Sunday Posts

It was fascinating to watch the very public breakdown of US-Ukraine relationship yesterday. It was realpolitik in real time. There are many explanations on offer, but I shall reject both the extremes. Trump was not standing up for the American people, and neither is he a 'Russian asset'. In this season of conspiracy theories, I have one to offer: That he pushed for a minerals deal, putting American business interests ahead of anything, and his administration realised that either such a deal is not on offer (without security guarantees) or not practical, and perhaps both. In that sense, US-Ukraine relationship did not break down in that extraordinary press meet at the White House, it had broken down much earlier when this quid pro quo was established. There is obvious moral outrage in Europe about Putin winning. But there is a practical side of it too: For too long, Europeans, and particularly Western Europeans, have enjoyed a lifestyle whose burdens were borne by other people. ...

We are all watching Kyiv with horror.  Were we not supposed look forward a spring of openness, after two years of staying home and washing hands? Instead, we are peering into a new normal, of which we know nothing of and never expected. Not everyday one sees a country invade another. Further, not everyday one sees a big country being invaded, with no clear plans of an exit. This is where the war on Ukraine most crucially differ from all the other wars I have seen in my lifetime. What is Vladimir Putin is trying to do? Is it just regime change in Kyiv, as Americans tried to achieve, and miserably failed as a consequence, in Iraq and Libya? But warped as his vision may be, he sure knows the practical consequences of regime change: That a Russian-installed government will have no legitimacy and they will end as badly as they did before, in Kyiv!  Or, is he just trying to divide Ukraine along East-West lines and control the access to Black Sea? Whether that objective calls for a g...

English is fast becoming the world's language. While some Frenchmen are perturbed, and call the language penetrating even their universities 'American' rather than English, the Tower of Babel seems to be reaching a final solution.  Why does this matter? The apologists of English do not see this as an imperial project but a triumph of pragmatism, a natural corollary of globalisation and rise of an uniform consumer ethics. And, indeed, there is one view that it is the 'democratic' nature of English - the language can be molded and adapted to its host cultures infinitesimally - that makes it so popular. They claim this is not about English or American, but the story of many Englishes. So, you can speak any language as long as it is called English, which means an expansion of what some observers will call an Anglosphere. This is a sphere of influence of a certain kind of rhetoric, enabled by the unity of media and thinking. In one way, this is a function of te...

I love the way William Hague speaks, using the gravitas of his voice trying to make up for the empire Britain does not have. It is also intriguing what he says: Recently in Kiev, he was talking about 'costs and consequences' if Russia does not listen to the West's suggestion of withdrawing Russian troops from Crimea, but refused to talk about what these could be. The other notable voice in this Ukraine affair (the worst crisis facing Europe in a hundred years, we are told) is that of Victoria Nuland, an Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at US State Department. It was on her phone call to Geoffrey Pyatt, the US Ambassador in Ukraine, which was leaked subsequently, the world heard first time about what was about to happen there ( See the story in BBC ): A few months later, 'Our Man Yats', the current Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk, is duly in place ( see the story in Forbes ). Ms Nuland's call, however, gained infamy for a different reas...

Change is on the air. The old power alignments seem to be all changing. Consider this: The British Prime Minister requests for a private meeting with the American President, and does not get one. He has to do with a few minutes conversation around the Kitchen table at the UN, while the President holds meetings with the heads of states of Japan, Russia and China. Russia says that they may climb down from their opposition to a sanction against Iran. The President of Iran addresses the UN, as does Colonel Qaddafi of Libya. The President of Iran says that it will shake any hand that has been honestly extended to it. What is going on? There seems to be a clear realignment of the United States Foreign Policy, and the shift is towards realism. Eight years of George Bush and a shaking up of the financial markets made it necessary to look at the foreign policy agenda with a fresh pair of eyes. That seems to be happening now. It is no longer the democracy in the middle east zeal; it comes from ...