Search Results

The tragic epitome of courage, self-sacrifice and valour. August 1st will always occupy a special place in the hearts of all Varsovians. On this particular day in 1944, the Polish Home Army (Arma Krajowa-AK) initiated an armed uprising against the Nazi occupant. At precisely 5 pm, the call to arms was officially sent out to all combatants in Warsaw and is known as W-hour as in "wolnosc" freedom in Polish. The Warsaw Uprising of 1944 is often conflated with the dramatic Jewish Ghetto Uprising of April–May 1943 that ended in the deportation of all the remaining Jews in Warsaw to the death camps. The August 1944 Uprising is similarly tragic but involved the attempt of the Polish resistance to liberate the Polish Capital from the Nazi occupant and thus gain an important role in the immediate future of the country. The decision to start the rebellion was taken when the Soviet Army was seen advancing on the Eastern bank of the Vistula River. The AK commanders anticipated that the uprising would last only a few days and that they would be able to quickly free Warsaw before the Soviets entered the city. The Observation Tower at the Warsaw Uprising Museum opened in 2004. Over 45'000 combatants participated in the uprising, and initial success saw the AK take control of several city districts. However, after the element of surprise, the Germans quickly retaliated as brutally and violently as possible, not hesitating to massacre innocent civilians on the direct orders of Hitler and Himmler, notably in the Wola neighbourhood where between 40'000 to 50'000 Inhabitants were killed. Over a period of sixty-three days, the AK freedom fighters stood their ground against a far superior military force, hoping for support from the Soviet army camped across the river. The Allied forces, aware of the uprising, tried to help by organising airdrops, but the distance required to fly was a major impediment, given that the Soviets refused to offer any air support from the territories they controlled, which were, by definition, much closer to the stricken city. After losing control of the old city and suffering an increasingly high number of casualties, the AK was forced to capitulate on October 2nd. The Uprising saw more than 180'000 victims. This was just the beginning of the suffering and terror inflicted on the AK survivors and civilians alike. The remaining combatants and civilians were rounded up and sent to German labour camps or concentration camps. In an act of indiscriminate revenge, the Nazi victors systematically destroyed the city and razed it to the ground. So much so that over 90% of all historical monuments and 75% of the buildings were destroyed. Over a period of three months up to January 17, 1945, when the Soviet army finally crossed the Vistula to free what had become a ghost city, the Nazis had free rein to organise so-called "Brandkommandos" (fire commandos) to destroy the city and exterminate any remaining populations. Thus ended one of the most dire episodes of Polish history, with the defeat of the Polish Home Army and their failure to liberate Warsaw. What made the uprising all the more memorable was the support and involvement of the civilian population, women and young children alike, who often played an important role as couriers. From one hell to another. The consequences of the failed uprising were both dramatic and far-reaching. First and foremost, the Soviet domination and control of Poland was thereafter unchallenged and complete. The Yalta Conference of February 1945 merely rubber-stamped the partition of Europe into spheres of influence, and Poland was irrevocably lost to the West. Stalin could dictate his terms for post-war Poland, imposing new borders along the so-called Curzon line, thus annexing all territories eastwards. As part of the integration of Poland into Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, to discredit the pre-war Western alliance with the Western powers and consolidate the new communist regime, the AK was declared illegal and anti-Soviet, and as a direct result, all previous AK combatants were persecuted, arrested and in numerous instances sent to the Siberian gulags. The remaining AK leaders in Poland were summoned under false pretences to a meeting by the Soviet military commanders in Poland. They were summarily arrested by the NKVD, accused of "illegal activity" against the Red Army, and sent to Moscow to be sentenced in a show trial in 1945. They avoided the death penalty and were sentenced to relatively lenient hard labour terms (between five and ten years imprisonment). This allowed Stalin to claim that he had treated them fairly and skilfully defused any international condemnation. The Polish government in exile was disbanded, and the newly installed Soviet-backed Communist regime in Poland was accepted as the legitimate government of Poland. The official history of the Warsaw Uprising and of the liberation of Warsaw was dictated by the victor, namely the Soviets who declared that the Red Army had liberated Warsaw in January 1945 and that the AK were responsible for the useless massacre of the civilian population and the destruction of the city going so far as to brand them as fascist and accomplices to the Nazis. The advent of the Cold War immediately after the Second World War sealed the state of the countries trapped under Soviet influence behind the Iron Curtain. It condemned Poland to a further forty-three years under communist dictatorship. It was forbidden to mention the Warsaw Uprising or to challenge the official Soviet history of that period. To quote the British historian Norman Davies : "Party historians who were licensed to talk about war had a strange habit of running out of ink when they reached 1943". It is almost impossible to imagine the anguish and despair of the people who experienced the Warsaw Uprising, fighting for freedom, such an essential and fundamental notion that has inspired so many other revolutions and battles around the world, to not only suffer defeat at the hands of their occupying tormentors but then to be shunned and branded traitors by their fellow compatriots and government reduced to silence for fear of their own lives. Freedom is the first victim of oppressive regimes, and the communist regime in Poland was no exception. After Stalin's death, the Polish authorities slowly adopted more lenient policies under the influence of the Church, but change was a long time in coming. The surprise election of Karol Wojtyla as Pope in 1978 was significant for Poland, particularly when the Pope visited Warsaw soon after his election and acted as a catalyst in the quest for freedom of the Polish people. In his homily on Victory Square on June 2nd 1979, the Pope alluded directly to the Warsaw Uprising : "There is no way of understanding the city of Warsaw, Poland's capital, which in 1944 undertook an unequal battle against the invader, abandoned by its powerful allies if one fails to remember that Christ the Redeemer with his cross on the (Cracow Faubourg), lay under those same ruins... (...) We cannot forget the Polish men and women, the victims, who paid with their lives. We cannot forget the heroism of the Polish soldier who fought on all the world's fronts 'for our freedom and yours'.". The wave of self-confidence and enthusiasm that followed the Pope's visit and his words cannot be underestimated. Poland would never be the same again, and the success of the Solidarity movement under Lech Wałęsa was a sign of times to come. For sixteen months, between August 1980 and December 1981, a wave of freedom swept through the country, and for the first time, free debate, particularly about recent history, flourished. The leaders of Solidarity saw themselves as the spiritual heirs to the Warsaw Uprising. For the first time, the government accepted official recognition of the uprising and a statue was erected in the old town depicting a thirteen-year-old boy soldier, Cpl. Antek who was killed in the combats on August 8 1944. The free speech of 1980-1981 had broken the official taboos about the Uprising, and the Communist authorities were unable to put the genie back in the bottle, even when Solidarity was suppressed and martial law imposed. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communist rule in Poland, and the free democratic presidential elections of December 1990 won by Lech Wałęsa, the floodgates were finally open, and the rehabilitation of the AK and the Warsaw Uprising began in earnest. The sacrifice of the Warsaw freedom fighters in 1944 has been progressively recognised, understood, and celebrated. On the 60th anniversary, the Warsaw Uprising Museum was inaugurated. At W hour, the emergency sirens mark the moment, and everybody observes a minute of silence, wherever they may be. Buses stop on the streets, cars on the motorways, and the city comes to a standstill. Celebration of W-hour The fall of communism could not erase in one go the pain inflicted over almost half a century. The crimes of Hitler and Stalin have left an indelible mark on Poland and on Polish history. The silencing of the Warsaw Uprising could not be undone. The damaged and the discriminated could not be properly compensated. The elderly could not be restored to their youth. The dead could not be resurrected. The hope was for one thing alone: that the Rising be properly remembered. Belated tribute to the Warsaw 44 heroes. 80 years on, we can genuinely say that the members of the so-called Generation of Columbuses, i.e. the class of 1944, have not only been remembered, but they are at the pinnacle of what freedom means and represents. They are forever graved in the marble of Polish history. The wheels of history turn slowly, but they ultimately always point to the truth. As we enjoy the privileges of life in modern Poland, a country that is leapfrogging other Western European countries and will soon be at the top of the class of all EU nations, we owe an immense debt of gratitude to those freedom fighters of 1944. It may seem irrelevant, but the mere fact that Taylor Swift will give her first concert in Poland at the National Stadium today on the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising is important evidence that their fight was not in vain. Taylor Swift may or may not be aware of the importance of today's anniversary. But therein lies the paradox: one of the world's major cultural phenomenons of the 21st century will be performing in Warsaw, a scant few metres away from where 80 years ago, a soldier looked out across the Vistula nervously and saw for the first time the Soviet army approaching..... When we commemorate a minute of silence at 5 pm this evening, let us remember the spirit, courage and belief of the hundreds of AK combatants and civilians who stood up to take action against one of the most sanguinary and evil occupants ever to set foot in Warsaw. Imagine what they were thinking when the call to arms came through, and imagine the following sixty-three days of intense fighting, where horror upon horror was inflicted on the proud Varsovians. Abandoned by friends and allies, within a stone's throw of the Red Army that turned more than just a blind eye, they fought day and night for the only thing that mattered in their eyes: freedom. The price they paid, and that Warsaw paid, cannot be underestimated, but yet ultimately, the example they set for the future generations made it all worthwhile. Freedom is a sacred commodity that should never be underestimated, be it in Poland, Ukraine, Europe or the United States of America.

In the US, it is a lifetime. We may be witnessing one of the most impressive turnarounds in US political history. A week ago, Trump was at the apex of the political firmament. His star was shining bright for all to see, so much so that the talk at the Republican Convention was of a landslide victory in November. Trump was so confident that he didn't feel the need and/or listen to his more politically astute advisers to choose a balanced VP pick to reach out to undecided swing voters. In a typical act of brash overconfidence, he went the other way and chose a mini-Trump whose flip-flopping would make the clearest heads spin in horror. How can you possibly go from calling Trump "America's Hitler" and "cultural heroin" to proclaiming that he is the best thing since sliced bread? Hannah Arendt, the US-German political philosopher who fled from Nazi Germany before the second world war, famously wrote referring to the effect of power on people : "In essence, it is not power that corrupts; it is the aura of power. ”Its glamorous trappings, more than power itself, attracts.” Whilst President Biden ran for President in 2020 "to save the soul of the nation", J.D. Vance is not afraid to sell his soul to the aura of Trumpism. Exactly one week after Trump's acceptance speech in Milwaukee, his star is quickly fading, and he is struggling to contain the Kamala Harris whirlwind that, against all expectations, is sweeping through not only the Democratic Party but the country at large. Within minutes of Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race, Vice-President Harris leapt into action and made over one hundred phone calls in one afternoon to secure her nomination as a candidate at the top of the ticket. In four days, she has made four important speeches, broken all fundraising records, and initiated a level of support and energy not seen since Barack Obama in 2007 / 2008. She has single-handedly turned the race upside down and reframed the main arguments as the past versus the future, the prosecutor versus the convicted felon and the old geriatric man versus the young, energetic woman. Harris's vision for the future is one of hope and optimism, based on Biden's presidency and its achievements, which are the envy of the world. No other country notably has emerged from the pandemic in such a robust economic position. Trump persists in his portrayal of America as a country in ruins, recycling his phrase from his inaugural address, "American Carnage," which provoked a famous rebuttal from President George W. Bush: "That was some....." Trump revels in tearing the country down and calling it "stupid". Once again we can turn to Hannah Arendt, who despite having experienced first-hand the horrors of Nazi Germany forcing her to flee to the US, always considered the US a safe haven and an example for the world, despite the Watergate scandal under President Nixon and the tragedy of the Vietnam War that she referenced in her very last publication, a speech she prepared to celebrate the bicentennial of 1976 in which she stated: "While we now slowly emerge from under the rubble of the events of the last few years, let us not forget these years of aberration lest we become wholly unworthy of the glorious beginnings two hundred years ago. When the facts come home to us, let us try at least to make them welcome. Let us try not to escape into utopias—images, theories, or sheer follies. For it was the greatness of this Republic to give due account, for the sake of freedom, to the best in men and to the worst” It is no surprise that Harris has picked up on the principle of freedom, which is central to American democracy. Four days that have changed the course of this race and only another one hundred and two to go until the people decide which vision of the future they want to choose.

Time to reach out far and beyond the traditional political boundaries. It is both frightening and exhilarating to witness history in the making. President Joe Biden has demonstrated what it means to be a statesman and a patriot. The forthcoming presidential election will be the most consequential election in recent history for the US and the rest of the world, which looks nervously on. All credit to President Biden. What a contrast between a man who was elected to the presidency and who decided to relinquish the role for a second time in the superior interest interset of the country and the nominee of the Republican Party who lost the election for a second term and who tried to orchestrate a coup to remain in power in his own selfish interest. But, this ultimate civic sacrifice is only the first step in vanquishing the ogre of authoritarianism in the US and beyond. The hardest task remains ahead: defeating Donald Trump at the polls. Failing to do so would be forever giving up on the legacy of President Biden and all other US presidents who have come before him, devoted to the defence of the American Constitution and of American Democracy. It seems probable that Vice-President Harris will now have to follow in the footsteps of her mentor and partner in power and defeat Donald Trump once again. The Donald Trump of 2024 is not the same Donald Trump of 2016 or 2020. The Republican Party is lost and gone, forever taken over by Trumpism. The only thing remaining is its name, which, for the sake of clarity, should be changed. Victory for Trump this fall will not only condemn the United States to an uncertain period of latent authoritarianism but will cement the basis for a long-term political philosophy that will seek to dominate the US for years to come, with a young JD Vance ready to continue the work of Trump and his enablers. The truth matters, as do words. Referring to "authoritarianism" is not only a mouthful, but it belies the true nature of Trumpism, which is fascistic and not only because of the numerous references to pre-second World War German-type vocabulary. Similar to Godwin's Law , we have cried wolf so often that it is almost too late when the wolf is actually in our midst. When the initiator of such a principle declares that, in Trump's case, the comparison is just and correct, maybe we should all wake up and realise that times are dire. The reaction of the Republicans to Joe Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race betrays their concerns and underlines their weakness. If the election is about Trump, winning will be all the more difficult. Notwithstanding the race to the gutter to wallow in the mud by calling on Biden to resign and by stating as Trump did that "Biden was the worst President ever" and "that he should never have been President at all" and "should have remained in his basement", such rhetoric is so baseless, disrespectful and hateful that it only serves to remind Americans of the nature of Trumpism based on division, hatred and lies. It will indeed be a fight in the gutter as Trump and his cult followers have already indicated that they will use every means in their power to regain the presidency, and they will fall into the trap of attacking Vice-President Harris not only on her record in government but on her race and gender. The quaint notion of a born-again Trump promoting peace, love and unity for all Americans has gone down in flames during his 12-hour meltdown on the so aptly named "Truth Social" platform immediately after Joe Biden's announcement. There are calls for Harris to prosecute the case against the felon candidate Trump as a representative of the people, referring to her long experience as a prosecutor. However, Harris will represent the people not only as a prosecutor but also as a defender of democracy and a true believer in the American Constitution. "We the people" are not only three words randomly juxtaposed, but they represent the power of every individual to decide their fate in a democracy. Freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness are likewise not vain concepts. This is what is at stake here: the freedom to decide over one's body, the right to vote, the right to economic well-being, and the right to a better future that respects the environment. It is not a case of choosing between "kitchen-table" issues and fundamental rights. Emphasising both is equally important. Paying less for groceries under a dictatorship is not fighting for the working class, as the price may be acceptable but will be too high in terms of loss of freedom. Likewise, enjoying the fruits of democracy when you cannot pay for your healthcare because the price of medicine is too high is just as damaging. The secret of beating Donald Trump is to turn the unflinching glare of the spotlight on him. He has always craved attention and gratification. Let us grant his wish and focus on him and him alone for the next 100 days. Let the bright light of truth and democracy illuminate him. This is not solely the responsibility of the Democratic Party's future candidate or the Democrats. It is the responsibility of all Americans who are on the side of the Constitution, on the side of freedom and liberty, and the side of democracy. Traditional lines have to be blurred, and true democrats have to stop pretending that even if they are against Donald Trump and everything he represents, they cannot bring themselves to vote for the only other serious candidate on the ballot simply because he or she is a Democrat with a big "D". Writing in the name of your dog or your favourite cartoon character will serve no purpose whatsoever other than to satisfy your self-serving hypocritical ego and more importantly, may potentially make you an accomplice in electing a "one day dictator" and a life-long imperial President to office. It is time to build a far-reaching and all-encompassing coalition for American Democracy. The tent is not only large, it has to cover the whole country coast to coast. Republicans and Democrats alike, people from all political persuasions are welcome. Candidate Harris, if it is her, will be the standard-bearer of this Coalition for American Democracy. She would do well to include as many people as possible in her coalition and reach out to past and current Republicans, such as President George W. Bush and all the other Republicans who served President Trump in his first term but refuse to support him this time. Give bipartisanship a new meaning and prove Joe Biden right that saving the soul of the nation is worth more than losing your soul by scrapping your knees on the ground before Donald Trump.

Time for the Democrats to quickly coalesce around Vice-President Harris. After an extraordinary three weeks in American politics, President Joe Biden has decided to refuse the nomination of the Democratic Party as a candidate for the 2024 Presidential Election. History in the making. It is the right decision and gives the Democrats the initiative to fight back against Donald Trump and his ultra-right-wing running mate. First and foremost, the day belongs to President Joe Biden. He has demonstrated his statesmanship, human qualities, and love of country. He will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents in US history at a pivotal time, a couple of years before the semi-quincentennial. Unfortunately, the news cycle commands the moment, and given the tight time frame before the Democratic Convention, the focus will immediately turn to Vice President Harris, particularly following President Biden's wholehearted endorsement. The Democrats have the opportunity to turn the tables on the Republicans and change the dynamic and fundamental basics of the campaign in one fell swoop. VP Harris is the antithesis of everything Trump represents and will be a tremendous asset to the campaign, in particular regarding women's rights. She will be able to represent the future and mark a clear contrast with the macho, freedom-denying proto-fascist Trump Republican Party. Hope has changed side. In this singular moment, the defence of democracy needed a true American hero, and the country found one in President Biden. Trump may pretend that he has taken a bullet for democracy in an obscene and glaringly narcissistic comment, but the genuine hero of the times is not Trump and never will be Trump. It is President Biden, and we must never forget it.

The Labour landslide has been confirmed. With only two more seats to be called, Labour has an absolute majority of 170 after winning 412 seats - as per the exit poll, just under Tony Blair's majority of 179 in 1997. However, the projections of the exit poll were not entirely accurate. The Conservatives are on 120 and the centrist Liberal Democrats on a record 71. The SNP in Scotland has collapsed and registers only 8 seats compared to the 48 they had in the previous parliament. The Reform Party was initially expected, based on the exit poll, to reach double-digit seat numbers but despite achieving a high percentage of votes, given the "first past the post" system in Britain, they only have 4 seats, with Nigel Farage finally winning a seat in parliament after seven previous unsuccessful attempts. Likewise, the left-wing Green Party won 4 seats. As shown above, the share of the vote does not uniformly reflect in the number of seats due to the aforementioned British electoral system. The Reform Party came third in terms of vote share at 14.3% in front of the Liberal Democrats, but won only 4 seats compared to the LibDems 71. It is clear that the demise of the Conservatives reflects the deep feeling of need for change and desire to punish the Tories after a chaotic 14-year rule which saw no less than five successive Tory prime ministers, the Brexit debacle and numerous scandals related to the way that Boris Johnson ignored the Covid rules that his government had imposed and lied about it thereafter. Contrary to the 1997 Labour landslide, the feeling in the country is morose and on the back of the price of living crisis, post-Brexit UK is in a bad state and much needs to be done to repair the damage done in recent years. Labour's victory is more a repudiation of the past 14 years than a hearty endorsement of Labour's program. And herein lies the rub. Sir Keir Starmer is in essence a Prime Minister by default in a what some pundits are calling a "loveless" or "revenge" election. Fundamental problems need to be addressed, not least how to "make Brexit work" to use Starmer's expression. He will feel the anti-European breath of Nigel Farage breathing down his neck on the strength not of his small number of MPs, but rather based on the impressive numbers of people who voted for the Reform Party. What remains of the Conservative Party will try to remain relevant by choosing a new leader who promises a battle between the more centrist minded wing of the party and the far-right wing of the party. Whichever side will win, will decide the future orientation of the party and will have a large influence on how things play out in the formal Opposition to Labour, who in reality have such a large majority that they can govern as they please. In Wales, the Conservatives have been wiped out and in Scotland, it is the Labour Party that has come out on top, thrashing the SNP who have been reduced to a paltry 9 seats in the new parliament down from 48. Although the SNP remains in power in devolved Scotland and the next election in Holyrood is not before May 2026, the razor-thin SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament coupled with their dreadful performance in the General Election will the next two years very difficult for the SNP. Most importantly any chances of being able to organise a new referendum for Scottish Independence are now virtually impossible as Westminster has no incentive to grant permission to do so (the Scottish Labour Party is a Unionist Party) and even if they were by some miracle be able to organise such a referendum, support for independence in Scotland is on the wane in parallel to the SNP's fortunes. Finally, in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin has the largest contingent of MPs and the question of a potential Irish referendum will become more pressing in the near future. In his first speech as Prime Minister, Starmer promised a decade of national renewal and putting "country first, party second". The Labour Party under the leadership of Starmer have their work cut out for them and the pressure to deliver will be immense. The economic fundamentals will not allow for Labour to spend their way out of trouble, and their promises in this respect have been very conservative (both with a big and a small "c"). Any leeway they will have depends on getting the economy back on to the track of stronger growth, but exactly how they are going to do that is not clear, in particular if they are approaching the race with one hand tied behind their backs by refusing to entertain any significant or meaningful softening of Brexit. In his first speech as Prime Minister, Starmer promised a decade of national renewal and putting "country first, party second". can not fall back on the charisma of previous Labour prime ministers and he will have to decide very quickly which type of prime minister he wants to be. A cautious, grey bank manager type of technocratic prime minister or a more ambitious, daring reformer? He has the political space and security to chose his own path and that is the best news for him. He needs to act swiftly to benefit from the goodwill his large majority has given him before cracks start to appear within his party, as they invariably will as time passes by and potentially become a much loved prime minister after yesterday's loveless election.

President Joe Biden is fighting for his political life. Every new day is a new struggle to convince his detractors, and most importantly, those within his party, that he is fit for another four years of office and remains the best candidate to beat Trump in the general election. Yesterday, at a campaign stop in Wisconsin, he declared that "only the Lord Almighty" can prevent him from running. He will need some favourable divine intervention, not of the ancient Greek kind. Every day, he must overcome a new obstacle to win his case. Each day is "existential", and even if he overcomes pre-determined obstacles, there are always some just around the corner. Like Sisyphus, he has to roll the boulder of incredulity and mistrust up the hill, only to start over the following day. There is a distinct feeling of the end of a reign seeping into the political consciousness. Where pro-Biden people see his forceful declarations to continue in the race as positive and what is exactly needed, his opponents see it as a denial. When answering a non-scripted interview with relative fluidity and composure, all his answers are analysed under the microscope, and even the slightest mistake is amplified a hundred times. All comparisons to past events, be it the early departure from the race of Lyndon Johnson in 1968 or the last time Biden was down in the dumps after the 2020 New Hampshire primary, are not accurate reference points. Today's circumstances are unique, and we are in unchartered territory. The only indisputable fact is that such uncertainty and the ensuing chaos are weakening the chances of the Democrats from keeping the presidency in November, not to mention trying to hang on to the Senate and win back the House. If Biden were forced to retire from the presidency altogether to allow Kamala Harris to campaign as incumbent president (a West-Wing TV type of script) or withdraw from the race despite the Almighty's support or if he soldiers on, the consequences of the ongoing turmoil and never before seen pressure campaign to change candidate at such a late-stage serves no one and ultimately the Democrat party may be mortally wounded at the end of the process. The only winner is Trump, who is counting his lucky stars and starting to believe he is the chosen one after ten days when everything seems to be going his way, beyond his wildest expectations. The Democrats must clear the fog as soon as possible, once and for all, and commit to a path, whatever it may be. If not, Trump will have free rein to open Pandora's box, and not even the Greek Gods will be able to help us any more.

The National Rally (RN) has been denied an absolute majority, and if the first exit polls are correct, not only does it not reach the magic number of 289, it looks as if they are only in third place with a projected number of 115 to 150. The first party in terms of seats is the New Popular Front at a projection of 175 to 205; President Macron's list "Together" is 150 to 175, and the right-wing conservative party that refused any alliance with the NR is 50 to 60. The big surprise is the New Popular Front's victory and the NR's significant defeat. The Republican Front exceeded all expectations. It will be difficult for any single party to govern, and some coalition must be established. This will be very difficult as the so-called Republican Front parties, i.e. despite winning the most significant number of seats in the National Assembly at 228, other parties, except the NR, will find it challenging to find common ground. The NR has been kept at the gates of power, but a viable alternative remains elusive.

The left-wing "New Popular Front" managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat in France, coming first in the legislative elections and the largest group of deputies in the new National Assembly with 182 seats, considering affiliated candidates as well. The President's party and former coalition government, "Together with the Republic," performed better than expected and came second with 168 seats, followed by the much-maligned National Rally with 143. The wing of the conservative party, "The Republicans", that refused to join the National Rally along with affiliated candidates now has 66 seats. These numbers can change slightly depending on how the so-called "independent" candidates are allocated, but the bottom line is that there are now three main groups in the new National Assembly: the left-wing "New Popular Front," the Centre with "Together," and the Far-right "National Rally." None of these groups can form a majority government by themselves. Macron can afford to smile after the snap legislative elections

The Endgame for Biden. One of the golden rules of political commentary is never to make predictions, especially about the future.

Donald Trump wastes a golden opportunity. The 2024 Republican Convention is officially over. And to most observers, it was a resounding success. Not only was the lost soldier Melania Trump found safe and sound, but she enthusiastically endorsed her (still)-husband and perhaps (future)-President Donald J. Trump - as did the adoring crowd of Republican convention goers, all united in their undying support of their god-like candidate, who not only had survived by a few millimetres an assassination attempt just a few days ago, but who seemingly could do nothing wrong and who was walking on water for four days. Such a miraculous event prompted Trump to declare that he was a new version of his old self: more subdued, more introspective and more sensitive to the outside world. For the first thirty minutes of his speech, he delivered on that promise, speaking softly about his escape from the assassin's bullet and stating very seriously that he was not afraid because god protected him. But try as he will, his real nature always has a way of coming back to bite him in the most unpleasant of places, just as the scorpion is incapable of not stinging the frog who is leading him across the river to safety, ensuring his downfall "because I couldn't resist the urge. It's my character . " The remaining sixty-two minutes of his speech displayed Trump not only in his usual brash, aggressive and lying manner but in an even more exaggerated and unhinged version thereof. The wannabe imperial president Trump was naked on stage for all to see, and nobody dared tell him he had no clothes on. The final hour of his rambling rant erased all the benefits of the previous four days - Trump had missed the opportunity to change the course and nature of the presidential campaign irrevocably. It was back to business as usual. "The more things change, the more they stay the same". Trump just couldn't resist the urge as it's his character. Once the numerous balloons fell to the convention floor in a fantastic display of blue, white and red and Trump was basking in the cult-like devotion of his followers, there was a little glimmer of hope for the Democrats as they observed this from afar. Trump was a man they could beat.

Recent events in France, the UK and the US require careful consideration before comparing apples with oranges. In the UK, the left-wing Labour Party won a landslide victory in the general election, whilst in France, the even more left-wing New Popular Front won the most seats in the French parliamentary elections. Many commentators are pointing to these two events to explain that, lo and behold, the left is back on the front foot in Europe and that it is a good omen for the US presidential elections in November. Whereas in the UK, the barbarians were already in the city and were creating havoc, in France the neo-fascist National Rally was only at the gates. As described in great detail in one of my other posts, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the renamed National Rally, is the leader of a political party and ideology inherited from her father. Contrary to other far-right political parties in Europe, such as for example, the Law and Justice Party in Poland, the National Rally has clear neo-fascist roots . Marine Le Pen has spent the best part of 13 years rebranding the party and softening its image, denying its links to fascism and to any reference to Maréchal Pétain's collaboration government in 1940. She has only been partially successful in this respect. A case in point is the fact that during the recent election campaign, some of the NR candidates openly confessed their extreme racist, openly antisemite and bigoted opinions, with notably a photograph of one candidate reappearing on twitter / X wearing a second world war Luftwaffe cap. Between the two voting rounds, political violence broke out; militants from the New Popular Front who were putting up political posters were violently aggressed by far-right thugs and left-wing candidates were often verbally aggressed on the campaign trail. The so-called civil society, actors, singers and famous cultural figures also clearly and loudly expressed their fear and concerns about letting the NR access power. The high turnout last Sunday shows the importance of this election. Contrary to a country such as the US, politicians, journalists and everyday people are not afraid to call a spade a spade and to openly name the National Rally for what they are, i.e. a fascist party. The "F-word" is not taboo, and the euphemism of "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" is not used so much. One must understand that the experience of fascism in France is still an integral part of the French psyche and is not just an intellectual construct. I personally believe that calling a spade a spade and calling a genuine fascist party, fascist is the right thing to do. Once again, context is vital. It would never cross my mind to call the Brexiteers "fascist". They are far-right, anti-immigration and espouses more and more radical views, but fascist they are not. The real equivalence here is the Reform UK Party, led by Nigel Farage who in his youth and more recently, expressed some clearly fascist views. The surprising result in the second round is not a miracle or totally unexpected. It is the direct result of tactical voting that was promoted, actively pursued and communicated by all the French political parties who working together as a "Republican Front" ensured that in most of the constituencies, only the best placed party’s candidate would remain against the National Rally candidate to deny the NR seats. In the first past the post majority voting system, tactical voting can be very efficient on the condition that the voters follow the instructions of their respective parties. It takes a lot for a right-wing leaning voter to vote in favour of a left-wing candidate, and the fact that so many did and also left-wing voters voting for centrist or conservative voters demonstrates the urgency and purpose of the moment. The National Rally is not down and out and has increased its number of seats in parliament, but it has been clearly and very dramatically prevented from government. The re-branding of the National Rally has not been able to pull the wool over the eyes of most French voters, who still in a very visceral, emotional and existential way abhor fascism and everything that they believe the National Rally stands for. Marine Le Pen's party has not adapted its policies or changed its fundamental approach in such a way that is acceptable to a majority of the French people. She can tell the public that the National Rally is a traditional centre-right conservative party and not all a far-right party with distinct fascist tendencies until she is blue white and red in her face, but she is not (yet) credible. One only has to see her trying to convince CNN's journalist, Christiane Amanpour of her party's new-found virginity to see how much work she still has to do. The victory of the left-wing coalition was not a validation and adhesion of their program. Far from it. Despite coming in first place, they are still more than 100 seats away from the majority and the centrist presidential party is close behind in terms of seats. Their good result is due primarily to tactical voting, no more, no less, and they would be wise to remember this. Unfortunately, their more extreme leaders, such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon, very disingenuously are pretending that their "victory" means that France irrevocably has turned overnight into a far-left bastion. What do these two victories mean for the United States? It would be a mistake to think that the political winds are irrevocably blowing from right to left. The American voters will not suddenly vote in large numbers for Joe Biden because Keir Starmer won a landslide or because Marine Le Pen failed to convince Christiane Amanpour of her political know-how. The centre of gravity in today's world is very much in the US. One of the tragic consequences of Brexit is that UK has relatively speaking become much more irrelevant. If Keir Starmer catches a cold, nobody in the US will notice, care of think twice about it. However, if Joe Biden sneezes, the rest of the world will catch a cold of the most unpleasant kind, in particular if it means that Donald Trump wins the November election. The psycho drama that is happening right now in the United States following Biden's performance or lack thereof at the recent presidential debate is a major inflexion point and is history in the making. The outcome of Biden's epic fight to remain on the Democrats ticket and to run for a second term will have major consequences for the Presidential election, much more than what has happened or will happen in Europe. Moreover, the American electorate has moved on from Trump's presidency, and the last thing they want to do is even remember the details of what it was like living through Covid. Voters have very short memories and when people think back on Trump they do not think about his recommendation to drink bleach or his "love letters" to Kim Jong-un. They tend to remember Trump with fond nostalgia and miss the supposed era of Trumpian peace and stability. Biden is under intense scrutiny and his age has become the main focus of the campaign. Never mind what he said during the last State of the Union address, where he said that was important was not his age, but the age of Trump's idea. It is worthwhile reminding people of what he said only a few months ago : When you get to my age, certain things become clearer than ever before.I know the American story. Again and again I’ve seen the contest between competing forces in the battle for the soul of our nation. Between those who want to pull America back to the past and those who want to move America into the future. My lifetime has taught me to embrace freedom and democracy. A future based on core values that have defined America. Honesty, decency, dignity, equality. To respect everyone. To give everyone a fair shot. To give hate no safe harbor. Now other people my age see it differently.The American story of resentment, revenge and retribution — that’s not me. The most pernicious of all false equivalencies is on view every day in the US, as described in more detail in the post linked above. Trump and Biden are put on the same level, and often people talk about choosing between the lesser of two evils. But this is not a pleasant reading of Alice in Wonderland, with Tweedledee and Tweedledum making us laugh under the huge grin of the Cheshire cat. It is much more sinister, and the only similarity with Lewis Carroll's masterpiece is the fact that Trump runs around crying out "off with their head" all the time. Either that or he is mad baseball capper.....

Celebrating NATO's 75th Anniversary. Amongst a non-negligible group of academics, ex-diplomats and experts, the idea that NATO is responsible for the war in Ukraine is gaining traction and attracting a lot of attention across social media. This reflects the Russian point of view, with Putin clearly placing the blame on NATO and more specifically on "NATO expansion" for his "military operation" in Ukraine. False parallels are made relative to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, seeking to demonstrate that the presence of NATO on its borders is an existential threat to Russia. It is important to demonstrate that this theory is incorrect and does not in any way reflect reality, in particular since pro-Russian extreme far-right parties in Europe are picking up on this theory to justify their opposition to helping Ukraine in the future. Before having a closer look at the facts, it is interesting to note that vocabulary and terminology also is relevant in this context. Nato "expansion" has taken on a more aggressive and negative connotation, whereas what actually happened, i.e. NATO "enlargement" is avoided. It is interesting to note that the term "EU enlargement" is never referred to as "EU Expansion", or far less so. The enlargement of the EU and of NATO are closely interdependent. One of the main arguments of the "NATO is the big bad wolf" theory, is that the seed of conflict was sowed at the very beginning with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of West and East Germany. Apparently, at the time, the US committed that none of the Eastern European countries would ever be admitted into NATO except for East Germany following its reunification with West Germany. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, German reunification was unavoidable and became reality on October 3rd 1990 with the immediate consequence of East Germany withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact, which dissolved in 1991. As a matter of historical fact, "The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" was signed in Moscow in September 1990, between East Germany, West Germany, the USSR, the United States, France and the United Kingdom and at no point during the negotiations for this treaty or in the immediate aftermath, was the question of the enlargement to the East of NATO ever mentioned, let alone discussed. The only reference to NATO concerned the fact that East Germany as part of a new reunified Germany would be part of NATO, but it was also agreed that no NATO troops would be stationed in the previous territories of East Germany. One of the most vocal proponents of the NATO expansion theory discussed in this article, is an ex-ambassador to the Soviet Union who notably states in one of his declarations "I was there" during the negotiations to end the Cold War, implying that as a first-hand witness, he can attest to the existence of this formal pledge. Notwithstanding that other members of the US government at the time, notably Secretary of State Baker, denied this fact, one of the main participants and indeed signatories of the final treaty contradicted the afore-mentioned allegation. In an October 2014 interview, Mikhail Gorbachev declared : "The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.”  The second main argument advanced by the pro-Russia camp is the fact that the US and by extension the US actively and "aggressively" sought to "drag" Eastern European countries into NATO. Once again, a wee bit of historical verity has to be injected into the discussion at this juncture. The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was not just a blip on the screen of regular current events, that had little or no impact on the course of history. It was a major, significant event that was one of the most far-reaching and consequential events of the 20th century. Some would argue that it was the final act of the Second World War. Others famously argued that it was the end of history. Hyperbole aside, it is undeniable that the geopolitical situation in Europe at the beginning of the 1990s was unique and presented both immense hope to a large number of people who had lived under communist regimes for over 40 years and who finally had the opportunity to taste the fruits of democracy, but also instability as a vacuum was created after the fall of the USSR. The NATO Secretary General at the time, General Manfred Wörner, stated in 1993 : "The collapse of Soviet Communism has left us with a paradox: there is less threat, but also less peace". The newly free Eastern European countries such as Poland were able for the first time since decades to plan for their own future and decide for themselves their foreign and security related policy. To take the example of Poland, which is very much an example of how the former communist Eastern European countries thought, President Lech Wałęsa was very adamant and vocal in pushing for the integration of Poland into Western Europe, meaning both the European Union but also NATO. This was a clear decision and desire expressed by the freely, democratically elected government of Poland. On the American side, the much regretted Madeleine Albright understood more than others the situation in Eastern Europe, as the daughter of a former Czechoslovak diplomat who was forced to flee Europe to the US after the Second World War. Soviet control and domination was not a theoretical concept for Albright. The post-cold war power vacuum led to serious conflict in the Balkans with the break-up of the ex-Yugoslavian Republics; resulting, amongst other atrocities and war crimes, in ethnic cleansing and genocide at Srebrenica in 1995. As Werner had said, "less threat" but also "less peace". NATO played an important role in ending the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia and in securing the Dayton Peace Accords. The impact of this terrible war cannot be underestimated and was further justification for former communist countries in Eastern Europe to seek a stable, prosperous and secure future within the European family, primarily the European Union. The EU enlargement was conducted in parallel to NATO enlargement but took longer in terms of making sure that the candidate countries had initiated and conducted the necessary reforms to be able to qualify for accession. At the same time, during the 1990s, Ukraine gave several security guarantees to Russia and had notably repatriated all nuclear weapons to Russia. No one can reasonably deny that the desire to join the European Union and the quest for security and stability by joining NATO were first and foremost the choices of the Eastern European countries themselves, very far from the idea of being coerced to join, or being "dragged into NATO" for the sole reason of threatening Russia. Russia was also undergoing major change, first under the tumultuous presidency of Boris Yeltsin and then at the turn of the century with the nomination as Prime Minister and then as President of a former KGB Agent who had spent most of his career in East Germany, a certain Vladimir Putin. Russia was confronted with its own internal territorial issues, most visible in the Caucuses with the first Chechen war from 1994 to 1996 which simmered on until a further eruption of violence in the Second Chechen war starting in 1999. In September of that year, a series of apartment bombings in Moscow in 1999 killed over 200 people and were blamed on Chechen terrorists, reigniting the conflict and the Second Chechen war. Further terrorist attacks took place in the following years, such as the attack on the Dubrovka theatre in 2002 and the Beslan school in 2004. The then prime minister Vladimir Putin gained popularity by successfully prosecuting the second war in Chechnya and the related terror campaign conducted in Russia, allowing him to accede to the presidency in March 2000. Putin had been named a year earlier as director of the successor the KGB organisation, the FSB and these close links have led to much speculation and subsequent supporting evidence that the terror campaign in September 1999 in Moscow was, in fact, initiated, organised and implemented by the FSB and Putin as a way to consolidate his power and seize the presidency. It is worthwhile to emphasise the advent to power of Putin and the consolidation of his power over the past 25 years. In true Russian autocratic manner, he has been a master in securing his grasp on power and has never ceased to increase his authority and control over the years; be it by playing with the Constitution to let one of his acolytes (Medvedev) serve as President for a term, whilst he was the all powerful Prime Minister, or be it be increasingly strangling the freedom of expression in Russia by implementing the so-called foreign agent laws, not to mention the State sanctioned assassination of journalists, opponents and "enemies of the State" both in Russia and abroad. A part of his plan, Putin has remodelled and rewritten history to justify his power. It was only in 2007 at the Munich Security Conference that he for the first time complained about NATO expansion. Up to then, it was not part of his repertoire. Coincidentally or not, he invaded Georgia in 2008 and clearly expressed, for the first time, military ambitions outside of Russia. The resulting ceasefire, mediated by then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, gave control to Russia of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, control that remains to this day. The timid reaction of the West was so muted and accommodating that Russia suffered very little, if any, international consequences. The new Obama administration and the European countries had no desire or interest in escalating the conflict and, on the contrary, were perfectly willing and happy to engage in a clear policy of appeasement believing, falsely, that this would prevent any further conflict in the future. De facto, the international community was accepting that Russia was allowed to interfere, militarily if needs be, into a newly accepted "sphere of influence". As Master of Disaster, Putin was proving that this new-found approach to the West was bearing unexpected and tangible fruits, and he was naturally incentivised to continue along the same path, albeit increasing substantially the stakes. The Russo-Georgian War also demonstrated to NATO that it was incapable of securing the safety of its new partners, most notably the Baltic States, who had joined NATO in March 2004. In the eventuality of a Russian attack on the Baltic States, NATO would not have been able to defend them, and this was a stark warning to NATO that it was time to put the concept of "collective defence" at the top of the list of priorities for the organisation. Putin, in line with his new foreign policy, stated that one of the main reasons why he had invaded Georgia was because NATO had accepted the principle of Georgia becoming a NATO member at the famous Bucharest Conference in April 2008, following the expressed wishes of the Georgian government, when and only when all conditions had been met. Even if this explanation were to be accepted at face value, it would have been a clear violation of international law to invade a neighbouring country as a pre-emptive act to deny the said country's desire to join NATO in the distant future. It also has to be mentioned that Putin justified the invasion of Georgia by falsely accusing the Georgian government of "genocide" and "aggression against South Ossetia". With hindsight, the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 marks the transition from a period of post Soviet cooperation between Russia and the West and a new Cold War. The attempts of the West to incorporate Russia into an international collective security framework had demonstrably failed, but nonetheless the West did not recognise this important paradigm shift and continued to persist in treating Russia as a strategic partner rather than an adversary (hence the doomed policy of "reset" of Hillary Clinton and President Obama). Only after the illegal annexation of Crimea and the proxy-war initiated by Russia in Eastern Ukraine, did attitudes in the West start to change, albeit very slowly at first. During the "Revolution of Dignity" or " The Maidan Revolution " of February 2014, Putin took advantage of the unrest in Kyiv to occupy Crimea with special forces without insignia, before formally annexing it on March 16th with the organisation of a bogus referendum. The Maidan Revolution was triggered by the decision of the pro-Russian President no to ratify a resolution of the Ukrainian Parliament that had overwhelmingly accepted to sign a free trade and association agreement with the EU. Pro-Russian President Yanukovych advocated stronger ties with Russia and refused to follow the Parliament's decision and subsequently popular protest broke out, finally resulting with Yanukovych's destitution by Parliament on February 22nd and his fleeing to Moscow immediately thereafter. The invasion and annexation of Crimea was a direct conse-quence of the Maidan Revolution and the destitution of the pro-Kremlin Ukaranian pesident. Putin explained in great detail that Crimea was historically part of Russia, an argument and a re-writing of history that he would continuously develop and detail further over the following years. He naturally glosses over the terrible suffering inflicted on Ukrainian populations during Soviet time, (the Holodomor ). The interview he gave to Tucker Carlson recently is the best example of Putin's scandalous propaganda, not only relative to Ukrainian history but regarding his view on the origin of the Second World War as a whole. After the events of 2014 and the proxy war in Eastern Ukraine, Putin managed the tour de force to be seen as a mediator in the conflict and not a participant. Following Ukrainian defeats on the battlefield, Putin was able to "freeze" the conflict in a favourable position for Russia and its separatists allies, forcing the West to recognise the status quo as illustrated in the Minsk I and more importantly, Minsk II Agreements concluded in 2015. The full invasion of Ukraine, in February 2022, is the topic of many discussions as to the timing and scope thereof. The presumptive Republican nominee for the forthcoming Presidential election in the US, Donald Trump, constantly trumpets the fact that Putin would never have invaded Ukraine under his watch. Notwithstanding that, when he was president, he did nothing to push back on the annexation of Crimea or even attempt to dissuade Putin from taking further action. One can only imagine that Trump's attempted blackmail of President Zelensky and the delay of sending funds and weapons to Ukraine until Zelenskyy would formally initiate an investigation into then candidate Joe Biden for "corruption" only emboldened Putin in his perception that the West was weak and divided. One logical and most overly overlooked reason why Putin did not take any military action against Ukraine during Trump's presidency, is the simple fact that Putin has an ally in Trump in the White House, who was only too happy to denigrate and weaken NATO, repeat the Russian propaganda as to the origin of the conflict in Ukraine and generally offer a soft power type of support to Putin. Although in his typical manner, Trump says that nobody has ever been as tough as him on Russia, the credit for any action against Russia during his presidency should go to the governmental agencies and to Congress rather than to Trump himself. Putin did not invade Ukraine when Trump was president because he already had what he wanted with Trump as president : (i) a weakening of NATO, (ii) the undermining of democracy and (iii) the undermining of US support to Zelenskyy. The most significant event in consolidating the view of a weak and divided West, and in particular the US, was the January 6 attack on the Capitol. It is not possible to underestimate the impact this landmark event had on the image and on the perception of the United States abroad. The victory of Biden in 2020 changed everything for Putin, who had lost an objective ally in the US. Most probably, his self-imposed isolation during Covid reinforced his delusion that both Ukraine and the West were weak and would neither be able to withstand a Russian invasion nor react vigorously against a fait accompli similarly to the previous aggressive moves of the Kremlin over the past ten years as described above. The Russian dictator's objectives since 2007 have consistently been to carve out and impose a Russian sphere of influence to enhance and increase the natural right of Russia to be a domin-ant world power, fundamentally undermine NATO to render it inefficient and pointless and to maintain personal power in Russia. With this in mind, it is essential to successfully engage a propaganda war with the help of a whole range of "useful idiots" in the West who are prepared to defend, push and try to impose theories blaming NATO for any and all conflict with Russia and to therefore undermine the principles of liberal democracy themselves. Even in his wildest dreams, ensconced in his protective bubble in the Kremlin or one of his luxurious "dachas", I am sure that Putin would never have imagined that the most useful of all "useful idiots" would be the President of the United States. Far from being the bane of world peace, NATO, under the impulse and determination of Joe Biden, is the bulwark defending democracy in Europe against the imperialistic and megalomaniac desires of Vladimir Putin. The 75th anniversary celebrations underway in the US are a worthy tribute to NATO. One can only hope that the American electorate will have the presence of mind and wisdom to ensure that NATO continues to play its pivotal role ensuring world peace rather than signing its death warrant by electing a "useful idiot" willing to do, yet once again, Putin's dirty work.