右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
Irregular crossings at EU borders highest since 2016, Frontex report shows
Around 330,000 irregular crossings were recorded at the bloc’s external borders in 2022, according to early estimates published Friday by Frontex, the European Union’s border agency.
This is the highest number since 2016, and a 64 percent increase from 2021, the report says.
Close to half of the crossings (145,600) came from the Western Balkans route — more than twice as many as in the previous year. This route also showed the highest increase in crossings among the routes studied.
The term “Western Balkans route” refers to a corridor used by migrants to cross into the EU through several countries in the Balkans, namely Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia.
Last year, Syrians, Afghans and Turkish citizens accounted for most of the crossings, according to the data collected by Frontex.
Around 330,000 irregular crossings were recorded at the bloc’s external borders in 2022, according to early estimates published Friday by Frontex, the European Union’s border agency.
This is the highest number since 2016, and a 64 percent increase from 2021, the report says.
Close to half of the crossings (145,600) came from the Western Balkans route — more than twice as many as in the previous year. This route also showed the highest increase in crossings among the routes studied.
The term “Western Balkans route” refers to a corridor used by migrants to cross into the EU through several countries in the Balkans, namely Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia.
Last year, Syrians, Afghans and Turkish citizens accounted for most of the crossings, according to the data collected by Frontex.
‘Absolutely Insane’: Connecticut Law Would Axe Fitness Requirements for Female Firefighters
Connecticut Democrats are working to lower the physical fitness requirements for female firefighters, saying that less onerous standards will make fire departments "more diverse."
A law introduced earlier this month in the Connecticut State Assembly would let women skip the Candidate Physical Ability Test, a timed gauntlet used by fire departments across the country. The test, which only 10 to 15 percent of women pass, requires candidates to complete intense physical tasks while wearing a 50 pound vest. It’s designed to simulate the experience of navigating a fire in heavy gear—and to weed out those unable to do so.
The law, introduced by five Democratic lawmakers, would offer women an alternative test based on "revised physical standards," with the goal of ensuring that "additional female candidates" qualify for firefighter positions, text from the bill states.
But some firefighters, including women, who have climbed the ranks of their departments without workarounds, say the bill will set merit-based hiring ablaze and potentially endanger Connecticut residents. "If you can’t handle a 50 pound vest, you’re not going to be able to rescue a child from a burning building," said Leah DiNapoli, a retired firefighter in New Haven, Conn.
"A citizen in need of rescue doesn’t care if a firefighter is white, black, Hispanic, male, or female," said Frank Ricci, a retired firefighter who served as the president of the New Haven firefighters union. "They care that they can do the job. This attempt to socially engineer public safety positions will only serve to endanger the public."
Connecticut Democrats are working to lower the physical fitness requirements for female firefighters, saying that less onerous standards will make fire departments "more diverse."
A law introduced earlier this month in the Connecticut State Assembly would let women skip the Candidate Physical Ability Test, a timed gauntlet used by fire departments across the country. The test, which only 10 to 15 percent of women pass, requires candidates to complete intense physical tasks while wearing a 50 pound vest. It’s designed to simulate the experience of navigating a fire in heavy gear—and to weed out those unable to do so.
The law, introduced by five Democratic lawmakers, would offer women an alternative test based on "revised physical standards," with the goal of ensuring that "additional female candidates" qualify for firefighter positions, text from the bill states.
But some firefighters, including women, who have climbed the ranks of their departments without workarounds, say the bill will set merit-based hiring ablaze and potentially endanger Connecticut residents. "If you can’t handle a 50 pound vest, you’re not going to be able to rescue a child from a burning building," said Leah DiNapoli, a retired firefighter in New Haven, Conn.
"A citizen in need of rescue doesn’t care if a firefighter is white, black, Hispanic, male, or female," said Frank Ricci, a retired firefighter who served as the president of the New Haven firefighters union. "They care that they can do the job. This attempt to socially engineer public safety positions will only serve to endanger the public."
Poll: Gen X and Gen Z take different political paths
...Generation X voters — those ages 42 to 57 — have become more conservative and Republican over the last 10 years, while younger Genearation Z voters are much more liberal.
And Millennial voters — those ages 26 to 41 — are less reliably Democratic than they were in 2012, but identify as being slightly more liberal than they used to be.
These are the findings from merged NBC News polls in 2012 and 2022, containing thousands of interviews from the different generational groups of voters.
In 2012, when Barack Obama won re-election, Gen X voters preferred Democrats in control of Congress over Republicans by 7 points, 48%-41%.
Yet 10 years later, when the GOP won control of the House but came up short winning the Senate, Gen X’s voters preferred Republican control by 12 points, 52%-40%.
Millennial voters also moved more to the GOP: In 2012, these voters preferred Democratic control by 16 points (53%-37%), but that shrank to D+6 in 2022 (48%-42%). (Strikingly, these voters also become more liberal over the last 10 years, but our pollsters attribute that to all Democrats becoming more liberal since 2012 — due the country’s increased political polarization.)
Now some important caveats to these numbers: These are poll findings by generation, not actual votes or changes in party registration. What’s more, they compare the pro-Democratic presidential year of 2012 with a more pro-GOP midterm year of 2022 (even though Republicans ended up underperforming in November).
...Generation X voters — those ages 42 to 57 — have become more conservative and Republican over the last 10 years, while younger Genearation Z voters are much more liberal.
And Millennial voters — those ages 26 to 41 — are less reliably Democratic than they were in 2012, but identify as being slightly more liberal than they used to be.
These are the findings from merged NBC News polls in 2012 and 2022, containing thousands of interviews from the different generational groups of voters.
In 2012, when Barack Obama won re-election, Gen X voters preferred Democrats in control of Congress over Republicans by 7 points, 48%-41%.
Yet 10 years later, when the GOP won control of the House but came up short winning the Senate, Gen X’s voters preferred Republican control by 12 points, 52%-40%.
Millennial voters also moved more to the GOP: In 2012, these voters preferred Democratic control by 16 points (53%-37%), but that shrank to D+6 in 2022 (48%-42%). (Strikingly, these voters also become more liberal over the last 10 years, but our pollsters attribute that to all Democrats becoming more liberal since 2012 — due the country’s increased political polarization.)
Now some important caveats to these numbers: These are poll findings by generation, not actual votes or changes in party registration. What’s more, they compare the pro-Democratic presidential year of 2012 with a more pro-GOP midterm year of 2022 (even though Republicans ended up underperforming in November).
Rise in middle-aged white ‘deaths of despair’ may be fueled by loss of religion, new research paper argues
The working paper, from Tyler Giles of Wellesley College, Daniel Hungerman of the University of Notre Dame, and Tamar Oostrom of The Ohio State University, looked at the relationship between religiosity and mortality from deaths of despair. The paper was circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The authors noted that many measures of religious adherence began to decline in the late 1980s. They find that the large decline in religious practice was driven by the group experiencing the subsequent increases in mortality: white middle-aged Americans without a college degree.
States that experienced larger declines in religious participation in the last 15 years of the 20th century saw larger increases in deaths of despair.
The researchers looked at the repeal of blue laws in particular. Blue laws limited commerce, typically on Sunday mornings. “These laws have been shown to be strongly related to religious practice, creating discrete changes in incentives to attend religious services that are plausibly unrelated to other drivers of religiosity,” they said.
The repeal of blue laws had a 5- to 10-percentage-point impact on weekly attendance of religious services, and increased the rate of deaths of despair by 2 deaths per 100,000 people, they found — accounting for a “reasonably large share of the initial rise in the deaths of despair.”
What’s also interesting is that the impact seems to be driven by actual formal religious participation, rather than belief or personal activities like prayer. “These results underscore the importance of cultural institutions such as religious establishments in promoting well-being,” they said.
They further added that they didn’t know of any cultural phenomenon that matches the mortality patterns, which are seen for both men and women, but not in other countries, and in both rural and urban settings, but mostly middle-aged, less-educated white individuals.
“The decline in religiosity matches mortality trends in all these characteristics,” they wrote.
The working paper, from Tyler Giles of Wellesley College, Daniel Hungerman of the University of Notre Dame, and Tamar Oostrom of The Ohio State University, looked at the relationship between religiosity and mortality from deaths of despair. The paper was circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The authors noted that many measures of religious adherence began to decline in the late 1980s. They find that the large decline in religious practice was driven by the group experiencing the subsequent increases in mortality: white middle-aged Americans without a college degree.
States that experienced larger declines in religious participation in the last 15 years of the 20th century saw larger increases in deaths of despair.
The researchers looked at the repeal of blue laws in particular. Blue laws limited commerce, typically on Sunday mornings. “These laws have been shown to be strongly related to religious practice, creating discrete changes in incentives to attend religious services that are plausibly unrelated to other drivers of religiosity,” they said.
The repeal of blue laws had a 5- to 10-percentage-point impact on weekly attendance of religious services, and increased the rate of deaths of despair by 2 deaths per 100,000 people, they found — accounting for a “reasonably large share of the initial rise in the deaths of despair.”
What’s also interesting is that the impact seems to be driven by actual formal religious participation, rather than belief or personal activities like prayer. “These results underscore the importance of cultural institutions such as religious establishments in promoting well-being,” they said.
They further added that they didn’t know of any cultural phenomenon that matches the mortality patterns, which are seen for both men and women, but not in other countries, and in both rural and urban settings, but mostly middle-aged, less-educated white individuals.
“The decline in religiosity matches mortality trends in all these characteristics,” they wrote.
'Political correctness' meant Islamist extremism was downplayed by Prevent
Britain's "politically correct" deradicalisation programme focused on Right-wing extremism while failing to tackle Islamist terror, the Home Secretary has said.
William Shawcross, the review’s author, said Prevent had failed to do enough to counter the dangers from “non-violent Islamist extremism” and had instead broadened the definition of Right-wing extremism to include even mainstream politicians.
He said terrorist attacks had “too often” been committed by Islamist extremists previously referred to the programme because Prevent officials had “failed to understand the danger” they posed and had not dealt “effectively with the lethal risks we actually face”.
Announcing “major reform” of the programme, Suella Braverman told MPs that Prevent had shown “cultural timidity and an institutional hesitancy to tackle Islamism, for fear of the charge of Islamophobia”.
She said the Government would accept all 34 of the review’s recommendations to refocus it on its “core mission” of protecting the public. “Prevents focus must solely be on security, not political correctness,” she said.
......
“With Islamism, Prevent tends to take a much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism.”
It meant Prevent was “out of kilter” with the rest of the counter-terrorism system where 80 per cent of live police investigations involved Islamist plots and just 10 per cent were extreme Right-wing. By contrast only 22 per cent of referrals to Prevent concerned Islamism which suggested a “loss of focus and failure to identify warning signs.”
Britain's "politically correct" deradicalisation programme focused on Right-wing extremism while failing to tackle Islamist terror, the Home Secretary has said.
William Shawcross, the review’s author, said Prevent had failed to do enough to counter the dangers from “non-violent Islamist extremism” and had instead broadened the definition of Right-wing extremism to include even mainstream politicians.
He said terrorist attacks had “too often” been committed by Islamist extremists previously referred to the programme because Prevent officials had “failed to understand the danger” they posed and had not dealt “effectively with the lethal risks we actually face”.
Announcing “major reform” of the programme, Suella Braverman told MPs that Prevent had shown “cultural timidity and an institutional hesitancy to tackle Islamism, for fear of the charge of Islamophobia”.
She said the Government would accept all 34 of the review’s recommendations to refocus it on its “core mission” of protecting the public. “Prevents focus must solely be on security, not political correctness,” she said.
......
“With Islamism, Prevent tends to take a much narrower approach centred around proscribed organisations, ignoring the contribution of non-violent Islamist narratives and networks to terrorism.”
It meant Prevent was “out of kilter” with the rest of the counter-terrorism system where 80 per cent of live police investigations involved Islamist plots and just 10 per cent were extreme Right-wing. By contrast only 22 per cent of referrals to Prevent concerned Islamism which suggested a “loss of focus and failure to identify warning signs.”
Gaetz introduces resolution to end military and financial aid to Ukraine, urge peace deal
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., is introducing a resolution in the House on Thursday that calls on the Biden administration to end U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine -- while also urging all involved to secure a peace agreement after nearly a year of war in the region.
The resolution, the "Ukraine Fatigue Resolution" is being introduced by Gaetz and 10 co-sponsors and calls for the U.S. to "end its military and financial aid to Ukraine and urges all combatants to reach a peace agreement."
The resolution notes that since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has been the top contributor to the Ukrainian war effort, with more than $110 billion in financial, military, and humanitarian aid to the U.S. ally. It includes more than $27.4 billion in security assistance.
In January the U.S. announced additional security assistance, including approval by President Biden of 31 Abrams M1 tanks to Ukraine. On top of that, reports suggest another $2 billion could be in the pipeline.
......
Gaetz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. has been the top contributor to what he called an "everlasting conflict."
"America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war," he said. We must suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately."
......
"How much more for Ukraine? Is there any limit?" he asked on the House floor. "Which billionth dollar really kicks in the door? Which redline we set will we not later cross?"
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., is introducing a resolution in the House on Thursday that calls on the Biden administration to end U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine -- while also urging all involved to secure a peace agreement after nearly a year of war in the region.
The resolution, the "Ukraine Fatigue Resolution" is being introduced by Gaetz and 10 co-sponsors and calls for the U.S. to "end its military and financial aid to Ukraine and urges all combatants to reach a peace agreement."
The resolution notes that since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has been the top contributor to the Ukrainian war effort, with more than $110 billion in financial, military, and humanitarian aid to the U.S. ally. It includes more than $27.4 billion in security assistance.
In January the U.S. announced additional security assistance, including approval by President Biden of 31 Abrams M1 tanks to Ukraine. On top of that, reports suggest another $2 billion could be in the pipeline.
......
Gaetz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. has been the top contributor to what he called an "everlasting conflict."
"America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war," he said. We must suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately."
......
"How much more for Ukraine? Is there any limit?" he asked on the House floor. "Which billionth dollar really kicks in the door? Which redline we set will we not later cross?"
McCarthy, Scalise go to war with U.S. Chamber after group backed some Democrats in 2020 and 2022 elections
“The priorities of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have not aligned with the priorities of House Republicans or the interests of their own members, and they should not expect a meeting with Speaker McCarthy as long as that’s the case,” Mark Bednar, a chief spokesman for McCarthy, told CNBC in a statement.
Scalise also won’t meet with the Chamber, according to spokeswoman Lauren Fine.
“Washington has radically shifted away from the pro-business philosophy of most local Chambers across America,” she said. Fine also took aim at the Chamber’s move to endorse Democrats running for House seats and said that “unless the Chamber gets back to their traditional pro-business roots, they should not expect to have any engagement with Majority Leader Scalise’s office.”
Denying the Chamber access could also prompt other House Republicans to block the nation’s largest business organization.
The Chamber has continued to actively lobby Capitol Hill despite the ongoing battle with top Republicans. The group spent just under $21 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of last year alone, according to its latest disclosure report. The form shows they lobbied lawmakers in the House and Senate, as well as Biden White House officials, on a wide variety of bills, including new tax proposals as well as U.S. aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
McCarthy’s refusal to meet with the Chamber is the latest strike in an ongoing feud between some House Republican members and the national business group.
“The priorities of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have not aligned with the priorities of House Republicans or the interests of their own members, and they should not expect a meeting with Speaker McCarthy as long as that’s the case,” Mark Bednar, a chief spokesman for McCarthy, told CNBC in a statement.
Scalise also won’t meet with the Chamber, according to spokeswoman Lauren Fine.
“Washington has radically shifted away from the pro-business philosophy of most local Chambers across America,” she said. Fine also took aim at the Chamber’s move to endorse Democrats running for House seats and said that “unless the Chamber gets back to their traditional pro-business roots, they should not expect to have any engagement with Majority Leader Scalise’s office.”
Denying the Chamber access could also prompt other House Republicans to block the nation’s largest business organization.
The Chamber has continued to actively lobby Capitol Hill despite the ongoing battle with top Republicans. The group spent just under $21 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of last year alone, according to its latest disclosure report. The form shows they lobbied lawmakers in the House and Senate, as well as Biden White House officials, on a wide variety of bills, including new tax proposals as well as U.S. aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
McCarthy’s refusal to meet with the Chamber is the latest strike in an ongoing feud between some House Republican members and the national business group.
In Post-Roe World, These Conservatives Embrace a New Kind of Welfare
...These conservatives generally oppose abortion rights. They’re eager to promote marriage, worried about the nation’s declining fertility rate and often resist the trans rights movement.
But they also acknowledge that with abortion now illegal or tightly restricted in half the states, more babies will be born to parents struggling to pay for the basics — rent, health care, groceries and child care — when prices are high and child care slots scarce.
.......
The idea of spending heavily on family benefits remains an outlier within the Republican Party, which only recently rejected Democrats’ attempts to extend pandemic-era child tax credits.
But a number of conservative members of Congress have embraced new benefits for parents, including Mr. Cass’s former boss, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, as well as the senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Josh Hawley of Missouri and J.D. Vance of Ohio.
......
A key priority for this new network of conservative thinkers is for the federal government to send parents cash monthly for each child, a sea change from decades of Republican thinking on family policy. They hope the cash could encourage people to have more children, and allow more parents to stay home full- or part-time when their children are young.
“The work of the family is real work,” said Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar who calls herself a pro-life feminist and has written influential essays and books.
She and others debate to what extent benefits should be tied to work requirements, but even the more stringent proposals do not require full-time work. These conservatives believe that many young children are better off at home and are skeptical of policies that would place more in child care centers. And they point to polls that show many parents would prefer to cut their work hours and take care of their babies and toddlers themselves.
......
“The libertarian right is a little bit blind” to the economic conditions families live under, Ms. Bachiochi said, noting that many parents struggle with the low pay and irregular hours of service jobs, working long days while leaving their children with less-than-ideal care.
...These conservatives generally oppose abortion rights. They’re eager to promote marriage, worried about the nation’s declining fertility rate and often resist the trans rights movement.
But they also acknowledge that with abortion now illegal or tightly restricted in half the states, more babies will be born to parents struggling to pay for the basics — rent, health care, groceries and child care — when prices are high and child care slots scarce.
.......
The idea of spending heavily on family benefits remains an outlier within the Republican Party, which only recently rejected Democrats’ attempts to extend pandemic-era child tax credits.
But a number of conservative members of Congress have embraced new benefits for parents, including Mr. Cass’s former boss, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, as well as the senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Josh Hawley of Missouri and J.D. Vance of Ohio.
......
A key priority for this new network of conservative thinkers is for the federal government to send parents cash monthly for each child, a sea change from decades of Republican thinking on family policy. They hope the cash could encourage people to have more children, and allow more parents to stay home full- or part-time when their children are young.
“The work of the family is real work,” said Erika Bachiochi, a legal scholar who calls herself a pro-life feminist and has written influential essays and books.
She and others debate to what extent benefits should be tied to work requirements, but even the more stringent proposals do not require full-time work. These conservatives believe that many young children are better off at home and are skeptical of policies that would place more in child care centers. And they point to polls that show many parents would prefer to cut their work hours and take care of their babies and toddlers themselves.
......
“The libertarian right is a little bit blind” to the economic conditions families live under, Ms. Bachiochi said, noting that many parents struggle with the low pay and irregular hours of service jobs, working long days while leaving their children with less-than-ideal care.
Unwarranted Optimism
...A few voices within the U.S. foreign policy establishment expressed less exuberance about Kiev’s chances for victory in the long run. The most significant example was a January 7, 2023, op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in the Washington Post. The title of the piece, “Time Is Not on Ukraine’s Side,” conveyed their concern.
The two former officials noted that
Alas, Rice and Gates prove again that even on those rare occasions when members of the foreign policy blob get the diagnosis right, they invariably get the prescription wrong. Their “solution” to Ukraine’s looming strategic and logistical plight is not to press Kiev to accept a ceasefire and negotiate a realistic peace. Such a course correction would mean abandoning NATO’s cynical proxy war to bleed and humiliate Russia. Instead, they conclude that the only way to salvage the situation “is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability—sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south.” Like so many of their pro-war colleagues, Rice and Gates remain strangely oblivious to the danger that escalating NATO’s meddling in the Russia-Ukraine conflict increases the risk of an outright military clash between the Alliance and Russia—with possible nuclear implications.
...A few voices within the U.S. foreign policy establishment expressed less exuberance about Kiev’s chances for victory in the long run. The most significant example was a January 7, 2023, op-ed by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in the Washington Post. The title of the piece, “Time Is Not on Ukraine’s Side,” conveyed their concern.
Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.
The two former officials noted that
although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West—primarily, the United States.
Alas, Rice and Gates prove again that even on those rare occasions when members of the foreign policy blob get the diagnosis right, they invariably get the prescription wrong. Their “solution” to Ukraine’s looming strategic and logistical plight is not to press Kiev to accept a ceasefire and negotiate a realistic peace. Such a course correction would mean abandoning NATO’s cynical proxy war to bleed and humiliate Russia. Instead, they conclude that the only way to salvage the situation “is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability—sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south.” Like so many of their pro-war colleagues, Rice and Gates remain strangely oblivious to the danger that escalating NATO’s meddling in the Russia-Ukraine conflict increases the risk of an outright military clash between the Alliance and Russia—with possible nuclear implications.
Italy's Meloni triumphs in regional votes, strengthens grip on power
ROME, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her coalition allies secured emphatic election wins in the two wealthiest regions of the country on Monday, strengthening the right's grip on power amid growing voter apathy.
Less than five months after sweeping to power at the national level, the conservative bloc took more than 55% of the vote in Lombardy, home to the financial capital Milan, and around 50% in Lazio, which is centred on Rome.
"This result consolidates the centre-right and strengthens the work of the government," Meloni wrote on Twitter.
It was the first electoral test for Meloni since she won power last September and confirmed that she is still enjoying a strong honeymoon with voters, helped by a weak opposition that failed to present a unified front in either region.
However, the resounding victory was partially overshadowed by the fact that only 40% of people cast a ballot -- the lowest turnout ever recorded for Lazio and Lombardy, which together account for just over a quarter of the Italian population.
ROME, Feb 13 (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her coalition allies secured emphatic election wins in the two wealthiest regions of the country on Monday, strengthening the right's grip on power amid growing voter apathy.
Less than five months after sweeping to power at the national level, the conservative bloc took more than 55% of the vote in Lombardy, home to the financial capital Milan, and around 50% in Lazio, which is centred on Rome.
"This result consolidates the centre-right and strengthens the work of the government," Meloni wrote on Twitter.
It was the first electoral test for Meloni since she won power last September and confirmed that she is still enjoying a strong honeymoon with voters, helped by a weak opposition that failed to present a unified front in either region.
However, the resounding victory was partially overshadowed by the fact that only 40% of people cast a ballot -- the lowest turnout ever recorded for Lazio and Lombardy, which together account for just over a quarter of the Italian population.
How Much Aid Is Enough for Ukraine?
...President Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg are assuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the West will stand by his country "for as long as it takes." The affirmations will come as welcome reassurance for Zelensky and his advisers at a particularly bloody stage of the war.
But one must ask whether Biden, Stoltenberg, and other Western leaders grasp the full meaning of that declaration. What exactly does it mean to support Kyiv for as long as it takes? What is the United States actually trying to accomplish: a total Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian land or setting the table for a peace settlement when the time is right? Are there any time limitations on how long the U.S. and NATO will help defend Ukraine, or is the timing open-ended?
These are fairly obvious questions for observers of the war, but it's not at all obvious that policymakers in Western capitals have actually asked and answered them. It's abundantly clear that U.S. and European policymakers want Russia's war of aggression to end in unambiguous, total, and complete failure. The U.S. wouldn't be funneling about $30 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian army, assisting Kyiv with the targeting of Russian positions or coordinating a comprehensive sanctions campaign against the Russian economy if Washington felt otherwise. Indeed, the collective West is treating the war in Ukraine as not only a fight for Ukraine's survival as a sovereign state, but as a common fight on behalf of the amorphous rules-based international order.
To put it bluntly, though, Ukraine's fight is Ukraine's fight. It is nobody else's. We would certainly like Ukraine to win and Putin to leave with his bloody tail tucked between his legs, yet we shouldn't pretend that the outcome of the war itself will determine the fate of Europe, let alone the world. The U.S., for instance, won't be any less powerful if Putin miraculously turns the war into something that can be called a success back home. The European Union, with 10-times the size of Russia's economy, with three-times the size of Russia's population, won't be any less prosperous or technologically advanced. Regardless of the result, Russia will emerge a weaker power than it was before it decided to bombard Ukraine's cities and towns with missiles and artillery. The balance of power in Europe has gotten worse for Russia, not better.
Therefore, it's more than fair for the U.S. to engage in critical thinking about how this war evolves.
...President Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg are assuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the West will stand by his country "for as long as it takes." The affirmations will come as welcome reassurance for Zelensky and his advisers at a particularly bloody stage of the war.
But one must ask whether Biden, Stoltenberg, and other Western leaders grasp the full meaning of that declaration. What exactly does it mean to support Kyiv for as long as it takes? What is the United States actually trying to accomplish: a total Russian withdrawal from all Ukrainian land or setting the table for a peace settlement when the time is right? Are there any time limitations on how long the U.S. and NATO will help defend Ukraine, or is the timing open-ended?
These are fairly obvious questions for observers of the war, but it's not at all obvious that policymakers in Western capitals have actually asked and answered them. It's abundantly clear that U.S. and European policymakers want Russia's war of aggression to end in unambiguous, total, and complete failure. The U.S. wouldn't be funneling about $30 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian army, assisting Kyiv with the targeting of Russian positions or coordinating a comprehensive sanctions campaign against the Russian economy if Washington felt otherwise. Indeed, the collective West is treating the war in Ukraine as not only a fight for Ukraine's survival as a sovereign state, but as a common fight on behalf of the amorphous rules-based international order.
To put it bluntly, though, Ukraine's fight is Ukraine's fight. It is nobody else's. We would certainly like Ukraine to win and Putin to leave with his bloody tail tucked between his legs, yet we shouldn't pretend that the outcome of the war itself will determine the fate of Europe, let alone the world. The U.S., for instance, won't be any less powerful if Putin miraculously turns the war into something that can be called a success back home. The European Union, with 10-times the size of Russia's economy, with three-times the size of Russia's population, won't be any less prosperous or technologically advanced. Regardless of the result, Russia will emerge a weaker power than it was before it decided to bombard Ukraine's cities and towns with missiles and artillery. The balance of power in Europe has gotten worse for Russia, not better.
Therefore, it's more than fair for the U.S. to engage in critical thinking about how this war evolves.
Does Section 230 Protect Big Social Media or American Consumers?
Big Social Media has been wielding Section 230 in court this way for years—and often successfully. When parents have sued Meta after their teenage daughters developed eating disorders promoted by Instagram's algorithm, or when parents have sued TikTok after their children died attempting dangerous viral challenges the app's videos promoted, Big Social Media has asserted Section 230 as a purported affirmative liability shield.
Indeed, Big Social Media invokes Section 230 not merely to rebuff these plaintiffs' claims, but to prevent courts from hearing the cases at all. Because Section 230 conveys immunity, a plaintiff cannot even try to hold Big Social Media accountable for the harm its algorithms cause to consumers.
This expansive view of Section 230 should alarm all Americans because it represents an industry asking for the unthinkable: complete immunity from civil liability for harms caused by the very core of its profit-generating business. It is comparable to Exxon seeking legal immunity for all of its drilling-related activities; or Southwest Airlines seeking immunity for all activities related to air travel; or Ford seeking immunity from claims related to the manufacture of any wheeled vehicle. In each of these hypothetical scenarios, such sweeping immunity would perversely incentivize the underlying company to seek profits no matter the human cost. What Big Social Media seeks is no different.
Under Big Social Media's self-serving reading of Section 230, social media platforms are free to engineer their algorithms for maximum profitability regardless of the tangible human consequences. These algorithms already gobble up users' personal information—including their contacts, web-browsing history, and geographic proximity to other users—to create a uniquely enticing "feed" of customized content.
Big Social Media has been wielding Section 230 in court this way for years—and often successfully. When parents have sued Meta after their teenage daughters developed eating disorders promoted by Instagram's algorithm, or when parents have sued TikTok after their children died attempting dangerous viral challenges the app's videos promoted, Big Social Media has asserted Section 230 as a purported affirmative liability shield.
Indeed, Big Social Media invokes Section 230 not merely to rebuff these plaintiffs' claims, but to prevent courts from hearing the cases at all. Because Section 230 conveys immunity, a plaintiff cannot even try to hold Big Social Media accountable for the harm its algorithms cause to consumers.
This expansive view of Section 230 should alarm all Americans because it represents an industry asking for the unthinkable: complete immunity from civil liability for harms caused by the very core of its profit-generating business. It is comparable to Exxon seeking legal immunity for all of its drilling-related activities; or Southwest Airlines seeking immunity for all activities related to air travel; or Ford seeking immunity from claims related to the manufacture of any wheeled vehicle. In each of these hypothetical scenarios, such sweeping immunity would perversely incentivize the underlying company to seek profits no matter the human cost. What Big Social Media seeks is no different.
Under Big Social Media's self-serving reading of Section 230, social media platforms are free to engineer their algorithms for maximum profitability regardless of the tangible human consequences. These algorithms already gobble up users' personal information—including their contacts, web-browsing history, and geographic proximity to other users—to create a uniquely enticing "feed" of customized content.
The war against meritocracy continues:
To Increase Equity, School Districts Eliminate Honors Classes
...School districts doing away with honors classes argue students who don’t take those classes from a young age start to see themselves in a different tier, and come to think they aren’t capable of enrolling in Advanced Placement classes that help with college admissions. Black and Latino students are underrepresented in AP enrollment in the majority of states, according to the Education Trust, a nonprofit that studies equity in education.
......
“Parents say academic excellence should not be experimented with for the sake of social justice,” said Quoc Tran, the superintendent of 6,900-student Culver City Unified School District. But, he said, “it was very jarring when teachers looked at their AP enrollment and realized Black and brown kids were not there. They felt obligated to do something.”
Culver City English teachers presented data at a board meeting last year showing Latino students made up 13% of those in 12th-grade Advanced Placement English, compared with 37% of the student body. Asian students were 34% of the advanced class, compared with 10% of students. Black students represented 14% of AP English, versus 15% of the student body.
......
In Santa Monica, Calif., high school English teachers said last year they had “a moral imperative” to eliminate honors English classes that they viewed as perpetuating inequality. The teachers studied the issue for a year and a half, a district representative said.
“This is not a social experiment,” board member Jon Kean said at a meeting last spring. “This is a sound pedagogical approach to education.”
......
Critics say attempting to teach everyone at an elevated level isn’t realistic and that teachers, even with the best intentions, may end up simplifying instruction. Instead, some educators and parents argue schools should find more ways to diversify honors courses and encourage students to enroll who aren’t self-selecting, including proactively reaching out to students, using an opt-out system, or looking to teacher recommendations.
“I just don’t see how removing something from some kids all of a sudden helps other kids learn faster,” said Scott Peters, a senior research scientist at education research nonprofit NWEA who has studied equity in gifted and talented programs.
To Increase Equity, School Districts Eliminate Honors Classes
...School districts doing away with honors classes argue students who don’t take those classes from a young age start to see themselves in a different tier, and come to think they aren’t capable of enrolling in Advanced Placement classes that help with college admissions. Black and Latino students are underrepresented in AP enrollment in the majority of states, according to the Education Trust, a nonprofit that studies equity in education.
......
“Parents say academic excellence should not be experimented with for the sake of social justice,” said Quoc Tran, the superintendent of 6,900-student Culver City Unified School District. But, he said, “it was very jarring when teachers looked at their AP enrollment and realized Black and brown kids were not there. They felt obligated to do something.”
Culver City English teachers presented data at a board meeting last year showing Latino students made up 13% of those in 12th-grade Advanced Placement English, compared with 37% of the student body. Asian students were 34% of the advanced class, compared with 10% of students. Black students represented 14% of AP English, versus 15% of the student body.
......
In Santa Monica, Calif., high school English teachers said last year they had “a moral imperative” to eliminate honors English classes that they viewed as perpetuating inequality. The teachers studied the issue for a year and a half, a district representative said.
“This is not a social experiment,” board member Jon Kean said at a meeting last spring. “This is a sound pedagogical approach to education.”
......
Critics say attempting to teach everyone at an elevated level isn’t realistic and that teachers, even with the best intentions, may end up simplifying instruction. Instead, some educators and parents argue schools should find more ways to diversify honors courses and encourage students to enroll who aren’t self-selecting, including proactively reaching out to students, using an opt-out system, or looking to teacher recommendations.
“I just don’t see how removing something from some kids all of a sudden helps other kids learn faster,” said Scott Peters, a senior research scientist at education research nonprofit NWEA who has studied equity in gifted and talented programs.
Video: Prince Harry & Meghan Markle Seem To Get ROASTED In New 'South Park' Episode
"South Park" has seemingly taken aim and roasted Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. On Wednesday, the second episode from season 26 of the explicit cartoon comedy aired, and without ever naming the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, it was filled with references to the couple. The episode centers on the Prince of Canada and his wife moving to South Park and the jokes focus on the tension between their desire for privacy but their willingness to share intimate details of their life in interviews and books.
"South Park" has seemingly taken aim and roasted Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. On Wednesday, the second episode from season 26 of the explicit cartoon comedy aired, and without ever naming the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, it was filled with references to the couple. The episode centers on the Prince of Canada and his wife moving to South Park and the jokes focus on the tension between their desire for privacy but their willingness to share intimate details of their life in interviews and books.
NATO’s Biggest European Members Float Defense Pact With Ukraine - WSJ
BERLIN—Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia later this year, officials from the three governments said, as some of Kyiv’s Western partners have growing doubts over its ability to reconquer all its territory.
.......
...the public rhetoric masks deepening private doubts among politicians in the U.K., France and Germany that Ukraine will be able to expel the Russians from eastern Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014, and a belief that the West can only help sustain the war effort for so long, especially if the conflict settles into a stalemate, officials from the three countries say.
“We keep repeating that Russia mustn’t win, but what does that mean? If the war goes on for long enough with this intensity, Ukraine’s losses will become unbearable,” a senior French official said. “And no one believes they will be able to retrieve Crimea.”
......
President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he needed to start considering peace talks with Moscow when the three leaders met in Paris earlier this month, people familiar with the conversation said.
Over dinner at the Élysée Palace, the sumptuous seat of the French presidency, Mr. Macron delivered a more sober message, the people said, telling Mr. Zelensky that even mortal enemies like France and Germany had to make peace after World War II.
Mr. Macron told Mr. Zelensky that he had been a great war leader, but that he would eventually have to shift into political statesmanship and make difficult decisions, these people said.
Speaking after a security conference in Munich last weekend, Mr. Macron became one of the first Western leaders to publicly question whether either Ukraine or Russia could achieve their battlefield aims, saying neither side could prevail militarily.
He told French media: “What we need now is for Ukraine to launch a military offensive which pushes back the Russian front in order to open the way for a return to negotiations.”
BERLIN—Germany, France and Britain see stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine as a way to encourage Kyiv to start peace talks with Russia later this year, officials from the three governments said, as some of Kyiv’s Western partners have growing doubts over its ability to reconquer all its territory.
.......
...the public rhetoric masks deepening private doubts among politicians in the U.K., France and Germany that Ukraine will be able to expel the Russians from eastern Ukraine and Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014, and a belief that the West can only help sustain the war effort for so long, especially if the conflict settles into a stalemate, officials from the three countries say.
“We keep repeating that Russia mustn’t win, but what does that mean? If the war goes on for long enough with this intensity, Ukraine’s losses will become unbearable,” a senior French official said. “And no one believes they will be able to retrieve Crimea.”
......
President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that he needed to start considering peace talks with Moscow when the three leaders met in Paris earlier this month, people familiar with the conversation said.
Over dinner at the Élysée Palace, the sumptuous seat of the French presidency, Mr. Macron delivered a more sober message, the people said, telling Mr. Zelensky that even mortal enemies like France and Germany had to make peace after World War II.
Mr. Macron told Mr. Zelensky that he had been a great war leader, but that he would eventually have to shift into political statesmanship and make difficult decisions, these people said.
Speaking after a security conference in Munich last weekend, Mr. Macron became one of the first Western leaders to publicly question whether either Ukraine or Russia could achieve their battlefield aims, saying neither side could prevail militarily.
He told French media: “What we need now is for Ukraine to launch a military offensive which pushes back the Russian front in order to open the way for a return to negotiations.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Other Democrats Urge Japan to Advance LGBT Rights
U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pressed her Japanese counterparts to move forward on LGBT rights ahead of the Group of Seven summit in May, even as she praised the country’s investment in infrastructure.
“I believe as a collective in the G7 it’s important to send a message about what precisely aligns these countries,” the New York Democrat told Bloomberg News. “In that context, I think it’s critical that Japan takes steps to move toward recognition of LGBT communities broadly, not just marriage equality.”
Japan is preparing to host the G7 summit of advanced democracies in May as the only member not to recognize same-sex marriage or legally protect LGBT rights amid stiff debate on the issue.
At last year’s summit in Germany, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida signed a G7 communique affirming “shared values” with the other members and committing to “ensuring that everyone – independent of their gender identity or expression or sexual orientation — has the same opportunities and is protected against discrimination and violence.”
Japan’s parliament is currently wrestling over a bill to “promote understanding” of LGBT issues, though some conservatives oppose a clause saying that discrimination shouldn’t be allowed. Numerous polls show a majority of the public is in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, however.
U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pressed her Japanese counterparts to move forward on LGBT rights ahead of the Group of Seven summit in May, even as she praised the country’s investment in infrastructure.
“I believe as a collective in the G7 it’s important to send a message about what precisely aligns these countries,” the New York Democrat told Bloomberg News. “In that context, I think it’s critical that Japan takes steps to move toward recognition of LGBT communities broadly, not just marriage equality.”
Japan is preparing to host the G7 summit of advanced democracies in May as the only member not to recognize same-sex marriage or legally protect LGBT rights amid stiff debate on the issue.
At last year’s summit in Germany, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida signed a G7 communique affirming “shared values” with the other members and committing to “ensuring that everyone – independent of their gender identity or expression or sexual orientation — has the same opportunities and is protected against discrimination and violence.”
Japan’s parliament is currently wrestling over a bill to “promote understanding” of LGBT issues, though some conservatives oppose a clause saying that discrimination shouldn’t be allowed. Numerous polls show a majority of the public is in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, however.
Stanford Faculty Say Anonymous Student Bias Reports Threaten Free Speech
A group of Stanford University professors is pushing to end a system that allows students to anonymously report classmates for exhibiting discrimination or bias, saying it threatens free speech on campus.
The backlash began last month, when a student reading “Mein Kampf,” the autobiographical manifesto of Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler, was reported through the school’s “Protected Identity Harm” system.
The reporting system has been in place since the summer of 2021, but faculty say they were unaware of it until the student newspaper wrote about the incident and the system, spurring a contentious campus debate.
“I was stunned,” said Russell Berman, a professor of comparative literature who said he believes the reporting system could chill free speech on campus and is ripe for abuse. “It reminds me of McCarthyism.”
......
The Stanford faculty’s effort is part of broader pushback against bias-reporting systems around the country. About half of college campuses have one—more than twice as many as five years ago—according to a 2022 survey by Speech First, a conservative nonprofit.
Free-speech advocates have taken several schools to court and forced them to change their systems, alleging they inhibit the exchange of ideas.
The systems were more widely used during the pandemic, when students were encouraged to report on classmates for not wearing masks, said Cherise Trump, executive director of Speech First. The pandemic also coincided with a spike in hate crimes.
......
Stanford Business School professor Ivan Marinovic said the bias-reporting system reminded him of the way citizens were encouraged to inform on one another by governments in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China.
“It ignores the whole history,” he said. “You’re basically going to be reporting people who you find offensive, right? According to your own ideology.”
A group of Stanford University professors is pushing to end a system that allows students to anonymously report classmates for exhibiting discrimination or bias, saying it threatens free speech on campus.
The backlash began last month, when a student reading “Mein Kampf,” the autobiographical manifesto of Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler, was reported through the school’s “Protected Identity Harm” system.
The reporting system has been in place since the summer of 2021, but faculty say they were unaware of it until the student newspaper wrote about the incident and the system, spurring a contentious campus debate.
“I was stunned,” said Russell Berman, a professor of comparative literature who said he believes the reporting system could chill free speech on campus and is ripe for abuse. “It reminds me of McCarthyism.”
......
The Stanford faculty’s effort is part of broader pushback against bias-reporting systems around the country. About half of college campuses have one—more than twice as many as five years ago—according to a 2022 survey by Speech First, a conservative nonprofit.
Free-speech advocates have taken several schools to court and forced them to change their systems, alleging they inhibit the exchange of ideas.
The systems were more widely used during the pandemic, when students were encouraged to report on classmates for not wearing masks, said Cherise Trump, executive director of Speech First. The pandemic also coincided with a spike in hate crimes.
......
Stanford Business School professor Ivan Marinovic said the bias-reporting system reminded him of the way citizens were encouraged to inform on one another by governments in the Soviet Union, East Germany and China.
“It ignores the whole history,” he said. “You’re basically going to be reporting people who you find offensive, right? According to your own ideology.”
Asylum requests across the EU rose by 50% and reached 966,000 in 2022
The European Union received 966,000 asylum requests over the course of last year, a rise of more than 50% compared to 2021.
Syrians, Afghans, Turks, Venezuelans and Colombians made up the largest groups of applicants seeking international protection across the bloc, Norway and Switzerland.
The final number, released by EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA) on Wednesday morning, represents the highest figure since 2016 when over 1.2 million applications were lodged and exceeds the estimate previously given by the European Commission, which had put the 2022 total at 924,000.
The stats are poised to influence the political debate brewing among member states, which are still at loggerheads over the question of relocation and resettlement. Instead, governments have decided to focus their energy on external relations, where agreement is proven easier to find.
In their last summit in Brussels, leaders struck a hard line on migration and threatened to use visa permits, trade flows and development aid as leverages against non-EU countries that fail to take back unsuccessful asylum-seekers.
The European Union received 966,000 asylum requests over the course of last year, a rise of more than 50% compared to 2021.
Syrians, Afghans, Turks, Venezuelans and Colombians made up the largest groups of applicants seeking international protection across the bloc, Norway and Switzerland.
The final number, released by EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA) on Wednesday morning, represents the highest figure since 2016 when over 1.2 million applications were lodged and exceeds the estimate previously given by the European Commission, which had put the 2022 total at 924,000.
The stats are poised to influence the political debate brewing among member states, which are still at loggerheads over the question of relocation and resettlement. Instead, governments have decided to focus their energy on external relations, where agreement is proven easier to find.
In their last summit in Brussels, leaders struck a hard line on migration and threatened to use visa permits, trade flows and development aid as leverages against non-EU countries that fail to take back unsuccessful asylum-seekers.
UK: New data reveals nationwide desire for lower immigration
New UnHerd Britain polling today reveals the strength of opposition across Britain to current levels of immigration: 57% of Britons agree with the statement “Immigration levels are too high”, compared to just 20% who disagree.
It is the latest in a series of statements which UnHerd has tested as part of this series. Based on a survey of 10,000 voters, our partners FocalData have produced MRP estimates for each individual constituency based on the results.
As the map below reveals, a desire to reduce levels of immigration is almost universal across the country — in only one constituency of the 632 do more residents disagree than agree with the statement: Bristol West, which also ranked as the constituency that most regretted Brexit and most supported gender self-ID policies.
......
Despite regular reports from survey groups that, as a political issue, immigration is less important to voters since Brexit, today’s results show a very high level of support for reduced immigration across the political spectrum. That 80% of those who voted for the Brexit Party in the 2019 general election, as well as 72% of Conservative supporters, believe immigration is too high may not be surprising. But our data reveals that dominant pluralities of Green voters (47%), Labour voters (45%) and Liberal Democrats (41%) share the same view.
It also appears that immigration inspires broad agreement across different age groups. Of those in the 18-24 age bracket, 42% agree, with only 24% disagreeing (a higher proportion of this group were unsure or ambivalent about the issue). Among the 25-34 bracket, 52% agreed and 20% disagreed.
New UnHerd Britain polling today reveals the strength of opposition across Britain to current levels of immigration: 57% of Britons agree with the statement “Immigration levels are too high”, compared to just 20% who disagree.
It is the latest in a series of statements which UnHerd has tested as part of this series. Based on a survey of 10,000 voters, our partners FocalData have produced MRP estimates for each individual constituency based on the results.
As the map below reveals, a desire to reduce levels of immigration is almost universal across the country — in only one constituency of the 632 do more residents disagree than agree with the statement: Bristol West, which also ranked as the constituency that most regretted Brexit and most supported gender self-ID policies.
......
Despite regular reports from survey groups that, as a political issue, immigration is less important to voters since Brexit, today’s results show a very high level of support for reduced immigration across the political spectrum. That 80% of those who voted for the Brexit Party in the 2019 general election, as well as 72% of Conservative supporters, believe immigration is too high may not be surprising. But our data reveals that dominant pluralities of Green voters (47%), Labour voters (45%) and Liberal Democrats (41%) share the same view.
It also appears that immigration inspires broad agreement across different age groups. Of those in the 18-24 age bracket, 42% agree, with only 24% disagreeing (a higher proportion of this group were unsure or ambivalent about the issue). Among the 25-34 bracket, 52% agreed and 20% disagreed.
Germany’s Far-Right ‘Firewall’ Is Starting to Crack
BAUTZEN, Germany—Ever since the populist far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party came onto the country’s political scene, there has been an explicit taboo among the other parties against collaborating with it. Leaders of the five main other parties in Germany’s Bundestag—the center-left Social Democratic Party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU)/Christian Social Union bloc, the Greens, the pro-business Free Democratic Party, and the Left party—have vowed not to work with the AfD in any form, erecting what they refer to as a Brandmauer (or “firewall”) between them and the far-right party.
But 10 years after the AfD’s founding, that so-called firewall is beginning to show cracks. The AfD has become both more successful and more radicalized in recent years. It has capitalized on a mix of anti-refugee sentiment, coronavirus skepticism, and economic insecurity to become the strongest party in two of five eastern German states and win double-digit support nationally. And it’s in places like Bautzen, this AfD stronghold of around 40,000 people in eastern Saxony, that the national parties’ commitment to isolating the AfD is breaking down.
In December 2022, when the AfD proposed cutting benefits for refugees in the area to Bautzen’s district-level council, 19 members of the CDU voted in favor of the plan. Udo Witschas, one of the CDU representatives who backed the proposal, said he thought it was “completely fine” to vote with the AfD—and in a video published on his Facebook page, he echoed the kind of anti-refugee rhetoric common among the AfD. Speaking about the possibility of housing refugees in a nearby gym, Witschas said, “It is not our intention to let sports, whether school or leisure sports, bleed for this asylum policy.”
The move made headlines and put national-level leaders of the CDU under pressure to condemn Witschas and others who voted with the AfD. But CDU chief Friedrich Merz, who had previously declared that any CDU politician working with the AfD would face expulsion from the party, notably remained silent. Since then, the members of the Bautzen CDU who voted for the proposal have not faced consequences within the party.
......
With regional elections on the horizon in three eastern German states where the AfD is the strongest or second-strongest party in the polls—Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg—these questions about how and whether to work with the AfD are only becoming more urgent. Some people in Saxony’s CDU, for example, have openly mused about forming a state-level government with the AfD.
In his speech commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the party’s founding this month, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla nodded to those dynamics, declaring the party would be in government in the near future “first in a state in the east, and then in the west, and then nationally.”
“There are some politicians who want to build firewalls,” he said. “We East Germans have experience with walls, and the last wall that was built in Germany [the Berlin Wall], … we East Germans tore it down.”
BAUTZEN, Germany—Ever since the populist far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party came onto the country’s political scene, there has been an explicit taboo among the other parties against collaborating with it. Leaders of the five main other parties in Germany’s Bundestag—the center-left Social Democratic Party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU)/Christian Social Union bloc, the Greens, the pro-business Free Democratic Party, and the Left party—have vowed not to work with the AfD in any form, erecting what they refer to as a Brandmauer (or “firewall”) between them and the far-right party.
But 10 years after the AfD’s founding, that so-called firewall is beginning to show cracks. The AfD has become both more successful and more radicalized in recent years. It has capitalized on a mix of anti-refugee sentiment, coronavirus skepticism, and economic insecurity to become the strongest party in two of five eastern German states and win double-digit support nationally. And it’s in places like Bautzen, this AfD stronghold of around 40,000 people in eastern Saxony, that the national parties’ commitment to isolating the AfD is breaking down.
In December 2022, when the AfD proposed cutting benefits for refugees in the area to Bautzen’s district-level council, 19 members of the CDU voted in favor of the plan. Udo Witschas, one of the CDU representatives who backed the proposal, said he thought it was “completely fine” to vote with the AfD—and in a video published on his Facebook page, he echoed the kind of anti-refugee rhetoric common among the AfD. Speaking about the possibility of housing refugees in a nearby gym, Witschas said, “It is not our intention to let sports, whether school or leisure sports, bleed for this asylum policy.”
The move made headlines and put national-level leaders of the CDU under pressure to condemn Witschas and others who voted with the AfD. But CDU chief Friedrich Merz, who had previously declared that any CDU politician working with the AfD would face expulsion from the party, notably remained silent. Since then, the members of the Bautzen CDU who voted for the proposal have not faced consequences within the party.
......
With regional elections on the horizon in three eastern German states where the AfD is the strongest or second-strongest party in the polls—Saxony, Thuringia, and Brandenburg—these questions about how and whether to work with the AfD are only becoming more urgent. Some people in Saxony’s CDU, for example, have openly mused about forming a state-level government with the AfD.
In his speech commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the party’s founding this month, AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla nodded to those dynamics, declaring the party would be in government in the near future “first in a state in the east, and then in the west, and then nationally.”
“There are some politicians who want to build firewalls,” he said. “We East Germans have experience with walls, and the last wall that was built in Germany [the Berlin Wall], … we East Germans tore it down.”
Marine Le Pen ‘now favourite to be president’ amid pension fury
President Macron’s unpopular attempt to make the French work for longer cleared its first parliamentary hurdle on Friday with one clear winner so far: Marine Le Pen, his populist foe.
The woman whom Macron beat twice in run-offs for the Élysée Palace has enhanced her stature as France’s president-in-waiting after a fortnight of chaotic debate on the government’s pension reform against a background of national strikes and street protest.
The bill, opposed by 70 per cent of the public according to polls, now goes to the senate before returning for a parliamentary vote in March. Playing reasonable in the face of disruption from the radical left opposition, the leader of the right-wing National Rally’s 89 MPs has succeeded so well in recasting herself as a mainstream politician that Macron and his team are “in a state of shock”, according to Le Monde.
Édouard Philippe, who served as Macron’s first prime minister, said Le Pen, 54, was now the clear favourite to win the next presidential election in 2027, when Macron will be barred from seeking a third term. Since April, when voters’ lingering distaste for her far-right background helped to ensure her loss to Macron, “she has pulled ahead with her normalisation,” Philippe said.
Jérôme Jaffré, a veteran pollster, said Le Pen was the main beneficiary of the anger over Macron’s plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 and has positioned herself as the main opposition leader. “If the French want to exact revenge on the president, the political class, the elite, Marine Le Pen has every chance of winning,” he said.
President Macron’s unpopular attempt to make the French work for longer cleared its first parliamentary hurdle on Friday with one clear winner so far: Marine Le Pen, his populist foe.
The woman whom Macron beat twice in run-offs for the Élysée Palace has enhanced her stature as France’s president-in-waiting after a fortnight of chaotic debate on the government’s pension reform against a background of national strikes and street protest.
The bill, opposed by 70 per cent of the public according to polls, now goes to the senate before returning for a parliamentary vote in March. Playing reasonable in the face of disruption from the radical left opposition, the leader of the right-wing National Rally’s 89 MPs has succeeded so well in recasting herself as a mainstream politician that Macron and his team are “in a state of shock”, according to Le Monde.
Édouard Philippe, who served as Macron’s first prime minister, said Le Pen, 54, was now the clear favourite to win the next presidential election in 2027, when Macron will be barred from seeking a third term. Since April, when voters’ lingering distaste for her far-right background helped to ensure her loss to Macron, “she has pulled ahead with her normalisation,” Philippe said.
Jérôme Jaffré, a veteran pollster, said Le Pen was the main beneficiary of the anger over Macron’s plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 and has positioned herself as the main opposition leader. “If the French want to exact revenge on the president, the political class, the elite, Marine Le Pen has every chance of winning,” he said.
Finland Takes Another Look at Youth Gender Medicine
Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala knows gender medicine. She is the top expert on pediatric gender medicine in Finland and the chief psychiatrist at one of its two government-approved pediatric gender clinics, at Tampere University, where she has presided over youth gender transition treatments since 2011. Her research has even been cited—though not accurately—by American supporters of “affirming care” for gender-dysphoric youth. She is one of the last people in the world who could be accused of being “reactionary,” a “transphobe,” or uninformed on the subject of trans health care.
Earlier this month, however, just a few days before Finland passed a law granting its adult citizens the right to have their self-defined gender recognized in government documents, Dr. Kaltiala gave an interview with Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s liberal newspaper of record. Her comments were a sobering reminder of just how out of step the American medical establishment is with its European counterparts when it comes to treating minors who reject their sex.
......
Asked by Helsingin Sanomat what she thought of gender self-identification for minors—a proposed element of the new Finnish law that did not ultimately pass—Kaltiala emphasized that it is “important to accept [children] as they are,” but this means neither pressuring a child to conform to behaviors traditionally associated with the child’s sex nor “negating the body” by confirming that the child’s gender self-identification is real. “In either case,” said the psychiatrist, “the child gets a message that there is something wrong with him or her.” Evidence from a combined 12 studies to date demonstrates that when children with cross-gender or gender variant behavior are left to develop naturally, the vast majority—“four out of five,” according to Kaltiala—come to terms with their bodies and learn to accept their sex. When they are socially transitioned, virtually none do.
That most children desist from cross-sex identification does not necessarily mean that they will no longer experience any distress associated with their bodies; rather, it means that even if such distress lingers, it will not prevent them from becoming reasonably well-adjusted and living a good life. The notion that no human should ever have to experience any discomfort associated with male or female embodiment, including during the turbulent period of puberty, is the utopian promise fueling much of the gender transition industry. There has been a growing movement among gender activists to frame puberty as something that the autonomous, disembodied, self should have a “right” to choose. “Neither puberty suppression nor allowing puberty to occur is a neutral act,” writes the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in the seventh version of its Standards of Care.
Unlike progressive elites in the United States, who seem to regard social affirmation of “transgender children” as little more than an act of kindness, Kaltiala sees it as a powerful intervention in a young person’s psychosocial development with potential for iatrogenic harm (i.e., harm caused by the treatment itself). Gender self-identification in youth is not a mere clerical “formality.” In Kaltiala’s words, “it’s a message saying that this is the right path for you.” Kaltiala thus concurs with NHS England, which recently noted that social transition—using a child’s preferred name and pronouns—is “not a neutral act” but rather one that can solidify what is otherwise likely to be a passing phase into a more permanent state of mind, or “identity,” and put the minor on a path to drugs and surgeries. The NHS now warns of the risks of social transition in children and recommends it only for adolescents who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and have provided informed consent.
Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala knows gender medicine. She is the top expert on pediatric gender medicine in Finland and the chief psychiatrist at one of its two government-approved pediatric gender clinics, at Tampere University, where she has presided over youth gender transition treatments since 2011. Her research has even been cited—though not accurately—by American supporters of “affirming care” for gender-dysphoric youth. She is one of the last people in the world who could be accused of being “reactionary,” a “transphobe,” or uninformed on the subject of trans health care.
Earlier this month, however, just a few days before Finland passed a law granting its adult citizens the right to have their self-defined gender recognized in government documents, Dr. Kaltiala gave an interview with Helsingin Sanomat, Finland’s liberal newspaper of record. Her comments were a sobering reminder of just how out of step the American medical establishment is with its European counterparts when it comes to treating minors who reject their sex.
......
Asked by Helsingin Sanomat what she thought of gender self-identification for minors—a proposed element of the new Finnish law that did not ultimately pass—Kaltiala emphasized that it is “important to accept [children] as they are,” but this means neither pressuring a child to conform to behaviors traditionally associated with the child’s sex nor “negating the body” by confirming that the child’s gender self-identification is real. “In either case,” said the psychiatrist, “the child gets a message that there is something wrong with him or her.” Evidence from a combined 12 studies to date demonstrates that when children with cross-gender or gender variant behavior are left to develop naturally, the vast majority—“four out of five,” according to Kaltiala—come to terms with their bodies and learn to accept their sex. When they are socially transitioned, virtually none do.
That most children desist from cross-sex identification does not necessarily mean that they will no longer experience any distress associated with their bodies; rather, it means that even if such distress lingers, it will not prevent them from becoming reasonably well-adjusted and living a good life. The notion that no human should ever have to experience any discomfort associated with male or female embodiment, including during the turbulent period of puberty, is the utopian promise fueling much of the gender transition industry. There has been a growing movement among gender activists to frame puberty as something that the autonomous, disembodied, self should have a “right” to choose. “Neither puberty suppression nor allowing puberty to occur is a neutral act,” writes the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in the seventh version of its Standards of Care.
Unlike progressive elites in the United States, who seem to regard social affirmation of “transgender children” as little more than an act of kindness, Kaltiala sees it as a powerful intervention in a young person’s psychosocial development with potential for iatrogenic harm (i.e., harm caused by the treatment itself). Gender self-identification in youth is not a mere clerical “formality.” In Kaltiala’s words, “it’s a message saying that this is the right path for you.” Kaltiala thus concurs with NHS England, which recently noted that social transition—using a child’s preferred name and pronouns—is “not a neutral act” but rather one that can solidify what is otherwise likely to be a passing phase into a more permanent state of mind, or “identity,” and put the minor on a path to drugs and surgeries. The NHS now warns of the risks of social transition in children and recommends it only for adolescents who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and have provided informed consent.
House GOP’s top tax man throws K Street into a tizzy
Rep. Jason Smith hasn’t been chair of the House Ways and Means Committee very long, but he’s already done something rare for a Republican: He’s struck fear into the heart of corporate tax lobbyists.
The Missouri lawmaker is making it clear he isn’t the sort of Chamber of Commerce Republican his side usually picks for this job. He is going out of his way to let corporate America know he’s not terribly concerned with its problems, even if its taxes are going up substantially, while promising a lot more scrutiny of its relations with China.
“Our priorities have changed — our priorities are small business, working-class Americans and farmers over big corporations,” he said in an interview.
“These huge companies that get big tax advantages and have very good trade policies that have allowed them to invest billions in China and overlook Americans while they reap all these tax benefits — that’s something we’re going to be looking into.”
All of that is throwing K Street into a tizzy.
Corporate tax lobbyists are not used to taking heat from Republicans, and many don’t know what to make of Smith.
They didn’t know him well before his surprise win last month for the committee gavel over two more traditional, business-friendly Republicans.
And they’re not sure if this is merely a shift in rhetoric, without much actual change in policy, or if it signifies something deeper.
Rep. Jason Smith hasn’t been chair of the House Ways and Means Committee very long, but he’s already done something rare for a Republican: He’s struck fear into the heart of corporate tax lobbyists.
The Missouri lawmaker is making it clear he isn’t the sort of Chamber of Commerce Republican his side usually picks for this job. He is going out of his way to let corporate America know he’s not terribly concerned with its problems, even if its taxes are going up substantially, while promising a lot more scrutiny of its relations with China.
“Our priorities have changed — our priorities are small business, working-class Americans and farmers over big corporations,” he said in an interview.
“These huge companies that get big tax advantages and have very good trade policies that have allowed them to invest billions in China and overlook Americans while they reap all these tax benefits — that’s something we’re going to be looking into.”
All of that is throwing K Street into a tizzy.
Corporate tax lobbyists are not used to taking heat from Republicans, and many don’t know what to make of Smith.
They didn’t know him well before his surprise win last month for the committee gavel over two more traditional, business-friendly Republicans.
And they’re not sure if this is merely a shift in rhetoric, without much actual change in policy, or if it signifies something deeper.
‘Airbnb Are Lying’: Lauren Southern’s Parents Banned From Airbnb For Ties To Daughter, Then Reinstated Over ‘Mistake’
Canadian conservative activist and YouTuber Lauren Southern announced Tuesday that her parents had been banned from vacation rental property company Airbnb for being “closely associated” with their daughter.
“We’ve removed you from the Airbnb platform because your account is closely associated with a person who isn’t allowed to use Airbnb,” an email from the company to Southern’s parents said. “This means you’ll no longer be able to book reservations on Airbnb.”
Southern was banned from Airbnb years ago over her Right-wing political views and was denied reinstatement when she tried to appeal.
“My parents just got banned from AirBnB for being related to me,” Southern captioned the now-viral Twitter post. “They have never booked anything for me. They do not represent me in any way. They aren’t publicly political in any way. How is this sane in any way [Airbnb].”
......
Airbnb told The Daily Wire the banning of Southern’s parents was a “mistake.”
“We have reinstated their accounts and apologized to them for this mistake,” a spokesperson said.
The Daily Wire reached out to Southern about the response, and she said she believes Airbnb is “lying” about the ban being a mistake and only backtracked because of the public blowback.
“I think it’s obvious to everyone that my parents never would’ve been reinstated if Airbnb didn’t start trending last night,” Southern told The Daily Wire.
“How do you accidentally find a political activist’s parents?” she posed. “How do you accidentally ban them after she was banned 3 years ago? How do you accidentally write an email that specifically highlights they’re being banned for their associations?”
Canadian conservative activist and YouTuber Lauren Southern announced Tuesday that her parents had been banned from vacation rental property company Airbnb for being “closely associated” with their daughter.
“We’ve removed you from the Airbnb platform because your account is closely associated with a person who isn’t allowed to use Airbnb,” an email from the company to Southern’s parents said. “This means you’ll no longer be able to book reservations on Airbnb.”
Southern was banned from Airbnb years ago over her Right-wing political views and was denied reinstatement when she tried to appeal.
“My parents just got banned from AirBnB for being related to me,” Southern captioned the now-viral Twitter post. “They have never booked anything for me. They do not represent me in any way. They aren’t publicly political in any way. How is this sane in any way [Airbnb].”
......
Airbnb told The Daily Wire the banning of Southern’s parents was a “mistake.”
“We have reinstated their accounts and apologized to them for this mistake,” a spokesperson said.
The Daily Wire reached out to Southern about the response, and she said she believes Airbnb is “lying” about the ban being a mistake and only backtracked because of the public blowback.
“I think it’s obvious to everyone that my parents never would’ve been reinstated if Airbnb didn’t start trending last night,” Southern told The Daily Wire.
“How do you accidentally find a political activist’s parents?” she posed. “How do you accidentally ban them after she was banned 3 years ago? How do you accidentally write an email that specifically highlights they’re being banned for their associations?”
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis answers Fox News questionnaire on Ukraine:
While the U.S. has many vital national interests – securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party – becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration’s virtual “blank check” funding of this conflict for “as long as it takes,” without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.
Without question, peace should be the objective. The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.
A policy of “regime change” in Russia (no doubt popular among the DC foreign policy interventionists) would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making the use of nuclear weapons more likely. Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American, Madisonian constitutionalist in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin’s successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless. The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical.
The Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a de facto alliance with China. Because China has not and will not abide by the embargo, Russia has increased its foreign revenues while China benefits from cheaper fuel. Coupled with his intentional depletion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and support for the Left’s Green New Deal, Biden has further empowered Russia’s energy-dominated economy and Putin’s war machine at Americans’ expense.
Our citizens are also entitled to know how the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being utilized in Ukraine.
We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland, especially as tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year from narcotics smuggled across our open border and our weapons arsenals critical for our own security are rapidly being depleted.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1635446265692532738
While the U.S. has many vital national interests – securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party – becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them. The Biden administration’s virtual “blank check” funding of this conflict for “as long as it takes,” without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges.
Without question, peace should be the objective. The U.S. should not provide assistance that could require the deployment of American troops or enable Ukraine to engage in offensive operations beyond its borders. F-16s and long-range missiles should therefore be off the table. These moves would risk explicitly drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. That risk is unacceptable.
A policy of “regime change” in Russia (no doubt popular among the DC foreign policy interventionists) would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making the use of nuclear weapons more likely. Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American, Madisonian constitutionalist in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin’s successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless. The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical.
The Biden administration’s policies have driven Russia into a de facto alliance with China. Because China has not and will not abide by the embargo, Russia has increased its foreign revenues while China benefits from cheaper fuel. Coupled with his intentional depletion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and support for the Left’s Green New Deal, Biden has further empowered Russia’s energy-dominated economy and Putin’s war machine at Americans’ expense.
Our citizens are also entitled to know how the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being utilized in Ukraine.
We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland, especially as tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year from narcotics smuggled across our open border and our weapons arsenals critical for our own security are rapidly being depleted.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1635446265692532738
Analysis: Macron wins Pyrrhic victory on pension bill, risks fuelling anger
PARIS, March 16 (Reuters) - President Emmanuel Macron's move to shun the National Assembly and push through an unpopular pension system overhaul without a vote in the lower house may secure a reform he says is needed for France's finances. But it may end up a Pyrrhic victory.
By using special constitutional powers instead of risking lawmakers rejecting the reform, Macron has given ammunition to the opposition and to trade union leaders who cast the reform as undemocratic.
It could also play into the far right's hands.
"It's a democratic coup," far-right leader Marine Le Pen told reporters after a chaotic session in parliament, where Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne was booed as she announced that the government would invoke article 49.3 of the constitution allowing it to pass the legislation without a vote.
Despite a series of costly sweeteners, the government concluded it had failed to garner enough votes from conservative lawmakers in the lower house to ensure passage for its plan to raise the minimum retirement age to 64 from 62.
Once known as a high-stakes political gambler, Macron chose to play it safe.
He was too concerned about the broader financial implications to risk jeopardising a reform meant to reassure investors and ratings agencies about French debt sustainability, a government source said.
However, weeks of heated debates in parliament and street protests drawing over 1 million people risked leaving a toxic legacy that could boost far-right populists, analysts said.
PARIS, March 16 (Reuters) - President Emmanuel Macron's move to shun the National Assembly and push through an unpopular pension system overhaul without a vote in the lower house may secure a reform he says is needed for France's finances. But it may end up a Pyrrhic victory.
By using special constitutional powers instead of risking lawmakers rejecting the reform, Macron has given ammunition to the opposition and to trade union leaders who cast the reform as undemocratic.
It could also play into the far right's hands.
"It's a democratic coup," far-right leader Marine Le Pen told reporters after a chaotic session in parliament, where Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne was booed as she announced that the government would invoke article 49.3 of the constitution allowing it to pass the legislation without a vote.
Despite a series of costly sweeteners, the government concluded it had failed to garner enough votes from conservative lawmakers in the lower house to ensure passage for its plan to raise the minimum retirement age to 64 from 62.
Once known as a high-stakes political gambler, Macron chose to play it safe.
He was too concerned about the broader financial implications to risk jeopardising a reform meant to reassure investors and ratings agencies about French debt sustainability, a government source said.
However, weeks of heated debates in parliament and street protests drawing over 1 million people risked leaving a toxic legacy that could boost far-right populists, analysts said.
What is Article 49.3 and how often do French politicians use it?
...As the name suggests, this is an Article of the French constitution, written into the 1958 version of the constitution.
It's an option for the French government in case of a legislative quagmire, and allows them to pass a bill without parliamentary support, it's sometimes referred to as a “nuclear legislative weapon”.
......
In reality, French governments have not been that reluctant to dust off the old constitutional sword to fight through their own political projects - and in fact Macron's government used it back in 2019 to push through the first part of the pension reform.
Back then, his government had a parliamentary majority, but the project proved so controversial that it required the use of Article 49.3 to get it through parliament. The bill became law in 2020, but was never put into effect because of the pandemic.
And Macron is far from the only French leader to resort to this.
François Hollande in 2009 called the article 49.3 “a brutality” and a “denial of democracy,” but as President he let his own Socialist Party PM Manuel Valls use the article no less than six times between 2015 and 2016.
Before Valls, Alain Juppé used it twice between 1995 and 1996. Jacques Chirac shares the record with Raymond Barre of having turned to article 49.3 all of eight times during his time as Prime Minister in the late 1980s, beating Georges Pompidou’s six times in the 1960s. This list is not exhaustive.
...As the name suggests, this is an Article of the French constitution, written into the 1958 version of the constitution.
It's an option for the French government in case of a legislative quagmire, and allows them to pass a bill without parliamentary support, it's sometimes referred to as a “nuclear legislative weapon”.
......
In reality, French governments have not been that reluctant to dust off the old constitutional sword to fight through their own political projects - and in fact Macron's government used it back in 2019 to push through the first part of the pension reform.
Back then, his government had a parliamentary majority, but the project proved so controversial that it required the use of Article 49.3 to get it through parliament. The bill became law in 2020, but was never put into effect because of the pandemic.
And Macron is far from the only French leader to resort to this.
François Hollande in 2009 called the article 49.3 “a brutality” and a “denial of democracy,” but as President he let his own Socialist Party PM Manuel Valls use the article no less than six times between 2015 and 2016.
Before Valls, Alain Juppé used it twice between 1995 and 1996. Jacques Chirac shares the record with Raymond Barre of having turned to article 49.3 all of eight times during his time as Prime Minister in the late 1980s, beating Georges Pompidou’s six times in the 1960s. This list is not exhaustive.
France pension reform: Macron's government survives no-confidence vote
The French government has narrowly survived a vote of no-confidence, which was triggered when it forced through an increase in the pension age to 64.
It sparked new anti-government protests in Paris, where 101 people were arrested after stand-offs with police.
The vote, tabled by centrist MPs, had 278 votes in favour, falling short of the 287 votes needed.
Had it been successful, President Emmanuel Macron would have had to name a new government or call new elections.
A second no-confidence motion, tabled by Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally party, also did not pass.
Now both votes have failed, the controversial bill to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 will become law.
The votes were held after Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne used a special constitutional power, called Article 49:3, to push the bill through without a vote last week.
It sparked angry protests at the weekend, with some demonstrators clashing with police and blocking streets with debris fires in central Paris, as well as cities around the country.
The French government has narrowly survived a vote of no-confidence, which was triggered when it forced through an increase in the pension age to 64.
It sparked new anti-government protests in Paris, where 101 people were arrested after stand-offs with police.
The vote, tabled by centrist MPs, had 278 votes in favour, falling short of the 287 votes needed.
Had it been successful, President Emmanuel Macron would have had to name a new government or call new elections.
A second no-confidence motion, tabled by Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally party, also did not pass.
Now both votes have failed, the controversial bill to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 will become law.
The votes were held after Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne used a special constitutional power, called Article 49:3, to push the bill through without a vote last week.
It sparked angry protests at the weekend, with some demonstrators clashing with police and blocking streets with debris fires in central Paris, as well as cities around the country.
From Rockets to Ball Bearings, Pentagon Struggles to Feed War Machine
...The United States lacks the capacity to produce the arms that the nation and its allies need at a time of heightened superpower tensions.
Industry consolidation, depleted manufacturing lines and supply chain issues have combined to constrain the production of basic ammunition like artillery shells while also prompting concern about building adequate reserves of more sophisticated weapons including missiles, air defense systems and counter-artillery radar.
......
In the first 10 months after Russia invaded Ukraine, prompting Washington to approve $33 billion in military aid so far, the United States sent Ukraine so many Stinger missiles from its own stocks that it would take 13 years’ worth of production at recent capacity levels to replace them. It has sent so many Javelin missiles that it would take five years at last year’s rates to replace them, according to Raytheon, the company that helps make the missile systems.
If a large-scale war broke out with China, within about one week the United States would run out of so-called long-range anti-ship missiles, a vital weapon in any engagement with China, according to a series of war-game exercises conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
......
President Biden has also turned to the Defense Production Act — used during the pandemic to speed up the manufacturing of respirators and vaccines — to move ahead with new missile programs faster, including a number of hypersonic weapons being developed for the Air Force, the Army and the Navy.
All the moves have been needed because the United States underestimated the threats it now faces — or failed to prepare adequately, Pentagon officials acknowledged.
“No one anticipated the prolonged high-volume conflict we are seeing in Ukraine, or that we might see against a strategic competitor in the future,” Mr. LaPlante said this month, referring to China.
...The United States lacks the capacity to produce the arms that the nation and its allies need at a time of heightened superpower tensions.
Industry consolidation, depleted manufacturing lines and supply chain issues have combined to constrain the production of basic ammunition like artillery shells while also prompting concern about building adequate reserves of more sophisticated weapons including missiles, air defense systems and counter-artillery radar.
......
In the first 10 months after Russia invaded Ukraine, prompting Washington to approve $33 billion in military aid so far, the United States sent Ukraine so many Stinger missiles from its own stocks that it would take 13 years’ worth of production at recent capacity levels to replace them. It has sent so many Javelin missiles that it would take five years at last year’s rates to replace them, according to Raytheon, the company that helps make the missile systems.
If a large-scale war broke out with China, within about one week the United States would run out of so-called long-range anti-ship missiles, a vital weapon in any engagement with China, according to a series of war-game exercises conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
......
President Biden has also turned to the Defense Production Act — used during the pandemic to speed up the manufacturing of respirators and vaccines — to move ahead with new missile programs faster, including a number of hypersonic weapons being developed for the Air Force, the Army and the Navy.
All the moves have been needed because the United States underestimated the threats it now faces — or failed to prepare adequately, Pentagon officials acknowledged.
“No one anticipated the prolonged high-volume conflict we are seeing in Ukraine, or that we might see against a strategic competitor in the future,” Mr. LaPlante said this month, referring to China.
Political endorsement by Nature and trust in scientific expertise during COVID-19
Abstract
High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.
Abstract
High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.
Americans Feel More Positive Than Negative About Jews, Mainline Protestants, Catholics
Far more Americans express favorable than unfavorable views of Jews, mainline Protestants and Catholics, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey that measures U.S. adults’ broad sentiments toward several religious groups.
At the other end of the spectrum, more Americans express negative than positive attitudes toward atheists, Muslims and Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Far more Americans express favorable than unfavorable views of Jews, mainline Protestants and Catholics, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey that measures U.S. adults’ broad sentiments toward several religious groups.
At the other end of the spectrum, more Americans express negative than positive attitudes toward atheists, Muslims and Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
不少反共华人的问题之一是他们期待西方政府实现的大小政策都是对他们的目标暂时有利，而对西方社会长久有害的。他们或者像把美国拉进伊战Ahmed Chalabi那样德性贫乏，或者像发动伊战的小布什那样眼界狭窄。
拥抱社会达尔文主义是右翼思想被无限制的个人自由观念侵蚀的表现。没有一个传统的保守社会能容许社会达尔文主义主张的那种损害共同体团结和次第的自由竞争。以传统视角看来，个体在社群中的位置不应该完全由个人作为来决定。一种尚未“个人自由化”的右翼思想因此会拒斥达尔文主义。它同时拒斥左翼对社会达尔文主义的批判，因为其批判的出发点是错的：用个体平等来限制个体自由，这还是在个人主义划出的小圈子里打转转——自由意志分子们对社会主义的批判，也不过是把转圈的方向逆转过来，用个体自由来攻击个体平等。问题的关键在于意识到，个人主义不是个体唯一的终极需要。在一个结构分明、没有散沙化的共同体中定位自身并由此找到存在的意义，这同样是——甚至更是——源于个体本身的无法消解的诉求。即使在传统社会已经无法复现的今日，这一诉求也与个体永久同在。
>>不少反共华人的问题之一是他们期待西方政府实现的大小政策都是对他们的目标暂时有利，而对西方社会长久有害...
这跟那位高喊着三战已经到来的乌克兰记者没什么区别，为什么，我们都心知肚明
对我来说2024年大选的核心看点是在两党夹击中仍然弱势的右翼平民派能否扩张势力。我感觉把他们当笑柄的民主党人可能低估了他们，而他们可能高估了自己。
批倒批臭有序进行中
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1645236415792308228?t=OZdd7KTJdRES7gVWkxFnxQ&s=19
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1645236415792308228?t=OZdd7KTJdRES7gVWkxFnxQ&s=19
统治集团继续荒腔走板：
US Accuses 4 Black Nationalists Of Acting For Russian Intelligence
The US Justice Department on Tuesday charged the founder and three members of a half-century-old Black nationalist group with working with Russian intelligence to influence elections in the United States.
Omali Yeshitela, the founder of the African People's Socialist Party (APSP) and the Uhuru Movement, and two other party members, Penny Joanne Hess and Jesse Nevel, were charged with acting as unregistered agents of Russia, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.
All three, as well as another member named Augustus Romain, have also been charged with conspiring to act as agents for Russia, which brings up to 10 years in prison.
According to an indictment, the four people took money and other support from US-based Russian Alexandr Ionov and Moscow-based officers of Russia's FSB intelligence agency who directed Ionov.
Ionov was charged last year for running a political influence operation directed by the FSB, but his US contacts were not named, though APSP facilities were raided by the FBI at the time.
Charges against Ionov, who is believed to be back in Russia, were updated in Tuesday's indictment filed in Tampa, Florida.
US Accuses 4 Black Nationalists Of Acting For Russian Intelligence
The US Justice Department on Tuesday charged the founder and three members of a half-century-old Black nationalist group with working with Russian intelligence to influence elections in the United States.
Omali Yeshitela, the founder of the African People's Socialist Party (APSP) and the Uhuru Movement, and two other party members, Penny Joanne Hess and Jesse Nevel, were charged with acting as unregistered agents of Russia, which carries a maximum five-year prison sentence.
All three, as well as another member named Augustus Romain, have also been charged with conspiring to act as agents for Russia, which brings up to 10 years in prison.
According to an indictment, the four people took money and other support from US-based Russian Alexandr Ionov and Moscow-based officers of Russia's FSB intelligence agency who directed Ionov.
Ionov was charged last year for running a political influence operation directed by the FSB, but his US contacts were not named, though APSP facilities were raided by the FBI at the time.
Charges against Ionov, who is believed to be back in Russia, were updated in Tuesday's indictment filed in Tampa, Florida.
Why Are We in Ukraine?
...Even if Moscow’s avowals are taken at face value, Russia’s actions could be condemned as those of an aggressive and illegitimate state. At best those actions demonstrate Russia’s conviction that it has a claim to oversight of its smaller sovereign neighbors, a claim that accords with what Washington and the foreign policy cognoscenti condemn as a repellant concept: that of “spheres of influence.”
To be sure, any power imposing a sphere of influence is necessarily behaving in an implicitly aggressive manner. For a power to define an area outside its borders and impose limits on the sovereignty of the states within that area is contrary to the Wilsonian ideals that the United States has professed since 1917. In one of his last speeches as vice president, in 2017, Biden condemned Russia for “working with every tool available to them to . . . return to a politics defined by spheres of influence” and for “seek[ing] a return to a world where the strong impose their will . . . while weaker neighbors fall in line.” Because of America’s commitment to a just and moral world order, Biden insisted, quoting his own words from the Munich Security Conference in 2009, “we will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”
That straight-faced stance fails to recognize the spheres of influence, historically unprecedented in their sweep, that the United States claims for itself. Since promulgating the Monroe Doctrine two centuries ago, the United States has explicitly arrogated to itself a sphere of influence extending from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. But its globe-girdling sphere of influence also takes in the expanse, east to west, from Estonia to Australia and right up to the Asian mainland. Missing from the current discussion of the war in Ukraine, then, is any appreciation for how the United States would respond—and has responded—to foreign powers’ incursions into its own sphere of influence.
What, after all, would be America’s reaction if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara? For the past several years a civilian military analyst who has worked on international security issues with the Pentagon has put this question to the rising leaders in the U.S. military and intelligence services to whom he regularly lectures. Their reactions, he told us, range from cutting economic ties and exerting “maximal foreign policy pressure on Mexico to get them to change course” to “we need to start there, and then use military force if necessary,” revealing just how reflexively these military and intelligence professionals would defend America’s own sphere of influence.
Typifying the egocentrism that governs the U.S. approach to the world in general and relations with Russia in particular, not one of these future military and intelligence leaders has thought to connect, even in this past year, what they believe would be Washington’s response to the hypothetical situation in Mexico with Moscow’s reaction to NATO’s expansion and policy toward Ukraine. When the analyst has drawn those connections, the military and intelligence officers have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, “ ‘Damn, I never thought out what we’re doing to Russia in that light.’ ”
But America’s determination to uphold its own sphere of influence is more than hypothetical, as the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated. Thanks to a misleading rendition of events that members of the Kennedy Administration fed to a credulous press and later reproduced in their memoirs, most Americans see that episode as an instance of America’s justified resolve when confronted by an unprovoked and unwarranted military threat.
...Even if Moscow’s avowals are taken at face value, Russia’s actions could be condemned as those of an aggressive and illegitimate state. At best those actions demonstrate Russia’s conviction that it has a claim to oversight of its smaller sovereign neighbors, a claim that accords with what Washington and the foreign policy cognoscenti condemn as a repellant concept: that of “spheres of influence.”
To be sure, any power imposing a sphere of influence is necessarily behaving in an implicitly aggressive manner. For a power to define an area outside its borders and impose limits on the sovereignty of the states within that area is contrary to the Wilsonian ideals that the United States has professed since 1917. In one of his last speeches as vice president, in 2017, Biden condemned Russia for “working with every tool available to them to . . . return to a politics defined by spheres of influence” and for “seek[ing] a return to a world where the strong impose their will . . . while weaker neighbors fall in line.” Because of America’s commitment to a just and moral world order, Biden insisted, quoting his own words from the Munich Security Conference in 2009, “we will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”
That straight-faced stance fails to recognize the spheres of influence, historically unprecedented in their sweep, that the United States claims for itself. Since promulgating the Monroe Doctrine two centuries ago, the United States has explicitly arrogated to itself a sphere of influence extending from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. But its globe-girdling sphere of influence also takes in the expanse, east to west, from Estonia to Australia and right up to the Asian mainland. Missing from the current discussion of the war in Ukraine, then, is any appreciation for how the United States would respond—and has responded—to foreign powers’ incursions into its own sphere of influence.
What, after all, would be America’s reaction if Mexico were to invite China to station warships in Acapulco and bombers in Guadalajara? For the past several years a civilian military analyst who has worked on international security issues with the Pentagon has put this question to the rising leaders in the U.S. military and intelligence services to whom he regularly lectures. Their reactions, he told us, range from cutting economic ties and exerting “maximal foreign policy pressure on Mexico to get them to change course” to “we need to start there, and then use military force if necessary,” revealing just how reflexively these military and intelligence professionals would defend America’s own sphere of influence.
Typifying the egocentrism that governs the U.S. approach to the world in general and relations with Russia in particular, not one of these future military and intelligence leaders has thought to connect, even in this past year, what they believe would be Washington’s response to the hypothetical situation in Mexico with Moscow’s reaction to NATO’s expansion and policy toward Ukraine. When the analyst has drawn those connections, the military and intelligence officers have been taken aback, in many cases admitting, as the analyst reports, “ ‘Damn, I never thought out what we’re doing to Russia in that light.’ ”
But America’s determination to uphold its own sphere of influence is more than hypothetical, as the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated. Thanks to a misleading rendition of events that members of the Kennedy Administration fed to a credulous press and later reproduced in their memoirs, most Americans see that episode as an instance of America’s justified resolve when confronted by an unprovoked and unwarranted military threat.
Authoritarianism Without Authority
Following the defeat of the organized working class in the 1980s, the European Union represented the particularly European institutionalization of that defeat. Nations no longer derived authority from their citizens, but from their membership in the bloc. Or as Chris Bickerton has put it, the European Union shifted the site of political relations within the state from nation-states, characterized by strong “vertical” relations of political representation between citizens and governments, into member-states, dominated by “horizontal” relations between national elites and their foreign counterparts.
A similar transformation, in which authority is outsourced to multinational organizations, has occurred unevenly across the world; the European Union is only a particularly egregious manifestation. The increasing orientation of ruling elites to transnational policy networks such as the European Union provided a way to rule what Peter Mair called “the void”: the political vacuum left by the hollowing out of entities like mass-membership political parties and trade unions, where political participation and representation of broad interests had previously occurred. As the basis of authority shifted away from the old “smoke-filled rooms” of domestic interest representation toward diplomatic forums and “global civil society,” the state’s political authority with the population inevitably waned.
As political representation has decayed, and the locus of authority has shifted outside the nation, more and more citizens have ceased to feel that laws or policies are in any sense theirs. Instead, they experience these as mere impositions. Governments become ever more authoritarian but also lack the authority that comes from meaningful citizen representation. This authority-lite form of rule can persist only by excluding alternatives to the status quo—recall Thatcher’s “There is no alternative” to neoliberalism—and through the politics of fear.
This is why the shift from the laissez-faire “post-political” era that began in the 1990s to the draconian Covid measures was, in retrospect, so seamless. Because the representational basis of the state’s authority had collapsed, there was no one to stand up for the people who would obviously be harmed by lockdowns, because their interests were simply no longer represented in policymaking. Instead, governments and experts consulted other governments and their experts, justifying their policies with reference to “the Science.”
Following the defeat of the organized working class in the 1980s, the European Union represented the particularly European institutionalization of that defeat. Nations no longer derived authority from their citizens, but from their membership in the bloc. Or as Chris Bickerton has put it, the European Union shifted the site of political relations within the state from nation-states, characterized by strong “vertical” relations of political representation between citizens and governments, into member-states, dominated by “horizontal” relations between national elites and their foreign counterparts.
A similar transformation, in which authority is outsourced to multinational organizations, has occurred unevenly across the world; the European Union is only a particularly egregious manifestation. The increasing orientation of ruling elites to transnational policy networks such as the European Union provided a way to rule what Peter Mair called “the void”: the political vacuum left by the hollowing out of entities like mass-membership political parties and trade unions, where political participation and representation of broad interests had previously occurred. As the basis of authority shifted away from the old “smoke-filled rooms” of domestic interest representation toward diplomatic forums and “global civil society,” the state’s political authority with the population inevitably waned.
As political representation has decayed, and the locus of authority has shifted outside the nation, more and more citizens have ceased to feel that laws or policies are in any sense theirs. Instead, they experience these as mere impositions. Governments become ever more authoritarian but also lack the authority that comes from meaningful citizen representation. This authority-lite form of rule can persist only by excluding alternatives to the status quo—recall Thatcher’s “There is no alternative” to neoliberalism—and through the politics of fear.
This is why the shift from the laissez-faire “post-political” era that began in the 1990s to the draconian Covid measures was, in retrospect, so seamless. Because the representational basis of the state’s authority had collapsed, there was no one to stand up for the people who would obviously be harmed by lockdowns, because their interests were simply no longer represented in policymaking. Instead, governments and experts consulted other governments and their experts, justifying their policies with reference to “the Science.”
如果你读马留浦、利西昌斯克、巴赫穆特陷落之前一周的英语新闻，你很难得到乌军即将失利的印象。相反，乌克兰一直赢赢赢，赢到最后城镇失守。看看路透社过去一周的新闻标题：
Ukraine hails its first offensive success in defence of Bakhmut
乌克兰庆贺巴赫穆特反攻首胜（5.15）
Ukraine reports new advances near eastern city of Bakhmut
乌克兰称在巴赫穆特以东地区推进（5.17）
Russian forces in retreat near Bakhmut, Ukraine and Wagner say
乌克兰和瓦格纳集团称俄军在巴赫穆特临近地区撤退（5.19）
Russia says its troops have fully captured Ukrainian city of Bakhmut
俄罗斯称其部队全面攻占乌城市巴赫穆特（5.20）
Russia's Wagner claims Bakhmut; Kyiv says situation critical
俄罗斯瓦格纳集团称攻取巴赫穆特，基辅称形势危急（5.20）
最后一条是倒数第二条的较早版本，其中引用乌克兰副国防部长社交媒体的文字称"The situation is critical". 这段引文不知为何在更新报道时被删掉了。
媒体在国际新闻报道中的堕落放任往往和他们国内报道中的任意妄为同步，厌恶“通俄门”期间媒体丑行的观众大概不会对他们今日的作为感到意外。媒体作为民主共同体审视和反思自身的官能，其提供的反馈要到扭曲什么程度才会使社会机能失调到到无法正常运转，接下来一两代人也许会用他们的经历给出一个答案。
Ukraine hails its first offensive success in defence of Bakhmut
乌克兰庆贺巴赫穆特反攻首胜（5.15）
Ukraine reports new advances near eastern city of Bakhmut
乌克兰称在巴赫穆特以东地区推进（5.17）
Russian forces in retreat near Bakhmut, Ukraine and Wagner say
乌克兰和瓦格纳集团称俄军在巴赫穆特临近地区撤退（5.19）
Russia says its troops have fully captured Ukrainian city of Bakhmut
俄罗斯称其部队全面攻占乌城市巴赫穆特（5.20）
Russia's Wagner claims Bakhmut; Kyiv says situation critical
俄罗斯瓦格纳集团称攻取巴赫穆特，基辅称形势危急（5.20）
最后一条是倒数第二条的较早版本，其中引用乌克兰副国防部长社交媒体的文字称"The situation is critical". 这段引文不知为何在更新报道时被删掉了。
媒体在国际新闻报道中的堕落放任往往和他们国内报道中的任意妄为同步，厌恶“通俄门”期间媒体丑行的观众大概不会对他们今日的作为感到意外。媒体作为民主共同体审视和反思自身的官能，其提供的反馈要到扭曲什么程度才会使社会机能失调到到无法正常运转，接下来一两代人也许会用他们的经历给出一个答案。
把基于过去二十年经验反对美帝国过度扩张的意见称为孤立主义是很没道理的，尤其考虑到很多被蔑称为孤立主义分子的美国政客和策士是愿意为了台湾和中国军事对峙的。
Russia’s pockets of support are growing in the developing world
EIU has updated a map that we first published last year to assess the level of support for Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. The map highlights which countries support Russia; which side with Western states; and which fall in between. Many countries who saw themselves as neutral or non-aligned have since changed their stance since the start of the invasion.
Over the past year the number of countries actively condemning Russia has fallen from 131 to 122, as some emerging economies have shifted to a neutral position. This US- and EU-led bloc, which represents about 36% of the global population, has exhibited a strong level of collaboration on sanctions, as well as solid military and economic support to Ukraine.
The number of neutral countries has risen from 32 to 35 (now representing nearly 31% of the global population). Some previously Western-aligned countries, including Colombia, Turkey and Qatar, have moved into this category as their governments are seeking to reap economic benefits from engaging with both sides. However, both Russia and China are upping the ante in recruiting those countries that are non-aligned and neutral.
There has been a large shift in stance among countries that lean towards Russia, whose number has increased from 29 to 35. China remains the most significant country in this category, but other developing countries (notably South Africa, Mali and Burkina Faso) have also moved into this grouping, which accounts for 33% of the world’s population. These trends highlight Russia’s growing influence in Africa.
EIU has updated a map that we first published last year to assess the level of support for Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. The map highlights which countries support Russia; which side with Western states; and which fall in between. Many countries who saw themselves as neutral or non-aligned have since changed their stance since the start of the invasion.
“Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, we have monitored the evolution of global support or hostility towards Russia, notably by non-aligned, neutral countries. Using a long-term lens, we have assessed the enforcement of sanctions, UN voting patterns, domestic political trends, official statements, as well as economic, political, military and historical ties.”
CODY FELDMAN, SENIOR ANALYST, GLOBAL FORECASTING AT EIU
Over the past year the number of countries actively condemning Russia has fallen from 131 to 122, as some emerging economies have shifted to a neutral position. This US- and EU-led bloc, which represents about 36% of the global population, has exhibited a strong level of collaboration on sanctions, as well as solid military and economic support to Ukraine.
The number of neutral countries has risen from 32 to 35 (now representing nearly 31% of the global population). Some previously Western-aligned countries, including Colombia, Turkey and Qatar, have moved into this category as their governments are seeking to reap economic benefits from engaging with both sides. However, both Russia and China are upping the ante in recruiting those countries that are non-aligned and neutral.
“Russia (and China) is courting non-aligned, neutral countries in a bid to sow doubt about the impacts of sanctions on Russia and to leverage resentment against former colonial powers. We believe that both countries will step up such efforts in the coming years, posing growing challenges for Western democracies and diplomacy, which have yet to grasp the full extent of this challenge.”
AGATHE DEMARAIS, GLOBAL FORECASTING DIRECTOR AT EIU
There has been a large shift in stance among countries that lean towards Russia, whose number has increased from 29 to 35. China remains the most significant country in this category, but other developing countries (notably South Africa, Mali and Burkina Faso) have also moved into this grouping, which accounts for 33% of the world’s population. These trends highlight Russia’s growing influence in Africa.
Post-9/11 wars’ death toll estimated at 4.5M
At least 4.5 million people have died as a consequence of wars that have raged across North Africa and the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil in 2001, according to new research from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute.
The Cost of War project conservatively estimated up to 3.6 million indirect deaths from the post-9/11 wars, caused by economic collapse, food insecurity, destruction of public health facilities, environmental contamination, and recurring violence.
That number adds to the 906,000 to 937,000 killed as a direct consequence of the wars across Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia, according to the Cost of War project.
The project does not ascribe blame to a country because the wars in the Middle East and Africa have involved multiple warring parties, rival nations and complicated geopolitics.
Stephanie Savell, the Costs of War co-director and author of the report, said in countries like Afghanistan, which U.S. troops occupied for roughly 20 years, the “pressing question is whether any death can today be considered unrelated to war.”
“Wars often kill far more people indirectly than in direct combat, particularly young children,” Savell said in a statement. “Warring parties who damage infrastructure with an impact on population health have a moral responsibility to provide quick and effective assistance and repairs.”
At least 4.5 million people have died as a consequence of wars that have raged across North Africa and the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil in 2001, according to new research from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute.
The Cost of War project conservatively estimated up to 3.6 million indirect deaths from the post-9/11 wars, caused by economic collapse, food insecurity, destruction of public health facilities, environmental contamination, and recurring violence.
That number adds to the 906,000 to 937,000 killed as a direct consequence of the wars across Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia, according to the Cost of War project.
The project does not ascribe blame to a country because the wars in the Middle East and Africa have involved multiple warring parties, rival nations and complicated geopolitics.
Stephanie Savell, the Costs of War co-director and author of the report, said in countries like Afghanistan, which U.S. troops occupied for roughly 20 years, the “pressing question is whether any death can today be considered unrelated to war.”
“Wars often kill far more people indirectly than in direct combat, particularly young children,” Savell said in a statement. “Warring parties who damage infrastructure with an impact on population health have a moral responsibility to provide quick and effective assistance and repairs.”
Two Weeks at the Front in Ukraine
...Finally, in November, Russia withdrew across the Dnipro River. Battered members of the 28th Brigade were among the first Ukrainian troops to enter Kherson. Crowds greeted them there as heroes. Before they could recover, they were sent three hundred miles northeast, to the outskirts of Bakhmut, a besieged city that was becoming the scene of the most ferocious violence of the war.
Syava’s battalion, which numbered about six hundred men, was posted on the edge of a village south of Bakhmut. The village was controlled by the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary organization notorious for committing atrocities in Africa and the Middle East. For the war in Ukraine, Wagner recruited thousands of inmates from Russian prisons by offering them pardons in exchange for combat tours. The onslaught of expendable convicts proved too much for the Ukrainians, who were still reeling from Kherson and had not yet replenished their ranks and matériel. The commander of the battalion, a thirty-nine-year-old lieutenant colonel named Pavlo, said of the Wagner fighters, “They were like zombies. They used the prisoners like a wall of meat. It didn’t matter how many we killed—they kept coming.”
Within weeks, the battalion faced annihilation: entire platoons had been wiped out in close-contact firefights, and some seventy men had been encircled and massacred. The dwindling survivors, one officer told me, “became useless because they were so tired.” In January, what was left of the battalion retreated from the village and established defensive positions in the tree lines and open farmland a mile to the west. “Wagner kicked our asses,” the officer said.
The Russian mercenaries subsequently left for Bakhmut, to shore up other forces there, and the conventional troops who replaced them were far less numerous and suicidal. By the time I joined the battalion, about two months had passed since it had lost the battle for the village, and during the interim neither side had attempted a major operation against the other. It was all the Ukrainians could do to maintain the stalemate. Pavlo estimated that, owing to the casualties his unit had sustained, eighty per cent of his men were new draftees. “They’re civilians with no experience,” he said. “If they give me ten, I’m lucky when three of them can fight.”
...Finally, in November, Russia withdrew across the Dnipro River. Battered members of the 28th Brigade were among the first Ukrainian troops to enter Kherson. Crowds greeted them there as heroes. Before they could recover, they were sent three hundred miles northeast, to the outskirts of Bakhmut, a besieged city that was becoming the scene of the most ferocious violence of the war.
Syava’s battalion, which numbered about six hundred men, was posted on the edge of a village south of Bakhmut. The village was controlled by the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary organization notorious for committing atrocities in Africa and the Middle East. For the war in Ukraine, Wagner recruited thousands of inmates from Russian prisons by offering them pardons in exchange for combat tours. The onslaught of expendable convicts proved too much for the Ukrainians, who were still reeling from Kherson and had not yet replenished their ranks and matériel. The commander of the battalion, a thirty-nine-year-old lieutenant colonel named Pavlo, said of the Wagner fighters, “They were like zombies. They used the prisoners like a wall of meat. It didn’t matter how many we killed—they kept coming.”
Within weeks, the battalion faced annihilation: entire platoons had been wiped out in close-contact firefights, and some seventy men had been encircled and massacred. The dwindling survivors, one officer told me, “became useless because they were so tired.” In January, what was left of the battalion retreated from the village and established defensive positions in the tree lines and open farmland a mile to the west. “Wagner kicked our asses,” the officer said.
The Russian mercenaries subsequently left for Bakhmut, to shore up other forces there, and the conventional troops who replaced them were far less numerous and suicidal. By the time I joined the battalion, about two months had passed since it had lost the battle for the village, and during the interim neither side had attempted a major operation against the other. It was all the Ukrainians could do to maintain the stalemate. Pavlo estimated that, owing to the casualties his unit had sustained, eighty per cent of his men were new draftees. “They’re civilians with no experience,” he said. “If they give me ten, I’m lucky when three of them can fight.”
Two Weeks at the Front in Ukraine
...During previous reporting trips to Ukraine, I had encountered the Russian military almost exclusively as a remote, invisible source of bombs that fell from the sky. It was eerie to look across such a short gap at an actual Russian position—and to know that an actual Russian might be looking back. [Ukrainian draftee] Artem shared my unease. “I shouldn’t be here,” he said. “I’m not a soldier.”
He was a forty-two-year-old father of three who managed a grain elevator in a small farming community in central Ukraine. Men who have three children are legally exempt from conscription but, in December, Artem was still in the process of adopting one of his daughters when he was summoned by his local draft board. A physician, citing a skull fracture that Artem had once suffered during an ice-skating accident, deemed him medically unfit to serve; the board dispatched him to a military training center anyway. His training lasted a month and consisted of tutorials and marching drills—“theoretical stuff, nothing practical.” He shot a total of thirty rounds during two trips to a firing range. From the training center, Artem was assigned to the 28th Brigade, and a day after joining Pavlo’s infantry battalion he was on the Zero Line.
“The first couple of weeks, I was so fucking scared,” he said. “I ran whenever there was shooting.” Gunshots and explosions gave him migraines, which exacerbated his anxiety. He’d been there for six weeks and had not so much mastered his fear as accepted the illogic of running: there was nowhere to escape to. All the same, he was so timid by nature that it was difficult to imagine him repulsing a Russian attack. “I hate weapons and violence,” he said with wide-eyed incredulity, as if he still could not believe where he was. “I’m just trying to stay alive until I can get home.”
...During previous reporting trips to Ukraine, I had encountered the Russian military almost exclusively as a remote, invisible source of bombs that fell from the sky. It was eerie to look across such a short gap at an actual Russian position—and to know that an actual Russian might be looking back. [Ukrainian draftee] Artem shared my unease. “I shouldn’t be here,” he said. “I’m not a soldier.”
He was a forty-two-year-old father of three who managed a grain elevator in a small farming community in central Ukraine. Men who have three children are legally exempt from conscription but, in December, Artem was still in the process of adopting one of his daughters when he was summoned by his local draft board. A physician, citing a skull fracture that Artem had once suffered during an ice-skating accident, deemed him medically unfit to serve; the board dispatched him to a military training center anyway. His training lasted a month and consisted of tutorials and marching drills—“theoretical stuff, nothing practical.” He shot a total of thirty rounds during two trips to a firing range. From the training center, Artem was assigned to the 28th Brigade, and a day after joining Pavlo’s infantry battalion he was on the Zero Line.
“The first couple of weeks, I was so fucking scared,” he said. “I ran whenever there was shooting.” Gunshots and explosions gave him migraines, which exacerbated his anxiety. He’d been there for six weeks and had not so much mastered his fear as accepted the illogic of running: there was nowhere to escape to. All the same, he was so timid by nature that it was difficult to imagine him repulsing a Russian attack. “I hate weapons and violence,” he said with wide-eyed incredulity, as if he still could not believe where he was. “I’m just trying to stay alive until I can get home.”
Ukrainians Were Likely Behind Kremlin Drone Attack, U.S. Officials Say
...U.S. officials say that some Ukrainian covert operatives work largely independently and without direct supervision from Mr. Zelensky or his top deputies. The officials say they do not believe Mr. Zelensky signs off on all covert operations, and the extent to which he is aware of them in advance is unclear.
Instead, American officials said they suspect that Mr. Zelensky and his top aides have set the broad parameters of the covert campaign, leaving decisions about who and what to target to the security services and their operatives. In doing so, Mr. Zelensky and his top aides can deny knowing about them.
U.S. officials have repeatedly cautioned Ukraine against conducting high-profile attacks inside Russia, citing the risk of escalation. They have also generally been dismissive of the effectiveness of the attacks, which they see as a distraction from the most important fight: Kyiv’s campaign against Russian forces in southern and eastern Ukraine.
U.S. officials have also publicly denied enabling or encouraging the cross-border attacks and say they do not support the use of American equipment in such operations. The Biden administration does not want Moscow to think that the United States is complicit in the attacks.
The administration’s fears that Russia will use nuclear weapons, or expand the conflict outside Ukraine, have eased, for now at least, and the Ukrainians have continued to conduct covert operations on Russian soil despite U.S. reservations.
...U.S. officials say that some Ukrainian covert operatives work largely independently and without direct supervision from Mr. Zelensky or his top deputies. The officials say they do not believe Mr. Zelensky signs off on all covert operations, and the extent to which he is aware of them in advance is unclear.
Instead, American officials said they suspect that Mr. Zelensky and his top aides have set the broad parameters of the covert campaign, leaving decisions about who and what to target to the security services and their operatives. In doing so, Mr. Zelensky and his top aides can deny knowing about them.
U.S. officials have repeatedly cautioned Ukraine against conducting high-profile attacks inside Russia, citing the risk of escalation. They have also generally been dismissive of the effectiveness of the attacks, which they see as a distraction from the most important fight: Kyiv’s campaign against Russian forces in southern and eastern Ukraine.
U.S. officials have also publicly denied enabling or encouraging the cross-border attacks and say they do not support the use of American equipment in such operations. The Biden administration does not want Moscow to think that the United States is complicit in the attacks.
The administration’s fears that Russia will use nuclear weapons, or expand the conflict outside Ukraine, have eased, for now at least, and the Ukrainians have continued to conduct covert operations on Russian soil despite U.S. reservations.
Germany falls into recession as inflation hits economy
Persistent inflation has helped push Germany into recession in the first three months of the year, an upgrade to growth data shows.
Europe's largest economy was also badly affected when Russian gas supplies dried up after the invasion of Ukraine, analysts said.
The economy contracted by 0.3% between January and March, the statistics office said.
That followed a 0.5% contraction in the last three months of last year.
A country is deemed to be in recession when its economy shrinks for two consecutive three-month periods, or quarters.
"Under the weight of immense inflation, the German consumer has fallen to his knees, dragging the entire economy down with him," said Andreas Scheuerle, an analyst at DekaBank.
Germany's inflation rate stood at 7.2% in April, above the euro area's average but below the UK's 8.7%.
Higher prices have weighed on household spending on things such as food, clothing and furniture. Industrial orders are also weaker, reflecting the impact of higher energy prices on businesses.
"The persistence of high price increases continued to be a burden on the German economy at the start of the year," the federal statistics agency Destatis said in a statement.
Persistent inflation has helped push Germany into recession in the first three months of the year, an upgrade to growth data shows.
Europe's largest economy was also badly affected when Russian gas supplies dried up after the invasion of Ukraine, analysts said.
The economy contracted by 0.3% between January and March, the statistics office said.
That followed a 0.5% contraction in the last three months of last year.
A country is deemed to be in recession when its economy shrinks for two consecutive three-month periods, or quarters.
"Under the weight of immense inflation, the German consumer has fallen to his knees, dragging the entire economy down with him," said Andreas Scheuerle, an analyst at DekaBank.
Germany's inflation rate stood at 7.2% in April, above the euro area's average but below the UK's 8.7%.
Higher prices have weighed on household spending on things such as food, clothing and furniture. Industrial orders are also weaker, reflecting the impact of higher energy prices on businesses.
"The persistence of high price increases continued to be a burden on the German economy at the start of the year," the federal statistics agency Destatis said in a statement.
AI-assisted precrime:
Dallas Independent School District Launches Innovative Pilot Project for Early Intervention and Enhanced Student Safety
Revolutionary Technology developed by Davista Proactively Supports and Safeguards Students' Well-being
DALLAS, TX / ACCESSWIRE / May 16, 2023 / Dallas Independent School District, spearheaded by the efforts of the Honorable Ron Price and Trustee Maxie Johnson, is proud to announce the launch of a groundbreaking pilot project aimed at leveraging data-driven strategies to enhance student safety and support. This initiative will utilize Davista's Heimdall platform, a breakthrough technology that empowers organizations to identify risk and take action before the projected risk becomes a consequential event or incident.
......
Davista's student safety and support platform enables comprehensive analysis and review of student data through software, minimizing inherent human biases and disparities by objectively assessing data points and reducing assumptions and cognitive fatigue. Leveraging existing data within the school, the technology pays attention to students' participation, performance, and behavioral patterns. This process establishes a baseline for each student, derived from their past information, allowing real-time analysis of any deviations from their personal baseline.
......
Essentially, the system benchmarks students against their own progress. Whenever deviations, nuances, or correlated changes are observed, the system automatically alerts key stakeholders within the school, enabling them to conduct their own assessments and provide appropriate interventions at the earliest possible time.
......
About Davista AI
Davista is a dynamic and innovative company that originated from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Emeritus Center of Excellence in 2017.
Dallas Independent School District Launches Innovative Pilot Project for Early Intervention and Enhanced Student Safety
Revolutionary Technology developed by Davista Proactively Supports and Safeguards Students' Well-being
DALLAS, TX / ACCESSWIRE / May 16, 2023 / Dallas Independent School District, spearheaded by the efforts of the Honorable Ron Price and Trustee Maxie Johnson, is proud to announce the launch of a groundbreaking pilot project aimed at leveraging data-driven strategies to enhance student safety and support. This initiative will utilize Davista's Heimdall platform, a breakthrough technology that empowers organizations to identify risk and take action before the projected risk becomes a consequential event or incident.
......
Davista's student safety and support platform enables comprehensive analysis and review of student data through software, minimizing inherent human biases and disparities by objectively assessing data points and reducing assumptions and cognitive fatigue. Leveraging existing data within the school, the technology pays attention to students' participation, performance, and behavioral patterns. This process establishes a baseline for each student, derived from their past information, allowing real-time analysis of any deviations from their personal baseline.
......
Essentially, the system benchmarks students against their own progress. Whenever deviations, nuances, or correlated changes are observed, the system automatically alerts key stakeholders within the school, enabling them to conduct their own assessments and provide appropriate interventions at the earliest possible time.
......
About Davista AI
Davista is a dynamic and innovative company that originated from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Emeritus Center of Excellence in 2017.
Sanctions cause rising business fears in Ukraine
When asked whether she felt safe, Smart Holding CEO Julia Kiryanova — head of one of Ukraine’s largest investment conglomerates — paused and then said firmly, “Nobody’s safe.”
For months now, Kiryanova has been battling to save Smart Holding from what appears to be a corporate raid — one she believes involves senior Ukrainian government officials and is aimed at forcing the company to agree to a fire sale. There’s peril in resisting “because when the law is not there, any person can be persecuted for no reason,” she said.
Kiryanova believes Russia’s war on Ukraine is being used by powerful and politically connected players in Ukraine to enrich themselves by extorting, plundering and weakening commercial rivals — as well as an opportunity to redistribute corporate assets, partly in a bid to strip the old elite of wealth in order to shape a new one. And it’s all being done with scant regard to the rule of law.
Kiryanova and other corporate executives say the “reordering” has seen some firms — including Smart Holding — face dubious criminal charges, or be added to Ukraine’s list of sanctioned companies by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on highly vague national security grounds.
......
But these moves against Ukraine’s most successful companies are raising eyebrows — not just in Kyiv — and risk deterring foreign investors, adding to behind-the-scenes worry regarding the country’s seemingly endemic and intractable corruption problem, which has dogged it for decades. Last year, some European Union countries, including Germany, even delayed the distribution of financial aid to Ukraine due to accountability concerns that money could be diverted into corrupt schemes.
When asked whether she felt safe, Smart Holding CEO Julia Kiryanova — head of one of Ukraine’s largest investment conglomerates — paused and then said firmly, “Nobody’s safe.”
For months now, Kiryanova has been battling to save Smart Holding from what appears to be a corporate raid — one she believes involves senior Ukrainian government officials and is aimed at forcing the company to agree to a fire sale. There’s peril in resisting “because when the law is not there, any person can be persecuted for no reason,” she said.
Kiryanova believes Russia’s war on Ukraine is being used by powerful and politically connected players in Ukraine to enrich themselves by extorting, plundering and weakening commercial rivals — as well as an opportunity to redistribute corporate assets, partly in a bid to strip the old elite of wealth in order to shape a new one. And it’s all being done with scant regard to the rule of law.
Kiryanova and other corporate executives say the “reordering” has seen some firms — including Smart Holding — face dubious criminal charges, or be added to Ukraine’s list of sanctioned companies by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on highly vague national security grounds.
......
But these moves against Ukraine’s most successful companies are raising eyebrows — not just in Kyiv — and risk deterring foreign investors, adding to behind-the-scenes worry regarding the country’s seemingly endemic and intractable corruption problem, which has dogged it for decades. Last year, some European Union countries, including Germany, even delayed the distribution of financial aid to Ukraine due to accountability concerns that money could be diverted into corrupt schemes.
Europe’s Economic Engine Is Breaking Down
Germany has been Europe’s economic engine for decades, pulling the region through one crisis after another. But that resilience is breaking down, and it spells danger for the whole continent.
Decades of flawed energy policy, the demise of combustion-engine cars and a sluggish transition to new technologies are converging to pose the most fundamental threat to the nation’s prosperity since reunification. But unlike in 1990, the political class lacks the leadership to tackle structural issues gnawing at the heart of the country’s competitiveness.
“We’ve been naïve as a society because everything seems fine,” BASF SE Chief Executive Officer Martin Brudermüller told Bloomberg. “These problems we have in Germany are accumulating. We have a period of change ahead of us; I don’t know if everyone realizes this.”
While Berlin has shown a knack for overcoming crises in the past, the question now is whether it can pursue a sustained strategy. The prospect looks remote. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s make-shift coalition has reverted to petty infighting over everything from debt and spending to heat pumps and speed limits as soon as the risks of energy shortfalls eased.
But the warning signals are getting hard to ignore. Despite Scholz telling Bloomberg in January that Germany would ride out Russia’s energy squeeze without a recession this year, data published Thursday show that the economy has in fact been contracting since October and has only expanded twice in the past five quarters.
Germany has been Europe’s economic engine for decades, pulling the region through one crisis after another. But that resilience is breaking down, and it spells danger for the whole continent.
Decades of flawed energy policy, the demise of combustion-engine cars and a sluggish transition to new technologies are converging to pose the most fundamental threat to the nation’s prosperity since reunification. But unlike in 1990, the political class lacks the leadership to tackle structural issues gnawing at the heart of the country’s competitiveness.
“We’ve been naïve as a society because everything seems fine,” BASF SE Chief Executive Officer Martin Brudermüller told Bloomberg. “These problems we have in Germany are accumulating. We have a period of change ahead of us; I don’t know if everyone realizes this.”
While Berlin has shown a knack for overcoming crises in the past, the question now is whether it can pursue a sustained strategy. The prospect looks remote. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s make-shift coalition has reverted to petty infighting over everything from debt and spending to heat pumps and speed limits as soon as the risks of energy shortfalls eased.
But the warning signals are getting hard to ignore. Despite Scholz telling Bloomberg in January that Germany would ride out Russia’s energy squeeze without a recession this year, data published Thursday show that the economy has in fact been contracting since October and has only expanded twice in the past five quarters.
To avert war with China, the U.S. must prioritize Taiwan over Ukraine
...Indo-Pacific Command recently testified that trends in the Pacific are going “in the wrong direction.” As a result, it is now a very serious question whether the United States can defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Restoring deterrence is still possible — if we get Taiwan and U.S. forces in Asia what they need as quickly as possible. But we cannot expect to do that while delivering so much aid to Ukraine. The fact is that both Ukraine and Taiwan need many of the same weapons, the United States has only limited quantities of those weapons in its available stockpiles, and our defense industry will not be able to produce enough of these critical capabilities for years. These trade-offs will worsen as China’s historic military buildup continues and the war in Ukraine goes on.
So how do we ensure Taiwan can be defended while still securing important but secondary U.S. interests in Europe?
First, the United States must accelerate delivery of critical weapons to Taiwan, including strike capabilities such as HIMARS, ATACMS, GMLRS and drones, as well as defensive systems such as NASAMS, Patriots, Harpoons, Stingers and Javelins. Americans have grown familiar with the names of several of these military systems because the United States has sent many of them to Ukraine. But Taiwan also desperately needs them — including weapons for its ground forces that would confront an amphibious invasion.
Unfortunately, U.S. stockpiles are depleted as a result of aid to Ukraine, so Taiwan will be forced to rely more heavily on the slower foreign military sales process.
......
Second, the administration and Congress need to urgently expand U.S. defense production by reinvigorating our anemic defense industrial base — and fast...
Finally, for all its talk about deterring China, the administration has made Ukraine’s defense its clear priority with regular high-level engagement, congressional briefings and requests for funds. By contrast, the administration left U.S. Indo-Pacific Command with almost $3.5 billion in unfunded priorities this year...
None of this means we should abandon Europe. Instead, our allies must take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense, relying on the United States mainly for its extended nuclear deterrent and select conventional capabilities that do not detract from our ability to deter China. Our European allies must also take the lead in helping Ukraine.
...Indo-Pacific Command recently testified that trends in the Pacific are going “in the wrong direction.” As a result, it is now a very serious question whether the United States can defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Restoring deterrence is still possible — if we get Taiwan and U.S. forces in Asia what they need as quickly as possible. But we cannot expect to do that while delivering so much aid to Ukraine. The fact is that both Ukraine and Taiwan need many of the same weapons, the United States has only limited quantities of those weapons in its available stockpiles, and our defense industry will not be able to produce enough of these critical capabilities for years. These trade-offs will worsen as China’s historic military buildup continues and the war in Ukraine goes on.
So how do we ensure Taiwan can be defended while still securing important but secondary U.S. interests in Europe?
First, the United States must accelerate delivery of critical weapons to Taiwan, including strike capabilities such as HIMARS, ATACMS, GMLRS and drones, as well as defensive systems such as NASAMS, Patriots, Harpoons, Stingers and Javelins. Americans have grown familiar with the names of several of these military systems because the United States has sent many of them to Ukraine. But Taiwan also desperately needs them — including weapons for its ground forces that would confront an amphibious invasion.
Unfortunately, U.S. stockpiles are depleted as a result of aid to Ukraine, so Taiwan will be forced to rely more heavily on the slower foreign military sales process.
......
Second, the administration and Congress need to urgently expand U.S. defense production by reinvigorating our anemic defense industrial base — and fast...
Finally, for all its talk about deterring China, the administration has made Ukraine’s defense its clear priority with regular high-level engagement, congressional briefings and requests for funds. By contrast, the administration left U.S. Indo-Pacific Command with almost $3.5 billion in unfunded priorities this year...
None of this means we should abandon Europe. Instead, our allies must take primary responsibility for Europe’s conventional defense, relying on the United States mainly for its extended nuclear deterrent and select conventional capabilities that do not detract from our ability to deter China. Our European allies must also take the lead in helping Ukraine.
中国坐大是当今全球化体系 / “自由国际秩序”固有缺陷的表征。这个体系对廉价劳动力和巨大的消费市场有无节制的欲求，因此可以容忍一个在价值观上完全与之冲突的庞大经济体充任其劳工和买主。对于这一路径内含的道德风险和可能导致的国际权力格局变化，新自由主义者曾经用来自我安慰的说辞是和平演变论：随着中国加入国际经济体系，其经济上的逐步开放会不可避免地导致文化和社会的进步，最终导致政权更迭，易主后的中国会安于“自由国际秩序”并成为西方的可靠合作伙伴。而中共过去三十年最大的成功即是在维持经济有限开放的条件下，遏制了西方梦想家们认为不可避免的社会、文化变迁，并用经济收益进一步巩固了政权。他们在和左右两翼新自由主义者的交手中取得完胜。
新自由主义者的失败缘于他们的过度自信，高估了自己奉行的信念在普世推广的可能性。而此种无根的自信源于自由主义蕴含的文化虚无主义：认为各民族的历史、传统、文化和被这些因素塑造的思想和行为模式只是不坚固的构造，可以被轻易地抛弃，或者至少是大幅改善。如果这个观念是对的，那么今日国际舞台上中国、俄罗斯和伊斯兰世界的作为应该是完全不同于既有现实。
然而文化虚无主义在外交上导致的失策比起其对内政的危害，几乎不值一提。西方施于自身的文化虚无主义会损害一切良政——包括许多自由主义政策在内——的基本条件，例如良好运转的婚姻和家庭、选贤择优的机制、必要的等级差异，等等。部分自由主义者否认其政治依赖于这些条件、否认其主义植根于西方传统的独特性，也是文化虚无倾向的表现。
回到中国问题：它恐怕不可能在全球化体系 / “自由国际秩序”不发生巨变的情况下得到解决。而巨变之后的国际秩序大概不会再有任何动力对中国实施演变，而会维持亚太安定的前提下任由中国依从其历史惯性而流转。在我们目力能及的未来，任何意义的自由秩序恐怕都不会深刻塑造中国。
新自由主义者的失败缘于他们的过度自信，高估了自己奉行的信念在普世推广的可能性。而此种无根的自信源于自由主义蕴含的文化虚无主义：认为各民族的历史、传统、文化和被这些因素塑造的思想和行为模式只是不坚固的构造，可以被轻易地抛弃，或者至少是大幅改善。如果这个观念是对的，那么今日国际舞台上中国、俄罗斯和伊斯兰世界的作为应该是完全不同于既有现实。
然而文化虚无主义在外交上导致的失策比起其对内政的危害，几乎不值一提。西方施于自身的文化虚无主义会损害一切良政——包括许多自由主义政策在内——的基本条件，例如良好运转的婚姻和家庭、选贤择优的机制、必要的等级差异，等等。部分自由主义者否认其政治依赖于这些条件、否认其主义植根于西方传统的独特性，也是文化虚无倾向的表现。
回到中国问题：它恐怕不可能在全球化体系 / “自由国际秩序”不发生巨变的情况下得到解决。而巨变之后的国际秩序大概不会再有任何动力对中国实施演变，而会维持亚太安定的前提下任由中国依从其历史惯性而流转。在我们目力能及的未来，任何意义的自由秩序恐怕都不会深刻塑造中国。
“普世价值”一词作为政治讨论工具的局限：
1. 在什么意义上，基本人权、自由、民主、法治、宗教宽容等价值是“普世”的？“普世”当然不是对当下事实的描述，因此一种惯常的理解是它们包含了对未来的预期：它是可普遍化的，意即可以被设想为在将来某个世代为所有社会遵行的。然而以上价值普遍化的前景并不太好，违反它们的社会永远不会绝迹，拥有它们的社会也可能得而复失。而如果“普世”意味着应该普遍化，那么为什么应该？显然因为它们是很好的价值，那么更准确的描述是“最优价值”。
2. “可普遍化”定义的另一个问题：哪些条目应该列入可普遍化的价值？爱国主义、敬仰本族的神明或祖先、维护社会稳定，这些该不该列入？它们可能比一些常见“普价”条目在统计上更接近可普遍化，但“普价”的宣传者们大多不会把它们列入。而他们可能很想加入的条目，比如文化多元，恐怕只能是部分社会的特色。为什么厚此薄彼？如果回答是文化多元好，而头几个不那么好，那就再次表明“最优价值”是更合适的描述。
3. 更根本的一个问题：不论这些价值被称为“普世”还是（在普遍比较中的）“最优”，都只能在有限的程度上解释一个社会的卓越。很多体现了常见“普价”、并成为某社会维持文明之方式的机制，恰恰是该社会独有的、或者只能为部分社会拥有的，不能在所有地方复制。例如美国的持枪权，法国式的政教分离。一个过于简化、但也许大体正确的说法是，一个社会的卓越源于优秀价值和其载体的恰当结合，而在找到寄身其中的合适载体之前，价值只是无法产生影响的抽象理念。解释某社会的卓越时，那些文化上特殊、历史上特异的因素和它们承载的价值有同样根本的解释力。
4. 并非所有社会在所有历史条件下都能为常见“普价”提供合适的载体。
1. 在什么意义上，基本人权、自由、民主、法治、宗教宽容等价值是“普世”的？“普世”当然不是对当下事实的描述，因此一种惯常的理解是它们包含了对未来的预期：它是可普遍化的，意即可以被设想为在将来某个世代为所有社会遵行的。然而以上价值普遍化的前景并不太好，违反它们的社会永远不会绝迹，拥有它们的社会也可能得而复失。而如果“普世”意味着应该普遍化，那么为什么应该？显然因为它们是很好的价值，那么更准确的描述是“最优价值”。
2. “可普遍化”定义的另一个问题：哪些条目应该列入可普遍化的价值？爱国主义、敬仰本族的神明或祖先、维护社会稳定，这些该不该列入？它们可能比一些常见“普价”条目在统计上更接近可普遍化，但“普价”的宣传者们大多不会把它们列入。而他们可能很想加入的条目，比如文化多元，恐怕只能是部分社会的特色。为什么厚此薄彼？如果回答是文化多元好，而头几个不那么好，那就再次表明“最优价值”是更合适的描述。
3. 更根本的一个问题：不论这些价值被称为“普世”还是（在普遍比较中的）“最优”，都只能在有限的程度上解释一个社会的卓越。很多体现了常见“普价”、并成为某社会维持文明之方式的机制，恰恰是该社会独有的、或者只能为部分社会拥有的，不能在所有地方复制。例如美国的持枪权，法国式的政教分离。一个过于简化、但也许大体正确的说法是，一个社会的卓越源于优秀价值和其载体的恰当结合，而在找到寄身其中的合适载体之前，价值只是无法产生影响的抽象理念。解释某社会的卓越时，那些文化上特殊、历史上特异的因素和它们承载的价值有同样根本的解释力。
4. 并非所有社会在所有历史条件下都能为常见“普价”提供合适的载体。
Unisex changing rooms put women in danger
Unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities, research by The Sunday Times shows. Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities, which make up less than half the total.
......
At least two-thirds of all sex incidents in public pools and leisure centres, whether inside or in the grounds, happen in unisex changing areas. Only a handful occur in single-sex changing rooms, the figures, released under freedom of information (FoI) laws, show.
David Davies, MP for Monmouth, said the data showed it would be “wrong and dangerous” for the government to pursue controversial plans for transgender people to “self-identify” as women.
Feminists claim that the proposals, which are out for consultation, will turn every female facility into a mixed space, allowing any man to identify as a woman and enter. Campaigners do not suggest that the main threat to women comes from trans people, but from men.
“These figures show that women and girls are more vulnerable in mixed changing rooms and there is a danger these places are becoming a magnet for sexual offenders,” Davies said. “It simply doesn’t make sense to enable men to have greater access to women’s spaces. The reforms to gender recognition will grant that access.”
Unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities, research by The Sunday Times shows. Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities, which make up less than half the total.
......
At least two-thirds of all sex incidents in public pools and leisure centres, whether inside or in the grounds, happen in unisex changing areas. Only a handful occur in single-sex changing rooms, the figures, released under freedom of information (FoI) laws, show.
David Davies, MP for Monmouth, said the data showed it would be “wrong and dangerous” for the government to pursue controversial plans for transgender people to “self-identify” as women.
Feminists claim that the proposals, which are out for consultation, will turn every female facility into a mixed space, allowing any man to identify as a woman and enter. Campaigners do not suggest that the main threat to women comes from trans people, but from men.
“These figures show that women and girls are more vulnerable in mixed changing rooms and there is a danger these places are becoming a magnet for sexual offenders,” Davies said. “It simply doesn’t make sense to enable men to have greater access to women’s spaces. The reforms to gender recognition will grant that access.”
The Economist: ow much is Russia spending on its invasion of Ukraine?
- By historical standards, it’s a puny amount. That tells you three big things
...[I]n consultation with various experts, and using our own analysis, we have come up with a figure. In essence this involved taking the Russian government’s pre-invasion forecast of what it would spend on defence and security, and comparing that with what it is actually spending. That would put the cost of its invasion at 5trn roubles ($67bn) a year, or 3% of GDP.
That is, by historical standards, a puny amount. We compiled estimates of spending on other wars—some involving Russia, some not (see chart). At the peak of the second world war the USSR spent 61% of GDP on the war effort. Around the same time America spent about 50% of GDP on its military forces.
Three reasons explain why Russia is spending so little. The first is political. Many within the Russian government would like to continue to portray the war on Ukraine as a “special military operation”. It would hardly make sense for such an operation to cost a double-digit percentage of GDP.
The second is economic. Russia would struggle to expand the war effort without costing its citizens dearly: printing money would spur inflation, eroding living standards; loading up banks with public debt might have a similar effect; tax rises or a big shift in public expenditure towards defence would also eat into personal incomes...
The third reason relates to defence economics more broadly. Today’s armed forces are far more efficient than the ones of the past. They need ever fewer people and their machines are ever more accurate.
- By historical standards, it’s a puny amount. That tells you three big things
...[I]n consultation with various experts, and using our own analysis, we have come up with a figure. In essence this involved taking the Russian government’s pre-invasion forecast of what it would spend on defence and security, and comparing that with what it is actually spending. That would put the cost of its invasion at 5trn roubles ($67bn) a year, or 3% of GDP.
That is, by historical standards, a puny amount. We compiled estimates of spending on other wars—some involving Russia, some not (see chart). At the peak of the second world war the USSR spent 61% of GDP on the war effort. Around the same time America spent about 50% of GDP on its military forces.
Three reasons explain why Russia is spending so little. The first is political. Many within the Russian government would like to continue to portray the war on Ukraine as a “special military operation”. It would hardly make sense for such an operation to cost a double-digit percentage of GDP.
The second is economic. Russia would struggle to expand the war effort without costing its citizens dearly: printing money would spur inflation, eroding living standards; loading up banks with public debt might have a similar effect; tax rises or a big shift in public expenditure towards defence would also eat into personal incomes...
The third reason relates to defence economics more broadly. Today’s armed forces are far more efficient than the ones of the past. They need ever fewer people and their machines are ever more accurate.
今年的海军冲突事件频繁，ww3的概率在直线上升
https://pincong.rocks/article/id-59190__sort_key-agree_count__sort-DESC
https://pincong.rocks/article/id-59190__sort_key-agree_count__sort-DESC
Montana Is Writing the Playbook on How To Deal With China
Montana just took an important step to protect its citizens from authoritarian regimes. By now everyone has heard that the state banned TikTok—and of course TikTok has sued to block the measure. That was two weeks ago. The very same day, Governor Greg Gianforte signed another measure that deserves some national attention. Montana House Bill 946 requires full disclosure of any relationships between Montana's public universities and entities affiliated with China. The provision fills significant gaps in longstanding federal reporting requirements, but Montana isn't just improving upon a flawed federal statute. The move also fills a gap at the state level, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has walked unimpeded into American universities and K-12 schools.
The legislation has two key features. First, it requires disclosure of all relationships an educational institution has with China. This requirement is necessarily broad. More narrowly tailored data disclosure requirements would provide universities a road map to steer clear of disclosure altogether.
Second, while the statute's disclosure requirements are broad, its application is narrow. Universities only have to disclose relationships with "countries of concern" as defined in a federal statute. Those countries are Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—though only China has much in the way of working relationships with America's universities (and indeed with Montana's). Universities will certainly feel the reporting burden of the new law, but that burden only applies to relationships with world's worst authoritarian regimes. Schools will finally be required to think critically about the true origins and connections of their research and educational partners—and reassess whether those relationships are appropriate. In any event, the reporting burden is only as heavy as universities' relationships with China make it.
Montana just took an important step to protect its citizens from authoritarian regimes. By now everyone has heard that the state banned TikTok—and of course TikTok has sued to block the measure. That was two weeks ago. The very same day, Governor Greg Gianforte signed another measure that deserves some national attention. Montana House Bill 946 requires full disclosure of any relationships between Montana's public universities and entities affiliated with China. The provision fills significant gaps in longstanding federal reporting requirements, but Montana isn't just improving upon a flawed federal statute. The move also fills a gap at the state level, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has walked unimpeded into American universities and K-12 schools.
The legislation has two key features. First, it requires disclosure of all relationships an educational institution has with China. This requirement is necessarily broad. More narrowly tailored data disclosure requirements would provide universities a road map to steer clear of disclosure altogether.
Second, while the statute's disclosure requirements are broad, its application is narrow. Universities only have to disclose relationships with "countries of concern" as defined in a federal statute. Those countries are Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—though only China has much in the way of working relationships with America's universities (and indeed with Montana's). Universities will certainly feel the reporting burden of the new law, but that burden only applies to relationships with world's worst authoritarian regimes. Schools will finally be required to think critically about the true origins and connections of their research and educational partners—and reassess whether those relationships are appropriate. In any event, the reporting burden is only as heavy as universities' relationships with China make it.
Washington is sanctioning 12,000 entities. It’s backfiring
...“Sanctions can be a useful tool of economic statecraft, but the problem is that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so sanctions become the tool of choice when few good options exist to combat foreign aggression,” Jason Bordoff, a former Treasury Department and White House official who is now the director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told me. “The problem is that overusing sanctions can backfire, imposing economic pain on ourselves or, over time, encouraging trading partners to seek other allies and alternatives to the U.S. banking system and dollar, which risks undermining America’s geopolitical and economic leverage.”
History is full of examples of U.S. sanctions that proved woefully ineffective. The U.S. government began imposing sanctions on Cuba in 1960 and expanded those to a full trade embargo in 1962. Declassified documents show that the intent was “to bring about hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of [the Castro] government.” Yet more than half a century later, Cuba remains a Communist dictatorship.
The U.S. sanctions on North Korea are even older: They date to the start of the Korean War in 1950. Sanctions were greatly expanded following North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006. Yet the Kim dynasty remains in control of North Korea, and it has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles.
More recent sanctions have failed to foster regime change — or even significant changes in regime behavior — in Myanmar (also known as Burma), Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen and other countries. International sanctions did persuade Iran to conclude an agreement in 2015 restricting its nuclear weapons program, but then-President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to exit the deal in 2018 and launch a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign on Iran backfired badly. Nuclear expert David Albright warns that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for seven bombs in the next six months.
...
In her 2022 book “Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests,” Agathe Demarais of the Economist Intelligence Unit concluded that effective sanctions are typically temporary (“If penalties have not yielded results within two years, the target country usually has no intention of giving in”); aim to achieve a narrow goal (i.e., freeing a prisoner rather than overthrowing a regime); target a country that has a substantial trade relationship with the United States; and have the support of the international community.
Unfortunately, most U.S. sanctions have vague and ambitious goals, last a long time and don’t have much international backing. Accordingly, Demarais writes, “Many U.S. sanctions programs are doomed to fail.”
...“Sanctions can be a useful tool of economic statecraft, but the problem is that when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so sanctions become the tool of choice when few good options exist to combat foreign aggression,” Jason Bordoff, a former Treasury Department and White House official who is now the director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told me. “The problem is that overusing sanctions can backfire, imposing economic pain on ourselves or, over time, encouraging trading partners to seek other allies and alternatives to the U.S. banking system and dollar, which risks undermining America’s geopolitical and economic leverage.”
History is full of examples of U.S. sanctions that proved woefully ineffective. The U.S. government began imposing sanctions on Cuba in 1960 and expanded those to a full trade embargo in 1962. Declassified documents show that the intent was “to bring about hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of [the Castro] government.” Yet more than half a century later, Cuba remains a Communist dictatorship.
The U.S. sanctions on North Korea are even older: They date to the start of the Korean War in 1950. Sanctions were greatly expanded following North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006. Yet the Kim dynasty remains in control of North Korea, and it has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles.
More recent sanctions have failed to foster regime change — or even significant changes in regime behavior — in Myanmar (also known as Burma), Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen and other countries. International sanctions did persuade Iran to conclude an agreement in 2015 restricting its nuclear weapons program, but then-President Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to exit the deal in 2018 and launch a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign on Iran backfired badly. Nuclear expert David Albright warns that Iran could produce enough nuclear material for seven bombs in the next six months.
...
In her 2022 book “Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests,” Agathe Demarais of the Economist Intelligence Unit concluded that effective sanctions are typically temporary (“If penalties have not yielded results within two years, the target country usually has no intention of giving in”); aim to achieve a narrow goal (i.e., freeing a prisoner rather than overthrowing a regime); target a country that has a substantial trade relationship with the United States; and have the support of the international community.
Unfortunately, most U.S. sanctions have vague and ambitious goals, last a long time and don’t have much international backing. Accordingly, Demarais writes, “Many U.S. sanctions programs are doomed to fail.”
Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds
Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.
Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.
Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.
The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.
Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.
The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”
Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.
Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.
Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.
The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.
Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.
The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”
U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline
Three months before saboteurs bombed the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Details about the plan, which have not been previously reported, were collected by a European intelligence service and shared with the CIA in June 2022. They provide some of the most specific evidence to date linking the government of Ukraine to the eventual attack in the Baltic Sea, which U.S. and Western officials have called a brazen and dangerous act of sabotage on Europe’s energy infrastructure.
The European intelligence report was shared on the chat platform Discord, allegedly by Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira. The Washington Post obtained a copy from one of Teixeira’s online friends.
The intelligence report was based on information obtained from an individual in Ukraine. The source’s information could not immediately be corroborated, but the CIA shared the report with Germany and other European countries last June, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence operations and diplomatic discussions.
......
Ukrainian officials, who have previously denied the country was involved in the Nord Stream attack, did not respond to requests for comment.
The White House declined to comment on a detailed set of questions about the European report and the alleged Ukrainian military plot, including whether U.S. officials tried to stop the mission from proceeding.
The CIA also declined to comment.
Three months before saboteurs bombed the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network, using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Details about the plan, which have not been previously reported, were collected by a European intelligence service and shared with the CIA in June 2022. They provide some of the most specific evidence to date linking the government of Ukraine to the eventual attack in the Baltic Sea, which U.S. and Western officials have called a brazen and dangerous act of sabotage on Europe’s energy infrastructure.
The European intelligence report was shared on the chat platform Discord, allegedly by Air National Guard member Jack Teixeira. The Washington Post obtained a copy from one of Teixeira’s online friends.
The intelligence report was based on information obtained from an individual in Ukraine. The source’s information could not immediately be corroborated, but the CIA shared the report with Germany and other European countries last June, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence operations and diplomatic discussions.
......
Ukrainian officials, who have previously denied the country was involved in the Nord Stream attack, did not respond to requests for comment.
The White House declined to comment on a detailed set of questions about the European report and the alleged Ukrainian military plot, including whether U.S. officials tried to stop the mission from proceeding.
The CIA also declined to comment.
古巴导弹危机2.0
https://pincong.rocks/article/id-59428__sort_key-agree_count__sort-DESC
https://pincong.rocks/article/id-59428__sort_key-agree_count__sort-DESC
前北约秘书长Anders Fogh Rasmussen在2018年接受胡佛研究所Peter Robinson的采访，谈及中国，复读自由国际分子一九九零年代以来和平演变的神话(3:18-4:18)：
Peter Robinson: Anders, the thinking was that, even as South Korea became wealthy and then a democracy, and Taiwan became wealthy and then a democracy, China, as it grew more prosperous, would move in a democratic direction. That has not happened. What went wrong?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Actually, I don't think it went wrong. I'm still hoping. I am. Developing an economically strong middle class in China will eventually also lead to more democracy, because they will request to have a say.
Peter Robinson: So 10 years, 50 years, you're playing the game for centuries.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Yeah, let's say ten years. If we meet in 10 years time, I think you and I could agree that something positive has happened also in China.
活在各类自造的幻觉中的精英是没法维持一个良好秩序的。内政外交皆然。
Peter Robinson: Anders, the thinking was that, even as South Korea became wealthy and then a democracy, and Taiwan became wealthy and then a democracy, China, as it grew more prosperous, would move in a democratic direction. That has not happened. What went wrong?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Actually, I don't think it went wrong. I'm still hoping. I am. Developing an economically strong middle class in China will eventually also lead to more democracy, because they will request to have a say.
Peter Robinson: So 10 years, 50 years, you're playing the game for centuries.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Yeah, let's say ten years. If we meet in 10 years time, I think you and I could agree that something positive has happened also in China.
活在各类自造的幻觉中的精英是没法维持一个良好秩序的。内政外交皆然。
在我看来冷战期间最伟大的政治演讲不是出自肯尼迪、里根或者金博士，是45年前的今日索尔仁尼琴在哈佛的演说。尽管他对国际局势的判断有误，但对西方内政的批判和诊断可说是字字珠玑，富于先见，几乎每句话都被自由社会此后发展的重大事件和整体走势印证。他的洞见，一旦得以恰当理解，足以让今日的右翼免于历史终结论者、自由国际分子和民主小清新们的蛊惑。
The Pentagon Is Freaking Out About a Potential War With China
(Because America might lose.)
......
...“We’re in a window of maximum danger,” says Christian Brose, a former senior aide to the late Sen. John McCain, who for years was a lone voice in the wilderness warning against the Chinese and Russian buildup. “We could throw a trillion dollars a year at the defense budget now, and we’re not going to get a meaningful increase in traditional military capabilities in the next five years. They cannot be produced.”
One of the reasons, again, is that China and other countries — not all of them friendly — make and supply a lot of that stuff now. Over decades of what many say was delusional thinking by both political parties about turning China into a friendly “stakeholder” in a peaceful international system, Washington heedlessly ceded shipbuilding, aircraft parts and circuit boards over to China and other cheap overseas labor forces. America’s new F-35 fighter jets, for example, contain a magnet component made with an alloy almost exclusively manufactured in China. China also totally dominates machine tools and rare earth metals, essentials for manufacturing missiles and munitions, as well as lithium used in batteries, cobalt and the aluminum and titanium used in semiconductors. While Beijing has made new advances in explosives, most American military explosives are made at a single aging Army plant in Tennessee, Forbes reported in March.
“While they were industrializing, we were deindustrializing,” says Brose. Today China commands some 45 percent to 50 percent of total shipbuilding globally, while the United States has less than one percent. “Given those numbers, explain to me how the United States is going to win a traditional shipbuilding race with China?”
......
Today the Pentagon suddenly finds itself scrambling to re-weaponize across the board — from submarines to aircraft to surface-to-air missiles — as Washington awakens to the reality of twin strategic threats from China and Russia. That may seem surprising at a time when the Pentagon still commands an $858 billion budget that exceeds the discretionary spending of every other federal agency put together, and which is almost twice as high as in the late ‘90s. Biden’s $886 billion request for 2024 would put the defense budget “at one of the highest levels in absolute terms since World War II — far higher than the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam wars or the peak of the Cold War,” said William Hartung, a military budget expert at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “And the U.S. spends more than the next 10 countries in the world combined, most of whom are U.S. allies, including about three times what China spends.”
But this is in part because of the 20-year-long “war on terror,” in which the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the huge expenses of occupation, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism sucked up so much in resources and attention, with the Pentagon spending nearly $14 trillion in response to 9/11, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Added to this was the huge cost of caring for the post-9/11 war veterans. (As a percentage of GDP the 2023 budget was still just over 3 percent but this was largely due to the rapid growth of the economy.)
“The 20 years post 9/11 really ought to be acknowledged as the era of the Great Distraction,” says retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula. “We got too distracted from the real threats posed by China and Russia.”
(Because America might lose.)
......
...“We’re in a window of maximum danger,” says Christian Brose, a former senior aide to the late Sen. John McCain, who for years was a lone voice in the wilderness warning against the Chinese and Russian buildup. “We could throw a trillion dollars a year at the defense budget now, and we’re not going to get a meaningful increase in traditional military capabilities in the next five years. They cannot be produced.”
One of the reasons, again, is that China and other countries — not all of them friendly — make and supply a lot of that stuff now. Over decades of what many say was delusional thinking by both political parties about turning China into a friendly “stakeholder” in a peaceful international system, Washington heedlessly ceded shipbuilding, aircraft parts and circuit boards over to China and other cheap overseas labor forces. America’s new F-35 fighter jets, for example, contain a magnet component made with an alloy almost exclusively manufactured in China. China also totally dominates machine tools and rare earth metals, essentials for manufacturing missiles and munitions, as well as lithium used in batteries, cobalt and the aluminum and titanium used in semiconductors. While Beijing has made new advances in explosives, most American military explosives are made at a single aging Army plant in Tennessee, Forbes reported in March.
“While they were industrializing, we were deindustrializing,” says Brose. Today China commands some 45 percent to 50 percent of total shipbuilding globally, while the United States has less than one percent. “Given those numbers, explain to me how the United States is going to win a traditional shipbuilding race with China?”
......
Today the Pentagon suddenly finds itself scrambling to re-weaponize across the board — from submarines to aircraft to surface-to-air missiles — as Washington awakens to the reality of twin strategic threats from China and Russia. That may seem surprising at a time when the Pentagon still commands an $858 billion budget that exceeds the discretionary spending of every other federal agency put together, and which is almost twice as high as in the late ‘90s. Biden’s $886 billion request for 2024 would put the defense budget “at one of the highest levels in absolute terms since World War II — far higher than the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam wars or the peak of the Cold War,” said William Hartung, a military budget expert at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “And the U.S. spends more than the next 10 countries in the world combined, most of whom are U.S. allies, including about three times what China spends.”
But this is in part because of the 20-year-long “war on terror,” in which the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the huge expenses of occupation, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism sucked up so much in resources and attention, with the Pentagon spending nearly $14 trillion in response to 9/11, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Added to this was the huge cost of caring for the post-9/11 war veterans. (As a percentage of GDP the 2023 budget was still just over 3 percent but this was largely due to the rapid growth of the economy.)
“The 20 years post 9/11 really ought to be acknowledged as the era of the Great Distraction,” says retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula. “We got too distracted from the real threats posed by China and Russia.”
White House anxiously watches Ukraine’s counteroffensive, seeing the war and Biden’s reputation at stake
Senior U.S. officials are convinced that future support for the Ukraine war — and President Joe Biden’s global reputation — hinges on the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
Succeed and Western military and economic aid will flow. Stumble or fail to meet expectations, and that support will likely dry up, sparking heightened calls for an expedited diplomatic resolution and hampering one of the White House’s signature international achievements.
Kyiv has had its share of make-or-break moments during the 16-month war it has waged against an invading Russia. But the current round of fighting has taken on heightened importance back in Washington, where domestic politics is muddying the overall picture.
U.S. officials do not know if lawmakers will greenlight more funding for Ukraine when the current tranche runs out. Any initial missteps in the counteroffensive, administration officials fear, could empower House Republicans to scuttle efforts by their Senate counterparts to boost defense spending.
Anxiety is also growing in Washington as Ukrainian elements are striking deep into sovereign Russian territory, leading to several private, stern admonishments in diplomatic backchannels.
U.S. officials believe that Kyiv, or at least pro-Ukraine forces, are responsible for a drone attack on the Kremlin and explosions that have killed both a prominent pro-war blogger and the daughter of a Russian nationalist. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. had intelligence indicating that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government planned to attack the Nord Stream pipelines — and later, officials believe, a pro-Kyiv group did it instead.
POLITICO spoke to five U.S. officials about the mounting concerns that could sully Biden’s hoped-for triumphant return to the world stage. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal thinking.
Senior U.S. officials are convinced that future support for the Ukraine war — and President Joe Biden’s global reputation — hinges on the success of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
Succeed and Western military and economic aid will flow. Stumble or fail to meet expectations, and that support will likely dry up, sparking heightened calls for an expedited diplomatic resolution and hampering one of the White House’s signature international achievements.
Kyiv has had its share of make-or-break moments during the 16-month war it has waged against an invading Russia. But the current round of fighting has taken on heightened importance back in Washington, where domestic politics is muddying the overall picture.
U.S. officials do not know if lawmakers will greenlight more funding for Ukraine when the current tranche runs out. Any initial missteps in the counteroffensive, administration officials fear, could empower House Republicans to scuttle efforts by their Senate counterparts to boost defense spending.
Anxiety is also growing in Washington as Ukrainian elements are striking deep into sovereign Russian territory, leading to several private, stern admonishments in diplomatic backchannels.
U.S. officials believe that Kyiv, or at least pro-Ukraine forces, are responsible for a drone attack on the Kremlin and explosions that have killed both a prominent pro-war blogger and the daughter of a Russian nationalist. And this week, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. had intelligence indicating that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government planned to attack the Nord Stream pipelines — and later, officials believe, a pro-Kyiv group did it instead.
POLITICO spoke to five U.S. officials about the mounting concerns that could sully Biden’s hoped-for triumphant return to the world stage. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal thinking.
Josh Hawley shuts down HuffPost reporter on Russia-Ukraine war: 'You don't know what you're talking about'
FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., had a fiery exchange with a liberal journalist who attempted to press him on where he stood on the Russia-Ukraine war.
In an audio clip obtained by Fox News Digital, HuffPost reporter Jonathan Nicholson confronted Hawley about the arrest warrant issued by Russia against his colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., over comments Graham made in support of Ukraine during his recent visit to the war-torn country.
"I mean, shouldn't that settle the question about how much and who the U.S. should be supporting - the one side in this war saying it's okay to, you know, try to arrest a U.S. citizen?" Nicholson asked, according to the taped exchange.
"Well, who's advocating supporting Russia?" Hawley countered.
"There's a lot of - there's a perception," Nicholson said as he was fumbled over his words, "that people who were - the people who were not supportive of Ukraine getting more money-"
"Are supporting Russia?" Hawley interjected. "Why would that be the case? Who's voted to support Russia or help Russia? Who rhetorically has said Russia is the good actor here?"
Nicholson doubled down with his assertion that "some people" have interpreted opposition towards giving more money to Ukraine as being supportive of Russia. But Hawley continued grilling the HuffPost reporter.
"You haven't answered my question. Who has said - name me somebody," Hawley told Nicholson. "I'm a lawyer, so make me an argument. Who has said that they support Russia?"
Nicholson replied, "Well, I think my question is about-"
"You can't name anybody. Can you name somebody?" Hawley asked.
"Off the top of my head, I'll admit I cannot say - cannot find you [anyone] who said ‘I support Russia,' but there are some people in the caucus, both over here [in the Senate] and in the House, who seem to believe that this is not a high priority to support Ukraine," Nicholson said.
"Well, it's not higher than China," Hawley shot back. "Listen, we live in a world of tradeoffs. Are you pro-China? I mean, do you want Beijing to - are you okay with the listening post in Cuba? Let's use your logic. Your logic is if you don't make anti-Russia the top priority, you're pro-Russia. My logic would be if you don't make China the top priority, you're pro-China."
When pressed on if he supported China, Nicholson replied, "I'm a lowly reporter."
"Well, I'm just asking you. You asked the question and you don't have anything to support it. I'm asking you, is that the right? Should I call everybody who doesn't want to make China the top priority a communist?" Hawley pressed him.
"I think China hasn't threatened to arrest one of your colleagues," Nicholson responded.
Hawley fired back, "China has threatened to arrest me. They have expelled me from a country. I'm banned in China. I'm sanctioned in China, personally. They've done the same thing to Marco Rubio. China has just set up a listening post off of our coast in Cuba. China is threatening to invade Taiwan. China cracked down on Hong Kong, expelled them. I was there with them in the streets. Are you saying China's a good actor? You think they're better actor than Russia? Do you think they should be our top foreign policy threat?"
"I think there's a question," Nicholson attempted to answer.
"I think you don't know what you're talking about, frankly," Hawley told the HuffPost report.
"I appreciate your candor, sir," Nicholson replied with a chuckle.
FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., had a fiery exchange with a liberal journalist who attempted to press him on where he stood on the Russia-Ukraine war.
In an audio clip obtained by Fox News Digital, HuffPost reporter Jonathan Nicholson confronted Hawley about the arrest warrant issued by Russia against his colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., over comments Graham made in support of Ukraine during his recent visit to the war-torn country.
"I mean, shouldn't that settle the question about how much and who the U.S. should be supporting - the one side in this war saying it's okay to, you know, try to arrest a U.S. citizen?" Nicholson asked, according to the taped exchange.
"Well, who's advocating supporting Russia?" Hawley countered.
"There's a lot of - there's a perception," Nicholson said as he was fumbled over his words, "that people who were - the people who were not supportive of Ukraine getting more money-"
"Are supporting Russia?" Hawley interjected. "Why would that be the case? Who's voted to support Russia or help Russia? Who rhetorically has said Russia is the good actor here?"
Nicholson doubled down with his assertion that "some people" have interpreted opposition towards giving more money to Ukraine as being supportive of Russia. But Hawley continued grilling the HuffPost reporter.
"You haven't answered my question. Who has said - name me somebody," Hawley told Nicholson. "I'm a lawyer, so make me an argument. Who has said that they support Russia?"
Nicholson replied, "Well, I think my question is about-"
"You can't name anybody. Can you name somebody?" Hawley asked.
"Off the top of my head, I'll admit I cannot say - cannot find you [anyone] who said ‘I support Russia,' but there are some people in the caucus, both over here [in the Senate] and in the House, who seem to believe that this is not a high priority to support Ukraine," Nicholson said.
"Well, it's not higher than China," Hawley shot back. "Listen, we live in a world of tradeoffs. Are you pro-China? I mean, do you want Beijing to - are you okay with the listening post in Cuba? Let's use your logic. Your logic is if you don't make anti-Russia the top priority, you're pro-Russia. My logic would be if you don't make China the top priority, you're pro-China."
When pressed on if he supported China, Nicholson replied, "I'm a lowly reporter."
"Well, I'm just asking you. You asked the question and you don't have anything to support it. I'm asking you, is that the right? Should I call everybody who doesn't want to make China the top priority a communist?" Hawley pressed him.
"I think China hasn't threatened to arrest one of your colleagues," Nicholson responded.
Hawley fired back, "China has threatened to arrest me. They have expelled me from a country. I'm banned in China. I'm sanctioned in China, personally. They've done the same thing to Marco Rubio. China has just set up a listening post off of our coast in Cuba. China is threatening to invade Taiwan. China cracked down on Hong Kong, expelled them. I was there with them in the streets. Are you saying China's a good actor? You think they're better actor than Russia? Do you think they should be our top foreign policy threat?"
"I think there's a question," Nicholson attempted to answer.
"I think you don't know what you're talking about, frankly," Hawley told the HuffPost report.
"I appreciate your candor, sir," Nicholson replied with a chuckle.
Nord Stream Sabotage Probe Turns to Clues Inside Poland
German investigators are examining evidence that suggests a sabotage team used Poland, a European Union neighbor and NATO ally, as an operating base to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines built to transport Russian gas through the Baltic Sea.
The probe by Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office is examining why the yacht they believe was used to carry out the operation journeyed into Polish waters. Other findings suggest Poland was a hub for the logistics and financing of last September’s undersea sabotage attack that severed the strongest bond tying Berlin to Moscow. Poland, which is conducting its own inquiry, has struggled for months to learn what Germany is investigating.
German investigators have fully reconstructed the entire two-week long voyage of the Andromeda—the 50-foot white pleasure yacht suspected of being involved in one of the biggest acts of sabotage on the continent since World War II—and pinpointed that it deviated from its target to venture into Polish waters.
The previously unreported findings were pieced together with data from the Andromeda’s radio and navigation equipment, as well as satellite and mobile phones and Gmail accounts used by the culprits—and DNA samples left aboard, which Germany has tried to match to at least one Ukrainian soldier.
German investigators are examining evidence that suggests a sabotage team used Poland, a European Union neighbor and NATO ally, as an operating base to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines built to transport Russian gas through the Baltic Sea.
The probe by Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office is examining why the yacht they believe was used to carry out the operation journeyed into Polish waters. Other findings suggest Poland was a hub for the logistics and financing of last September’s undersea sabotage attack that severed the strongest bond tying Berlin to Moscow. Poland, which is conducting its own inquiry, has struggled for months to learn what Germany is investigating.
German investigators have fully reconstructed the entire two-week long voyage of the Andromeda—the 50-foot white pleasure yacht suspected of being involved in one of the biggest acts of sabotage on the continent since World War II—and pinpointed that it deviated from its target to venture into Polish waters.
The previously unreported findings were pieced together with data from the Andromeda’s radio and navigation equipment, as well as satellite and mobile phones and Gmail accounts used by the culprits—and DNA samples left aboard, which Germany has tried to match to at least one Ukrainian soldier.
Views of State of Moral Values in U.S. at New Low
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans’ already poor ratings of the state of moral values in the U.S. have fallen further to the lowest point in Gallup’s 22-year trend. The 54% of U.S. adults who rate moral values in the country as “poor” marks a four-percentage-point increase since last year and the first time the reading has reached the majority level.
Another 33% of Americans think U.S. moral values are “only fair,” 10% “good” and 1% “excellent.”
Throughout the trend, Americans have been more negative than positive in their views of the nation's moral values, but the latest readings, from a May 1-24 poll, are substantially worse than the trend averages. Since 2002, an average of 43% of U.S. adults have said the state of moral values is poor, while 38% have rated it as only fair and 18% as excellent or good.
The increased negative rating of moral values is mostly owed to worsening views among independents. The 51% of independents who rate values poorly is up seven points from last year and is the highest recorded for that group. At the same time, Republicans’ and Democrats’ poor moral values ratings have each inched up two points, to 74% and 38%, respectively. The Republican reading is a new high for the group.
......
In addition to Americans rating moral values in the country worse than before, a record-high 83% think they are getting worse, up five points from last year and 16 points since 2021. The previous high of 82% was recorded in 2007, when 44% of Americans rated moral values as poor. Currently, 12% of Americans think moral values are getting better, which is the lowest percentage since 2008.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans’ already poor ratings of the state of moral values in the U.S. have fallen further to the lowest point in Gallup’s 22-year trend. The 54% of U.S. adults who rate moral values in the country as “poor” marks a four-percentage-point increase since last year and the first time the reading has reached the majority level.
Another 33% of Americans think U.S. moral values are “only fair,” 10% “good” and 1% “excellent.”
Throughout the trend, Americans have been more negative than positive in their views of the nation's moral values, but the latest readings, from a May 1-24 poll, are substantially worse than the trend averages. Since 2002, an average of 43% of U.S. adults have said the state of moral values is poor, while 38% have rated it as only fair and 18% as excellent or good.
The increased negative rating of moral values is mostly owed to worsening views among independents. The 51% of independents who rate values poorly is up seven points from last year and is the highest recorded for that group. At the same time, Republicans’ and Democrats’ poor moral values ratings have each inched up two points, to 74% and 38%, respectively. The Republican reading is a new high for the group.
......
In addition to Americans rating moral values in the country worse than before, a record-high 83% think they are getting worse, up five points from last year and 16 points since 2021. The previous high of 82% was recorded in 2007, when 44% of Americans rated moral values as poor. Currently, 12% of Americans think moral values are getting better, which is the lowest percentage since 2008.
California Bill Would Punish Parents Who Don't 'Affirm' Their Child's Gender Identity
A newly revised California bill would treat parents' refusal to "affirm" their child’s gender identity as a violation of health, safety, and welfare in the context of custody disputes.
The bill, which has already passed the State Assembly, would require judges adjudicating such disputes over transgender-identifying children to favor the parent who "affirms" the child's preferred identity. Earlier this week the authors released an updated version that specifically defines "the health, safety, and welfare" of a child to include "a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity"—a change that the bill's opponents worry will open the door to non-affirmation being treated as abuse.
"When you say that gender affirmation is in the child's best interest for health, safety, and welfare, it takes nothing to say [non-affirmation] is now abuse—because you're not taking care of the health, safety, and welfare if you’re not affirming them," said Erin Friday, a San Francisco attorney and co-lead of the parent coalition Our Duty.
The amended bill, known as A.B. 957, is the latest in a slate of legislation to enshrine left-wing gender ideology in California law. State senator Scott Wiener (D.), who coauthored A.B. 957 with Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D.), is simultaneously advancing a separate bill that would require foster parents to promise to "affirm" trans-identifying children. In 2022, he introduced a first-in-the-nation law enshrining California as a "haven" where out-of-state minors can obtain sex changes without their parents’ consent.
A newly revised California bill would treat parents' refusal to "affirm" their child’s gender identity as a violation of health, safety, and welfare in the context of custody disputes.
The bill, which has already passed the State Assembly, would require judges adjudicating such disputes over transgender-identifying children to favor the parent who "affirms" the child's preferred identity. Earlier this week the authors released an updated version that specifically defines "the health, safety, and welfare" of a child to include "a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity"—a change that the bill's opponents worry will open the door to non-affirmation being treated as abuse.
"When you say that gender affirmation is in the child's best interest for health, safety, and welfare, it takes nothing to say [non-affirmation] is now abuse—because you're not taking care of the health, safety, and welfare if you’re not affirming them," said Erin Friday, a San Francisco attorney and co-lead of the parent coalition Our Duty.
The amended bill, known as A.B. 957, is the latest in a slate of legislation to enshrine left-wing gender ideology in California law. State senator Scott Wiener (D.), who coauthored A.B. 957 with Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D.), is simultaneously advancing a separate bill that would require foster parents to promise to "affirm" trans-identifying children. In 2022, he introduced a first-in-the-nation law enshrining California as a "haven" where out-of-state minors can obtain sex changes without their parents’ consent.
Ukraine war: Deserters risk death fleeing to Romania
...Enforcing the draft in Ukraine can be difficult and corruption is recognised as a major problem by the authorities. Reliable sources in western Ukraine speak of the existence of a "monthly rate" - a payment made to keep someone out of the army.
There are also reports from the Ukrainian frontlines, of commanders asking the recruitment office to stop sending them men who don't want to or are too scared to fight. They are just a burden in battle.
But many men see fleeing to another country illegally as their only chance of avoiding combat.
The Ukrainian army stops cars and buses every dozen kilometres on the road beside the Tisa river, looking for draft dodgers. Their database, chaotic at the start of the war, is improving.
The Ukrainian Border Police recently reported that they are detaining up to 20 men a day. The BBC has approached the Armed Forces of Ukraine for comment on rates of desertion and draft dodging.
But according to the Romanian immigration authority, 6,200 Ukrainian men of military age have crossed the 600 km (373 mile) border into Romania illegally since Russia's full-scale invasion last year and been granted temporary protection.
Some 20,000 others made it there legally, armed with exemptions - sometimes paid for, sometimes not - and chose not to return.
And according to unofficial Ukrainian figures, 90 men have died on the journey to Romania - either drowned in the Tisa, or frozen to death in the mountains - in the past 15 months.
Both sides have problems to contend with. The stories of tens of thousands of Russians fleeing the war and mobilisation have been extensively reported.
...Enforcing the draft in Ukraine can be difficult and corruption is recognised as a major problem by the authorities. Reliable sources in western Ukraine speak of the existence of a "monthly rate" - a payment made to keep someone out of the army.
There are also reports from the Ukrainian frontlines, of commanders asking the recruitment office to stop sending them men who don't want to or are too scared to fight. They are just a burden in battle.
But many men see fleeing to another country illegally as their only chance of avoiding combat.
The Ukrainian army stops cars and buses every dozen kilometres on the road beside the Tisa river, looking for draft dodgers. Their database, chaotic at the start of the war, is improving.
The Ukrainian Border Police recently reported that they are detaining up to 20 men a day. The BBC has approached the Armed Forces of Ukraine for comment on rates of desertion and draft dodging.
But according to the Romanian immigration authority, 6,200 Ukrainian men of military age have crossed the 600 km (373 mile) border into Romania illegally since Russia's full-scale invasion last year and been granted temporary protection.
Some 20,000 others made it there legally, armed with exemptions - sometimes paid for, sometimes not - and chose not to return.
And according to unofficial Ukrainian figures, 90 men have died on the journey to Romania - either drowned in the Tisa, or frozen to death in the mountains - in the past 15 months.
Both sides have problems to contend with. The stories of tens of thousands of Russians fleeing the war and mobilisation have been extensively reported.
China is the world's biggest shipbuilder, and its ability to rapidly produce new warships would be a 'huge advantage' in a long fight with the US, experts say
China has an edge over the US in shipbuilding, and it could give the country an advantage in a protracted conflict in which both sides see heavy losses at sea, experts told Insider.
"China has already achieved parity with — or even exceeded — the United States in several military modernization areas," the Pentagon reported recently, identifying shipbuilding as one area where China has an advantage.
"The [People's Republic of China] has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants," the Pentagon assessed in its latest China Military Power report.
The Pentagon also reported that "China is the top ship-producing nation in the world by tonnage," adding that the country is currently striving to increase "its shipbuilding capacity and capability for all naval classes."
......
Modern warfare is complicated, with many different factors contributing to a conflict's outcome, but with the ability to produce ships faster than any other country, China could build up its force or rapidly replace its naval losses in a conflict, much as the US was able to do during World War II.
The US does not have that same shipbuilding capacity today, in part, because the US focuses on building more advanced assets at a handful of specialized shipyards, but also because the US is not that same industrial power.
Although the US Navy — with a battle force of 293 ships — is the most powerful navy in the world, military leaders have expressed concerns about America's decreased ability to rapidly build new ships.
Gen. David Berger, the commandant of the Marine Corps, assessed recently that "replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic, inasmuch as our industrial base has shrunk, while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity."
"In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race—reversing the advantage we had in World War II when we last fought a peer competitor," Berger wrote in a draft report on operational concepts obtained by Breaking Defense.
China has an edge over the US in shipbuilding, and it could give the country an advantage in a protracted conflict in which both sides see heavy losses at sea, experts told Insider.
"China has already achieved parity with — or even exceeded — the United States in several military modernization areas," the Pentagon reported recently, identifying shipbuilding as one area where China has an advantage.
"The [People's Republic of China] has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants," the Pentagon assessed in its latest China Military Power report.
The Pentagon also reported that "China is the top ship-producing nation in the world by tonnage," adding that the country is currently striving to increase "its shipbuilding capacity and capability for all naval classes."
......
Modern warfare is complicated, with many different factors contributing to a conflict's outcome, but with the ability to produce ships faster than any other country, China could build up its force or rapidly replace its naval losses in a conflict, much as the US was able to do during World War II.
The US does not have that same shipbuilding capacity today, in part, because the US focuses on building more advanced assets at a handful of specialized shipyards, but also because the US is not that same industrial power.
Although the US Navy — with a battle force of 293 ships — is the most powerful navy in the world, military leaders have expressed concerns about America's decreased ability to rapidly build new ships.
Gen. David Berger, the commandant of the Marine Corps, assessed recently that "replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic, inasmuch as our industrial base has shrunk, while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity."
"In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race—reversing the advantage we had in World War II when we last fought a peer competitor," Berger wrote in a draft report on operational concepts obtained by Breaking Defense.
Boys Need a Pathway to Manhood
...Recently there’s been a lot of focus on women’s spaces: women’s sports, sororities, prisons, shelters, bathrooms, locker rooms. We understand that women’s privacy and safety matter, and that when men invade women’s spaces, it’s a violation. But single-sex spaces are about more than privacy and safety. They are about bringing out certain behaviors — and a certain authenticity — in men and women, or boys and girls, that don’t manifest in coed groups or spaces. Single-sex schools, clubs, and organizations can cater to the strengths, needs, and characteristics of each sex.
Men-only spaces — including scouting and civic organizations, sports teams, church groups, fraternities, and clubs — are just as important for men as women-only spaces are for women. Historically, the exclusion of women from certain spaces went hand in hand with our exclusion from certain opportunities, in education or the workplace. Can we have men-only spaces without being unfair to women? We have to find a way, or we are failing men.
......
Men will continue to seek male-only or male-dominated spaces even as traditional options dwindle. This means that, today, many men or boys are drawn to online communities that are mostly male, such as video-gaming, the conspiracy-minded and sometimes bigoted forum 4chan, or Andrew Tate’s misogynistic TikTok channel. While many people think of Big Tech and social media as particular plagues for adolescent women (and they are), Wilcox highlights how the rise in the amount of time that young men spend video-gaming is contributing to their decline. The more time male teenagers or young adults spend video-gaming, the less time they spend on activities that help them develop into physically and mentally healthy men.
...Recently there’s been a lot of focus on women’s spaces: women’s sports, sororities, prisons, shelters, bathrooms, locker rooms. We understand that women’s privacy and safety matter, and that when men invade women’s spaces, it’s a violation. But single-sex spaces are about more than privacy and safety. They are about bringing out certain behaviors — and a certain authenticity — in men and women, or boys and girls, that don’t manifest in coed groups or spaces. Single-sex schools, clubs, and organizations can cater to the strengths, needs, and characteristics of each sex.
Men-only spaces — including scouting and civic organizations, sports teams, church groups, fraternities, and clubs — are just as important for men as women-only spaces are for women. Historically, the exclusion of women from certain spaces went hand in hand with our exclusion from certain opportunities, in education or the workplace. Can we have men-only spaces without being unfair to women? We have to find a way, or we are failing men.
......
Men will continue to seek male-only or male-dominated spaces even as traditional options dwindle. This means that, today, many men or boys are drawn to online communities that are mostly male, such as video-gaming, the conspiracy-minded and sometimes bigoted forum 4chan, or Andrew Tate’s misogynistic TikTok channel. While many people think of Big Tech and social media as particular plagues for adolescent women (and they are), Wilcox highlights how the rise in the amount of time that young men spend video-gaming is contributing to their decline. The more time male teenagers or young adults spend video-gaming, the less time they spend on activities that help them develop into physically and mentally healthy men.
More Say Birth Gender Should Dictate Sports Participation
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A larger majority of Americans now (69%) than in 2021 (62%) say transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender. Likewise, fewer endorse transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their current gender identity, 26%, down from 34%.
......
The shift toward greater public opposition to transgender athletes competing on the basis of their current gender identity has occurred at the same time that more U.S. adults say they know a transgender person. Thirty-nine percent of Americans, up from 31% in 2021, say someone they know personally has told them they are transgender.
But both Americans who know and do not know a transgender individual have become less supportive of allowing transgender athletes to play on the team of their choice. Currently, 30% of those who know a transgender person favor allowing athletes to play on teams that match their current gender identity, down from 40% in 2021. Among those who do not know a transgender person, support is now 23%, down from 31%.
Republicans, Democrats and independents are all modestly less supportive of transgender athletes playing on current gender identity teams today than two years ago. The result of these changes is that Democrats are now divided on allowing transgender athletes to play on either male or female teams, while in 2021 more were in favor than opposed. Large majorities of independents (67%) and Republicans (93%) remain opposed to giving transgender athletes a choice of competing on male or female teams.
......
The survey also asked about Americans’ more general views on being transgender. A majority, 55%, consider “changing one’s gender” to be more “morally wrong,” while 43% say it is “morally acceptable.”
Those results are slightly less accepting than in 2021, when Gallup last asked the question -- 51% thought changing one’s gender was morally wrong, and 46% morally acceptable.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A larger majority of Americans now (69%) than in 2021 (62%) say transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender. Likewise, fewer endorse transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their current gender identity, 26%, down from 34%.
......
The shift toward greater public opposition to transgender athletes competing on the basis of their current gender identity has occurred at the same time that more U.S. adults say they know a transgender person. Thirty-nine percent of Americans, up from 31% in 2021, say someone they know personally has told them they are transgender.
But both Americans who know and do not know a transgender individual have become less supportive of allowing transgender athletes to play on the team of their choice. Currently, 30% of those who know a transgender person favor allowing athletes to play on teams that match their current gender identity, down from 40% in 2021. Among those who do not know a transgender person, support is now 23%, down from 31%.
Republicans, Democrats and independents are all modestly less supportive of transgender athletes playing on current gender identity teams today than two years ago. The result of these changes is that Democrats are now divided on allowing transgender athletes to play on either male or female teams, while in 2021 more were in favor than opposed. Large majorities of independents (67%) and Republicans (93%) remain opposed to giving transgender athletes a choice of competing on male or female teams.
......
The survey also asked about Americans’ more general views on being transgender. A majority, 55%, consider “changing one’s gender” to be more “morally wrong,” while 43% say it is “morally acceptable.”
Those results are slightly less accepting than in 2021, when Gallup last asked the question -- 51% thought changing one’s gender was morally wrong, and 46% morally acceptable.
There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous.
- Cormac McCarthy (1933-2023)
- Cormac McCarthy (1933-2023)
Russians Are Split over Benefits of Military Action in Ukraine
A May 25-31, 2023 joint Chicago Council-Levada Center survey—conducted before the destruction of the Kakhovka dam and the start of Kyiv’s counteroffensive—finds that Russians are feeling more positive about their military’s performance in Ukraine than they were in November. Public support for the military operation remains stable compared to previous surveys, but Russians are sharply divided on whether the conflict has helped or hurt the country. Taken together, the data seem to indicate that the public is much more mixed in their views than it appears at first glance.
Key Findings
- More Russians now believe their country’s military operation in Ukraine has been successful (61%) than did in November (53%).
- Russians are now evenly divided between those who think Moscow should continue the military operation (48%, up from 38% in April) and those who think it should move to peace negotiations (45%, down from 51% in April).
- At the same time, support for the Russian military action has neither increased nor decreased. Three in four Russians (76%) continue to say they support the military operation, with 43 percent expressing strong support and 33 percent somewhat supporting it.
- A smaller majority of 66 percent say they would strongly (33%) or somewhat support (33%) a family member or close friend who voluntarily participated in the military operation.
- Other results reveal more division among the public. Nearly as many Russians say the special military operation in Ukraine has created more harm (41%) than more benefit (38%).
- If they had the opportunity to go back into the past, a plurality of Russians say they would have supported the start of military action against Ukraine (48%), but a sizable minority indicate they would have “cancelled” it before it started (39%).
A May 25-31, 2023 joint Chicago Council-Levada Center survey—conducted before the destruction of the Kakhovka dam and the start of Kyiv’s counteroffensive—finds that Russians are feeling more positive about their military’s performance in Ukraine than they were in November. Public support for the military operation remains stable compared to previous surveys, but Russians are sharply divided on whether the conflict has helped or hurt the country. Taken together, the data seem to indicate that the public is much more mixed in their views than it appears at first glance.
Key Findings
- More Russians now believe their country’s military operation in Ukraine has been successful (61%) than did in November (53%).
- Russians are now evenly divided between those who think Moscow should continue the military operation (48%, up from 38% in April) and those who think it should move to peace negotiations (45%, down from 51% in April).
- At the same time, support for the Russian military action has neither increased nor decreased. Three in four Russians (76%) continue to say they support the military operation, with 43 percent expressing strong support and 33 percent somewhat supporting it.
- A smaller majority of 66 percent say they would strongly (33%) or somewhat support (33%) a family member or close friend who voluntarily participated in the military operation.
- Other results reveal more division among the public. Nearly as many Russians say the special military operation in Ukraine has created more harm (41%) than more benefit (38%).
- If they had the opportunity to go back into the past, a plurality of Russians say they would have supported the start of military action against Ukraine (48%), but a sizable minority indicate they would have “cancelled” it before it started (39%).
Ukraine in NATO Is a Bad Idea
...Ukraine’s accession could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and international relations. It is important to recognize the delicate geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe, where Russia has historically viewed NATO's expansion as a direct threat to its security interests. Indeed, perceptions around NATO’s 2008 declaration that Ukraine and Georgia would become members of the alliance were used to drum up support for the war in Georgia, the 2014 seizure of Crimea, and the war in Ukraine today. Feeding into Russia’s paranoia won’t alleviate it—it will only encourage further backlash.
Worse, the credibility of NATO's security guarantees comes into question when evaluating Ukraine's potential membership. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that Western nations, including NATO members, are unwilling to use military force to come to Ukraine's defense. If existing members are hesitant to intervene in Ukraine's war, expanding NATO to include Ukraine would raise doubts about the alliance's willingness to fulfill its commitments in the future. This undermines NATO's credibility, weakening the deterrence capabilities of the alliance as a whole. Western powers should only be entering obligations they’re serious about and capable of keeping.
Ukraine's membership in NATO could also compromise the security of existing NATO members. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use military force to protect what it perceives as its sphere of influence. Extending NATO security guarantees to Ukraine, which is likely to be in bitter security competition with Russia for decades to come, heightens the risk that the entire alliance could be drawn into a larger conflict. While Russia has depleted its military during this war, many experts, such as Michael Kofman at CNA’s Russia Studies Program, suggest that Russia is more than capable of bouncing back stronger later. It is crucial to avoid a scenario where NATO and the United States must go to war with a nuclear power.
Ukraine would also require further significant financial and military resources to integrate its armed forces into the alliance's command structure and meet the required standards. Given Ukraine's current economic challenges and the need for substantial military recovery, it may not be practical to expect Ukraine to meet NATO's rigorous criteria in the short-to-medium term. The burden of supporting Ukraine's defense capabilities could strain existing NATO members, diverting resources away from pressing internal priorities or challenges elsewhere in the world, such as the Indo-Pacific.
...Ukraine’s accession could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and international relations. It is important to recognize the delicate geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe, where Russia has historically viewed NATO's expansion as a direct threat to its security interests. Indeed, perceptions around NATO’s 2008 declaration that Ukraine and Georgia would become members of the alliance were used to drum up support for the war in Georgia, the 2014 seizure of Crimea, and the war in Ukraine today. Feeding into Russia’s paranoia won’t alleviate it—it will only encourage further backlash.
Worse, the credibility of NATO's security guarantees comes into question when evaluating Ukraine's potential membership. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that Western nations, including NATO members, are unwilling to use military force to come to Ukraine's defense. If existing members are hesitant to intervene in Ukraine's war, expanding NATO to include Ukraine would raise doubts about the alliance's willingness to fulfill its commitments in the future. This undermines NATO's credibility, weakening the deterrence capabilities of the alliance as a whole. Western powers should only be entering obligations they’re serious about and capable of keeping.
Ukraine's membership in NATO could also compromise the security of existing NATO members. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use military force to protect what it perceives as its sphere of influence. Extending NATO security guarantees to Ukraine, which is likely to be in bitter security competition with Russia for decades to come, heightens the risk that the entire alliance could be drawn into a larger conflict. While Russia has depleted its military during this war, many experts, such as Michael Kofman at CNA’s Russia Studies Program, suggest that Russia is more than capable of bouncing back stronger later. It is crucial to avoid a scenario where NATO and the United States must go to war with a nuclear power.
Ukraine would also require further significant financial and military resources to integrate its armed forces into the alliance's command structure and meet the required standards. Given Ukraine's current economic challenges and the need for substantial military recovery, it may not be practical to expect Ukraine to meet NATO's rigorous criteria in the short-to-medium term. The burden of supporting Ukraine's defense capabilities could strain existing NATO members, diverting resources away from pressing internal priorities or challenges elsewhere in the world, such as the Indo-Pacific.
U.S. Warned Ukraine Not to Attack Nord Stream - WSJ
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency warned the Ukrainian government not to attack the Nord Stream gas pipelines last summer after it obtained detailed information about a Ukrainian plot to destroy a main energy connection between Russia and Europe, officials familiar with the exchange said.
Weeks later, in August, the CIA informed at least seven different NATO allies that Ukraine no longer appeared to be plotting to sabotage the pipelines and that the threat had diminished, European officials said. Those officials now believe Ukraine hadn’t canceled the original plan but had modified it, selecting a new point of departure and tapping an alternative military officer to lead it.
......
Weeks later, on Sept. 26, the pipelines were hit. Ukraine has vehemently denied that it had anything to do with the attack on the pipelines.
The exchange of information began in June, when Dutch military intelligence officials told the CIA that a Ukrainian sabotage team was looking to rent a yacht on the Baltic coastline and use a team of divers to plant explosives along the four pipes of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.
Initial intelligence suggested that the sabotage team was answering to Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhniy, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, according to people familiar with it. This hypothesis was later played down by investigators in at least two European countries who have considered that a different Ukrainian commander might have ultimately helmed the operation. Zaluzhniy’s office didn’t return requests for comment.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency warned the Ukrainian government not to attack the Nord Stream gas pipelines last summer after it obtained detailed information about a Ukrainian plot to destroy a main energy connection between Russia and Europe, officials familiar with the exchange said.
Weeks later, in August, the CIA informed at least seven different NATO allies that Ukraine no longer appeared to be plotting to sabotage the pipelines and that the threat had diminished, European officials said. Those officials now believe Ukraine hadn’t canceled the original plan but had modified it, selecting a new point of departure and tapping an alternative military officer to lead it.
......
Weeks later, on Sept. 26, the pipelines were hit. Ukraine has vehemently denied that it had anything to do with the attack on the pipelines.
The exchange of information began in June, when Dutch military intelligence officials told the CIA that a Ukrainian sabotage team was looking to rent a yacht on the Baltic coastline and use a team of divers to plant explosives along the four pipes of the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.
Initial intelligence suggested that the sabotage team was answering to Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhniy, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, according to people familiar with it. This hypothesis was later played down by investigators in at least two European countries who have considered that a different Ukrainian commander might have ultimately helmed the operation. Zaluzhniy’s office didn’t return requests for comment.
Nord Stream revelations should chasten Ukraine dam ‘hot takes’
...After news that the Nord Stream pipeline had been attacked on Sept. 26, 2022, Western leaders — including former U.S.officials and the Washington Post editorial board — laid the blame at the Russians feet, with the rest of the commentariat taking their cues. Those offering other explanations were called Putin apologists and fools. Over the course of the year, as the Europeans began investigating, officials quietly acknowledged that Russia was likely not behind the attack. Identifying the true culprit remained elusive.
After journalist Sy Hersh reported in detail in February that it was a secret team of special U.S. Navy divers, under orders of the Biden administration, that plotted and carried out the sabotage, he was, too, excoriated and called a crank and a Putin apologist. Still, no official explanation was forthcoming.
Then, unnamed government officials told the New York Times that a rogue group of anti-Russian Ukrainians had rented a boat and carried out the attack themselves, a theory that European leaders have distanced themselves from, and overall, has gotten little traction.
Fast forward to today. That the CIA might have known about a real plot by Ukrainians to blow up the pipelines that looks a lot like the Sy Hersh reported plan (only with Ukrainian divers and a rented boat) should send heads spinning and spines tingling. If the U.S. government knew of the plan why did Washington put the dogs on the scent of the Russians after the pipeline was actually destroyed? If it was the Ukrainian military, could the U.S. have stopped it? Was there some truth to Hersh’s claims and/or the rogue Ukrainian stories?
......
The lack of information, which has been a constant throughout this war, should temper the impulse to let emotional or political considerations lead us to conclusions. But that seems to be what is happening again, even though we know, from the Nord Stream sabotage example, that all may not be what it seems right now, and taking a step back from the hot takes might be what’s best for the situation. That is not “Putin apologia” but good sense.
...After news that the Nord Stream pipeline had been attacked on Sept. 26, 2022, Western leaders — including former U.S.officials and the Washington Post editorial board — laid the blame at the Russians feet, with the rest of the commentariat taking their cues. Those offering other explanations were called Putin apologists and fools. Over the course of the year, as the Europeans began investigating, officials quietly acknowledged that Russia was likely not behind the attack. Identifying the true culprit remained elusive.
After journalist Sy Hersh reported in detail in February that it was a secret team of special U.S. Navy divers, under orders of the Biden administration, that plotted and carried out the sabotage, he was, too, excoriated and called a crank and a Putin apologist. Still, no official explanation was forthcoming.
Then, unnamed government officials told the New York Times that a rogue group of anti-Russian Ukrainians had rented a boat and carried out the attack themselves, a theory that European leaders have distanced themselves from, and overall, has gotten little traction.
Fast forward to today. That the CIA might have known about a real plot by Ukrainians to blow up the pipelines that looks a lot like the Sy Hersh reported plan (only with Ukrainian divers and a rented boat) should send heads spinning and spines tingling. If the U.S. government knew of the plan why did Washington put the dogs on the scent of the Russians after the pipeline was actually destroyed? If it was the Ukrainian military, could the U.S. have stopped it? Was there some truth to Hersh’s claims and/or the rogue Ukrainian stories?
......
The lack of information, which has been a constant throughout this war, should temper the impulse to let emotional or political considerations lead us to conclusions. But that seems to be what is happening again, even though we know, from the Nord Stream sabotage example, that all may not be what it seems right now, and taking a step back from the hot takes might be what’s best for the situation. That is not “Putin apologia” but good sense.
Labour’s future will be conservative
...Every political period has its intellectuals who define its crises and opportunities, so providing the dominant cultural and political idiom of the day. The period of liberal globalisation was first defined by the Hayekian think tanks championing free markets, individualism and a small state of market liberalism.
Then followed the sociologists of the Third Way such as Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck, describing the detraditionalisation and individualisation of late modern society. Bill Clinton’s Democrats combined social liberalism with economic liberalism, prompting the US trade secretary Robert Reich to write, “There will be no national products or technologies, no national corporations, no national industries. There will no longer be national economies. At least as we have come to understand that concept.” In the UK, Philip Gould’s definitive The Unfinished Revolution (1998) described the progressive future, “In the twenty-first century the pace of change will be so fast, so all-embracing, that it will in effect be an age of permanent revolution.”
This is the world we are leaving behind but our political parties remain invested in it. Confronted by a new era of geopolitical rivalry, environmental degradation, a dysfunctional state and national economy, and a population beset by cynicism towards Westminster, Labour’s future success will depend on developing a more conservative left politics. Jeremy Seabrook and Trevor Blackwell call it “a conserving radicalism” in their 1993 book The Revolt Against Change. For people who have been subjected to decades of unwanted change, “the desire to conserve, to protect, to safeguard, to rescue, to resist becomes the heart of a radical project. A form of conservatism… becomes indispensable to this work of resistance.”
The future will be about stability and security, rebuilding the national economy, restoring and conserving the things that matter to people. These include their cultural values, decent work to raise a family on, safe neighbourhoods, reducing immigration and controlling our national borders, a respect for authority as the conveyor of our national inheritance, and a society that practices live and let live.
...Every political period has its intellectuals who define its crises and opportunities, so providing the dominant cultural and political idiom of the day. The period of liberal globalisation was first defined by the Hayekian think tanks championing free markets, individualism and a small state of market liberalism.
Then followed the sociologists of the Third Way such as Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck, describing the detraditionalisation and individualisation of late modern society. Bill Clinton’s Democrats combined social liberalism with economic liberalism, prompting the US trade secretary Robert Reich to write, “There will be no national products or technologies, no national corporations, no national industries. There will no longer be national economies. At least as we have come to understand that concept.” In the UK, Philip Gould’s definitive The Unfinished Revolution (1998) described the progressive future, “In the twenty-first century the pace of change will be so fast, so all-embracing, that it will in effect be an age of permanent revolution.”
This is the world we are leaving behind but our political parties remain invested in it. Confronted by a new era of geopolitical rivalry, environmental degradation, a dysfunctional state and national economy, and a population beset by cynicism towards Westminster, Labour’s future success will depend on developing a more conservative left politics. Jeremy Seabrook and Trevor Blackwell call it “a conserving radicalism” in their 1993 book The Revolt Against Change. For people who have been subjected to decades of unwanted change, “the desire to conserve, to protect, to safeguard, to rescue, to resist becomes the heart of a radical project. A form of conservatism… becomes indispensable to this work of resistance.”
The future will be about stability and security, rebuilding the national economy, restoring and conserving the things that matter to people. These include their cultural values, decent work to raise a family on, safe neighbourhoods, reducing immigration and controlling our national borders, a respect for authority as the conveyor of our national inheritance, and a society that practices live and let live.
Thank you, Joe:
Biden: We won’t ‘make it easy’ for Ukraine to join NATO
President Joe Biden on Saturday said his administration would not “make it easy” for Ukraine to join NATO, adding that the war-torn nation must meet the same standards as other member states.
Asked in a gaggle in Philadelphia about easing Ukraine’s path to joining the transatlantic alliance — likely in reference to the Membership Action Plan, a key obstacle in Ukraine’s efforts — Biden said: “No. Because they’ve got to meet the same standards. So we’re not going to make it easy.”
According to the MAP, candidate nations must make military and democratic reforms before consideration for NATO membership. Last week, Biden officials said the president was “open to” waiving the requirement for Ukraine, which this week launched a counterattack amid Russia’s war of aggression.
Biden added that the U.S. has “done a lot” to make sure Ukraine has the “ability to coordinate militarily.”
Biden: We won’t ‘make it easy’ for Ukraine to join NATO
President Joe Biden on Saturday said his administration would not “make it easy” for Ukraine to join NATO, adding that the war-torn nation must meet the same standards as other member states.
Asked in a gaggle in Philadelphia about easing Ukraine’s path to joining the transatlantic alliance — likely in reference to the Membership Action Plan, a key obstacle in Ukraine’s efforts — Biden said: “No. Because they’ve got to meet the same standards. So we’re not going to make it easy.”
According to the MAP, candidate nations must make military and democratic reforms before consideration for NATO membership. Last week, Biden officials said the president was “open to” waiving the requirement for Ukraine, which this week launched a counterattack amid Russia’s war of aggression.
Biden added that the U.S. has “done a lot” to make sure Ukraine has the “ability to coordinate militarily.”
The Tale the West Tells Itself About Ukraine
Since the invasion, a chorus of current and former U.S. officials has insisted that, as a former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, tweeted, “This war has nothing to do with NATO expansion.” In their account, the invasion emanated chiefly from motives internal to Russia. In one version, Putin the Autocrat seeks to destroy the democracy on his doorstep, lest ordinary Russians demand freedom themselves. In another, Putin the Imperialist wants to restore the Russian empire by annexing territory. Either way, the West’s actions played little part.
It’s hard to imagine that future historians will be so simplistic. Even tyrants do not act in a vacuum...
Ample evidence suggests that enlarging NATO over the years stoked Moscow’s grievances and heightened Ukraine’s vulnerability. After the Cold War ended, Moscow wanted NATO, previously an anti-Soviet military alliance, to freeze in place and diminish in significance. Instead, Western countries elevated NATO as the premier vehicle for European security and began an open-ended process of eastward expansion. Even though, as the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright noted, the Russians “were strongly opposed to enlargement,” the United States and its allies went ahead anyway, hoping differences would smooth out over time.
Time instead had the opposite effect. While NATO claimed to be directed at no state, it welcomed new entrants that clearly — and understandably — sought protection against Russia. Russia, for its part, never stopped claiming a “zone of influence ” over the former Soviet space, as President Boris Yeltsin baldly stated in 1995. Though Ukraine did not initially seek NATO membership after gaining independence in 1991, that calculus pivoted in the early 2000s, especially after Russia meddled in Ukraine’s presidential elections in 2004. That year, NATO took in seven new members, including the three Baltic States, leaving Ukraine in a narrow band of nations caught between the Western alliance and a bitter ex-empire.
As Ukraine’s domestic struggles became entangled in a resurgent East-West rivalry, it sought to join NATO and found a powerful backer: President George W. Bush.
In the run-up to NATO’s summit in 2008, Mr. Bush wanted to give Ukraine and Georgia a formal path to enter the alliance, called a Membership Action Plan. Before the meeting, William Burns, the current C.I.A. director who was then ambassador to Russia, cautioned that such a move would have deadly consequences.
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Mr. Burns advised from Moscow. He specifically predicted that attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Senior intelligence officials like Fiona Hill delivered similar warnings.
Since the invasion, a chorus of current and former U.S. officials has insisted that, as a former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, tweeted, “This war has nothing to do with NATO expansion.” In their account, the invasion emanated chiefly from motives internal to Russia. In one version, Putin the Autocrat seeks to destroy the democracy on his doorstep, lest ordinary Russians demand freedom themselves. In another, Putin the Imperialist wants to restore the Russian empire by annexing territory. Either way, the West’s actions played little part.
It’s hard to imagine that future historians will be so simplistic. Even tyrants do not act in a vacuum...
Ample evidence suggests that enlarging NATO over the years stoked Moscow’s grievances and heightened Ukraine’s vulnerability. After the Cold War ended, Moscow wanted NATO, previously an anti-Soviet military alliance, to freeze in place and diminish in significance. Instead, Western countries elevated NATO as the premier vehicle for European security and began an open-ended process of eastward expansion. Even though, as the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright noted, the Russians “were strongly opposed to enlargement,” the United States and its allies went ahead anyway, hoping differences would smooth out over time.
Time instead had the opposite effect. While NATO claimed to be directed at no state, it welcomed new entrants that clearly — and understandably — sought protection against Russia. Russia, for its part, never stopped claiming a “zone of influence ” over the former Soviet space, as President Boris Yeltsin baldly stated in 1995. Though Ukraine did not initially seek NATO membership after gaining independence in 1991, that calculus pivoted in the early 2000s, especially after Russia meddled in Ukraine’s presidential elections in 2004. That year, NATO took in seven new members, including the three Baltic States, leaving Ukraine in a narrow band of nations caught between the Western alliance and a bitter ex-empire.
As Ukraine’s domestic struggles became entangled in a resurgent East-West rivalry, it sought to join NATO and found a powerful backer: President George W. Bush.
In the run-up to NATO’s summit in 2008, Mr. Bush wanted to give Ukraine and Georgia a formal path to enter the alliance, called a Membership Action Plan. Before the meeting, William Burns, the current C.I.A. director who was then ambassador to Russia, cautioned that such a move would have deadly consequences.
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” Mr. Burns advised from Moscow. He specifically predicted that attempting to bring Ukraine into NATO would “create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Senior intelligence officials like Fiona Hill delivered similar warnings.
Intersectionality in reality:
‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags
In 2015, many liberal residents in Hamtramck, Michigan, celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council.
They viewed the power shift and diversity as a symbolic but meaningful rebuke of the Islamophobic rhetoric that was a central theme of then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign.
This week many of those same residents watched in dismay as a now fully Muslim and socially conservative city council passed legislation banning Pride flags from being flown on city property that had – like many others being flown around the country – been intended to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community.
Muslim residents packing city hall erupted in cheers after the council’s unanimous vote, and on Hamtramck’s social media pages, the taunting has been relentless: “Fagless City”, read one post, emphasized with emojis of a bicep flexing.
In a tense monologue before the vote, Councilmember Mohammed Hassan shouted his justification at LGBTQ+ supporters: “I’m working for the people, what the majority of the people like.”
While Hamtramck is still viewed as a bastion of multiculturalism, the difficulties of local governance and living among neighbors with different cultural values quickly set in following the 2015 election. Some leaders and residents are now bitter political enemies engaged in a series of often vicious battles over the city’s direction, and the Pride flag controversy represents a crescendo in tension.
“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”
For about a century, Polish and Ukrainian Catholics dominated politics in Hamtramck, a city of 28,000 surrounded by Detroit. By 2013, largely Muslim Bangladeshi and Yemeni immigrants supplanted the white eastern Europeans, though the city remains home to significant populations of those groups, as well as African Americans, whites and Bosnian and Albanian Americans. According to the 2020 census some 30% to 38% of Hamtramck’s residents are of Yemeni descent, and 24% are of Asian descent, largely Bangladeshi.
After several years of diversity on the council, some see irony in an all-male, Muslim elected government that does not reflect the city’s makeup.
‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags
In 2015, many liberal residents in Hamtramck, Michigan, celebrated as their city attracted international attention for becoming the first in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority city council.
They viewed the power shift and diversity as a symbolic but meaningful rebuke of the Islamophobic rhetoric that was a central theme of then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign.
This week many of those same residents watched in dismay as a now fully Muslim and socially conservative city council passed legislation banning Pride flags from being flown on city property that had – like many others being flown around the country – been intended to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community.
Muslim residents packing city hall erupted in cheers after the council’s unanimous vote, and on Hamtramck’s social media pages, the taunting has been relentless: “Fagless City”, read one post, emphasized with emojis of a bicep flexing.
In a tense monologue before the vote, Councilmember Mohammed Hassan shouted his justification at LGBTQ+ supporters: “I’m working for the people, what the majority of the people like.”
While Hamtramck is still viewed as a bastion of multiculturalism, the difficulties of local governance and living among neighbors with different cultural values quickly set in following the 2015 election. Some leaders and residents are now bitter political enemies engaged in a series of often vicious battles over the city’s direction, and the Pride flag controversy represents a crescendo in tension.
“There’s a sense of betrayal,” said the former Hamtramck mayor Karen Majewski, who is Polish American. “We supported you when you were threatened, and now our rights are threatened, and you’re the one doing the threatening.”
For about a century, Polish and Ukrainian Catholics dominated politics in Hamtramck, a city of 28,000 surrounded by Detroit. By 2013, largely Muslim Bangladeshi and Yemeni immigrants supplanted the white eastern Europeans, though the city remains home to significant populations of those groups, as well as African Americans, whites and Bosnian and Albanian Americans. According to the 2020 census some 30% to 38% of Hamtramck’s residents are of Yemeni descent, and 24% are of Asian descent, largely Bangladeshi.
After several years of diversity on the council, some see irony in an all-male, Muslim elected government that does not reflect the city’s makeup.
Police Remove Journalist From “All Ages” Drag Show After Recording Drag Performers Spreading Legs In Front of Children
A pro-child safeguarding journalist was removed from a kid-friendly drag show in Alamo, Texas after being accused of filming a drag performer flashing his genitals at the crowd of young children.
On February 19, Taylor Cramer, an independent journalist filming with RGVTruth, attended a drag show fundraiser at The Landmark on Tower in Alamo, Texas. The fundraiser was organized by the South Texas Equality Project (STEP), and was billed as an event to fundraise for “LGBTQ+ Youth Scholarships.”
......
Some of the performers were dressed in lingerie-style outfits, and writhed around with their legs spread or bottom showing while children were in close proximity.
Throughout the video, which he originally uploaded to Rumble, Cramer remains silent and does not directly interact with the children or the performers. But, after filming some disturbing incidents that occur throughout the course of the evening, the show organizers sought to have Cramer removed.
......
Cramer was removed from the premises on the basis of “trespassing,” but continued to question Alamo Police after he was escorted into the parking lot.
“Are you guys going to investigate the genitals that were exposed in front of kids,” Cramer is heard asking, to which an officer responds: “Nothing to investigate.”
A pro-child safeguarding journalist was removed from a kid-friendly drag show in Alamo, Texas after being accused of filming a drag performer flashing his genitals at the crowd of young children.
On February 19, Taylor Cramer, an independent journalist filming with RGVTruth, attended a drag show fundraiser at The Landmark on Tower in Alamo, Texas. The fundraiser was organized by the South Texas Equality Project (STEP), and was billed as an event to fundraise for “LGBTQ+ Youth Scholarships.”
......
Some of the performers were dressed in lingerie-style outfits, and writhed around with their legs spread or bottom showing while children were in close proximity.
Throughout the video, which he originally uploaded to Rumble, Cramer remains silent and does not directly interact with the children or the performers. But, after filming some disturbing incidents that occur throughout the course of the evening, the show organizers sought to have Cramer removed.
......
Cramer was removed from the premises on the basis of “trespassing,” but continued to question Alamo Police after he was escorted into the parking lot.
“Are you guys going to investigate the genitals that were exposed in front of kids,” Cramer is heard asking, to which an officer responds: “Nothing to investigate.”
NATO summit will not formally invite Ukraine to join alliance - Stoltenberg
ERLIN, June 19 (Reuters) - NATO leaders will not issue an invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance at a summit in Vilnius in mid-July, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday.
"At the Vilnius summit and in the preparations for the summit, we are not discussing to issue a formal invitation," he told reporters after meeting German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, adding leaders would talk about how to move Ukraine closer to NATO.
At the same time, Stoltenberg warned against accepting a frozen conflict in Ukraine in return for an end to the war.
"We all want this war to end, but a just peace cannot mean freezing the conflict and accepting a deal dictated by Russia," he said.
ERLIN, June 19 (Reuters) - NATO leaders will not issue an invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance at a summit in Vilnius in mid-July, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Monday.
"At the Vilnius summit and in the preparations for the summit, we are not discussing to issue a formal invitation," he told reporters after meeting German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, adding leaders would talk about how to move Ukraine closer to NATO.
At the same time, Stoltenberg warned against accepting a frozen conflict in Ukraine in return for an end to the war.
"We all want this war to end, but a just peace cannot mean freezing the conflict and accepting a deal dictated by Russia," he said.
Germany only has 20,000 high explosive artillery shells left, report says
BERLIN, June 19 (Reuters) - Germany's armed forces only have around 20,000 high explosive artillery shells left, magazine Der Spiegel wrote on Monday citing confidential defence ministry papers prepared to convince the budget committee of the need for urgent purchases.
Countries like Germany have rushed to send supplies of 155m artillery rounds used by howitzers to Ukraine in the wake of its invasion by Russia in February 2022, running down stocks for their own defence.
Germany's military needs to build up an inventory of some 230,000 shells by 2031 to comply with NATO goals to have enough artillery to withstand 30 days of intensive combat, Der Spiegel wrote.
The defence ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The ministry aims to present the budget committee with nine contracts for the accelerated purchase of artillery and tank ammunition in coming months, Der Spiegel wrote.
BERLIN, June 19 (Reuters) - Germany's armed forces only have around 20,000 high explosive artillery shells left, magazine Der Spiegel wrote on Monday citing confidential defence ministry papers prepared to convince the budget committee of the need for urgent purchases.
Countries like Germany have rushed to send supplies of 155m artillery rounds used by howitzers to Ukraine in the wake of its invasion by Russia in February 2022, running down stocks for their own defence.
Germany's military needs to build up an inventory of some 230,000 shells by 2031 to comply with NATO goals to have enough artillery to withstand 30 days of intensive combat, Der Spiegel wrote.
The defence ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The ministry aims to present the budget committee with nine contracts for the accelerated purchase of artillery and tank ammunition in coming months, Der Spiegel wrote.
Digging Up Old Graves to Make Room for Newly Fallen Soldiers
For close to 15 months, the bodies of fallen soldiers have steadily filled up a hillside military cemetery in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv. Now, the old, unmarked graves of those killed in past wars are being exhumed to make way for the seemingly endless stream of dead since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
......
While the recapture of Piatykhatky, in the Zaporizhzhia region, is evidence that Ukraine’s forces continue to advance, it is not a significant military breakthrough. Like the other villages recaptured, this one is small — Piatykhatky translates to “five houses” — and claiming them has come at the cost of Ukrainian lives and advanced Western equipment.
“The situation in the east is difficult now,” Ms. Malyar wrote. “The enemy has raised its forces and is conducting an active offensive in the Lyman and Kupyan directions, trying to seize the initiative from us.” But she added, “Our troops act courageously in the face of the enemy’s superiority in forces and means and do not allow the enemy to advance.”
......
A British defense intelligence report said on Sunday that both armies were suffering significant casualties from the current fighting, and military experts have said that months of artillery duels and trench warfare most likely lie ahead.
Leaked Pentagon documents published in April estimated that Ukraine had suffered 124,500 to 131,000 casualties, with up to 17,500 killed in action, while Russians had 189,500 to 223,000 casualties, including up to 43,000 killed in action.
For close to 15 months, the bodies of fallen soldiers have steadily filled up a hillside military cemetery in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv. Now, the old, unmarked graves of those killed in past wars are being exhumed to make way for the seemingly endless stream of dead since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
......
While the recapture of Piatykhatky, in the Zaporizhzhia region, is evidence that Ukraine’s forces continue to advance, it is not a significant military breakthrough. Like the other villages recaptured, this one is small — Piatykhatky translates to “five houses” — and claiming them has come at the cost of Ukrainian lives and advanced Western equipment.
“The situation in the east is difficult now,” Ms. Malyar wrote. “The enemy has raised its forces and is conducting an active offensive in the Lyman and Kupyan directions, trying to seize the initiative from us.” But she added, “Our troops act courageously in the face of the enemy’s superiority in forces and means and do not allow the enemy to advance.”
......
A British defense intelligence report said on Sunday that both armies were suffering significant casualties from the current fighting, and military experts have said that months of artillery duels and trench warfare most likely lie ahead.
Leaked Pentagon documents published in April estimated that Ukraine had suffered 124,500 to 131,000 casualties, with up to 17,500 killed in action, while Russians had 189,500 to 223,000 casualties, including up to 43,000 killed in action.
Synthetic human embryos created in groundbreaking advance
Scientists have created synthetic human embryos using stem cells, in a groundbreaking advance that sidesteps the need for eggs or sperm.
Scientists say these model embryos, which resemble those in the earliest stages of human development, could provide a crucial window on the impact of genetic disorders and the biological causes of recurrent miscarriage.
However, the work also raises serious ethical and legal issues as the lab-grown entities fall outside current legislation in the UK and most other countries.
The structures do not have a beating heart or the beginnings of a brain, but include cells that would typically go on to form the placenta, yolk sac and the embryo itself.
Prof Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz, of the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, described the work in a plenary address on Wednesday at the International Society for Stem Cell Research’s annual meeting in Boston.
“We can create human embryo-like models by the reprogramming of [embryonic stem] cells,” she told the meeting.
There is no near-term prospect of the synthetic embryos being used clinically. It would be illegal to implant them into a patient’s womb, and it is not yet clear whether these structures have the potential to continue maturing beyond the earliest stages of development.
Scientists have created synthetic human embryos using stem cells, in a groundbreaking advance that sidesteps the need for eggs or sperm.
Scientists say these model embryos, which resemble those in the earliest stages of human development, could provide a crucial window on the impact of genetic disorders and the biological causes of recurrent miscarriage.
However, the work also raises serious ethical and legal issues as the lab-grown entities fall outside current legislation in the UK and most other countries.
The structures do not have a beating heart or the beginnings of a brain, but include cells that would typically go on to form the placenta, yolk sac and the embryo itself.
Prof Magdalena Żernicka-Goetz, of the University of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology, described the work in a plenary address on Wednesday at the International Society for Stem Cell Research’s annual meeting in Boston.
“We can create human embryo-like models by the reprogramming of [embryonic stem] cells,” she told the meeting.
There is no near-term prospect of the synthetic embryos being used clinically. It would be illegal to implant them into a patient’s womb, and it is not yet clear whether these structures have the potential to continue maturing beyond the earliest stages of development.
Fewer in U.S. Say Same-Sex Relations Morally Acceptable
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans’ views about the morality of a number of behaviors and practices are largely stable compared with a year ago. However, significantly fewer say same-sex relations are morally acceptable, and more say the death penalty is.
Americans are most likely to say birth control is morally acceptable, with 88% holding that view. At least seven in 10 say the same about divorce, sex between an unmarried man and woman, and having a baby outside of marriage. Same-sex relations and the death penalty are in the next group, along with gambling, stem cell research and wearing animal fur, with between 60% and 69% of Americans approving of those five issues from a moral perspective.
U.S. adults are least likely to condone married men and women having an affair, human cloning and suicide.
......
Last year, a record-high 71% of U.S. adults said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable. The figure has fallen back this year to 64%, returning to a level last seen in 2019. Still, Americans are far more likely to consider same-sex relations as morally acceptable than in the past, including 38% in 2002 and 54% in 2012. The figure has been 60% or higher since 2015.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans’ views about the morality of a number of behaviors and practices are largely stable compared with a year ago. However, significantly fewer say same-sex relations are morally acceptable, and more say the death penalty is.
Americans are most likely to say birth control is morally acceptable, with 88% holding that view. At least seven in 10 say the same about divorce, sex between an unmarried man and woman, and having a baby outside of marriage. Same-sex relations and the death penalty are in the next group, along with gambling, stem cell research and wearing animal fur, with between 60% and 69% of Americans approving of those five issues from a moral perspective.
U.S. adults are least likely to condone married men and women having an affair, human cloning and suicide.
......
Last year, a record-high 71% of U.S. adults said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable. The figure has fallen back this year to 64%, returning to a level last seen in 2019. Still, Americans are far more likely to consider same-sex relations as morally acceptable than in the past, including 38% in 2002 and 54% in 2012. The figure has been 60% or higher since 2015.
Scores decline again for 13-year-old students in reading and mathematics
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) administered the NAEP long-term trend (LTT) reading and mathematics assessments to 13-year-old students from October to December of the 2022–23 school year. The average scores for 13-year-olds declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in mathematics compared to the previous assessment administered during the 2019–20 school year. Compared to a decade ago, the average scores declined 7 points in reading and 14 points in mathematics.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) administered the NAEP long-term trend (LTT) reading and mathematics assessments to 13-year-old students from October to December of the 2022–23 school year. The average scores for 13-year-olds declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in mathematics compared to the previous assessment administered during the 2019–20 school year. Compared to a decade ago, the average scores declined 7 points in reading and 14 points in mathematics.
Scholz to NATO: Focus on boosting Ukraine’s military power, not membership
BERLIN — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Thursday that next month’s NATO summit should focus on strengthening Ukraine’s military power instead of opening a process for the country to join the transatlantic alliance.
In a speech to lawmakers in the Bundestag, Scholz urged fellow NATO leaders to look “soberly” at Ukraine’s bid to join the alliance and argued that Kyiv itself had said “that joining NATO is out of the question” as long as Russia’s war against the country continues to rage on.
“Therefore, I advocate that we focus in Vilnius on what is now an absolute priority: Namely, to strengthen the real fighting power of Ukraine,” the chancellor said in reference to a NATO leaders’ summit in the Lithuanian capital on July 11-12.
He added that EU and G7 countries would work in parallel on “effective and long-lasting security guarantees” for Ukraine, which should be ensured by continued supplies of modern Western weapons as well as economic support to strengthen the country’s resilience against Russia.
BERLIN — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Thursday that next month’s NATO summit should focus on strengthening Ukraine’s military power instead of opening a process for the country to join the transatlantic alliance.
In a speech to lawmakers in the Bundestag, Scholz urged fellow NATO leaders to look “soberly” at Ukraine’s bid to join the alliance and argued that Kyiv itself had said “that joining NATO is out of the question” as long as Russia’s war against the country continues to rage on.
“Therefore, I advocate that we focus in Vilnius on what is now an absolute priority: Namely, to strengthen the real fighting power of Ukraine,” the chancellor said in reference to a NATO leaders’ summit in the Lithuanian capital on July 11-12.
He added that EU and G7 countries would work in parallel on “effective and long-lasting security guarantees” for Ukraine, which should be ensured by continued supplies of modern Western weapons as well as economic support to strengthen the country’s resilience against Russia.
Congressional conservatives launch effort to prevent 'endless wars' with resolution on NATO treaty
Conservatives in Congress are floating a new push to prevent "endless wars" with a resolution aiming to clarify a longstanding U.S. treaty.
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy is leading a House resolution on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreement to serve as a reminder that any armed conflict would need congressional approval.
Under Article 5 of the 1949 NATO treaty, members of the agreement are obliged to defend any allied nation under attack. However, Roy's resolution says in the event Article 5 is invoked, the president would still need congressional approval to enter an armed conflict.
"Decisions of war and peace, of life and death, are among the most serious any government makes," Roy told Fox News Digital. "The framers of our Constitution knew that, and they prudently vested the power to declare war in the legislative branch — the branch of government most accountable to the American people."
"No one has the power to declare war without Congress’ deliberation and our constituents’ consent; it’s high time this body conducted itself accordingly," Roy said.
Conservatives in Congress are floating a new push to prevent "endless wars" with a resolution aiming to clarify a longstanding U.S. treaty.
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy is leading a House resolution on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreement to serve as a reminder that any armed conflict would need congressional approval.
Under Article 5 of the 1949 NATO treaty, members of the agreement are obliged to defend any allied nation under attack. However, Roy's resolution says in the event Article 5 is invoked, the president would still need congressional approval to enter an armed conflict.
"Decisions of war and peace, of life and death, are among the most serious any government makes," Roy told Fox News Digital. "The framers of our Constitution knew that, and they prudently vested the power to declare war in the legislative branch — the branch of government most accountable to the American people."
"No one has the power to declare war without Congress’ deliberation and our constituents’ consent; it’s high time this body conducted itself accordingly," Roy said.
Daniel DePetris @DanDePetris
I'm agnostic on Modi. But I do envy India's foreign policy and the way it looks at the world. India is a selfish country—but in an anarchic world system (sorry, the U.N. doesn't count) where there is no global government enforcing global rules, countries need to be selfish.
Whereas the U.S. tends to view the world in black-and-white, India sees a complicated world with various shades of gray. Whereas the U.S. views alliances in positive-sum terms, India views alliances as detriments to maximum flexibility. The word "alliance" is anathema.
Maximum flexibility is where it's at, and India practices it quite well. It tries to retain positive relationships with as many powers as it can. It shrewdly exploits situations to its own advantage (see: buying cheap Russian oil in bulk). And it leverages its weight in...
the Global South, as well as Washington's China-centric foreign policy, to boost relations with the U.S. defense sector in order to (1) improve its military capacity over the long-term and (2) chip away at Russian dependence in the defense realm. Less dependence means more flexibility
India is also unapologetic about all this. When Europe complains about India buying Russian oil, India responds by saying: "hey, you would do the same thing if you were in our position...and btw, you bought a lot of Russian oil and gas yourself."
In conversation with Subrahmanyam Jaishankar
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1672270717637763072
I'm agnostic on Modi. But I do envy India's foreign policy and the way it looks at the world. India is a selfish country—but in an anarchic world system (sorry, the U.N. doesn't count) where there is no global government enforcing global rules, countries need to be selfish.
Whereas the U.S. tends to view the world in black-and-white, India sees a complicated world with various shades of gray. Whereas the U.S. views alliances in positive-sum terms, India views alliances as detriments to maximum flexibility. The word "alliance" is anathema.
Maximum flexibility is where it's at, and India practices it quite well. It tries to retain positive relationships with as many powers as it can. It shrewdly exploits situations to its own advantage (see: buying cheap Russian oil in bulk). And it leverages its weight in...
the Global South, as well as Washington's China-centric foreign policy, to boost relations with the U.S. defense sector in order to (1) improve its military capacity over the long-term and (2) chip away at Russian dependence in the defense realm. Less dependence means more flexibility
India is also unapologetic about all this. When Europe complains about India buying Russian oil, India responds by saying: "hey, you would do the same thing if you were in our position...and btw, you bought a lot of Russian oil and gas yourself."
In conversation with Subrahmanyam Jaishankar
https://twitter.com/DanDePetris/status/1672270717637763072
外患已露败象，内战当又重燃，只不过会换成「近期实务」，又将「令人耳目一新」了。
不管怎么说，当前仍是战争来牵线，其他的一切事务随后，甚至根本不显眼。
备用的「符合大势」的旗号：
总之，就是各种「天上掉馅饼」的口号啦，比如「经济的成长」、「免费医疗」、「安全保障」、「经济开放」、「航路安全」、「供应链茁壮」、「去风险」、「再工业化」、「绿色能源」、「无核家园」、「历史补偿」、「社会正义」、「基本收入」、「削减开支」、「压缩债务」……
反正说不完，随时有新鲜，比如共和党有议的「开战权」，再比如今天白宫的「捍卫生育（放弃）权成绩单展示」。不幸的是，「民」与「官」的距离会在这些不断的争斗中拉得更远，也是美国的大趋势。
不管怎么说，当前仍是战争来牵线，其他的一切事务随后，甚至根本不显眼。
备用的「符合大势」的旗号：
- 守护我们的生活方式、民主、自由
- 保卫开放的社会
- 奠定繁荣的安全基础
- 捍卫人权的价值
- 世界的和平
- 能（资）源安全
- 健壮的贸易、产业链
- 制裁威胁世界秩序的敌人
- 团结一致（很不幸，川普依然成为「大家的敌人」，哪怕川普第一个面对现实，强调「维护世界秩序时的各自义务」）
- 竞争优势、安全保证、地区稳定
- etc etc etc etc……
总之，就是各种「天上掉馅饼」的口号啦，比如「经济的成长」、「免费医疗」、「安全保障」、「经济开放」、「航路安全」、「供应链茁壮」、「去风险」、「再工业化」、「绿色能源」、「无核家园」、「历史补偿」、「社会正义」、「基本收入」、「削减开支」、「压缩债务」……
反正说不完，随时有新鲜，比如共和党有议的「开战权」，再比如今天白宫的「捍卫生育（放弃）权成绩单展示」。不幸的是，「民」与「官」的距离会在这些不断的争斗中拉得更远，也是美国的大趋势。
不知道主导了梵二大公会议的那群人会怎么看如今天主教会的演变，又会怎么看他们塑造的梵二精神在演变中的作用：
Vatican document urges talks on welcoming LGBTQ people, women's role
VATICAN CITY, June 20 (Reuters) - Roman Catholic bishops should discuss how the Church can be more welcoming to LGBTQ+ people and divorcees, a Vatican document released on Tuesday said.
They should also reflect on how to give women more decision-making power and allowing them to be ordained deacons, it said.
The 50-page working document for a global synod of the bishops also proposes discussion on allowing married men to become priests in remote areas - a possibility that Pope Francis put on hold following talks in a similar meeting in 2019.
It even appears to suggest that the Church should be understanding towards those in polygamous relationships.
The synod has been in preparation for two years, during which Catholics around the world were asked about their vision for the Church. A first session will be held this October and a second in October 2024.
The document, known by its Latin title Instrumentum Laboris, includes suggestions for reflections and discussions for the delegates stemming from the consultations.
After the synod, the pope writes what is known as an Apostolic Exhortation, an official document setting out his views on which, if any, of its recommendations should be taken up. This is likely to come some months after the second session.
One "question for discernment" in the document reads:
"How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to ask questions and not judged?
"... what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?"
Vatican document urges talks on welcoming LGBTQ people, women's role
VATICAN CITY, June 20 (Reuters) - Roman Catholic bishops should discuss how the Church can be more welcoming to LGBTQ+ people and divorcees, a Vatican document released on Tuesday said.
They should also reflect on how to give women more decision-making power and allowing them to be ordained deacons, it said.
The 50-page working document for a global synod of the bishops also proposes discussion on allowing married men to become priests in remote areas - a possibility that Pope Francis put on hold following talks in a similar meeting in 2019.
It even appears to suggest that the Church should be understanding towards those in polygamous relationships.
The synod has been in preparation for two years, during which Catholics around the world were asked about their vision for the Church. A first session will be held this October and a second in October 2024.
The document, known by its Latin title Instrumentum Laboris, includes suggestions for reflections and discussions for the delegates stemming from the consultations.
After the synod, the pope writes what is known as an Apostolic Exhortation, an official document setting out his views on which, if any, of its recommendations should be taken up. This is likely to come some months after the second session.
One "question for discernment" in the document reads:
"How can we create spaces where those who feel hurt by the Church and unwelcomed by the community feel recognised, received, free to ask questions and not judged?
"... what concrete steps are needed to welcome those who feel excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality (for example, remarried divorcees, people in polygamous marriages, LGBTQ+ people, etc.)?"
新西兰白左德匹下：
New Zealand debates whether ethnicity should be a factor for surgery waitlists
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — New Zealanders this week were debating a thorny health care issue — whether ethnicity should be a factor in determining when patients get surgery.
It turns out that in some parts of Auckland, the country’s largest city at 1.4 million people, clinicians have been using an algorithm to adjust where patients sit on elective surgery waitlists. Clinical need remains the top factor, but the algorithm also takes into account how long patients have been on the waitlist, where they live, their financial circumstances, and their ethnicity.
Indigenous Māori and Pacific Island patients are given a higher priority on the list, pushing down white New Zealanders and other ethnicities. The idea is to balance out longstanding inequities in the publicly funded health system.
“At the moment, there is clear evidence Māori, Pacific, rural and low-income communities have been discriminated against by the health system,” Prime Minister Chris Hipkins told reporters.
The algorithm has been used in Auckland since February and similar policies have been in place there since 2020. But most people weren’t aware of the algorithm until Monday, when radio station Newstalk ZB reported on it, saying some surgeons were ethically opposed to using ethnicity as a factor.
进步主义的很多政策目前只有靠生发于自由民主制内部的新专制主义才能推行。
New Zealand debates whether ethnicity should be a factor for surgery waitlists
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — New Zealanders this week were debating a thorny health care issue — whether ethnicity should be a factor in determining when patients get surgery.
It turns out that in some parts of Auckland, the country’s largest city at 1.4 million people, clinicians have been using an algorithm to adjust where patients sit on elective surgery waitlists. Clinical need remains the top factor, but the algorithm also takes into account how long patients have been on the waitlist, where they live, their financial circumstances, and their ethnicity.
Indigenous Māori and Pacific Island patients are given a higher priority on the list, pushing down white New Zealanders and other ethnicities. The idea is to balance out longstanding inequities in the publicly funded health system.
“At the moment, there is clear evidence Māori, Pacific, rural and low-income communities have been discriminated against by the health system,” Prime Minister Chris Hipkins told reporters.
The algorithm has been used in Auckland since February and similar policies have been in place there since 2020. But most people weren’t aware of the algorithm until Monday, when radio station Newstalk ZB reported on it, saying some surgeons were ethically opposed to using ethnicity as a factor.
进步主义的很多政策目前只有靠生发于自由民主制内部的新专制主义才能推行。
West explores nuclear risks from unstable Putin regime
...Diplomats said alarm over possible negative outcomes from the rebellion against Putin’s regime laid bare the lack of consensus in the west on the ultimate goal of backing Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression.
“[The weekend’s events] made clear that we are not in agreement on the outcomes of what will happen if Ukraine wins this war and what that will do to Russia,” a western official said, on condition of anonymity.
Some western nations, including G7 members, discussed the need for Ukraine not to take advantage of the current situation by, for example, launching attacks on Russian territory with the aim of increasing instability.
......
“[Will] military failure destroy Russian political power or will the prior destruction of [Russia’s] political system lead to military disaster?” posed one senior western diplomat who said western countries needed contingency plans. “There are so many possible scenarios.”
At a Monday meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, some ministers present stated that it is not in Europe’s interest to destabilise Russia, according to people briefed on the conversations.
“We are not in the business of regime change,” said one of those people.
“The message to those getting carried away is that nobody wins from civil war in Russia,” said one EU diplomat briefed on the discussions between ministers.
......
In Congress, some proponents of sending more effective weapons systems to Ukraine, such as long range ATACMS artillery, said they thought the Wagner insurrection could hinder the effort to convince the Biden administration, which is wary of destabilising Russia.
Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator on the Senate foreign relations committee, told the FT there was no interest “in a Russian civil war”. He said: “You do not want political or military chaos inside a country that has a massive nuclear arsenal.”
American officials sent diplomatic messages to Russia over the weekend making clear that they were not involved in the events and considered them an internal Russian matter. They urged Russia not to use nuclear weapons or escalate, current and former US officials said.
...Diplomats said alarm over possible negative outcomes from the rebellion against Putin’s regime laid bare the lack of consensus in the west on the ultimate goal of backing Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression.
“[The weekend’s events] made clear that we are not in agreement on the outcomes of what will happen if Ukraine wins this war and what that will do to Russia,” a western official said, on condition of anonymity.
Some western nations, including G7 members, discussed the need for Ukraine not to take advantage of the current situation by, for example, launching attacks on Russian territory with the aim of increasing instability.
......
“[Will] military failure destroy Russian political power or will the prior destruction of [Russia’s] political system lead to military disaster?” posed one senior western diplomat who said western countries needed contingency plans. “There are so many possible scenarios.”
At a Monday meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg, some ministers present stated that it is not in Europe’s interest to destabilise Russia, according to people briefed on the conversations.
“We are not in the business of regime change,” said one of those people.
“The message to those getting carried away is that nobody wins from civil war in Russia,” said one EU diplomat briefed on the discussions between ministers.
......
In Congress, some proponents of sending more effective weapons systems to Ukraine, such as long range ATACMS artillery, said they thought the Wagner insurrection could hinder the effort to convince the Biden administration, which is wary of destabilising Russia.
Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator on the Senate foreign relations committee, told the FT there was no interest “in a Russian civil war”. He said: “You do not want political or military chaos inside a country that has a massive nuclear arsenal.”
American officials sent diplomatic messages to Russia over the weekend making clear that they were not involved in the events and considered them an internal Russian matter. They urged Russia not to use nuclear weapons or escalate, current and former US officials said.
Ukraine’s missing Marshall Plan
The price to Ukraine of Russia’s aggression is breathtaking: £411bn to reconstruct and cover economic losses, according to a World Bank assessment in March(opens a new window). Direct losses to building and infrastructure come to $135bn. The cost of removing mines and unexploded munitions alone is an astonishing $38bn. Kyiv requires $14bn this year for urgent repairs to housing, energy and transport systems.
Wary of virtue-signalling by its supporters, Ukrainian officials had set their expectations of the conference quite low. “It is a good time for speeches, for discussions and possibly for future deals,” says finance minister Sergii Marchenko. “We were not expecting a rain of money on our heads.”
......
Ukraine will need $100bn-150bn of public money for capital expenditure, says Rostyslav Shurma, chief economic adviser to the country’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The EU plan, once money for Ukraine’s day-to-day spending is subtracted, will barely make a dent.
The private sector could provide $140bn of investment(opens a new window) for reconstruction over 10 years, according to the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank’s private sector lending arm. A long-term economic revival plan revolving around low-carbon electricity, green steel, agriculture and IT could create investment opportunities worth $400bn, says Shurma.
......
Despite the sympathy for Ukraine’s plight and enthusiasm for helping it rebuild, Kyiv is bound to face intensifying scrutiny over the money it receives from the west. Donors are tightening their tracking procedures and seeking assurances over Ukraine’s anti-corruption safeguards. There is also concern about the Zelenskyy government’s centralising tendencies. Many of these issues were debated at a conference this week(opens a new window) at Chatham House, the London think-tank.
The price to Ukraine of Russia’s aggression is breathtaking: £411bn to reconstruct and cover economic losses, according to a World Bank assessment in March(opens a new window). Direct losses to building and infrastructure come to $135bn. The cost of removing mines and unexploded munitions alone is an astonishing $38bn. Kyiv requires $14bn this year for urgent repairs to housing, energy and transport systems.
Wary of virtue-signalling by its supporters, Ukrainian officials had set their expectations of the conference quite low. “It is a good time for speeches, for discussions and possibly for future deals,” says finance minister Sergii Marchenko. “We were not expecting a rain of money on our heads.”
......
Ukraine will need $100bn-150bn of public money for capital expenditure, says Rostyslav Shurma, chief economic adviser to the country’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The EU plan, once money for Ukraine’s day-to-day spending is subtracted, will barely make a dent.
The private sector could provide $140bn of investment(opens a new window) for reconstruction over 10 years, according to the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank’s private sector lending arm. A long-term economic revival plan revolving around low-carbon electricity, green steel, agriculture and IT could create investment opportunities worth $400bn, says Shurma.
......
Despite the sympathy for Ukraine’s plight and enthusiasm for helping it rebuild, Kyiv is bound to face intensifying scrutiny over the money it receives from the west. Donors are tightening their tracking procedures and seeking assurances over Ukraine’s anti-corruption safeguards. There is also concern about the Zelenskyy government’s centralising tendencies. Many of these issues were debated at a conference this week(opens a new window) at Chatham House, the London think-tank.
Germany pushes back against EU plan to raid frozen Russian assets
Germany has voiced objections against Brussels’ plans to raid frozen Russian central bank assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction, warning that a hasty move could stir up legal or financial risks.
The European Commission is working on a plan that could raise billions of euros by requiring financial institutions holding immobilised Russian assets to hand over some of the profits generated and use them in the rebuilding of Ukraine.
But following concerns flagged by the European Central Bank, Berlin and other capitals have called for further reflection over the ideas.
Senior German government officials said they doubted the plan would win enough support because the legal risks were too high. A foreign ministry official said Moscow “will have to pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine” and insisted Germany was doing “everything it legally can” to locate and freeze the assets of sanctions-hit Russian individuals and companies. But he said the idea of using Russian funds for Ukraine’s reconstruction raised “complex financial and legal questions”.
“It opens a can of worms,” said another German official, adding that if the EU took money from the Russian central bank or reaped the proceeds from investing the funds, it would set a precedent for others to pursue, such as Poland’s reparation claims against Berlin for damage during the second world war.
......
Four member state officials said they saw a solid majority among EU countries in principle to use proceeds from confiscated Russian assets, while acknowledging that the ECB’s concerns had given some capitals pause over the way to do it.
“There’s a very clear, wide consensus within the member states that money, new money generated by those frozen assets, should be, could be used,” said a second EU diplomat. “But there’s also a very clear consensus that it’s not something that we can do based on a political decision somewhere, to just take the money.”
Germany has voiced objections against Brussels’ plans to raid frozen Russian central bank assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction, warning that a hasty move could stir up legal or financial risks.
The European Commission is working on a plan that could raise billions of euros by requiring financial institutions holding immobilised Russian assets to hand over some of the profits generated and use them in the rebuilding of Ukraine.
But following concerns flagged by the European Central Bank, Berlin and other capitals have called for further reflection over the ideas.
Senior German government officials said they doubted the plan would win enough support because the legal risks were too high. A foreign ministry official said Moscow “will have to pay for the damage it has caused in Ukraine” and insisted Germany was doing “everything it legally can” to locate and freeze the assets of sanctions-hit Russian individuals and companies. But he said the idea of using Russian funds for Ukraine’s reconstruction raised “complex financial and legal questions”.
“It opens a can of worms,” said another German official, adding that if the EU took money from the Russian central bank or reaped the proceeds from investing the funds, it would set a precedent for others to pursue, such as Poland’s reparation claims against Berlin for damage during the second world war.
......
Four member state officials said they saw a solid majority among EU countries in principle to use proceeds from confiscated Russian assets, while acknowledging that the ECB’s concerns had given some capitals pause over the way to do it.
“There’s a very clear, wide consensus within the member states that money, new money generated by those frozen assets, should be, could be used,” said a second EU diplomat. “But there’s also a very clear consensus that it’s not something that we can do based on a political decision somewhere, to just take the money.”