#g7 summit 2024 news

[3nn-express]

G7 Summit 2024 Live Updates.

The G7 Summit 2024 takes place in Italy’s Apulia region. It shines a light on Italy’s rich culture and history. It’s also a key spot for talking about how the world is run and handling global money issues.

[attheexactlyrighttimeandplace]

It has been more than 24 hours since the last massacre of Palestinian civilians organized by the Americans and jewish zionists in Gaza, and Algeria has still not officially reacted to the crimes committed.

No declarations from the usual communication channels which are our Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Algerian Press Agency which exclusively represents the voice of our President since last April (he "appropriated" it by decree because the war approaches our borders).

I wonder if this silence is a turning point. The final nail in the coffin on what has been a very turbulent journey to try to change our relationship with the United States.

The journey began with the war in Ukraine in 2022: like all Arab countries, we really angered the United States by refusing to side with the EU against Russia. And we reached the point of open conflict with the United States (they sent their deputy secretary of state in March 2022) when we terminated our energy contract with Spain (we are their main supplier of gas) after the Spanish Prime Minister began supporting Morocco's claims on Western Sahara's land.

But Algeria surprisingly backed down on many points and began to rapidly improve its relations with the United States - Blinken, the US Secretary of State came to Algeria several times, our Foreign Ministry was invited to Washington - to the point that our country, which has been a faithful ally of Russia for 60 years seemed on the verge of joining NATO last April (I think Algeria might become a Major Non Nato Ally but is hidding its true intention for various reasons linked to the international context in North Africa, more precisely in the Sahel where 3 countries have expelled, under the influence of Russia, the American and French military bases from their lands and are openly eyeing the Algerian borders to destabilize us, in addition to the conflict with Morocco).

A few decades ago, the genocide of the Palestinians would have stopped these efforts very quickly, probably leading to a further breakdown in diplomatic relations with the United States.

Not this time: Algeria was still signing massive contracts in fossil fuels and unconventional energy (shale gas) with major American companies like Exxon Mobile and Chevron (although at a slower pace than expected) in May 2024, and our president was invited to the G7 summit which will take place next week in Italy, an invitation designed as a reward for Algeria's support for Europe's energy security and for its fight against illegal immigration which largely benefits Europeans.

This is why the decision of the Algerian mission to the UN to oppose the very important vote scheduled for Friday, June 7 to transform Biden's plan for Gaza into a resolution at the UN Security Council, was the most stupid move ever taken.

Blinken, the US Secretary of State, made a very special call to our Department of Foreign Affairs to obtain our consent to the plan proposed by Biden. This call was heavily promoted as a turning point by the entire US diplomatic network on all social media platforms, including on X: from the US Embassy in Algiers to the US State Department account, and their X account in Arabic for the MENA region.

Algeria obviously adhered to this plan, there is no other way to explain our pure and simple abandonment of the resolution we wrote to implement the latest decision of the ICJ which ordered the end of all operations in Rafah.

It is therefore easy to measure the extent to which Algeria has been incoherent, senseless and dangerous for itself and for Palestine in this context where the United States show no mercy, approve of genocide and have repeatedly rejected our demands during the previous negotiations in the UN Security Council to save more lives - when through the voice of our ambassador to the UN, Algeria gave the feeling of thinking that it could once again stop the vote, and try to negotiate new demands regarding Palestinian prisoners.

This is not surprising when you consider who our ambassador to the UN is: an overly old diplomat who has been unable to include the American point of view in his analysis. His conviction of being right against the rest of the world, his romantic views on resistance and his desire to play the savior of Palestine lead him to demonstrate a lack of humility and a lack of relevance in his analysis (like in his speech on terrorism at the UN where he asked for compassion for terrorists as if we hadn't lost 100,000 people in a civil war because of terrorism (!).

However, I do not believe that it was supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or by our President. We have experienced a lot of management problems in the last 15 days at the highest level of the state, due to keeping the wrong people in important positions for the wrong reasons, to the point that it has had disastrous consequences, with deadly human consequences. Last week, some civil servants were fired and others were forcibly transferred, but explaining that doesn't cover the extent of the problem.

But back to the UN, after a revised version of Biden's plan was presented, we were given a 48-hour period of silence to object. In the end, the vote was to take place on Friday June 7, 2024, but due to Algeria's intervention in the Security Council, it was postponed until next Monday. There is no doubt that Algeria is responsible for the breakdown of consensus on the plan, because China seems to have forgotten the issue and only reacted and opposed it after us, and Russia only followed China!

The next day, the massacre took place in the Nuseirat camp: the latest reports say that there were 274 deads, 814 injured.

I really wonder, given the timing, how it would be possible that Algeria's decision, which comes after a long period of tense disagreements with the United States in the UN Security Council, not only on Palestine but also Africa and the Arab world, might not have triggered the so-called rescue? The United States had known for weeks where the hostages were because English planes had been flying over the area to gather information for weeks as well, so the plan was set and ready to be executed in case it was needed.

Which to me is the decisive proof that this was an American operation from conception to execution, Netanyahu would not have waited a second to take the opportunity to increase his popularity, and could never have carried it out without American support (his genocidal zionist soldiers only know to drop bombs on civilians). On the same day of the Nuseirat massacre, Gantz, a member of Netanyahu's war cabinet and government, was expected to resign. A few weeks ago, at the request of the United States, he issued an ultimatum to Netanyahu to find a solution for Rafah, or to accept his (Gantz) resignation which would have led to new elections that Netanyahu was certain to lose. Yesterday, not knowing what to do after the rescue, Gantz asked the United States what they wanted and the United States' response was that they do not interfere with Israel's internal politics! Algeria probably also ruined this plan indirectly.

My impression is that the United States did not betray Algeria: it did not intend to carry out its rescue mission because it was more concerned about the potential support Algeria could provide in the war against Russia (the Algerian army has been training with live ammunition for weeks, and my theory is that a large Algerian contingent is going to be sent to Ukraine), than they cared about the zionist settlers and zionist soldiers being held hostage by Hamas.

But Algeria's inability to keep its word after Biden's plan was officially accepted by our officials made us truly unreliable, even to be sent to Russia, and even though Algeria is the best card the West has, given the Ukraine's lack of soldiers (Algeria has been Russia's main customer for all types of military contracts for decades and is very familiar with Russian aircraft and equipment, and has conducted joint military exercises with Russia even deep within Russian territory).

If our president decides to save Algeria's commitments to the West: he should really fire our ambassador to the UN, and completely review and change our internal process of opposition to resolutions at the UN (we have a status of non-permanent membership until the end of 2025, which the United States helped us gain).

If he doesn't save it, and doesn't go to the G7 summit, I don't know how we will survive future wars to come: Morocco has expansionist views, and its military capacity is currently being improved by the genocidal Israeli. who are building a drone factory on our borders and launching two satellites for Morocco; Russia, which threw us under the bus because we refused to help Putin in his plan to destroy the EU's energy security, entered Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Libya militarily, made them its vassals and now claims a percentage of our oil and gas resources!

I don't know what the future holds for us….

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

The DM's Excerpts - Charles III: New King, New Court

Robert Hardman (who also wrote Queen of Our Times, published 2022) has written a new book about the British Royal Family. The Daily Mail is serializing parts of the book over four days, from 12 - 15 January 2024. Here are the links. If anyone has any others, feel free to share them in the comments.

If you don't want to give the DM clicks, I've included highlights below. (My browser doesn't recognize archive.vn or archive.ph as a valid domain so I can't create or access those links.)

TL;DR--

The day the Queen died, 12 Jan 2024

Secret summits over making Charles regent in Queen's last years, 13 Jan 2024

How the royals have dealt with a torrent of allegations from Harry and Meghan, 14 Jan 2024

Harmdan's intimate portrait of a woman who dances at Abba concerts, jabs the King with her handbag and 'knows when to wink at a bishop,' 15 Jan 2024

Excerpt #1, 12 Jan 2024

Highlights:

The last time most of her staff saw The Queen was at the pre-dinner cocktails the evening of September 6th. She was happy, chatty, and in a good mood. (September 6th was the Boris Johnson-Liz Truss transition.)

It was sheer luck that Anne and Peter were at Balmoral during this time. Anne was passing through for work, Peter was preparing for a shooting party he was going to host over the weekend (which ended up cancelled). Also Sarah Chatto was nearby.

On September 7th, The Queen planned to attend the Privy Council meeting as it involved new Cabinet officials being installed. She eventually cancelled on medical advice. This was the first signal to many that she wasn't doing well.

Charles and Camilla were on the western side of Scotland for a series of engagements September 7 - September 8. The morning of September 8, Anne called Charles to come to Balmoral at once. On the helicopter to Balmoral, everyone was reviewing the Operation London Bridge papers. They arrived at Birkhall around 10:30am and traveled to Balmoral in a borrowed car.

William was called around breakfast time and informed of the situation, including that was on his way to Balmoral. Charles himself called William (and Andrew, Edward, and Harry) that they should also come. After Charles's calls, Kensington Palace began coordinating with Royal Lodge (Andrew's office*) and Bagshot Park (Edward's office*) on travel to Scotland. William and KP did not reach out to the Sussexes because betrayal, and they felt the responsibility should have been on the Sussexes to make contact. (*Not really their offices, but it's the easiest way to keep them separate so you know who I'm talking about.)

Everyone was disturbed by Harry's inclusion of these events, especially the "Meghan's not coming/she's my wife/Kate's not coming either/that's all you had to say" bit, in his memoir. Harry's recollection of how he was notified of The Queen's death isn't true - he claims no one was talking to him but actually Charles and the palace had been trying to reach him repeatedly. The calls weren't going through because he was in the air. (Interesting that he'd check the BBC first as opposed to calling back after seeing a dozen of missed calls...or not springing for the wifi package...)

Liz Truss, the new PM, was in a G7 conference call on September 8th when she was notified of the situation in Scotland. She bowed out of the call early and quickly. The G7 leaders knew what was happening.

Charles was rather close to Balmoral when he received the call that The Queen had passed. William, Andrew, Edward, and Sophie were on the way to Balmoral from the Aberdeen airport. Charles called them himself to let them know.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was in France on a personal holiday. He and his wife began preparing to return home after seeing the palace's first statement about The Queen's health. They drove home overnight so Welby could make an address in the morning.

Excerpt #2, 13 Jan 2024

Highlights:

The Queen had been quite ill in her final year. She knew and was aware her time was ending that summer.

A regency would have been created had she lived as long as The Queen Mother because everyone was fearful of a health condition flaring up in public.

Planning for Charles's accession and coronation began in 2015. Sir Alderton, his private secretary, created a "training video" of the accession/transition then that Charles, Camilla, and William watched in the evening of September 8th during their private dinner at Birkhall, while Princess Anne hosted the rest of the family at Balmoral. If Harry wasn't such a dick (my word, not Hardman's), he'd have been part of the Birkhall dinner but he wasn't and there were very serious concerns he would write about it in Spare.

The announcement of The Queen's death was delayed because family members hadn't been informed yet. (I think it was Harry they were waiting on, per the events in the first article.)

The royals were very touched by the outpouring of public affection for The Queen, themselves, and their family. Camilla was struck by how supportive the crowd was of her. Anne was touched by the tractors, horses, and the crowds that lined the roads in Scotland. It was a six hour drive, and she and Tim had had snacks in their car but they both felt it would have been rude to everyone that came to see the procession and pay their respects to be seen eating.

Camilla sobbed through Charles's first speech.

The Privy Council were concerned that the political upheaval in the government would cause problems for the accession, transition, and royal mourning.

It was William's idea for him, Kate, and the Sussexes to do the Windsor walkabout together. He organized it in two hours. No one found it easy or enjoyable.

Excerpt #3, 14 Jan 2024

Highlights:

The Queen felt she had to say 'yes' when Harry contacted her about naming his daughter Lilibet and she was very angry with him for it. (Reading between the lines, it sounds like the decision was presented by the Sussexes as "fait accompli" and The Queen took offense.)

The Sussexes tried to force the palace to go along with their version (that they had asked The Queen for permission) but the palace refused to play. They also tried to intimidate the press with legal action if anyone didn't report "their" version of events, even going so far as threatening the BBC with a lawsuit.

Everyone at the palace rolled their eyes about the Sussexes getting the RFK "Ripple of Hope Award." They felt that the "legacy" the Sussexes were being rewarded for was laughable, especially when compared to Charles's work.

The Caribbean gets its news through the US media. (I believe this confirms the theory that Sussex PR influenced the Caribbean's coverage of the Royal Family)

William saw Harry's comments in the Netflix documentary that they're expected to marry someone who fits the mold as an attack on Kate and he's been furious since. He feels betrayed by Harry having discussed their relationship so freely, thinks it's an intrusion of privacy.

Neither William nor Kate have read Spare but they are aware of what's being said and their staffs have briefed them.

Harry's version of events when The Queen Mother died is totally made up. (In Spare, Harry says he was alone, it was springtime just before Easter, and he took the call himself, but actually he was in Switzerland skiing with Charles and William and all three were told together by an aide.)

It's very suspicious that Spare largely skips May 2018 - March 2020. The palace thinks it'll be covered in the second version or Meghan's memoir.

The door is open for Harry and Meghan to return but they'll have to make the first steps since Charles has given up.

Anne's seat the coronation in front of Harry was a last-minute change so she could leave more quickly after the service in the procssion. She was concerned about keeping her hat on since it was "decent-sized" but she was told to keep it on.

Excerpt #4, 15 Jan 2024 - TBD

Highlights

It's been a difficult transition to Queen for Camilla, but everyone believes she handled it well. Her family finds it surreal.

Camilla doesn't mind being second fiddle to Charles.

She still has her Wiltshire home, Ray Mill, which she bought after divorcing Andrew PB. She still visits and stays there to this day.

Everyone walks a bit on eggshells around Charles because he's a bit temperamental, but Camilla steadies him.

Camilla likes her rooms hot. Charles like his rooms cold and windows open.

Charles skips lunch. Camilla does not.

Camilla keeps Charles running on time when he gets chatty.

Camilla is hands-on with her charities and patronage.

I find her sister is overstaying her welcome. After her starring role in the coronation documentary and now her interviews with Hardman for the book, it's too much and feels like she's trying too hard.

Other stories by Hardman from his book:

Foreign Office officials 'ditched buses for dignitaries' at coronation after backlash at the Queen's funeral, 13 Jan 2024

Brigadier who helped carry Queen's coffin was at a wedding in Corfu, 13 Jan 2024

Queen's funeral rehearsal was a comedy of errors as even the band went AWOL, 13 Jan 2024

Prince Andrew could be 'far more damaging outside the loop,' 14 Jan 2024

The DM's other royal reporters - Martin Robinson, Rebecca English, Natasha Livingstone - are publishing "recaps" of Hardman's excerpts. Some of Rebecca English's stories are augmented by her own sources. Here are a few:

Insiders revewal how the Queen was so upset by Harry and Meghan's Lilibet decision that she told aides 'the only thing I own is my name. And now they've taken that': The royal row taht troubled Her Majesty in twilight of her reign, 15 Jan 2024

'For William, this was the lwoest of the low,' 15 Jan 2024

Camilla was given the affection nickname 'Lorraine' before seh became Queen, 14 Jan 2024

Harry and Meghan likely caused Queen 'distress' in her final years over naming of baby Lilibet, 15 Jan 2024

The Queen's final years were overshadowed by Harry and Meghan's hunger for publicity, 15 Jan 2024

Also, these are reminding me of some things Harry and Meghan (Harry mostly) have claimed and Hardman's articles are debunking them. I need to do a bit of research to check if the dates on what I'm remembering line up with the timeline Hardman is presenting. I'll do a separate post on that since this is already quite long.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 17, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 18, 2024

Leaders from the Group of Seven (G7) met for their fiftieth summit in Italy from June 13 to June 15. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the G7 in 1975 as a forum for democracies with advanced economies to talk about political and economic issues. The European Union is also part of the forum, and this June, Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky also attended.

This summit was a particularly fraught one. When it took office, the Biden-Harris administration, along with the State Department under Secretary of State Antony Blinken, set out to reshape global power structures not only in light of Trump’s attempt to abandon international alliances and replace them with transactional deals, but also in light of a larger change in international affairs. 

In a speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in September 2023, Blinken explained that the end of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union had promised a new era of peace and stability, with more international cooperation and political freedom. But while that period did, in fact, lift more than a billion people out of poverty, eradicate deadly diseases, and create historic lows in conflicts between state actors, it also gave rise to authoritarians determined to overthrow the international rules-based order. 

At the same time, non-state actors—international corporations; non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, that provide services to hundreds of millions of people across the globe; terrorists who can inflict catastrophic harm; and transnational criminal organizations that traffic illegal drugs, weapons, and human beings—have growing influence.

Forging international cooperation has become more and more complex, Blinken explained, at the same time that global problems are growing: the climate crisis, food insecurity, mass migration and mass displacement of populations, as well as the potential for new pandemics. In the midst of all this pressure, “many countries are hedging their bets.” 

They have lost faith in the international economic order, as a handful of governments have distorted the markets to gain unfair advantage while technology and globalization have hollowed out communities and inequality has skyrocketed. “Between 1980 and 2020,” Blinken noted, “the richest .1 percent accumulated the same wealth as the poorest 50 percent.” Those who feel the system is unfair are exacerbating the other drivers of political polarization. 

These developments have undermined the post–Cold War political order, Blinken said. “One era is ending, a new one is beginning, and the decisions that we make now will shape the future for decades to come.”

In his inaugural address on January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden vowed to “repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.” Saying that “America’s alliances are our greatest asset” just weeks later at the State Department, the president and officers in the administration set out to rebuild alliances that had fallen into disrepair under Trump. They reinforced the international bodies that upheld a rules-based international order, bodies like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) organized in 1947 to stand against Soviet aggression and now a bulwark against Russian aggression. They began the process of rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and the World Health Organization, both of which Trump had abandoned. 

Officials also worked to make international bodies more representative by, for example, welcoming into partnerships the African Union and Indonesia. They also broadened cooperation, as Blinken said, to “work with any country—including those with whom we disagree on important issues—so long as they want to deliver for their citizens, contribute to solving shared challenges, and uphold the international norms that we built together.”

At home, they worked to erase the “bright line” between foreign and domestic policy, investing in policies to bring jobs back to the U.S. both to restore the economic fairness they identified as important to democracy and to stabilize the supply chains that the pandemic had revealed to be a big national security threat. 

On April 28, 2021, in his first address to a joint session of Congress,  President Biden said he had told world leaders that “America is back.” But they responded: “[F]or how long?”  

That question was the backdrop to the G7 summit. Trump has said he will abandon international alliances, including NATO, in favor of a transactional foreign policy. He supports Russian president Vladimir Putin’s attempt to replace the rules-based international order with the idea that might makes right and that any strong country can grab the land of weaker states. 

Earlier this month, Biden used the occasion of the commemoration ceremonies around the 80th anniversary of D-Day to reinforce the international rules-based order and U.S. leadership in that system. On June 4, before Biden left for France, Massimo Calabresi published an interview with Biden in Time magazine in which Calabresi noted that the past 40 months have tested Biden’s vision. Russia reinvaded Ukraine in February 2022, and Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. Putin is trying to create “an axis of autocrats,” as Calabresi puts it, including the leaders of China and Iran, the state that is backing the non-state actors Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis of Yemen, and Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to destabilize Israel and the Arab states. China is threatening Taiwan. 

Calabresi pointed out that Biden has responded to these threats by shoring up NATO and welcoming to it Finland and Sweden, with their powerful militaries. His support has enabled Ukraine to decimate the Russian military, which has lost at least 87% of the 360,000 troops it had when it attacked Ukraine in February 2022, thus dramatically weakening a nation seen as a key foe in 2021. He has kept the war in Gaza from spreading into a regional conflict and has forced Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, although the Palestinian death toll has continued to mount as Netanyahu has backed devastating attacks on Gaza. Biden’s comprehensive deal in the Middle East—an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages held by Hamas, a big increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza, and an enduring end to the crisis with the security of both Israelis and Palestinians assured—has yet to materialize.

In Italy the leaders at the G7 summit stood firm behind Biden’s articulated vision, saying that the G7 “is grounded in a shared commitment to respect the U.N. Charter, promote international peace and security, and uphold the free and open rules-based international order.” On hot-button issues, the G7 backed Biden’s Middle East deal and support for Ukraine, agreeing to transfer $50 billion to Ukraine from the interest earned on Russian assets frozen in the European Union and elsewhere. 

The Biden administration announced additional economic sanctions to isolate Russia even more from the international financial system. At the summit, on June 13, 2024, Presidents Biden and Zelensky signed a ten-year bilateral security agreement that commits the U.S. to supporting Ukraine with a wide range of military assistance but, unlike the NATO membership Ukraine wants, does not require that the U.S. send troops. The agreement is legally binding, but it is not a treaty ratified by the Senate. If he is reelected, Trump could end the agreement.

Immediately after the G7 summit, world leaders met in Switzerland for the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, held on June 15 and 16. Ukraine called the summit in hopes of persuading major countries from the global south to join and isolate Russia, but the group had to be content with demonstrating their own support for Ukraine. Vice President Kamala Harris, who attended the summit, today posted: “The more than 90 nations that gathered at the Summit on Peace in Ukraine hold a diverse range of views on global challenges and opportunities. We don’t always agree. But when it comes to Putin’s unprovoked, unjustified war—there is unity and solidarity in support of Ukraine and international rules and norms.”

Earlier this month, Finnish software and methodologies company Check First released a report exposing “a large-scale, cross-country, multi-platform disinformation campaign designed to spread pro-Russian propaganda in the West, with clear indicators of foreign interference and information manipulation.” The primary goal of “Operation Overload” is to overwhelm newsrooms and fact-checkers and spread “the Kremlin’s political agenda.” 

Foreign affairs journalist Anne Applebaum told Bill Kristol of The Bulwark that China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea do not share an ideology, but “they do share a common interest, and the common interest is undermining…America, Europe, the liberal world, the democratic world.” They do this, she said, because the oppositions in their own countries are inspired by and use the democratic language of freedom and liberty and rights and rule of law, and leaders need to undermine that language to hold onto power. They also recognize that chaos and uncertainty give them business opportunities in the West. Disrupting democracies by feeding radicalism makes the democratic world lose its sense of community and solidarity.

When it does that, Applebaum notes, it loses its ability to stand up to autocrats. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[darkmaga-returns]

By Muhammad Zamir

BRICS, an intergovernmental economic-political organization, comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates. Originally it was constituted to assist in the identification and highlighting of investment opportunities. The grouping has eventually evolved into an actual geopolitical bloc, with their governments meeting annually aimed at coordinating multilateral policies through formal Summits since 2009. Currently, bilateral relations among BRICS are conducted mainly based on non-interference, equality, and mutual benefit.

It may be recalled that the founding countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China held the first Summit in Yekaterinburg in 2009, with South Africa joining the bloc a year later. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates joined the organization on 1 January 2024. Saudi Arabia has not joined officially as yet, but participates in the Organization’s activities as an invited nation.

One needs to understand the importance of this Group through some statistics. Combined, the BRICS members encompass about 30% of the world's land surface and 45% of the global population. South Africa has the largest economy in Africa whereas Brazil, Russia, India, and China are among the world's ten largest countries by population, area, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and also through purchasing power parity (PPP). All five initial member states are also Members of the G20, with a combined nominal GDP of US Dollar 28 trillion which amounts to about 27% of the Gross World Product, and a total GDP (PPP) of around US Dollar 57 trillion (33% of global GDP PPP), and an estimated US Dollar 4.5 trillion in combined foreign reserves (as of 2018).

The BRICS countries are considered as the foremost geopolitical rival to the G7 Bloc comprising the leading advanced economies, implementing competing initiatives such as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement. These data have originated from the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication. All these details have led to BRICS receiving both praise and criticism from numerous commentators.

I am referring to the geo-political denotations of BRICS in this article to draw attention to the fact that the next BRICS Summit is scheduled to take place in Kazan, Russia, October 22 to 24. Significantly, during its BRICS Presidency this year, Russia has said it will focus on "promoting the entire range of partnership and cooperation within the framework of the association on three key tracks – politics and security, the economy and finance, and cultural and humanitarian ties. All of these have particular connotations.

[mariacallous]

Editor's note: This piece is part of a series of policy analyses entitled “The Talbott Papers on Implications of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine,” named in honor of American statesman and former Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott. Brookings is grateful to Trustee Phil Knight for his generous support of the Brookings Foreign Policy program.

Executive summary

After gaining independence following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, Ukraine set about building relations with the West, including with institutions such as NATO. In 1994, Ukraine became one of the first states to join the alliance’s Partnership for Peace. Three years later, Ukraine and NATO established a distinctive partnership.

From 2002 to 2008, Kyiv made bids to join NATO or secure a membership action plan, but each time fell short. In 2010, a new Ukrainian president had no interest in drawing his country closer to the alliance. However, government and public interest in NATO began growing in 2014 following the Maidan Revolution, Russia’s illegal seizure of Crimea, and Russia’s instigation of and direct involvement in the fighting in Donbas in eastern Ukraine. The February 2022 large-scale Russian assault locked in President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s desire to bring Ukraine into NATO.

At their July 2023 summit, NATO leaders expressed support for Ukraine’s ultimate membership, though they did not outline a concrete plan for achieving that, stating they would “extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.” That language papered over serious differences, with many allies favoring an invitation to join, to which the United States and Germany were reluctant to agree. On the margins of the summit, G7 leaders committed to support Ukraine with arms and other assistance. That provides a sensible waystation, but a Ukraine that stands alone — even if armed by its Western partners — will prove a temptation for Russian aggression. That would mean less security and stability for Europe.

The United States has long defined a stable and secure Europe as a vital national interest, an objective naturally shared by NATO’s European members. It is increasingly apparent that this will not be possible absent a stable and secure Ukraine. The United States and the West have various options before them. They include the “Israeli model” (arming Ukraine to defend itself), individual security commitments (though apparently short of security guarantees that would entail sending their armed forces to Ukraine’s defense), security commitments by the European Union or another institution, and NATO membership. The first two options would leave Ukraine on its own. The third is difficult to see in the near term. An invitation to Ukraine to join now or at the NATO summit scheduled to take place in Washington in July 2024 seems a bridge too far.

Membership entails the protection of Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty (“an armed attack against one or more” allies “shall be considered an attack against them all”). Were Ukraine at peace and in NATO, Russia’s consideration of renewing hostilities would face the Kremlin with a tough decision: going to war again against Ukraine would mean war with NATO. Were Ukraine to enter the alliance while still in conflict with Russia, the onus for the decision on going to war would lie with NATO members. They thus far have not been prepared to commit their forces to Ukraine’s defense, which is why some oppose offering an invitation to Kyiv to join. While there have been suggestions to modify Article 5’s application to accommodate Ukraine’s situation, those ideas threaten to dilute Article 5 and weaken the significance of NATO membership.

Accounting for these complexities and the desire to avoid a divisive argument over Ukraine in the run-up to the 2024 Washington summit, the United States and its allies should prepare the ground now so that next July they can announce accession talks with Ukraine. The goal of those talks, conducted in the NATO-Ukraine Council, would be to work toward a formal invitation for Ukraine to join at the earliest possible date. This would put Ukraine on a definitive path to membership, signaling NATO’s commitment to Ukraine to both Kyiv and Moscow. It would also enhance Kyiv’s bargaining position in any future negotiations with Moscow.

[bopinion]

2024 / 24

Aperçu of the Week

"It is an old German disease that by pointing to the best of tomorrow, one does not do the good of today, and the bad of yesterday remains."

(Klaus Töpfer, former German Environment Minister and long-time Executive Director of the UN Environment Program, died last week at the age of 85)

Bad News of the Week

Biologically speaking, humans are just one of many vertebrates. And yet we consider ourselves to be the "crown of creation" - in other words, something better. And reserve basic rights for most other vertebrates. After all, they are "only" animals. I don't want to start talking about cruel animal husbandry or the ruthless repression of habitats here, even if this receives too little attention. Instead, I would like to talk about a species that would not exist in this form without human intervention: Pigeons.

Most of the populations that live in our cities today can be traced back to pets that were released into the wild. And have since been reviled as "rats of the air". And at the same time highly stylized as a symbol of peace, innocence and loyalty. Their phenomenal sense of orientation with the help of their magnetic sensory perception makes them clearly superior to us humans, at least in this respect.

Due to a lack of natural predators, pigeon populations are getting out of hand in some places (at least in the estimation of the top vertebrate). One proven effective method - albeit relatively costly - is the construction of pigeon lofts in which their eggs are replaced with plaster eggs. The inhabitants of Limburg, a town with a population of almost 40,000 in Hesse, evidently find this too laborious.

In a sensational referendum, the majority of Limburg residents opted for a, well, rather radical method of population reduction: a falconer is to lure the animals into a crate, stun them with a blow to the head and kill them by breaking their necks. Creepy. And quite medieval. But Limburg already existed in the 10th century. It's a shame that civilization there hasn't developed in line with the times in all areas.

Good News of the Week

There have been many international summits in the last few days. Including a meeting of the G7 in Italy. There was one real highlight that all participants were able to agree on - despite many differences in day-to-day political business. Namely, further support for Ukraine. This time it is less about the promise of military support and more about cash. Specifically, Russian money. State assets that are also held in accounts in the USA, Germany, Canada, France, the UK, Japan and Italy - and have been frozen since the start of the war against Ukraine.

Legally (as if that were the point) the assets obviously cannot simply be confiscated. But money continues to "work" even when it is frozen. By earning interest. And apparently Russian money earns a lot of interest. Because the G7 is now using the interest from frozen Russian state assets to finance a Ukraine aid package worth USD 50 billion. And money can be used in more ways than weapons. Because it can not only be used to buy ammunition. It can also be used to buy medicines. And pay bus drivers. And rebuild destroyed schools. Who knows, maybe there will soon be a "Vladimir Putin Primary School" in Kharkiv. Because he not only bombed it, but also rebuilt it with his money.

Personal happy moment of the week

I play Wordle. In English and German. And I score quite good. But winning at the second try is pure luck. But it's nice anyway, when you are called "Genius!". Even if it's just by an algorithm. There are weeks when this is enough for the personal happy moment.

I couldn't care less...

...that the UN Security Council has come out in favor of the plan for a ceasefire in Gaza. Because if any country gives a shit besides the US what the UN thinks or says, it's Israel.

As I write this...

...the European Men's Football Championship is underway. And Germany is dreaming of another "summer fairytale". When Germany hosted the 2006 World Cup, a special, light atmosphere prevailed for the four weeks of the tournament, in which it was easy to forget the hardships of everyday life. Especially now, in this culmination of crises, that would be pleasant again. Even if it doesn't fundamentally change anything.

Post Scriptum

The AfD (Alternative for Germany / Alternative for Germany) member of parliament Petr Bystron - yes, as you can see from the name, there are also xenophobes with a migration background - is under investigation for money laundering and bribery. These must now be dropped, at least for the time being. This is because Bystron was elected to the European Parliament in second place on the AfD party list. And therefore enjoys immunity. At least until it is officially withdrawn at official request. It is absurd that legislators, of all people, should be above the law. Even if it is just a formality.

[xtruss]

Spending On Nuclear ☢️ Weapons Hit $91.4 Billion In 2023, Watchdog Finds

— June 17, 2024 | By Lisa Schlein | VOA

This image taken from video broadcasted by North Korea's KRT shows what it says is a ballistic missile being launched from an undisclosed location in North Korea, February 20, 2023.

Geneva, Switzerland — The World’s Nine Nuclear-Armed States together spent $91.4 billion last year, or nearly $3,000 per second, as they “continue to modernize, and in some cases expand their arsenals,” according to a report issued Monday by ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

“This money is effectively being wasted given that the nuclear-armed states agree that a nuclear war can never be won and should never be fought,” Alicia Sanders-Zakre, co-author of the report, told journalists in Geneva last week in advance of the report’s publication.

For example, she said, $91.4 billion a year “could pay for wind power for more than 12 million homes to combat climate change or cover 27 percent of the global funding gap to fight climate change, protect biodiversity and cut pollution.”

The report shows the nuclear-armed states spent $10.7 billion more on nuclear weapons in 2023 compared with 2022, with the United States accounting for 80% of that increase.

ICAN reports the United States spent $51.5 billion, “more than all the other nuclear-armed countries put together.” It says the next biggest spender was China at $11.8 billion with Russia spending the third largest amount at $8.3 billion.

The report notes that the United Kingdom’s “spending was up significantly for the second year in a row,” with a 17% increase to $8.1 billion, just behind Russia.

The combined total of the five other nuclear powers, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea, amounted to $11.6 billion last year.

The authors of the report say companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons received new contracts worth just less than $7.9 billion in 2023. Analysis of data gathered over the past five years shows that the nuclear-armed states collectively spent $387 billion on their nuclear arsenals.

“There has been a notable upward trend in the amount of money devoted to developing these most inhumane and destructive of weapons over the past five years, which is now accelerating,” Sanders-Zakre said. “All this money is not improving global security. In fact, it is threatening people wherever they live.”

Arms control experts share these concerns and warn of the dangers of a new arms race as the nuclear powers build up their arsenals in defiance of the spirit of The Treaty On The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

A report in the May issue of Foreign Affairs magazine cites Washington’s concerns about China’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal. According to Pentagon estimates, “Under Chinese President Xi Jinping, Beijing is on track to amass 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, up from around 200 in 2019.”

A 2023 report by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States insists that China’s nuclear expansion should prompt U.S. policymakers to “re-evaluate the size and composition of the U.S. nuclear force.”

The commission also expressed disquiet at Russia’s increasingly aggressive behavior, “including the unprecedented growth of its nuclear forces, diversification and expansion of its theater-based nuclear systems, the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent full-scale invasion in February 2022.”

International anxiety about an accidental or deliberate tactical nuclear attack by Russia was on display this past weekend at the G7 summit in Italy and at the peace summit for Ukraine in Switzerland.

In their final communique, the G7 leaders condemned Russia’s “blatant breach of international law” affirming that “in this context, threats by Russia of nuclear weapons use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia in the context of its war of aggression against Ukraine, would be inadmissible.”

This sentiment was mirrored in a final declaration signed by most of the 100 countries that attended the Ukrainian peace conference. Notable holdouts included India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

Referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ICAN Executive Director Melissa Parke warned, “This war has increased nuclear tensions between Russia and the West to their highest level since the Cold War and there is now a real threat of nuclear conflict as a result of Russia’s numerous overt and tacit nuclear threats.”

ICAN’s report, which profiles 20 countries involved in the production, maintenance and development of nuclear weapons, notes that “Altogether there is $335 billion in outstanding contracts related to nuclear weapons work.”

While the report shows significant growth in nuclear spending over the last five years, Susi Snyder, ICAN’s program coordinator and report co-author, observes “there also has been growth in global resistance to these weapons of mass destruction.”

“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has signatures from nearly 100 countries. One-hundred-eleven investors representing about $5 trillion in assets stated their support for the treaty,” she said.

“They demanded that more efforts be made to exclude the nuclear weapons industry from their business until these countries stop doing things prohibited by the treaty,” she said, noting the treaty is “a clear pathway forward.”

“It is a way to reduce tensions, to condemn threats, and to stop this new nuclear arms race that we have illustrated here before it surges any further out of control,” she said.

[3nn-express]

G7 Summit 2024 Live Updates: Get Latest News & Coverage.

World powers are pledging over $50 billion for Ukraine at the G7 Summit 2024. They are meeting in Apulia, Italy. Leaders commit to ending the use of unabated coal by 2030, pushing for a greener, fairer future. Join us for live updates on these big decisions, detailed talks on climate change, and how new partnerships will make a difference.

Article Source Link

[andronetalks]

Biden wanders away at G7 summit before being pulled back by Italian PM

New York Post By Patrick Reilly and Ronny ReyesPublished June 13, 2024Updated June 13, 2024, 9:16 p.m. ET Mamma mia, Giuseppe! President Biden started to wander off during a skydiving demonstration at the G7 summit in southern Italy Thursday, with the host nation’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni pressed into action to pull him back toward the group. As the leaders of the world’s wealthiest…

[mongowheelie]

'Garbage Murdoch paper lying again': Critics call out NY Post over deceptively edited video of Biden - Alternet.org

[cruises-trips-news]

Cruise Ship Seized in Italy Over Poor Conditions

A ship set to host 2,570 police officers in Brindisi, Italy, for the G7 Summit scheduled from June 13 through 15, 2024, was seized the day before the summit began due to horrifying conditions. Identified as the Mykonos Magic but renamed Goddess of the Night, the docked ship was intended to accommodate officers responsible for securing the […] The post Cruise Ship Seized in Italy Over Poor Conditions appeared first on BOAT CRUISES TRIPS NEWS. https://boat-cruises-trips.news-6.com/cruise-ship-seized-in-italy-over-poor-conditions/

[newsriveting]

Prime Minister Modi leaves for Italy on first foreign trip of third term

PM departs for Italy from New Delhi on Thursday Team News Riveting New Delhi, June 13 Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday left for Italy to participate in the G7 Outreach Summit starting on Friday. “At the invitation of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, I am travelling to Apulia region in Italy to participate in the G7 Outreach Summit on 14 June 2024,” the Prime Minister said in his…

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Matt Davies :: Strange love

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 20, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 21, 2024

Yesterday, in North Korea, Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a security partnership between their countries that said they would “provide mutual assistance in case of aggression.” The two authoritarian leaders essentially resurrected a 1961 agreement between North Korea and the Soviet Union. According to the North Korean News Agency, the agreement also calls for the two countries to work together toward a “just and multipolar new world order.”

The United States and other western allies have been concerned for two years about the strengthening ties between the two countries. Putin needs weapons for the war in Ukraine, and in exchange, he might provide not only the economic support Kim Jong Un needs—North Korea is one of the poorest countries in Asia—but also transfer the technology North Korea needs to develop nuclear weapons. 

In the New York Times today, David Sanger pointed out that Putin and China’s leader Xi Jinping have partnered against the West in the past decade but have always agreed that North Korea must not be able to develop a nuclear weapon. Now, it appears, Putin is desperate enough for munitions that he is willing to provide the technologies North Korea needs to obtain one, along with missiles to deliver it. 

Meanwhile, Joby Warrick reported yesterday in the Washington Post that Iran has launched big expansions of two key nuclear enrichment plants, and leaders of the country’s nuclear program have begun to say they could build a nuclear weapon quickly if asked to do so. On X, security analyst Jon Wolfsthal recalled the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that successfully limited Iran’s nuclear program and that Trump abandoned with vows to produce something better. Wolfsthal noted that diplomacy worked when “wars and ‘promises’ of a better deal could not.”   

Still, the meeting between Putin and Kim Jong Un is a sign of weakness, not strength. As The Telegraph pointed out, just ten years ago, Putin was welcomed to the G8 (now the G7) by the leaders of the richest countries in the world. “Now he has to go cap in hand to the pariah state of North Korea,” it pointed out. National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby added that “Russia is absolutely isolated on the world stage. They’ve been forced to rely, again, on countries like North Korea and Iran. Meanwhile…, Ukraine just organized a successful peace summit in Switzerland that had more than 100 countries and organizations sign up to support President Zelenskyy’s vision for a just peace.” 

In that same press conference, Kirby noted that the U.S. is delaying planned deliveries of foreign military sales to other countries, particularly of air defense missiles, sending the weapons to Ukraine instead. Also today, the U.S. emphasized that Ukraine can use American-supplied weapons to hit Russian forces in Russia. This is at least partly in response to recent reports that Russia is pulverizing Ukrainian front-line cities to force inhabitants to abandon them. Ukraine can slow the barrage by hitting the Russian airstrips from which the planes are coming.

China, which declared a “no limits” partnership with Russia in February 2022 just before Russia invaded Ukraine, kept distant from the new agreement between Russia and North Korea. Tong Zhao of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Laurie Chen and Josh Smith of Reuters: "China is…careful not to create the perception of a de facto alliance among Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang, as this will not be helpful for China to maintain practical cooperation with key Western countries.”

Greg Torode, Gerry Doyle, and Laurie Chen published an exclusive story in Reuters tonight, reporting that in March, for the first time in five years, delegates from the U.S. and China resumed semi-official talks about nuclear arms, although official talks have stalled.

The office of president of the Republic of Korea (ROK), Yoon Suk Yeol, condemned the agreement. “It’s absurd that two parties with a history of launching wars of invasion—the Korean War and the war in Ukraine—are now vowing mutual military cooperation on the premise of a preemptive attack by the international community that will never happen,” it said. An ROK national security official added that the government, which has provided humanitarian aid to Ukraine, will now consider supplying weapons. This is no small threat: ROK is one of the world’s top ten arms exporters.  

In the U.S., John Kirby told reporters that while cooperation between Russia and North Korea is a concern, the U.S. has been strengthening and bolstering alliances and partnerships throughout the Indo-Pacific region since President Joe Biden took office. It brokered the historic trilateral agreement between the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the United States; launched AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.; and expanded cooperation with the Philippines. 

On Tuesday, at a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in Washington, D.C., NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained the cooperation between Russia and North Korea like this. “Russia’s war in Ukraine is…propped up by China, North Korea, and Iran,” he said. “They want to see the United States fail. They want to see NATO fail. If they succeed in Ukraine, it will make us more vulnerable and the world more dangerous. 

To that, The Bulwark today added journalist Anne Applebaum’s comments about the determination of those countries to disrupt liberal democracies. Dictators, she said, “are betting that Trump will be the person who destroys the United States, whether he makes it ungovernable, whether he assaults the institutions so that they no longer function, whether he creates so much division and chaos that the U.S. can’t have a foreign policy anymore. That’s what they want, and that’s what they’re hoping he will do.”

Trump himself is a more and more problematic candidate. This week, author Ramin Setoodeh, who has a new book coming out soon about Trump’s transformation from failed businessman to reality TV star on the way to the presidency, has told reporters that Trump has “severe memory issues” adding that “he couldn’t remember things, he couldn’t even remember me.”

Trump is supposed to participate in a debate with President Biden on June 27, and while Biden is preparing as candidates traditionally do, with policy reviews and practice, Trump’s team has been downplaying Trump’s need for preparation, saying that his rallies and interviews with friendly media are enough. 

With new polls showing Biden overtaking the lead in the presidential contest, right-wing media has been pushing so-called cheap fakes: videos that don’t use AI but misrepresent what happened by deceptively cutting the film or the shot. 

Social media has been flooded with images of Biden appearing to bend over for no apparent reason at a D-Day commemoration; the clip cuts off both the chair behind him and that everyone else was sitting down, too. Another, from the recent G7 summit, appears to show the president wandering away from a group of leaders during a skydiving demonstration; in fact, he was walking toward and speaking to a parachute jumper who had just landed but was off camera. A third appears to show Biden unable to say the name of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; in fact, he was teasing Mayorkas, and the film cuts off just before Biden says his name.  

On Monday, June 17, Judd Legum of Popular information produced a deep report on how the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group has been flooding its local media websites with these and other stories suggesting that President Biden is “mentally unfit for office.” Legum noted that these stories appeared simultaneously on at least 86 local news websites Sinclair owns.

Finally, today, in the New York Times, Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer reported that two of Judge Aileen Cannon’s more experienced colleagues on Florida’s federal bench—including the chief judge, a George W. Bush appointee—urged her to hand off the case of Trump’s retention of classified documents to someone else when it was assigned to her. They noted that she was inexperienced, having been appointed by Trump only very late in his term, and that taking the case would look bad since she had previously been rebuked by a conservative appeals court after helping Trump in the criminal investigation that led to the indictment. 

She refused to pass the assignment to someone else.  

Trump’s lawyers’ approach to the case has been to try to delay it until after the election. Judge Cannon’s decisions appear to have made that strategy succeed.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON