Bee hotels, bee stops and a honey highway are some of the techniques the Dutch are crediting with keeping their urban bee population steady in recent years, after a period of worrying decline.
Last week, more than 11,000 people from across the Netherlands participated in a bee-counting exercise as part of the fourth edition of the national bee census.
The enthusiastic volunteers, armed with a list depicting the most common bees at this time of the year, spent 30 minutes in their gardens recording their apian visitors. At the close of data submission on Sunday 18 April, more than 200,000 bees and hoverflies had been counted.
Read more at:
Bee population steady in Dutch cities thanks to pollinator strategy | Bees | The Guardian
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
5/3/21
1/28/21
The EU's vaccine strategy - the key points
The European Commission, on behalf of member states, has sealed deals with six companies for up to 2.3 billion vaccine doses. The BioNTech-Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are so far the only jabs authorised in the EU, but the vaccine jointly developed by Oxford and AstraZeneca is expected to be approved on Friday (29 January) by the European Medical Agency (EMA).
With two doses per person needed for both authorised vaccines, the EU could vaccinate at least 380 million people - covering approximately 80 percent of the European population.
Read more at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150747
With two doses per person needed for both authorised vaccines, the EU could vaccinate at least 380 million people - covering approximately 80 percent of the European population.
Read more at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150747
5/2/20
US Presidental Elections 2020: Democratic party must wake up out of slumberland and do a better job at putting a winning strategy and plan together, if they want to win the election
The Atlantic writes - "If there’s any consolation to the realization of terrible fears, of
worst-case scenarios springing to life, it’s that they are invigorating.
Donald Trump’s presidency has rocked a long-complacent Democratic Party
like nothing in recent history. Liberals, with their confidence that
the trajectory of the country points in their direction, never had quite
as much practice as conservatives in expressing their anger. That’s
what makes the “Resistance”—the many marches, the seething hostility at
town-hall meetings, the anti-Trump placards shouting at passersby from
bungalow windows—a transformational break in the pattern.Democratic Party. Presidential hopefuls already strive to anticipate its wishes. Elected officials have restructured their political calculus to avoid getting on its wrong side. The feistiness and agitation of the moment are propelling the party to a new place.
To win the Democratic presidential nomination, it helps to secure the African American vote. But another path to victory involves rallying white voters with a populist bent. This can create an uncomfortable dynamic in presidential primaries, where race vies with class to become the defining concern of the party. Politicians rarely vocalize the tension. But the socialism of Bernie Sanders—which hindered his efforts to explain the centrality of race to American life—made this split less subterranean than usual."
But where? The question unnerves Democrats, because the party has no scaffolding. All the dominant leaders of the last two generations—the Clintons, Barack Obama—have receded. Defeat discredited the party’s foundational strategy—or, at the very least, exposed it as a wishful description of a more distant future, rather than a clear plan for victory in the present. Resistance has given the Democrats the illusion of unity, but the reality is deeply conflicted. Two of the party’s largest concerns—race and class—reside in an increasing state of tension, a tension that will grow as the party turns toward the next presidential election.
To produce a governing majority, the party will need to survive an unsettling reckoning with itself.
Donald Trump didn’t just prevail over the Democrats; he called into doubt their old truths."
Note EU-Digest: Change has therefore become even more urgent for the Democratic party. It will have to come up with a clear cut strategy, to not only win the election, but also have a very specific plan, which it should reveal to the voters, as to how it intends to pull the US out of the economic and social disaster the country finds itself in. So far it has not done so.
All this will require very strong leadership and vision - and it might even require a major internal political shake-up at the upcoming democratic convention, to accomplish this.
America as a nation deserves a change for the better.
A return to the status quo is not the answer.
EU-Digest
3/23/20
Trump signals change in coronavirus strategy that could clash with health experts | World news
Trump tweets White House will ‘make a decision’ after 15-day period ends as Senate Democrats block relief package
Read more at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/trump-social-distancing-coronavirus-rules-guidelines-economy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Add_to_Firefox
Read more at:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/trump-social-distancing-coronavirus-rules-guidelines-economy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Add_to_Firefox
1/18/20
Iran-US Relations: Iran Plays Chess, the US Backgammon - by James M. Dorsey
Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management.
That is becoming increasingly obvious in the U.S-.Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard.
Hobbled by harsh U.S. economic sanctions and a weak military hand, Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric warfare and carefully calibrated operations as well as acts of political violence, an approach that the United States 40 years after the 1979 Iranian revolution has yet to come to grips with.
Iran’s firing of missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq in its initial military response to the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani deftly served multiple purposes while leaving the door open to de-escalation.
The Iranian missiles targeting the bases, part of what Iran dubbed Operation Harsh Revenge, were launched as millions crowded the streets of the city of Kerman for the funeral of Mr. Soleimani, the third day of a mass outpouring of mourning, public anger and calls for revenge.
Using guided precision missiles, Iran was careful to demonstrate its capability while not causing further U.S. and/or Iraqi casualties that almost certainly would have provoked a harsh U.S. response.
Driving the point home, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile attacks as a “slap in the face” of the United States.
Mr. Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s real revenge would be the expulsion of U.S. forces from the Middle East. “Military actions in this form are not sufficient for that issue. What is important is that America’s corrupt presence must come to an end in this region,” he said.
In a televised address, Mr. Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several members of the military top brass. appeared to respond positively to the Iranian overture, cloaking it as Iran “standing down.”
Amid the bluster justifying the killing of Mr. Soleimani, promises to impose additional sanctions against Iran, vows that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and extolling American military and economic might, Mr. Trump insisted that “the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”
Iran hopes that the scare of an escalating tit-for-tat that gets out of control will energize efforts to bring the United States and the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table.
Dialing down tension at best buys the United States and Iran time.
It does not solve anything.
While Mr. Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, insisted this week that the Trump administration’s goal was to “contain and confront” Iran, Iran itself Iran retains a vested interest in strategic escalation.
It may hope that the current crisis is the monkey wrench that breaks the logjam but will seek to again push things to the brink if it is disappointed.
Read more at: Iran Plays Chess, the US Backgammon - The Globalist
That is becoming increasingly obvious in the U.S-.Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard.
Hobbled by harsh U.S. economic sanctions and a weak military hand, Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric warfare and carefully calibrated operations as well as acts of political violence, an approach that the United States 40 years after the 1979 Iranian revolution has yet to come to grips with.
Iran’s firing of missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq in its initial military response to the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani deftly served multiple purposes while leaving the door open to de-escalation.
The Iranian missiles targeting the bases, part of what Iran dubbed Operation Harsh Revenge, were launched as millions crowded the streets of the city of Kerman for the funeral of Mr. Soleimani, the third day of a mass outpouring of mourning, public anger and calls for revenge.
Using guided precision missiles, Iran was careful to demonstrate its capability while not causing further U.S. and/or Iraqi casualties that almost certainly would have provoked a harsh U.S. response.
Driving the point home, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile attacks as a “slap in the face” of the United States.
Mr. Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s real revenge would be the expulsion of U.S. forces from the Middle East. “Military actions in this form are not sufficient for that issue. What is important is that America’s corrupt presence must come to an end in this region,” he said.
In a televised address, Mr. Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several members of the military top brass. appeared to respond positively to the Iranian overture, cloaking it as Iran “standing down.”
Amid the bluster justifying the killing of Mr. Soleimani, promises to impose additional sanctions against Iran, vows that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and extolling American military and economic might, Mr. Trump insisted that “the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”
Iran hopes that the scare of an escalating tit-for-tat that gets out of control will energize efforts to bring the United States and the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table.
Dialing down tension at best buys the United States and Iran time.
It does not solve anything.
While Mr. Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, insisted this week that the Trump administration’s goal was to “contain and confront” Iran, Iran itself Iran retains a vested interest in strategic escalation.
It may hope that the current crisis is the monkey wrench that breaks the logjam but will seek to again push things to the brink if it is disappointed.
Read more at: Iran Plays Chess, the US Backgammon - The Globalist
8/1/19
USA-China Relations: The Great Negotiator's Strategy Fails Again As Wall Street Tanks And Trump says he'll put 10% tariffs on remaining China imports - by P. Wiseman, K. Frekking and J. Boak
The move immediately sent stock prices sinking.
The president has already imposed 25% tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese products, and Beijing has retaliated by taxing $110 billion in U.S. goods.
U.S. consumers will likely feel the pain if Trump proceeds with the new tariffs.
Trump’s earlier tariffs had been designed to minimize the impact on ordinary Americans by focusing on industrial goods. But the new tariffs will hit a vast range of consumer products from cellphones to silk scarves.
The president’s announcement via Twitter came as a surprise, in part because the White House on Wednesday had said Beijing confirmed that it planned to increase its purchases of American farm products.
That word came just as U.S. and Chinese negotiators were ending a 12th round of trade talks in Shanghai, which the White House called “constructive.”
Though the negotiations concluded without any sign of a deal, they are scheduled to resume next month in Washington.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had been up nearly 300 points earlier in the day, was down nearly 200 points after Trump’s tweets announcing the new tariffs.
The Dow closed for the day down 280 points — more than 1 percent.
Read more: Trump says he'll put 10% tariffs on remaining China imports
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
7/16/19
US Presidential Elections: Trump's xenophobic targeting of progressive Democrats could signal what's to come in 2020
Trump's xenophobic targeting of progressive Democrats could signal what's to come in 2020
Read more at:
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digest
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
7/3/19
US Presidential Elections: 2020 Loss to Trump Would Be Existential Crisis for Democrats - by Ed Kilgore
Now that it appears
Donald Trump may escape any immediate legal consequences from the
Mueller investigation, it’s time to take a fresh look at the trajectory
of his presidency.
Before
November 2016, there wasn’t a lot of agonized writing from the left of
center about the consequences of a Trump victory, for the obvious reason
that few observers thought it was a plausible scenario, even after his
improbable Republican nomination.
Yes, Hillary Clinton’s camp and
progressive (and many conservative) journalists bashed Trump’s
character, worldview, and sinister appeals to racism and sexism
regularly. But nobody saw much of a need for game-planning his
administration in any detail.
Read more: 2020 Loss to Trump Would Be Existential Crisis for Democrats
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digst
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail: Freeplanet@protonmail.com
3/24/18
EU: Overview - What is the Europe 2020 strategy about?
The Europe 2020 strategy is the EU's
agenda for growth and jobs for the current decade. It emphasises smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth in order to improve Europe's
competitiveness and productivity and underpin a sustainable social
market economy.
To reach this objective, the EU has adopted targets to be reached by 2020 in five areas:
- Employment
- Research & Development
- Climate change & energy
- Education
- Poverty and social exclusion
The headline targets related to the strategy's key objectives at the EU level cover:
- Employment:
> 75% of the population aged 20 to 64 years to be employed;
- Research & Development:
> 3% of GDP to be invested in the R&D sector;
- Climate change & energy:
> Greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 20% compared to 1990
> Share of renewable energy sources in final energy consumption to be increased to 20%
> Energy efficiency to be improved by 20%
- Education:
> Share of early school leavers to be reduced under 10%
> At least 40% of 30 to 34 years old to have completed tertiary or equivalent education
- Poverty and social exclusion:> At least 20 million people fewer at risk of poverty or social exclusion.
The EU-level targets have been translated into 
national targets in each EU country, reflecting different situations and circumstances.
EU-Digest - EUROSTAT
national targets in each EU country, reflecting different situations and circumstances.EU-Digest - EUROSTAT
3/8/18
EU Bioeconomy 2.0– Cultivating a home grown success – by Joanna Dupont
Barely six years old, the EU’s Bioeconomy Strategy, currently under revision, is slowly but surely propagating green shoots of sustainable economic recovery in innumerable and unexpected ways, writes Joanna Dupont.
Joanna Dupont is the Director of Industrial Biotech and Cross-Sectoral Strategy at EuropaBio.
Plastic packaging for cheese made from milk waste, car tires made from dandelion rubber, bikes made from bamboo, coffee cups made from coffee grounds, car fuel made from wheat straw, T-shirts made from trees: These are just a few of the bio-based products developed in recent years.
And yet, this is just the beginning. The bioeconomy, circular by nature, is not only at the forefront of making valuable products and processes from biomass rather than from fossil carbon. It’s also leading the quest to turn trash into cash and is a future lifeline for many sectors struggling for survival in the face of globalisation and digitalisation.
The rationale for enabling the development of the bioeconomy is as compelling as it ever was: by 2050, the world population is expected to reach nine billion people, which will put unprecedented pressure on the environment and its natural resources.
Coupled with the combined threats of climate change, biodiversity depletion, water and land shortages and increased levels of pollution, new solutions are urgently needed. An innovation-driven bioeconomy, with increased sustainability as its end goal, will provide renewability, circularity and multi-functionality whilst creating jobs, growth and prosperity in rural, coastal and urban areas.
But while unprecedented progress has been made since 2012 in some areas of bio-based research, innovation and investment, not least as a result of the EU’s €3.7 billion Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking, a number of factors have put the brakes on driving commercial success of new products and processes.
An abundance of scientific excellence and a conspicuous lack of bio-based scale-ups had become a familiar story in Europe, with many companies heading for more predictable investment environments overseas to commercialise the results of their work, taking jobs and growth with them.
Compounding this is a communications challenge. For many vital influencers of the developing bioeconomy, including consumers themselves, the concept has been difficult to get to grips with. This could be due, in part, to the fact that the bioeconomy is so broad that it means very different things to different people.
This is improving and, increasingly, a burgeoning number of member state and regional bioeconomy initiatives are ensuring that examples of the ‘’backyard bioeconomy’’ are accessible, relatable and tangible for their communities. Then there is the low level of understanding of just how many of our everyday products are currently made with fossil carbon, from soap to shoes, to sofas to smartphones and beyond, which could instead be made from locally grown biomass.
A further challenge, for emerging bio-based industries themselves, is a constant need to reduce costs whilst still operating at small scale, to create new markets and to demonstrate sustainability criteria in a marketplace flooded with fossil-carbon alternatives facing no such hurdles.
But, the very fact that the bioeconomy intrinsically links land and natural resources with production and consumption can, itself, be cause for concern. NGOs have helped to highlight some practices which are of concern, in particular with regard to cultivation practices for certain energy crops.
Indeed, to be truly sustainable the bioeconomy should arguably only use biomass in a smart and efficient way and, ideally, for purposes where no other renewable alternatives are available to tackle the threats and resource shortages that we face.
Differentiation is, however, important and consideration of the options alternatives available, in the context of the demands of a growing population and the other grand challenges we face is essential.
In other words, we must consider these debates in the context of the potential consequences of maintaining ‘business as usual’ and acknowledge that in the dialogue around the development of the bioeconomy there will not always be a perfect solution or agreement on the direction or speed of travel.
But what there should be is a consensus on the need to enable future generations to tackle the challenges that they will face, as highlighted so well by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and to have sufficient, sustainable, renewable food, feed, fuel, fibre and other materials to meet their needs without compromising the climate, the environment or its ecosystems.
To prepare for the future, a concerted effort is needed to ensure that the solid foundations of research and innovation in the bioeconomy are built upon. But future bio-based innovators must also be afforded the chance to emerge, reach economic self-sufficiency and thrive.
This means creating a predictable coherent, policy environment, to attract the investors waiting in the wings, and market stimulation measures to help bridge the omnipresent commercialisation ‘’valley of death’’. Bioeconomy pioneers are hopeful for an ambitious but achievable revised bioeconomy strategy to ensure that the next six years are even more transformative than the last.
Read more: EU Bioeconomy 2.0– Cultivating a home grown success – EURACTIV.com
Joanna Dupont is the Director of Industrial Biotech and Cross-Sectoral Strategy at EuropaBio.
Plastic packaging for cheese made from milk waste, car tires made from dandelion rubber, bikes made from bamboo, coffee cups made from coffee grounds, car fuel made from wheat straw, T-shirts made from trees: These are just a few of the bio-based products developed in recent years.
And yet, this is just the beginning. The bioeconomy, circular by nature, is not only at the forefront of making valuable products and processes from biomass rather than from fossil carbon. It’s also leading the quest to turn trash into cash and is a future lifeline for many sectors struggling for survival in the face of globalisation and digitalisation.
The rationale for enabling the development of the bioeconomy is as compelling as it ever was: by 2050, the world population is expected to reach nine billion people, which will put unprecedented pressure on the environment and its natural resources.
Coupled with the combined threats of climate change, biodiversity depletion, water and land shortages and increased levels of pollution, new solutions are urgently needed. An innovation-driven bioeconomy, with increased sustainability as its end goal, will provide renewability, circularity and multi-functionality whilst creating jobs, growth and prosperity in rural, coastal and urban areas.
But while unprecedented progress has been made since 2012 in some areas of bio-based research, innovation and investment, not least as a result of the EU’s €3.7 billion Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking, a number of factors have put the brakes on driving commercial success of new products and processes.
An abundance of scientific excellence and a conspicuous lack of bio-based scale-ups had become a familiar story in Europe, with many companies heading for more predictable investment environments overseas to commercialise the results of their work, taking jobs and growth with them.
Compounding this is a communications challenge. For many vital influencers of the developing bioeconomy, including consumers themselves, the concept has been difficult to get to grips with. This could be due, in part, to the fact that the bioeconomy is so broad that it means very different things to different people.
This is improving and, increasingly, a burgeoning number of member state and regional bioeconomy initiatives are ensuring that examples of the ‘’backyard bioeconomy’’ are accessible, relatable and tangible for their communities. Then there is the low level of understanding of just how many of our everyday products are currently made with fossil carbon, from soap to shoes, to sofas to smartphones and beyond, which could instead be made from locally grown biomass.
A further challenge, for emerging bio-based industries themselves, is a constant need to reduce costs whilst still operating at small scale, to create new markets and to demonstrate sustainability criteria in a marketplace flooded with fossil-carbon alternatives facing no such hurdles.
But, the very fact that the bioeconomy intrinsically links land and natural resources with production and consumption can, itself, be cause for concern. NGOs have helped to highlight some practices which are of concern, in particular with regard to cultivation practices for certain energy crops.
Indeed, to be truly sustainable the bioeconomy should arguably only use biomass in a smart and efficient way and, ideally, for purposes where no other renewable alternatives are available to tackle the threats and resource shortages that we face.
Differentiation is, however, important and consideration of the options alternatives available, in the context of the demands of a growing population and the other grand challenges we face is essential.
In other words, we must consider these debates in the context of the potential consequences of maintaining ‘business as usual’ and acknowledge that in the dialogue around the development of the bioeconomy there will not always be a perfect solution or agreement on the direction or speed of travel.
But what there should be is a consensus on the need to enable future generations to tackle the challenges that they will face, as highlighted so well by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and to have sufficient, sustainable, renewable food, feed, fuel, fibre and other materials to meet their needs without compromising the climate, the environment or its ecosystems.
To prepare for the future, a concerted effort is needed to ensure that the solid foundations of research and innovation in the bioeconomy are built upon. But future bio-based innovators must also be afforded the chance to emerge, reach economic self-sufficiency and thrive.
This means creating a predictable coherent, policy environment, to attract the investors waiting in the wings, and market stimulation measures to help bridge the omnipresent commercialisation ‘’valley of death’’. Bioeconomy pioneers are hopeful for an ambitious but achievable revised bioeconomy strategy to ensure that the next six years are even more transformative than the last.
Read more: EU Bioeconomy 2.0– Cultivating a home grown success – EURACTIV.com
10/17/17
The European Union is blind to the military strategy of the United States - by Thierry Meyssan
The political leaders of the European Union are entirely wrong about the
Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe and the migration to the Union of
people fleeing the war zones. Thierry Meyssan demonstrates here that
these are not simply the accidental consequences of conflict in the
wider Middle East and Africa, but a strategic objective of the United
States.
The leaders of the European Union are suddenly being confronted with unexpected situations. On the one hand, terrorist attacks or attempted attacks perpetrated or prepared by individuals who do not belong to any identified political groups; and on the other, an influx of refugees who cross the Mediterranean, several thousands of whom die along their coasts.
In the absence of any strategic analysis, these two events are considered a priori as being unconnected, and are treated by different administrations. The former are handled by the Intelligence services and the police, the latter by Customs and Defence. However, they both share the same common origin – the political instability that reigns in the Levant and in Africa.
If the military academies of the European Union had done their job, they would have been studying the doctrine of its « big brother », the United States, for the last fifteen years. Indeed, for many long years, the Pentagon has been publishing all sorts of documents on the « Chaos Theory» borrowed from the philosopher Leo Strauss. Only a few moths ago, an official who should have retired more than 25 years ago, Andrew Marshall, disposed of a budget of 10 million dollars annually to research this subject [1]. But no military academy of the Union has seriously studied this doctrine and its consequences. Partly because this is a barbaric form of warfare, and partly because it was conceived by one of the intellectual gurus of the US Jewish elite. And as everybody knows,the United-States-who-saved-us-all from-Nazism can not advocate such atrocities
If the political personnel of the European Union had travelled a little, not only to Iraq, Syria, Libya, the horn of Africa, to Nigeria and Mali, but also to Ukraine, they would have seen with their own eyes the application of this strategic doctrine. Instead, the contented themselves with speeches delivered from a building in the Green Zone of Bagdhad, from a podium in Tripoli or on Maïdan Square in Kiev. They have no idea what these populations are really experiencing, and at the request of their « big brother », have often closed their embassies, thereby depriving themselves of eyes and ears on the ground. Even better, still at the request of their « big brother », they have participated in embargos, thus ensuring that no European businessmen will travel to these areas and see what is happening there.
Contrary to what President François Hollande has declared, the Libyan migration is not the consequence of a « lack of follow-through » of operation « Unified Protector », but the desired result of this operation, in which his country has played a leading role. Chaos did not evolve because the « Libyan revolutionaries » were unable to agree after the « fall » of Mouammar el-Kadhafi, it was the strategic goal of the United States, and they succeeded. There never was a « democratic revolution » in Libya, but a secession of Cyrenaïca. There never was an application of the UNO mandate aimed at « protecting the population », but the massacre of 160,000 Libyans, three quarters of whom were civilians, under the bombardments of the Alliance (numbers from the International Red Cross).
Read more: The European Union is blind to the military strategy of the United States , by Thierry Meyssan
The leaders of the European Union are suddenly being confronted with unexpected situations. On the one hand, terrorist attacks or attempted attacks perpetrated or prepared by individuals who do not belong to any identified political groups; and on the other, an influx of refugees who cross the Mediterranean, several thousands of whom die along their coasts.
In the absence of any strategic analysis, these two events are considered a priori as being unconnected, and are treated by different administrations. The former are handled by the Intelligence services and the police, the latter by Customs and Defence. However, they both share the same common origin – the political instability that reigns in the Levant and in Africa.
If the military academies of the European Union had done their job, they would have been studying the doctrine of its « big brother », the United States, for the last fifteen years. Indeed, for many long years, the Pentagon has been publishing all sorts of documents on the « Chaos Theory» borrowed from the philosopher Leo Strauss. Only a few moths ago, an official who should have retired more than 25 years ago, Andrew Marshall, disposed of a budget of 10 million dollars annually to research this subject [1]. But no military academy of the Union has seriously studied this doctrine and its consequences. Partly because this is a barbaric form of warfare, and partly because it was conceived by one of the intellectual gurus of the US Jewish elite. And as everybody knows,the United-States-who-saved-us-all from-Nazism can not advocate such atrocities
If the political personnel of the European Union had travelled a little, not only to Iraq, Syria, Libya, the horn of Africa, to Nigeria and Mali, but also to Ukraine, they would have seen with their own eyes the application of this strategic doctrine. Instead, the contented themselves with speeches delivered from a building in the Green Zone of Bagdhad, from a podium in Tripoli or on Maïdan Square in Kiev. They have no idea what these populations are really experiencing, and at the request of their « big brother », have often closed their embassies, thereby depriving themselves of eyes and ears on the ground. Even better, still at the request of their « big brother », they have participated in embargos, thus ensuring that no European businessmen will travel to these areas and see what is happening there.
Contrary to what President François Hollande has declared, the Libyan migration is not the consequence of a « lack of follow-through » of operation « Unified Protector », but the desired result of this operation, in which his country has played a leading role. Chaos did not evolve because the « Libyan revolutionaries » were unable to agree after the « fall » of Mouammar el-Kadhafi, it was the strategic goal of the United States, and they succeeded. There never was a « democratic revolution » in Libya, but a secession of Cyrenaïca. There never was an application of the UNO mandate aimed at « protecting the population », but the massacre of 160,000 Libyans, three quarters of whom were civilians, under the bombardments of the Alliance (numbers from the International Red Cross).
Chaos is not an accident, it’s the goal....
Read more: The European Union is blind to the military strategy of the United States , by Thierry Meyssan
8/10/17
N.Korea - USA: What the U.S. Would Use to Strike North Korea - by Stratford Research
No
other country can match the United States when it comes to projection
of power. Should Washington decide to carry out a military strike
against North Korea, even a limited one, the immediate impact would be
devastating for Pyongyang. When considering military action, however, it
is important to acknowledge the variables and intelligence gaps that
inevitably complicate political and military decision-making. Even with
the United States' advantage in training, coordination and equipment,
complicating factors and uncertainty about the exact locations and
dispositions of North Korean assets make complete mission success far
from assured.
It is important to consider the parameters of any operation; in this case, we are basing our assumptions on a scenario in which the United States conducts a limited, stealthy attack using a small number of specialized platforms and weapons systems. The United States has enormous force projection and deep-strike capabilities. In a surprise attack scenario, the primary tools for the task would be stealth aircraft and standoff cruise missiles launched from ships and submarines.
The North Koreans have a dense and interlocked air defense network, but the force is obsolete and largely incapable of adequately defending against or even detecting full-spectrum stealth aircraft such as the U.S. B-2 bomber and F-22 tactical fighter. Because of their unique properties, these expensive, stealthy platforms would form the backbone of any anti-nuclear operations. Given enough time, the United States could assemble upward of 10 B-2 bombers for a deep-strike mission into North Korea.
The shorter combat radius of the F-22 would limit the number of aircraft available for the task, necessitating the deployment of the fighter to regional airfields. This in turn could alert Pyongyang to upcoming offensive operations. Using airfields in Japan and South Korea and operating under a highly restrictive operational security environment, the U.S. Air Force could probably deploy 24 F-22 aircraft for the mission, remaining fairly confident that undue suspicions were not raised in the process.
Each F-22 can be equipped with two 450-kilogram (1,000 pounds) GBU-32 JDAM bombs. The F-22 can actually carry a larger number of small diameter bombs instead of the bigger GBU-32, but the nature of the mission calls for more explosive heft. Unlike the multipurpose F-22, the B-2 Spirit is a designated bomber and can carry a lot more explosive weight per plane. Each B-2 would deploy with either 16 900-kilogram GBU-31 JDAMs or a pair of massive 13,600-kilogram GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators to reach deep underground bunkers.
In addition to the guided bombs dropped by U.S. stealth aircraft, the United States can rely on large numbers of venerable BGM-109 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles to fly in on the heels of the stealth aircraft and strike remaining targets. For the mission, the U.S. Navy (with enough time to prepare) can surreptitiously park two of its four Ohio-class cruise missile submarines off the North Korean coast. Together, these submarines can deploy more than 300 BGM-109 missiles. When combined with destroyers and cruisers from the 7th Fleet already in the area, the United States could use more than 600 cruise missiles for the mission.
With a force of 10 Massive Ordnance Penetrators and 80 900-kilogram GBU-31 JDAMs, the U.S. B-2 bombers alone are more than enough to dismantle or at least severely damage North Korea's known nuclear production infrastructure, as well as associated nuclear weapons storage sites. \
What the U.S. Would Use to Strike North Korea - Stratfor Worldview
It is important to consider the parameters of any operation; in this case, we are basing our assumptions on a scenario in which the United States conducts a limited, stealthy attack using a small number of specialized platforms and weapons systems. The United States has enormous force projection and deep-strike capabilities. In a surprise attack scenario, the primary tools for the task would be stealth aircraft and standoff cruise missiles launched from ships and submarines.
The North Koreans have a dense and interlocked air defense network, but the force is obsolete and largely incapable of adequately defending against or even detecting full-spectrum stealth aircraft such as the U.S. B-2 bomber and F-22 tactical fighter. Because of their unique properties, these expensive, stealthy platforms would form the backbone of any anti-nuclear operations. Given enough time, the United States could assemble upward of 10 B-2 bombers for a deep-strike mission into North Korea.
The shorter combat radius of the F-22 would limit the number of aircraft available for the task, necessitating the deployment of the fighter to regional airfields. This in turn could alert Pyongyang to upcoming offensive operations. Using airfields in Japan and South Korea and operating under a highly restrictive operational security environment, the U.S. Air Force could probably deploy 24 F-22 aircraft for the mission, remaining fairly confident that undue suspicions were not raised in the process.
Each F-22 can be equipped with two 450-kilogram (1,000 pounds) GBU-32 JDAM bombs. The F-22 can actually carry a larger number of small diameter bombs instead of the bigger GBU-32, but the nature of the mission calls for more explosive heft. Unlike the multipurpose F-22, the B-2 Spirit is a designated bomber and can carry a lot more explosive weight per plane. Each B-2 would deploy with either 16 900-kilogram GBU-31 JDAMs or a pair of massive 13,600-kilogram GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators to reach deep underground bunkers.
In addition to the guided bombs dropped by U.S. stealth aircraft, the United States can rely on large numbers of venerable BGM-109 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles to fly in on the heels of the stealth aircraft and strike remaining targets. For the mission, the U.S. Navy (with enough time to prepare) can surreptitiously park two of its four Ohio-class cruise missile submarines off the North Korean coast. Together, these submarines can deploy more than 300 BGM-109 missiles. When combined with destroyers and cruisers from the 7th Fleet already in the area, the United States could use more than 600 cruise missiles for the mission.
With a force of 10 Massive Ordnance Penetrators and 80 900-kilogram GBU-31 JDAMs, the U.S. B-2 bombers alone are more than enough to dismantle or at least severely damage North Korea's known nuclear production infrastructure, as well as associated nuclear weapons storage sites. \
What the U.S. Would Use to Strike North Korea - Stratfor Worldview
7/12/16
Britain: The Mighty Clash of Politics and Economics Looms Over A Dovish BoE - by Sarah Fenwick
It often feels like there’s an actual war between politics and economics, a never-ending string of battles leaving behind the corpses of investments and well-laid plans.
The most recent example of this mighty clash is obviously the Brexit vote in the UK. In a staggering turn of events, politics routed economics on June 23rd. God, they say, laughs at our plans, and life is what really happens while we design our elaborate strategies that go suddenly and dramatically down the tubes when massive volatility sets in.
Case in hand; the GBP behaving like an emerging currency and losing 13 percent in just a few days.
The Leave campaigns didn’t even make any sense other than propagandistic. One of them claimed that the EU ‘takes’ 350 million GBP that would be better spent on a new hospital every week.
The implication here is that the helpless UK taxpayers are being beggared by European Union membership and don’t have any choice in the matter. Take control, sobbed one Leave campaign; you’re in a car that’s being driven by the EU and you don’t know where it’s going and can’t get out.
It was news to most people that the Eurocracy was suddenly so exciting that it had turned to crimes like carjacking. What’s next, one wonders, petty theft and burglary? Somehow, the vision of Jean-Claude Juncker dressed in a hoodie and stealing the silver was missed by the campaign designer. Surely they’re kicking themselves now for having lost this angle, it would have fitted right in.
Still, like the triumphant Brexiters said on June 24th, Bremain lost and they should get used to it. Funny that they say it like it’s a good thing, because some might say that a dramatically weaker currency, a looming recession, utter economic and legal uncertainty plus the bonus – a political power vacuum – were bad things.
All of Mark Carney’s efforts, that unelected governor of the Bank of England….wait a minute, it’s not just the Eurocrats that are unelected? Oh, and just another minute, 99 percent of any state are not actually directly elected positions? Out goes that Brexit argument, then. Back to the point, all of Mark Carney’s efforts to stabilise the GBP and insert some economic sense into the battlefield are so far failing to make any headway. The doves just can’t fight the vultures, it seems.
Carney has a huge challenge coming up on Thursday July 14th. Representing the economic side against the increasingly hysterical political rhetoric side is never easy at the best of times. Now the stakes are even higher than at any point in the UK’s modern economic history.
A protracted global slowdown and lingering contagion from the US subprime crisis, EU sovereign debt and financial crises are all dragging on the UK’s economy. Carney’s few weapons are an interest rate cut, and to max out the QE budget, currently at 375 billion GBP. Wait just another minute, how many hospitals could be built with that money, and it’s being ‘taken’ by Treasury bonds and whatnot? Another missed angle for the Leave campaigners to kick themselves for.
It’s clear that for the moment, rampant politics is winning this battle at the cost of the UK’s economy. What investors hope for is for some kind of balance and stability to re-emerge. Realistically, that would come under two scenarios; the first being that the next prime minister gallops off to Brussels with an Article 50 in his or her briefcase, calling a truce and peace negotiations. The second is that the legal challenges to the referendum will prevail and the whole idea of the UK exiting the EU will be consigned to history and the comedians on Saturday night TV.
Which one is likely to prevail? There’s too much uncertainty to tell.
Read more: The Mighty Clash of Politics and Economics Looms Over A Dovish BoE | Finance Magnates
The most recent example of this mighty clash is obviously the Brexit vote in the UK. In a staggering turn of events, politics routed economics on June 23rd. God, they say, laughs at our plans, and life is what really happens while we design our elaborate strategies that go suddenly and dramatically down the tubes when massive volatility sets in.
Case in hand; the GBP behaving like an emerging currency and losing 13 percent in just a few days.
The Leave campaigns didn’t even make any sense other than propagandistic. One of them claimed that the EU ‘takes’ 350 million GBP that would be better spent on a new hospital every week.
The implication here is that the helpless UK taxpayers are being beggared by European Union membership and don’t have any choice in the matter. Take control, sobbed one Leave campaign; you’re in a car that’s being driven by the EU and you don’t know where it’s going and can’t get out.
It was news to most people that the Eurocracy was suddenly so exciting that it had turned to crimes like carjacking. What’s next, one wonders, petty theft and burglary? Somehow, the vision of Jean-Claude Juncker dressed in a hoodie and stealing the silver was missed by the campaign designer. Surely they’re kicking themselves now for having lost this angle, it would have fitted right in.
Still, like the triumphant Brexiters said on June 24th, Bremain lost and they should get used to it. Funny that they say it like it’s a good thing, because some might say that a dramatically weaker currency, a looming recession, utter economic and legal uncertainty plus the bonus – a political power vacuum – were bad things.
All of Mark Carney’s efforts, that unelected governor of the Bank of England….wait a minute, it’s not just the Eurocrats that are unelected? Oh, and just another minute, 99 percent of any state are not actually directly elected positions? Out goes that Brexit argument, then. Back to the point, all of Mark Carney’s efforts to stabilise the GBP and insert some economic sense into the battlefield are so far failing to make any headway. The doves just can’t fight the vultures, it seems.
Carney has a huge challenge coming up on Thursday July 14th. Representing the economic side against the increasingly hysterical political rhetoric side is never easy at the best of times. Now the stakes are even higher than at any point in the UK’s modern economic history.
A protracted global slowdown and lingering contagion from the US subprime crisis, EU sovereign debt and financial crises are all dragging on the UK’s economy. Carney’s few weapons are an interest rate cut, and to max out the QE budget, currently at 375 billion GBP. Wait just another minute, how many hospitals could be built with that money, and it’s being ‘taken’ by Treasury bonds and whatnot? Another missed angle for the Leave campaigners to kick themselves for.
It’s clear that for the moment, rampant politics is winning this battle at the cost of the UK’s economy. What investors hope for is for some kind of balance and stability to re-emerge. Realistically, that would come under two scenarios; the first being that the next prime minister gallops off to Brussels with an Article 50 in his or her briefcase, calling a truce and peace negotiations. The second is that the legal challenges to the referendum will prevail and the whole idea of the UK exiting the EU will be consigned to history and the comedians on Saturday night TV.
Which one is likely to prevail? There’s too much uncertainty to tell.
Read more: The Mighty Clash of Politics and Economics Looms Over A Dovish BoE | Finance Magnates
5/17/15
USA: Why the GOP Can't Get No Satisfaction - Jim Messina
One of the savviest political observers I’ve come across is Mick
Jagger. I was invited to a dinner that included the legendary rocker in
London before the British election (I took about 9,000 selfies), when I
discovered that Mick has been a bit of a political junkie his whole
life.
While he’s on tour he has a lot of down time, which he spends reading, he explained to me, and I learned that he’s become a master observer not only of UK politics but of the American political scene as well (although he's not an activist and doesn't take sides). “You’re going to win,” Mick told me at dinner, despite some polls showing that my client, Prime Minister David Cameron, was still trailing in the race.
“Why do you think so?” I asked. Mick replied that while he wasn't supporting any candidate himself, “the average guy thinks Cameron makes tough decisions and things are getting a bit better. They won’t change from that." The opposition, Jagger explained, was percieved as a retreat to the past.
Mick was right, of course. No matter where you go, successful election campaigns are always about the future, not the past. Ed Miliband was an old-style Labour leader, unlike Tony Blair, and he paid dearly for that on Election Day.
Mick’s advice, in fact, reminds of something another rather savvy political observer, Bill Clinton, told me in 2011, as we were preparing President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign: "All national elections are always a referendum on the future, and the candidate that can grasp that mantle wins."
In all major elections after the Great Recession, the candidate who provided the clearest economic vision looking ahead prevailed. President Obama won two elections on that exact premise.
In the United Kingdom’s general election, Prime Minister Cameron won on a vision of a dynamic, competitive Britain as a land of future opportunity for working families. Miliband was promising them only a return to the past: 1970s-style rent control, re-nationalization of some services, and energy price controls were, bizarrely, the main policy initiatives highlighted by Labour.
While he’s on tour he has a lot of down time, which he spends reading, he explained to me, and I learned that he’s become a master observer not only of UK politics but of the American political scene as well (although he's not an activist and doesn't take sides). “You’re going to win,” Mick told me at dinner, despite some polls showing that my client, Prime Minister David Cameron, was still trailing in the race.
“Why do you think so?” I asked. Mick replied that while he wasn't supporting any candidate himself, “the average guy thinks Cameron makes tough decisions and things are getting a bit better. They won’t change from that." The opposition, Jagger explained, was percieved as a retreat to the past.
Mick was right, of course. No matter where you go, successful election campaigns are always about the future, not the past. Ed Miliband was an old-style Labour leader, unlike Tony Blair, and he paid dearly for that on Election Day.
Mick’s advice, in fact, reminds of something another rather savvy political observer, Bill Clinton, told me in 2011, as we were preparing President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign: "All national elections are always a referendum on the future, and the candidate that can grasp that mantle wins."
In all major elections after the Great Recession, the candidate who provided the clearest economic vision looking ahead prevailed. President Obama won two elections on that exact premise.
In the United Kingdom’s general election, Prime Minister Cameron won on a vision of a dynamic, competitive Britain as a land of future opportunity for working families. Miliband was promising them only a return to the past: 1970s-style rent control, re-nationalization of some services, and energy price controls were, bizarrely, the main policy initiatives highlighted by Labour.
12/9/14
US Presidential Elections: The secret GOP tech summit to plot 2016 - by Kenneth P. Vogel and Darren Samuelsohn
The Republican Party’s top operatives — including strategists
representing the Koch brothers’ political operation and several leading
prospective 2016 presidential candidates – on Monday huddled behind
closed doors to discuss how to synchronize their sometimes competing
tech efforts, multiple attendees confirmed to POLITICO.
The all-day meeting attracted about 40 of the right’s biggest names in tech and strategy – including Koch operatives Michael Palmer and Marc Short, leading strategists from many of the major super PACs and all of the party committees, as well as close allies of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker.
The session was at least partly intended to quash a rivalry simmering in the right’s tech ranks. Some party operatives worry that the competition between would be data-wizards could emerge as a problem for Republicans, since Democrats under President Barack Obama have coordinated their technology efforts relatively closely.
The all-day meeting attracted about 40 of the right’s biggest names in tech and strategy – including Koch operatives Michael Palmer and Marc Short, leading strategists from many of the major super PACs and all of the party committees, as well as close allies of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker.
The session was at least partly intended to quash a rivalry simmering in the right’s tech ranks. Some party operatives worry that the competition between would be data-wizards could emerge as a problem for Republicans, since Democrats under President Barack Obama have coordinated their technology efforts relatively closely.
11/30/12
Europe’s challenge is to shake-off inertia before it becomes paralysis - by Richard Youngs
The good news is that European politicians are no longer in denial about the EU’s decline. But Richard Youngs warns that the bad news is that there are no signs of a strategy to reverse that decline.
A refrain that is all too familiar to chroniclers of European integration is that only when external challenges are really serious do EU governments overcome their petty squabbles and unite. Post-war reconciliation created the European Communities; American and Japanese competition drove the Single European Act; the Cold War’s abrupt end gave birth to the Maastricht treaty and, less resolutely, 9/11 and international terrorism prompted a deepening of security co-operation.
Now the EU faces the equally tough challenge of how to respond to its relative decline and the rise of Asia in a ‘post-Western world’. But so far there’s no sign of the spirit of “convergence-in-adversity”.
Or perhaps that’s not entirely fair. European leaders have committed to fashioning “strategic partnerships” with emerging powers, and EU defence ministers have agreed to share defence equipment by cutting out duplication. The EU is courting Asia more assiduously than before as diplomatic rapprochement with rising powers has become de rigeur. The EU has signed an usually far-reaching free trade agreement with South Korea, and trade talks with rising markets have helped return external trade flows to pre-crisis levels. If 2010 had any positive aspects it is that the penny at last dropped that the EU must more systematically confront and mitigate its decline.
Why, then, is Europe so disinclined to look beyond makeshift short-termism? Among the most oft-cited reasons for euro-sluggishness is the contention that this inertia is a result of the EU's institutional design. Its institutional processes undoubtedly need to be improved, and let's hope the Lisbon treaty's reforms start to yield concrete improvements. But institutional re-design will not be a magic wand for a smooth and effective EU foreign policy. Nobody believes that two or three EU governments hold in their hands superbly crafted plans for reacting to Europe's decline but are prevented from implementing by minority blocking votes.
Nor can Europe's policy inertia be attributed to a lack of awareness of how serious its plight has become. This may have been the case three or four years ago, but not now. Until then the very gradual nature of European decline meant that its seriousness had not fully registered, but today ministerial speeches and formal policy documents stress the urgency of an effective and assertive European response. Some Brussels officials may bristle at the hyperbole of declinists, but few still claim the EU is on a glide-path to superpower status. European leaders can no longer be accused of being in denial.
A broader concern is that the EU continues to lack a geostrategic blueprint. Although the EU shouldn't be aiming for an overly-simplistic strategic approach, it needs to engage in deeper thinking that could provide a geopolitical compass for its external policies. Such a geostrategy would need to be eclectic and should contain doses of co-operative realism, mixed with internationalism, the encouragement of transnational linkages and pinches of regionalism. It should also work at steering the U.S. towards a less hegemonic form of multi-lateralism.
American hegemony persists even in a world that is fast becoming more polycentric. The EU must work to remould U.S. power rather than situating itself as a pole equidistant between the U.S. and the rising powers. Eventually a rules-based world order must move from depending on U.S. oversight to enjoying a multiplicity of guarantors. The EU must work with the U.S. in influencing this trajectory, if the international order is to retain some degree of liberal internationalism even as it moves beyond the underwriting of U.S. hegemony.
At a European level, the EU now has little excuse for not moving up a gear. The Union needs to define its interests and mould its policy instruments accordingly, rather than maximising the number of ad hoc policy initiatives almost as an end in itself. There are no simple answers, so the EU will need to avoid both under- and over-reaction, but it needs simultaneously to correct over-ambition and introspection. It certainly is clear that a deepening of the EU's internationally-oriented strategic reflection is urgently needed before inertia mutates into terminal paralysis.
Read more: Article > Europe’s challenge is to shake-off inertia before it becomes paralysis
A refrain that is all too familiar to chroniclers of European integration is that only when external challenges are really serious do EU governments overcome their petty squabbles and unite. Post-war reconciliation created the European Communities; American and Japanese competition drove the Single European Act; the Cold War’s abrupt end gave birth to the Maastricht treaty and, less resolutely, 9/11 and international terrorism prompted a deepening of security co-operation.
Now the EU faces the equally tough challenge of how to respond to its relative decline and the rise of Asia in a ‘post-Western world’. But so far there’s no sign of the spirit of “convergence-in-adversity”.
Or perhaps that’s not entirely fair. European leaders have committed to fashioning “strategic partnerships” with emerging powers, and EU defence ministers have agreed to share defence equipment by cutting out duplication. The EU is courting Asia more assiduously than before as diplomatic rapprochement with rising powers has become de rigeur. The EU has signed an usually far-reaching free trade agreement with South Korea, and trade talks with rising markets have helped return external trade flows to pre-crisis levels. If 2010 had any positive aspects it is that the penny at last dropped that the EU must more systematically confront and mitigate its decline.
Why, then, is Europe so disinclined to look beyond makeshift short-termism? Among the most oft-cited reasons for euro-sluggishness is the contention that this inertia is a result of the EU's institutional design. Its institutional processes undoubtedly need to be improved, and let's hope the Lisbon treaty's reforms start to yield concrete improvements. But institutional re-design will not be a magic wand for a smooth and effective EU foreign policy. Nobody believes that two or three EU governments hold in their hands superbly crafted plans for reacting to Europe's decline but are prevented from implementing by minority blocking votes.
Nor can Europe's policy inertia be attributed to a lack of awareness of how serious its plight has become. This may have been the case three or four years ago, but not now. Until then the very gradual nature of European decline meant that its seriousness had not fully registered, but today ministerial speeches and formal policy documents stress the urgency of an effective and assertive European response. Some Brussels officials may bristle at the hyperbole of declinists, but few still claim the EU is on a glide-path to superpower status. European leaders can no longer be accused of being in denial.
A broader concern is that the EU continues to lack a geostrategic blueprint. Although the EU shouldn't be aiming for an overly-simplistic strategic approach, it needs to engage in deeper thinking that could provide a geopolitical compass for its external policies. Such a geostrategy would need to be eclectic and should contain doses of co-operative realism, mixed with internationalism, the encouragement of transnational linkages and pinches of regionalism. It should also work at steering the U.S. towards a less hegemonic form of multi-lateralism.
American hegemony persists even in a world that is fast becoming more polycentric. The EU must work to remould U.S. power rather than situating itself as a pole equidistant between the U.S. and the rising powers. Eventually a rules-based world order must move from depending on U.S. oversight to enjoying a multiplicity of guarantors. The EU must work with the U.S. in influencing this trajectory, if the international order is to retain some degree of liberal internationalism even as it moves beyond the underwriting of U.S. hegemony.
At a European level, the EU now has little excuse for not moving up a gear. The Union needs to define its interests and mould its policy instruments accordingly, rather than maximising the number of ad hoc policy initiatives almost as an end in itself. There are no simple answers, so the EU will need to avoid both under- and over-reaction, but it needs simultaneously to correct over-ambition and introspection. It certainly is clear that a deepening of the EU's internationally-oriented strategic reflection is urgently needed before inertia mutates into terminal paralysis.
Read more: Article > Europe’s challenge is to shake-off inertia before it becomes paralysis
5/1/12
Britain's Strategy - by George Friedman
Britain controlled about one-fourth of the Earth's land surface and one-fifth of the world's population in 1939. Fifty years later, its holdings outside the British Isles had become trivial, and it even faced an insurgency in Northern Ireland.
Britain spent the intervening years developing strategies to cope with what poet Rudyard Kipling called its "recessional," or the transient nature of Britain's imperial power. It has spent the last 20 years defining its place not in the world in general but between continental Europe and the United States in particular.
As empires go, Britain resembled Rome rather than Nazi Germany. Though Rome imposed its will, key groups in colonial processions benefitted greatly from the relationship. Rome was thus as much an alliance as it was an empire. Nazi Germany, by contrast, had a purely exploitative relationship with subject countries as a result of war and ideology. Britain understood that its empire could be secured only through Roman-style alliances. Britain also benefited from the Napoleonic Wars' having crippled most European powers. Britain was not under military pressure for most of the century, and was not forced into a singularly exploitative relationship with its empire to support its wars. It thus avoided Hitler's trap.
British strategy at the end of the war was to remain aligned with the United States and try to find a foundation for the United States to underwrite the retention of the empire. But the United States had no interest in this. It saw its primary strategic interest as blocking the Soviet Union in what became known as the Cold War. Washington saw the empire as undermining this effort, both fueling anti-Western sentiment and perpetuating an economic bloc that had ceased to be self-sustaining.
We might call this the "lieutenant strategy." Britain could not be America's equal. However, it could in effect be America's lieutenant, wielding a military force that outstripped in number -- and technical sophistication -- the forces deployed by other European countries. The British maintained a "full-spectrum" military force, smaller than the U.S. military but more capable across the board than militaries of other U.S. allies.
The goal was to accept a subordinate position without being simply another U.S. ally. The British used that relationship to extract special concessions and considerations other allies did not receive. They also were able to influence U.S. policy in ways others couldn't. The United States was not motivated to go along merely out of sentiment based on shared history, although that played a part. Rather, like all great powers, the United States wanted to engage in coalition warfare and near warfare along with burden sharing. Britain was prepared to play this role more effectively than other countries, thereby maintaining a global influence based on its ability to prompt the use of U.S. forces in its interest.
Britain has positioned itself superbly for a strategy of waiting, watching and retaining options regardless of what happens. If the European Union fails and the European nation-states re-emerge as primary institutions, Britain will be in a position to exploit the fragmentation of Europe to its own economic and political advantage and have the United States available to support its strategy. If the United States stumbles and Europe emerges more prominent, Britain can modulate its relationship with Europe at will and serve as the Europeans' interface with a weakened United States. If both Europe and the United States weaken, Britain is in a position to chart whatever independent course it must.
Britain spent the intervening years developing strategies to cope with what poet Rudyard Kipling called its "recessional," or the transient nature of Britain's imperial power. It has spent the last 20 years defining its place not in the world in general but between continental Europe and the United States in particular.
As empires go, Britain resembled Rome rather than Nazi Germany. Though Rome imposed its will, key groups in colonial processions benefitted greatly from the relationship. Rome was thus as much an alliance as it was an empire. Nazi Germany, by contrast, had a purely exploitative relationship with subject countries as a result of war and ideology. Britain understood that its empire could be secured only through Roman-style alliances. Britain also benefited from the Napoleonic Wars' having crippled most European powers. Britain was not under military pressure for most of the century, and was not forced into a singularly exploitative relationship with its empire to support its wars. It thus avoided Hitler's trap.
British strategy at the end of the war was to remain aligned with the United States and try to find a foundation for the United States to underwrite the retention of the empire. But the United States had no interest in this. It saw its primary strategic interest as blocking the Soviet Union in what became known as the Cold War. Washington saw the empire as undermining this effort, both fueling anti-Western sentiment and perpetuating an economic bloc that had ceased to be self-sustaining.
We might call this the "lieutenant strategy." Britain could not be America's equal. However, it could in effect be America's lieutenant, wielding a military force that outstripped in number -- and technical sophistication -- the forces deployed by other European countries. The British maintained a "full-spectrum" military force, smaller than the U.S. military but more capable across the board than militaries of other U.S. allies.
The goal was to accept a subordinate position without being simply another U.S. ally. The British used that relationship to extract special concessions and considerations other allies did not receive. They also were able to influence U.S. policy in ways others couldn't. The United States was not motivated to go along merely out of sentiment based on shared history, although that played a part. Rather, like all great powers, the United States wanted to engage in coalition warfare and near warfare along with burden sharing. Britain was prepared to play this role more effectively than other countries, thereby maintaining a global influence based on its ability to prompt the use of U.S. forces in its interest.
Britain has positioned itself superbly for a strategy of waiting, watching and retaining options regardless of what happens. If the European Union fails and the European nation-states re-emerge as primary institutions, Britain will be in a position to exploit the fragmentation of Europe to its own economic and political advantage and have the United States available to support its strategy. If the United States stumbles and Europe emerges more prominent, Britain can modulate its relationship with Europe at will and serve as the Europeans' interface with a weakened United States. If both Europe and the United States weaken, Britain is in a position to chart whatever independent course it must.
12/1/07
UPI.Com: Euro thaw towards US not what it seems - Merkel and Sarkozy's political vision show a pragmatic pro- European strategy
For the complete report from UPI.com click on this link
Euro thaw towards US not what it seems - Merkel and Sarkozy's political vision show a pragmatic pro- European strategy
Both Merkel and Sarkozy have been contrasted with their predecessors, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, who were leading critics of the Iraq War. They have been feted as "pro-American" European leaders who not only admire America's free-market orientation but are also willing to accept U.S. leadership of a revitalized trans-Atlantic alliance.It would be quite misleading to depict Merkel and Sarkozy as American-style free marketers. Sarkozy's reformist approach fits very much with his stance as an economic nationalist who has also pledged to protect "strategic" French companies from international competition. Similarly, in calling for restrictions on immigration from Muslim countries and for blocking the entry of Turkey into the European Union, the French and German leaders are reflecting what in the context of American politics would be described as nationalist positions. At the same time, their respective agendas on global warming are not very different from that of Al Gore and his allies in the environmentalist movement.
For Sarkozy and Merkel, the current American military intervention in the Middle East is compatible with their short- and mid-term strategic and economic interests. Let the Americans pay the costs of stabilizing the government in Baghdad and juggle the many contradictory commitments to Iraq's ethnic and religious communities there while at the same time trying to contain the rise of Iran. Let them handle the Middle East mess their policies helped to produce. If and when the Americans fail in their mission, stronger and more assertive Europeans would be ready to pick up the pieces. From that perspective, Sarkozy and Merkel are not promoting a "pro-American" policy -- but one that is easily compatible with French and German interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)