According to Stripes, a US Army journal, Marine general Neller told a group of 300 Marines stationed in Norway that "a war is coming" and that Russia, the Pacific and the Middle East are the likely theaters of war.
The Marine Corps commandant told about 300 Marines in Norway this week that they should be prepared for a “bigass fight” to come, remarks his spokesman later said were not in reference to any specific adversary but rather intended to inspire the troops.
“I hope I’m wrong, but there’s a war coming,” Gen. Robert Neller told the Marines on Thursday, according to Military.com. “You’re in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by your presence.”
Neller was visiting a Marine rotational force near Trondheim, about 300 miles north of Oslo. The Marines have been stationed there since January. Their presence in Norway is intended to support operations by NATO and the U.S. European Command, as well as to help the Marine Corps facilitate training in cold weather and mountainous conditions.
But Neller and other Corp leaders told the force they should be prepared for a change in their peacetime mission, should the need arise. In particular, Neller predicted the Pacific and Russia to be the focus of any conflict in the future outside of the Middle East, Military.com reported.
Lt. Col. Eric Dent, a spokesman for the general, told The Washington Post Saturday night that Neller’s remarks “were intended to inspire and focus the Marines’ training.” He added the general had also told the troops none of the four countries he had referenced — Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — wanted to go to war.
“The thought of war has a way of motivating warriors to train hard and increase readiness. I cannot imagine any professional military leader suggesting to his or her Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen that we shouldn’t think that conflict is pending,” Dent said in an email. “Being ready is a constant practice and refocusing. Neller and others have said, ‘If you want peace, train for war.’ That’s exactly what we want and are doing.”
As I see it an army that needs to motivate its soldiers with lies is in serious trouble.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
The tough question of replacing Assad
America has long pressure that Assad must go. But Russia too has suggested that its support operation for the Syrian government does not mean that it supports Assad as a person as president. In this light there have been some suggestions that Russia's announcement of troop withdrawal might be a kind of pressure on Assad to look for a replacement.
At first sight there are good arguments for replacing Assad. The opposition doesn't trust him and considers him an inveterate liar. Corruption is widespread. His control over the army is weak: the most effective forces are the Tiger Forces who are known for their pilfering. In basic government too his track record is weak: half a year after the government conquered East Aleppo it still doesn't have water and electricity.
Yet this is tricky stuff. America's replacement in Afghanistan of Karzai by someone "more democratic" didn't turn out very well: the present government is divided and weak and losing territory to the Taliban. Karzai wasn't great, but his successors are definitely worse. During the Vietnam War too a replacement didn't turn out very well.
Dictators like Assad have also the means to sideline everyone who might be considered a suitable replacement. In that light I am a bit suspicious of the death of Zahreddine, the general who defended Deir Ezzor for several years and who had a great reputation for that.
The ideal scenario would be that Assad himself selected somebody in whom he truly believes and who is the type of hands-on strong leader that can rebuild Syria and overcome its factionalism.
On the other hand it might be wise not to be too obsessed with replacing Assad as it could blind one to other opportunities to improve the way Syria is governed.
According to Foreign Affairs Russia wants Syria to have some kind of power sharing like in Lebanon. I doubt whether that can work. The division between Christians, Sunni and Shiites in Lebanon is clearly marked and each of those groups has it own radicals and moderates. That is how Lebanon works and has worked for a very long time. But in Syria the main division is between moderate and radical Sunni's. Those groups are not clearly delineated. In fact they may be present in the same family. This is not a discussion between interest groups, it is a discussion about policy. And the solution is not power sharing but a gradual opening of the political discussion - while at the same time setting and guarding its limits.
It may be good to remember how the father of Syria's present president came to power - despite being from the Alawite minority. It had to do with the division of the Sunni commercial elite. That was divided between Damascus and Aleppo and a representative from a poor powerless minority seemed a good compromise candidate. Of course he acquired some real power. Things went really wrong with the Brotherhood uprising around 1980. This Saudi-sponsored uprising was focused on the Hama-Homs region where the Alawites traditionally live and where many still see them as the despised minority they were in the Ottoman era. In this respect you can compare this region to America's Deep South where many whites still look at blacks with the eyes of a slave holder.
You see the same dynamic still in the present uprising. Where much of the original protests focused on economic issues like corruption the focus soon shifted towards sectarian hatred of Alawites. The neighboring countries played an important role in that process: Saudi Arabia gave hate mongering clerics a podium and Erdogan openly declared that he wanted Syria to be ruled by a Sunni.
Without the harmful influence of its neighbors the logical development in Syria would be to go back to those business interests groups and to ask them to take the lead in charting how Syria should develop. However, the rekindled sectarian hatred won't make this any easier.
Postscript: yet another suspicious death. Mounir Darwish, a dissident who lived in government controlled Damascus was hit by a car on 11 January 2018 and then mysteriously died in hospital while he seemed to be recovering well.
At first sight there are good arguments for replacing Assad. The opposition doesn't trust him and considers him an inveterate liar. Corruption is widespread. His control over the army is weak: the most effective forces are the Tiger Forces who are known for their pilfering. In basic government too his track record is weak: half a year after the government conquered East Aleppo it still doesn't have water and electricity.
Yet this is tricky stuff. America's replacement in Afghanistan of Karzai by someone "more democratic" didn't turn out very well: the present government is divided and weak and losing territory to the Taliban. Karzai wasn't great, but his successors are definitely worse. During the Vietnam War too a replacement didn't turn out very well.
Dictators like Assad have also the means to sideline everyone who might be considered a suitable replacement. In that light I am a bit suspicious of the death of Zahreddine, the general who defended Deir Ezzor for several years and who had a great reputation for that.
The ideal scenario would be that Assad himself selected somebody in whom he truly believes and who is the type of hands-on strong leader that can rebuild Syria and overcome its factionalism.
On the other hand it might be wise not to be too obsessed with replacing Assad as it could blind one to other opportunities to improve the way Syria is governed.
According to Foreign Affairs Russia wants Syria to have some kind of power sharing like in Lebanon. I doubt whether that can work. The division between Christians, Sunni and Shiites in Lebanon is clearly marked and each of those groups has it own radicals and moderates. That is how Lebanon works and has worked for a very long time. But in Syria the main division is between moderate and radical Sunni's. Those groups are not clearly delineated. In fact they may be present in the same family. This is not a discussion between interest groups, it is a discussion about policy. And the solution is not power sharing but a gradual opening of the political discussion - while at the same time setting and guarding its limits.
It may be good to remember how the father of Syria's present president came to power - despite being from the Alawite minority. It had to do with the division of the Sunni commercial elite. That was divided between Damascus and Aleppo and a representative from a poor powerless minority seemed a good compromise candidate. Of course he acquired some real power. Things went really wrong with the Brotherhood uprising around 1980. This Saudi-sponsored uprising was focused on the Hama-Homs region where the Alawites traditionally live and where many still see them as the despised minority they were in the Ottoman era. In this respect you can compare this region to America's Deep South where many whites still look at blacks with the eyes of a slave holder.
You see the same dynamic still in the present uprising. Where much of the original protests focused on economic issues like corruption the focus soon shifted towards sectarian hatred of Alawites. The neighboring countries played an important role in that process: Saudi Arabia gave hate mongering clerics a podium and Erdogan openly declared that he wanted Syria to be ruled by a Sunni.
Without the harmful influence of its neighbors the logical development in Syria would be to go back to those business interests groups and to ask them to take the lead in charting how Syria should develop. However, the rekindled sectarian hatred won't make this any easier.
Postscript: yet another suspicious death. Mounir Darwish, a dissident who lived in government controlled Damascus was hit by a car on 11 January 2018 and then mysteriously died in hospital while he seemed to be recovering well.
Saturday, November 18, 2017
The need for real EU reform
I am getting more and more convinced that the EU needs to reformed - although I am still a bit puzzled whether and how that could work out.
The first problem of the EU is that the benefits flow to a small number of countries - the most important of which is Germany. Some other countries - such as Bulgaria - become more and more marginalized. The young emigrate and real development doesn't happen. The ideology of the EU used to be that just building infrastructure would be enough to modernize these countries, but it doesn't happen. Of course this is not only a problem of the EU: America has its "fly-over country" and in some of the richter countries of the EU you see areas too where people and companies are leaving.
The main cause is the present idea of capitalism that leaves national governments very little freedom to have an economic policy and that gives a lot of power to business interests. That will need to change. Government need a lot more freedom to set their own economic policies. And please save me the complaints about "unfair competition": the present system is unfair.
The second problem is what I consider Brusselian mobsterism. Brussel has a lot of power and it isn't shy of using that in the most brutal way. The first case was when it closed the banks in Cyprus to force the Cyprus government to do its bidding. The second case when it repeatedly threatened to do the same in Greece to force it to accept its solutions for the Greek debt crisis. And now we have Brexit and we see the same behavior. Now the threat is that there will be no agreement and that one day British companies will just lose their access to the EU market. Just as with Greece EU representatives regularly refuse to negotiate - using all kinds of excuses - the most common being now that first the financial aspect of Brexit needs to be settled. Of course that is nonsense - all things are related. But this mobster behavior - that makes one ashamed to be an European - is considered normal in Brussels.
This kind of behavior makes a farce of the right to leave the EU. It basically tells everyone to do what Brussels dictates - or else... I believe that the only solution is make "Europe a la carte" a much more explicit concept. Such a concept should explicitly leave countries free to choose whether they want to be part of the eurozone and should even impose on the obligation on the EU to help countries that want to leave the eurozone to do that with as little trouble as possible. Britain should have had the right to refuse refugees - what would have taken away the need for the Brexit.
The concept should also extend to the countries that are now outside the EU. The way that the EU now uses its economic power to force countries outside its borders to do its bidding is shameful. Instead countries should be able to become part of the EU for only some aspects.
The first problem of the EU is that the benefits flow to a small number of countries - the most important of which is Germany. Some other countries - such as Bulgaria - become more and more marginalized. The young emigrate and real development doesn't happen. The ideology of the EU used to be that just building infrastructure would be enough to modernize these countries, but it doesn't happen. Of course this is not only a problem of the EU: America has its "fly-over country" and in some of the richter countries of the EU you see areas too where people and companies are leaving.
The main cause is the present idea of capitalism that leaves national governments very little freedom to have an economic policy and that gives a lot of power to business interests. That will need to change. Government need a lot more freedom to set their own economic policies. And please save me the complaints about "unfair competition": the present system is unfair.
The second problem is what I consider Brusselian mobsterism. Brussel has a lot of power and it isn't shy of using that in the most brutal way. The first case was when it closed the banks in Cyprus to force the Cyprus government to do its bidding. The second case when it repeatedly threatened to do the same in Greece to force it to accept its solutions for the Greek debt crisis. And now we have Brexit and we see the same behavior. Now the threat is that there will be no agreement and that one day British companies will just lose their access to the EU market. Just as with Greece EU representatives regularly refuse to negotiate - using all kinds of excuses - the most common being now that first the financial aspect of Brexit needs to be settled. Of course that is nonsense - all things are related. But this mobster behavior - that makes one ashamed to be an European - is considered normal in Brussels.
This kind of behavior makes a farce of the right to leave the EU. It basically tells everyone to do what Brussels dictates - or else... I believe that the only solution is make "Europe a la carte" a much more explicit concept. Such a concept should explicitly leave countries free to choose whether they want to be part of the eurozone and should even impose on the obligation on the EU to help countries that want to leave the eurozone to do that with as little trouble as possible. Britain should have had the right to refuse refugees - what would have taken away the need for the Brexit.
The concept should also extend to the countries that are now outside the EU. The way that the EU now uses its economic power to force countries outside its borders to do its bidding is shameful. Instead countries should be able to become part of the EU for only some aspects.
Friday, November 17, 2017
The fear for democracy in former Yugoslavia
As I have defended before, the falling apart of Yugoslavia was a crime of the "international community", quasi legalized by the Badinter Commission that claimed that Yugoslavia was "falling apart". Under this pretext the Western countries interfered in the internal affairs of the Yugoslav state and encouraged its republics to secede. The following chaos was the perfect illustration why we have international laws that forbid interference in the internal affairs of other states and that give countries near absolute power to prevent parts of their territory to secede.
To summarize: civilized society is based on laws that can only be changed according to strict rules. Once you quit that principle arbitrariness appears. In that light it was no coincidence that after they illegally had seceded we saw the excesses of the "erased" in Slovenia and the efforts by Croatian nationalists to make life so hard for the Serbs that they would leave. With the secession changes in the law had become arbitrary and some people immediately exploited the opening to impose their rather unpleasant visions.
Of course around 1990 Yugoslavia was in a state of flux anyway with the disappearance of communism. The structure of Yugoslavia (and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia) had always been that on paper the constituting republics had a lot of freedom, but that at the same you had the Communist Party that was quite centralized and formed a kind of counterbalance. When the Party fell away that structure no longer existed and you got some juggling for power. On the one hand you saw Slovenia and Croatia that wanted their quasi-independence to be permanent and on the other side you saw the central government and many of the other republics that had to conclude that the country was almost ungovernable and that something had to be done to replace the centralizing influence of the Party. As Slovenia and Croatia resisted national direct elections for the central government you saw in the end that Milosevic took the initiative by taking over the governments of some of the republics. I think it was the closest thing to lawful change that was possible at that moment in Yugoslavia. Unfortunately it was grabbed as an opportunity for sowing chaos.
Anyway, this is stuff for historians. What we now are facing is a deadlock in Kosovo and a situation in Bosnia where all the ethnic groups contest the present constitution. The question is how to solve this.
As I see it both are cases of a kind of colonialism. In both cases the present situation was imposed with a lot of violence by the countries that call themselves the "international community". That is not a solid basis. We need to go to a situation where the local actors feel and are responsible.
We know all the excuses. Border changes in Kosovo are unacceptable because that would set a precedent for elsewhere in former Yugoslavia - particularly Bosnia. And the only change that seems acceptable to the "internationals" in Bosnia is more centralization - what is fiercely resisted by the Serbs and Croats. I consider this an unstable situation. Sooner or later the international situation will change: other countries with other insights will become more influential and even the countries who created the present situation may change their vision.
The only thing what can bring a permanent solution is when the local powers work out some compromise. Of course violence is not acceptable and the present situation will be the starting point. But from there they should be free to work out the solution that they like the best.
To summarize: civilized society is based on laws that can only be changed according to strict rules. Once you quit that principle arbitrariness appears. In that light it was no coincidence that after they illegally had seceded we saw the excesses of the "erased" in Slovenia and the efforts by Croatian nationalists to make life so hard for the Serbs that they would leave. With the secession changes in the law had become arbitrary and some people immediately exploited the opening to impose their rather unpleasant visions.
Of course around 1990 Yugoslavia was in a state of flux anyway with the disappearance of communism. The structure of Yugoslavia (and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia) had always been that on paper the constituting republics had a lot of freedom, but that at the same you had the Communist Party that was quite centralized and formed a kind of counterbalance. When the Party fell away that structure no longer existed and you got some juggling for power. On the one hand you saw Slovenia and Croatia that wanted their quasi-independence to be permanent and on the other side you saw the central government and many of the other republics that had to conclude that the country was almost ungovernable and that something had to be done to replace the centralizing influence of the Party. As Slovenia and Croatia resisted national direct elections for the central government you saw in the end that Milosevic took the initiative by taking over the governments of some of the republics. I think it was the closest thing to lawful change that was possible at that moment in Yugoslavia. Unfortunately it was grabbed as an opportunity for sowing chaos.
Anyway, this is stuff for historians. What we now are facing is a deadlock in Kosovo and a situation in Bosnia where all the ethnic groups contest the present constitution. The question is how to solve this.
As I see it both are cases of a kind of colonialism. In both cases the present situation was imposed with a lot of violence by the countries that call themselves the "international community". That is not a solid basis. We need to go to a situation where the local actors feel and are responsible.
We know all the excuses. Border changes in Kosovo are unacceptable because that would set a precedent for elsewhere in former Yugoslavia - particularly Bosnia. And the only change that seems acceptable to the "internationals" in Bosnia is more centralization - what is fiercely resisted by the Serbs and Croats. I consider this an unstable situation. Sooner or later the international situation will change: other countries with other insights will become more influential and even the countries who created the present situation may change their vision.
The only thing what can bring a permanent solution is when the local powers work out some compromise. Of course violence is not acceptable and the present situation will be the starting point. But from there they should be free to work out the solution that they like the best.
Wednesday, November 01, 2017
The Manafort indictment
Al Capone was caught for tax evasion. A variation on this theme is to catch some minor cog in an organization and to accuse him of anything that you can think of. And then to offer him as way out if he provides evidence against his boss.
Such tactics have been used against the mafia and such fraudulent organizations as Enron. The big question of course is: what happens if the target really is innocent? In that case both the cogs and the prosecutor will be seduced to blow things out of proportion in order to achieve a guilty verdict. Monicagate was a good example of how - when there is no real accusation - the "suspect" can still be condemned.
And let's not forget the sorry state of American justice. In this "plea bargain" paradise the chances of being acquitted are comparable to those once in the Soviet Union.
We don't know what Mueller knows. But the facts that until now have come out about Trump and Russia do in my opinion not justify the means that Mueller is now using with the Manafort indictment.
Such tactics have been used against the mafia and such fraudulent organizations as Enron. The big question of course is: what happens if the target really is innocent? In that case both the cogs and the prosecutor will be seduced to blow things out of proportion in order to achieve a guilty verdict. Monicagate was a good example of how - when there is no real accusation - the "suspect" can still be condemned.
And let's not forget the sorry state of American justice. In this "plea bargain" paradise the chances of being acquitted are comparable to those once in the Soviet Union.
We don't know what Mueller knows. But the facts that until now have come out about Trump and Russia do in my opinion not justify the means that Mueller is now using with the Manafort indictment.
Two failing independence referendums
There are remarkable similarities between the independence referendums in Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan. And those don't bode very well for their success.
In both cases the local governments acted out of a kind of despair. The Catalan case is the most obvious. Its government had lived above its means. So it would soon need to apply budget cuts. And usually translates in losses at the ballot box. And given its thin majority in parliament that would be the end of Puigdemont's rule. In Kurdistan the oil price crash was still hurting. And soon the Iraqi army would be free to confront the Kurds.
In their hurry - and arrogance - both made also the same mistake of antagonizing the other ethnic groups. The Kurds have gotten a rather bad reputation for sidelining other ethnic groups. Puigdemont's disregard for parliamentary rules and the fake history that he has gotten taught in Catalan schools are lighter problems but point in the same direction. In both cases the way people try to achieve independence suggests that life will get tough for other ethnic groups if they win.
The best strategy to get independence isn't rocket science: Make your effort when your economy is flourishing and the prospects are still good. That position will allow you to be generous to the country you want to leave. Be nice to other ethnic groups: you don't want to antagonize them. If you play it smart you can even get their support: they too will profit when your rich province becomes independent. And most important: be patient. There are lots of small steps that you can take until one day the stars are aligned in the right way for your big move.
Maybe one day the Catalans and the Kurds will have independence. But we can only be glad that the rather nasty characters of Puigdemont and Barzani didn't succeed. They would very likely do a lot of harm before the situation stabilized. The independence process of Slovenia and Croatia offered frightening examples of what happens when you give in to nasty politicians who want to steal independence.
In both cases the local governments acted out of a kind of despair. The Catalan case is the most obvious. Its government had lived above its means. So it would soon need to apply budget cuts. And usually translates in losses at the ballot box. And given its thin majority in parliament that would be the end of Puigdemont's rule. In Kurdistan the oil price crash was still hurting. And soon the Iraqi army would be free to confront the Kurds.
In their hurry - and arrogance - both made also the same mistake of antagonizing the other ethnic groups. The Kurds have gotten a rather bad reputation for sidelining other ethnic groups. Puigdemont's disregard for parliamentary rules and the fake history that he has gotten taught in Catalan schools are lighter problems but point in the same direction. In both cases the way people try to achieve independence suggests that life will get tough for other ethnic groups if they win.
The best strategy to get independence isn't rocket science: Make your effort when your economy is flourishing and the prospects are still good. That position will allow you to be generous to the country you want to leave. Be nice to other ethnic groups: you don't want to antagonize them. If you play it smart you can even get their support: they too will profit when your rich province becomes independent. And most important: be patient. There are lots of small steps that you can take until one day the stars are aligned in the right way for your big move.
Maybe one day the Catalans and the Kurds will have independence. But we can only be glad that the rather nasty characters of Puigdemont and Barzani didn't succeed. They would very likely do a lot of harm before the situation stabilized. The independence process of Slovenia and Croatia offered frightening examples of what happens when you give in to nasty politicians who want to steal independence.
Friday, September 29, 2017
The Catalonia referendum and the art of subtlety
On 1 October Catalonia will hold an independence referendum.
A lot has been written about the dubious legality of the enterprise. The Spanish constitution doesn't allow it. And its claim to be binding - while it was only supported in the Catalan parliament by the government party that won a majority of the seats with 48% of the votes - goes against the Catalan constitution that needs a 75% majority to be changed.
But there is more than legality. There is also the enthusiasm on the streets for independence. And there is the rather hamfisted approach of the national government that is explained by many pro-independence activists as an effort to rob them of their democratic rights. Such sentiments don't look at laws. They are more responsive to demagogy and facts on the ground.
The Spanish government is going too far in its efforts to stop the referendum. They should learn from Iraq that allowed a similar referendum to take place - while being very clear about its opposition - but then punished by demanding control over the airports. Similarly Madrid could make clear that - although they don't approve - they won't take measures against voting in schools. Instead they can think up measures that could be taken later on to punish the Catalan government if it tries to implement independence.
Such an approach would have the following advantages:
- it avoids fighting a battle that you cannot win. There is no way Madrid can stop the people from voting. Losing this battle will make them look weak and embolden the separatists.
- it avoids further polarization - that works in favor of Catalan separatists whose ideology puts lots of emphasis on victimization by Madrid.
- it will make Catalans more open to arguments from Madrid.
A lot has been written about the dubious legality of the enterprise. The Spanish constitution doesn't allow it. And its claim to be binding - while it was only supported in the Catalan parliament by the government party that won a majority of the seats with 48% of the votes - goes against the Catalan constitution that needs a 75% majority to be changed.
But there is more than legality. There is also the enthusiasm on the streets for independence. And there is the rather hamfisted approach of the national government that is explained by many pro-independence activists as an effort to rob them of their democratic rights. Such sentiments don't look at laws. They are more responsive to demagogy and facts on the ground.
The Spanish government is going too far in its efforts to stop the referendum. They should learn from Iraq that allowed a similar referendum to take place - while being very clear about its opposition - but then punished by demanding control over the airports. Similarly Madrid could make clear that - although they don't approve - they won't take measures against voting in schools. Instead they can think up measures that could be taken later on to punish the Catalan government if it tries to implement independence.
Such an approach would have the following advantages:
- it avoids fighting a battle that you cannot win. There is no way Madrid can stop the people from voting. Losing this battle will make them look weak and embolden the separatists.
- it avoids further polarization - that works in favor of Catalan separatists whose ideology puts lots of emphasis on victimization by Madrid.
- it will make Catalans more open to arguments from Madrid.
Thursday, September 07, 2017
Hillary still doesn't get it
Hillary Clinton is about to publish a book about the election campaign. In it she complains that her positions were about the same as those of Sanders and that Sanders instead attacked her integrity by highlighting contradictions.
She still doesn't get it.
Hillary used the same opportunistic strategy as Bill: having a good look at opinion polls and taking those positions that appeal most to leftish and centrist voters. What is missing is a vision that connects those points. And that is the big difference with Bernie Sanders.
Bill Clinton lacked such a vision too and we saw the result in rightish policies like concessions to Wall Street and an aggressive foreign policy.
Both Hillary and Bill surround themselves with the 1% and have taken over much of their world view. The difference is that Bill is a more empathic person than Hillary. That gave him at least a bit of understanding of the point of view of the rest of humanity. It also helped to make him look more understanding even when he wasn't. Bill's skirt chasing didn't hurt either: it brought him in close contact with at least some people outside the 1% bubble.
Neither Bill nor Bernie are so alienated from poorer people that they would put them away as "deplorables". Let's face it: this was not a mistake. This is how Hillary thinks. If she hadn't been caught with this there might have been another incident. And even without it many of her potential voters sensed the disconnect: there were too many signs like her refusal to publish her speeches at Goldman Sachs. It was part of Sanders' strategy to highlight such signs. Trump would double down by calling her a liar.
Hillary had rather few public appearances. Her age and some kind of strategy may have played a role in this. But it may also have been that - given her large disconnect with her audience - each appearance cost her too much energy. Anyway, by taking so few opportunities to meet her target audience Hillary wasted opportunities to reconnect as each appearance is also an opportunity to get a feeling of how the audience thinks and feels.
Part of campaigning is to control what is being said about you. The best way to do that is to make the news yourself. Trump is a master at that. Wave after wave of (usually well deserved) bad publicity comes rolling in his direction and then he makes some outrageous statement that his followers like and it just disappears. Sure, waiting out a crisis of bad publicity is a time honored strategy too. But it is not very smart when other candidates have a really appealing message. And it is a risky strategy in a time of elections when the media will pick up any kind of news about you - no matter how insignificant they might consider it in other times.
"She deserves it". It was an argument that worked - to a certain extent - within the Democratic Party apparatus. Within a political party there are a lot of jobs to allocate and people will be more inclined to support an insider like Clinton than an outsider like Sanders. Even if they might sympathize with Sanders they know it is better for their career to support Clinton: Clinton can hurt or reward them: Sanders not. But for the average voter this is irrelevant. They ask "what's in it for me?" and they look at her behavior in the past and the present. When they hear Clinton fans tell them that she deserves it it mainly tells them that they don't have real arguments.
Poor Hillary. She just doesn't understand what she did wrong. She did everything according to the book and yet she was defeated by an obvious lying crook. Unfortunately her incapacity to understand is a good illustration of what she missed as a candidate: a vision that people can buy into. If she had understood that she would at least have been able to take compensating measures like choosing a vice-presidential candidate with a vision. By freezing out Sanders and his followers after she had won the primaries she did exactly the opposite.
She still doesn't get it.
Hillary used the same opportunistic strategy as Bill: having a good look at opinion polls and taking those positions that appeal most to leftish and centrist voters. What is missing is a vision that connects those points. And that is the big difference with Bernie Sanders.
Bill Clinton lacked such a vision too and we saw the result in rightish policies like concessions to Wall Street and an aggressive foreign policy.
Both Hillary and Bill surround themselves with the 1% and have taken over much of their world view. The difference is that Bill is a more empathic person than Hillary. That gave him at least a bit of understanding of the point of view of the rest of humanity. It also helped to make him look more understanding even when he wasn't. Bill's skirt chasing didn't hurt either: it brought him in close contact with at least some people outside the 1% bubble.
Neither Bill nor Bernie are so alienated from poorer people that they would put them away as "deplorables". Let's face it: this was not a mistake. This is how Hillary thinks. If she hadn't been caught with this there might have been another incident. And even without it many of her potential voters sensed the disconnect: there were too many signs like her refusal to publish her speeches at Goldman Sachs. It was part of Sanders' strategy to highlight such signs. Trump would double down by calling her a liar.
Hillary had rather few public appearances. Her age and some kind of strategy may have played a role in this. But it may also have been that - given her large disconnect with her audience - each appearance cost her too much energy. Anyway, by taking so few opportunities to meet her target audience Hillary wasted opportunities to reconnect as each appearance is also an opportunity to get a feeling of how the audience thinks and feels.
Part of campaigning is to control what is being said about you. The best way to do that is to make the news yourself. Trump is a master at that. Wave after wave of (usually well deserved) bad publicity comes rolling in his direction and then he makes some outrageous statement that his followers like and it just disappears. Sure, waiting out a crisis of bad publicity is a time honored strategy too. But it is not very smart when other candidates have a really appealing message. And it is a risky strategy in a time of elections when the media will pick up any kind of news about you - no matter how insignificant they might consider it in other times.
"She deserves it". It was an argument that worked - to a certain extent - within the Democratic Party apparatus. Within a political party there are a lot of jobs to allocate and people will be more inclined to support an insider like Clinton than an outsider like Sanders. Even if they might sympathize with Sanders they know it is better for their career to support Clinton: Clinton can hurt or reward them: Sanders not. But for the average voter this is irrelevant. They ask "what's in it for me?" and they look at her behavior in the past and the present. When they hear Clinton fans tell them that she deserves it it mainly tells them that they don't have real arguments.
Poor Hillary. She just doesn't understand what she did wrong. She did everything according to the book and yet she was defeated by an obvious lying crook. Unfortunately her incapacity to understand is a good illustration of what she missed as a candidate: a vision that people can buy into. If she had understood that she would at least have been able to take compensating measures like choosing a vice-presidential candidate with a vision. By freezing out Sanders and his followers after she had won the primaries she did exactly the opposite.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
EU wants to centralize its capital markets even further
EU Observer brings the new that EU wants to fast-track the capital markets union. The reason is Brexit that places the main capital market of the EU (London) outside its borders.
Some quotes:
The UK's exit from the EU makes a union of the 27 national capital markets more urgent, the European Commission said on Thursday (8 June).
"As we face the departure of the largest EU financial centre, we are committed to step-ping up our efforts to further strengthen and integrate the EU capital markets", said commission vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis, who is in charge of financial services.
Dombrovskis presented a mid-term review of the Capital Markets Union (CMU), a plan launched in 2015 to increase links between EU markets and develop financial tools in order to facilitate investments and boost the economy.
Most of the proposals presented so far deal with specific financial products, such as venture capital or insurances.
"The EU needs CMU today more than ever," said the review unveiled on Thursday. It insists that Brexit "reinforces the urgent need to further strengthen and integrate the EU capital market framework”.
With 751,000 financial sector employees and the industry's gross added value of £80.935 billion (around €93 billion), the City of London has been one of the main actors and beneficiaries of the CMU so far.
The City has been necessary to provide services for the rest of the EU, such as ensuring risk-management services and providing the necessary amount of liquid cash for transactions, notes the commission's review.
I would think that the Brexit is an argument for the opposite policy. Venture capital or insurance have been around for centuries. We don't need integration for that. What Brexit shows is that centralization of such an important sector of the economy puts us all at risk. We need a spread of risk, not putting all our bets on one pony.
Some quotes:
The UK's exit from the EU makes a union of the 27 national capital markets more urgent, the European Commission said on Thursday (8 June).
"As we face the departure of the largest EU financial centre, we are committed to step-ping up our efforts to further strengthen and integrate the EU capital markets", said commission vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis, who is in charge of financial services.
Dombrovskis presented a mid-term review of the Capital Markets Union (CMU), a plan launched in 2015 to increase links between EU markets and develop financial tools in order to facilitate investments and boost the economy.
Most of the proposals presented so far deal with specific financial products, such as venture capital or insurances.
"The EU needs CMU today more than ever," said the review unveiled on Thursday. It insists that Brexit "reinforces the urgent need to further strengthen and integrate the EU capital market framework”.
With 751,000 financial sector employees and the industry's gross added value of £80.935 billion (around €93 billion), the City of London has been one of the main actors and beneficiaries of the CMU so far.
The City has been necessary to provide services for the rest of the EU, such as ensuring risk-management services and providing the necessary amount of liquid cash for transactions, notes the commission's review.
I would think that the Brexit is an argument for the opposite policy. Venture capital or insurance have been around for centuries. We don't need integration for that. What Brexit shows is that centralization of such an important sector of the economy puts us all at risk. We need a spread of risk, not putting all our bets on one pony.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
The Comey show: the FBI director and the pea
Yesterday was Comey's day at the Senate. I listened to a part of it but I was not impressed.
First of all there is that ridiculous anti-Russia hysteria - including senators who lie that we here in Europe are even more obsessed about it. We have trust in our elections. It is the Americans - who allow their oligarchs to buy elections - who are worried about manipulations.
Russiagate reminds me of Monicagate. In both cases the real facts are maybe a bit embarrassing but certainly not a big deal. There are only two reasons for this circus. One is that it keeps the president for a long time negative in the news. The other is the hope that the president will somewhere during this judicial circus make a misstep and then you can persecute him for obstruction of justice or something similar.
It seemed to me that Comey was playing "The Princess and the Pea" with Trump as the bully who hurt his tender judicial aura. My impression is that something rather different was playing in their interaction. Trump was annoyed that those endless Russia investigations made it impossible for him to have a sound foreign policy. Newspapers judged everything as possible evidence that he was favoring Russia and that made it hard to make decisions based on their merits. So Trump first asked Comey whether it was possible to end this circus. Comey was non-committal. But Trump - for all his defects - is a good judge of character: he has built a television career on it with his The Apprentice show. And Trump very likely concluded that Comey was a "showboat" who liked the spectacle and would keep the issue in the news as long as possible.
Who wouldn't have fired Comey if that was the conclusion?
PS
Here is a critical article about Comey from 2013 - when he became FBI director. According to the article While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.
First of all there is that ridiculous anti-Russia hysteria - including senators who lie that we here in Europe are even more obsessed about it. We have trust in our elections. It is the Americans - who allow their oligarchs to buy elections - who are worried about manipulations.
Russiagate reminds me of Monicagate. In both cases the real facts are maybe a bit embarrassing but certainly not a big deal. There are only two reasons for this circus. One is that it keeps the president for a long time negative in the news. The other is the hope that the president will somewhere during this judicial circus make a misstep and then you can persecute him for obstruction of justice or something similar.
It seemed to me that Comey was playing "The Princess and the Pea" with Trump as the bully who hurt his tender judicial aura. My impression is that something rather different was playing in their interaction. Trump was annoyed that those endless Russia investigations made it impossible for him to have a sound foreign policy. Newspapers judged everything as possible evidence that he was favoring Russia and that made it hard to make decisions based on their merits. So Trump first asked Comey whether it was possible to end this circus. Comey was non-committal. But Trump - for all his defects - is a good judge of character: he has built a television career on it with his The Apprentice show. And Trump very likely concluded that Comey was a "showboat" who liked the spectacle and would keep the issue in the news as long as possible.
Who wouldn't have fired Comey if that was the conclusion?
PS
Here is a critical article about Comey from 2013 - when he became FBI director. According to the article While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Was the Macron email leak a false flag?
When there is a political scandal one should always ask the question "Cui bono": who benefited? In the case of the Macron email leaks it most likely was Macron. The newspaper reports about the leaks basically said that nothing harmful could be found - and that Macron thus was clean. And it helped the Macron campaign to paint Le Pen as an agent of Putin. Of course there is always a possibility that the Russians "got sloppy" as the pro-Macron press wants us to believe, but there are a lot of red flags that point the other way:
- The (pro-)Russian press had been negative about Macron for months. So why were the leaks published at the last moment? Information needs time to sink in. Journalists and Le Pen supporters would need time to study the mails for interesting/harmful information. And if they found something Macron would need time to react: with leaks it is often the inadequate or lacking reaction that converts believers.
- The last emails in the leak are from 24 April. The leak was published on 5 May. So it seems like the data thief wasted eleven days. Even worse: the mails were published just before a no-election news period in the French media. As a consequence their influence on the election was very low. And French journalists had very little incentive to investigate the emails.
- Organisations like Wikileaks publish the information in trenches. This has two advantages: it keeps the leaks in the news and it offers the opportunity to stress different aspects at a different time. The Macron failed to do this.
- By now leaking has become a science and organizations like Wikileaks have shown us what works and what doesn't. Dumping a big amount of mails or other documents does not work: it causes a short stir and after that it is old news. Journalists don't have the time to find the real hot items and when they find something a week later it may be old news that someone else revealed before. So typically the trove is revealed in tranches and each tranche is accompanied by a press release that tells what emails to look for and what they tell. In contrast there was no press release accompanying the Macron leaks.
- We saw almost immediately news articles that there was nothing interesting to see and that there were fake mails between the real ones. One has to admire those superhuman journalists who managed to study 7 gigabytes of emails within a day and who even found time in the process to conclude that some of those mails were fake.
- Later on we saw news articles that the CIA had been monitoring the attack and that the French had prepared themselves by adding fake mails - what seems to be a common tactic in businesses. If the American secret services were so close to the fire they might as well have been a bit closer than they admit.
- Even after the mails were released I haven't seen one good article discussing their content. The claim that nothing harmful can be found sounds shallow to me. When a team of journalists digs through the emails they will find something interesting. It doesn't have to be harmful to Macron's campaign. But there might be information on how Macron saw his adversaries and what kind of tactics he used against them. Or how he intends to operate in the coming elections for the parliament. Either this information isn't there - what would suggest that the mails have been filtered - or the press has been rather sloppy.
- we hear the usual talk about shady Russian hacker organizations who did it and traces of Russian editing software - that point to modifications - in the leaks. But by now we know from Wikileaks that creating false traces is an accepted tactic within the US security services.
Dividing the mails in tranches and publishing each trench with a press release takes a lot of work. It may have been that the hacker didn't have those resources. There have already been suggestions that American neo-nazis were involved.
It seems to me that either the hackers were extremely incompetent or this was a false flag. Of course a combination is also possible.
- The (pro-)Russian press had been negative about Macron for months. So why were the leaks published at the last moment? Information needs time to sink in. Journalists and Le Pen supporters would need time to study the mails for interesting/harmful information. And if they found something Macron would need time to react: with leaks it is often the inadequate or lacking reaction that converts believers.
- The last emails in the leak are from 24 April. The leak was published on 5 May. So it seems like the data thief wasted eleven days. Even worse: the mails were published just before a no-election news period in the French media. As a consequence their influence on the election was very low. And French journalists had very little incentive to investigate the emails.
- Organisations like Wikileaks publish the information in trenches. This has two advantages: it keeps the leaks in the news and it offers the opportunity to stress different aspects at a different time. The Macron failed to do this.
- By now leaking has become a science and organizations like Wikileaks have shown us what works and what doesn't. Dumping a big amount of mails or other documents does not work: it causes a short stir and after that it is old news. Journalists don't have the time to find the real hot items and when they find something a week later it may be old news that someone else revealed before. So typically the trove is revealed in tranches and each tranche is accompanied by a press release that tells what emails to look for and what they tell. In contrast there was no press release accompanying the Macron leaks.
- We saw almost immediately news articles that there was nothing interesting to see and that there were fake mails between the real ones. One has to admire those superhuman journalists who managed to study 7 gigabytes of emails within a day and who even found time in the process to conclude that some of those mails were fake.
- Later on we saw news articles that the CIA had been monitoring the attack and that the French had prepared themselves by adding fake mails - what seems to be a common tactic in businesses. If the American secret services were so close to the fire they might as well have been a bit closer than they admit.
- Even after the mails were released I haven't seen one good article discussing their content. The claim that nothing harmful can be found sounds shallow to me. When a team of journalists digs through the emails they will find something interesting. It doesn't have to be harmful to Macron's campaign. But there might be information on how Macron saw his adversaries and what kind of tactics he used against them. Or how he intends to operate in the coming elections for the parliament. Either this information isn't there - what would suggest that the mails have been filtered - or the press has been rather sloppy.
- we hear the usual talk about shady Russian hacker organizations who did it and traces of Russian editing software - that point to modifications - in the leaks. But by now we know from Wikileaks that creating false traces is an accepted tactic within the US security services.
Dividing the mails in tranches and publishing each trench with a press release takes a lot of work. It may have been that the hacker didn't have those resources. There have already been suggestions that American neo-nazis were involved.
It seems to me that either the hackers were extremely incompetent or this was a false flag. Of course a combination is also possible.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
The departure of Flynn
Flynn didn't make much friends during his short term. He repeatedly lied on two issues (his talks with the Russian ambassador and the security clearance for his son) to Pence and others and it has been claimed that his management style was chaotic. The lie about his son was very likely the most harmful as it was such a a black and white issue and so sure to be found out.
But what has been very little discussed until now is the role of the security services. We do not know what exactly happened but I am afraid it happened the following way:
The security services had his conversations with the Russian ambassador on tape. They invited Flynn for a discussion about something general like his "Russian contacts". They did not tell him they had his conversations on tape. They did tell him that they knew about his contacts with the ambassador and they told him that that would have violated some very old law that forbids citizens to do diplomacy. They did not tell him nobody has ever been convicted on basis of that law and that prosecution on basis of it likely wouldn't hold. They didn't provide him time to rethink his conversation with the ambassador in the light of this information - that must have been new to Flynn. Neither did they tell him that lying to the FBI can be heavily punished. So they had an "interrogation" where they only asked what they already knew and where they deliberately brought Flynn in a position where many people would lie.
In my opinion this should have consequences - for all the intelligence officers involved. Intelligence officers are there to serve the government - not to set boobytraps for it.
But what has been very little discussed until now is the role of the security services. We do not know what exactly happened but I am afraid it happened the following way:
The security services had his conversations with the Russian ambassador on tape. They invited Flynn for a discussion about something general like his "Russian contacts". They did not tell him they had his conversations on tape. They did tell him that they knew about his contacts with the ambassador and they told him that that would have violated some very old law that forbids citizens to do diplomacy. They did not tell him nobody has ever been convicted on basis of that law and that prosecution on basis of it likely wouldn't hold. They didn't provide him time to rethink his conversation with the ambassador in the light of this information - that must have been new to Flynn. Neither did they tell him that lying to the FBI can be heavily punished. So they had an "interrogation" where they only asked what they already knew and where they deliberately brought Flynn in a position where many people would lie.
In my opinion this should have consequences - for all the intelligence officers involved. Intelligence officers are there to serve the government - not to set boobytraps for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)