BAC News: Biden, Macron and Scholz
Reuters and Noam Yassir on War and Peace
Published: 2024-03-17
Previous episode.
Announcer: In this special show, Reuters reports from Europe and we discuss events with our geopolitical analyst Noam Yassir in Beirut.
What's news in Europe, Reuters?
Reuters: French President Emmanuel Macron called President Vladimir Putin's Russia an adversary that would not stop in Ukraine if it defeated Kyiv's troops in the two-year-old conflict, urging Europeans to not be "weak" and to get ready to respond.
Announcer: So Macron is repeating the lies Biden's State of the Union, is he, Reuters? Do you think the French are going to come out of the closet and proudly declare their involvement in the war?
Reuters: Macron caused controversy last month after he said he could not rule out the deployment of ground troops in Ukraine in the future, with many leaders distancing themselves from that while others, especially in eastern Europe, expressed support.
"If Russia wins this war, Europe's credibility will be reduced to zero," Macron said in a television interview mostly directed at a domestic audience, after French opposition leaders criticised his comments as bellicose.
A: Given that French military leadership are convinced that Russia cannot be defeated then, yes, its hero to zero for Macron unless there are political rather than military strategies to recover Europe's stability.
R: Macron said he "deeply" disagrees with the opposition leaders. "Today, deciding to abstain or vote against support to Ukraine, it's not choosing peace, it's choosing defeat. It's different," he said.
A: Oh, dear. He went that far, did he?
R: Macron's main opposition party, the far-right of Marine Le Pen, abstained in parliament on a vote earlier this week about a security pact France signed with Ukraine, while the hard left France Unbowed party voted against it.
A: Are the French commies siding with now non-communist Russia, or peace, Reuters?
R: "If war spreads in Europe, Russia would be to blame," Macron added. "But if we decided to be weak; if we decided today that we would not respond, it would be choosing defeat already. And I don't want that."
A: If war spreads in Europe, that would be because nobody sought peace, surely? Is Macron conflating negotiation and military defeat?
R: He said it was important for Europe not to draw red lines, which would signal weakness to the Kremlin and encourage it to push on with its invasion of Ukraine. He refused to give details on what a deployment to Ukraine might look like.
"I don't want to do so. I want Russia to stop this war and retreat from its positions and allow peace," he said. "I'm not going to give visibility to someone who is not giving me any. This is a question for President Putin."
"I have reasons not to be precise," he said.
A: So, he wants Russia to up sticks, go home and leave the Donbas to the rabid Nazis. Seems like a brew of hopium and crack, which might be the reason he can't be precise.
R: Macron said France would never initiate an offensive against Russia, and that Paris was not at war with Moscow, despite the fact that Russia had launched aggressive attacks against French interests in and outside France.
A: Reuters, please define "French interests" and then name a Russian attack against those in France, and then outside France. I think we can guess about the "outside" one. That would be failing French imperial West African project, Françafrique, which they are blaming on Russia because that is far easier than their mismanagement and the understandably rebellious nature of the regions' populations.
R: "The Kremlin regime is an adversary," he said, declining to call Russia an enemy. He also said Putin making threats about nuclear strikes was "not appropriate".
A: Reuters, you are putting words in Macron's mouth there. He said adversary, you said enemy. Tut, tut, Reuters.
R: Macron said Ukraine was in a "difficult" situation on the ground and that stronger support from allies was necessary.
A: Difficult, eh?
R: "Peace does not mean the capitulation of Ukraine," he said. "Wanting peace does not mean defeat. Wanting peace does not mean dropping Ukraine," he said.
A: That is the most sane point he’s made. Has he delivered all of this contradictory, but US required, introductory rhetoric, so that he could get to the point he’s trying to make?
R: Macron also said he had not canceled a planned visit to Ukraine for security reasons. "That's what Russia said. You shouldn't believe them," he said.
Announcer: Well, I'm sure we're all glad that that travel itinerary confusion has been resolved. The position he finally reached is quite illuminating. Thanks, Reuters.
Geopolitical analyst Noam Yassir joins us from the Lebanese capital.
Given the recent German military intelligence leaks, Chancellor Scholz' response and Macron's interview, how do you assess Europe's current political landscape, Noam?
Noam Yassir: Its a pleasure to join you on BAC News.
The Luftwaffe leaks were quite an embarrassment, weren’t they? Though perhaps for reasons not well communicated. Irrespective of the BND's rather poor counter intelligence reputation, one should not be too alarmed by military leaders discussing hypothetical plans. This is one of the services they provide their political leadership.
The concern was that they were discussing how these possible plans could be implemented with subterfuge. At this point, given the Bundestag had twice forbidden the supply of the Tauras missiles to Ukraine, these hypothetical plans border on the treasonous. Secondly, subterfuge is not their domain either. These Luftwaffe leaders should be consulting their intelligence service for how to achieve plausible deniability, rather than considering it themselves. Therein we see the weakness of the reputation of their intelligence service extends to the military; the Luftwaffe have no confidence in the BND either. They also seem to have completely abandoned the constraints of civilian leadership.
As for Macron, he does seem all at sea.
Announcer: Yes, Yassir, I noted the change in messaging during the interview. Is this a balancing act?
Noam Yassir: Perhaps. For situations like this, it is often easier to just call what one sees. Macron appears confused because he is.
He, like Biden, if we come to US politics, is checkmated because the solution to this problem has not yet been signaled as allowed by forces greater they each believe are greater than themselves. The choices he can see are committing French forces to the war, which is a political disaster for him, and the rest of Europe, to be honest. The other is to negotiate with Russia which the French population have been trained to believe are evil incarnate. A negotiation appears, from the perspective of the EU Commission and NATO leadership, as a betrayal.
He is caught between a rock and a hard place, and as a politician knows well, given such a position, the best choice of action is to speak out of both sides of one’s mouth and hope that nobody sees the inherent contradiction.
A: You imply that a solution exists, but has not yet been condoned.
N: Yes.
To reach that, lets start with reality. The French and some honest parts of the US military leadership accept that Russia cannot be defeated. The Ukrainian territories they have taken will not be returned to Ukraine by military force. It is politically difficult too, due to the 2022 referenda in the now Russian oblasts. If one just accepts this situation, as the militaries have, then one can ask what political possibilities are available.
Ukraine has lost an entire generation of young men either due to emigration, death, serious bodily injury or psychological trauma. One should expect that Ukrainian trauma to be more universal. Whatever is negotiated as the remainder of Ukraine will need considerable care to recover. This requirement for care is equally true of the new Russian oblasts. Though smaller in size of population there are children there of 10 years of age who do no know what peace sounds like.
Before the war, Ukraine was the most corrupt nation in Europe, and wars are not known to encourage accountability. There is now a west Ukrainian diaspora in the rest of Europe who are unlikely to wish to return to Ukraine until the economy there has recovered and a stable society exists. This will not happen magically. It requires stability, time and money, and a lot of the latter. In the meantime, this diaspora will create difficulties for the other European nations to which they have emigrated.
The solution is peace and a repaired Ukraine, which is going to require time, effort and a lot of money.
A: Are you suggesting war bonds?
N: Heaven forfend! No, the solution is far simpler, apart from the politics.
Russia has dangled a dangerous carrot by suggesting the partition of western Ukraine, via Medvedev's Map and Putin's recent interview. Poland, Romania and Hungary have historical ties to areas in western Ukraine. They must resist all temptation to carve up the region. Given that, the solution is simple, and the EU Commission have already marked the pot of cash they'll need.
They recently took a large chunk of some billions of interest on the Russian Central Bank's foreign reserves of $300 billion which NATO institutions have impounded. That chunk of the interest was reserved to fund the legal cases which will come from them stealing the rest and giving it to Ukraine. The Ukraine government, if one may use such a generous term, needs to pay its wages or there is no government. It is the $300 billion dollars of capital which can fund the peace.
The media could to start injecting the suffering of the people of the Donbas into their coverage. The narrative is "war is a tragedy", which is easy to run because it is true. Negotiations with Russia are entered, using the most neutral arbiter they can find. They'll probably hate this, but Brazil or India, or at a stretch the Austrians. India would be a good choice. They have a professional foreign service with decades of experience in balancing a geopolitical position. Negotiations will need to include reparations, and these impounded funds can serve as the monies to be used.
At the outset, this strategy may look insane, but it will generate a massive amount of public support on both sides of, and in the middle of, the NATO-Russia War in Ukraine. Russia will get some of its funds back to invest in areas of Ukraine, both current and former, as Russia sees fit, while a newly created, and accountable European body invests in the remaining areas of Ukraine. There is enough money for various deals to be made to the liking of differing European political factions.
More importantly, if these funds are invested in peace rather than war, all political figures will stand to benefit because they will actually be doing things which their polities want.
Which political party will promote war over peace in Europe? This is the crux of the question to be placed in front of the European electorate during the coming potentiall volatile European summer. Europe’s centrist parties could recover some of thier lost credibility.
A: I can't imagine Russia will too happy about losing their Central Bank Reserves.
N: True.
But, what is the cost of war for Russia? This way they get some of those reserves back to invest in the new Russian territories. I think Russia would be glad to end this war and get back to restructuring their economy towards the non-NATO world. It all depends on NATO engaging with Russia's core goals: the border nation must be militarily weak and neutral, and be well aware of its location. It will need to also be aware of anti-Russian Nazism. Indeed, this is another area in which the European nations can run an effective narrative rather than sweeping this resurgent scourge under the rug.
A: You mentioned that US President Biden is in a similar position to Macron.
N: Would you not agree that supplying arms to Israel and running a woefully ineffective food aid program for the starving Palestinians is also a confused position?
A: A cynic may disagree, but assuming your proposition, what resolution exists?
N: The same.
It requires congressional approval by way of legislation, but given Senator Schumer's recent address, the rhetoric just needs to be mildly rephrased. As Schumer acknowledged, Israel's current genocidal policy is antithetical to the survival of the state. It is, essentially, pure treason. This situation should be re-stated, with compassion for both the Palestinian people and a realistic possibility of a state of Israel.
The annual US $4 billion dollars of aid to Israel is to be tied to peace and the two state solution. Details can be haggled, but it amounts to a very short, say two weeks, period for the agreement of a ceasefire of at least 4 weeks. Failure by Israel to achieve this means the immediate cessation of all military and financial aid. If achieved, the aid is split into two portions, only one of which can be used for the purchasing of armaments. The other is to be used by Israel for humanitarian purposes. The relocation of settlers out of the West bank would be good start.
The US should also immediately restart its funding of UNRWA and encourage its allies to follow suit. Israel's limiting of aid or breaking any agreed ceasefire instantly triggers the loss of all support. It is then up to the Israeli population to take control of their leadership, with the consequences clearly described. If they fail to do so, it will not need to be the US which destroys Israel. It is risking an international BDS movement the likes of which haven’t been seen since the height Apartheid South Africa. Recall that Israel is no a member of BRICS+ or the SCO and these organisations could express support for total isolation of Israel, diplomatically and financially. Elements from within them have already begun.
A: Are not the Democrats also partially trapped by the Republicans via the Ukraine funding bill being tied to the southern border?
N: Could Biden and his advisors not display a little finesse? They consult the republicans and have the Ukraine bill passed with southern border protection in it. This gives Biden the chance to use the Ukrainian funds for the peace and reconstruction, with attendant preferential direction of those funds. It allows Biden take a leading role in the peace initiatives in both Ukraine, and Gaza, and eliminates the supposed threat of the southern border wall by embracing it. The money can be allocated to satisfy various donors.
A: This a seems bit fanciful, Yassir.
N: If I may, which recent political candidates have generated the most growth in engagement in politics? One is Trump, because he called out the establishment elites for what they are, an infested swamp. Of course, he may not drain the swamp, but lower the water level at little and redirect some of the largess.
Before him, was Bernie Sanders, because he appealed to honest left leaning centrists, and the young, with simple policies like health care. Before him, in the UK, was Jeremy Corbyn who doubled the size of the British Labour Party. And, just recently was George Galloway speaking about peace. The ground is well fertilized for an outbreak of peace and investing in people rather than war.
Paradoxically, it is the growing alignment away from the West towards the BRICS+ block which may save the West from its worst elements.
The policies of the West examined at scale, echo exactly that which Israel is doing to itself. They are suicidal. The above suggestions of investing in peace and society can rescue the West, just as the West can resolve the Ukraine war and help Israel avoid its self destruction.
A: On that note of rare optimism, we wish our audience a pleasant evening.
or support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.
Sources
France's Macron says Europe must be ready if Russia escalates, Michel Rose, Reuters, 2024-03-14
Culture
Mining for Gold, Cowboy Junkies, The Trinity Session (their 2nd album, released 1988), uploaded 2017-02-19
Copyleft: CC0
