Midweekly Overview
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 11 sec.
Merkel seems to have forgotten who Xi Jinping is
In his virtual Davos address, Xi Jinping spoke about the need to overcome divisions and to prevent another cold war:
‘‘History and reality have made it clear, time and again, that the misguided approach of antagonism and confrontation, be it in the form of a cold war, hot war, trade war or tech war, will eventually hurt all countries’ interests and undermine everyone’s well-being.”
Coming from him, this is as convincing as Iranian Supreme Leader Khamanei’s hypothetical speech about the importance of human rights..
Or if Philippine’s Duterte spoke about the value of rejecting populism in favor of competent, professional governance.
That is unconvincing to all but Merkel.
In her speech the very next day, Merkel agreed with Xi Jinping - affirming the need to avoid another cold war.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the expression of the sentiment itself.
Cold war 2.0 is an anathema to an ideal, utopian world.
But we live in the world far from ideal - in which China is the one raising the risk of another worldwide conflict.
So to agree with Xi Jinping is to implicitly legitimize his stance - to make it seem like Xi Jinping is indeed sincere.
When he clearly is not.
She could have reframed her support for multilateralism/cold war avoidance, whilst remaining sober about Chinese sincerity.
Now, it is true that Merkel later went on to speak about China/human rights issues, but the first point still stands.
There was no need to lend an air of legitimacy to Xi Jinping.
Merkel already caused a lot of headaches with her unwavering support for EU/China investment deal [failing to consult and coordinate with then incoming Biden admin].
The least she can do now, is to be disciplined in diplomatic messaging when it comes to insincere adversaries.
Western unity on Navalny arrest/protests - statements of ‘‘concern’’ are insufficient
Both America and EU were quite active in responding to Navalny arrest and the following Jan 23 protest.
Demands for Navalny’s release, and investigation of police brutality were a welcome development - rare display of coordination on a very important matter.
Biden even raised the issue on his call with Putin - this was particularly notable.
It will negate Russian internal propaganda that Navalny was ‘‘just a blogger’’ who was not even ‘‘worth poisoning’’.
Russians seeing that Biden raises this issue with Putin, strongly undermines the Kiselyov/Solovyev propaganda.
Doubling down in their support for Navalny was also correct in light of Russia’s second line of attack against Navalny - that he was a “CIA agent’’.
If America responded with crickets, suspicions that there was indeed some clandestine operation in place would deepen.
An operation that just got revealed, and consequently caused America’s detachment from the issue.
So far so good. But this is not enough.
It is clear that Putin is not going to back down in response to this pressure campaign.
Doing so would demonstrate weakness in front of the domestic audience, and would undoubtedly embolden the protestors too.
Indeed, Putin responded with raids on Navalny’s apartment [perhaps to ‘‘search’’ for an evidence of a clandestine operation] and detention of his brother.
What can be done?
Sanctions must be used against mid-level executioners in addition to the Putin leadership.
Any judge that unjustly sentences protestors to admin detentions and even longer imprisonment, must be sanctioned.
Same in regards to OMON/National Guard officers that engage in violence against the protestors.
Global Magnitsky Act is a great tool for this.
Other tools are also available both in US and in EU.
There would be several positive implications:
1) protestors would feel bolder and more confident in their security - confident that the worst perpetrators would not go unpunished. This could be a good way of preventing a gradual decline in attendance. Indeed, the main decline in Belarus protests coincided with reports of mass torture at the detention centers..
2) The rift between the general public and the Russia’s ruling regime would deepen. In an effort to fatten the sanctions list, ordinary Russians would be engaged in investigative activities in-between protests - searching for the perpetrators of atrocities and publicizing their identity. This would deepen the fault lines, advancing the people vs regime narrative.
3) Sanctions may even [at least to some extent] achieve some of their primary goals - refusal of executioners to obey the commands.
Indeed, if there is even a 10-20 % decrease in violence, that would be a win.
If even just one single judge refused to comply with political instructions, that would be revolutionary!
That would focus everyone’s attention at the cracks in the foundations of the Putin regime.
Israel is refreshing its operational plans against Iran
Speaking at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, Lieutenant-General Aviv Kohavi criticized JCPOA and warned about Iran’s continuous breach of the provisions of the deal [uranium enrichment/centrifuge installments in prohibited ways].
He added the following remarks:
“In light of this fundamental analysis, I have instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare a number of operational plans, in addition to those already in place..”
Context is interesting - this happened three days after the National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan spoke with his Israeli counterpart.
Timing of this statement could naturally be a mere coincidence - yet I highly doubt that.
Simply because, Israel benefits from creating the impression that this announcement was coordinated with the US - that they are on the same page and are working in concert.
If this announcement was made even a week earlier or after the meeting, that effect would weaken.
For Israel, orchestrating this impression is highly advantageous [and correct policy if indeed the case] - especially when Sullivan spoke with Israel’s Meir Ben Shabbat after already speaking with his counterparts in U.K., France, Germany, Japan and South Korea.
The sequence is important.
Principally for Israel - that did not make the top 5 [especially when it should have - no convincing reason for France to come before Israel].
EU’s relentless pursuit of bad judgment
EU no longer recognizes Juan Guaido as the interim President of Venezuela
Supposedly because of the legislative elections in December 2020.
This is even when the EU does not recognize the vote as legitimate.
So to clarify, EU not only engages in foreign policy that makes exactly zero realpolitik sense, but it also contradicts itself.
If you do not recognize the December elections, then nothing has changed in the status quo, and your change in policy is absolutely baseless.
Thankfully, [and in contrast] the Biden administration [correctly] continues to recognize Guido as the rightful President of Venezuela.
If EU’s new years resolution was to neuter itself, give up its leverage in relation to main adversaries, and to please dictators and thugs of this world, then they are on the right track!