The Israel-Hamas war is the latest proof Russia is an agent of chaos

The Israel-Hamas war is the latest proof Russia is an agent of chaos

Post By World euroviews, Israel Hamas war, Russia, Russia's war in Ukraine, Russian politics, Vladimir Putin

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Russia’s leadership doesn’t even have a stable, non-contradictory set of principles or values it adheres to, and its hodgepodge of narratives shows it is trying to fuel any conflict it can, all with the goal of carving out an empire for itself, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

It’s not unusual that in times of major crises, analogies are often forced upon us to more easily come to terms with and understand the political reality we live in.

With the world struck by one shock after another in rapid succession in recent years, it’s also hardly surprising to see some draw parallels with the run-up to World War II.

Yet, the period of time most resembling our own could be compared to the early stages of the Cold War instead.

And this time, Russia, as the only actor on the global geopolitical stage completely hollowed out from any true belief, is an even greater agent of chaos than it ever was in the past.

A menace in a world of partial disorder

The structure of the global order is unwinding, not because democracies in Europe and North America are weaker or less economically influential than they were, but because other regional players have grown in the meantime.

In parallel, the institutional framework of the global order is outdated yet remains rigid to our contemporary needs due to clashing visions on the global stage, while no clear victor has yet emerged from the fray.

Some of the major actors outside of the Western democratic world are more rational, desiring economic growth rather than waging wars, and not all of them ascribe to an ideological system that is antagonistic towards the West as a whole.

Russia, unfortunately for the rest of us, is the exact opposite.

It’s putting the concept of state power in front of the well-being of its citizens; framing victory through the lenses of war, instead of economic development; all the while propping its authoritarian regime with an eclectic ideological mashup bound together solely by the belief that Russia is the opposite of the imagined and imaginary West.

Although other Russias did exist, like the strain of liberal thought in Russian culture going back all the way to the 18th century, we are dealing with a particular version of Russia which is highly minacious in a world of partial disorder.

Flashpoints outlining the Kremlin’s shadow

For the past two years, there have been three flashpoints all involving Russia: its invasion of Ukraine, the latest Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the bloody incursion of the Hamas’ military wing into Israel.

Russia plays various roles in all three. In Ukraine, it is the invader, in Nagorno-Karabakh it is the (intentionally) failed peacekeeper.

And as for Israel, it’s a weak partner who colluded with the Iranian regime as well as with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, while acting as a meddling influence on the balance of power in the Middle East.

Yet, it was Vladimir Putin whom Netanyahu officially spoke to over the phone after the attack, at the same time refusing an offer from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a state visit to Israel in its time of need.

It can seem confounding, considering that the USSR armed the forces poised to destroy Israel on both occasions its very existence was at stake — the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War — as a Cold War flex to rattle the US.

But this time, Russia is not the USSR, especially not in terms of ideology, as much as it’s willing to toy with the idea whenever it thinks it’s useful.

Questions over Russia’s involvement in bloodshed

At the same time, Iran has been leading the charge in clamouring for war against Israel now — an aggressive stance most Arab countries have meanwhile given up on because of its futility and great cost.

Meanwhile, Russia is undisputably buying weapons for its war against Ukraine from Iran while forging a tenuous alliance with Tehran in Syria, where Moscow intervened to keep Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime in power by any means necessary.

Naturally, questions arose over Russia’s possible role in Hamas’ attack on 7 October.

Recently, it was uncovered that the Palestinian militants partially financed their operations by purchasing cryptocurrency in Russia in the lead-up to last Saturday’s incursion and the resulting atrocities.

Millions of dollars were funnelled through Garantex, a Moscow-based crypto exchange, to various extremist groups connected to Hamas.

Beyond that, there is no evidence that the Kremlin actually supplied Hamas or any other extremist group in Palestine with weapons, or that it took part in the planning of any of their operations.

Bullets for Kalashnikovs and conflicting narratives

Moscow, however, does enjoy close political ties to Hamas, seen again just last Saturday when its leadership publically waxed lyrical about Putin, saying it “appreciates Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position … and the fact that he does not accept the blockade of the Gaza Strip.”

“We also affirm that we welcome Russia’s tireless efforts to stop the systematic and barbaric Zionist aggression against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip,” they said in a statement.

In another interview with Russia’s state-owned RT in Arabic, a high-ranking Hamas official stated that “Hamas has a license from Russia to locally produce bullets for Kalashnikovs, that Russia sympathises with Hamas, and that it is pleased with the war because it is easing American pressure on it with regard to the war in Ukraine”.

On their end, Russian officials, state propagandists and organised bots have been peddling various narratives, some contradicting each other.

The Kremlin officials have blamed the US for Hamas’ attack, while not condemning the militants’ incursion, especially not in such explicit terms. In fact, Putin himself labelled it “a failure of US policy in the Middle East”, while the ever-increasingly toxic former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said it was a part of Washington’s “manic obsession to incite conflicts”.

The state propagandists supported the same narrative and also added a new one: Russia’s war against Ukraine is much more benign than Israel’s reaction in Gaza.

Russian bots, on many social platforms, didn’t hold back from supporting Hamas and accusing Ukraine of supporting the “fascists” in the conflict — meaning, Israel.

Carving an empire in blood devoid of meaning

Yet on a much larger scale, Moscow’s hodgepodge of narratives shows it for what it really is — an agent of chaos, trying to fuel any conflict in the borderlands of the democratic world, all with the goal of apportioning a regional empire for itself.

Russia’s leadership is not interested in peace and it doesn’t work towards it.

Its social media bots and online influencers tell us the tale of the lowest common denominator in Russian society — a revanchist, disgruntled anti-Semite who has given up on his own life and wants to see the entire world crumble down to his level.

The most striking part of it all is that Russia’s leadership doesn’t even have a stable, non-contradictory set of principles or values it adheres to.

Carving out an empire in blood is immanently meaningless when one lacks a higher cause to aspire to, let alone a coherent narrative. The Kremlin, however, has demonstrated time and again it’s utterly devoid of that, left completely without a vision, and in the end, barren of any semblance of a soul or empathy for others.

And that is what makes it more dangerous and unpredictable than ever — to its neighbours and to the rest of the world.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. He was formerly a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#IsraelHamas #war #latest #proof #Russia #agent #chaos

Young voters’ turnout in Poland showed it’s ‘No country for Old Men’

Post By World Donald Tusk, Elections, euroviews, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland, Polish Politics

By Tom Junes, Historian, Assistant Professor, Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Despite PiS winning the election, Sunday’s vote produced an electoral victory for the opposition spurred on by younger voters, Tom Junes writes.

It was a remarkable sight in Poland on Sunday: in the middle of the night, hours after the first exit polls in the country’s parliamentary election projected a Pyrrhic victory for Law and Justice (PiS), scores of young people were still queueing at polling stations waiting to vote.

Over the past eight years of PiS rule, Polish society has become increasingly polarised and divisions now run so deep making the idea of political reconciliation no longer seem possible at times.

This year’s election campaign was the ugliest and most vicious of Poland’s post-1989 era. Yet, the effect was such that ultimately a large part of the generally non-voting population got motivated enough to take to the polls.

In Jagodno, a district of Wrocław, the last voters cast their ballots just before 3 am. Indicatively, the results from that district echoed a trend among youth.

In 2019, PiS came first among voters between 18 and 29 years of age with 26.3% of the vote share. Last Sunday, the ruling party of the past eight years finished last with a mere 14.9% — and, in Jagodno, PiS even failed to clear 6%.

The most astonishing aspect of these elections was the record voter turnout of 74% — ten percentage points higher than the elections in 1989 that brought an end to decades of communist rule.

And although the total number of eligible voters this year amounted to more than one million less than in the previous elections in 2019, a million and a half more people ended up going out and casting ballots.

Against the backdrop of these elections that were perceived as “free but not fair”, the massive voter mobilisation was a clear win for democracy as such.

This makes the youth vote, traditionally the least prominent voting group, perhaps even more extraordinary. Turnout among voters from 18 to 29 years reached 68.8%, compared to 46.4% in the previous elections of 2019.

An electoral youthquake

In the months before the elections, amidst an ever more polarising climate, media attention started focusing on the younger generation of voters.

In particular, this was because surveys showed a stronger polarisation and gender divide factoring into their political preferences with a striking dominance of the far-right Konfederacja on the one hand and the Left on the other hand.

The youth vote was heralding change to come as most young voters have never known any government beyond the Civic Platform (PO)-PiS duopoly fueled by the persisting Donald Tusk-Jarosław Kaczyński rivalry.

Konfederacja’s rise to double-digit numbers and third place in pre-election surveys propelled it to the status of potential “kingmaker” in what was perceived to herald a further swing to the right in Poland.

The Lewica or Left’s prominence was in turn seen as a consequence of the PiS-led drive to further criminalise abortion and its assault on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights.

But on the day of the vote, the pre-election predictions concerning youth turned out to be far off the mark as neither the far right nor the Left came out on top.

Voter outflow to the Third Way key?

Both parties arguably fared much better among youth than in older age groups, but it was the Tusk-led PO coalition that held a decisive advantage among younger voters, with the Trzecia Droga, or Third Way, coalition also producing a strong showing.

More so, while the Left is seen as part of the winning camp securing its own voter niche, it lost half a million votes compared to the last elections.

And though Konfederacja appeared as the biggest flop of the night underperforming by even its least ambitious aims, the far right did increase its overall vote tally by some three hundred thousand votes.

In both cases, there was most likely a potential voter outflow to Trzecia Droga. Though frequently portrayed in the media in the weeks running up to the election as at risk of not crossing the threshold, the coalition managed to present itself as a credible alternative to the PO-PiS duopoly for voters who favoured a more moderate or centrist approach than the Lewica or far right were offering.

Perhaps the mass mobilisation in the Tusk-led “Million Hearts March” two weeks before the vote or the fact that Szymon Hołownia, one of the leaders of Trzecia Droga, managed to pull off the best performance in the only TV election debate that took place influenced the outcome.

However, neither during the debate nor in the campaign as a whole did the political parties and their candidates pay much attention to youth.

Yet, the vote ultimately shows that the younger generation voted overwhelmingly against PiS. And young people did so for a variety of reasons provided in the first place by PiS who managed to antagonise the overall majority of young voters.

An opposition victory where caveats apply

Despite PiS winning the election, Sunday’s vote produced an electoral victory for the opposition spurred on by younger voters.

Youth has managed to swing elections a few times in Poland’s democratic history. In 2007, young voters helped Tusk and PO beat Kaczyński’s PiS in a snap election, and in 2015, the youth vote came out against the out-of-touch PO establishment propelling PiS to power.

And although the country might now see a political moment reminiscent of 1989 leading to the end of PiS rule, Poland’s democratic history shows that the pendulum can swiftly swing the other way. One should not forget that PiS still has the single largest group of political supporters.

It will thus be important for the opposition to navigate carefully in the coming weeks and months facing probable obstruction and stiff opposition from PiS and the country’s PiS-backed president, Andrzej Duda, while having to keep together a disparate political alliance ranging from PiS-curious conservatives to radical left sympathisers.

Taking a page out of Italy’s book

Over the past eight years, Poland was often compared to Hungary for its illiberal tendencies and democratic backsliding under PiS. But last weekend’s election outcome also shows that Poland is not Hungary.

Rather, today’s situation is reminiscent of Italy’s in 2006, when a broad but fragile coalition led by former European Commission President Romano Prodi managed to narrowly oust Silvio Berlusconi’s right-wing populist government.

The comparison to Italy should serve as a warning since Prodi’s coalition rapidly fell apart and paved the way for Berlusconi’s comeback.

Tusk, who was the European Council president himself, and like Prodi, twice defeated his country’s inflated right-wing populist opponent, could learn something from his counterpart and seize the opportunity to address young people’s concerns to galvanise his support.

Unless it wants to founder to the same flavour of infighting spurred on by a lack of vision for the future, Poland’s opposition has a distinct opportunity to listen to the youth’s desires and help transform Poland into a country not ruled by old men.

Tom Junes is a historian and Assistant Professor at the Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He is the author of “Student Politics in Communist Poland: Generations of Consent and Dissent”.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Young #voters #turnout #Poland #showed #country #Men

People power must be at the core of all clean energy plans

Post By World carbon emissions, climate emergency, energy transition, euroviews, green energy, united nations

By Damilola Ogunbiyi, CEO and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All; Co-Chair, UN-Energy

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Governments worldwide must put consumer empowerment into national energy plans, in a fair and inclusive manner, and help them understand how to benefit from clean energy consumption, Damilola Ogunbiyi writes.

In the race against climate change, the move to carbon-free energy has taken centre stage. To ensure everyone benefits from fair and affordable clean energy, people power must be at the heart of this transition.

Everywhere today, consumers face unprecedented price pressures caused by our continued dependence on fossil fuels.

Tackling the climate crisis by enabling affordable clean energy is now more important than ever. The technology exists to put people in direct control of their energy, helping cut their costs and carbon emissions.

Yet what is still needed is the political will of global leaders to empower consumers to drive this transition.

People have the right to know

Nearly 3 in 4 people in Europe, North America, and Asia Pacific are concerned about climate change. However, only half understand the actions and investments they can make to facilitate change.

The global average energy-related carbon footprint is almost five tonnes of CO2 per person — the equivalent of two round-trip flights between Singapore and New York, or driving an average SUV for 18 months. This is a huge untapped potential for positive climate action.

To enable citizens to act, they need information on how they can best reduce emissions and cut costs; high-quality data about their energy consumption to help change behaviour; and policies designed to help them participate in and benefit from clean energy systems.

The demand for this is clear. Almost 50% of people say they could reduce their energy consumption with the right information and financial support — and the impact is already being proven.

To give one example: in Malaysia, the leading utility gave home energy reports to 450,000 consumers with simple and actionable consumption data, resulting in a 3% average reduction in household energy demand without needing new technology or government incentives.

It is a matter of access

With the right guidance, people are able to adopt energy-saving practices, cut their costs and reduce their carbon emissions.

However, only the European Union and Australia mandate such consumer access to energy data. This simple action by governments would make a massive positive impact – without cost.

The next step is to provide granular data about energy consumption to every household. When consumers have access to real-time insights on their energy usage, evidence shows they understand their environmental impact better and make conscious choices to reduce it — again, cutting costs and emissions.

The technology already exists. Smart metres equipped with real-time data monitoring provide consumers with detailed insights into their energy use.

More importantly, they enable dynamic pricing, allowing consumers to take advantage of cheaper and cleaner electricity at different times of day.

Advanced economies such as China and the US are leading the way, with almost 100% and 70% of consumers using smart metres. Yet, this has not translated to developing economies, with only 3% of homes in Latin America or 2% in India having access to them.

Progress is happening, but far more needs to be done to invest in smart metre rollouts for those who could benefit the most.

Those usually on the sidelines could finally take control

Putting the consumer at the heart of the clean energy transition gives every person a stake and opportunity to benefit, increasing social support and accelerating the decarbonisation of our energy systems.

Making this a reality needs more than information and technology. Policies and incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and rewards for adopting renewable technologies, combined with innovative business models, are needed to give people greater access to clean energy, especially in developing economies.

The Rwanda Cooling Initiative’s Green On-wage financing mechanism is one example of a new business model which puts people in the driver’s seat.

Consumers can take out interest-free loans, repaid through salaries, to purchase energy-efficient cooling technology, lowering the risk and cost of financing.

By doing so, people who would otherwise be left on the sidelines are able to take control of their energy use, benefit from cheaper, cleaner energy and participate in the fight against climate change.

A system that’s fair and just for all

The climate crisis is an undeniable reality that demands immediate attention and collective action. We must urgently move away from fossil fuels to build a healthier and cleaner future for citizens everywhere.

By empowering people to adopt energy-efficient practices and make informed choices about energy consumption, we can make a substantial positive impact on the transition to accessible and affordable 24/7 carbon-free energy in a way that is fair and just for all.

To make this happen, governments worldwide must put consumer empowerment into national energy plans, in a fair and inclusive manner, and help them understand how to benefit from clean energy consumption.

However, citizens alone taking action is not enough. To make the change at the scale and pace we need, governments worldwide must be bold and commit to achieving 24/7 carbon-free energy.

Unlocking the benefits requires the right regulatory frameworks, investment in renewables and grid infrastructure, and commitment to phase out fossil fuels.

There is no time to waste. We must act now, and act together, to make clean energy work for all.

Damilola Ogunbiyi is CEO and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All and Co-Chair of UN-Energy.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#People #power #core #clean #energy #plans

We share a common destiny. It’s our duty to shape it for the better

Post By World Africa, climate emergency, euroviews, Ghana, Nana Akufo Addo, Paris agreement on climate

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Let us ensure that climate justice prevails, honouring our duty to the generations that will inherit the world we leave behind, Ghana President Nana Akufo-Addo writes in an exclusive op-ed for Euronews.

In the small fishing villages along the Ghanaian coast, generations have relied on the ocean for their livelihoods.

But as our planet heats up, the seas warming up and extreme weather combine to devastate their way of life.

A World Bank report found that climate change alone could reduce Ghana’s potential fish catch by 25% or more by 2050, threatening a way of life and key food source when much of Africa already scrambles to feed its people.

This is the Ghanaian experience — but it is a story repeated in developing countries across the world.

Another report, by Groundswell West Africa, found that up to 32 million people across the region — the equivalent of Ghana’s population — might be displaced by 2050.

The people who are the least to blame for climate change find themselves the first victims of an incoming disaster they did not cause.

Ghana, thankfully, has managed to keep developing rapidly. Our economy has grown at an average annual rate of around 6% over the past two decades – from a GDP of just below $5 billion (€4.74bn) 20 years ago to more than $77bn (€73bn) now.

We have invested in infrastructure, diversified our production base and modernized the country’s agricultural sector, which employs a large part of the population.

And we are working tirelessly to do our bit in the global fight against climate change.

‘Fair share’: A small phrase, yet deceptively simple

Ghana is a founding partner of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), and the first country in the world to include short-lived climate pollutants — such as methane and black carbon — into our Paris Agreement emissions reduction efforts.

We have committed to reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to accelerating climate adaptation in several priority sectors as a part of our effort to deliver the Paris Agreement.

But as drought, floods and heat waves continue to set new records across the world, we do not know how long we can keep up our efforts both to lift our population out of poverty and deliver nationally on global targets like the Sustainable Development Goals.

As we do our bit, we are asking those countries that have polluted the most, and that have the greatest means to take action, to do their fair share.

This small phrase, “fair share”, is deceptively simple. But it is the core of any effort that would see the world join together to protect our shared home.

Those who polluted the most in the past need to do more now

The major economies, especially in the West, have spent the past century growing rich off the back of fossil-fuel-powered industrialisation.

As vulnerable nations, we are convinced it is only fair that those, who polluted the most in the past, must make a greater effort to tackle climate change, especially when they are also the richest and most capable to act.

Indeed, if those most responsible fail to own up to their fair share, it means we are counting on marginal polluters, the poor and vulnerable who are most impacted, to deliver the bulk of further efforts needed to avoid a planetary breakdown.

This would not only be fundamentally unjust, but also unrealistic: despite over one billion people calling our continent home, ultimately, all 54 of the African countries’ emissions amount to less than 4% of today’s global total.

Compare this with the G20’s 80% share. Or take the G7, who, with a smaller population than Africa, are responsible for close to half of all climate pollution since 1950.

An asymmetric relationship at the core of the issue

By asking countries to do their fair share, we are calling on them to set and deliver emission targets which take into account their past emissions, as well as their share of wealth and the global population.

Today, most major economies look only at their current pollution levels and assume every country will cut emissions at the same rate, regardless of how rich or populous they are.

To highlight this asymmetric relationship, the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF), which I chair, commissioned the Traffic Light Assessment.

It evaluates the 2030 Paris targets of every country on the same basis looking at their past pollution, wealth or development level, and share of the global population.

It awards a green light to nations who are doing their fair-share to stay within a 1.5 degrees Celsius world, an orange light for a 2 degrees Celsius world and a red light for anything beyond that.

Its findings show that the vast majority of the world’s nations — mainly developing countries — are already doing their fair share. This includes, on aggregate, Africa, the Least Developed Countries, the CVF and nearly all small island developing states.

The sense of distance is misleading

On the other hand, only a handful of developed countries, including the UK and Switzerland, come anywhere close to a fair share effort from among the rich.

Of the major emerging economies, India, home to one-fifth of the world’s population, pollutes below 2 tonnes of CO2 per person compared to the G7 average of 13.

Both the G7 and G20 have been given a red light, as most have climate targets that are nowhere near what would constitute them doing their fair share.

That has to change. With such an alarming gap between what is being done and what must be done, the red light is flashing, and it now falls on those most responsible and capable to step up and deliver.

The fate of fishing villages that could be underwater in a few decades’ time, like Fuveme here in Ghana’s Volta region, might feel distant to those shielded from these threats for now.

But that sense of safety is false — we share a common destiny, and it’s our responsibility to shape it for the better. Let us ensure that climate justice prevails, honouring our duty to the generations that will inherit the world we leave behind.

Nana Akufo-Addo is the President of Ghana.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#share #common #destiny #duty #shape

Fighting food insecurity means following the urban lead

Post By World European Union, euroviews, Food crisis, food security, just transition, Lyon

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

My fellow local leaders and I urge the EU to not further delay action and keep the promises of the European Green Deal, Vice-President of Lyon Métropole Jérémy Camus writes.

On this World Food Day, I write not only in my capacity as Vice-President of Lyon Metropole-Greater Lyon but also as a representative voice of fellow mayors across Europe.

The issue of food insecurity is undeniably one of the most pressing challenges of our age especially considering our system is prone to waste.

The evidence is in the data. According to Eurostat’s calculations, over 58 million tonnes of food waste is produced in the EU each year.

Around 10% of the food available to EU consumers — encompassing retail, food services, and households — may be thrown away. Alarmingly, whilst this waste occurs, over 37 million individuals in the EU are unable to afford a quality meal every other day.

Factors like the rising cost of living, climate change, the Ukraine conflict, and the aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic have compounded food accessibility issues.

The European Food Banks Federation recorded that their members could not meet food demand in 2022. Even more worryingly, gainfully employed persons, students and single parents sought material support for the first time in 2022 due to the escalating cost of living.

Hesitance and caution over food legislation?

In the broader European landscape, these numbers and farmers’ difficulties to continue working under current conditions — also caused by climate change — have made the European Commission cautious about the direction of food legislation.

The current line indicates hesitation, especially evidenced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to call for a strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture and postpone the publication of the Sustainable Food Systems Framework law and other linked legislation.

This postponement can be perceived as a sign of wavering commitment to the ambitious goals set out in the European Green Deal.

The delay highlights the challenges in reconciling sustainability goals within the food system with concerns about growing food insecurity.

According to the United Nations’ “State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World”, European cities and metropolitan areas, rather than rural areas, are experiencing higher levels of food insecurity.

In response, they are setting ambitious goals for a healthier, more sustainable and inclusive food system and can share their knowledge and experience to show the way forward.

What are the cities like Lyon doing?

So, what are cities and metropolises doing? In Lyon Metropole, for example, we want to ensure every resident can access nutritious, quality, and affordable food.

We’ve shortened supply chains by re-localising production, providing fresh produce that is more readily available to our communities. This benefits consumers and supports our local farmers, fostering a more sustainable and resilient food system.

Our commitment to organic food has been reflected in our school canteens, where we promote healthier eating habits from a young age.

We’re also piloting a participatory scheme whereby residents can shape how the local budget is used to combat food insecurity. These measures aren’t isolated actions but part of a broader, systemic change we seek to achieve on our territory.

Lyon Metropole is not alone. Fellow municipalities I met last month at the Eurocities working group on food are going in the same direction, and I witnessed similar experimentations starting all across Europe.

For many European cities and metropolises, food justice isn’t just a phrase — it’s an integrated approach seamlessly woven into our ongoing efforts to enhance food work in our regions. And when I say “region”, I mean an area broader than the metropolis’s borders.

What can the EU do to help?

One of the overarching misconceptions around food security is the distinction between urban and rural. These two environments have traditionally been seen as separate entities with different concerns and solutions.

However, numbers from the European Commission show that approximately 50% of the EU’s rural population lives in proximity to a city, often being part of wider metropolitan areas.

Life in cities, suburbs, and surrounding rural areas overlaps more than ever, leading to a strengthened sense of connection rather than separation.

It is therefore imperative for cities and metropolitan areas across Europe and for European legislation to foster a shared vision between urban and rural neighbours, one that seeks to address food insecurity and promote sustainability.

How can the EU help? For once, the European Union plays a crucial role in safeguarding the right to experiment, enabling local authorities to test innovative solutions tailored to specific contexts.

It can also facilitate the direct use of funds ensuring that resources are channelled efficiently, avoiding potential bureaucratic delays and allowing cities to respond to immediate needs.

Moreover, the EU can create synergies between food policies and overarching social and health strategies.

Recognising and acting on the inextricable ties between these areas can lead to holistic solutions that promote healthier populations, reduced inequalities, and sustainable food systems.

However, there is an evident lack of policy coherence in the current EU legislation.

The conversation around food is not just that

Addressing food security and food justice isn’t a singular task. It spans a spectrum of interconnected domains: agriculture, health and nutrition, social justice, the environment, and even international trade.

It’s about synthesising a consistent EU vision for food’s future, looking at the broader picture, interlinking various sectors and players.

It’s evident that the conversation around food in the EU is not merely about agriculture or even food security in isolation.

It’s about fostering a dialogue that accommodates diverse voices and perspectives, ensuring that everyone can get food on their plates that is not only nutritious and safe but also the product of a fair, sustainable, and coherent system.

My fellow local leaders and I urge the EU to not further delay action and keep the promises of the European Green Deal.

Jérémy Camus (Les écologistes) is the Vice-President of Lyon Métropole Grand Lyon.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Fighting #food #insecurity #means #urban #lead

In fact, this is why Sweden should ultimately join NATO

Post By World euroviews, Hungary, nato, Russia's war in Ukraine, sweden, Viktor Orbán

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

One does not need to be a master strategist to realise that due to the country’s geographic position, Sweden’s accession to NATO would significantly strengthen the alliance in the entire Baltic Sea region, Dr András Rácz writes.

On 6 October, Euronews published an op-ed by Dr Gladden Pappin, president of the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, about why Sweden may not join NATO.

Some of Dr Pappin’s arguments are indeed worth attention, though certainly not endorsement, while others, unfortunately, require factual corrections.

For one, Russia definitely is a threat.

Dr Pappin, known more as a political philosopher than a security expert, argues that there is not much urgency to get Sweden into the alliance.

According to him, with its forces bogged down in Ukraine, Russia is not going to launch incursions into NATO territory anytime soon and “claims about Russia’s imperial ambitions seem hardly credible.”

This assessment is indeed surprising taking into account that Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine is raging in the direct neighbourhood of Hungary, while also claiming the lives of ethnic Hungarian soldiers in the Ukrainian army.

What makes Dr Pappin’s line particularly noteworthy is that it directly contradicts the newest assessment of NATO.

According to the final communique of the Vilnius Summit, released on 11 July, “the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”

In other words, while all members of the alliance agreed in Vilnius that Russia is the most important threat NATO needs to face, for some reason Dr Pappin tried to convince his readers about the opposite.

By doing so, he implicitly contradicted even the Hungarian government, which also approved the Vilnius summit communique.

Sweden would make NATO considerably stronger

Another surprising element of Dr Pappin’s article is that according to him, “Sweden’s military contribution to NATO would be rather slender.”

However, the opposite is true, even according to Hungarian officials. Only a few days after his opinion article, Hungary’s Chief of General Staff Lieutenant General Gábor Böröndi gave an interview in which he explicitly stated that the Swedish armed forces are suitably ready for NATO accession, adding that that the question of Sweden’s accession is primarily a political matter.

General Böröndi is certainly right. According to The Military Balance 2023, Sweden’s defence budget was slightly above $8 billion (€7.5bn) in 2022, thus nearly 2,5 times bigger than Hungary’s $2,99bn (€2.8bn).

Sweden has a small, but well-trained, very well-equipped armed force configured for territorial defence. Just to give one example: the country’s air force possesses nearly a hundred JAS-39 Gripen fighters.

Somewhat ironically, the sole jet fighter operated by the Hungarian Air Force happens to be the same Gripen: approximately a dozen of them were leased from Sweden. Budapest is in the process of extending the lease contract that is about the expire in 2026.

A key element of Dr Pappin’s argument for the delayed accession ratification is that there is a deficit of trust in Budapest vis-à-vis Stockholm, meaning that Sweden shall not join until disagreements are resolved.

However, had there been a real loss of trust, it is highly unlikely that Hungary would strive to maintain its military technological dependence on Sweden by extending the Gripen lease contract.

Putting cold steel aside, one does not need to be a master strategist to realise that due to the country’s geographic position, Sweden’s accession to NATO would significantly strengthen the alliance in the entire Baltic Sea region.

Sweden’s membership would decisively help improve the collective defence provided to our Finnish, Polish and Baltic allies on all levels, ranging from strategic planning to military logistics.

Concerted ambiguity in Hungary’s communication

Dr Pappin’s article appears to be part of a wider Hungarian communication manoeuvre aimed at creating ambiguity about Budapest’s position on Sweden’s accession, thus probably buying it time.

The Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, presided by him, is an integral part of the Hungarian government. The HIIA is directly subordinated to the Office of the Prime Minister, and so is Dr Pappin.

Generally speaking, no employee of any government would be allowed to publish opinion pieces on the policies of the given government without prior coordination and approval.

Hence, the article of Dr Pappin is certainly not independent of the official policy of the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Interestingly enough, in terms of content, the article appears to contradict the official Hungarian explanations of why Sweden’s accession has not yet been ratified.

Earlier, the government claimed that it already endorsed and supported Sweden in joining NATO; it is only the parliament that is unwilling to ratify the accession.

However, this article casts some doubt on the credibility of this argument: had the Hungarian government been really in favour of Stockholm’s accession, no government officials would have published critical articles about Sweden’s readiness.

Contradictions aplenty

The Hungarian parliament, which is officially delaying the ratification of Sweden’s NATO accession, is dominated by the constitutional majority of the ruling coalition led by Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party.

Their parliamentary supermajority has been serving the government with impeccable obedience since 2010: in the Hungarian parliament, it is fairly normal that core numbers of the budget get modified literally overnight or that the parliament amends the constitution in a few days’ time, without any meaningful debate.

This parliament is unlikely to suddenly stand up against the government, particularly in a question of such strategic importance as the expansion of NATO.

Still, on the very same day when Dr Pappin’s article came out, an interview came out with Zsolt Németh, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian parliament, a veteran Fidesz politician and known foreign policy expert.

Németh, who is as independent of the government as the rest of his parliamentary fraction, argued that Hungary would certainly support Sweden’s accession and the alliance would be stronger with Stockholm joining.

In other words, two Hungarian officials voiced their opinions directly contradicting each other and did so exactly at the same time. The interview of General Böröndi may well be part of the same communication effort.

Who profits?

While discussing in detail why Sweden is supposedly not ready for NATO, Dr Pappin elegantly avoids even mentioning a key question: who does the Hungarian policy line actually benefit?

Németh was more open in his interview: he admitted that Hungary closely coordinates with Turkey on when the Swedish accession should be ratified.

Turkey is certainly benefiting from the Hungarian policy, as Ankara does not need to be alone in delaying Sweden’s accession.

Turkey has been conducting a tough, but entirely rational, calculated policy: it has set a number of demands both vis-à-vis Sweden and the US. Once Ankara’s requests can be agreed upon, Turkey is highly likely to approve Sweden’s accession.

Meanwhile, there are simply no demands from the Hungarian side. Unlike Ankara, Budapest is not asking for anything at all from Stockholm, focusing solely on making critical remarks.

This renders it unclear what Hungary would actually gain from delaying Sweden’s accession. It is at least questionable whether paying lip service to Ankara would be worth the damage inflicted upon the credibility of Budapest as a NATO ally.

Meanwhile, Russia is applauding the delay

Meanwhile, there is another player that certainly does not mind the delayed Swedish NATO accession: Russia.

Moscow has long been opposed to any enlargement of NATO. From the Kremlin’s perspective, Sweden’s NATO membership would mean that the Baltic Sea became “Lake NATO”, limiting the power of Russia’s Baltic Fleet, as well as of the other assets deployed to Kaliningrad.

This forces Moscow to adjust its entire military posture in the Baltic Sea region. This is already happening, as Russia is in the process of recreating the old Leningrad Military District.

As the process is at least cumbersome, Moscow certainly applauds the extra time granted by the delayed Swedish NATO accession. And from this perspective, Hungary is serving not only Turkish but also Russian interests.

Dr András Rácz is a Senior Fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP).

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#fact #Sweden #ultimately #join #NATO

Niger is the latest victim of Africa’s development paradox

Post By World Coup in Niger, development, ECOWAS, euroviews, Niger, Sahel

By Hippolyte Fofack, Chief Economist and Director of Research, African Export-Import Bank

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Under the sticky colonial development model of resource extraction, African natural resources have been a blessing for former colonial powers and a curse for source countries and the entire continent as a whole, Hippolyte Fofack writes.

When the homeland is dying, it is everyone’s fault.

And for now, that dying homeland is Niger, the usually-overlooked and landlocked West African nation that has been commanding headlines in even the Western media since late July when the latest in a long line of coups in the Sahel region — stretching from the Atlantic to the Red Sea along the southern edge of the Sahara — was announced by the country’s military.

African affairs typically only enter the mainstream media in the context of humanitarian crises or through the geopolitical prism.

And sure enough, in this case, the West — led by the US and France, the former colonial power — is concerned that Niger will follow the path already taken in neighbouring Burkina Faso and Mali in the new “scramble for Africa”.

The sudden rise in interest in a country that most people might have trouble distinguishing from Nigeria, its southern neighbour, has put a spotlight on Niger and offered an opportunity to reflect on the key development challenges confronting the region.

Chief among these is the stickiness of the highly extroverted colonial development model of resource extraction, which has been at the root of intergenerational poverty in Niger and other African states, as well as environmental stresses that fuel insecurity and amplify migration pressures.

A country is so rich, yet its people are poor

Niger is the quintessence of Africa’s development paradox. The country is one of the most natural resource-rich in the world and endowed with plentiful renewable and non-renewable energy sources, but is also one of the world’s poorest.

Despite being one of the leading producers of gold and a major supplier of uranium, Niger suffers from one of the highest poverty rates in the world and is ranked third from last on the United Nations Human Development Index, ahead of only Chad and South Sudan.

More than 10 million Nigeriens (around 42% of its population) live in extreme poverty, and only 58% of children attend school, down from 66% in 2017.

Violence and insecurity have caused mass displacement and school closures, with almost 900 schools having been shuttered across affected communities.

Things have gone from bad to worse in Niger and, indeed, in many Sahelian countries, where more than 22,000 Africans were killed in jihadist-related violence in the 12 months to June 2023, a 50% increase from the year prior.

Terrorist acts and pitch-dark blackouts

Niger’s population has suffocated under a combination of immiserising growth, mismanagement of natural resources, intergenerational poverty, climate disaster, and rampant insecurity.

Countless villages have been destroyed by itinerant terrorists whose firepower has grown ever more powerful year after year, despite the proliferation of foreign military bases and drone stations in the country.

Niger hosts strategic US drone bases and French soldiers, as well as troops from Germany, Italy, and Canada.

On top of that, Niger was plunged into blackouts just days after the coup when Nigeria cut off the supply of electricity to its neighbour, in contravention of its obligations as a member of the nine-country Niger Basin Authority.

The power cuts risk exacerbating insecurity and social stresses in Niger, which has already come under draconian economic and financial sanctions imposed by the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS.

In addition to freezing Nigerien assets held in regional central banks, these sanctions suspended all commercial and financial transactions between Niger and other member states.

Neighbouring Nigeria suffers from the same paradox

There is a certain irony to Nigeria cutting Niger’s access to power. In normal times, the former provides around 70% of the total electricity consumed by the latter’s homes and industries — despite Nigerians themselves suffering frequent blackouts, which occur so often that the power supply in the country has been called “epileptic”.

Despite being the largest oil exporter on the continent, Nigeria is actually one of the most energy-poor countries in the world in per capita terms—its citizens consume 113 kilowatt hours of energy per capita annually, against a continental average of 317 kilowatt hours.

Typically, Nigeria’s power system is able to dispatch only around 4 gigawatts per day, far too little to support its population of more than 220 million people.

Around 60% of Nigerians have access to electricity. For the neighbours to the north in Niger where citizens consume a paltry 51 kilowatt hours of energy per capita annually, that percentage stands at less than 20%, and just 9.1% in rural areas, even though the country is endowed with remarkable resource wealth.

It is one of the world’s leading producers of high-grade uranium, the radioactive material essential to the production of nuclear energy in Europe. Niger’s uranium has served its former colonial possessor, France, especially well.

Let there be light — thanks to Nigeiren uranium

Over a third of all lamps in France light up thanks to Nigerian uranium. Around 70% of France’s electricity is derived from nuclear energy, which has enabled French citizens to consume over 6,950 kilowatts hours of energy per capita annually, one of the highest in the world.

Last year, Niger supplied 1,440 tonnes of the country’s natural uranium, accounting for almost 30% of all such imports between 2020-22. More broadly, Niger accounts for a fifth of the European Union’s uranium supplies.

In 2013 the UK-based anti-poverty organization Oxfam published a report detailing how French multinational companies were profiting massively from Niger’s uranium.

Figures show that in 2010, two Nigerien subsidiaries of Areva, the French nuclear power multinational, extracted 114,346 metric tonnes of uranium in Niger with an export value of more than €3.5 billion, of which just 13% (around €450m) was paid to Niger.

That share has hardly changed in the intervening years, and with rising military expenditures and constraints on the domestic revenue mobilisation side of the sovereign balance sheet, Niger has fallen into a debilitating donor dependency trap.

The government depends on foreign aid for around 40% of its budget.

‘David vs Goliath struggle’

Watchdogs have documented over several years the extent to which the contracts between successive Nigerien governments and multinational companies have exploited the country’s uranium wealth to the detriment of its citizens, both financially and environmentally.

Niger’s efforts to secure greater benefits from its natural resources were aptly described by Oxfam as a “David vs Goliath struggle”.

In 2010, a Greenpeace investigation revealed dangerous radiation levels among Nigeriens working in the mining sector, with people suffering from unexplained diseases affecting their skin, liver, kidneys, and lungs.

And earlier this year the France-based Independent Research and Information Commission on Radioactivity found that 20 million tonnes of waste from a recently depleted uranium mine was spreading radon, a potentially lethal radioactive gas, polluting the air and contaminating the soil and water supplies.

Natural resources, a blessing for some, for others a curse

Numerous reports have also documented the climate crimes committed by multinational oil companies, most notably Shell in Nigeria and more specifically in the Niger Delta, the oil-rich region devastated by pollution from oil spills that have cost many residents their livelihoods.

In addition to destroying mangrove forests, families were forced to abandon their homes.

Reflecting on the scale of pollution and the human costs, Mark Dummet, then director of Amnesty International’s global issue program, said: “It is incomprehensible to imagine that if these spills and this level of pollution occurred in North America or Europe that it would be allowed to happen.”

The natural resources that were supposed to help improve the welfare of the population have failed to meet expectations.

Worse still, they have produced enduring pollution and environmental stresses, which have become their main heritage.

Under the highly extroverted and sticky colonial development model of resource extraction, African natural resources have been a blessing for former colonial powers and a curse for source countries and the entire continent as a whole.

Democracy will remain fragile

Army Captain Ibrahim Traoré, the young leader of Burkina Faso who engineered his own military coup last year, has been vocal about the similarly incomprehensible position in which Africa finds itself from a development perspective.

Speaking at the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg on 27-28 July hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Traoré asked: “The question that my generation poses to itself, if I can summarise it, is how can Africa, with so many resources under our soil, with such a natural abundance of sun and water, still today remain the poorest continent?”

Unless we find the right answer to this development paradox and broaden the distributional gains from natural resource exploitation while minimising the negative externalities, democracy will remain fragile.

Waves of campaigners have cheered on troops in Niamey, Niger’s capital, and the first survey of citizens’ opinion of the coup, conducted by Premise Data, is very revealing: 78% of respondents support the military’s actions and 73% believe the coup leaders should stay in power for an extended period or until new elections are held.

When the homeland is dying under the relentless firepower of jihadist forces and a long heritage of environmental crimes, it is everyone’s fault; and this includes both the military and civilian population.

Hippolyte Fofack is Chief Economist and Director of Research at the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank).

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Niger #latest #victim #Africas #development #paradox

The EU’s hydrogen plans are a distraction led by corporate interests

Post By World energy transition, European Union, euroviews, green energy, hydrogen, Lobbying firm

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Over the past few years, hydrogen has been transformed into a cornerstone of EU energy policy. Yet, oil and gas majors are taking advantage of the EU’s unrealistic targets for green hydrogen in order to sneak fossil-based hydrogen in through the back door, Belén Balanyá writes.

A look at the top 100 highest spenders on EU lobbying reveals that the hydrogen lobby is particularly extravagant, shelling out a whopping €75.75 million per year.

To give some context, this is substantially more than what big tech (€43.5m) and big finance (€38.75m) declare in the top 100 for their annual lobby spending.

The ranking sheds some light on the IEA’s newly released figures showing that an astounding 99% of globally produced hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. Yes, we are talking about the very same fossil fuels that are stoking the climate crisis.

In 2022, the total global hydrogen production of 95 million tonnes (Mt) was responsible for over 900 Mt of carbon emissions. This exceeded the nearly 800 Mt that was emitted by the entire global aviation industry.

Although the EU’s targets for green hydrogen are trumpeted with great fanfare — 20 million tonnes per year by 2030 — the fact is that current green hydrogen production around the world remains negligible. In 2022, less than 0.1% of global hydrogen (less than 0.08 million tonnes) was produced from renewable electricity.

Over the past few years, hydrogen has been transformed into a cornerstone of EU energy policy. Let’s look behind the scenes to see who is profiting from today’s inflated targets, massive subsidies and support schemes.

Meet Big Hydrogen

Unsurprisingly, oil and gas majors like Shell, Total, ExxonMobil, BP, Equinor and their lobby groups figure on the list of the top 100 spenders on EU lobbying, drawn from LobbyFacts data.

These interests, fully aware that hydrogen will continue to be mostly fossil-based in the coming years, have successfully hyped hydrogen as a silver bullet solution to the climate crisis. They are taking advantage of the EU’s unrealistic targets for green hydrogen in order to sneak fossil-based hydrogen in through the back door.

They are building on their campaign to sell the so-called “blue” hydrogen — produced from fossil fuels, mainly gas, with part of the carbon emissions “captured” — as clean.

Although it is often described as a low-carbon, low-emissions, and even CO2-neutral gas, blue hydrogen is a climate killer.

In fact, when their total CO2 and methane emissions are added up, the climate footprint of blue and other fossil hydrogen is greater than the direct burning of fossil fuels. Yet it has become a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry.

Other polluting industries with a vested interest in the hydrogen economy have also jumped on the bandwagon, including chemical and fertiliser corporations such as BASF, Dow, and Yara, and big players from the transport sector like BMW and the powerful ACEA car lobby.

Manufacturers including Siemens and Bosch are along for the ride, as is the influential Hydrogen Europe lobby group.

In the increasingly urgent context of the climate crisis, the hydrogen hype offers a perfect cover for polluting companies.

Why reduce traffic, or transition to agroecological farming, or decommission fossil gas pipelines when hydrogen allows you to continue your dirty business?

The slippery slope towards neo-colonialism

The continuation of the fossil fuel era is not the only risk posed by the hydrogen hype. The EU’s hydrogen plans deepen neo-colonial extractivist practices, including the large-scale appropriation in producing countries of land, water, and energy that could otherwise be used to meet local electricity needs.

in a new report by Corporate Europe Observatory, we look at projects with a planned production capacity of more than 1 gigawatt of green hydrogen. We found that 41 of the proposed 109 projects are planned in countries already facing high water stress, including Spain, Namibia, Chile and Morocco.

According to industry figures, the production process consumes around 10 litres of ultra-pure water (requiring 20-30 litres of seawater or 12-13 litres of fresh water) for every produced kilogram of hydrogen.

This places additional demands on water in a context where food production and drinking water are already under stress.

The wind and solar farms needed for the hydrogen economy also require vast areas of land. For example, with an area of 8,500 km2, the Aman project in Mauritania — one of the world’s biggest planned green hydrogen projects — covers more territory than many global megacities.

Additionally, many of the countries that the EU considers as potential candidates for hydrogen imports produce little green energy.

For example, in the Gulf countries, less than 1% of the electricity came from renewables in 2022 (the exception is the United Arab Emirates, with 4.5%).

A vision away from the resource-grabbing corporate economy of today

For similar reasons, the African People’s Climate and Development Declaration, signed by over 500 African civil society groups in September 2023, rejects green hydrogen as a “false solution”, stating that “green hydrogen for export does nothing to increase access for the 600 million Africans without access to energy. Instead, it turns our African renewable energy into an exportable commodity and ships our energy overseas.”

This is not to say that there is no role for green hydrogen. Mohamed Adow, who leads the climate think tank Power Shift Africa, outlines what he considers as a “socially, ecologically and economically appropriate use of hydrogen” in Africa: “small to medium scale, for domestic use (not for export), not in water-stressed regions, and to produce fertilisers for food sovereignty rather than for cash crops for export”.

His vision could not be further from the resource-grabbing and corporate-controlled hydrogen economy currently under construction in the EU.

Yet, it seems that nobody is hearing him, or many others who might have a much healthier, resilient, and mindful vision for our joint future.

Belén Balanyá is a researcher and campaigner with Corporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit research and campaign group aiming to expose any effects of corporate lobbying on EU policymaking.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#EUs #hydrogen #plans #distraction #led #corporate #interests

We can’t let Russia demoralise Ukraine’s Western backers

Post By World democracy, European Union, euroviews, nato, Russia's war in Ukraine, United States

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

By stopping an aggressive, revisionist Russia dead in its tracks, the West would achieve continental security, showing the autocracies on the rise that vitality hasn’t been drained from the democratic world, Aleksandar Đokić writes.

On 3 October, Russian special police arrested and beat up a Russian Orthodox monk, Ilya Sigida, in his temple in the southern Russian town of Slavyansk-on-Kuban in the Krasnodar region. Sigida is not an ordinary monk but also holds the title of aide to the regional archbishop.

However, the Russian state felt confident to assault him because he wrote an article for the site of the bishopric about the way in which Christianity and Christians should view the unpleasant topic of war. The Russian army or its leadership weren’t even mentioned in the piece.

Sigida’s fate is just the latest example of why Russia simply isn’t the traditionalist Mecca it tries to be for the Western alt-right — while at the same time, it’s neither the ideological descendant of the communist superpower, the Soviet Union, with the Kremlin’s actions clearly showing it’s become the polar opposite of its anti-fascist convictions of the past.

Yet, today, the number of those opposing the continued aid to Ukraine keeps growing, especially among the increasingly polarised extremes who see Vladimir Putin as the ultimate truthteller.

In turn, the conviction of the extremes has caused a ripple effect with the more moderate citizens of Europe and the US, and governments throughout the Western world are being made to justify their continued support of Ukraine.

This is why a shift has to be made from a purely emotional narrative at the outset of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 towards more rational geopolitical arguments about why supporting Kyiv actually means ensuring the future of the democratic world as a whole.

‘As long as it takes’ starting to irritate?

After almost 20 months of Russia’s total war against Ukraine, one thing is certain — the conflict is set to march on at least into the next year, with no end in sight.

While many in the West had high hopes after Ukraine’s swift rout in Kharkiv and less swift, but nonetheless effective, victories in Kherson, the reality of war saw Moscow muster enough manpower not to allow a quick and painless breakthrough of its main defensive lines.

In political terms, this means that the cost of aiding Ukraine — both in military and economic terms — continues to rise, all amidst a crisis of democracy not seen in the Western world since the 1920s and 1930s.

The “as long as it takes” catchphrase of US President Joe Biden’s administration is starting to irritate a part of the domestic electorate, a feeling also present throughout Western Europe.

These voices are not prevalent, but they cannot be ignored, in a way that they present great peril, not only to Ukraine but to the prestige and position of the collective West in an increasingly fractured world.

Support for Ukraine reached maturity

Yet, the unprecedented polarisation of American society, coupled with the end of “Pax Americana” — the period of relative peace in the Western hemisphere that saw the US become the dominant political, economic and cultural power — is something that Ukraine’s leadership and all those that support the struggle of its people for freedom from foreign occupation have to contend with.

And we are now at the stage where the global movement to help Ukraine reaches its maturity.

It now goes well beyond posting flags next to personal accounts on various social networks; it is not merely a feel-good cause one can carelessly stand behind, nor is it a social fad.

Aid to Ukraine is a strategic political, economic, military and societal decision, which will shape the future of the Western world alongside Ukraine itself.

The Ukrainian cause is just, moral, and essential as a legitimising factor for the Western brand of democracy, along with the European Union and NATO.

After many blunders and dubious interventions in places like the Middle East, the Western world has a perfect opportunity to demonstrate its own values, resolve and strength.

Placing our bets on David vs Goliath

If the West were to allow Ukraine to be left alone against the much more powerful aggressor, it would most probably receive new chances to support a just cause, only this time it would likely be the Baltic states or Poland.

In other words, abandoning Ukraine would be like extending an invitation to a resurgent and revisionist Russia to march on further into Eastern Europe.

Let us not forget that, for Putin’s regime, the die has been already cast and there is no going back.

If the Kremlin isn’t stopped in the Ukrainian steppes, it will advance towards central Europe, destroying NATO’s reputation every step of the way. The West is invested in this war — a war it most certainly didn’t desire, but a war that brings advantages as well.

This is why the favourable rational aspect of the Russo-Ukrainian War should be pushed to the front of the debate in Western polities.

There has been too much emphasis on morality, tapping into the altruistic motives of societies driven most often by self-interest.

This moral narrative, while true, has shaped the war through the eyes of the casual nominally powerless Western observer as a hopeless, albeit valiant, struggle of David vs Goliath. But in the real world, it’s difficult to place your bets on David.

Defending the borders of the democratic world

Since Russia’s war in Ukraine is now also a conflict of strategic importance for the West itself, the main legitimising narrative of supporting Kyiv’s war effort and wrecked economy cannot rely mainly on arguments of morality.

Putting into play rational geopolitical arguments would actually provide an understandable set of strategic goals which the democratic Western world aims to achieve by aiding Ukraine.

The main and rationally achievable aim has to be the containment of Russia. Its power projection needs to be clipped, its aggression curtailed in such a manner that it will not be able to convince anyone that it represents anything other than a regional power with delusions of grandeur.

The whole autocratic world is watching and, while the US has lost the stomach for unwise and audacious foreign military interventions after erring greatly in the Middle Eastern theatre, investing in Ukraine is precisely the initiative needed to help stave off the geopolitical sharks that have sensed the scent of blood in the water.

Not a single US soldier has died in Ukraine, the cause is perfectly just, one anyone can stand behind without later feeling remorse, and it represents being on the right side of history.

But it’s more than that: this is a genuine opportunity for both the US and a united Europe to prove that they can defend the borders of their democratic world.

The Ukrainians are willing to fulfil this role, not because they are bellicose fanatics, but because their own survival and their core cultural and national identity are in grave danger.

Ukrainians are fighting against getting wiped from the face of the Earth and then being reconstructed in the Kremlin’s own image, piecemeal.

Meanwhile, Ukrainians know what is at stake

This is no one’s proxy war. Instead, it is a case of intersected interests.

For Russia, it is a battle to protect the regime in the Kremlin, to prolong its lifespan, and a great revanchist leap which would prove to the West once and for all that Russia is mightier even than the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire put together.

Amidst that, Putin wants to reign until his natural death and to be viewed as a fearsome emperor.

For Ukraine, it is a matter of survival — both physical and spiritual. Russia would not only murder and repress Ukrainians, it would reconstruct the historic, cultural, national and even religious identity of the remains of the Ukrainian people.

Ukrainians don’t need Biden or NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to tell them to fight. They know what is at stake.

For China, this war is an opportunity to tie a weakened Russia closer to itself to further exploit it. Beijing would also like to see a weakened Russia trapped in this conflict forever since it would drain both the Kremlin’s resources and those of the West.

The West has an interest to stop an aggressive, revisionist power in its tracks, crippling it for decades, and putting Russia in such a position that it won’t matter who’s in power. It may become democratic, or it may not, but it won’t pose a danger to its neighbours.

And by achieving this goal, the West would achieve continental security, showing the autocracies on the rise that vitality hasn’t been drained from the democratic world.

Now is the time to explain this to electorates

It falls to the leading political figures and parties of the Western world to explain to their electorates that investing in Ukraine is synonymous with investing in their own future.

It doesn’t matter if one is on the side of the progressives or the traditionalists in the great values-based divide of today. Aid to Ukraine works to the general advantage of the West as a whole.

It would really help the debate if the Western traditionalist electorate was more familiar with the ideological eclecticism of Putin’s Russia, which can propagate Joseph Stalin as well as any tsar, and which isn’t above misusing the Torah, the Bible, or the Quran for the gain of its propaganda.

Aleksandar Đokić is a Serbian political scientist and analyst with bylines in Novaya Gazeta. Formerly, he was a lecturer at RUDN University in Moscow.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Russia #demoralise #Ukraines #Western #backers

Indonesia is fast becoming a formidable presence on the global stage

Post By World asean, business, euroviews, indonesia, Investment, Markets

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Amidst a global landscape riddled with rivalries, Indonesia continues to lead by example, advocating for nations to collaborate on pressing global issues — serving as a geopolitical and economic bridge, Arsjad Rasjid writes.

In the wake of the 2023 ASEAN Business Advisory Council (BAC) Summit’s conclusion, Indonesia’s emergence as a global leader is taking centre stage. European policymakers should take note.

Assuming the pivotal roles of ASEAN’s Chair this year and the G20 Presidency in 2022, Indonesia has rightfully earned global recognition for its potential to not only drive regional development but also set a compelling global example.

With Southeast Asia’s largest economy and the world’s third-largest democracy, Indonesia is rapidly asserting itself as a formidable presence on the global stage.

According to some forecasts, Indonesia could even overtake Russia by 2026, becoming the sixth-largest economy worldwide when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP).

Let’s unite for the greater good

Indonesia, like most nations, was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to its shift down from upper-middle income to lower-middle income status as of July 2021.

Recognising the pandemic’s devastating economic and human toll, the Indonesian Presidency chose the theme “Recover Together, Recover Stronger” for the G20 summit last October.

This theme encompassed three pillars: global health architecture, sustainable energy transition, and digital transformation.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi, by emphasising these issues, called upon world leaders to unite for the greater good.

In light of the current geopolitical tensions ignited by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Indonesia urged nations to set aside their differences to uphold the multilateral system, especially crucial for the stability of developing nations.

Elevating key industries along the global value chain

Since February last year, when Indonesia’s gross domestic product (GDP) rebounded to pre-pandemic levels with over 5% annual growth, the nation showcased a remarkable capacity for recovery.

Key drivers of this resurgence included a surge in household consumption, the gradual easing of pandemic restrictions, supportive fiscal policies, and substantial growth in commodity exports.

Notably, Indonesia’s trade performance has thrived due to elevated global commodity prices, encompassing coal, palm oil, iron, and steel shipments, as underscored by the Head of Statistics Indonesia, Margo Yuwono.

With the OECD’s economic outlook predicting a moderation in global GDP growth, it is evident that Indonesia’s current account cannot perpetually rely on high natural resource prices.

Thus, both the government and the private sector have taken proactive steps to elevate key industries along the global value chain.

One government initiative led by President Jokowi involved imposing export restrictions on raw minerals in 2020, compelling foreign companies to invest in Indonesian smelters to retain access to nickel resources.

While this move faced legal challenges from the EU, it is estimated that the development of downstream facilities boosted the total added value of nickel commodities by approximately $12 billion in 2022.

From the fledging EV sector to a move toward cleaner tech

At the same time, the private sector has complemented these efforts to attract investment by expanding their capacities across various sectors, including the burgeoning electric vehicle (EV) market.

Indonesia, boasting the world’s third-largest two-wheeler market with approximately 6 million motorcycles sold annually, holds vast potential in the EV sector, and private actors like Indika Energy are responding with complete mobility solutions.

Indonesia’s substantial reserves of a vital mineral essential for EV batteries present a significant opportunity for public and private sectors to collaborate in transforming Indonesia and ASEAN into a global hub for EV production.

With this long-term vision in mind, Indonesia’s private sector has actively embraced innovative technology to make mineral processing more sustainable for local communities and the environment.

An illustrative case is our adoption of the groundbreaking DNi technology, enabling nickel producers to utilise lower-grade ores to produce high-grade nickel, with over 98% of nitric acid being recyclable, all while minimising waste streams.

This not only addressed Indonesia’s historical underinvestment in ore processing but also facilitated the expansion of facilities powered by cleaner technologies.

The world’s fourth most populous nation wants to lead by example

By aligning its long-term development goals with a carbon-neutral strategy, Indonesia exemplifies how the public and private sectors can effectively collaborate to drive sustainable and resilient economic growth.

At the ASEAN BAC summit, the potential of public-private cooperation emerged as a central theme, emphasising the private sector’s role in catalysing policy reforms that can position ASEAN at the epicentre of global economic interconnectedness.

In my capacity as Chair of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, KADIN, I have reiterated this point on numerous occasions, emphasising that while ASEAN has made significant progress in promoting such partnerships — including with Europe — it remains an ongoing journey of growth and development.

From the G20 Summit in 2022 to the recent ASEAN BAC Summit, Indonesia has undeniably showcased its role as a global leader.

As the world’s fourth-most-populous nation, composed of over 13,000 islands, Indonesia is harnessing its unique characteristics to its advantage.

It is no surprise therefore that Indonesia has been hailed as one of the most promising prospects on the global stage in the years to come — and the West should take notice.

Arsjad Rasjid chairs the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN) and the ASEAN Business Advisory Council (ASEAN-BAC). He also serves as President Director of Indika Energy.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at [email protected] to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Source link

#Indonesia #fast #formidable #presence #global #stage

Cart

A menace in a world of partial disorder

Flashpoints outlining the Kremlin’s shadow

Questions over Russia’s involvement in bloodshed

Bullets for Kalashnikovs and conflicting narratives

Carving an empire in blood devoid of meaning

An electoral youthquake

Voter outflow to the Third Way key?

An opposition victory where caveats apply

Taking a page out of Italy’s book

People have the right to know

It is a matter of access

Those usually on the sidelines could finally take control

A system that’s fair and just for all

‘Fair share’: A small phrase, yet deceptively simple

Those who polluted the most in the past need to do more now

An asymmetric relationship at the core of the issue

The sense of distance is misleading

Hesitance and caution over food legislation?

What are the cities like Lyon doing?

What can the EU do to help?

The conversation around food is not just that

Sweden would make NATO considerably stronger

Concerted ambiguity in Hungary’s communication

Contradictions aplenty

Who profits?

Meanwhile, Russia is applauding the delay

A country is so rich, yet its people are poor

Terrorist acts and pitch-dark blackouts

Neighbouring Nigeria suffers from the same paradox

Let there be light — thanks to Nigeiren uranium

‘David vs Goliath struggle’

Natural resources, a blessing for some, for others a curse

Democracy will remain fragile

Meet Big Hydrogen

The slippery slope towards neo-colonialism

A vision away from the resource-grabbing corporate economy of today

‘As long as it takes’ starting to irritate?

Support for Ukraine reached maturity

Placing our bets on David vs Goliath

Defending the borders of the democratic world

Meanwhile, Ukrainians know what is at stake

Now is the time to explain this to electorates

Let’s unite for the greater good

Elevating key industries along the global value chain

From the fledging EV sector to a move toward cleaner tech

The world’s fourth most populous nation wants to lead by example