That seems flat-out wrong to me. The whole point of the ungainly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan was to enable the United States to focus more on its strategic interests, such as Europe and the Indo-Pacific. This was the logic that President Biden articulated at the time. Actions taken since that time make it clear that the United States takes both of these regions pretty seriously.
Let me suggest that if Afghanistan had anything to do with Ukraine, the problem is less about perceptions of resolve that perceptions of competency. As previously noted in this space, the Afghanistan withdrawal was badly botched. Subsequent moves like AUKUS or the current warnings about Ukraine have also come with a lack of diplomatic coordination. Allies are important to any American response in either Eastern Europe or the Pacific Rim, so ham-handed implementation might encourage more aggressive behavior from China or Russia.
This is normally the moment when critics of Biden’s foreign policy will trot out lines like “Putin is playing chess while Biden is playing checkers” or “Xi is playing the long game and Biden is just reactive” or something like that. I can’t get there. If the current crises reveals anything it is the nonsense behind these statements. Neither Putin nor Xi Jinping is a strategic giant.
Let’s get back to why Putin is fomenting the current crisis. Might it have something to do with the fact that, in retrospect, his 2014 incursions into Ukraine have not played out as anticipated?
Sure, Russia annexed Crimea and exerts control over parts of the Donbass. This has come at a huge strategic cost, however. Russia alienated the rest of Ukraine and turned what had been a divided polity in its outward orientation to one that is manifestly looking to the West rather than to Russia. Indeed, the proximate trigger for Putin’s aggression has more to do with the failure of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to be more pliable to Russian demands and less (though not nothing) to do with the Biden administration’s focus on the Indo-Pacific.
Putin might be willing to pay the price to reverse Ukraine’s drift, but — yet again — the price will be high. The resulting sanctions will hurt the Russian economy. The resulting strategic situation will be the precise opposite of what Putin wants as well. As John Sipher noted in The Washington Post a few days ago, “Upon taking office in 2009, NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen met Putin and stated that he was committed to increased cooperation with Russia. Putin reportedly responded with a question: ‘Do you know my mission, Mr. Rasmussen? It is to make sure that your organization no longer exists.’ ”
If that is the case, then as Sipher notes Putin has failed and failed spectacularly. Sipher is not the only analyst to make this observation. Emma Ashford is a leading proponent of the “restraint school” of American foreign policy. Nonetheless, she also told the New York Times’ Max Fisher that Putin’s actions create “a risk of pushing Europe together, of amplifying more hawkish voices and capitals” and that “there’s the risk of pulling America back in, even as [Moscow is] trying to push America out of Europe.” Even Latynina acknowledges that “instead of trapping the United States, Mr. Putin has trapped himself.”
An implicit assumption embedded within a lot of international relations is that the great powers are acting rationally and strategically, trying to maximize their advantage. What 2022 is revealing, however, is that maybe these great power leaders have not thought things out fully.
Opinion: The vacuum at the centre of Canadian politics: an incompetent, unethical government faces an intemperate, unhinged opposition – The Globe and Mail
Over the last few weeks and months it has become impossible to escape the feeling that Canadian politics has come loose from its moorings. There is a manic edge to it, as if the inmates had suddenly and collectively declared themselves absolved of any remaining obligations to common sense, or the ordinary routines of democratic politics, or the rule of law.
On the one hand, you have a Liberal government that is now embroiled in half a dozen crises of its own making, the fruit of a peculiar mix of cynicism, moral vanity, incompetence, doctrinaire ideology and apparently habitual abuse of power – a culture that originates with the leader, to be sure, but which appears to have spread throughout the party.
Thus you have, simultaneously, the airport mess, the passport mess, and the Russian embassy party mess; the abject retreat on vaccine mandates, in the face of a panicky Liberal backbench; the revelations that its centrepiece climate plan is in disarray, its 2030 carbon emissions reductions targets acknowledged, within government, to be a distant fantasy; all while it is engaged in the utter madness of attempting to regulate the internet, through no fewer than three separate bills.
That’s four or five ministers in trouble, and we haven’t even got to the matter of the Public Safety Minister, Marco Mendicino – and, let us not forget, the Prime Minister – apparently lying to Parliament about why they invoked the Emergencies Act, and on whose advice.
Or, worst yet, the jaw-dropping allegation that the Prime Minister’s Office, and the then Public Safety Minister, Bill Blair, prevailed upon the commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, to interfere in the investigation of the murder of 22 people by a gunman in Nova Scotia two years ago, for the purpose of selling gun control legislation the government had planned.
The allegation, that Ms. Lucki demanded local RCMP officers reveal to the public, contrary to procedure and at the risk of compromising the investigation, the precise make and model of the guns the killer used, has been officially denied. Nevertheless it is hard to shake: the allegation is precise, detailed, and contained in a contemporaneous note by the officer involved.
More to the point, whether or not the allegation is true, it is easy to believe this government, and this Prime Minister, would be capable of it. Seize on a horrible crime to unveil showboating legislation, cooked up on the fly, to no apparent public benefit? Checks out. Lean on a law enforcement official to meddle in what is supposed to be an independent legal process, wholly off limits to politicians? What was SNC-Lavalin about?
So much for the government: tired, directionless, massively overcentralized, coasting on self-satisfaction and increasingly overwhelmed by the actual business of governing, including the tiresome necessity of respecting the rights of Parliament and the principle of the rule of law.
But what lurks across the aisle? What of the government-in-waiting, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada? How are they shaping up as an alternative?
Funny you should ask. The party is just now in the throes of a leadership race – the traditional opportunity for a party in opposition to define itself, and its core beliefs. What, by the lights of the current campaign, are the core beliefs of the Conservative Party? On matters of ordinary policy, things like deficits and taxes and foreign policy, we are not much further ahead than when we started.
But if it’s lunatic conspiracy theories you would like to know about, on these the Conservatives have plenty to say, ranging from unfounded fears about the health effects of vaccines, to paranoia about the baleful influence of the World Economic Forum, to the dystopian possibilities of central bank digital currencies, as a means of surveilling and controlling the population – or if you really want to know the “truth,” how all of these are bound up together.
On the day after the allegation surfaced, earlier this week, that the government had interfered in a murder investigation for political ends – a day that ought to have been reserved for asking the most searching questions of those involved – several Conservative MPs were feting the organizers of a new anti-vaccine, anti-government, anti-everything rally planned for Ottawa this summer, some of whom were involved in the one that paralyzed the capital for three weeks earlier this year. Just in case anyone had forgotten the party’s disgraceful cheerleading for that particular outbreak of lawlessness.
It isn’t only at the federal level that Conservatives seem to have abandoned their traditional belief in law and order. The Alberta Conservative leadership race has barely begun, yet has already featured proposals either to ignore the Constitution altogether – that is, to refuse to enforce federal laws the provincial government dislikes – or to dictate constitutional changes to the rest of the country that have no actual hope of passing.
There is precedent for this, of course, notably in the revolutionary fantasies of certain Quebec separatist leaders. But given how signally these have failed, and how much worse it would have been for the province if they had succeeded, it’s hard to imagine anyone citing them as an example to follow, rather than avoid. Yet that is where we have arrived, in both Quebec and Alberta – with political leaders pretending they can rewrite the Constitution unilaterally.
At the federal level we would seem to be left with something of a vacuum, with neither main party displaying much interest in governing responsibly. This is sometimes described as “polarization,” as if the problem could be solved by everyone agreeing to meet in the centre. Not so: this country has big, challenging issues confronting it, some of which may require radical changes in policy. Radicalism is not the same as extremism.
What’s needed is not centrism, if that is interpreted to mean blindly hugging the middle on every issue. Neither is pragmatism the answer, if that means governing without an ideological compass, but merely blowing this way and that according to the latest poll or interest group lobby.
What’s needed – what is sorely lacking – is judgment: political, moral, intellectual. Judgment is the foundation of leadership, and leadership is the only way we’re going to get back to something resembling functional politics.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.
Are Politics A Problem For The Markets? – Forbes
As an economist and market analyst, I try to shy away from politics and focus on the facts. Nonetheless, I often receive politically charged questions that are usually some variation of the following: “With X party in office, the country is doomed. How can you say otherwise?” I have heard this in every presidential election from George W. Bush to Joe Biden. But the truth of the matter is this: both the economy and the markets grew during all of those administrations. Of course, each one had its own challenges and problems, but as a country we continued to move forward. Companies found ways to grow and make money. Given this, are politics really a problem for the markets?
A Limited Effect
No matter which side, the administration actually has a very limited effect on the national economy and on the financial markets. In fact, if you look at a chart of the economy or of the markets, and cover up the dates, you really can’t pick out when your party was in charge. Similarly, when you look at economic and market performance under various permutations of which party is in charge, there are differences, but they are not consistent over time. For all of the headlines and the fearmongering, politics and governance don’t make a significant difference.
Who’s In Control?
How can that be? Simple. Every president and Congress would like to have control—but they don’t. States push back. The Supreme Court pushes back. Municipalities push back. It is rare that something significant actually gets through. And even when it does? The genius of the American system is that companies then set their collective minds on how to avoid it, if they don’t like it, and/or how to make money off it. For example, look at literally any tax bill ever passed.
Fundamentally, that is the strength of the American system. When you say that Washington will derail the economy or the markets, you are saying that it really controls all of the shoppers and the companies, which simply isn’t true. It is certainly in the interest of politicians to exaggerate their power (to motivate their supporters) and to exaggerate their opponents’ powers (again, to motivate their supporters). But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. economy is driven by millions of profit-motivated companies that will find ways to work around or profit from pretty much anything the politicians can do. Thank goodness for that.
Which doesn’t answer those who maintain that this time is different. That somehow today’s problems are worse than they have ever been before. There is always a constituency for panic. But if you really believe that, if you really believe that Washington—of one party or the other—can derail the country, then what you are saying is that Washington already has full control. That is not what I see when I look around.
This Too Will Pass
What I see is the same vivid debate on policy we have always had and the same back-and-forth that ultimately results in a reasonable solution. Perhaps it is louder now, but it is still the same process.
One of my favorite quotes, from Winston Churchill, notes that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing once they have tried all the alternatives. I would argue that is what is happening now and that despite the short-term damage, which can be real, ultimately we will move ahead again.
'We need a fresh approach': Harvey wants to do politics differently if she heads NDP – News Talk 980 CJME
Sitting on the patio of a Regina coffee shop, Kaitlyn Harvey was animated and passionate, talking about what she feels are the problems in Saskatchewan politics and how they should be fixed.
Harvey answered questions in a wide-ranging way, cramming in a TedTalk’s worth of information in a way that only people excited by their topic do.
When asked what she was reading or watching these days, Harvey didn’t name a book but instead began talking about research and reports she has been going through both as part of her political aspirations and her day job as a lawyer.
“I’ve got a lot of research that I’m doing, so I don’t really read a whole lot of fiction. Lots of non-fiction, lots of news but then also looking at reports — that’s what I read for fun,” she said, then started laughing. “I’m a bit of a nerd.”
Getting down to the brass tacks of her run to lead the Saskatchewan NDP, Harvey got more serious.
“What I’m offering is a different approach than what the NDP has offered in the past,” she said. “It still recognizes those values of community, those values of taking care of our most vulnerable … and so that’s why I am running for the NDP because of those values. But the way that I am proposing to do politics is different.”
Harvey said the old approach of politics as performance, of talking but not getting anything done, isn’t working.
“When I say we need to do things different, I mean we need to do things differently,” said Harvey.
Right now, Harvey believes that when young people watch the proceedings in the legislature — if they do — all they’re seeing is people shouting.
“(It’s) a bunch of people just standing there, yelling back and forth at each other and spitting things and not actually addressing these very real issues. And then people wonder why our youth don’t go out and vote,” said Harvey.
Harvey believes people are sick of the status quo and that things will look a lot different in the legislature come the next election in 2024.
“I don’t know what it’ll look like but I’m pretty confident that if I’m successful in this NDP race, there’ll be a lot more NDP seats,” said Harvey.
Harvey doesn’t like the idea of left or right in politics. What she wants is for people to come together to seriously tackle the issues.
The biggest issue for Harvey is climate change; it’s what spurred her into politics in the first place.
The reality hit home for Harvey 10 years ago when she was in a co-op program at Environment Canada and was working on a mapping project with climate data.
“The numbers that I was seeing (and) that I was coming across … (it) was just terrifying to see what our future is going to look like, and the range of possibilities ranging from scary to catastrophic,” said Harvey.
Harvey went into law to study policy and is now making the push into politics because she doesn’t see the action needed to deal with climate change.
“We are two decades, easily, behind other countries (and) other places in the world in terms of our acceptance of the very real risks to our people (and) to our society from climate change. We aren’t taking advantage of the opportunities that we have to be leaders. We’re wasting opportunities and potential,” said Harvey.
Harvey said climate change is a fact and shouldn’t be politicized, but it is in Saskatchewan and it’s tearing apart the province.
“When they tell us that we have no choice, that we have to settle for this conflict, that we are divided, that we are an oil and gas-only type of place, like, are you kidding me?” said Harvey.
However, Harvey said she’s not anti-oil and she’s not looking to kill industry and put people out on the street.
“When people use the term ‘just transition,’ that actually means something. It means that the people who are going to be asked to transition to local renewable, sustainable, good-paying jobs are given the supports that they need to make that transition,” said Harvey.
“It’s not a negative attack on anybody’s personal identity or I’m trying to blame them for climate change or something like that. It’s nothing personal, it’s just a fact that we need to start doing things differently.”
Harvey said there are a lot of other ways Saskatchewan could bring in money and other industries to expand into that won’t contribute to climate change, and she knows that’s something youth of this province want.
“We need a fresh approach and I think that will resonate with people and get more people to come out and support the party when they see that we’ve actually got some really good ideas and they’re backed up by science. They’re backed up with the numbers,” said Harvey.
Unlike her competitor, Carla Beck, Harvey hasn’t held provincial office before — she ran as an NDP candidate in the 2020 election but lost. However, she doesn’t see that as a problem.
Harvey points to her work as a lawyer, putting herself through law school as a single mother and the volunteer and community work she’s done, saying she’s good at handling a lot of things and learns quickly.
“When I see what our politicians are doing I think, ‘Oh boy, I could do that.’ It’s not that hard, it’s not rocket science … it’ll be new but I’m a pretty quick study,” said Harvey.
Harvey said she does have respect for everyone in the NDP caucus and the work they’re doing.
A win for Harvey in the leadership race would be historic on two fronts: She would be the first woman elected to the NDP leadership in Saskatchewan and the first Metis leader of a major party in the province.
“It would be just the greatest opportunity of my life to be able to serve and provide my skills, my energy, my experience, to the people of Saskatchewan,” said Harvey.
If she doesn’t win, the province won’t have heard the last of Harvey. She has announced her intention to seek the NDP nomination to run in the Saskatoon Meewasin byelection which will be held at some point soon.
The Main Benefits of SEO For Real Estate Businesses – Intelligent Living
Kingston, Ont., area health officials examining future of local vaccination efforts – Global News
The U.S. wants to ban Juul. Where is Canada on regulating e-cigarettes? – CBC News
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Europe kicks off vaccination programs | All media content | DW | 27.12.2020 – Deutsche Welle
Global Media Markets, 2015-2020, 2020-2025F, 2030F – TV and Radio Broadcasting, Film and Music, Information Services, Web Content, Search Portals And Social Media, Print Media, & Cable – GlobeNewswire
Economy16 hours ago
Northern Shootout's return provides a big boost to Orillia's economy – CTV News Barrie
Science24 hours ago
Five planets are lining up in the sky in June and will peak tonight. Here's how to see it. – CBS News
News23 hours ago
Sanctions: Who they really hurt
News22 hours ago
How to integrate payment systems in an online shop
Science23 hours ago
Young Jupiter likely gobbled up millions of planetoids – The Weather Network
Tech17 hours ago
Vergecast: M2 MacBook Pro review, Solana's crypto phone, and this week's tech news – The Verge
Economy3 hours ago
Putin Is Pushing Germany's Economy to the Breaking Point – BNN
Tech16 hours ago
iQOO Neo 6 VS Poco F4: We compare the specs, both will SURPRISE – HT Tech