LyrArc Article Gist
DW.com looks at what it means for first Finland, and then Sweden joining NATO. For Finland the invasion of Ukraine where people speak Russian and have close cultural ties comes as a reminder of past history. Under the treaties that ended the war with Napoleon in 1815 after the Congress of Vienna, Finland was given to Russia and Norway wrested from Denmark was given to Sweden. Jens Stoltenberg now head of NATO is a former prime minister of Norway. Russia invaded Finland in 1940, and Germany invaded Norway during that war. As a result there are historical reasons why 62% of Finns support joining NATO.  What this means for NATO- This means NATO's border with Russia will double from 1300 to 2600 kilometres. Finland would be different alone compared to being part of the NATO alliance. For NATO this means 280,000 Finns in its army if mobilized under Finland's compulsory military service would be added to defending the border. Finland already is training with US equipment and training since 2015 and is in a joint defense plan with NATO. Sweden's situation is quite different. It has benefitted from neutrality and never been occupied by any power in the 500 years of European wars for balance of power in the region. In the last 200 years Sweden has acted as a neutral state and stayed out of 2 world wars and other conflicts. For Sweden to join NATO it has to change this historical neutrality and has to be convinced that the invasion of Ukraine and the immense destruction in Ukraine with over 4 million refugees mostly women and children is an event that has changed everything. If Sweden were to join NATO not much could be expected for ground forces as Sweden has a small army. Sweden also has no land border with Russia. Sweden is on the Baltic Sea which is also a border for Russia. Sweden does bring 100 modern fighter aircraft and 8 modern submarines that would secure the Baltic Sea.  If one or both countries were to join NATO this would happen by June and both countries would join NATO immediately after 30 NATO member countries approve this.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1960's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in mid 1960's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. First NATO head UK's Hastings Ismay's NATO for "keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down" is more British Imperial policy of 1904 -1940's as the Indian Viceroy's Assistant, not US policy or in America's or even Europe's interest in 2025. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India changing everything we know about the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Landers and Gale of the WSJ show how undersupplied conscript soldiers, high inflation and industrial breakdowns during wartime have led to major upheavals in Russia. Three conflicts led to such changes in Russia's domestic situation. The Russo-Japanese war in 1905 led to Russia seeing one fourth of 340,000 Russian troops killed in a battle near the Chinese city of Shenyang, and loss of most of its Baltic fleet in a Japanese attack on Port Arthur. The war ended with a peace treaty arranged by president Theodore Roosevelt of the United States. The Russian czar gave up most of his absolute powers in 1905.  In 1914 Ukraine was involved in regime change as the Germans fought to take Ukraine. The czar wanted to keep Russia's expansive sphere of influence. Without Ukraine's agriculture and industry and its population Russia would not be a great power, says an expert on Czarist Russia. At the time the Russian military was ill prepared in motorized vehicles and communications equipment, and industry lacked the ability to resupply the military. Inflation jumped leading to unrest and protests. Fighting in the First World War led to millions of refugees. In 2022 experts see the same old problem of seeking spheres of influence leading to wars, and the lack of sufficient ability to cope with prolonged wars when short wars were expected by the regimes in power in Russia. Dissent inside Russia and protests led to the abdication of Czar Nicholas in March 2017, and Bolsheviks led by Lenin seizing power in November of 2017. By 1979 Ukrainian leader Leonid Brezhnev was leader of the Soviet Union as Russia's economy could not keep up with modernization. Seeking spheres of influence Brezhnev pushed into a long war in Afghanistan in the mistaken idea that a quick strike on Kabul with a change in government would achieve Soviet goals in central Asia. By 1989 the Russian army withdrew from Afghanistan and in 1990 the protests led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union and emergence of Russia as a separate country. Landers and Gale of the WSJ see these events in Russian history showing how wars have led to domestic changes and upheavals in Russia when leaders projected power beyond Russia's capacity to handle the results of conflict. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy or Britain say experts and its industry much smaller than the European Union economies and the US, Japan combined.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The G7 countries including the US, France and Germany  and the European Union now support setting a oil price cap of $60 per barrel for Russian oil. This price cap of $60 goes into effect December 5, 2022, and require western companies that do most of the shipping and distributing for Russian oil worldwide to comply. The US favored oil price cap of $65 set at what Russia earned historically on oil exports. Eastern European countries such as Poland wanted to set the price cap on Russian oil much lower at $30 what it costs Russia to produce oil so that it would crimp Russia's ability to wage war in Eastern Europe that has brought millions of refugees to Poland in 2022.  There were also other prices of between $65 and $70 that were proposed by the European Commission. The US wanted to give Russia some incentive to continue its oil exports which it had threatened to stop if the oil price cap was set -and avoid a situation in which oil prices that hit $120 a barrel early in 2022 would not jump to hit $140 a barrel.  Poland has called for a review every 2 months of the oil price cap so that it is close to the market cap. In November 2022 Russian oil is being sold at about $48 per barrel discounted from Brent crude at $86. The $12 difference between $48 and $60 is the US saying to Russia that it is working with moderation just as it had supported Ukraine with air defenses but acted with restraint to limit that to avoid provocative attacks on Russian soil. What does a cap on Russian oil price mean and how is it possible? Western shipping companies ship the oil out of Russia and distribute it around the world. This advantage of the G7 countries is what it intends to now use to bring an early end to the war in Ukraine by cutting into Russian oil generated funding for the war. Shipping an insurance companies that insure shipping based mostly in the west are now required to comply and not carry supplies bearing a price higher than $60.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The problems 900,000 Ukrainian refugees in Germany are facing are shown here in DW.com. 350,000 are registered as looking for work. Ukraine refugees are given 3 year protection status, access to health insurance and the labor market. This report says many of the problems come from the lack of German language skills. There is also a lack of English language skills for people from eastern Ukraine who learned Russian, rather than English. Ifo Institute estimates a third of Ukraine refugees are led to taking jobs below their qualification level because of the lack of these language skills. All this is happening even as Germany is facing a severe shortage of workers with 1.7 million open jobs in 2022.

LyrArc Article Gist
Leaders of Germany's federal states agreed on cost sharing to settle refugees from Ukraine. Chancellor Scholz said that Germany will provide $2 billion in federal aid to German states for accomodating and integrating Ukrainian refugees.  Refugees from Germany will be able to receive basic welfare benefits similar to the welfare aid received by Germans of 400 euros per month under Hartz welfare program. By integrating them into Germany's social security system the refugees can integrate and stay in Germany, Scholz added. This means access to more resources, to job centers, health care and German language courses.

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union’s total defense spending increased by 30% from 2021 to 2024, to 326 billion euro or $341 billion. That is 1.9% of the EU’s GDP it's economic output, according to European Defense Agency. It is still short of 2%.  Britain will ramp up defense spending all the way up to 3% in 2027. Britain is short of defense equipment with transfers to Ukraine and with much of the defense budget going to maintain a nuclear deterrent. This leaves less for other defense needs. This report says most of the procurement for defense equipment goes to countries outside Europe.The Kiel Institute says 80% comes from outside EU. It is not mere shortage of funds it is the severe bottleneck from lack of defense manufacturing industry  that is putting Germany, France and UK in a situation where they are too dependent on the US. It takes years to build this capacity. Russia built it up during 3 years of war by going to a wartime economy and it now produces 4 times the ammunition Europe produces. The US did the same to match and exceed Russian capabilities and capacity, Europe lagged behind with unwillingness of Macron and of Scholz in particular to switch funds from needs in transport, infrastructure to defense. The debt brake Merkel to stop debt based infrastructure investment is what ails Germany. It has had two pernicious effects it created the AfD's surge by lowering economic growth and investment in public needs - housing, transport, public services. It worsened the SPD and CDU performance by not investing in security with no policies to return crime committing refugees to their home countries. A combination of aid and other assistance, diplomacy, secured the cooperation of countries to take them back. A strong display of action on removing refugees committing any offenses would have lessened the number of terrorism incidents. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NATO was formed in the days of the Truman administration on 25th July 1949, following the Berlin Blockade, the coup in Czechoslovakia by Soviets, and the efforts to set up pro soviet governments in Turkey and Greece. It accomplished its purpose by pushing back against the Soviet effort securing democracy in Greece and Turkey in the 1950's. Much of this was achieved under Heads of NATO from the US- Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Ridgway, Gen. Guenther and Gern Norstad proteges of Ike all from West Point by 1964, when Brezhnev was new head of Soviet Union and by 1991 Warsaw Pact of Soviets setup in 1955 was dissolved yet NATO was not. The US interests shifted to Asia - Gen MacArthur leading a UN effort in Korea and the US leading its own effort in Vietnam in the 1960's. The Soviet threat actually receded after 1964 when Brezhnev became head of Soviet Union till 1982. During that period in the 1970's till today the face of NATO as today was from a series of heads of governments of Dutch Stikker in 1970's or other small European states such as Norway Stoltenberg and Rutte Netherlands again in 2025. It could be said that none of these leaders  of small EU countries represented US interests- or even European interests- a point the DJT administration is trying to make. It hurt the US in Venezuela as Russia propped up a regime which led to millions of refugees entering the US illegally. And it hurt Europe as Russia propped up the Syrian regime with millions of refugees entering Germany and destabilizing its political structure. Going back if a new defense institution was set up to replace NATO by the Europeans in 1970's this would have been the right step which would have not led to Russia propping up regimes in the Americas or the Middle East. A goal that is being discussed with Russia by the DJT administration to refocus American efforts in a new direction and pause not just the Ukraine war but also put the US  and Russia in a new direction with the new competition from 3 billion people in China and India. WSJ Editorial Board takes the British position on the Ukraine peace proposals with centuries old skeptical attitude on Russia's intentions. The US government position put forward by DJT is that there are constructive discussions with Russia, and the need to settle the underlying issues behind the conflict. This includes NATO's future. NATO setup in 1949 for Soviets,  on the borders of Russia in 2025 after the end of the Cold War when its rival the Warsaw Pact set up in 1955 of the Soviets was disbanded in 1991. The British position comes from centuries of conflict in Europe and its interests in protecting its Empire till the 1950's remaining unchanged, and cannot reflect American interests in the 21st century as its economy competes with China and India and the EU, and seeks to do this by keeping former colonial powers out of the Americas including Russia, and China.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A whole range of issues can be seen in the debt crises in developing countries. The margin for error shrinks with poor governance, lack of honest assessment and transparency for finances, wars and conflicts within or outside the countries, living beyond their means, lack of focus on development, infrastructure that is unproductive or unaffordable including some Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure at higher interest rates. Countries that are dependent on overseas remittances, tourism, that were hit hard by the pandemic have seen their finances further weakened reducing the margin for error even more to the point that the smallest tipping point can lead to huge crises. Once the finances are weak all it takes is an external tipping point that creates serious crisis. The war in Ukraine with shortages of wheat, fertilizer and skyrocketing oil prices acted as that tipping point. Because this was a major blow the crises have a level of magnitude that is more than a payments crisis. One sees this in South Asia in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and in the Middle East for countries such as Egypt and Tunisia shown in this WSJ report. It is now not simply a crisis but a crisis of great magnitude because in the case of Sri Lanka and Pakistan this WSJ report says that both countries foreign exchange reserves have dwindled to the point where they can pay for only one or two months of imports according to central bank data, analysts and IMF. This crisis has affected countries that were seeing steady foreign investment such as Turkey for decades, then a sharp falloff in foreign investment with a change in the climate for foreign investment. The crisis has taken the form of high inflation, significant depreciation of currency that makes imports costlier so that shrinking revenues from loss of remittances, tourism, or other sources will now have less value in supporting import needs. Lack of a credible path can delay setting a path out of the crisis. The $1.5 billion fuel and electricity subsidy made by the prime minister of Pakistan in late February was done without IMF approval leading to the IMF program having to be renegotiated. Lack of national political and cultural consensus on a solution simply makes it that much more difficult to find the way through it. In this regard South Korea was able to tackle the 1997 financial payments crisis effectively because of a national consensus. The situation in Egypt- Egypt has borrowed $20 billion from the IMF since 2016., placing it second to Argentina in aid from IMF since 1980's.  In 2020 and 2021 Egypt' government spent more than 40% of its revenue servicing its debt, and is forecast to do the same in 2022. The situation in Tunisia- A shortage of sugar, flour, and other critical supplies, and government delaying wage payments to civil servants. The government got $400 million in financing last month from the World Bank and hopes to secure a lifeline from the IMF. Compared to the period between the 2 World Wars the two bright spots are China and India where lessons of the past of civil wars, religious or political conflict, and poor governance, lack of knowledge of how the western countries industrialized and modernized, was replaced with the conviction that drives patient effort, courage in the face of adversity, honesty, and humility to learn including from western countries that have forged their own path through the same difficult road. The most difficult experiences have offered lessons which were learned- for South Korea the Korean War and invasion from the north, China the civil war and Japanese invasion, for India the partition of India and million of refugees. Stagnation from stumbled efforts also taught lessons, the Great Leap Forward in China, the License Raj with corruption in India.       ...