LyrArc Article Gist
Before this deal Kuwait with 7.6% was the largest single shareholder in Daimler. Now a Abu Dhabi investment firm Aabar Investments PJSC plans to put in $2.65 billion for a 9.6% stake in Daimler. The largest shareholder in Aabar, which is listed on the Abu Dhabi Securties Exchange, is International Petroleum Investment Company. IPIC is owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. Daimler is doing this deal by issuing 96.4 million shares at price of 20.27 euros ashare. On March 20, 2009, Daimler shares closed at 21.34 euros in Frankfurt.

LyrArc Article Gist
The full text of the letter is given here. In this letter the U.S. sets out some important facts about events that happened during the coronavirus crisis during the crucial 4 month period from December 2019 to March 2020. Every week lost in this time due to reasons of a lack of transparency, openness meant hundreds of thousands of people more infected and tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. There are questions of transparency, of openness and this raises questions about the manner in which the World Health Assembly operates with hundreds of small countries in Africa and Asia having votes equal to that of the U.S., India, Brazil, Mexico with votes taken of over 200 countries. The entire election process can now be seen as questionable, when over a billion people in one country alone such as India or hundreds of millions in Brazil and Mexico would have to bear the consequences of poor decisions made by small countries that can be swayed in one direction or another based on political bias and other considerations that have nothing to do with global health.  At the conclusion of the letter by the U.S. to the current WHO shaped by a controversial election in 2017 the following is stated about the standards set by Gro Harlem Brundtland and which helped the world prevent the SARS crisis which originated in China in 2003 from spreading to the large countries of the world India, Brazil, Mexico, and other such countries in Asia and Africa, Latin America, and the U.S. European Union. "In 2003, in response to the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Director-General Harlem Brundtland boldly declared the World Health Organization’s first emergency travel advisory in 55 years, recommending against travel to and from the disease epicenter in southern China. She also did not hesitate to criticize China for endangering global health by attempting to cover up the outbreak through its usual playbook of arresting whistleblowers and censoring media. Many lives could have been saved had you followed Dr. Brundtland’s example." Even this does not come to grips with the flawed way in which the election of WHO head is done. It can no longer be relied on when there is the danger that lack of transparency can emerge in the WHO leadership itself because of a flawed process. It risks endangering the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions in countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico, as well as in the relatively small countries of Africa and Latin America where even basic water supplies are at risk but which could tilt elections at the World Health Assembly. Consider that a cyclone just hit the Indian state of West Bengal and Bangladesh on May 20 just as the coronavirus pandemic is spreading. That this region of 1.5 billion people had just 2 votes out of over 200 cast at the World Health Assembly in 2017 shocking. And even these votes cast based on old geopolitical considerations not how good the candidate is, and how good the country he is coming from is in terms of its record  on public health. The irony here is that private foundations in the advanced countries in the U.S. and Europe some of whom are major donors to WHO did not think that more experienced candidates in their own countries with a better record of public health such as in France or Germany are better qualified, in a flawed NGO support mentality left from the Clinton years. Basically the people in these large countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico were disenfranchised, when the austerity policies were consuming the European Union, and the U.S. had just elected a new administration itself groping for ways to reverse years of neglect of public services and infrastructure priorities. They would trust good leaders no matter where they come from, who have a record of transparency, leadership, and all the values we cherish together no matter where we come from. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's chancellor Merkel sees Britain as necessary for Europe and the European spirit. This even though she has differences with British prime minister Cameron on how to elect the new president of the EU following EU parliamentary elections in May 2014. She told the German parliament in June 2014- "Britain is really no cozy partner. Yet Germany and Britain share values and interests. I consider it grossly negligent, in fact unacceptable, how easily some people say that it is really all the same whether Britain goes along or not, or more: whether Britain remains a member of the European Union or not."

LyrArc Article Gist
XI Jinping tells China's National People's Congress that "western nations- including the US- have implemented all round containment, encirclement and suppression against us, bringing unprecedentedly severe challenges to development." Addressing the private sector Chamber of Commerce representatives which create significant number of jobs in China he said the Communist Party "has always regarded private enterprises and private entrepreneurs as our own people, and will always support them whenever they run into difficulties." Job creation in China is a challenge with high youth unemployment estimated at about 20%. The pandemic worsened the situation for state finances and for unemployment for migrants, the construction slowdown has added to this. The burden of trillions of dollars of local government debt increased during the pandemic with the central government lacking the resources to help, creating problems in the local economies.  This WSJ report says Xi's speech seeks to present his government's performance in the light of these challenges and future challenges as growth slows in China. The trading relationship with US-EU added to employment and income problems for China's economy and people, yet it had one weakness an over concentration in manufacturing in one country that European and US business placed in one country. The building of a  new supply chain that creates manufacturing in other countries to reduce this concentration, and the limits placed on access to western technologies by China to protect US-EU in competition, places new development challenges for China, which Xi alludes to. In the past China was able to use huge stimulus to tackle its debt by creating more growth that supported this debt creation. The pandemic may finally have reversed this as trillions of dollars of debt have built up, and construction of homes and infrastructure has reached a saturation point. This is the kind of situation that Japan entered in the 1990's after three decades of torrid growth and development rates. History is being repeated as China like Japan is entering a new phase of an aging society. In this sense the challenges China is facing are very different from that of Russia. Creating jobs is a perennial problem in India and China with their large populations and rising aspirations of people after centuries of underdevelopment, something that Europe including Russia does not face in anywhere to a similar degree. in this sense there is more in common between the EU and Russia even when they are in a war, than Russia and China, and China has more in common with India. The struggle in Europe as Cambridge historian Brendan Simms has pointed out in his History of Europe, is more about the balance of power which is the story of European history since the 1450's where no one country has been allowed to act with impunity in invading its neighbors and other countries formed a concerted group to prevent this. Be it France, Austria, Britain or Russia that acted seemingly with impunity. China has little to do with it or Europe's history. President Biden is right to say that the US only competes with China in the economic and business fields, and seeks to find common ground on climate change and food insecurity. The US has supported China throughout the twentieth century since the time of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, around the period when Tsinghua University was established with US help. The US helped China during the Japanese invasion and the Cold War period ended with renewed relations.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Security is at the heart of India's foreign policy. S. Jaishankar points this out at Thiruvanathapuram. He says this was true of the effort at Balakot and even in the midst of Covid at the Line of Actual Control with China when India sent up enormous numbers of troops to defend the border. This is also behind the stand with China that security and LAC comes first in all relations with China. Trade and exchanges all come in the context of LAC, settle the LAC issues first then we can proceed with better bilateral relations, this is what India is telling China.  There are good reasons for this. India has a large border in the most formidable terrain of the Himalayas which is also close to the plains of India in the LAC with China. Any difficulties at the border would weaken India's secuerity and weaken development efforts in the same way that Japan sought to weaken Chinese development through invasion in the 1930's. Tibet looms out of the past. When China invaded Tibet Nehru's couple of pages in Discovery of India on China show that he had no idea of the China that had emerged with Mao and the CCP in its historical struggle against Japanese nationalists and imperialists. He had an idea of China that came from the Buddhist period and India's links from the past. The ruthless Japanese invasion that China confronted on its soil, and British colonial incursions before that, had already transformed the China of the past, which now under Mao in 1948 may have sought more defensible borders by extending them to Tibet as a buffer state. Historically the British had never tolerated Russian or other European or Japanese interference in the border states such as Tibet. There was also the question of capacity. By the time of the invasion of Tibet in the early 1950's China had already fought the Korean War with the US. India's army and defense forces were just coming out of partition and ill equipped for the task of defending the borders in Tibet region. Current governments in a more normal setting cannot change this part of history, yet can take full recognition of the facts that this has created. A strong defense has to be created for defending a border that extends for thousand of miles now that China has unlawfully occupied Tibet. On it also depends a strong and vigorous development effort that helps build the kind of modern defenses as the economy grows and absorbs new technologies rapidly. Both defense and development go together, one cannot have defense without rapid modernization and development, and one cannot have rapid modernization and development without defense. A weak defense would lead to distractions in development leading to the lack of rapid modernization and development as the intruding power interferes in insidious ways in the internal and external links of the country. This is the lesson of colonial interference of western powers in Asia. As Brendan Simms shows in his new book, Europe - Struggle for Supremacy 1500 to the Present, it is also the lesson of a different kind of colonialism inside Europe since 1500, where weaker states inside Europe fell behind with interference in turns by the imperial powers of France, UK, Austria-Hungary, Prussia and Russia. Poland, Finland, Czech Republic in the past and even Ukraine today are just some examples of what can happen when one loses sight of this principle. Poland and the Polish Commonwealth in the 19th century, Hungary right down to 1956, and China in the 1910-1930, India in the 18th and 19th century were weakened internally even after recognizing the problem, so that recognition of the problem is not an adequate condition to prevent countries from facing such foreign interference. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The new faces in the Biden administration on economic policy are Janet Yellen, as head of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, and Cecilia Rouse, a Princeton labor economist, as head of the Council of Economic Advisors. In this report WSJ looks at the economic policies of the new administration after Mr. Trump rejected globalization and international trade agreements that were not in America's interest or that hurt American workers.  Informal conversations with experts suggest WSJ says, that globalization is now suspect as a way that benefitted China and other countries including Germany, and hurt the U.S. France, Britain and other countries in Europe that were not strong exporters. This hurt their industries which were eroded by imports resulting in the three decades long destruction of communities across these countries that depended on manufacturing. It has also hurt countries like India that let their markets be dominated by Chinese imports, with a reversal of policy in 2020 with self reliant economy under "Atman Nirbhar" policy as the new goal. Mr. Trump's tactic in this trade war was to fight back to regain America's position in manufacturing with tariffs on imports. The trade deficit had to come down with China just as it had done with Japan decades earlier. This was starting to happen. One problem in bringing down the imports was the increase in the value of the dollar, as Janet Yellen has noted. The new policies will look at what the effective policy will be while keeping this goal in mind.  Both Yellen and Ms. Rouse have spent years studying labor markets and Ms. Rouse is quoted here as saying: " With open trade there are winners and losers. The losers are really losing, and we need to take care of them and take on more nuanced models of international trade as a result." Other experts from the earlier Democratic administrations such as Prof. Frankel at Harvard say that there needs to be increased focus on American workers left behind by trade, technology and unequal education, with more spending on preschool, infrastructure and health. All this suggests that there will be a continuation of U.S. policy in challenging Chinese use of globalization to advance its interests, chastening Americans on the use of the very word globalization which can mean different things to different people based on how they can gain advantage. The word may even be entirely dropped in favor of what the policies are and what they do for the American worker, American communities including small towns, and the American people, spelling each of these out every time supply chains and the global economy is mentioned. The new administration will get an opportunity to show that it too can come up with new ideas and action plan to strengthen American manufacturing and jobs. It will also have to show substantial results as people have lost patience with Democrats and Republicans on the lack of progress in rebuilding America's leadership role in the world economy, and in defending American workers and factories. Clinton, Obama and Bush all offered false promises on trade with China ignoring the damage this had done to American leadership in the world economy. Clinton with support for China's entry into the World Trade Organization, Bush with foreign wars and costly diversions and regulatory failures with banks that led to the 2009 deep recession hurting Americans, and Obama with the lack of will and interest in America's leadership role in the world as the dominant nation in manufacturing,   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russians vote in 2021 parliamentary elections. With 30% of votes cast the United Russia party of Mr. Putin wins 45% of votes cast, followed by the Communist party of the Russian Federation with 22%, and the Liberal Democratic party getting 8%. Russia has mixed voting system with half the seats directly elected from party lists, and the other half assigned to individual candidates. United Russia had 334 seats out of total 450 seats in the outgoing parliament. Putin will need over 300 seats in the new parliament to get the two thirds majority to enact changes to the constitution. Putin needs this to extend his current term which ends in 2024.  Putin draws most of his support from the older part of the population that has seen the hardships imposed following the collapse of Communism around 1990. This led to collapse of the ruble currency, increase in poverty, an effort by oligarchs to capture state enterprises, and a chaotic period for law and order. Shockingly during that period even life spans of Russians declined as reported in the WSJ. Liberals who supported the shift to democracy had not anticipated all the ill effects of introducing capitalist free market systems in such a sudden and free fall way. Such sudden shifts to free markets are now better understood and seen as the wrong way, as western capital markets fail without inbuilt protections, safety net for workers and retired people, and are subject to serious distortions if no vigilant authority exists. This is in reality not a free market but a market captured by the few, in the interests of the few. Once this was clear retired people, pensioners, military, law enforcement, and liberals realizing what had happened shifted support to United Russia founded by Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin faces the typical situation faced by incumbents over long periods where there is a sense of the need for change. Yet the pandemic and other economic crises that could happen in the event of mismanaged economy are never really too distant for countries such as Russia, China, India that are developed but yet have not the strong industrial base of US, Germany, France. Such economic crises including the ruble currency and Russian energy companies were better managed under Putin than under the chaotic period following the collapse of communism and the introduction of so called "free markets" that were anything but. During the recentfree fall in oil prices Putin was able to manage a transition period with the help of president Trump who negotiated a price for oil with the Saudis to protect US shale oil workers and companies, as well as Russian workers and oil companies. As a result Russians particularly young people look for alternative places to vote for opposition parties such as Liberals, Communist party, and other parties. But the majority of Russians including those working for state energy and other state companies tend to stay with Putin's choices for state, regional and federal administration and for parliament. Nationalist spirit also provides additional support as Putin has restored Russia's status as one of the important nations in the world. Some missteps such as interference in US elections have led to a loss of some of this international influence, yet even president Biden understands the situation in Russia and is willing to work with Putin with new rules of conduct Under the Russian system about 70% of the laws are not made by parliament but are done by the government and the administration of the president and then go through parliament. In addition to parliamentary vote there are 6 governor races and three races for heads of regional republics. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Healthcare, climate change, pensions and social benefits, are three issues uppermost in the minds of German voters. Three million new young voters most of them only about 2 years old when Merkel started 16 years in office, look for change. They are well informed and for these young voters climate change is the most important issue. DW.com shows three voters and how they plan to vote. One voter has cast a mail in ballot for The Greens party. The second voter will vote for the Greens. Both because of climate change concerns. The third voter Thurid says her mother is a geriatric nurse and is not vaccinated. She is vaccinated but had talks with her mother and understands her worries about vaccination. She will vote for the Free Democrats because they oppose compulsory vaccination. The three leading parties for young voters are the Greens party, the Free Democrats, followed by the Social Democrats all in the range of 16-18% of support. The Greens have sent out 2 million brochures to voters. Out of 60 million voters in a German population of 80  million, 3 million is only 5% of the vote. What makes a difference is that it is consistent with the general direction of voters young and old, all looking for change in Germany as the CDU party attracts only about 20% or one fifth of German voters. Social Democrats Scholz is way ahead of Christian Democrats Laschet in how voters view each candidate. Will German voters be well informed enough to make a decision based on their desire for change after 16 years of Merkel or will the CDU bringing back in the last days of the campaign the old fears that the communist Left party would somehow find its way into the government using the Greens as a way in- this is a question for German voters. In1994 during the Cold War with Soviets Kohl used this to keep the Social Democrats out and Greens out and formed a coalition with the FDP. Yet today Merkel has grown close to both Russia and China and away from the Western alliance in a way that was unimaginable under Adenauer who helped build the new Federal Republic of Germany after the war. Merkel refuses to even immediately accept a call from a new US president Biden, American president who is closest in style and temperament to Harry Truman who faced off the Soviets in Berlin in 1948.  The FDP opposes a wealth tax or any form of taxes in which the wealthier pay a fair share of what is needed to build crumbling infrastructure in Germany neglected in the Merkel years. In Germany social and economic disparities have grown during the pandemic with poverty increasing during the pandemic as has happened throughout Europe and the world. The US is already committing to increase taxes for the upper incomes. This is where voters have a choice- do nothing with infrastructure, health or climate change or do something by increasing taxes. The choice is now before the German people.  With this question comes a choice for western civilization, with the recent election in the US, and two elections in Germany and then France. Will it look with optimism to the future or will it huddle up in a deeply cautious and slightly pessimistic view of the world that is embedded in Angela Merkel's cautious vision that ended up only responding to crises- some self inflicted as in migration policy, and even self inflicted in tackling euro problems created in the euro currency's faulty design. In fiscal policy as in migration policy Merkel has reversed her position- by supporting European solidarity. Will Germans vote for optimism or never ending caution? Are lessons learned?     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
During a public dialogue during the federal government's open day German Chancellor Scholz takes time to go over the origins of the war in Europe as he understands it. Of Russia acting "clearly with the intention of conquering its neighboring country," in an imperialist manner. Here is what he said- On Nato During talks before the war started in February when he met Putin in Moscow Scholz assured Putin that Ukraine would not join NATO "in the next 30 years." NATO was never a threat to Russia even though Putin says NATO's increasing eastward expansion was to the detriment of Russia's interests. On the origins of the war in Europe- Scholz says Putin launched the war for "completely absurd reasons." During his talks with Putin for example he says Putin told him that Belarus and Ukraine should not be independent states. "This is a war that Putin, Russia, started, clearly with the intention of conquering its neighboring country. I think that was the original goal." "Putin actually had the idea of swiping a felt-tip pen across the European landscape and then saying, 'This is mine and this is yours.' " Something Germany could not accept. Scholz condemns Putin's imperialism. He compares Russia's actions to the early days of imperialism. Scholz was reported to be reading Cambridge historian Brendan Simms book Europe- The Struggle for Supremacy in Europe from 1453 to the Present, before the war started. Simms shows a Europe that fought intermittent wars for supremacy between European powers Spain, Britain, Dutch, French, Germany, Austria- Hungary, Russia, Sweden over most of the period 1450 to 1950. The last part of the period was marked from 1850 to 1900 by an openly imperialist land grab for territory in Africa and Asia between Britain, France, Japan and Germany.  The period 1950 to 2000 marked by the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union and China.    On planning for the war in advance- DW.com reports that Olaf Scholz is convinced that Putin planned this war long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. On the future of the war- Scholz says he will not end the dialogue with Putin. Scholz and Germany, Biden and the US want to show that the imperialist type of expansion into neighboring states is no longer accepted, not for Russia or China. Scholz says Russia is currently engaged in gaining territory in eastern Ukraine, but it is not certain that it will stay that way, so giving in is not a sensible strategy.  Ukraine needs the Black Sea ports and the area around Kherson on the Dnieper river to maintain its economy through exports of foodgrains. There is international consensus that these exports are essential to most of Africa and other parts of the world. The war in the remaining part of 2022 into the winter is being fought in this area. Another area of international consensus is that of the refugees mostly women and children in other parts of eastern Europe, and the displaced people within Ukraine moving from the east and south to the west. For the first time the US and Germany are providing Ukraine with the air defense systems that it needs to protect refugees, something that was missing for the many early months of the war leading to millions of refugees inside and outside Ukraine.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The head of the Germany Program at Institut Montaigne in Paris, France, Robinet Borgomano looks at the renewal of German society under the ideas of "respect" put forward by Olaf Scholz of the SPD party. What does Olaf Scholz see as the main issue of our time? - Borgomano says it is the disintegration of European and American societies under the combined effects of technological progress and globalization. Where does Scholz get his ideas of "respect" for workers and families? Isn't Mr. Biden sharing the same ideas in the US? The SPD party got its start at the Bad Godesberg Convention in 1959 when it embraced the idea of a social market economy as a party of the people. Wily Brandt as chancellor from 1969 to 1974, whose personal struggle against the Germany of World War II was based in the Nordic countries, embodies best this renewal aspect of the SPD. Scholz sees his role as renewal of Germany, Europe, hand in hand with Mr. Biden's renewal efforts in the US on the same basic ideas of respect of the dignity of the worker and families that in Germany were seen with Wily Brandt and in the US with Harry Truman who followed FDR. Scholz rejects the overemphasis on the of merit in German society, European society, or American society, in the way it has taken shape in the last fifty years. Scholz cites Michael Sandel's Essay "The Tyranny of Merit" rejcting it because it makes a case for inequality based on merit, on capital allocation on an implied idea of merit of free markets managed in damaging ways for personal interest. It is wrong because it robs the worker and families of the basic dignity that is the right of every individual and of every person. It is wrong because it makes a false justification for growing inequality, and makes those who do not succeed feel that it is their fault. Meritocratic elites have made the idea that those who work hard and play by the rules get all the benefits and wealth even if the rules were first set in a way that benefits them alone. When these rules become implicit they are rarely questioned as happened in the period after 2000. It is not just in Europe and America that this happens, and not just in the 20th century.  Strange but true- During the 1850's in the heyday of industrialization in Britain the Ethnological Society of Britain justified the inequality between the British and Indians in the British Empire by saying Indians were inferior in exams and did not have the motivation or the aptitude and energy to excel in the way British students did. Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Indian member of the British parliament in Mr. Gladstone's Liberals singlehandedly took up the job Sandel and Scholz and Mr. Biden are taking on today to restore the respect of workers, farmers, and families in America and Europe and in all parts of the world. Sandel goes on to say what Scholz has heard clearly- "the parties that made the offer of upward mobility to workers and families have missed the insult implicit in it to a large number of working people." In a way it is going back to the roots, to the founding fathers in America who said in the 18th century that "all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," -nothing less.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions may relate more to how these situations affected the role of Gates and similar individuals in protecting the interests of the US, Europe, India, Latin America and Africa in health organizations such as the World Health Organization. As globalization spread governments in the West surrendered some of the essential role they played in world health organizations to individuals and NGO's, and countries lacking experience needed for such an important task. The mishandling of the pandemic is partly a result of this retreat by western governments from the role that they have played during the nineteenth and twentieth century. In the US letter to the WHO by president Trump the role of Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway was shown in handling an earlier virus epidemic that originated in Asia so that it would not spread and could be controlled. This is the H1N1 crisis in 2003 cited in Mr. Trump's letter to the World Health Organization. Brundtland took strong action that was missing during this pandemic after the US and western nations surrendered the essential role they have played for centuries based on role in medical science discovery for maintaining public health. Surrendering this role or seeing it erode is one of the biggest mistakes of our time and a mistaken form of globalized behaviour. It is only now being corrected as the realization dawns on major nations such as US, UK, France, Japan, Russia, India and other countries about the essential stability provided by western nations knowledge, experience and resources to this task of maintaining global health. Even a nation like India has to base its role on hundred or more years of work in medical science and commitment to public health that transcends political preferences or national interest to take on and be a worthy participant with the advanced nations that have played so great and beneficial role for the world in public health. What to speak of transient interest of nations in the developing world or countries where national interest or political preferences play a part in public health of the peoples of the world. This responsibility for world's public health can never be delegated to individuals, foundations or any one country, or small countries, or a combination of these, only to the collective experience of the last 300 years in medical science discovery and the role of Europe including Russia, and the US in leading the way.  The Biden administration has the same underlying concerns as the Trump administration about this mishandling of the pandemic and the disasters that followed bringing so much death and suffering This excerpt on Brundtland of Norway is from the letter the US sent to the World Health Organization- "In 2003, in response to the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Director-General Harlem Brundtland boldly declared the World Health Organization’s first emergency travel advisory in 55 years, recommending against travel to and from the disease epicenter in southern China. She also did not hesitate to criticize China for endangering global health by attempting to cover up the outbreak through its usual playbook of arresting whistleblowers and censoring media. Many lives could have been saved had you followed Dr. Brundtland’s example." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Reports by David Sanger and other reporters from the NYT on the situation in Ukraine as seen from the US, Russian, European, and Ukrainian sides. Russian president Putin sees Ukraine as part of the Russian cultural and economic sphere with deep ties to Ukraine in its history. The western parts of Ukraine near Poland and near the capital Kiev see their future more in relation to other Eastern European countries that have moved closer to or joined the European Union such as Poland and the Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It is not clear even to advisors to the Russian government what Mr. Putin's intentions and plans are. Russia has not yet recognized the two breakaway republics in Eastern Ukraine based in Donestsk.  Some of the key points in Ukraine's recent history- one needs to know this because Ukraine has a difficult history in its relations with Poland/Lithuania and with Russia alternating over centuries, with neither relationship providing the kind of government that would have helped Ukraine's people. Formed only in 1991 the Republic of Ukraine has a long history since 1500 of being part of Poland and Lithuania, and later part of Russia, with some parts of Ukraine under the Austrian Hapsburgs till 1900. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union in the 1920's to the 1950's in one phase in which it suffered badly with collectivization of agriculture under Communist Soviet leadership and famines. In the second phase of Soviet rule after the 1950's Ukraine made a dramatic recovery as Krushchev assumed control with Leonid Brezhnev who was from Ukraine. After 1964 Brezhnev ran the the Soviet Union till 1984 and this was a good period for Ukraine. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 and Russian leader Yeltsin separated Ukraine and Belarus to go their own ways as separate countries from Russia. For 1990-2000 Ukraine did badly losing about 60% of its GDP, a situation also experienced by Russia with economic instability. Russia recovered under Putin, yet Ukraine has struggled since because of mismanagement under different governments and widespread entrenched corruption.  Governments alternated in the period 2000 to 2020 between ones friendly to Russia and friendly to Poland and European Union. This happened in 2004 and again with protests in 2014. The protests in 2014 in Kiev and Lviv led to a government that favored closer ties with EU and NATO. It is this pendulum swing that is Ukraine's and Eastern Europe's experience in the 20th century and it continues into the 21st. What Russia wants is for Ukraine to not be a place for NATO operations, even if it is not allied to Russia after Russian president Putin was disappointed with the Russian allied government's performance under Yanukovich in the 2000-2014 period with corruption and mismanagement. France in the 16th and to 18th century is described by Brendan Simms of Cambridge in his new book on Europe, as needing the external danger for unity, and unity to meet external danger. This could be true also for Russia as the danger posed by NATO helps bring unity to Russia. And this could be a way to unify Russia and provide it with the confidence that it seeks in its effort for parity with the European Union and the US, China in the 21st century.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ms. Le Pen of the National Front called her going into the second round runoff against Macron's En Marche movement, "an act of French pride." Emmanuel Macron has his own way of looking at this. As this NYT editorial points out Macron says his is a movement "of patriots fighting the threat of nationalism." At his rallies and the rally following coming out the front runner in the first round of elections Macron is shown with people waving French flags all around him. The message- that in today's world of global cooperation for economic progress nationalist feeling has to be balanced with healthy cooperation and integration into the regional community, the European Union. That he is a patriot who also has in him a feeling for the communities in his wider region. That real economic progress can only be achieved working in cooperation with neighboring countries and regional community, and around new ideas for renewal.

LyrArc Article Gist
Rappaport of the NYT asks how it is possible that the U.S. Treasury is critical of the EU Commission's ruling that Apple pay back $13 billion in taxes because of its low tax rate of .005% in Europe, when Treasury is strongly critical of tax avoidance. The negligible tax by Ireland, base of Apple operations, is seen as a state subsidy not available to competitors. It also, as the EU Commission says, does not correspond to economic reality because the revenues are mostly made outside Ireland. An arrangement that is basically a strategy of tax avoidance. Today the leading candidates for president, Trump and Clinton, the major parties, and Congress, all are critical of tax avoidance strategies which deprive Treasury of much needed revenues. Restoring upward mobility is a priority today and programs to provide tution free access to public colleges, healthcare access, and infrastructure development, require public funding. Then why is the U.S.Treasury critical of the EU ruling? It is because Treasury sees this as money that should be coming to Treasury not the EU. However Treasury has failed to make this clear. The Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition's Clark Gascoigne, calls it very ironic. And other experts say the money would not be coming to the U.S. anyway unless a low tax rate induces Apple to repatriate profits to the U.S. One expert calls it hypocritical. Senator Schumer says he agrees with Paul Ryan that tax legislation for a low tax rate for repatriation of profits back to the U.S. should be the next step, so that an infrastructure fund can be setup. Senator Levin and transparency advocates sees the EU action as normal and to be expected, as the anti-establishment sentiment today comes from such dealings that create the impression that the system is rigged in favor of some corporations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to the U.S. 2001-2006 and president of the Munich Security Conference, says that one thing that would make a difference in the current state of German and European relations with the U.S. after NSA spying on chancellor Merkel, is for president Obama to show contrition. The continuing dynamics are important, as is evident in the deterioration in relations in 2003 following the American intervention in Iraq when not enough was done, says Ischinger. His view is that the proposals to limit diplomatic personnel of the U.S. in European countries, or putting on hold the Trans-Atlantic trade talks, are not good ideas as they do not help restore trust. Building on a report by the European parliament in 2001 on protections against intelligence operations would be a good start.

LyrArc Article Gist
Spain will allow a European banking supervisory authority to visit banks and exercize financial supervision over banks receiving aid from the EFSF, the EU rescue fund. In addition investors including small retail investors will have to take losses to reduce the loans required to recapitalize Spanish banks.