struggle, prescribing the right medicine, precise treatment, and taking multiple measures simultaneously to eliminate recurring old problems.

Gradually reduce it to make it difficult for new problems to spread, and promote the normalization and long-term prevention and treatment of corruption problems. Xi Jinping pointed out that it would be necessary to strengthen the party’s centralized and unified leadership in the fight against corruption. CCP committees at all levels must effectively strengthen leadership over the entire process of the anti-corruption struggle, resolutely support the investigation and handling of corruption cases, and work hard to rectify problems.

EXTERNAL EXAMPLES MAY BE REPLICATED BY CHINA

From reports by famous newspapers like THE GUARDIAN, it appears that Xi-Jinping’s crusade against corruption is bearing fruit. But then the roots of corruption are so deep it is difficult to forecast what the ultimate results will be. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example. has reported that many seeking precedents for what might happen in China look to the Arab Spring movements or failed states elsewhere. But more appropriate are the experiences of the very few highly successful developing economies that formerly had autocratic political systems, such as South Korea and Taiwan.

It’s worth noting that in both Taiwan and South Korea, political liberalization began around the same time in the late 1980s, at the same purchasing power adjusted per capita income level of around $13‐15,000 and the same level of urbanization (70 percent), which triggered a sharp rise in the share of high‐value services in the economy. It is no coincidence that the emergence of a more knowledge‐based economy generated the pressures for political liberalization. In these countries, the rise of a large and more sophisticated urban middle class made it more difficult for the state to handle social protests.

Moreover, more globally connected services and IT-related activities made it increasingly difficult to control the flow of information because it was not only part of the clamor for free expression but also a necessity for economic progress. The process in China will not follow the norms of Western‐type democratic movements and its system is not the same as that of its East Asian neighbors. Thus the transition process in China will be driven by internal Party structures and will have its unique China‐specific characteristics. 

 

Russia launches Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile at the Plesetsk testing field. Photo Credit: Russian Defense Ministry video screenshot

Is There A Possibility Of Nuclear War In Europe? – OpEd

 February 9, 2024  0 Comments

By Ambassador Kazi Anwarul Masud

Is not one reminded of British army officer and former commander of the UK & NATO Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Forces, Hamish de Bretton Gordon’s explanation of the crucial differences between “tactical” and “strategic” weapons and why all-out nuclear war probably isn’t on the cards anytime soon? 

Hamish de Bretton Gordon explained the difference between ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons. Bretton-Gordon said  – strategic nuclear weapons are Armageddon. Russia and the West (including the United States, Britain, and France) both have almost 6,000 warheads each, according to the Federation of Nuclear Scientists, which is pretty much enough to change the planet as we know it. This is called Mutually Assured Destruction, with the rather ironic acronym MAD. 

These warheads are fitted to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) which can travel thousands of miles and are aimed at key sites and cities in the US, UK, France, and Russia. Tactical nuclear weapons meanwhile are much smaller warheads with a yield, or explosive power, of up to 100 kilotons of dynamite – rather than roughly 1000 kilotons for strategic warheads. That said, tactical nuclear weapons could still create huge amounts of damage, and if fired at a nuclear power station could create a chain reaction and contamination on a scale with a nuclear strike. 

Recently President Putin ordered his military to move Russia’s “deterrent forces” – which include nuclear weapons – “ to a special mode of combat duty”. Western analysts are not very clear about what the phrase means. Some think Putin was ordering a move from the lowest alert level, “constant”, to the next level up, “elevated”, (with “military danger” and “full” still above readiness.  Each move increases readiness for weapons to be used. Many though have interpreted the move primarily as a form of public signaling, rather than indicating a real intent to use such weapons, which Putin knows will bring nuclear retaliation by the West.

Was it a new warning? Again Putin had warned in more coded language that if other countries interfered with Russia’s plans they would face consequences the “like of which they have never seen”. That was widely interpreted as a warning for NATO not to become directly militarily involved in Ukraine. NATO has always been clear it will not do that, knowing it could trigger direct conflict with Russia which could escalate into nuclear war. Recent warnings were more direct and public. Why the new warning? Putin said the move was in response to “aggressive statements”. Then the Kremlin said this referred to statements by Western officials, including former UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, about possible clashes and confrontations with NATO. Western officials also believe the new warning has come because Putin may have miscalculated over Ukraine. He may have underestimated how much resistance he would face on the battlefield in Ukraine. And he underestimated how far the West would unite in a tough response with sanctions. That has left him reaching for new options and tougher talk. “This is a sign of anger, frustration, and disappointment,” one recently retired British general told me. 

The US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield suggested this language is part of Putin’s effort to justify the war in Ukraine by claiming it is not an aggressor but one under threat and seeking to defend itself. Seen in this way, the nuclear alert is a way of emphasizing this message to his people. Another way of seeing it is that Putin is worried about Western plans to provide military assistance to the Ukrainians and wants to warn them about not doing too much. Another is that he is worried that sanctions, which he referenced in his announcement, are designed to cause unrest and overthrow his government. But the overall message seems to be a warning to NATO that if it becomes directly involved events could escalate.

What are the risks? Even if Putin’s threat is meant as a warning rather than signaling any current desire to use the weapons, there is always the risk of miscalculation if one side misinterprets the other or events get out of hand. A concern is that Putin has become isolated and out of touch, with few of his advisers willing to tell him the truth. Some fear his judgment is becoming erratic. Some hope though that if he did go too far, others further down the chain of command might not be willing to carry out orders. The risks of any nuclear conflict may have gone up slightly but they remain low. 

The US military has its defense readiness alert status known as Defcon, and the White House Press Secretary said there was “no reason to change” its nuclear alert levels at the moment. The UK has nuclear-armed submarines at sea and is also unlikely to say anything publicly. The aim appears to be to treat the Russian statement as a bluster and not increase tensions by appearing to take it too seriously or take any actions that might spark a Russian response. This is not currently a nuclear crisis and it must not become one.  Will the West know what Russia is doing? Former UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the BBC that the UK had not seen any change yet in the actual posture of Russia’s nuclear weapons. 

During the Cold War, a huge intelligence machine was created in the West to watch Moscow’s nuclear arsenal. Satellites, intercepted communications, and other sources were analyzed to look for any signs of changes in behavior – like preparing weapons or crews for bombers – that would offer warning. Much of that remains in place and the West will be now watching Russian activity closely to understand if there is going to be any significant behavior change. There has been no sign, so far.

In the ultimate analysis, the enmeshed world with China as a growing power seeking its claim to be dominant in Asia and dislodge the US from its position as the only superpower in the world following the Yalta Agreement for long fifty years with a world bound by so-called “rule-based world” to be broken at will is now being challenged by a multipolar world where the US has to carry with it the Global Right in any venture that may bring about the end of mankind the world has known for thousands of years with the added cost of the US being no more in existence. 

 Home  Sri Lanka Guardian Essays  Is China Facing Economic Strains Affecting Its Growth?

Is China Facing Economic Strains Affecting Its Growth?

By Sri Lanka Guardian•February 12, 2024•China  Diplomacy  Essays  feature  Kazi Anwarul Masud  Sri Lanka Guardian Essays•Comments : 0

What distinguishes China from most other countries is how fast that debt has accumulated relative to the size of its economy.

by Kazi Anwarul Masud

XI JINPING’S ADDRESS TO CCP TO CURB CORRUPTION

In January 2024 XI-Jinping addressed the Communist Party of China and gave a moralizing speech on how to curb corruption which, according to him, is constraining the growth of China. Today China is the fastest-growing economy in the world, though far behind the USA. According to The New York Times report (July 2023), China and the United States are locked in an increasingly intense rivalry when it comes to national security and economic competition, with American leaders frequently identifying China as their greatest long-term challenger. Yet the world’s two largest economies, which together represent 40 percent of the global output, remain integral partners in many ways. They sell and buy important products from each other, finance each other’s businesses, provide a home to millions of each other’s people and create apps and movies for audiences in both countries.

Trucks transport containers at Qingdao Port, east China's Shandong Province, Feb. 11, 2024. (Xinhua/Li Ziheng)

USA-CHINA ECONOMIC COMPETITION

The U.S. economy continues to outstrip China’s by dollar value: In 2022, the Chinese gross domestic product was $18 trillion, compared with $25.5 trillion for the United States But China’s population is more than four times America’s. And the economic picture looks different when adjusted for local prices: Based on purchasing power parity, China’s share of world GDP is 18.9 percent, according to the IMF surpassing the United States at 15.4 percent. China has provided more than a trillion dollars for global infrastructure through its Belt and Road Initiative which analysts see as an effort to project power around the world. The rapid growth and modernization of China’s military have sparked concerns in the United States. China has more naval vessels than the United States and more military personnel.   

But American armed forces are far better equipped, and the United States still spends more on defense than the next ten countries combined.  Despite the rising tensions, trade between the countries remains extremely strong. China is America’s third-largest trading partner after Canada and Mexico imports of goods and services from China hit a record $563.6 billion last year. But the share of U.S. imports that come from China has been falling, a sign of how some businesses are breaking off ties with China. The U.S.-China Business Council estimated that U.S. exports to China supported nearly 1.1 million jobs in the United States in 2021 China dominates supply chains for both critical and everyday goods. It is the world’s largest producer of steel, solar panels, electronics, coal, plastics, buttons, and car batteries, and it has quadrupled its car exports in just two years, becoming the world’s largest auto exporter through its growing clout in electric vehicles

US EXPANDS SANCTION ON CHINESE COMPANIES ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERN

The United States has steadily expanded sanctions against Chinese companies and organizations because of national security and human rights concerns, placing many Chinese companies, organizations, and people on an “entity list” that restricts their ability to buy products from the United States. In another report, the New York Times explains that China, which has lent nearly one trillion to some 150 developing countries, has been reluctant to cancel large debts owed by countries struggling to make ends meet. That is at least in part because China is facing a debt bomb at home: trillions of dollars owed by local governments, their mostly off-the-books financial affiliates, and real estate developers. 

What distinguishes China from most other countries is how fast that debt has accumulated relative to the size of its economy. By comparison, in the United States or even deeply indebted Japan, debt has risen less precipitously. The steep increase in China’s debt, more than doubling compared with the size of its economy since the global financial crisis 15 years ago, makes managing it harder. China’s lending to developing countries is small relative to its domestic debt, representing less than 6 percent of China’s annual economic output. But these loans are particularly sensitive politically.

HOW CHINA GOT INTO DEBT HOLE

Despite heavy censorship, periodic complaints emerge on Chinese social media that banks should have lent the money to poor households and regions at home, not abroad. Accepting heavy losses on these loans would be very unpopular within China. China got into this debt hole with real estate, which suffers from overbuilding, falling prices, and beleaguered potential buyers. In the past two years, several dozen real estate developers who borrowed money from overseas investors have defaulted on those debts, including two more in recent days.

Developers have struggled to continue paying far larger debts to banks inside China. For any government or business, borrowing can make good economic sense if the money is used productively and efficiently. However, borrowers who binge on debt that doesn’t generate sufficient returns can get into trouble and struggle to repay their lenders. That’s what has happened in China. As its economy slows, a growing number of local governments and their financing units are unable to keep paying interest on their debts.

The ripple effect means many localities lack money to pay for public services, health care, or pensions. Debt troubles have also made it hard for banks in China to accept losses on their loans to lower-income countries. Yet many of these countries, like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Surinam now face considerable economic difficulties. While it is difficult to control corruption through lectures on morality and sending party goons after the corrupt Xi- Jinping’s admonition is not likely to have much real effect as many in the CCP high-ups are on the take and difficult to catch in the act.

BRI IS FAVOURED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES DUE TO NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPEMENT

A China Daily op-ed comment on Xi-Jinping’s address on BRI President Xi’s speech at the Belt and Road Forum shows that efforts are being made to improve the initiative through, for instance, achieving breakthroughs in technological innovation and increasing investment in green development. For the initiative’s sustainable development, more attention should be paid, among other things, to increasing production capacity and improving industrial facilities, because increased investment in green development will radiate far more widely and greatly to influence new industrialization and urbanization.

And green-oriented innovation should be promoted, to balance economic growth, environmental protection, and social justice. Better protecting the environment and pursuing sustainable development can mitigate climate change. However, the level of industrialization to be achieved and the ways to deal with economic and environmental problems differ from country to country. Ever since the advanced countries achieved industrialization, the tertiary industry has been playing an increasingly bigger role in their economic structure and growth. However, the vast majority of developing countries are yet to realize industrialization. Also, developed and developing countries pursue green development, following different standards, methods, and measures to achieve different goals.

This is to say there are different criteria, methods, and measures for green technology, infrastructure, energy, and transportation. There cannot be just one set of criteria, certainly not those dictated by the United States or the West. Therefore, the international community needs to hold more talks to explore more standards and methods, with every country having the right to adopt the development model that best suits their national conditions. Given the rich experiences the developing nations have accumulated in fields such as social development, they should have more say in what kind of technology or standard should be used to promote green development. And the green action plan can be China’s contribution to global development. Developing countries hope that China will continue with BRI projects despite Western criticism of the Chinese debt trap.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a retired Bangladeshi diplomat. During his tenure, he worked in several countries as the ambassador of Bangladesh including Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and Germany

 

Far Right Fear in Europe be Justifiable? 

If we are to go to the roots of Fascism we have to travel to the days of Benito Mussolini and his aspiration to spread his philosophy throughout the world.

by Kazi Anwarul Masud

 

February 5, 2024

 

7 mins read

 

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during Hitler's 1938 state visit to Italy.

SHOULD EUROPE BE AFRAID OF THE RISE OF FAR-RIGHT MENACE?

While examining the fear of Europe of the emergence of far-right we may refer to the report by BBC’s Katya Adler that the EU’s third-largest economy, Italy, is run by Giorgia Meloni, head of a party with neo-fascist roots. After 3 months of debate in Finland, the far-right nationalists The Finns recently joined the coalition government. In Sweden the firmly anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism Sweden Democrats are the second largest party in parliament, propping up the right-wing coalition government there. In Greece last Sunday three hard-right parties won enough seats to enter parliament, while in Spain, the controversial nationalist Vox Party – the first successful far-right party in Spain since the death of fascist dictator Francisco Franco in 1975 – outperformed all expectations in recent regional elections. Spain’s Vox led by Santiago Abascal sees itself as the kingmaker and is up to 14% in the polls. Besides there are the ultra-conservative, authoritarian-leaning governments in Poland and Hungary.

The list goes on and on. Including even Germany, still so sensitive about its fascist past. Polls there now put the far-right AfD just ahead of, or neck and neck with, Chancellor Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD). Last weekend an AfD candidate won a local leadership post for the first time. The SPD called it “a political dam-breaker”. What, she asks, does Europe mean by political parties described as ‘far-right’? Germany’s far-right AfD is riding high in the polls and scored its first district election victory recently in Eastern Germany. She adds how hardline some mainstream politicians can sound, especially before elections, when it comes to immigration and provides as an example center-right Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, or self-described centrist Emmanuel Macron. Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations says Europe is looking at a huge paradox.

On the one hand, many a mainstream politician has in recent years grabbed slogans or stances from the far-right, hoping to rob them of their supporters. But by doing so they help make the far right seem more mainstream. While at the same time, several far-right parties in Europe have intentionally moved more towards the political center, hoping to entice more centrist voters. If Russia can be taken as an example a large number of parties on the far-right – like The League in Italy, Marine Le Pen of France and Austria’s Freedom Party Far had traditionally close ties to Moscow. That became more than awkward following Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, leading to party leaders to change their rhetoric.

ROOTS OF FASCISM AND NAZISM

If we are to go to the roots of Fascism we have to travel to the days of Benito Mussolini and his aspiration to spread his philosophy throughout the world. Though Adolph Hitler was a great admirer of Mussolini the latter did not share his enthusiasm for the concept of racial superiority which was a central point of Nazism. Fascism was founded on the principle of nationalist unity which opposed the divisionism class war ideologies of Marxist socialism and communism. the majority of the regimes viewed racialism as counterproductive to unity, with Mussolini asserting: that “National pride does not need the delirium of race”. Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race in terms of social and economic policies. Though both ideologies denied the significance of the individual, Italian fascism saw the individual as subservient to the state whereas Nazism saw the individual as well as the state as ultimately subservient to the race. Should we then travel to decades of European history to reach the architect of the right concept Mussolini- and his mentor Adolf Hitler- as both of them were sponsors of the concepts, albeit with differences, that led to the catastrophe of World War Two?   Upon Mussolini’s rise to power, the Nazis declared their admiration and emulation.  

ADOLF HITLER’S ADORATION OF BENITO MUSSOLINI

(I would be amiss if I did not owe help I had taken from WIKIPEDIA on paragraphs relating to Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler).  Adolf Hitler’s admirers believed that what Benito Mussolini did in Italy could be done in Bavaria. We’ve also got Italy’s Mussolini: his name is Adolf Hitler”. Hitler’s Mein Kampf (“The National Socialist Movement”, 1926) contains this passage: I conceived the most profound admiration for the great man south of the Alps who, full of ardent love for his people, made no pacts with the enemies of Italy, but strove for their destruction by all ways and means.

What will rank Mussolini among the great men of this earth is his determination not to share Italy with the Markists, but to destroy and save the fatherland from it.   In a 1931 interview, Hitler spoke admirably about Mussolini, commending Mussolini’s racial origins as being the same as that of Germans and claimed at the time that Mussolini was capable of building an Italian Empire that would outdo the Roman Empire and that he supported Mussolini’s endeavors, saying: They know that Benito Mussolini is constructing a colossal empire which will put the Roman Empire in the shade. Mussolini had personal reasons to oppose antisemitism as his longtime mistress and Fascist propaganda director Margherita Sarfatti was Jewish. She had played an important role in establishing the fascist movement in Italy and promoting it to Italians and the world through supporting the arts.

However, within the Italian fascist movement, there was a minority who endorsed Hitler’s antisemitism.   There were also nationalist reasons why Germany and Italy were not immediate allies. Hapsberg Austria (Hitler’s birthplace) had an antagonistic relationship with Italy since it was formed, largely because Austria-Hungary had seized most of the territories once belonging to Italian states such as Venice. Although initially neutral Italy entered World War One on the side of the Allies against Germany and Austria-Hungary when promised several territories. In Germany and Austria, the annexation of some territories was controversial as the province was made up of a large majority of German speakers.  

DIFFERENCES IN FASCISM AND NAZISM IDEOLOGY

The most striking difference is the racialist ideology which was the central priority of Nazism, but not a priority of the other ideologies. Fascism was founded on the principle of nationalist unity which opposed the diversionist classs war ideologies of Marxist Socialism and Communism; therefore, the majority of the regimes viewed racialism as counterproductive to unity, with Mussolini asserting: that National pride does not need the delirium of race”. Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race in terms of social and economic policies. Though both ideologies denied the significance of the individual, Italian fascism saw the individual as subservient to the state whereas Nazism saw the individual as well as the state as ultimately subservient to the race. 

However, subservience to the Nazi state was also a requirement on the population. Mussolini’s fascism held that cultural factors existed to serve the state and that it was not necessarily in the state’s interest to interfere in cultural aspects of society. The only purpose of government in Mussolini’s fascism was to uphold the state as supreme above all else. Unlike Hitler, Mussolini repeatedly changed his views on the issue of race according to the circumstances of the time. In 1921, Mussolini promoted the development of the Italian race such as when he said this: The nation is not simply the sum of living individuals, nor the instrument of parties for their own ends, but an organism comprised of the infinite series of generations of which the individuals are only transient elements; it is the supreme synthesis of all the material and immaterial values of the race.

CONCLUSION

 The question that arises is whether European countries and the multipolar world enmeshed with Sino-Russian compounded relations should be a lesson for the present-day world. The rise of China and her claim for a seat at the table framing the so-called rule-based world, more breached than honored, along with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, coupled with Israeli genocidal actions in Palestine virtually ruling out a two-state solution by Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing colleagues, should be taken as a European problem or one for the entire world. Perhaps it would be prudent to go back to Europe and the panic rise of the Far Right could enmesh the continent.  The Guardian ( London) would not be amiss to highlight   EU leaders’  panic about what Trump 2.0 would mean for war in Ukraine – and beyond.  

Could an isolationist US abandon Ukraine and leave the rest of Europe exposed to Kremlin aggression?  Viktor Orbán, the EU’s most pro-Russian leader, caused dismay by unilaterally blocking a crucial €50 billion EU financial aid package for Ukraine. Orbán’s blocking of the money had dismayed other EU leaders that turned to anger. The context for the new impatience with Orbán was a mounting anxiety in Europe’s capitals throughout the war in Ukraine – and the fate of other European countries bordering Russia – if Donald Trump is returned to the White House later this year. Flushed with victory in early nomination battles, Trump is ramping up his anti-NATO rhetoric. It emerged recently that he said the US should not intervene to help if Europe comes under attack.

That amounts to shredding the famous Article 5, the mutual defense pledge enshrined in the NATO treaty. The US Congress is already refusing to pass President Joe Biden’s additional multibillion-dollar package to help Ukraine buy weapons. It is unlikely Trump would release that money if he had any say. Europe’s security challenges are piling up: the Ukraine counteroffensive against Russia is stuck.  There is war in the Middle East and the risk of wider regional escalation is high. The increasingly urgent question is what would happen if a second-term Trump drops Ukraine and tells Europe where to get off militarily? Guardian columnists Nathalie Tocci and Simon Tisdall agree that the risk is not just of an isolationist US, defunding NATO but that Trump’s return to power could embolden the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions.

For some European governments are “sleeping at the tiller” given the present geopolitical volatility. France has long argued for Europe’s “strategic autonomy” but, while EU defense cooperation has quietly been stepped up since 2022, a joint defense capability remains divisive. An EU army remains taboo. Macron’s speech in Sweden warned that Europe needed to ramp up its entire defense effort and security architecture to prepare for the possibility of Joe Biden’s defeat. Europe, he said “must be ready to act to defend and support Ukraine whatever it takes and whatever America decides”.

Army and defense chiefs across Europe have also started to talk openly about war and preparedness – or lack of it. Sweden reintroduced compulsory civil defense for the first time since the end of the Cold War on 19 January. A “looming sense of potential conflict” has descended on the region in recent weeks.   In Finland, the presidential election is dominated by discussion of the Russian threat. War talk may sound alarmist to some, but if the function of these warnings is to shake public opinion out of complacency, they are landing at a judicious time. The enmeshed world cannot afford another catastrophe that may engulf not only Europe but the world beyond.