I am disappointed with Mearsheimer. He is clueless (or worse!) regarding Israel - Palestine and keeps repeating the same b/s.
It does not matter what Israel does. It is the very existence of Israel that is the problem for Arab/Muslim world. And they will not stop until they destroy it. Period.
Reported EU Threats Against Hungary Were An Overreaction To Simple Requests
ANDREW KORYBKO
FEB 3, 2024
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards a different cause.
The Financial Times reported in the days leading up to last week’s EU summit that the bloc was plotting to sabotage Hungary’s economy if Prime Minister Orban didn’t approve €50 billion in funding for Ukraine over the next four year after obstructing a related deal on this late last year. He ultimately agreed to allow it in exchange for guarantees that his country’s blocked funds wouldn’t be redirected there and that a control mechanism be implemented, the latter of which ultimately doesn’t contain veto rights.
That’s actually all that he wanted from the get-go, which the EU had refused to extend during the last such summit in December, ergo why he obstructed their deal at that time. For this reason, Orban celebrated on Twitter by declaring “Mission accomplished. Hungary’s funds will not end up in Ukraine and we have a control mechanism at the end of the first and the second year. Our position on the war in Ukraine remains unchanged: we need a ceasefire and peace talks.”
The Hungarian leader also clarified due to widespread misinformation in the media about the purpose of these funds that they’re officially for helping Ukraine meet its civilian budgetary needs, not for the procurement of more military equipment, though some will inevitably be siphoned off for that. That’s why he was able to claim that his country’s position towards the conflict hasn’t changed since Hungary didn’t vote in support of keeping the conflict going, only to prevent the Ukrainian state’s collapse.
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards that cause. Nevertheless, the EU was so angry by his defiance of their demands to approve their proposed funding last December without those terms that it overreacted by reportedly threatening to sabotage the Hungarian economy if Orban obstructs this process a second time.
There were evidently enough rational leaders represented at the summit that the two parties, Hungary and the EU, were able to reach a compromise on this that gave Orban everything that he initially wanted back then. It can only be speculated who these people are (Meloni?), but they encouraged good faith dealmaking between Budapest and Brussels, without which the bloc would have crossed the Rubicon by sabotaging a fellow member’s economy for purely political reasons related to a non-member state.
Considering the outcome of the latest EU Summit, publicizing those threats through the Financial Times was unnecessary and arguably counterproductive since it further eroded the bloc’s soft power by lending credence to widespread criticisms that it’s become totalitarian over the past decade. This consequence was predictable, however, so it’s unclear why the decision was made to leak that plan to the press. One possible reason is that it was done with the shortsighted intent of signaling only to certain audiences.
In particular, the eurocrats might have expected that a deal would be reached all along following preliminary talks with fellow leaders, some of whom would have presumably expressed their intent to mediate a pragmatic compromise of the kind that Orban envisaged. Foreseeing that result and recalling the media brouhaha which followed the last summit a little more than a month prior, they might have wanted to preemptively shape the narrative that he capitulated and therefore sold out his interests.
The only ones who’d be receptive to that spin are hardcore EU supporters who hate him for ideological reasons, with there also being a chance that it could turn some so-called “Eurosceptics” away from him if they fell for that false narrative. The New York Times hinted at this in a piece published right after the summit where they wrote that “His real aim is to lead a populist and nativist rebellion against Europe’s liberal elite, though that campaign is showing signs of faltering.”
Their pathological fear of him winning more hearts and minds across the bloc, which could lead to other democratically driven populist revolutions with time, might have blinded them to the reality of how counterproductive it would be to leak their threat to sabotage his economy if no deal was reached. By doing so, they might have massaged the morale of their supporters and possibly misled a statistically insignificant number of his, but at the cost of inflicting irreparable reputational damage to themselves.
It's no longer a so-called “conspiracy theory” to claim that the EU undermines democratically elected conservative-nationalist governments through Hybrid War means after a leading liberal-globalist outlet like the Financial Times cited inside sources to report that this is exactly what they planned to do. The reader should remember that it’s now likely the case that a compromise was going to be reached all along since Orban ultimately got what he wanted, so this was thus done for purely political reasons.
He wasn’t swayed by that one bit since he’d already caught wind of that particular plot and was aware of their general schemes for years, plus the resultant compromise met his previously stated national interests, thus adding more heft to the claim that this decision was driven by propaganda motives. It backfired on the bloc though since nobody will forget what they threatened to do to Hungary, which will lead to him winning all those additional hearts and minds that Brussels just lost.
I think using the professor for week to week play by play "who's doing what to whom today" is like using a howitzer to kill a fly. A reporter on the ground would be better for that. Judge Napolitano shouldn't be using professor Mearsheimer to shag Ukrainian grounders, he could be doing that himself, actually. Israel topics are different.
Mr. McDonald, if your comment is implying that my opinion is that Don Lemonesque reporters should cover the day to day issues of the Israel-Gaza conflict instead of the professor, then I'm afraid you will receive a D- in Reading Comprehension on your comment.:)
My understanding was that there is a new system called Diya, or something like that, to keep track of the money paid by the governments of Europe to Ukraine, whereby the money goes directly to the recipients on some kind of biological verification card. Samantha Power mentioned it in a presentation she gave to partially justify the aid being given. It seemed to me that part of the justification for giving the aid was to develop and test this new system which could go around the government in Kiv and see if it could be used other places for other purposes. I think there is more to the story than just sending the money over to be lost to corruption immediately.
Reported EU Threats Against Hungary Were An Overreaction To Simple Requests
ANDREW KORYBKO
FEB 3, 2024
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards a different cause.
The Financial Times reported in the days leading up to last week’s EU summit that the bloc was plotting to sabotage Hungary’s economy if Prime Minister Orban didn’t approve €50 billion in funding for Ukraine over the next four year after obstructing a related deal on this late last year. He ultimately agreed to allow it in exchange for guarantees that his country’s blocked funds wouldn’t be redirected there and that a control mechanism be implemented, the latter of which ultimately doesn’t contain veto rights.
That’s actually all that he wanted from the get-go, which the EU had refused to extend during the last such summit in December, ergo why he obstructed their deal at that time. For this reason, Orban celebrated on Twitter by declaring “Mission accomplished. Hungary’s funds will not end up in Ukraine and we have a control mechanism at the end of the first and the second year. Our position on the war in Ukraine remains unchanged: we need a ceasefire and peace talks.”
The Hungarian leader also clarified due to widespread misinformation in the media about the purpose of these funds that they’re officially for helping Ukraine meet its civilian budgetary needs, not for the procurement of more military equipment, though some will inevitably be siphoned off for that. That’s why he was able to claim that his country’s position towards the conflict hasn’t changed since Hungary didn’t vote in support of keeping the conflict going, only to prevent the Ukrainian state’s collapse.
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards that cause. Nevertheless, the EU was so angry by his defiance of their demands to approve their proposed funding last December without those terms that it overreacted by reportedly threatening to sabotage the Hungarian economy if Orban obstructs this process a second time.
There were evidently enough rational leaders represented at the summit that the two parties, Hungary and the EU, were able to reach a compromise on this that gave Orban everything that he initially wanted back then. It can only be speculated who these people are (Meloni?), but they encouraged good faith dealmaking between Budapest and Brussels, without which the bloc would have crossed the Rubicon by sabotaging a fellow member’s economy for purely political reasons related to a non-member state.
Considering the outcome of the latest EU Summit, publicizing those threats through the Financial Times was unnecessary and arguably counterproductive since it further eroded the bloc’s soft power by lending credence to widespread criticisms that it’s become totalitarian over the past decade. This consequence was predictable, however, so it’s unclear why the decision was made to leak that plan to the press. One possible reason is that it was done with the shortsighted intent of signaling only to certain audiences.
In particular, the eurocrats might have expected that a deal would be reached all along following preliminary talks with fellow leaders, some of whom would have presumably expressed their intent to mediate a pragmatic compromise of the kind that Orban envisaged. Foreseeing that result and recalling the media brouhaha which followed the last summit a little more than a month prior, they might have wanted to preemptively shape the narrative that he capitulated and therefore sold out his interests.
The only ones who’d be receptive to that spin are hardcore EU supporters who hate him for ideological reasons, with there also being a chance that it could turn some so-called “Eurosceptics” away from him if they fell for that false narrative. The New York Times hinted at this in a piece published right after the summit where they wrote that “His real aim is to lead a populist and nativist rebellion against Europe’s liberal elite, though that campaign is showing signs of faltering.”
Their pathological fear of him winning more hearts and minds across the bloc, which could lead to other democratically driven populist revolutions with time, might have blinded them to the reality of how counterproductive it would be to leak their threat to sabotage his economy if no deal was reached. By doing so, they might have massaged the morale of their supporters and possibly misled a statistically insignificant number of his, but at the cost of inflicting irreparable reputational damage to themselves.
It's no longer a so-called “conspiracy theory” to claim that the EU undermines democratically elected conservative-nationalist governments through Hybrid War means after a leading liberal-globalist outlet like the Financial Times cited inside sources to report that this is exactly what they planned to do. The reader should remember that it’s now likely the case that a compromise was going to be reached all along since Orban ultimately got what he wanted, so this was thus done for purely political reasons.
He wasn’t swayed by that one bit since he’d already caught wind of that particular plot and was aware of their general schemes for years, plus the resultant compromise met his previously stated national interests, thus adding more heft to the claim that this decision was driven by propaganda motives. It backfired on the bloc though since nobody will forget what they threatened to do to Hungary, which will lead to him winning all those additional hearts and minds that Brussels just lost.
Great interview as always. I especially appreciated your precise criticism of the Wall Street Journal. Everything they print is steeped in neoconservative thought, probably all the way down to the advertising they allow. I've often called it the War Street Journal but maybe it's time to change it to the Wailing Wall Street Journal.
Once again huge contradiction regarding Johns interpretation of the judgement versus Michel Chossudovsky who states:
First published on January 29, 2024, revised February 1, 2024
In many regards, The World Court’s Judgment contradicts its own mandate: Presided by a former legal advisor to Hillary Clinton, this should come as no surprise.
Update. A New Wave of Criminal Initiatives
The ICJ Judgment of January 26, 2024 assigns the Netanyahu government representing the State of Israel –accused by the Republic of South Africa of genocide against the People of Palestine– with a mandate to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent and punish” those responsible for having committed “Genocidal Acts”. (under Article IV of the Genocide Convention)
Sounds contradictory? What the ICJ judgment intimates –from a twisted legal standpoint– is that Netanyahu’s Cabinet “appointed” to implement the “prevent and punish” mandate cannot be accused of having committed “Genocidal Acts”.
In substance, this contradictory mandate –which was intended to protect the people of Gaza–, provides the Netanyahu government with a pretext to “prevent and punish” Palestinians for allegedly having committed genocidal acts against Israelis.
Netanyahu is rejoicing. The ICJ Judgment fails to question the political legitimacy of the Likud coalition government, which was largely responsible for the planning prior to October 7 of a comprehensive genocide agenda, with the support of Washington.
We had predicted that this vote would contribute to a new wave of criminal initiatives on the part of the Netanyahu government. On January 26, Netanyahu had already confirmed that the genocide was ongoing.
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory. That means eliminating Hamas, …”
See our detailed analysis below in the section on “Fake Justice”.
So just roll over for Putin and the autocrats? Let him eat Europe bite by bite? Central Asia? Caucasian Republics? Baltics? Moldova? Have we learned nothing? Or is it Make Empires Great Again?
Not sure if you've been aware, if you've been watching the 24-hour panicfest over on cable and in the papers, but Putin has no intention of even taking all of Ukraine.
Mostly due to what Putin has said. The goals of the SMO, demilitarization and denazification, are achievable but will take time, but a full invasion was never in the cards, the SMO was launched to protect ethnic Russians in the Donbass as well as Russia's military interests in Crimea. The initial move towards Kiev was strategic, to force a quick settlement for Crimea and parts of the Donbass. When that didn't work, they later negotiated a deal that Boris Johnson scotched at America's behest. After that, the gloves were off, but only as regards Novorossiya. Western Ukraine can pound sand as far as Putin is concerned because it's ungovernable for Russia and Putin doesn't want to try.
Fair enough. I disagree but my opinion doesn't have any more support than yours. The goal was to topple the government and install a new one via some false election. The truth will be revealed someday.
Would it be permitted to be like Finland prior to joining NATO? Finland was never really neutral; it just kept its mouth shut.
I'm guessing that you are saying that it has to be like Finland in that it would be able to keep its mouth shut, proclaiming neutrality while in truth being pro-Russian and never allowed to adopt European style institutions or trade with EU except to extent Russia allowed it.
That sure sounds like domination to me, assuming I understand correctly.
So let me get this straight, some 200 thousand, more or less, Ukrainians are dead, so the US can take Putin down in our proxy war. Remember senile Biden spilled the beans after his return trip from Ukraine when he said, "Putin's got to go!" Now you're suggesting, if I am interpreting you correctly, more Ukrainians must die with hand me down weapons and a small fighting force that could never win, and fighting to further empower the US. Well, if you feel so strongly on this issue why don't you high tale it over to Ukraine and give your life for that neocon BS that is also destroying the US
The death rate you quote is wildly inaccurate and I have no idea why you would tell an untruth like that. As for the war, it is up to the Ukrainians to decide; I only hope the West will not leave them in the lurch.
With all due respect Jeff the death rate she quoted is actually a lot worse. If you listen to the experts from Day One the figures were already astronomical and Ukraine has certainly not gotten any stronger. This is why they have the conscript in addition to people who're paying upwards of ten thousand dollars in bribes - knowing it's an instant death sentence. They have military stationed on all the boarders to make sure they can't leave in order to escape the war. Not to mention surrendering to the Russians to escape death.
You do not know the death rates, Professor Mearsheimer does not, nor do I. It is merely a decision as to whose information you choose to believe. Some parties have access but all public data is suspect in a time of war.
I meant to say some 400 thousand dead and injured, not sure if that includes Russians as well. Figures vary widely in this regard. Listen Boyd if you feel this is a war worth fighting, get yourself over there with rifle in hand and fight the good fight which is to bring Putin down. Yep all those dead, and many Ukrainians now else where due to the US's proxy war. Yes, proxy war, as our senile president said, Putin has got to go. So, why don't you help.
P.S. To say it is up to the Ukrainians to decide is extremely naive.
My understanding is that it would be illegal for me to do so. The Ukrainians would not take 62 year old fat guy with somewhat normal health problems and a disabled child to take care of either. I would be proud of my "normal" son fighting in Ukraine if it was legal and if he was a Russian citizen I would be proud of him if he fought for Russia (or chose to serve time in jail for refusing), but he should obey the laws of the land and not "run away."
I don't want Putin taken down (I don't care), but I do not support invasions of other countries except in cases of genocide such as what took place in Rwanda or anarchy reigns such as in Haiti.
Even as a child I knew wars were stupid, and you seem to glorify them on some level. Proud to fight for your country, has always been BS to me. Putting WWII aside, what wars have the US entered that were worthy of so much death and destruction on both sides. The Korean war? Vietnam? How about our Middle Eastern wars, all based on lies. The Ukrainian war is a proxy war meant to bring down Putin, and for no other reason. We did the same in Afghanistan using the Mujahideen to fight a proxy war with Russia. If president would you send bombs to Israel to carry out their genocide?
I would absolutely sell bombs to Israel for purposes of fighting an enemy that hides in tunnels while their wives and children live in buildings atop. Why the women and children are not in the tunnels and fighters up-top provides an indication of the type of enemy faced.
War is necessary sometimes. Mistakes will be made in judging when to do so and I will celebrate the sacrifices of all who participate including enemies. I will vote against any representative supporting a war I regard as wrong or a bad idea. Again, mistakes will be made regarding those decisions and that is part of the reason we have laws to control our impulses.
The White House administration is pro-State of Israel. Not Pro-Jewish. Israel, the state, is not equivalent to “Jewish.”
The people matter not one whit--whatever their self-identification, Jewish or otherwise--to the WH Administration and all it represents.
Words matter in order to combat these deliberately confusing elisions between a state and people. An ethnostate represents its own interests as a state, not necessarily well, as we can see. However, that is all it represents.
I agree that no one is chosen. It’s a construction.
Personally, I am not religious. I am an atheist in my own head, but I am agnostic because there are good ideas and intentions tangled up in the webs we weave about our amazing shared consciousness as human beings. And there are good people who live and let live, and don’t seek ideological rule over others. I hope with our multipolar moment we can develop a peaceful and cooperative world majority that finds common cause and common purpose and send the ideologues to another planet.
True, but that being said when one is critical of Israel, and it's genocidal attack on Gaza whether they be individuals, or groups marching against it they are often referenced by many as being anti-Semitic, and that label has been used to curtail any criticism of Israel at all.
The really sad fact, though, is that a Semite is not only a Jew. Anyone who doesn’t know what a Semite is needs to learn. This is how the screaming banshees drown out reality for the sake of their sickening ideological systems. A failure of education and a failure to protect people by casually ignoring reality.
As a child I watched those old cowboy and Indian movies on TV and couldn't understand why the Indians were the bad guys when the cowboys were stealing their land. Finally I saw the truth. My country just lies to me. All things considered they haven't stopped lying my whole life. That's how I see the story of Israel and how the Palestinians became the bad guys. Lies, just lies told by governments well versed in that art.
P. S. I am aware other groups are Semites, but the Jewish people seemed to have made it an exclusive club.
Well, when it comes down to it we are all related to each other, but you wouldn't know it from our way of relating to each other throughout the ages. Our closest living relative is the chimp, and we all originated in Africa. Our roots. I guess you can call us a big dysfunctional family where many, especially those in political power haven't worked through their alpha chimp mindset.
I agree with you about the American Western! I was going to write about Shem, the first Semite, but I got him confused with Ham for a minute. Nevertheless, the line of descent from Shem requires some very dodgy breeding, at least by contemporary standards. I realize the same problem existed for the blood line of Adam and Eve. This always perplexed me. Then there is the split that created other Semite peoples, making Jewish Semites the brothers and sisters of Arab Semites. Among other Semitic people. How we struggle to make sense, or struggle to avoid making sense, of contradictions, defines us.
So $54 billion more to Ukraine so they can buy second rate weapons systems that will keep them marginally in the war long enough for a few tens of thousands of them to die fighting for a lost cause before they are inevitably defeated. God this world is so fucked.
I am disappointed with Mearsheimer. He is clueless (or worse!) regarding Israel - Palestine and keeps repeating the same b/s.
It does not matter what Israel does. It is the very existence of Israel that is the problem for Arab/Muslim world. And they will not stop until they destroy it. Period.
The word "cruelty" understates the Israeli mindset. I would say "indifference" better describes it.
Unreal. We are all slaves to the debt and the banking system. I voted for Dr. Ron Paul.
Reported EU Threats Against Hungary Were An Overreaction To Simple Requests
ANDREW KORYBKO
FEB 3, 2024
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards a different cause.
The Financial Times reported in the days leading up to last week’s EU summit that the bloc was plotting to sabotage Hungary’s economy if Prime Minister Orban didn’t approve €50 billion in funding for Ukraine over the next four year after obstructing a related deal on this late last year. He ultimately agreed to allow it in exchange for guarantees that his country’s blocked funds wouldn’t be redirected there and that a control mechanism be implemented, the latter of which ultimately doesn’t contain veto rights.
That’s actually all that he wanted from the get-go, which the EU had refused to extend during the last such summit in December, ergo why he obstructed their deal at that time. For this reason, Orban celebrated on Twitter by declaring “Mission accomplished. Hungary’s funds will not end up in Ukraine and we have a control mechanism at the end of the first and the second year. Our position on the war in Ukraine remains unchanged: we need a ceasefire and peace talks.”
The Hungarian leader also clarified due to widespread misinformation in the media about the purpose of these funds that they’re officially for helping Ukraine meet its civilian budgetary needs, not for the procurement of more military equipment, though some will inevitably be siphoned off for that. That’s why he was able to claim that his country’s position towards the conflict hasn’t changed since Hungary didn’t vote in support of keeping the conflict going, only to prevent the Ukrainian state’s collapse.
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards that cause. Nevertheless, the EU was so angry by his defiance of their demands to approve their proposed funding last December without those terms that it overreacted by reportedly threatening to sabotage the Hungarian economy if Orban obstructs this process a second time.
There were evidently enough rational leaders represented at the summit that the two parties, Hungary and the EU, were able to reach a compromise on this that gave Orban everything that he initially wanted back then. It can only be speculated who these people are (Meloni?), but they encouraged good faith dealmaking between Budapest and Brussels, without which the bloc would have crossed the Rubicon by sabotaging a fellow member’s economy for purely political reasons related to a non-member state.
Considering the outcome of the latest EU Summit, publicizing those threats through the Financial Times was unnecessary and arguably counterproductive since it further eroded the bloc’s soft power by lending credence to widespread criticisms that it’s become totalitarian over the past decade. This consequence was predictable, however, so it’s unclear why the decision was made to leak that plan to the press. One possible reason is that it was done with the shortsighted intent of signaling only to certain audiences.
In particular, the eurocrats might have expected that a deal would be reached all along following preliminary talks with fellow leaders, some of whom would have presumably expressed their intent to mediate a pragmatic compromise of the kind that Orban envisaged. Foreseeing that result and recalling the media brouhaha which followed the last summit a little more than a month prior, they might have wanted to preemptively shape the narrative that he capitulated and therefore sold out his interests.
The only ones who’d be receptive to that spin are hardcore EU supporters who hate him for ideological reasons, with there also being a chance that it could turn some so-called “Eurosceptics” away from him if they fell for that false narrative. The New York Times hinted at this in a piece published right after the summit where they wrote that “His real aim is to lead a populist and nativist rebellion against Europe’s liberal elite, though that campaign is showing signs of faltering.”
Their pathological fear of him winning more hearts and minds across the bloc, which could lead to other democratically driven populist revolutions with time, might have blinded them to the reality of how counterproductive it would be to leak their threat to sabotage his economy if no deal was reached. By doing so, they might have massaged the morale of their supporters and possibly misled a statistically insignificant number of his, but at the cost of inflicting irreparable reputational damage to themselves.
It's no longer a so-called “conspiracy theory” to claim that the EU undermines democratically elected conservative-nationalist governments through Hybrid War means after a leading liberal-globalist outlet like the Financial Times cited inside sources to report that this is exactly what they planned to do. The reader should remember that it’s now likely the case that a compromise was going to be reached all along since Orban ultimately got what he wanted, so this was thus done for purely political reasons.
He wasn’t swayed by that one bit since he’d already caught wind of that particular plot and was aware of their general schemes for years, plus the resultant compromise met his previously stated national interests, thus adding more heft to the claim that this decision was driven by propaganda motives. It backfired on the bloc though since nobody will forget what they threatened to do to Hungary, which will lead to him winning all those additional hearts and minds that Brussels just lost.
Excellent dissection. This is Andrew Korybko’s work? Where did you find him, if I may ask?
Substack
Cheers!!
I think using the professor for week to week play by play "who's doing what to whom today" is like using a howitzer to kill a fly. A reporter on the ground would be better for that. Judge Napolitano shouldn't be using professor Mearsheimer to shag Ukrainian grounders, he could be doing that himself, actually. Israel topics are different.
Yes, issues like genocide are best handled by the likes of Don Lemon.
Mr. McDonald, if your comment is implying that my opinion is that Don Lemonesque reporters should cover the day to day issues of the Israel-Gaza conflict instead of the professor, then I'm afraid you will receive a D- in Reading Comprehension on your comment.:)
My understanding was that there is a new system called Diya, or something like that, to keep track of the money paid by the governments of Europe to Ukraine, whereby the money goes directly to the recipients on some kind of biological verification card. Samantha Power mentioned it in a presentation she gave to partially justify the aid being given. It seemed to me that part of the justification for giving the aid was to develop and test this new system which could go around the government in Kiv and see if it could be used other places for other purposes. I think there is more to the story than just sending the money over to be lost to corruption immediately.
Reported EU Threats Against Hungary Were An Overreaction To Simple Requests
ANDREW KORYBKO
FEB 3, 2024
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards a different cause.
The Financial Times reported in the days leading up to last week’s EU summit that the bloc was plotting to sabotage Hungary’s economy if Prime Minister Orban didn’t approve €50 billion in funding for Ukraine over the next four year after obstructing a related deal on this late last year. He ultimately agreed to allow it in exchange for guarantees that his country’s blocked funds wouldn’t be redirected there and that a control mechanism be implemented, the latter of which ultimately doesn’t contain veto rights.
That’s actually all that he wanted from the get-go, which the EU had refused to extend during the last such summit in December, ergo why he obstructed their deal at that time. For this reason, Orban celebrated on Twitter by declaring “Mission accomplished. Hungary’s funds will not end up in Ukraine and we have a control mechanism at the end of the first and the second year. Our position on the war in Ukraine remains unchanged: we need a ceasefire and peace talks.”
The Hungarian leader also clarified due to widespread misinformation in the media about the purpose of these funds that they’re officially for helping Ukraine meet its civilian budgetary needs, not for the procurement of more military equipment, though some will inevitably be siphoned off for that. That’s why he was able to claim that his country’s position towards the conflict hasn’t changed since Hungary didn’t vote in support of keeping the conflict going, only to prevent the Ukrainian state’s collapse.
His requests from last December were reasonable and folks would be hard-pressed to find an average person who’d disagree with the need to ensure accountability and prevent unrelated funds from being redirected towards that cause. Nevertheless, the EU was so angry by his defiance of their demands to approve their proposed funding last December without those terms that it overreacted by reportedly threatening to sabotage the Hungarian economy if Orban obstructs this process a second time.
There were evidently enough rational leaders represented at the summit that the two parties, Hungary and the EU, were able to reach a compromise on this that gave Orban everything that he initially wanted back then. It can only be speculated who these people are (Meloni?), but they encouraged good faith dealmaking between Budapest and Brussels, without which the bloc would have crossed the Rubicon by sabotaging a fellow member’s economy for purely political reasons related to a non-member state.
Considering the outcome of the latest EU Summit, publicizing those threats through the Financial Times was unnecessary and arguably counterproductive since it further eroded the bloc’s soft power by lending credence to widespread criticisms that it’s become totalitarian over the past decade. This consequence was predictable, however, so it’s unclear why the decision was made to leak that plan to the press. One possible reason is that it was done with the shortsighted intent of signaling only to certain audiences.
In particular, the eurocrats might have expected that a deal would be reached all along following preliminary talks with fellow leaders, some of whom would have presumably expressed their intent to mediate a pragmatic compromise of the kind that Orban envisaged. Foreseeing that result and recalling the media brouhaha which followed the last summit a little more than a month prior, they might have wanted to preemptively shape the narrative that he capitulated and therefore sold out his interests.
The only ones who’d be receptive to that spin are hardcore EU supporters who hate him for ideological reasons, with there also being a chance that it could turn some so-called “Eurosceptics” away from him if they fell for that false narrative. The New York Times hinted at this in a piece published right after the summit where they wrote that “His real aim is to lead a populist and nativist rebellion against Europe’s liberal elite, though that campaign is showing signs of faltering.”
Their pathological fear of him winning more hearts and minds across the bloc, which could lead to other democratically driven populist revolutions with time, might have blinded them to the reality of how counterproductive it would be to leak their threat to sabotage his economy if no deal was reached. By doing so, they might have massaged the morale of their supporters and possibly misled a statistically insignificant number of his, but at the cost of inflicting irreparable reputational damage to themselves.
It's no longer a so-called “conspiracy theory” to claim that the EU undermines democratically elected conservative-nationalist governments through Hybrid War means after a leading liberal-globalist outlet like the Financial Times cited inside sources to report that this is exactly what they planned to do. The reader should remember that it’s now likely the case that a compromise was going to be reached all along since Orban ultimately got what he wanted, so this was thus done for purely political reasons.
He wasn’t swayed by that one bit since he’d already caught wind of that particular plot and was aware of their general schemes for years, plus the resultant compromise met his previously stated national interests, thus adding more heft to the claim that this decision was driven by propaganda motives. It backfired on the bloc though since nobody will forget what they threatened to do to Hungary, which will lead to him winning all those additional hearts and minds that Brussels just lost.
Great interview as always. I especially appreciated your precise criticism of the Wall Street Journal. Everything they print is steeped in neoconservative thought, probably all the way down to the advertising they allow. I've often called it the War Street Journal but maybe it's time to change it to the Wailing Wall Street Journal.
Once again huge contradiction regarding Johns interpretation of the judgement versus Michel Chossudovsky who states:
First published on January 29, 2024, revised February 1, 2024
In many regards, The World Court’s Judgment contradicts its own mandate: Presided by a former legal advisor to Hillary Clinton, this should come as no surprise.
Update. A New Wave of Criminal Initiatives
The ICJ Judgment of January 26, 2024 assigns the Netanyahu government representing the State of Israel –accused by the Republic of South Africa of genocide against the People of Palestine– with a mandate to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent and punish” those responsible for having committed “Genocidal Acts”. (under Article IV of the Genocide Convention)
Sounds contradictory? What the ICJ judgment intimates –from a twisted legal standpoint– is that Netanyahu’s Cabinet “appointed” to implement the “prevent and punish” mandate cannot be accused of having committed “Genocidal Acts”.
In substance, this contradictory mandate –which was intended to protect the people of Gaza–, provides the Netanyahu government with a pretext to “prevent and punish” Palestinians for allegedly having committed genocidal acts against Israelis.
Netanyahu is rejoicing. The ICJ Judgment fails to question the political legitimacy of the Likud coalition government, which was largely responsible for the planning prior to October 7 of a comprehensive genocide agenda, with the support of Washington.
We had predicted that this vote would contribute to a new wave of criminal initiatives on the part of the Netanyahu government. On January 26, Netanyahu had already confirmed that the genocide was ongoing.
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory. That means eliminating Hamas, …”
See our detailed analysis below in the section on “Fake Justice”.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-icj-requires-netanyahu-to-prevent-and-punish-those-responsible-for-the-genocide/5847666
So just roll over for Putin and the autocrats? Let him eat Europe bite by bite? Central Asia? Caucasian Republics? Baltics? Moldova? Have we learned nothing? Or is it Make Empires Great Again?
Yes, WWII was good for America but the Russians actually won it. (The nukes were just for good measure but others now have them too.)
“Have we learned nothing?”
Good question.
What did we learn from America’s wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria?
What are Iran, Hezbollah, Palestine, and Ansar Allah teaching us now?
What will we learn when - as is likely - Russia defeats NATO in Ukraine?
The lessons from America’s foreign wars seem clear enough; how many tens of thousands more need to die for us to learn them?
Russia has plenty of land. Land is NOT what they seek.
I thought the USA learned there isn’t a domino from Vietnam.
Not sure if you've been aware, if you've been watching the 24-hour panicfest over on cable and in the papers, but Putin has no intention of even taking all of Ukraine.
On what basis do you make that statement?
If true, why send multiple groups of forces towards Kyiv at beginning of war?
Mostly due to what Putin has said. The goals of the SMO, demilitarization and denazification, are achievable but will take time, but a full invasion was never in the cards, the SMO was launched to protect ethnic Russians in the Donbass as well as Russia's military interests in Crimea. The initial move towards Kiev was strategic, to force a quick settlement for Crimea and parts of the Donbass. When that didn't work, they later negotiated a deal that Boris Johnson scotched at America's behest. After that, the gloves were off, but only as regards Novorossiya. Western Ukraine can pound sand as far as Putin is concerned because it's ungovernable for Russia and Putin doesn't want to try.
Fair enough. I disagree but my opinion doesn't have any more support than yours. The goal was to topple the government and install a new one via some false election. The truth will be revealed someday.
The goal is still to topple the government, or rather, to reform it into a neutral government w.r.t. NATO and to remove the Azov element.
Would it be permitted to be like Finland prior to joining NATO? Finland was never really neutral; it just kept its mouth shut.
I'm guessing that you are saying that it has to be like Finland in that it would be able to keep its mouth shut, proclaiming neutrality while in truth being pro-Russian and never allowed to adopt European style institutions or trade with EU except to extent Russia allowed it.
That sure sounds like domination to me, assuming I understand correctly.
So let me get this straight, some 200 thousand, more or less, Ukrainians are dead, so the US can take Putin down in our proxy war. Remember senile Biden spilled the beans after his return trip from Ukraine when he said, "Putin's got to go!" Now you're suggesting, if I am interpreting you correctly, more Ukrainians must die with hand me down weapons and a small fighting force that could never win, and fighting to further empower the US. Well, if you feel so strongly on this issue why don't you high tale it over to Ukraine and give your life for that neocon BS that is also destroying the US
The death rate you quote is wildly inaccurate and I have no idea why you would tell an untruth like that. As for the war, it is up to the Ukrainians to decide; I only hope the West will not leave them in the lurch.
With all due respect Jeff the death rate she quoted is actually a lot worse. If you listen to the experts from Day One the figures were already astronomical and Ukraine has certainly not gotten any stronger. This is why they have the conscript in addition to people who're paying upwards of ten thousand dollars in bribes - knowing it's an instant death sentence. They have military stationed on all the boarders to make sure they can't leave in order to escape the war. Not to mention surrendering to the Russians to escape death.
You do not know the death rates, Professor Mearsheimer does not, nor do I. It is merely a decision as to whose information you choose to believe. Some parties have access but all public data is suspect in a time of war.
I meant to say some 400 thousand dead and injured, not sure if that includes Russians as well. Figures vary widely in this regard. Listen Boyd if you feel this is a war worth fighting, get yourself over there with rifle in hand and fight the good fight which is to bring Putin down. Yep all those dead, and many Ukrainians now else where due to the US's proxy war. Yes, proxy war, as our senile president said, Putin has got to go. So, why don't you help.
P.S. To say it is up to the Ukrainians to decide is extremely naive.
My understanding is that it would be illegal for me to do so. The Ukrainians would not take 62 year old fat guy with somewhat normal health problems and a disabled child to take care of either. I would be proud of my "normal" son fighting in Ukraine if it was legal and if he was a Russian citizen I would be proud of him if he fought for Russia (or chose to serve time in jail for refusing), but he should obey the laws of the land and not "run away."
I don't want Putin taken down (I don't care), but I do not support invasions of other countries except in cases of genocide such as what took place in Rwanda or anarchy reigns such as in Haiti.
Even as a child I knew wars were stupid, and you seem to glorify them on some level. Proud to fight for your country, has always been BS to me. Putting WWII aside, what wars have the US entered that were worthy of so much death and destruction on both sides. The Korean war? Vietnam? How about our Middle Eastern wars, all based on lies. The Ukrainian war is a proxy war meant to bring down Putin, and for no other reason. We did the same in Afghanistan using the Mujahideen to fight a proxy war with Russia. If president would you send bombs to Israel to carry out their genocide?
I would absolutely sell bombs to Israel for purposes of fighting an enemy that hides in tunnels while their wives and children live in buildings atop. Why the women and children are not in the tunnels and fighters up-top provides an indication of the type of enemy faced.
War is necessary sometimes. Mistakes will be made in judging when to do so and I will celebrate the sacrifices of all who participate including enemies. I will vote against any representative supporting a war I regard as wrong or a bad idea. Again, mistakes will be made regarding those decisions and that is part of the reason we have laws to control our impulses.
Love it!!!!!!!!!!
I am glad that someone got by with standing against the Israelis commiting genocide .
However I doubt it will get past that . Everyone in the White House is pro Jewish.
And so many people like the sound of Israeli gold in ther pockets.
The White House administration is pro-State of Israel. Not Pro-Jewish. Israel, the state, is not equivalent to “Jewish.”
The people matter not one whit--whatever their self-identification, Jewish or otherwise--to the WH Administration and all it represents.
Words matter in order to combat these deliberately confusing elisions between a state and people. An ethnostate represents its own interests as a state, not necessarily well, as we can see. However, that is all it represents.
I agree with you about that, Ki.
But it strikes me that until we get rid of the concept that God has a chosen people we're going to be cycling around with genocide.
Perhaps it's time to conceider dropping religion altogether.
I agree that no one is chosen. It’s a construction.
Personally, I am not religious. I am an atheist in my own head, but I am agnostic because there are good ideas and intentions tangled up in the webs we weave about our amazing shared consciousness as human beings. And there are good people who live and let live, and don’t seek ideological rule over others. I hope with our multipolar moment we can develop a peaceful and cooperative world majority that finds common cause and common purpose and send the ideologues to another planet.
True, but that being said when one is critical of Israel, and it's genocidal attack on Gaza whether they be individuals, or groups marching against it they are often referenced by many as being anti-Semitic, and that label has been used to curtail any criticism of Israel at all.
The really sad fact, though, is that a Semite is not only a Jew. Anyone who doesn’t know what a Semite is needs to learn. This is how the screaming banshees drown out reality for the sake of their sickening ideological systems. A failure of education and a failure to protect people by casually ignoring reality.
As a child I watched those old cowboy and Indian movies on TV and couldn't understand why the Indians were the bad guys when the cowboys were stealing their land. Finally I saw the truth. My country just lies to me. All things considered they haven't stopped lying my whole life. That's how I see the story of Israel and how the Palestinians became the bad guys. Lies, just lies told by governments well versed in that art.
P. S. I am aware other groups are Semites, but the Jewish people seemed to have made it an exclusive club.
DNA shows the Sephardi and the Palestinian have a common ancestor.
Well, when it comes down to it we are all related to each other, but you wouldn't know it from our way of relating to each other throughout the ages. Our closest living relative is the chimp, and we all originated in Africa. Our roots. I guess you can call us a big dysfunctional family where many, especially those in political power haven't worked through their alpha chimp mindset.
I agree with you about the American Western! I was going to write about Shem, the first Semite, but I got him confused with Ham for a minute. Nevertheless, the line of descent from Shem requires some very dodgy breeding, at least by contemporary standards. I realize the same problem existed for the blood line of Adam and Eve. This always perplexed me. Then there is the split that created other Semite peoples, making Jewish Semites the brothers and sisters of Arab Semites. Among other Semitic people. How we struggle to make sense, or struggle to avoid making sense, of contradictions, defines us.
Sorry Ki, don't know anything about this. Ill have to look it up.
I couldn't have said it better ! 👏
So $54 billion more to Ukraine so they can buy second rate weapons systems that will keep them marginally in the war long enough for a few tens of thousands of them to die fighting for a lost cause before they are inevitably defeated. God this world is so fucked.
You know, John, if you really want to stop the Jews, all you have to do is say "you are becoming the nazis".
Or are you a noballs?