Connect with us


A Look at What is Really Happening in Germany



Image source:

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been very busy recently to ensure the supply of natural gas. Of course, he is not busy to help Ukraine, but for the sake of Russia.

In response to Western sanctions, Russia has imposed its own counter-sanctions. Its approach though is unsophisticated, targeting countries that continue to use Russian gas, most notably Germany. President Vladimir Putin demanded Germany and Europe paying Russian gas in rubles. Because of the sanctions, Western countries have no rubles at all, which means they have to trade financial currency with Russia to obtain rubles so that they can pay for Russian gas. The West’s sanctions then will become practically fruitless. In order to make this approach effective, Putin also attached a deterrent condition. If Germany does not pay in rubles, Russia will cut off gas supplies to Germany and Europe starting on April 1.

To resolve the problem, Scholz has become rather preoccupied. He kept negotiating with Russia, and with President Putin. While reasoning, he also pleaded Putin not to use rubles, not to cut off natural gas, and that Germany is willing to pay large sums of euros to Russia, much more than to Ukraine.

Germany’s request is much more urgent than other European countries. Many countries such as Poland, Slovenia and others have directly rejected Putin’s demand, with much contempt at that, because Putin’s approach is actually an act of desperation that damages both sides. Russia’s natural gas is actually one of the few of its trade exchanges with the Western world; it is also one of the limited hard currency commodities that Russia can still obtain. In addition, even the gold of the Russian central bank has been frozen and seized by the West. By cutting off gas supplies to Europe, Russia is in fact accelerating its suicide. The problem is that Germany has more things to consider than other European countries. German politicians often think beyond domestic political support. If an economic crisis does occur, they are worried that they will have to step down. Moreover, the Germans tied themselves to the Russian gas pipeline very early on because of certain “special vision”, hence they use it much more than other European countries.

Putin certainly fully understands Germany’s desperation. He agreed that Scholz can continue to use euros to pay without interrupting the supply of natural gas. Of course, Germany will have to send a large amount of euros to a Russian company account that is not affected by sanctions, so that Russia can use it. This is not a small sum of money. According to the price of Russian natural gas imported by the EU every day, based on the price that has not increased in the past, it would be EUR 200 million to 800 million, of which 32% is the natural gas used by Germany. This is indeed an astronomical figure.

While Germany attempts to communicate with Russia and pays generously, it is also using various reasons and means to limit the aids for Ukraine. The reasons of this include legal issues, political concerns, inflation and others, among which it also appears to encompass a deeper German aspiration of future prosperity. These considerations haunt the Germans even as the Ukrainians are fighting bloody battles to ensure Europe’s future order and national borders remain intact.

In the beginning, the German government merely gave Ukraine 5,000 helmets, for this some Ukrainians sarcastically remarked that perhaps the Germans might send some pillows next time. With the emergence of the natural gas payment problem between Germany and Russia, Germany’s preparations for assistance to Ukraine are even more outrageous. This time, a batch of “tanks” was sent.

A spokesperson for the German Federal Ministry of Defense told CNN on Friday that Germany has approved the delivery of 56 infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. The Germans also solemnly announced that the tanks were Pbv-501s, supposedly from the East German military during the Cold War. In fact, these so-called Pbv-501 “tanks” are the oldest BMP-1 armored vehicles in the former Soviet Union. They are from 1966 of the last century, produced 56 years and may be older than many officials in the German government. In Sweden, such armored vehicles are used in target shooting. The Russians could very well be amused that Germany, one of the countries with the strongest modern military industry in the world, provided these “tanks” to aid the Ukrainians.

Facing the ongoing war in Ukraine, Germany is stuck in a dilemma. It needs Russia and Putin badly, and this need probably stems from physical to physiological aspects. Yet on the other hand, it does consider the conflict in Ukraine to be a major issue as it is closely related to the security of NATO, to Germany’s trustworthiness and moral commitments in the international community.

What then, does Germany think about the war?

On April 2, German business media Handelsblatt reported that Economy Minister Robert Habeck rejected Ukraine’s request for more support in its fight against Russia. “It is important that we support Ukraine with all our strength; however, in everything we do, we are very careful not to take any ill-considered step that could make Germany the target of Russia’s attack”, says Habeck in an interview for the Rheinische Post. Of course, he also said that it is naturally difficult for Ukraine to understand this, “but there is no morally flawless position in politics”.

Martin Brudermüller, CEO of BASF, one of Germany’s largest chemical conglomerates, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that Germany would face unprecedented economic losses in the event of a complete or prolonged cessation of gas and oil imports from Russia. Brudermüller believes that calling for a boycott of Russian energy resources imports is an “irresponsible experiment” that “could lead to Germany’s worst economic crisis since the end of the Second World War”. Commenting on Germany’s discussions about rejecting Russian oil and gas, Brudermüller asked, “Do we want to destroy our entire economy with our eyes wide open?” It’s not hard to see that this is from deep-seated frustration.

This of course does not apply to all Germans. Yet, the CDU government in Germany and these German corporate oligarchs are still hold on to things that have ceased to exist for decades, and they have been continuously supporting Putin’s Russia, the very threat to Europe. The technology and resources exported to Russia indeed, have strengthened Russia, and Germany itself is one of the root causes of the invasion of Ukraine. Now, they call the consequence of this as “economic crisis.”

The world can indeed understand the dilemma faced by Germany, and its deepest emotion. Germany might as well tear off the mask of pretension and directly make the following announcement:

1. Germany will quit NATO, as it does not exert its function. More importantly, Germany will make sure NATO will not really play its role; 2. Germany is unconcerned about which party is the invader or being invaded, hence when Germany is invaded, we pledged not to seek the aid and support from any nation, as we understand the invasion would be justified; 3. We in Germany promise to accept any condition for survival, therefore please put forward the conditions; 4. The values that we preached in the past, including fairness, justice, democracy, freedom, honesty, trust, God, and the United Nations Charter, are all nonsensical. Our focus should be achieving economic development; 5. Germany no longer respects any international agreements, territorial sovereignty, including our own, unless the Russians permit us to do so.

Of course, there is one last point: stop forcing us, else we will not be able to live.

There was once a Germany in the past, renowned worldwide for its scientific rationality and philosophical foresight. That Germany has long gone. Along with it, basic courage has left Germany as well. A steady stream of foreign volunteers, mostly men, usually veterans, head to Ukraine along lonely roads across the borders. At time, they might see hundreds of mothers and children fleeing their destroyed homeland. The sorrowful faces of these refuges would deeply imprint the mind of these volunteers. These volunteers are there to fight a war that takes place in Europe, and they know that their country’s military and perhaps government officials would not be there to support them.

“We just want to safeguard freedom, it’s just that simple”, a volunteer named Mike told the journalist at Poland’s Przemysl railway station. He was just one of the many foreign fighters heading to the border. This is not a classic and complicated rhetoric, but a reflection of the typical German schizophrenia of the moment. The German government and some Germans just want to protect their wealth and current way of life, for this they would do anything. Such is the situation of Germany, and France is actually worse. It is just that according to credible tradition, the French are not concerned with what others say, so there is no need to spill the ink for France. What is left for Europe and NATO now? Perhaps only God, and the Ukrainians have the answer.

Founder of Anbound Think Tank in 1993, Chan Kung is now ANBOUND Chief Researcher. Chan Kung is one of China’s renowned experts in information analysis. Most of Chan Kung‘s outstanding academic research activities are in economic information analysis, particularly in the area of public policy.

Continue Reading


Is European humanity skin deep?



At the border crossing between Ukraine and Moldova at Palanca, refugees stand in line. © UNICEF/Vincent Tremeau

When talking about security the most common line of thought tends to be war and the actors involved in the attack, however, all the people who had regular lives within those territories that are jeopardized are as important. With the increasing tensions and armed conflicts happening within the Twenty First Century, the movement of people searching for shelter has increased. More asylum seekers leave their home countries every single day and contemporary politics is still struggling to find a way to catch up. Europe, history wise, is the zone of the world that deals with more refugees wanting to enter the continent due to different factors: geography, proximity, democratic systems, level of development and more. Nevertheless, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, true sentiments towards refugees are now being put on display.

Even though all refugees are fleeing their countries because their lives are in mortal danger, authorities and government officials do not seem to care. Processes to apply for the refugee status are getting harder and harder. In Europe, to apply for a refugee passport, people are asked for identifications, online questionaries and many other unrealistic aspects that if not answered correctly, the whole process is cancelled. It is ridiculous to believe that when people are scaping in order to stay alive, they will take under consideration all these requirements to receive help, sometimes even from neighboring countries. Which inevitably leads to the following question: why are refugees accepted based on the legality of their applications and not of their status?

By 2016, nearly 5.2 million refugees reached European shores, which caused the so called refugee crisis. They came mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq: countries torn apart by armed conflicts. Similarly, with Russia’s invasion over the Ukraine in 2022, only few days deep within the fighting,  874,000 people had to flee their homes. Nonetheless, the issue seems to be that, for Europe, not all refugees are the same. When the refugee crisis in 2015 was declared, the European Union called for stopping and detaining all arriving refugees for around 18 months. There was a strong reluctancy from Europeans towards offering them shelter. On the contrary, countries such as Poland and Slovakia have said that Ukrainian refugees fleeing will be accepted without passports, or any valid travel documents due to the urgency of the situation. Therefore, stating with their actions, that Ukrainian refugees are more valuable or seem to be more worthy of help than refugees from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.

Correspondingly, it is true that not all countries inside Europe deal and act the same way towards refugees, be that as it may, with the current refugee crisis it has been proved that they all share strong sentiments of xenophobia and racism. For instance, Hungary is a country that refused to admit refugees coming from outside Europe since 2015. In 2018, Prime Minister Viktor Orban described non-European refugees as “Muslim invaders” and “poison” to society, in comparison with Ukrainian refugees who are being welcomed without hesitation. In the same way, Jarosław Kaczyński, who served as Prime Minister of Poland and is the leader of the Law and Justice party, in 2017 said that accepting asylum seekers from Syria would be dangerous and would “completely change our culture and radically lower the level of safety in our country”. Furthermore, Germany in 2015 with Chancellor Angela Merkel in charged said that they would accept one million of Syrians. Although, as time passed, Europe’s solution was to make a deal with Turkey, who is not part of the European Union, to close the migrant route. Moreover, the promise of letting refugees integrate into German society was not fulfilled since. Seven year later, an impressive amount of refugees are still in camps and centers, with their lives frozen in time. Sadly, most European governments gambled towards the idea of sending them back once the armed conflict was over, without caring for the aftermath of war’s destruction.

The common narrative until now pushed by leaders, politicians, and mass media has been that Ukrainians are prosperous, civilized, middle class working people, but refugees coming from the Middle East are terrorists, and refuges from Africa are simply too different. Despite, refugees are all people who share similar emotions and struggle to grasp the fact that their lives may never be the same; having lost their homes, friends, family and so much more. Plus, being selectively welcomed based on their religion, skin color or nationality by the continent which’s complete rhetoric is universal rights, just adds another complex layer to the issue. Conjointly, the displacement of people due to war displays how regular individuals are always the ones who suffer the most in consequence to the interests of the few that represent larger powers. Hence, greed, envy, and cruelty are stronger than recognized, even in a developed continent such as Europe.

Continue Reading


What Everyone Should Know About Preventing Ethnic Violence: The Case of Bosnia



Image source:

When the Balkans spiraled into violence and genocide in the 90’s, many wondered what caused this resurgence in militant ethnic nationalism and how a similar situation may be countered.


The 1990’s were a vibrant decade, that is unless you were living in the Balkans. 1995 was especially bad, as the 11th of July of that year marked the Srebrenica Massacre, which saw Serbian soldiers murder over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims over the span of two weeks. This shocked the world, as it was the first case of a European country resorting to extreme violence and genocide on ethnic lines since World War II. After World War II, the idea that a European country would resort to genocide was unthinkable. As Balkan nations continue to see the consequences of the massacre after over 25 years, it is increasingly evident that more needs to be done to curb ethnic violence.

We must first investigate key causes of ethnic violence. According to V.P. Gagnon, the main driver of ethnic violence is elites that wish to stay in power. Ethnic nationalism is easy to exploit, as creating a scapegoat is extremely effective for keeping elites in power. This is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia, which had previously seen high levels of tolerance and intermarriage in more mixed areas that saw the worst violence during the war. Stuart J. Kaufman argues that elites may take advantage of natural psychological fears of in-group extinction, creating group myths, or stereotypes, of outgroups to fuel hatred against them. While they may take different approaches to this issue, Gagnon and Kaufman agree that the main drivers of ethnic violence are the elites.

David Lake and Donald Rothchild suggest that the main driver of ethnic conflict is collective fears for the future of in-groups. Fear is one of the most important emotions we have because it helps secure our existence in a hostile world. However, fear can easily be exploited by the elites to achieve their personal goals. In a multiethnic society such as Yugoslavia, the rise of an elite that adheres to the prospects of a single ethnic group could prove dangerous and sometimes even disastrous. The destruction of Yugoslavian hegemony under Josip Broz Tito and the resulting explosion of ethnic conflict at the hands of Serbian elites in Bosnia underline this because of the immense fear this created.

Regions with high Serb populations in Bosnia sought independence from the rest of the country when they found themselves separated from Serbia by the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Republika Srpska was formed by these alienated Serbs. The leadership and elites in Serbia riled up the Serb population of Republika Srpska by stereotyping and demonizing Bosnian Muslims as “descendants of the Turkish oppressors”. This scared the Serbs in Bosnia so much so that they obeyed the elites of Serbia in supporting and fighting for the independence of Republika Srpska by any means necessary. As was seen in Srebrenica, they were not opposed to genocide.

We know how the elites fuel ethnic tensions to secure power as well of the devastating effects of these tensions reaching their boiling point. But what could be done to address ethnic conflict? David Welsh suggests that a remedy for ethnic conflict could be the complete enfranchisement of ethnic minorities and deterrence towards ethnic cleansing. This means that we must ensure that ethnic minorities are able to have a say in a democratic system that caters to all ethnicities equally. Fostering aversion to genocide is also vital toward addressing ethnic conflict because it is the inevitable result of unchecked ethnic conflict.

There is also the issue of members of ethnic groups voting for candidates and parties on ethnic lines. For example, in the United States, White American voters have shown to prefer White candidates over African American candidates, and vice versa. Keep in mind that the United States has a deep history of ethnic conflict, including the centuries-long subjugation of African Americans by White Americans.

Ethnic violence is horrifying and destructive, but it can be prevented. The first measure would be the establishment of a representative democracy, where members of all ethnicities are accurately represented. Another measure would be to make ethnic conflict and ethnic stereotyping taboo so that the average person would not resort to genocidal behavior once things go wrong. Lastly, making people feel secure is the most important step towards preventing ethnic conflict. If the people feel secure enough, they will not even need to think about ethnic violence. In short, while it is important to consider the differences of the various ethnic groups in a multiethnic society, it is vital that each group is kept represented and secure, free of any fears of subjugation.

While the case of Bosnia was extremely unfortunate, it provides an integral view into what could happen if perceived subjugation and fear of eradication reaches a breaking point. As was seen in Bosnia, ethnic violence can be extremely violent, resulting in untold suffering and death. That is why we must take necessary steps towards de-escalation and remediation of ethnic conflicts. These measures can, quite literally, save millions of lives.

Continue Reading


French Presidential Election 2022 and its significance for Europe



Eugene Delacroix’s infamous painting “la liberté Guidant le Peuple” reminds the whole world of the July Revolution of 1830 that toppled King Charles X of France. The lady in the centre of the painting with the French tricolour still symbolizes the concept of liberty and reminds the whole world of revolutions and sacrifices made for freedom. France indeed has a long journey from revolting against “if they have no bread, let them eat cake” in 1789 to establishing a modern democratic society with the principles of “liberty, equality and fraternity”.  

France and the United States are rightly considered the birthplace of modern democracy. The French revolution taught the whole world lessons about revolution, freedom modern nationalism, liberalism and sovereignty. In 2022, France celebrates the 233rd year of Bastille Day which led to a new dawn in the French political system. From establishing 1ere Republique (1st Republic) in 1792, France has evolved and is currently under the 5eme Republique (5th Republic) under the constitution crafted by Charles de Gaulle in 1958.

Today, France is holding its presidential elections. As the French believe, ‘You first vote with your heart, then your head’, the first round of voting was concluded on Sunday 10th April and the Presidential debate on 20th April 2022. While the whole world waits for the 24th of April’s second round of elections and their results, this article attempts to understand the French electoral system and analyze Why French Presidential elections are important for Europe?

French electoral system

France is a semi-presidential democracy; the president is at the centre of power and Prime Minister heads the government. The president of the French republic is elected by direct universal suffrage where all French citizens aged 18 and above can vote, whether residing in France or not. In France, there is a two-round system in which voters vote twice on two Sundays, two weeks apart. This two-round system is widely practised in central and eastern Europe as well as Central Asia, South America and Africa.

In order to apply, a candidate needs 500 signatures of elected officials and they should be at least from 30 government departments. A candidate can be an independent or he or she can represent a political party. There is no limit to how many candidates can run for presidential elections. For instance, in 2002 there were 16 candidates, in 2017- 11 and in 2022 there are 12. While all the candidates have the right to equal media presence, the amount of spending on campaigns is also monitored; for the 1st round, the spending must not exceed 16.9 million euros and for the second round, it has been limited to 22.5 million euros.

This year, the 1st round of voting was concluded on 10th April while the second one is scheduled to be held on 24th April 2022. In the first round, all 12 candidates were eligible but for the second round, only two candidates who got the maximum votes are qualified for the second round.

A brief overview of French presidential candidates

Emmanuel Macron, five years ago at the age of 39, became the youngest French president of the French republic. In 2017, he broke the dominance of the two major French parties- Republicans and Socialists- by running a campaign “neither left nor right”. During the tenure of Emmanuel Macron, a hardcore centrist, France has witnessed a 7% GDP growth, unemployment dropped by 7.2% and the crime rate has fallen to 27%.

A far-rightist, Marine Le Pen is the other presidential candidate who succeeded her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, as leader of the National Front (later National Rally) party in 2011. She was also contesting against Emmanuel Macron during the 2017 elections and before that in 2012, against Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande. While she embraced the party’s anti-immigration stance, she rebranded the party’s Euroskepticism as French nationalism.

This year, in the April 2022 elections, the current President of France, Emanuel Macron and far-right leader, Marine Le Pen are the two candidates with Macron running ahead with a lead of 4.7 per cent votes (Emmanuel Macron-27.8% & Marine Le Pen- 23.1%).

Why French Presidential elections are important for Europe?

While European defence is primarily assured by the US-led NATO military alliance, of which most EU states are members, French president Macron said,  “Europe needs to finally build its own collective security framework on our continent…”, advocating for a ‘European Security’ framework amid tensions with Russia over Ukraine.

On the other hand, Le Pen’s party has been looked upon suspiciously that it might have received financing from a Russian bank connected to the Russian President Putin. In an interview with French public radion, Le pen said, “It will be necessary diplomatically, when the war [in Ukraine] is over, when a peace treaty has been signed, to try to avoid this tie-up which risks being the largest danger of the 21st century for us,” she even further added, “Imagine … if we let the first producer of raw materials in the world — which is Russia — [create an alliance] with the first factory of the world — which is China — to let them perhaps constitute the first military power of the world. I believe that it’s a potentially great danger.” These statements only further reinforce the claims that Le Pen is more pro-Russia.

While Macron is anti-Brexit, Le Pen, on the other hand, has been known for her ‘Frexit’ plan, meaning, that she wanted France to leave the EU and abandon the euro. However, during the 2022 elections, it appears that Le Pen has softened her stance on Frexit. Another important issue pertaining to immigration has been significant not only for France but the whole of Europe. This issue of immigration is directly linked with the “economic and cultural concerns” which raises an important worry about immigrants’ socio-political and economic integration into the French society and abiding by the principle of laïcité (secularism with French characters).

As for Macron, he wants to create a “rapid reaction force” to help protect EU states’ borders in case of a migrant surge and is also pushing for a rethink of the bloc’s asylum application process. Macron also said that he urges the EU to be more efficient in deporting those refused entries. On the other hand, Marine Le Pen during her campaign stated, “I will control immigration and establish security for all.” It is pertinent to note that Macron has introduced strict laws pertaining to immigration and controlling Islamic radicalization. For instance, he introduced the bill to ban foreign funding to mosques.

What is more interesting to mention is the concerns about ‘energy’ in the presidential election. Evidently, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has gained more attention on the economic and geopolitical consequences of existing national and European energy supply chain choices. In France especially, there is a major rift between the pro and anti-nuclear power fractions. Interestingly, France has the second most nuclear power stations in the world after the United States.  Besides, in the last week of the elections, Macron has been attempting to win the hearts of the French voters with his proposal for a “complete renewal” of his climate policy. He has also promised to build up to 14 nuclear reactors by 2050 and regenerate existing plants. Meanwhile, Le Pen has promised to build 20 nuclear plants and aim to have nuclear power provide 81 per cent of France’s energy by 2050. While the current president Macron and far-right candidate Le Pen have both committed to the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global warming, it is evident that their approaches differ particularly on energy. Since France is Europe’s second-biggest economy, France’s climate policy could echo right across the EU.

Besides, in light of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis, Macron has played a significant role as he is the bridgehead for Russia and the US. He has also negotiated talks between Washington DC and Moscow and has also condemned the crisis by making the statement, “Russia is not under attack, it is the aggressor. As some unsustainable propaganda would have us believe, this war is not as big as the battle against, that is a lie.” Indeed, he has played the role of Europe’s de-facto leader vis-à-vis the Ukraine crisis. Nonetheless, with a marginal win in the first round against Marine Le Pen, winning the 2nd term is not as easy as it was five years ago.

More importantly, it is pertinent to note that France has the 2nd strongest military and 2nd biggest economy in Europe, further the 5th biggest economy in the world. France is not only the most visited country in the world but also ranks 1st in the global soft power index. It is also the founding member of the United Nations Security Council, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union which makes it an important player in European politics. Consequently, the policies of the French leadership not only direct the political, social and economic lives of the French but also reverberate in Europe.

Continue Reading