#european union eastern border

[tearsofrefugees]

[latestnews-now]

Poland is taking bold steps to fortify its eastern borders, ensuring security against potential threats. Prime Minister Donald Tusk visited the border with Kaliningrad to inspect the groundbreaking "East Shield" project. Learn how this massive $2.5 billion initiative will safeguard Poland and NATO allies. Stay tuned for a full breakdown of this historic defense effort.

[kdrtsz]

Travel the World of Imagination: Journeys Beyond Border

Kieth Denmark M. Retes | BSIT1A OVERVIEW:

Switzerland originates from the Old Swiss Confederacy established in the Late Middle Ages, following a series of military successes against Austria and Burgundy; the Federal Charter of 1291 is considered the country's founding document. Swiss independence from the Holy Roman Empire was formally recognized in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Switzerland has maintained a policy of armed neutrality since the 16th century and has not fought an international war since 1815. It joined the United Nations only in 2002 but pursues an active foreign policy that includes frequent involvement in peace building.

Switzerland is the birthplace of the Red Cross and hosts the headquarters or offices of most major international institutions including the WTO, the WHO, the ILO, FIFA, the WEF, and the UN. It is a founding member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), but not part of the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area, or the eurozone; however, it participates in the European single market and the Schengen Area. Switzerland is a federal republic composed of 26 cantons, with federal authorities based in Bern. references: Switzerland - Wikipedia

Switzerland, a small yet influential country nestled in the heart of Europe, stands out in many ways. From its awe-inspiring landscapes to its unique political system, Switzerland offers a blend of natural beauty, cultural diversity, and global diplomacy that few other nations can match. Its distinct character is a product of centuries of neutrality, innovation, and a deep respect for its heritage, all of which contribute to the nation’s unparalleled reputation on the world stage.

One of the first things that captivates visitors to Switzerland is its breathtaking scenery. The country is dominated by the majestic Alps, with towering snow-capped peaks that attract adventurers and nature lovers from around the globe. Whether it’s skiing in world-class resorts like Zermatt and St. Moritz or hiking through verdant valleys and along crystal-clear lakes, Switzerland offers outdoor experiences that are hard to rival. Beyond the Alps, the country is dotted with picturesque towns, lush meadows, and sparkling lakes, such as Lake Geneva and Lake Lucerne, each offering their own unique charm. The country's commitment to environmental preservation further enhances the beauty of these landscapes, ensuring that they remain pristine for future generations.

Swiss culture is characterized by diversity, which is reflected in diverse traditional customs. A region may be in some ways culturally connected to the neighbouring country that shares its language, all rooted in western European culture. The linguistically isolated Romansh culture in Graubünden in eastern Switzerland constitutes an exception. It survives only in the upper valleys of the Rhine and the Inn and strives to maintain its rare linguistic tradition.

Switzerland is home to notable contributors to literature, art, architecture, music and sciences. In addition, the country attracted creatives during times of unrest or war. Some 1000 museums are found in the country.

Among the most important cultural performances held annually are the Paléo Festival, Lucerne Festival, the Montreux Jazz Festival, the Locarno International Film Festival and Art Basel.

Alpine symbolism played an essential role in shaping Swiss history and the Swiss national identity. Many alpine areas and ski resorts attract visitors for winter sports as well as hiking and mountain biking in summer. The quieter seasons are spring and autumn. A traditional pastoral culture predominates in many areas, and small farms are omnipresent in rural areas. Folk art is nurtured in organisations across the country. Switzerland most directly in appears in music, dance, poetry, wood carving, and embroidery. The alphorn, a trumpet-like musical instrument made of wood has joined yodeling and the accordion as epitomes of traditional Swiss music.

references: Switzerland - Wikipedia

[therealvinelle]

What does Norway think of the us

Far too many things for me to begin to cover in a tumblr post.

Suffice to say: we arguably owe our welfare and current standing in the world and inarguably our liberty as a nation to the US. This has shaped our domestic and foreign policies for the past 80 years, and we are currently breathing into a paper bag about the fact that Uncle Sam is talking about breaking up with us.

Also beware, there are matters in this post which are a matter of political opinion (rare for this blog, I know), and there are nightmareishly long paragraphs in here, so read at own risk and sorry about the long paragraphs.

Readmore for length and in case I need to make edits.

Norway, the war, and the Marshall Help

Imagine: your country is invaded by Nazis in 1940, and remains occupied for five years. When you are liberated, your country's gold reserve is depleted, many places bombed, and the entirety of Northern Norway is so badly ravaged that the population is evacuated and the region deemed uninhabitable (you'll notice, today, the architecture up north is new. All of it.). To say nothing of the human toll: one third of our Jewish population was slaughtered in Auschwitz, the country is littered in war memorials and tombstones of men shot or otherwise killed by Germans, and every family has at least one wartime story.

(I will take a note to say that it's our own occupation that comes to mind when I see the war and genocide happening in Ukraine. The differences are many, but the shared horror of an invasion, the fact that this happens on European mainland and is perpetrated by a country we share a border with, makes it feel extremely close. More, if Ukraine loses... I'll get into that further below, but suffice to say "Norway's defense budget" these days is labelled "Ukraine aid")

What are you going to do when peace comes, and the time to rebuild is upon you? Well, it so happens the rest of Europe is asking itself that same question, and the United States meanwhile sees an opportunity to both help its allies, strengthen our bonds so that we'll be on the same side for the foreseeable future, and weaken the communist sympathies in Europe. It's a win-win type of deal, and so the Marshall aid is launched: billions of dollars ($13 billion then, $178 adjusted for inflation) are poured into Europe, bolstering the post-war economy and allowing the countries which accepted (all of Western Europe, save Spain and Finland. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union declined as well.) to get back to their feet much sooner.

It's in this context that Norway's government's plans of a welfare society were possible to realize. Perhaps we would have managed it anyway, but the historically recorded fact is we did it with the help of the USA.

Then there's NATO, that beautiful response to not only the Eastern threat, but to the naivety that had reigned prior to World War II. Hitler had... helped himself... to increasing chunks of Europe, and country leaders kept saying "Well I don't want war, and I'm sure he'll be satisfied after that. Oh no, he invaded Poland?! Oh well I'm sure he'll be satisfied with- oh no, he's entered France!"

NATO means "Invade one, you fight us all", and while it may have come to mean "one invades Afghanistan, so now I guess we're all going" and even "boy Ukraine is having it rough huh. But we can't do anything without getting NATO involved, and that'll launch a new world war :/", and de facto "if NATO ever acts against Russia that will be world war three. Hang on, what's NATO for then?", NATO at its core still means "I am in NATO, so Uncle Sam will protect me. :)"

Which makes countries like Norway feel very safe. And, I cannot overemphasize, is why we've felt safe for the past 70+ years.

Which brings us to the next section.

That border. That border!!

If you look at a map of Norway, you'll see a long and happy border to Sweden. There has been much discourse (and war, war, war) over that border, I for one still think it would be nice if they gave us back Bohuslän, but overall we are very close and good allies.

Look a little further up, however. Yes, past the border to Finland.

Is that...

(photo credit)

Oh no, it's Russia!

This hasn't always been an oh no. We lived peacefully side by side frankly always, and the Soviets liberated Finnmark from the Nazis which was wonderful of them. Then Norway accepted the Marshall Aid, however, and while our governing party had had strong communist sympathies prior to the war (and after...) this cemented our ties to the United States. Our side in the Cold War had been chosen.

Border relations with Russia have been good, they have had to be good, but NATO was our safety and security during a very tense period of time. (This comedy skit is very funny but... kind of true... as does the entire Whaledimir debacle (adorable whale charmed the country, but was Whaledimir a Russian spy? Somehow, the answer appears to be yes.) The Russo-Ukrainian war has made relations historically bad, however. (Norwegian news article on the topic, if you feel like translating.)

Where am I going with this?

Norway has a shared border with Russia. Norway would not be capable of defending Finnmark if Russia invaded from the shared border, and having Sweden and Finland join NATO makes us feel better but the defense strategy has still been (and remains) "we defend what we can until US reinforcements arrive". One of the sexiest things the US has done this year was send a massive war ship sailing into our waters, just to say hello and show off their presence. MUCH APPRECIATED.

And, again, this might seem very remote and like the plot of a bad political thriller to the cursory anon and even to many Norwegians, but we were invaded in the last century, we have a shared border, a strategically important coastline and a lot of natural resources (oil!), and should Ukraine (god forbid) lose the war, the question will be this: what does Russia do next? What, specifically, does NATO and the US do if Putin for instance decides to take Svalbard? Is anyone risking nuclear war over Svalbard? What about Finmark? What about cyber attacks, underwater cable att- oh wait there were two underwater cables cut open yesterday.

Gee, that's not worrying at all.

In summation

America is a very important trade partner, and the cultural and political influence you have on us (on all of Europe, really) is immense. I imagine most asked would focus on that, especially on Norway's thoughts on the election, but you asked me and so you get my answer. Your election was a sports match to us (or at least covered by media and social media like one).

I will say this: Trump's first victory had us worried, and we have spent more on defense since then, but his second victory proves the first was not a fluke and the United States is shifting away from us. This is not something we can influence, as it is the will of the American people (or at the very least what they voted for), what we must do is adapt. I, a lifelong opponent to Norway joining the European Union, now see no other way if Norway is to prosper (though the EU also needs a major makeover to survive now, on our own without the US we are all shaking in our knees here in Europe). Likewise, to paraphrase a very good op-ed, Norway's national security neither can depend on a few undecided voters in Wisconsin who aren't thinking about Europe or Norway at all, nor should it.

We have been too dependent on the United States, this has been mutually beneficial and if it was up to us, this wouldn't change (I am now ignoring a faction on the far left which has been saying "Guys, I have a great idea: we should leave NATO :)" and another faction on the far right which is so eager to please Trump-senpai they think Norway is supporting Ukraine's effort because we're stupid), sadly it seems the US wants it to change.

We shall see what happens.

[mariacallous]

While the Russian-Ukrainian War is only one symptom of broader destructive international trends, its outcome will co-determine the direction of the world’s development. 

Popular yet imprecise expressions like the “Ukraine Crisis” or the “Ukraine War” have been misleading many to believe that the Russian-Ukrainian War is a solely Eastern European issue. According to this misperception, a Ukrainian leadership that was more submissive to Russia could have avoided the unfortunate war. Supposedly, Kyiv can still stem the risks spilling over from the “war in Ukraine” to other realms and regions if it accommodates Russian aggression.

If seen from a historical and comparative perspective, the Russian-Ukrainian War looks different. It is only one of several permutations of Moscow’s post-Soviet imperialism and merely one facet of larger regressive developments since the end of the twentieth century. Russia’s assault on Ukraine is a replay or preview of pathologies familiar to Eastern Europe and other parts of the world. The alleged “Ukrainian Crisis” is neither a singular nor a local issue. It is less the trigger than a manifestation of larger destructive trends.

At the same time, the Russian-Ukrainian War is a grand battle about the future of Europe and the principle of inviolability of borders. Moreover, the war is about Ukraine’s right to exist as a regular UN member state. The conflict has genuinely global significance.

Yet, the war’s course and outcome can either accelerate, contain, or reverse broader political, social, and legal decay across the globe. Moscow’s partial victory in Ukraine would permanently unsettle international law, order, and organization and may spark armed conflicts and arms races elsewhere. A successful Ukrainian defense against Russia’s military expansion, in contrast, will generate far-reaching beneficial effects on worldwide security, democracy, and prosperity in three ways.

A Ukrainian victory would, first, lead to a stabilization of the rules-based UN order that emerged after 1945 and consolidated with the self-destruction of the Soviet Bloc and Union after 1989. It would, second, trigger a revival of international democratization, which has halted since the early twenty-first century and needs a boost to start anew. Third, the ongoing Ukrainian national defense and state-building contribute to global innovation and revitalization in various fields, from dual-use technology to public administration, fields in which Ukraine has become a forerunner.

Stabilizing International Order

The Russo-Ukrainian War is only one of several attempts by powerful states to expand their territories since the end of the Cold War. Several revisionist governments have tried or are planning to install their uninvited presence in neighboring countries. The resulting military operations have been or will be offensive, repressive, and unprovoked rather than defensive, humanitarian, and preventive. Several revisionist autocracies have engaged in, or are tempted to try, replacing international law with the principle of “might is right.”

An early post-Cold War example is Iraq’s 1990 annexation of Kuwait, which was instantaneously reversed by an international coalition in 1991. Another example is Serbia’s revanchist assaults on other former Yugoslav republics once ruled from Belgrade. During this period, Russia began creating so-called “republics” in Moldova (i.e., Transnistria) and Georgia (i.e., Abkhazia and “South Ossetia”). At the same time, Moscow ruthlessly suppressed the emergence of an independent Chechen republic on its own territory.

Only recently has the Kremlin turned its attention to Ukraine. In 2014, Moscow created the “people’s republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk and illegally annexed Crimea to the Russian Federation. Eight years later, Russia also illegally incorporated Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions into its official territory.

The international community’s reaction to Russia’s border revisions has remained half-hearted, unlike its responses to the Iraqi and Serbian attempts of the 1990s. The West’s timidity only provoked further Russian adventurism. Moscow now demands Kyiv’s voluntary cessation of all parts of the four Ukrainian mainland regions that Russia annexed in 2022. This includes, oddly, even some parts of Ukraine’s territory that Russian troops never managed to capture. The Kremlin’s final aim is still the eradication of Ukraine as a sovereign state.

At the same time, Beijing is bending established rules of conduct in the South and East China Seas and stepping up its preparations to incorporate the Republic of China in Taiwan into the People’s Republic of China by force. Venezuela has announced territorial claims on neighboring Guyana. Other revisionist politicians across the globe may be harboring similar plans.

Moscow’s official incorporation of Ukrainian lands is unique since Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which was created to prevent such conquests. Russia’s behavior is also peculiar in view of its status as an official nuclear-weapon state and depositary government under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Nevertheless, Moscow is trying to reduce or even destroy an official UN member and non-nuclear weapon state, thereby undermining the entire logic of the non-proliferation regime and its special prerogatives for the five permanent UN Security Council members whom the NPT allows to have nuclear weapons.

At the same time, the Russian assault on Ukraine is not entirely exceptional, neither geographically nor temporally. It is only one of several recent symptoms of more generic Russian neo-imperialism. It is also just one aspect of larger expansionist and revanchist tendencies across the globe.

A Ukrainian victory against Russia would not be a merely local incident but an event of far broader significance, notwithstanding. It can become an important factor in preventing or reversing international border revisionism and territorial irredentism. Conversely, Ukraine’s defeat or an unjust Russo-Ukrainian peace would strengthen colonialist adventurism across the globe. Ukraine’s fight for independence is, for world affairs, both a manifestation of broader problems and an instrument of their solution.   

A Revival of International Democratization

Russia’s assault on Ukraine challenges principles such as peaceful conflict resolution, national sovereignty, and the inviolability of borders. It also represents another negative global political trend of the early twenty-first century, namely the decline of democracy and the resurgence of autocracy. This regressive trend manifests itself through the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine.

A major internal determinant of the Russian assault on Ukraine is that Putin’s various wars have, since 1999, been sources of his undemocratic rule’s popularity, integrity, and legitimacy. Sometimes overlooked in analyses of Russian public support for authoritarianism, the occupation, subjugation, and repression of peoples like the Chechens, Georgians, and Ukrainians finds broad support among ordinary Russians. Their backing of victorious military interventions—especially on the territory of the former Tsarist and Soviet empires—is a major political resource and social basis of Putin’s increasingly autocratic regime.

Regressive tendencies, to be sure, were already observable in Yeltsin’s semi-democratic Russia of the 1990s—for instance, in Moldova and Chechnya. Yet, under Putin as prime minister (1999–2000, 2008–12) and president (2000–2008, 2012– ), the viciousness of Russian revanchist military operations in and outside Russia has rapidly grown. This radicalization is a function not only of escalating Russian irredentism per se but also an effect of fundamental changes in Russia’s political regime. Moscow’s increasing foreign aggressiveness parallels the growth of domestic repression after Putin’s take-over of Russia’s government in August 1999.

The two major early spikes of Kremlin aggressiveness towards the West and Ukraine followed, not by accident, Ukrainian events in 2004 and 2014. They had much to do with the victories of those years’ liberal-democratic Orange Revolution and Euromaidan Revolution. Ukraine’s domestic development questions Russia’s imperial pretensions, as it leads the largest former colony out of Moscow’s orbit. The democratizing Ukrainian polity is also a conceptual countermodel to authoritarianism in the post-communist world. Its very existence challenges the legitimacy of the post-Soviet autocracies in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, and Central Asia.  

Ukraine’s fight for independence is thus not only a defense of international law and order but also a battle for the cause of worldwide democracy. The contest between pro- and anti-democratic forces is global and has been sharpening already before, in parallel to, and independently from, the Russo-Ukrainian War. At the same time, the confrontation between Russian autocracy and Ukrainian democracy is a particularly epic one.

If Ukraine is victorious, the international alliance of democracies will win, and the axis of autocracies around Russia will lose. In this scenario, not only will other democracies become more secure, self-confident, and energized, but also it is likely that more democracies will appear—above all, in the post-communist world from Eastern Europe to Central Asia. Diffusion, spillover, or domino effects could also trigger new or re-democratizations elsewhere.

Conversely, a Russian victory will embolden autocratic regimes and anti-democratic groups throughout the world. In such a scenario, democratic rule and open societies would become stigmatized as feeble, ineffective, or even doomed. The recent worldwide decline of democracy will be less likely to reverse and may continue further or accelerate. While the “Ukraine Crisis” is not the cause of democracy’s current problems, its successful resolution would revitalize worldwide democratization.

Transferable Innovations

A third, so far, underappreciated aspect of Kyiv’s contribution to global progress is the growing number of new and partly revolutionary Ukrainian cognitive, institutional, and technological advances that can be applied elsewhere. Already before the escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022, Kyiv initiated some domestic reforms that could also be relevant for the modernization of other transition countries. After the victory of the Euromaidan uprising or Revolution of Dignity in February 2014, Ukraine started to restructure its state-society relations fundamentally.

This included the creation of several new anti-corruption institutions, namely a specialized court and procuracy, as well as a corruption prevention agency and investigation bureau. The novelty of these institutions is that they are all exclusively devoted to the preclusion, disclosure, and prosecution of bribery. In April 2014, Ukraine started a far-reaching decentralization of its public administration system that led to the country’s thorough municipalization. The reform transferred significant powers, rights, finances, and responsibilities from the regional and national levels to local self-governmental organs of amalgamated communities that have now become major loci of power in Ukraine.

The Euromaidan Revolution also led to a restructuring of relations between governmental and non-governmental organizations. Early independent Ukraine, like other post-Soviet countries, suffered from alienation between civil servants and civic activists. After the Revolution of Dignity, this gap began to close. For instance, Kyiv’s famous “Reanimation Package of Reforms” is a coalition of independent think tanks, research institutes, and non-governmental organizations that has been preparing critical new reform legislation for the Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Council), Ukraine’s unicameral national parliament.

Also, in 2014, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia signed EU Association Agreements of a new and, so far, unique type. The three bilateral mammoth pacts go far beyond older foreign cooperation treaties of the Union and include so-called Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas between the EU and the three countries. Since 2014, the Association Agreements have been gradually integrating the Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Georgian economies into the European economy.

These and other regulatory innovations have wider normative meaning and larger political potential. They provide reform templates, institutional models, and historical lessons for other current and future countries undergoing democratic transitions. Ukraine’s experiences can be useful for various nations shifting from a traditional to a liberal order, from patronal to plural politics, from a closed to an open society, from oligarchy to polyarchy, from centralized to decentralized rule, and from mere cooperation to deeper association with the EU.

While Ukraine’s post-revolutionary developments are, above all, relevant for transition countries, its war-related experiences and innovations are also of interest to other states—not least the members and allies of NATO. Such diffusion concerns both Ukrainian accumulated knowledge of hybrid threats and how to meet them, as well as Ukraine’s rapid technological and tactical modernization of its military and security forces fighting Russian forces on the battlefield and in the rear. Since 2014, Ukraine has become—far more so than any other country on earth—a target of Moscow’s multivariate attacks with irregular and regular forces in the media and cyber spaces, within domestic and international politics, as well as on its infrastructure, economy, and cultural, religious, educational, and academic institutions.

Since February 24, 2022, Ukraine has engaged in a dramatic fight for survival against a nominally far superior aggressor country. Ukraine’s government, army, and society had to adapt quickly, flexibly, and thoroughly to this existential challenge. This included the swift introduction of new types and applications of weaponry, such as a variety of unmanned flying, swimming, and driving vehicles, as well as their operation with the help of artificial intelligence. In a wide variety of military and dual-use technology, Ukraine had to innovate rapidly and effectively so as to withstand the lethal Russian assault.

In numerous further fields such as electricity generation and preservation, electronic communication, war-time transportation, information verification, emergency medicine, large-scale demining, post-traumatic psychotherapy, and veteran reintegration, to name but a few areas, the Ukrainian government and society have, and will have to react speedily and resolutely. While Ukraine often relies on foreign experience, equipment, and training, it is constantly developing its own novel kit, approaches, and mechanisms that could potentially be useful elsewhere. This new Ukrainian knowledge and experience will come in especially handy for countries that may be confronted with similar challenges in the near or distant future.

It All Depends on Kyiv

The escalation of the so-called “Ukraine Crisis” in 2022 has been only one expression of earlier and independently accumulating international tension. At the same time, the Russian-Ukrainian War is no trivial manifestation of these larger trends and no peripheral topic in world affairs. A Russian victory over Ukraine would have grave implications for the post-Soviet region and beyond. Conversely, a Ukrainian success in its defense against Russia’s genocidal assault and the achievement of a just peace will have stabilizing and innovating effects far beyond Eastern Europe.

Apart from being a revanchist war of a former imperial center against its one-time colony, Russia’s assault on Ukrainian democracy is driven by Russian domestic politics. It is a result of Russia’s re-autocratization since 1999, which, in turn, follows more significant regressive trends in the state of global democracy. Ukraine has been less of a trigger than a major victim of recent destructive international tendencies.

At the same time, Ukraine’s fight can make crucial contributions to counteracting the global spread of revanchism. It can reignite worldwide democratization and help speed along political transitions in other nations. A Ukrainian victory and recovery may save not only Ukraine but also its neighbors from Russian imperialism. Ukraine’s fight also contributes to solving numerous larger problems of the world today.

[darkmaga-returns]

Today’s New Year’s Eve and I’ll be taking a mental health day of sorts—they never seem to quite work out. At the same time, predictions for the New Year are traditional. Philip Pilkington offers some shrewd ones, and it looks like Trump will be trying to work his way through a minefield on multiple fronts. Nothing will be easy, would be my guess, and it’s certainly Pilkington’s.

First off, the ruling class that installed the most corrupt and mentally challenged POTUS in history isn’t about to make anything easy for Trump—the most hated (by the ruling class) POTUS in history. Am I exaggerating? I’m open to other suggestions, but it remains that the ruling class will try to sabotage Trump, are already doing so.

Philip Pilkington@philippilk Here we go, folks. Bitter old Joe Biden’s parting gift. The man doesn’t care about his own reputation any more than he cares about his country’s international reputation. He was likely the worst President in US history and his team are a bunch of vindictive failures.  Quote MarketWatch@MarketWatch 22h Natural-gas prices see biggest jump in more than 2 years, leading oil higher https://trib.al/wS08iXt

Philip Pilkington@philippilk What’s actually happening is that the outgoing Biden administration is trying to further collapse Europe and his “allies” in Europe go along with this. It’ll probably cause inflation for Americans too - but the Biden team never cared much for them either. Very destructive people. Quote Tracy Shuchart (𝒞𝒽𝒾 )@chigrl Dec 29 Ukraine-Russia Gas Transit Deal At Critical Moment of Truth (Bloomberg) The future of gas transit through Ukraine is at a turning point. If a last-minute deal isn’t struck by Wednesday, billions of cubic meters in gas flows could come to a halt. Ukraine is under mounting pressure from Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and a group of central European companies to keep gas moving from its eastern border with Russia into the European Union following the expiration of a transit agreement on Dec. 31. … 7:15 AM · Dec 30, 2024

Janet Yellen will be leaving a fiscal crisis in Trump’s lap, warning of, yep, the results of her support for the most insane fiscal policies in American history—like someone else was at Treasury.

[metamatar]

The concept of Jewish wedges that would bisect and prevent Palestinian spatial continuity and geographical integrity was not confined to Greater Jerusalem; it was applied to the West Bank in general and it was Yigal Alon who oversaw the implementation of this enterprise in the early years of the occupation. Alon’s first wedge was made up of scattered Jewish colonies that spread the length and breadth of the Jordan Valley, coupled with the annexation of additional parts of the eastern West Bank. This wedge was completed by 1971. It was executed in exactly the same way that Zionist colonization had operated in Palestine since the very beginning of the project. The first step was to colonize a distant point and then claim all the area between Israel and that new Jewish settlement as exclusively Jewish, as well as applying the same exclusionary rule to the roads leading to it. The new stretch of land had to be protected; this was achieved by the erection of military camps that were hurriedly built on yet more expropriated land.

The last such point in Alon’s wedge was Mitzpe Shalem on the Dead Sea. Built by the socialist kibbutzim movement, it began the production of Ahava Dead Sea cosmetics, which even today, when the European Union prohibits the buying of products from the Occupied Territories, are displayed in many fashionable shopping malls in the West. This wedge expanded to the north and the west, and by 1977 consisted of twenty-one colonies Judaizing the Jordan Valley of the West Bank. These colonies today remain at the heart of the Israeli consensus, and are never referred to by the Israeli media as ‘hitnachluyout’, namely colonies beyond the 1967 borders, as liberal Zionists would, for instance. In 1976 Yitzhak Rabin, then Prime Minister, declared on a visit to these colonies in the Jordan Valley, ‘these settlements will be here for a very long time. We do not build settlements to evacuate them.’ Almost two decades later, in a speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995, he stated: ‘Israel would always remain, with the fullest meaning of the verb in the Jordan Valley.’ Any space that could be carved out by aligning the initial isolated colonies with one another was to be included in the Jewish State in any prospective peace deal.

The Biggest Prison on Earth, Ilan Pappe

[conceptofjoy]

What alternative even exists to capitalism? It's def not communism [i'm Polish, so i may or may not be "biased" here], socialism? Anarchism? Is the alternative even invented yet?

society can exist without capitalism. it's a economic system that in turn effects how world wide governments run. perhaps i should say western i dunno, i've got very elementary knowledge on the subject.

an extremely brief explanation of what capitalism is, is when a worker doesn't own their output of labor, instead directly going into the pockets of someone in power over them. why is it that a business owner makes more money than their workers despite them never having to work? that's called passive income. with the capital (or material wealth) those people hold, they can only get richer if they make good investments else where. It's that gut churning feeling you get when you ring up someone's items and think oh, yeah I couldn't afford that even if I were standing here for three days straight.

the idea that capitalism breeds innovation is a myth, we can get shit done without most of a workers profits going to a ceo. that's why capitalists hate unions, people up top need workers, but the workers don't need them. democratic options can be applied to the workplace, but it's not like capital owners would let that happen.

because economics and government are tied, what ends up happening is that the government is the one that has to manage corporations, or like should, because exploitation has zero limits as long as they can generate output. but then we get to like corparate bribes and such, yippee.

i said worldwide earlier because capitalism didn't happen in a vacuum. it's a system that came from colonialism efforts to exploit third world countries and its people. using slaves for for labor to increase profits. america still has slaves in the way of prison labor and camp labor so those values are still very ingrained in society.

idk im not super up to world news but i think poland-belarus border is one that vehemently turns away (muslim) asylum seekers since poland is one of the most eastern european nations. basically a trump situation happening over there as well. america routinely fucks up south american and middle eastern countries and when refugees come to our respective borders, the fash gov steps in and dehumanizes the migrants in media. it's all just cycles man.

[ohsalome]

As a fact of history and problem of contemporary geopolitics, Russia’s nature as an imperial power is incontrovertible. After World War I, the Russian Empire avoided the permanent dismemberment that befell other multi-ethnic land empires, such as the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. The Soviet Union not only reconquered most of the non-Russian lands that had declared independence from Moscow in the wake of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution (including Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan)—but even expanded the empire in the course of World War II, annexing Moldova, the western part of Ukraine, and other lands. Nor did the Soviet Union participate in the decolonization era. Even as the French and British empires were being dissolved, the Soviet Union was expanding its colonial reach, tightening its grip deep into Eastern and Central Europe with bloody crackdowns and military actions.

[...]

During the Cold War, Western universities, research institutions, and policy think tanks opened numerous centers and programs for Soviet, Russian, and Eurasian studies in a bid to better understand the Soviet Union and its heritage. However, these efforts had a strategic flaw: Born in an era when Moscow’s control reached far beyond today’s Russian borders, these programs inevitably framed the region through a Moscow-centric lens. Today, even as they dropped “Soviet” from their name, most of these programs have inherited this old Moscow-centric framing, effectively conflating Russia with the Soviet Union and downplaying the rich histories, varied cultures, and unique national identities of Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, the Caucasus, and Central Asia—not to mention the many conquered and colonized non-Russian peoples inhabiting wide swathes of the Russian Federation.

[...]

In many cases, Western academic programs require students to study the Russian language—often including courses in Moscow or Saint Petersburg—before they have the option of studying any of the region’s other languages, if they are so inclined and if those languages are even offered. A similar problem affects cultural studies, including literature and art, where the many ways Russian works—including the classics read by countless high school and university students—transport Moscow’s imperial ideology are rarely addressed. This only perpetuates the habit of looking at the former Soviet-controlled and Russian-occupied space through the prism of the world’s last unreconstructed imperial culture. Unwittingly, today’s Russia studies in the West still replicate the worldview of an oppressor state that has never examined its history and is nowhere near having a debate about its imperial nature at all—not even among the Russian intellectuals or so-called liberals with whom Western students, academics, and analysts generally interact and cooperate.

Finally, Western academia also presents Russia itself as a monolith, with little or no attention paid to the country’s Indigenous peoples. By now, many who study Russian history are at least vaguely familiar with the Stalin-era genocide of the Crimean Tatars and their replacement on the peninsula by Russian settlers. But why not shed more light on the Russian conquest and subjugation of Siberia, one of the most gruesome episodes of European colonialism? Or Russia’s 19th-century mass murder of the Circassians, Europe’s first modern-era genocide? What have we learned about the short-lived Idel-Ural state, a confederation of six autonomous Finno-Ugric and Turkic republics crushed by the Bolsheviks in 1918? Why not highlight Tatarstan, which proclaimed its independence from Russia in 1990? Nascent efforts to give Russia’s Indigenous peoples a voice have gotten underway, including the Free Peoples of Russia Forum that last convened in Sweden in December 2022—but they have hardly registered in Western academia. Not only are Western scholars’ interests and relationships Russia-centric; within Russia, those relationships and contacts are Moscow-centric. It’s as if Russia’s highly diverse regions didn’t exist.

[tearsofrefugees]

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Rivers in Europe Burst Their Banks

A slow-moving storm triggered days of intense rainfall across central and eastern Europe in September 2024. The deluge submerged entire neighborhoods and forced tens of thousands to evacuate flooded towns and cities.

Between September 11 and 18, a low-pressure storm system battered parts of Austria, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic (Czechia) with torrential rainfall. The storm formed when a wave of cold Arctic air plunged into southern Europe and met with warm, moist air from the Mediterranean. The low-pressure system became cut off from the prevailing jet stream (known as a cut-off low), allowing it to linger in the region for several days.

Named Storm Boris by the UK Met Office, the system hit hardest in the Czech Republic and Austria, which in one week saw up to three times the amount of rainfall typical for the entire month of September, according to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. In eastern Austria, near Vienna, 215 millimeters (8.5 inches) of rain fell during that week. All of this rainfall, however, had consequences beyond the hardest-hit areas.

On September 18, water levels along the Oder River in southeastern Poland surpassed the highest alert category set by the country’s institute of meteorology. The river originates in the Oder Mountains in the Czech Republic and runs north through Poland to Germany. Water overtopped the banks of the river near Wrocław and flooded the surrounding farmland, visible in the image second image above , acquired on September 20, 2024. The top image shows the same region on September 4, before the storm. Both images were acquired by the OLI (Operational Land Imager) on Landsat 8 and are false color to emphasize the presence of water (dark blue).

The Danube River overtopped its banks in Slovakia, sending floodwaters into the capital, Bratislava. The false-color image below, acquired by the OLI-2 on Landsat 9, shows inundated areas along the Danube on September 21. According to news reports, the relentless rain forced dozens of people from their homes.

In Poland’s mountain town of Stronie Slaskie, near the border with the Czech Republic, a dam burst and caused deadly flooding. As of September 20, flooding across central and eastern Europe and into Italy has contributed to the displacement of over 25,000 people, according to the European Union.

NASA Earth Observatory images by Michala Garrison, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Story by Emily Cassidy.

[djuvlipen]

https://nordicmodelnow.org/2020/03/02/the-cost-of-western-europes-rampant-prostitution-the-genocide-of-romanian-women/?amp=1

Sorry for the triggering article. Not romani but ty for your bravery and support of women 💚

God, that was a good article, thank you for sharing, Anon. I recommend reading the whole thing but I want to highlight some specific parts:

For the last eight months or so, the entire country has been in turmoil and living a nightmare. I do not say ‘nightmare’ lightly. I wish it had just been a bad dream that we’d woken from. If only… But the reality is we can’t shake off the nightmarish situation that’s been stewing since about the time my country was accepted into the European Union and the borders were opened. While it was a fantastic opportunity for the development of the country, it was also the beginning of a horrifying new reality – rampant human trafficking. In an effort to provide for themselves and/or their families, people started to go abroad in search of work opportunities they couldn’t find at home. But it was also a huge opportunity for interlopers and human traffickers, because the opening of the borders made it easier for them to do what they had previously been doing with a lot more difficulty. Now their activity is widespread and unchecked. They have no qualms. They brazenly state that it’s a certified way of making a living. Given the legal status of prostitution in many EU countries, trafficking women and children has become in Romania a legitimate way of making a fortune for the ‘smarter’ people. They declare that dirty money is easier and faster to make with little to no effort on their part. That’s ‘smart’ to them. They announce this unapologetically, and with a superior smirk, on every medium, official and unofficial. For the ordinary, hardworking population, this is unbelievable, unbearable, terrifying.

This points at something I've been thinking about: the European Union is not our friend, it is explicitly anti-women. It doesn't simply tolerate the sex trade, it institutionalizes it to make profit out of it. It is antifeminist at its core and the first victims of it are women from impoverished Eastern European countries, with Romani (not simply Romanian) women being particularly vulnerable.

There are over 500 known trafficking rings in Romania, their areas of influence are well mapped and the leaders well known. They cover pretty much every inch of the country. Not a corner has been left unexploited by them. Prostitution is illegal in Romania, but it is flourishing anyway. As we all know, it produces enormous amounts of money for the ‘clans’ – as the interlopers call themselves with pride. But the biggest source of money is outside the country. In the beginning, they promised a job abroad in agriculture, in restaurants and as babysitters, and the women who fell prey found themselves in prostitution. When word got out and that tactic didn’t work anymore, they resorted to the ‘lover boy’ method. When that didn’t work so well, they started to steal children and young women from the street and even from their own homes. Thousands of other cases similar to Alexandra’s and Luiza’s have surfaced – including one where all six children – two boys and four girls – of a single mother were abducted by force, from their house. None of this – on this scale – would have been possible without the tacit agreement and practical protection of the authorities – police, the justice system, and politicians. The clans have grown so powerful that they even boast of having installed their own politicians, policemen, judges, and prosecutors. They continually escape justice. If some rogue policemen catch them and somehow manage to bring them to court, they use their money and influence to get off. The money that comes, as I said, not so much from the internal ‘market’, but from other European countries to which they traffic the children and women they get their hands on by any means. The most important destination are the countries where prostitution is legalized, like Germany and the Netherlands, but also the countries (including the UK) where laws against pimping and buying women in prostitution are not enforced. Romania has become the number one European source country of children and women in the brothels in Germany and Holland, and also Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece and the UK. Even though the total population of Romania is only about 19 million, there are thousands[*] of Romanian women and children forced into street prostitution in Italy alone – and that’s not counting those in strip clubs, brothels and ‘escort’ prostitution. It’s estimated that there are similar numbers in Spain, the UK, Germany, and Holland – and that’s not considering those in the Arab world and on other continents. Romania has haemorrhaged more than a million children (girls and boys) and women into the prostitution trade in these countries. In countries where prostitution is legal, like Germany, only a small percentage of the women involved are locals. German women do not take up this kind of ‘work’ en masse. (Should we wonder why it’s so off-putting?). But the demand is huge – so they outsource to countries like mine.

This part is also very important. I only wish she had mentioned that Romani women make up a large % of trafficked women from Romania; one of the reasons I started making posts about it is because many people don't think race is relevant when talking about the sex trade in Eastern Europe, because they think all of Eastern Europe is white. The vast majority of articles and studies therefore erasing the large % of trafficked Romani women by painting the general sex-trafficked victim as a white woman, which is not the case as race is relevant here.

And all this because of the participation of our men in power, men who served the parents of the two still missing girls who want their children back with the sentence (pun intended), “I’m hitting a wall.” Yes. That’s what the attorney general said to them when asked why they aren’t looking for the girls: “I can’t look for them because there’s a wall stopping me.” People started rallying for the girls. It is awful to see the two mothers in tears and on their knees in front of the Police Department building, begging the authorities to find their children and bring them home. So what is that wall? Might it be the needs of ‘punters’ in Germany? In Italy? All over Europe and elsewhere? The US military base located only five miles away from the town of Caracal? The need of the overpaid and oversexed American ‘heroes’ to have sex in their spare time lest they might die from abstinence? The needs of the ‘heroes’ (read ‘paedophiles’) in the other US military base about 200 miles away near the sea port of Constanta who built a special pavilion INSIDE the base camp where they go and have sex and where they demand to be brought younger and younger girls (children), new ones each time? (In the case of Alexandra Macesanu and Luiza Melencu, even the FBI got involved and ‘recommended’ putting a lid on the whole affair, and over 90 US soldiers were packed and shipped home a few days after the disappearances broke into the news.) Might all that be the WALL?

And that is very interesting too. Even in peace time, the military is harming and raping girls and women. The US military, none the less. That's imperialism right there. The most powerful country in the world establishing military bases in impoverished countries and harming the girls and women living there. Covered up by the State. Just confirms what we all know: the military is a rotten institution and all soldiers are a threat to women, and the US military is the most powerful one.

[kemetic-dreams]

Aro Confederacy

The Aro Confederacy (1690–1902) was a political union orchestrated by the Aro people, Igbo subgroup, centered in Arochukwu in present-day southeastern Nigeria. The Aro Confederacy kingdom was founded after the beginning of the Aro-Ibibio Wars. Their influence and presence was all over Eastern Nigeria, lower Middle Belt, and parts of present-day Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea during the 18th and 19th centuries. The Arochukwu Kingdom was an economic, political, and an oracular center as it was home of the Ibini Ukpabi oracle, High Priests, the Aro King Eze Aro, and central council (Okpankpo). The Aro Confederacy was a powerful and influential political and economic alliance of various Igbo-speaking communities in southeastern Nigeria. It emerged during the 17th century and played a significant role in the region until the late 19th century.

The exact origins of the Aro Confederacy are not precisely documented, but it is believed to have been established around the mid-17th century. The Aro people, who were part of the Igbo ethnic group, inhabited the region around present-day Arochukwu in Abia State, Nigeria. They were skilled traders and missionaries who played a pivotal role in connecting various Igbo communities. This migration and their military power, and wars with neighboring kingdoms like supported by their alliances with several related neighboring Igbo and eastern Cross River militarized states (particularly Ohafia, Edda, Abam, Abiriba, Afikpo, Ekoi, Bahumono, Amasiri etc.), quickly established the Aro Confederacy as a regional economic power. The Aro Confederacy's strength came from its well-organized network of Aro agents who were dispersed across different communities in the region. These agents acted as intermediaries in trade, diplomacy, and religious matters. They facilitated commerce, resolved disputes, and spread the worship of the Aro deity known as the "Long Juju" oracle."The Opening Up of Nigeria, the Expedition Against the Aros by Richard Caton Woodville II" 1901

The "Long Juju" oracle was the spiritual centerpiece of the Aro Confederacy. It was housed in Arochukwu and considered a potent source of political authority and religious guidance. The Aro people used the oracle to enforce their influence and control over surrounding communities. It also served as a means to administer justice and settle disputes, often attracting pilgrims seeking solutions to their problems.

The Aro Confederacy gained significant economic power through trade and commerce Their economy was primarily based on agriculture, with the cultivation of crops like palm oil, yams, and cassava. They were also involved in trade with neighboring communities and European merchants. They controlled trade routes that passed through their territories, collecting tolls and taxes from traders. The Aro also engaged in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade by capturing and selling slaves to European traders.

Aro activities on the coast helped the growth of city-states in the Niger Delta, and these city states became important centres for the export of palm oil and slaves. Such city-states included Opobo, Bonny, Nembe, Calabar, as well as other slave trading city-states controlled by the Ijaw, Efik, and Igbo. The Aros formed a strong trading network, colonies, and incorporated hundreds of communities that formed into powerful kingdoms. The Ajalli, Arondizuogu, Ndikelionwu, and Igbene Kingdoms were some of the most powerful Aro states in the Confederacy after Arochukwu. Some were founded and named after commanders and chiefs like Izuogu Mgbokpo and Iheme who led Aro/Abam forces to conquer Ikpa Ora and founded Arondizuogu. Later Aro commanders such as Okoro Idozuka (also of Arondizuogu) expanded the state's borders through warfare at the start of the 19th century. Aro migrations also played a large role in the expansion of Ozizza, Afikpo, Amasiri, Izombe, and many other city-states. For example, Aro soldiers founded at least three villages in Ozizza. The Aro Confederacy's power, however, derived mostly from its economic and religious position. With European colonists on their way at the end of the 19th century, things changed.Burning of Arochukwu 1901

During the 1890s, the Royal Niger Company of Britain bore friction with the Aros because of their economic dominance. The Aro resisted British penetration in the hinterland because their economic and religious influence was being threatened. The Aro and their allies launched offensives against British allies in Igboland and Ibibioland. After failed negotiations, the British attempted to conquer the Aro Confederacy in 1899. By 1901, the tensions were especially intensified when British prepared for the Aro Expedition. The invasion of Obegu (in Igboland) was the last major Aro offensive before the start of the Anglo-Aro War. In November 1901, the British launched the Aro Expedition and after strong Aro resistance, Arochukwu was captured on December 28, 1901. By early 1902, the war was over, and the Aro Confederacy collapsed. Contrary to the belief that the Ibini Ukpabi was destroyed, the shrine still exists, and is intact in Arochukwu and serves mainly as a tourist site.

[syn4k]

this entire thing started because @ravenlikesbooks pointed out that one part of florida is in central time and the rest is in eastern btw. things spiraled from there. Anyways things ive learned from looking at different timezone maps of the continents:

asia has the most half-hour timezones and one 3/4 hour timezone (nepal). also asias timezones in general are just like. A mess. It gives me a headache to look at. I love it SO FUCKING MUCH

oceania has several half hour timezones and two 3/4 hour timezones, the most per continent, one in Eucla, Australia SPECIFICALLY for some reason and the other being the Chatham Islands in NZ

there are a total of two half hour timezones in north america, one in canada and the other being greenland! also a lot of full hour timezones in the usa go across state borders. most of indiana is in eastern time but there are two portions in the northwest and southwest corners of the state that are in central. theres a few cases of this. its so strange. i love it.

venezuela is the only country in south america to have a half hour timezone. the rest are in full hour increments. like ok girl go off (?)

the european union obviously has its shit together, because europe is the only continent that has both no half hour timezones and no timezones that cross country borders. i have some questions about why portugal is considered to be in the western european timezone when spain isn't and is grouped in with central european countries such as france and germany, but its not really too big a deal so im willing to let it slide

africa comes in second place for most neatly organized continent in terms of time zones. it would have a perfect timezone score tied with Europe if it werent for the fact that the DRC is split between two, but its whatever.

antartica is also a mess but its antartica so thats to be expected

in summary, here are the seven world continents ranked by order of least to most complicated timezones

Europe

Africa

South America

North America

Oceania

Antartica

Asia

[mariacallous]

In the early hours of Sunday, Sept. 8, a Russian drone flew into Romanian airspace during a nighttime attack on Ukraine’s Danube River ports. Romania scrambled two F-16s to monitor the situation, according to the Romanian Defense Ministry. A day earlier, an Iranian-type Shahed drone armed with explosives flew from Belarus into Latvia—which is neither close to Ukraine nor on a direct flight path—and crashed near the Latvian city of Rezekne, about 35 miles from the closest section of the Belarusian border. Throughout the war, by accident or design, Russian missiles and attack drones have repeatedly infringed the airspace of Romania, Latvia, Poland, and other NATO members —and hit the alliance’s territory.

In late August, Kyiv asked European Union and NATO ministers to start shooting down Russian missiles and drones heading toward NATO over Ukraine. At first glance, this might seem like a request for NATO to step into the firing line and become a party to the war. For the Biden administration and some allied governments, becoming a direct participant in the war against Russia has been the darkest of red lines from the moment that Western intelligence services noticed Moscow’s preparations for invading Ukraine.

Establishing an air defense shield to protect NATO’s own eastern flank, however, does not translate to NATO’s entry into the war. The escalatory risk of NATO protecting its own territory can be controlled—even while a shield to head off Russian missiles and drones would have the secondary effect of providing parts of western Ukraine with much-needed air cover. Ultimately, a firm decision by NATO to act against repeated breaches of its airspace is likely to be de-escalatory. That’s because the real risk lies in letting Russia continue to test Western decision-making—and for the Kremlin to believe that it will meet no resistance when it escalates.

Ground-based air defense from various NATO member states—including Britain, France, the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and other willing allies—could be deployed on the territory of Poland, Slovakia, and Romania at strategic locations along their borders with Ukraine. Allied aircraft operating in NATO airspace could also be used. The bloc would operate the shield entirely from allied territory and airspace, no weapons or troops would be placed inside Ukraine, and NATO aircraft would not enter Ukrainian airspace. The primary purpose of the air defense shield would be to prevent Russian attack drones and missiles from entering NATO airspace and hitting objects on the alliance’s territory.

Such an operation could be carried out on a bilateral basis or by a coalition of the willing. And it would not be a NATO-wide operation, given that Hungary would likely block any action by the alliance.

There have been regular instances of Russia breaching NATO airspace since the start of the invasion. Some of these incursions may well be accidental. In the first weeks of the invasion, a drone carrying explosives flew unhindered through Romanian and Hungarian airspace until it crashed next to a student dormitory in the outskirts of the Croatian capital Zagreb. In November 2022, a S-300 air-defense missile, possibly fired from Ukraine at a Russian target, went astray and killed two farmers in Poland.

But other instances do not seem so accidental. In March, a Russian missile—whose target and flight path were preprogrammed—spent 39 seconds traveling through Polish airspace before reentering Ukraine. Especially in light of deliberate Russian incursions in the Baltic Sea region and elsewhere, some of these incidents seem to be part of a systematic attempt by Russia to test NATO’s resolve and decision-making process.

This probing is dangerous and comes with a high risk of escalation. Not only could it lead to a Russian drone or missile hitting NATO territory and potentially killing civilians, but NATO would also then have to decide whether to respond to such an attack—including whether to invoke Article 5, the collective defense clause that requires the alliance to defend its members. The more that Russia probes without any NATO response, the greater the risk of an incident that would trigger Article 5.

An air defense shield to protect NATO would be a clear response to that Russian probing, with the welcome secondary effect of helping Ukraine. It would signal a more serious posture by Ukraine’s supporters and show that they are willing to regain the strategic initiative rather than merely reacting to events and drawing no red lines for Russia.

For Ukraine, the shield could help provide a degree of security along a corridor running along its western border, where drones and missiles would be engaged by the shield lest they cross into NATO territory. The depth of this corridor would depend on the types and number of air defense assets deployed. It would reduce or eliminate attacks on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure close to the border, such as the Danube ports and various electricity substations, transmission lines, and gas storage facilities.

It would also mean greater security for Ukrainian businesses and factories operating within the corridor, as well as a degree of humanitarian protection for civilians and civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals. Parts of Moldova, which is not in NATO, would fall within the corridor as well. The shield would not provide perfect protection everywhere, but it would certainly contribute more than what exists today.

A NATO air defense shield along the alliance’s eastern flank would also enable Ukraine to move some of its air defense systems from its western border closer to the front and the cities in the east, such as Dnipro and Poltava. This would strengthen Ukrainian air defense without additional systems leaving the armories of its Western allies.

The main objection to the air defense shield has been that it would prove to be escalatory by drawing NATO into direct confrontation with Russia. By shooting down Russian drones and missiles flying over Ukraine, the argument goes, NATO would become a party to the conflict and invite military retaliation by Russia, setting off a cataclysmic Russia-NATO war.

The opposite, however, is more likely to be true.

First, enforcing an air defense shield would not mean shooting down Russian fighter jets and killing Russian pilots. Russia does not fly crewed aircraft in western Ukraine precisely because of the high risk of Ukrainians shooting them down. Hence, the shield would only target uncrewed drones and missiles. For all its huffing and puffing, Moscow would be hard-pressed to make a credible case for retaliation against a country exercising its right of self-defense to shoot down a missile entering its airspace or heading in its direction.

Indeed, one could make a compelling case that NATO border states have an obligation to protect their citizens. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has stated that his and other countries have a duty to intercept Russian missiles before they enter NATO territory.

Second, an air defense shield would aim to prevent Russian missiles and drones from striking inside the territory of a NATO ally, which could trigger the Article 5 mutual defense clause. In this sense, the shield would actually be de-escalatory in averting a possible Article 5-level crisis that could quickly spiral out of control. Russia’s ability to routinely breach NATO airspace without a reaction weakens the bloc’s deterrence and raises the likelihood that Russia will probe and provoke further.

Ukraine’s partners, most notably the United States and Germany, have imposed strict caveats on Ukraine’s use of Western weapons—even including those delivered by Britain or other Western partners—and shown considerable restraint in their support for Ukraine. In their view, this cautious approach prevents escalation. But the effect has been the opposite: Not standing firm and pushing back has been an invitation for Russia to prod, provoke, and raise the stakes. Paradoxically, restraint comes with a high risk of escalation.

In showing that it will continue to push against the West if unobstructed, the Kremlin is staying true to Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin’s famous strategic adage: “You probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.” An air defense shield on NATO’s eastern border could provide that steel.

Would Russia retaliate against a NATO ally for intercepting a drone or missile that might strike its territory? This is highly unlikely. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly shown that he takes Article 5 seriously, and a retaliatory strike against a NATO ally could draw in the entire alliance. He will not risk wider hostilities with NATO that he knows Russia would lose.

Putin would no doubt threaten retaliation and escalation, just as he did to try to stop the West from delivering tanks, missiles, and fighter jets to Ukraine. In each case, when allies finally provided the weapons, Putin’s threats proved hollow. Strangely, Western leaders still seem not to recognize how Putin uses threats to influence Western decision-making into the direction of restraint, self-deterrence, and an overabundance of caution.

Just like in Lenin’s adage, Russia often retreats when met with force. Take the case of the Russian Black Sea Fleet: After Ukraine managed to destroy one-third of the fleet, including its flagship, the battlecruiser Moskva, Russia responded by pulling back the surviving fleet from Crimea to get out of range, rather than step up its attacks. When faced with the choice between retaliation and retreat, Russia chose retreat. Similarly, following Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk—the first foreign occupation of Russia since World War II—Putin chose to play down the incursion’s importance rather than escalate.

When the history books are written about this war, a key lesson will likely be that the seemingly prudent but overly cautious approach by the West was a signal to Russia to start and expand its war. Much of what appeared de-escalatory on the part of the West was in fact escalatory, leading to a more brutal and longer war. And much of what appeared escalatory—such as Ukraine’s attacks on the Russian Black Sea Fleet, including with Western-provided missiles—was in fact de-escalatory.

Until decision-makers in Washington and Berlin understand this, Moscow will be pushing and probing where it can to test NATO’s resolve.

Throughout this war, the West has imposed red lines on itself. Putin has repeatedly threatened escalation and retaliation, but when tested, those threats and red lines have proved illusory. Providing an air defense shield operating from NATO territory would strengthen the alliance’s deterrence, help Ukraine, and lower the risk of escalation. It is time for Western allies to retake the strategic initiative and call Putin’s bluff.

[beardedmrbean]

SOLINGEN, Germany (AP) — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz vowed to toughen knife laws and step up deportations of rejected asylum-seekers Monday as he visited the scene of the knife attack in which a suspected Islamic extremist from Syria is accused of killing three people.

Scholz, speaking after he joined regional officials in laying a white rose at a makeshift memorial in the western city of Solingen, said he was “furious and angry” about the attack, in which eight people also were wounded.

The suspect turned himself in to police on Saturday evening, a day after the attack at a festival marking the city's 650th anniversary. Federal prosecutors said Sunday that he shared the radical ideology of the Islamic State group, which he joined at a point that remains unclear, and was acting on those beliefs when he stabbed his victims repeatedly from behind in the neck and upper body.

The 26-year-old had had his asylum application rejected and was supposed to be deported last year to Bulgaria, where he first entered the European Union, but that failed because he disappeared for a time, according to German media reports.

That has revived criticism of the government on migration and deportation, an issue on which it has long been vulnerable. It has taken steps to defuse the issue, for example with legislation intended to ease deportations of unsuccessful asylum-seekers that was approved by lawmakers in January. It also has launched legislation to ease the deportation of foreigners who publicly approve of terrorist acts.

“We must do everything to ensure that such things never happen in our country, if possible,” Scholz said of the attack. He said that would include toughening knife laws in particular “and this should and will happen very quickly.”

Interior Minister Nancy Faeser earlier this month proposed allowing only knives with a blade measuring up to 6 centimeters (nearly 2.4 inches) to be carried in public, rather than the length of 12 centimeters (4.7 inches) that is allowed now.

“We will have to do everything so that those who aren't allowed to stay in Germany are sent back and deported,” he said, adding that “we have massively expanded the possibilities to carry out such deportations."

Scholz said there had been a 30% increase in deportations this year already, but “we will look very closely at how we can contribute to raising these figures even further.” He said measures including border checks on Germany's eastern frontiers have reduced the number of migrants arriving “irregularly,” but there's room for improvement there too.

Following a knife attack by an Afghan immigrant in Mannheim at the end of May that left one police officer dead and four more people injured, Scholz vowed that Germany will start deporting criminals from Afghanistan and Syria again.

Germany does not currently carry out deportations to those countries. The government has no diplomatic relations with the Taliban in Kabul, and so far considers the security situation in Syria too fragile to allow deportations there. But Scholz said in June that his government was working on solutions to enable the deportation of convicted Afghans to Afghanistan’s neighboring countries, and there has been discussion in Germany about allowing deportations to Syria.

Critics say there has been little movement since. Interior Ministry spokesperson Sonja Kock said Monday the government is still working “intensively” on that.

Scholz spoke alongside Hendrik Wüst, the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia state and a member of Germany's mainstream conservative opposition, which has long criticized the government on migration. He said was “thankful” that more action had been announced but “announcements alone won't be enough.”

“Action must follow,” Wüst said.

Opposition leader Friedrich Merz, the leader of Wüst's Christian Democratic Union, complained on ARD television Sunday evening that “we have been discussing the consequences of Mannheim for three months ... it's enough. We must now do something together.”

“We have people in Germany we don't want to have here, and we must ensure that we don't have even more coming,” Merz said, arguing that such migrants should be turned back at the country's borders.

The Solingen attack came ahead of state elections this weekend in two eastern regions, Saxony and Thuringia, in which the far-right Alternative for Germany party is very strong and the parties in Scholz's three-party coalition already looked set for dismal results.