Mediaboss Marketing

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Calling! VTB Capital Investment Forum on November 20, ... [+] 2019 in Moscow.

Ukraine: friend or foe?

Climate change: real or imagined?

And what about the European Union? Are they on their way to becoming the liberal, latte with almond milk peace-and-love version of the Soviet Union or not?

Last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin entertained questions from dozens of people from investment houses like DuPont Capital in Delaware and BlackRock in New York to executives of varying levels out of China, Italy and France during VTB Capitals Russia Calling! investment forum.

Putins Q&A with foreign investors is why everyone comes to the VTB Capital event. Two years ago, he gave his spiel on the economya mostly boring rundown of economic data he got from his finance ministry and central bankand then left the room. The standing-room-only crowd followed him out the door.

This year, Putin gave his two cents and more on the economy, praising his economic team because economics is not his strong suit, and then sat down in white, leather club seats with executives from Eni and elsewhere, manspreading and slouching in that commanding-the-room presence for which Putin is known.

Most of the questions are strictly business-related. They almost seem boring to Putin. Budget matters for bond lords doesnt really get him going. When the questions turn to geopolitics, Putin can talk a horse off a meat wagon.

Putin Sheds Doubts On Ukraines Domestic Crisis

Putin sews doubts that new Ukrainian leader Volodymir Zelenskiy can solve the crisis in the Donbass.

On Ukraines new president Volodymyr Zelensky, Putin was asked for his impression of the comedic actor-turned-president.

He seems very nice. He seems sincere, Putin says, on his usual best behavior in public forums like this.

Russia and Ukraine have been at loggerheads since 2014. Thats when Russia annexed Crimea following a decision by the autonomous government there to put up a Brexit-style vote. Crimeans largely voted to leave Ukraine. The Russian government swept in within two weeks of that referendum and took it over, securing their only warm water naval port, a port they would have surely lost in the eventuality of a Ukraine-NATO membership.

Things got worse in the relationship when ethnic Russia militias in the region of Ukraine known as the Donbass decided to build a separatist movement with tacit support from the Kremlin. An estimated 13,000 people have died in what many have referred to as a civil war between official Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists. It led to harsher sanctions on Russia, further isolating the country from the West.

Now that Zelensky is in power, maybe things will change, one questioner speculated out loud.

Putin said, I believe Zelensky when he says he wants to change the situation for the better in the Donbass. But can he do that? I dont know. If the nationalist battalion forces return, there will be an immediate reaction from the (Luhansk and Donetsk) militias. We see issues that are being raised now on law changes and on the Minsk agreement that are counterproductive.

Ukraine sentiment indicators? Headwinds. Score status quo stalemate for the win.

The Dark Ages

Exhaust air rises into the sky from the chimneys of the Moorburg coal-fired power plant in Hamburg, ... [+] Germany behind a wind turbine.

Russia is the worlds leading natural gas producer, and one of the largest oil producers in the world, too. Their government budget depends on oil and gas exports. Their biggest marketthe European Unionis embarking on a policy to eradicate fossil fuel use within a few years, though these policies keep changing.

Russia is a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord and the Kyoto Protocol on CO2 emissions. Were do everything we can to make Russias economy cleaner and greener, he said, adding that a large portion of that is improved environmental practices in a country that, under the Soviet Union, had no real environmental standards.

Regarding pressure to get with the climate change program, Putin said that they had no money to make adjustments to factories to make them less polluting. Plus, following at least two major economic crises since the collapse of the economy since 1992, we had other priorities. But now we have the money and the growth to do it. Well implement fines and penalties on polluters first in the big cities, he said.

Putin also didnt seem too worried about Europe ditching Russian gas in favor of windmills and solar panels.

Theyll need to have a base load of something. Maybe it can be nuclear power. If its not going to be nuclear power, it will be natural gas, he said. If their demand falls, China and India are growing faster than Europe, and they will buy it. Getting rid of fossil fuels, unless youre replacing it with new nuclear reactorsyoure at risk of returning Europe to the dark ages.

EU as USSR?

The EU: Too commie? Nah, Putin doesn't buy it.

One of the more unusual questions at last weeks event came from a U.S. fund manager who asked if the EU was dangerously similar to the USSR. The European Central Bank is creating money out of pixie dust, the questioner said. Everything is pushed on people for the greater good. It sounds like the Soviet Union to me, he said.

(He really said that. Youll have to trust me on this one. I was there.)

The EU has more obligatory rules than the Soviet Union had, and the EU is more centralized, but beyond that I dont think they are similar, Putin said.

Putin said what he always says about the EU, that it is a reliable and important trading partner, and they dont want to see it fall apart.

At times jovial, he took the EU question seriously as opposed to another one on shale oil where he joked that maybe Russia can buy used shale drilling equipment from the Americans. He cannot, and he knows that. They are sanctioned from buying such things.

I think the EU understands its challenges, Putin said. An estimated 2,500 people were in attendance at the forum. They are not going to collapse like the Soviet Union collapsed. The Soviet Union didnt collapse because of a few revolts in the Baltics. It was because the economy was a failure and it had no one it was really trading with beyond its political borders. Thats not the case with Europe.

Continued here:
Putin Dishes On Ukraine, Climate Change, And Whether Europe Is Becoming Soviet - Forbes

26 November 2019, 11:12

Two activists disagreed on Brexit in a Youth Debate hosted by Iain Dale.

Darcy Iveson-Berkeley, a Brexit Party activist, said: "With regards to Brexit, there's no such thing as a hard Brexiteer or a soft Brexiteer in my opinion.

It was invented by the Remain Alliance. Leaving the European Union means leaving the European Union."

Chloe White, who supports Labour, responded: "With no deal? What is that going to do to people?"

She added: "That is going to cost 2.7 per cent of GDP."

Iain Dale asked Chloe: "How can you have somebody who wants to be prime minister sugge

sting a referendum on which they won't express a view? The electorate regard that as ludicrous."

She replied: "I think he's taking a pragmatic decision and that's what politics needs right now.

"We've got Boris Johnson, who's peddling some sort of odd disaster capitalism, which is going to hurt working families in this country.

"Or we've got Jeremy Corbyn, who's saying to people the country has been split, it's divided. We've got huge rising levels of hate crime, people are deeply unhappy.

Okay, let's organise and sort out a deal with the EU that is fair, that protects workers rights, which protects he environment."

Aleisha Stansfield, a Liberal Democrat activist, intervened in the debate.

She said: "We do, of course, have Jo Swinson who says stop Brexit and use the 50bn."

This clash was part LBC Election Youth Debate. All activists were 21 or under.

You can watch it in full here.

Read the rest here:
Young Labour and Brexit Party activists explosively clash over leaving EU - LBC

When did the relationship between the European Union and Turkey go completely off the rails? Its hard to say. Turkeys democratic backsliding has certainly contributed to the fracture in relations. In May 2019, the European Union released its latest report on Turkeys progress towards E.U. membership. On numerous topics the judicial system, corruption, the economy, and human rights the European Union found there was either limited progress or serious backsliding. And after decades of advancing relations with Turkey, any influence the European Union may once have had over the democratic trajectory of the country appears to be faltering. As long as the European Union fails to address its own institutional deficiencies in migration management, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will exploit rising anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe for the sake of political opportunism.

Turkey: A Frontline State to the War in Syria

Similar to other popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, demands for democratic reforms, economic opportunities, and an end to corruption and a tradition of impunity could be heard across Syria in the spring of 2011. Instead of introducing liberalizing reforms, President Bashar al-Assad followed in the footsteps of his father, Hafez al-Assad, and authorized Syrias security-intelligence apparatus to crush the civilian-led movement for a democratic state structure. Since the conflict mushroomed into a civil war, the magnitude of suffering borne by civilians has been enormous and unprecedented. More than 11 million Syrians have fled fighting and repression, to other parts of the country or to neighboring frontline states: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Over 500,000 people have been killed, wounded or disabled as a direct result of the war. Hundreds of thousands have been subjected to abduction, detention, and systematic torture by the Syrian regime.

Just across Syrias northern border, Turkey pursued an open-door policy for Syrian refugees, allowing them to enter its territory without official documents. Under the auspices of the Ministry of the Presidency, the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority and the Turkish Red Crescent delivered humanitarian aid and constructed temporary accommodation centers for those escaping the war in provinces located along the Turkish-Syrian border. In 2014, Turkey passed Law no. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection to regulate the legal parameters of protection and assistance. A special temporary protection status granted recipients access to public healthcare facilities, the state education system, and social services. Two years later, in 2016, Turkey eased the entry of Syrians registered under temporary protection into the formal labor market.

Yet, despite these modifications to Turkeys immigration policy, there is no comprehensive rights-based structure for asylum seekers; Turkeys geographic stipulation to the 1951 Geneva Convention means that it only grants full refugee status to citizens from countries within the Council of Europe, which excludes Syria. The economic integration and social inclusion of Syrian refugees were hampered by discrimination, particularly in the labor market, and protracted poverty. Some Syrians believed they could live a more dignified life in Europe. In 2015, reports indicated that up to 2,000 irregular migrants were crossing the Aegean Sea from Turkey to the Greek islands every day, with the intent of reaching mainland Europe. Images of refugees and migrants risking unimaginable journeys in the media posed a moral dilemma for Europe.

Refugees as Pawns: Turkeys Shift in Policy

By 2015, Turkeys governing Justice and Development Party had intensified the use of hard power mechanisms in its engagement with Syria. The overthrow of the Assad regime, aiding opposition militias, eliminating the threat of ISIL, and preventing the Peoples Protection Units from establishing an area of dominance along its border overshadowed attempts to establish a rights-based approach to the economic integration and social inclusion of Syrian refugees in Turkey. It is now eight years since the start of the war, and anti-refugee sentiment is intensifying across the political spectrum in Turkey. In a recent address to an audience of Justice and Development Party supporters a few days after the latest military incursion in Syria, Erdogan reduced human life to a commodity, to be bartered for his own political gains. He claimed he would, open the doors and send 3.6 million migrants, to Europe if Operation Peace Spring was questioned and categorized as an invasion.

The pressure to send refugees back to Syria is also mounting. A study conducted by Istanbul Bilgi Universitys Center for Migration Research revealed that more than 85 percent of respondents favored the repatriation of refugees from Turkey. This is extremely worrying. For the time being, the safe and dignified voluntary return of internally displaced people and refugees is not a viable prospect. Arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, the widespread use of torture, military conscription, and dire humanitarian conditions still pose a daily risk to civilians in Syria.

Alarmingly, Amnesty International reported that Turkish authorities have increased arbitrary arrests, detentions, and deportations of Syrian refugees from Turkey to Syria. Ankaras plan to establish a safe zone and repatriate at least one million Syrian refugees in northeastern Syria is nothing more than a project in ethnic re-engineering. Operation Peace Spring has displaced more than 200,000 people and significantly strained access to humanitarian assistance. Civilian casualties are multiplying, with reports of more than 200 civilian deaths and 650 wounded. According to a United Nations Human Rights Commissioner spokesman, Turkey may be held responsible for war crimes committed by its proxy militias that fall under the banner of the Syrian National Army, after video footage appeared to show Kurdish captives being executed. Turkey is also known to have used white phosphorous munitions over non-combatant areas in Syria.

European Union-Turkey Humanitarian Arrangement: Well-Intentioned But Inadequate

Amidst rising anti-immigrant sentiment and the increasing popularity of the authoritarian far-right, the European Union was compelled to devise a new action plan on migration. In 2016, the European Union proposed to strengthen cooperation with Turkey and intensify interventions to decrease irregular migration from Turkey to Europe. To do this, the European Union indicated it would designate funding to assist with the humanitarian response, advance the Visa Liberalization Dialogue for Turkish citizens traveling to Europe, reinvigorate negotiations over the European Union accession process, and accelerate the modernization of its customs union with Turkey. For Turkeys part, the government agreed to strengthen its border-management capacity, especially on the shores of the Aegean Sea, and accept any new irregular migrants who arrived in Greece from Turkey and whose applications for asylum in Greece were rejected. Finally, European Union member states were supposed to accept a designated number of refugees directly from Turkey, as an incentive for asylum seekers to register with the Turkish government and operate within formal immigration procedures. However, the proposal never fully materialized, and three member states, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, refused to comply with the European Union asylum quota system as proposed by the European Commission.

Despite evolving into the most comprehensive humanitarian endeavor in the history of the European Union, this effort was never intended to address the core factor instigating the humanitarian crisis: the war in Syria. The European Union and its member states should have invested every ounce of influence available to promote an inclusive political settlement at the onset of the war. Instead, the European Union launched two main initiatives, the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis (the Madad Fund) and the Facility for Refugees, to funnel more than 6 billion for humanitarian relief and development assistance.

In spending this money, the European Union emphasized livelihoods security to maximize the impact of assistance, prioritizing skills development, employment generation, entrepreneurship, and private-sector development. While these programming elements appeared positive, it is difficult to ascertain their overall impact in the absence of robust monitoring, verification, and evaluation systems. Donors should designate sufficient funding for implementing partners, especially smaller non-governmental organizations, to either develop the institutional capacity necessary to conduct robust assessments of their work or collaborate with firms that specialize in measuring the effectiveness of humanitarian and development assistance.

Furthermore, although some solicitations for development programming included requirements for recipient organizations to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches in their programming, there was usually no formal monitoring mechanism in place. It is important that implementing partners have an in-depth knowledge of local dynamics and political sensitivities in the areas in which they are operating, and of how their interventions impact communities. For instance, only including Syrian refugees in project activities could trigger negative sentiment among host communities that would be difficult to resolve. In an attempt to avoid the negative consequences of their programming, some organizations also recruited members from host communities. However, as I wrote in a piece in early 2019, if local cultural dynamics are not fully understood, such a simple adjustment in operations might still prevent organizations from properly addressing grievances and from pursuing inclusive practices, especially in multicultural and multi-ethnic communities. Equipped with the knowledge of how activities might impact local communities, implementing organizations can adjust their operations in order to prevent negative impacts and maximize positive ones.

Maximizing E.U. Leverage for Syrian Refugees

The European Union no longer has as much influence over Turkeys democratic trajectory as it once had at the height of the customs union and accession processes. With what leverage remains, the European Union should require recipients of funds from the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis and the Facility for Refugees to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches in their programming. It is critical that implementing organizations understand how aid impacts the multidimensional layers of society in order to avoid any unintended negative consequences. Despite the absence of robust monitoring, verification, and evaluation systems, local administrations and civil society in Turkey have performed exceptionally well. Since the attempted coup in 2016, many organizations, including municipalities located in the south-east, have been operating under severe stress due to government crackdowns, restrictions on their functions, and increased pressure to operate without adequate resources.

Syrian refugees are still waiting. The political solution that remains the most viable path to reconciliation, justice, and sustainable peace is elusive. Unable to return home, Syrians have become victims of an increasingly authoritarian Turkey and its failing relationship with the European Union. Using its remaining leverage over humanitarian spending to ensure that Syrian refugees get the most out of humanitarian assistance is the best way for the European Union to move forward.

Christina Bache is a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, IDEAS and Chair of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education, Business for Peace working group. Up until March of this year, she was a Visiting Fellow at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the official political think tank of the European Peoples Party in Brussels.

Image: President of Turkey

Read more:
Refugees at Risk: Managing the European Union's Declining Power in Turkey - War on the Rocks

Larry Elliott expresses support for Brexit on the basis that the EU is pro-business, anti working people, and the embodiment of neoliberal ideas (Inside the Guardian, 9 November). However, he does not confront the fact that his decision to vote leave has provided support for an even more extreme form of neoliberalism promoted by the leave campaign of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and the ERG. Out of the frying pan into the fire might be the appropriate observation.Charlie MasonHermon, Pembrokeshire

If the EU is as Larry Elliott says pro big business, anti working people, undemocratic, neoliberal then why are rightwing neoliberals in the UK, across politics, economics and the media, passionate leavers? Surely they should be very happy in the EU?Richard MiddletonCrossmichael, Dumfries and Galloway

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Visit link:
Neoliberalism and the European Union - The Guardian

The European Unions recent decision to freeze any further enlargement into the Balkans made me think of a moment from a quarter of a century ago, when I saw the EU flag for the first time. I was a 16-year-old Bosnian refugee, standing in dirt, holding a humanitarian aid package in my arms. The box I had received contained rice, flour and other relief items that were supposed to last me two weeks. I took out a can of corned beef and on the side saw a dazzling circle of gold stars on a blue background. The text beneath the EU flag read: Donated by the European Community.

This was not how we had imagined our future relationship with the European Union. Its flag was supposed to represent our aspiration for a higher state of existence, close to our heritage as Europes most diverse country. It was not the corned beef, but the dream of joining a community of tolerance and open borders that kept many of us going through rough times. It gave us hope because, deep inside, we knew that we belonged. This belief in what the EU represented was practically coded in our national DNA.

But now the doors seem to have shut in our faces following the decision by EU leaders to block the start of accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

To describe this decision as harmful for the western Balkans is an understatement. It is a blow for progressive political forces throughout our region, who have been working hard to build our EU future. Now we know that investing immense political capital to end longstanding disputes, take on difficult reforms, and make painful compromises even to the point of changing your countrys name, as Macedonia did recently to appease Greece will not gain us admission to Fortress Europe. The EU has sent us the message we feared the most: the EU no longer cares. It certainly does not care enough.

Worse than just keeping us outside the club, freezing the EU integration process risks fostering populism, contributing to instability and placing the region in a geopolitical limbo. The consequences will have to be mitigated through some smart EU policies and increased engagement in the region. For Bosnia in particular, this may be the only way out of its dire current predicament.

It might not seem apparent to current EU leaders, but the European Union and Bosnia were built on similar values and born at the same time. The EU (replacing the European Communities) was legally established by the Maastricht Treaty, signed on 7 February 1992. Only three weeks later, Bosnia voted in a referendum to become an independent state. In Bosnia, we saw this as the intertwining of our joint destinies. Just like the founders of Europe, we saw strength in our diversity, and were inspired by the optimism spreading across the continent. Our young nation was built on the narrative that we would eventually join the EU. This was our origin story, and we never imagined an alternative future.

Instead, decades of stagnation, ethnic tensions and failed attempts at reform followed our devastating war. In the past four years alone, 5% of our citizens have left the country. The national parliament has not held a single meeting this year, while the government has still not formed, more than a year after the last elections. The rhetoric of secession and war are pervasive. Bosnia has drifted further away than ever from the EU, and is now in full-blown political and existential crisis, at risk of disintegration. It is, according to President Macron, a time-bomb ticking on the borders of the EU.

Our leaders carry part of the blame. They have certainly lacked the vision, capacity and integrity to take our country forward. Many Bosnians remain entrenched in ethnic divisions and keep electing the same nationalist parties. However, ineffective politicians and a largely myopic electorate are a consequence, rather than the root cause, of the problem. The fault lies squarely with the system within which they operate, and which by default produces such outcomes.

The governance system created by annex 4 of the Dayton peace agreement our constitution is notorious for its complexity, ineffectiveness and discriminatory impact. A population of 3 million is governed by three presidents, 14 prime ministers, about 180 appointed ministers and more than 700 lawmakers, sitting in 14 different parliaments. Ethnic-based elections and appointments perpetuate tensions by continuously pitting the three main groups against each other. Blocking decisions has become the main political tool, and impasse long ago became the norm. Around 15% of the population, including all Jews and Roma, are effectively second-class citizens, unable to run for high political offices.

After more than two decades of sticking-plaster solutions, it is high time we recognised that the Dayton agreement was a valuable tool to end a war, but it created an unjust and unsustainable system. The crisis is real, but Macrons assessment of the situation is decidedly unhelpful. The EU must help Bosnia to lay a new constitutional foundation and rebuild its political structure from the bottom up.

This will be met with resistance from Bosnias governing elite, the only group that stands to lose in the process. Thousands of families are supported by the corrupt and inefficient system, and the political class will be understandably reluctant to let go. This loss has to be acknowledged and carefully managed, through a mix of incentives, pressures and safety nets that should accompany the constitutional makeover.

The process also entails serious risks; reopening a landmark peace agreement and rebalancing historic compromises at a time when Bosnia finds itself in an increasingly precarious geopolitical situation.

But the risk of doing nothing is greater still. Business as usual will lead to Bosnias leadership pivoting to the Gulf states, China and Russia, which will further jeopardise the countrys cohesiveness and its EU future, especially now, when the only national consensus that existed the hope of EU integration appears to be indefinitely postponed. It will become ever harder for Bosnia to avoid becoming a testing ground in a new cold war.

The European council and the new commission should be braver and more ambitious. Our common values and stability are at stake. Otherwise, all we may be left with is a failed state on the EUs doorstep and EU flags on humanitarian relief items sad reminders of a never-realised dream.

Boria Falatar is a Bosnian economist who lectures at Sciences Po, Paris. He stood in Bosnias 2018 presidential election for Naa Stranka, a member party of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Read more:
Bosnia is at risk of becoming a failed state. Does the EU want that on its doorstep? - The Guardian