Soviet Union – UAOC http://uaoc.net/ Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:33:43 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 http://uaoc.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/icon-1-150x150.png Soviet Union – UAOC http://uaoc.net/ 32 32 At UN, Biden calls for diplomacy, not conflict, but some are skeptical http://uaoc.net/at-un-biden-calls-for-diplomacy-not-conflict-but-some-are-skeptical/ http://uaoc.net/at-un-biden-calls-for-diplomacy-not-conflict-but-some-are-skeptical/#respond Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:33:43 +0000 http://uaoc.net/at-un-biden-calls-for-diplomacy-not-conflict-but-some-are-skeptical/ President Biden, battling growing doubts from US allies about his commitment to work with them, used his first United Nations speech on Tuesday to call for “relentless diplomacy” on climate change, the pandemic and efforts to mitigate the growing influence of autocratic nations like China and Russia. In a 30-minute speech in the General Assembly […]]]>

President Biden, battling growing doubts from US allies about his commitment to work with them, used his first United Nations speech on Tuesday to call for “relentless diplomacy” on climate change, the pandemic and efforts to mitigate the growing influence of autocratic nations like China and Russia.

In a 30-minute speech in the General Assembly Hall, Biden called for a new era of global action, arguing that a summer of wildfires, excessive heat and a resurgence of the coronavirus requires a new era of unity.

“Our security, our prosperity and our very freedoms are interconnected, in my opinion like never before,” Biden said, insisting that the United States and its Western allies would remain essential partners.

But he made little mention of the global discord his own actions sparked, including the chaotic US retreat from Afghanistan as the Taliban regained control 20 years after their rout. And he made no mention of his administration’s explosion with one of America’s closest allies, France, which was sidelined in a secret submarine deal with Australia to deal with to China’s influence in the Pacific.

These two foreign policy crises, while very different in nature, have led some US partners to question Mr. Biden’s commitment to strengthening traditional alliances, with some publicly accusing him of perpetuating elements of the approach. America First ”by former President Donald J. Trump. wrapped in much more inclusive language.

Throughout his speech, Mr. Biden never uttered the word “China,” although his efforts to reorient US competitiveness and national security policy were built around combating Beijing’s growing influence. . But he associated his discussion with a series of choices that essentially boiled down to supporting democracy over autocracy, a thinly veiled critique of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir V. Putin.

“We are not looking – repeat it, we are not looking – for a new cold war or a world divided into rigid blocks,” he said. Yet, in describing what he called an “inflection point in history”, he spoke of the need to choose whether new technologies would be used as “a force to empower people or to deepen repression.” At one point, he explicitly referred to the targeting of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region in western China.

The president’s top aides, at least publicly, have rejected the idea that China and the United States, with the world’s largest economies, are dividing the world into opposing camps, seeking allies to counter the influence of the United States. other, like America and the Soviet Union once did. The relationship with Beijing, they argued, unlike the Cold War rivalry with Moscow, is marked by deep economic interdependence and certain areas of common interest, from the climate to control of North Korea’s nuclear program.

But privately, some officials concede growing similarities. The US-UK deal to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines is clearly an effort to restore naval balance in the Pacific, as China expands territorial claims and threatens Taiwan. The United States has also attempted to block China’s access to sophisticated technologies and Western communication systems.

“The future belongs to those who give their people the opportunity to breathe freely, not those who seek to suffocate their people with iron authoritarianism,” Biden said, leaving no doubt who he meant. “The authoritarians of the world, they seek to proclaim the end of the era of democracy, but they are wrong.

Hours after Biden left the podium, Xi also addressed the General Assembly, in a pre-recorded video, dismissing his government’s U.S. representations as repressive and expansionist, saying he supports development. peaceful for all people.

Xi’s language was withheld and, like Biden, he did not name his country’s main rival, but he clearly hinted at China’s anger over the Australian Submarine Pact. . The world must “reject the practice of forming small circles or zero-sum games,” he said, adding that international disputes “must be dealt with through dialogue and cooperation on the basis of quality and mutual respect ”.

He also announced that his country would stop building “new overseas coal-fired power projects”, ending one of the dirtiest fossil fuel programs. China is by far the biggest funder of coal-fired power plants.

Mr Biden’s debut at the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly in New York has been mitigated by the pandemic. Many national leaders did not attend, and there were few of the big receptions and relentless traffic jams that have traditionally marked the September ritual.

He only stayed a few hours and only met one ally: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Later that day, back in Washington, Biden met with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the other partner of the submarine deal.

Last week, the three countries revealed the nuclear submarine deal they had negotiated in secret. Australia said it was renouncing a previous deal for France to build conventionally powered submarines, angering French leaders who felt betrayed by their allies. The surprise announcements have tied Australia’s defense more closely to the United States – a huge change for a country that just a few years ago aimed to avoid taking sides in the US-China rivalry.

Until Tuesday, the last time Mr Biden had seen Mr Johnson and Mr Morrison was at the Group of 7 summit meeting in June, as they were immersed in negotiations that were under wraps to French President Emmanuel Macron, which was at the same time an event.

On Tuesday, there was no conversation between Mr Biden and Mr Macron, who was so enraged at the submarine deals and the silence of his closest partners that he reminded the French ambassador to Washington, a decision unprecedented in more than 240 years of relations, as well as the envoy to Australia. It was not clear whether there were simply scheduling difficulties preventing the two from phoning each other, or whether Mr Macron was deliberately difficult to reach.

Mr Biden’s speech was very similar to what he would have said before the Taliban took Kabul without resistance and before the pivot to Asia became an obstacle to relations with Europe.

The president bristled, according to collaborators, when the French compared him to his predecessor, as Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister, did on Tuesday, telling reporters that “the spirit “Mr. Trump’s approach to the allies” is still the same “under Mr. Biden.

Other allies have objected to the way Mr Biden set an Aug. 31 deadline for the withdrawal from Afghanistan – with minimal consultation, they argue. (The White House tells a different story, claiming that NATO allies have been fully consulted.)

Afghanistan’s deadline would likely have created nothing but grumbling behind the scenes if the country’s rapid fall to the Taliban had been anticipated. Instead, the August rush to airlift foreigners, and the Afghans who helped them, created an image of American recklessness.

The Taliban have appointed an ambassador, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson for the movement based in Doha, Qatar, to represent Afghanistan at the United Nations and demanded that he be allowed to address this year’s General Assembly. UN officials said on Tuesday. The Taliban’s request, which is to be assessed by the General Assembly’s credentials committee, sets up a confrontation with the current envoy, appointed by the overthrown Afghan government.

On Afghanistan, Biden on Tuesday tried to look to a bigger picture – “We have ended 20 years of conflict,” he said – arguing that the United States was now more free to face challenges such as the climate crisis, cyber attacks and pandemics. And he delivered a much more conciliatory message than his predecessor, which scorned alliances, insulted friends and adversaries, and at various times threatened military action against North Korea and Iran.

“US military might must be our tool of last resort, not our first,” Mr. Biden said, “and it should not be used as an answer to all the problems we see in the world.”

He has traveled through a litany of international arrangements and institutions that he has joined over the past eight months, including the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization. He spoke of the United States vying for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and reinstating the Iran nuclear deal, which Mr. Trump left.

In fact, Iran was the centerpiece of much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy, as its new foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, met with European leaders, who called for a return to nuclear talks in Vienna which ended in June. Iranian officials have indicated that talks are expected to resume in the coming weeks.

But U.S. and EU officials expect the government of new Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi to demand a high price for reverting to the deal, putting pressure on the West to move closer than ever to the production of bomb grade uranium.

Mr. Raisi did not come to New York, but gave a fiery speech via video. “Today, the world doesn’t care about ‘America First’ or ‘America is Back’,” he said. He added, “Sanctions are America’s new means of war with the nations of the world. But he did not rule out returning to the deal – in exchange for sanctions relief.

Mr Biden presented the coronavirus pandemic as a prime example of the need for peaceful international cooperation, saying “bombs and bullets cannot defend against Covid-19 or its future variants.” And he rebuffed arguments that the United States, which is about to give boosters to some vaccinated people, is doing too little for the poorest countries where vaccination has barely started.

The United States has “shipped more than 160 million doses of the Covid-19 vaccine to other countries,” he said.

“We need a collective act of science and political will,” he added. “We need to act now to get the arm shots as quickly as possible and to expand access to oxygen, to tests, to treatment, to save lives around the world.”

Michael D. Shear, Rick Gladstone and Farnaz Fassihi contributed reporting.


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/at-un-biden-calls-for-diplomacy-not-conflict-but-some-are-skeptical/feed/ 0
Revolutionary rifle: the Mosin-Nagant was a game-changer for the Russian army http://uaoc.net/revolutionary-rifle-the-mosin-nagant-was-a-game-changer-for-the-russian-army/ http://uaoc.net/revolutionary-rifle-the-mosin-nagant-was-a-game-changer-for-the-russian-army/#respond Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:30:34 +0000 http://uaoc.net/revolutionary-rifle-the-mosin-nagant-was-a-game-changer-for-the-russian-army/ Between 1891 and 1973, over thirty-seven million M1891 three-line rifles were produced, making it one of the most manufactured firearms of the 20th century. Today, most gun enthusiasts and gun historians simply call him the Mosin-Nagant. The development of the military five-shot, bolt-action, internal magazine rifle began after the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878. While the […]]]>

Between 1891 and 1973, over thirty-seven million M1891 three-line rifles were produced, making it one of the most manufactured firearms of the 20th century. Today, most gun enthusiasts and gun historians simply call him the Mosin-Nagant.

The development of the military five-shot, bolt-action, internal magazine rifle began after the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878. While the Ten-Month War culminated in a Russian victory – in which the Russian army marched almost to the gates of Constantinople – Russian troops were mainly armed with Berdan single-shot rifles. The Turkish forces were equipped with Winchester repeating rifles, and as a result the Russians suffered heavy losses.

It was clear that the Russians were in dire need of a new main combat rifle, and the Russian Empire’s Defense Ministry began to evaluate various foreign-made rifles, including the French-made Lebel M1886. The Russian military then looked into new designs, and two seemed show promise.

The first was a “3-line caliber” (caliber .30 or 7.62 mm) designed by Captain Sergi Ivanovich Mosin of the Imperial Russian Army, while the Belgian automobile and weapons designer Leon Nagant submitted a second design for a “3.5 line gauge” (.35 or 9mm gauge). The Russian military may have shown favoritism towards the Mosin design, but the exquisite design took elements from each, resulting in the Mosin-Nagant.

However, this did not suit Nagant, who filed a patent application, and counterclaims were made that the Belgian manufacturer had borrowed elements from Mosin’s design. The problem was that Mosin – as an officer in the Russian army – could not apply for a patent, and his design was government-owned and had military secret status. In the end, the commission paid Nagant 200,000 Russian rubles, and that settled the matter. Léon Nagant and his brother Émile remained the main sub-contractors of the Russian government, and the Nagant M95 revolver even became the standard handgun of the Russian army.

Despite the fact that the Mosin-Nagant is widely used today, the rifle was never known as such in Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union. To help resolve the issues with Nagant, the rifle was even referred to simply as the M1891 3-line rifle. It was only since 1924 that the rifle was officially named “Mosin’s rifle”.

It was widely known as the Model 1891, and this version was first used with the Imperial Russian Army during the Russo-Japanese War (1905), although there are reports that some may have be used by Philippine forces during the Philippine Revolution (1896 -98). The original Russian versions were chambered in the 7.62 x 54 millimeter Russian cartridge which was later used by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries in subsequent rifles and machine guns. The Mosin-Nagant used a non-detachable five-round magazine and had an effective range of five hundred yards.

Despite the eventual proliferation of the Mosin-Nagant, the rifle was in fact in short supply during WWI. Russian industry was unable to meet demand, and the government of Tsar Nicholas II hired the United States-based Remington Arms and New England Westinghouse to produce the rifle in the United States. The Russian government initially ordered 1.5 million.

Some 470,000 rifles were even delivered, but at that time the October Revolution brought down the Russian government and the new Bolshevik regime under Vladimir Lenin. refused to pay for weapons. As a result, another 280,000 were subsequently sold to the United States Army to help ensure Remington and Westinghouse did not face bankruptcy, and ironically many of these rifles used by American troops and British troops who were part of the Northern Russia Campaign expeditionary force to support anti-Bolshevik forces.

In 1930, the rifle was shortened – and the 1891/30 model became the most prolific variant. It was the standard Soviet infantry rifle from 1930 to 1945 and was in use throughout World War II. Various rifle versions were also produced, but the design all started with the original M1891 3-line rifle.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to over four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He writes regularly on military small arms and is the author of several books on military hairstyles, including A gallery of military hairstyles, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/revolutionary-rifle-the-mosin-nagant-was-a-game-changer-for-the-russian-army/feed/ 0
EU powerless in the face of US sanctions against Russia and Iran (expert) http://uaoc.net/eu-powerless-in-the-face-of-us-sanctions-against-russia-and-iran-expert/ http://uaoc.net/eu-powerless-in-the-face-of-us-sanctions-against-russia-and-iran-expert/#respond Mon, 20 Sep 2021 12:58:52 +0000 http://uaoc.net/eu-powerless-in-the-face-of-us-sanctions-against-russia-and-iran-expert/ TEHRAN – A consultant in European and international affairs believes that the EU is absent and powerless in the face of unilateral US sanctions against other countries. “The European Union’s position is absent and powerless on US sanctions against Russia and Iran because it does not have considerable power,” Ludovic Zanker told The Tehran Times. […]]]>

TEHRAN – A consultant in European and international affairs believes that the EU is absent and powerless in the face of unilateral US sanctions against other countries.

“The European Union’s position is absent and powerless on US sanctions against Russia and Iran because it does not have considerable power,” Ludovic Zanker told The Tehran Times.

“The European Union is obliged to ally with the United States to make itself heard and to follow a policy of sanctions against Russia and Iran. Just remove the United States, the European Union has no authority, its decisions are inaudible, ”Zanker notes.

Russian-American relations have seen many ups and downs over the past decades. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington spared no effort to establish itself as a global hegemony by waging wars and imposing sanctions against its rivals.

Meanwhile, many European states preferred to follow American policies or play a marginal role in the new world order.

Many critics claim that the EU, despite its economic weight, is dependent on the United States in military and security terms.

“The European Union is dependent on the United States on certain issues, including Russia in the case of the annexation of Crimea to Ukraine, but also the presence of military troops in Dombass,” Zanker remarks.
Here is the text of the interview:

Q: How do you assess the Russian-American disputes under the Putin-Biden presidencies? Is there a strategic rivalry or an economic competition?

A: The disputes between Russia and the United States under the presidency of Biden and Putin have important consequences in both diplomatic and political relations, but also in economic relations.

To answer your question, there is a strategic position between Biden and Putin, the balance of power both diplomatic and economic. On the diplomatic level, tensions are not at a standstill, following a cyber attack from Moscow. Likewise for Russia, the Kremlin has also decided to expel American diplomats to its soil.

Economically, Russia will be a little weaker, but it will resist these American sanctions. For the United States, they will lose an important partner because Russia remains an important country militarily and also economically.

Q: How do you see the launch of the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline? What are its implications for the US and the EU?

A: The pipeline is a real boon for Russia, President Putin is gaining points by attacking Europe and the United States from this angle. Because through the construction of this pipeline, the credibility of the Russian vaccine SputnikV, recognized as reliable in many countries, is also at stake. For Russia, this project will bring billions of euros.

The involvement of the United States comes to reverse the project vis-à-vis Russia, following the Russian troops present in the Dombass in Ukraine. The Kremlin denies wanting to reconquer other territories of the country. But the United States is playing to find other strategies to sanction Putin’s Russia more severely.

For Europe, the implication is limited, because this project concerns more Germany because the end of the works ends in the German sea. As a result, German Chancellor Merkel does not share Biden’s sanctions for canceling this construction, at least not to complete the work. However, Germany won the case against the United States, the project could be completed, the Russian president managed to give guarantees to the Chancellor. Russian military troops withdrew to Ukrainian territory, forming part of the army.

Q: Do you think the great powers, like Russia and China, can form a coalition to confront American influence in Asia?

A: Yes, in a fictitious policy, but in reality it will not happen, because Putin has other more strategic ambitions, Russia will not be able to detach itself from the European Union, because for Europe, Russia is an indisputable and important partner, but also for Russia. If Russia definitely turns its back on the European Union, it will form a coalition with China, it could have a real major problem.

China could be a very powerful dominatrix, but it could manipulate and control Russia, Europe would be powerless and inaudible, isolated from everything. The United States would be in an open panic, both economically and diplomatically, let alone militarily. While relations between Russia and the United States are strained, reason always trumps good, not danger.

Q: How do you assess the EU’s positions regarding US sanctions against Russia and Iran? Apparently, the political positions of the EU are not independent?

A: The position of the European Union is absent and powerless on American sanctions against Russia and Iran because it does not have considerable power, the European Union is obliged to ally with the United States to make themselves heard and extend strong sanctions against Russia and Iran. Take away the United States, the European Union has no authority, its decisions are inaudible.

To answer your second question, the European Union is dependent on the United States on certain issues, including Russia in the case of the annexation of Crimea to Ukraine, but also the presence of military troops in Dombass. For Iran, there are disputes over Iran’s nuclear program, human rights and press freedom.

Q: What are the effects of US sanctions on the Chinese and Russian economy?

A: The decision comes in a context of sharp deterioration in relations between China and the United States, competitors in the economic and technological spheres and opposed on a multitude of subjects (Hong Kong, human rights, technologies, coronavirus in particular). We again urge the United States to immediately correct its mistake and remove unreasonable restrictions on the activities of the Chinese Embassy and its personnel based in the United States, ”Zhao Lijian said.

This clash between the two world powers took on the appearance of a new cold war in July with the forced closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston, amid accusations of espionage. China responded by ordering the US consulate in Chengdu (southwest) to close within days of each other. Sanctions of the Chinese economy by the Americans.

As for sanctions against Russia, experts interviewed by the Russian daily believe that the new American sanctions should not significantly affect the Russian economy. “Unlike the years 2014-2018, the Russian economy is more prepared for this kind of challenge,” explains Andrei Roussetski of BKS Financial, for example.

However, Ivan Timofeev, program director of the Russian Council for International Affairs, warns: “This time Moscow no longer faces routine sanctions, but a new major decree. And the Kremlin cannot close its eyes on this. “The possibilities of a local resumption of relations following the change of American administration are exhausted”, estimates the expert. This will further strengthen the rapprochement between Russia and China, but will also lead to a hardening of Moscow’s positions in Syria and on the Iranian nuclear issue. Sanctions on the Russian economy by the Americans.


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/eu-powerless-in-the-face-of-us-sanctions-against-russia-and-iran-expert/feed/ 0
Peripeteia is an immersive simulation in which you play a “living military surplus” in the near future in Poland http://uaoc.net/peripeteia-is-an-immersive-simulation-in-which-you-play-a-living-military-surplus-in-the-near-future-in-poland/ http://uaoc.net/peripeteia-is-an-immersive-simulation-in-which-you-play-a-living-military-surplus-in-the-near-future-in-poland/#respond Mon, 20 Sep 2021 01:20:10 +0000 http://uaoc.net/peripeteia-is-an-immersive-simulation-in-which-you-play-a-living-military-surplus-in-the-near-future-in-poland/ The first thing I did when I left the bar was stack crates out of an alleyway, so yes, Peripeteia is an immersive sim. You play as an ex-cyborg soldier named Marie, reduced to odd jobs and mercenary jobs in a town where the main source of heat and light comes from fires in the […]]]>

The first thing I did when I left the bar was stack crates out of an alleyway, so yes, Peripeteia is an immersive sim. You play as an ex-cyborg soldier named Marie, reduced to odd jobs and mercenary jobs in a town where the main source of heat and light comes from fires in the drum barrels. It’s Deus Ex except you’re Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell, retired, in Poland.

The demo includes two missions and they are bigger than I expected. Huge towers, long corridors full of rubbish, roofs connected by pipes, underground tunnels. It’s a good thing that I can sprint forever, jump like it’s old fashioned and jump ledges which makes exploring so exciting.

(Image credit: Ninth Exodus)

It’s worth exploring because, of course, there are multiple ways to access each area. The bartender wants a key card from the gas mask thugs who have taken control of a neighboring building, which I enter by going up high. I pause to talk to a homeless rooftop about politics, because everyone in games like this wants to talk politics. The city belonged to the Soviet Union in the future of Peripeteia’s alternate history, and it is now being fought by various factions as well as scavengers in search of hidden caches of Soviet technology that may have been left behind. This is where I come in, myself a walking piece of leftover technology, called “living military surplus” in the Starting pitch.


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/peripeteia-is-an-immersive-simulation-in-which-you-play-a-living-military-surplus-in-the-near-future-in-poland/feed/ 0
The Journey of a Siberian Family to Israel and a Business Owner http://uaoc.net/the-journey-of-a-siberian-family-to-israel-and-a-business-owner/ http://uaoc.net/the-journey-of-a-siberian-family-to-israel-and-a-business-owner/#respond Sun, 19 Sep 2021 10:27:00 +0000 http://uaoc.net/the-journey-of-a-siberian-family-to-israel-and-a-business-owner/ It’s quite a journey – nearly 6,400 kilometers – from Tomsk, Russia, one of the oldest cities in freezing Siberia, to sunny Netanya, and the cultural distance is just as vast. But in 2015, Arkady Mayofis, founder and owner of TV2, a local television station from Tomsk, one of the last independent regional media in […]]]>

It’s quite a journey – nearly 6,400 kilometers – from Tomsk, Russia, one of the oldest cities in freezing Siberia, to sunny Netanya, and the cultural distance is just as vast.

But in 2015, Arkady Mayofis, founder and owner of TV2, a local television station from Tomsk, one of the last independent regional media in Russia, has had enough of life in his homeland. After the shutdown of his TV channel by the Russian government, Mayofis feared the authorities would jail him. The day after TV2 closed, Mayofis and his whole family moved to Israel.

“The business that I had been building for 25 years was closed by the authorities,” says Arkady.

It was not the first time that a Mayofis family business had been shut down by the government. In 1940, the Bolsheviks resumed his grandfather’s fur trade in Latvia and the family was exiled to Siberia.

“History repeated itself,” says Arkady, “and our family decided to leave Russia forever.”

THE MAYOFIS Family in Riga (Credit: Courtesy)

Recalling the family’s move to Israel, which included three generations of the Mayofis family and 10 people, Arkady said: “It was difficult to start a business in a new country, with completely different traditions, a lack of language skills and a misunderstanding of the Israeli mentality. In addition, before that, all my life I was engaged in television. I couldn’t do anything else. Everything had to be learned again. I was 53 when I moved to Israel and started my new life and business here.

Arkady had been a successful entrepreneur in Russia and quickly had a successful idea. Before moving to Israel, he and his family had traveled the world and had seen the wide array of gourmet souvenirs available in countries like Italy and France.

“Israel is a very tasty country,” he notes, “but there were few beautifully decorated European-level gourmet memorabilia – and we decided to fill that niche. Yoffi – which means “beauty” in English – Arkady Mayofis’ new business was born.

The company – whose name plays on the family name Mayofis (linked to the Bible verse of the Song of Songs “Mah Yafit”, “how beautiful you are”) – produces and markets fine Israeli gourmet gifts. Yoffi transforms the essence of Israeli flavors – like tehina, honey, dates, nuts, halvah, herbal teas and olive oil – into exquisite gifts from the Holy Land.

The company’s office is in Netanya and its warehouse is in Modi’in, and Yoffi works with Israeli manufacturers, farms and kibbutzim across the country.

Yoffi was established as a family business soon after Arkady and his family arrived in Israel.

“When you find yourself alone in a new country and you don’t know anyone, family is the only thing you can count on,” says Arkady.

Yoffi remains a family business and Arkady works with family members to keep the business running smoothly.

Yoffi first marketed Israeli products abroad, and his food products, colorfully presented and packaged, showed a positive face of Israel around the world.

explains Arkady, “We believe that gastronomic gifts are the best diplomacy. When people eat, they don’t fight. And showing Israel through food is the best way to introduce this country to the world. “

With the effects of travel restrictions and social distancing, Yoffi gifts have also become popular at home in Israel.

Among the company’s best-selling products in duty-free shops at Ben-Gurion Airport, Arkady says, are tin cans, featuring various views of Israel, with nut bars inside. Infusions of Israeli herbs from Jerusalem, the Negev and the Galilee, as well as sets of honey and date spreads are also among the company’s best sellers.

While its products became known for their distinct packaging and aesthetic appeal, the company also stood out with a strong social conscience. The specially designed gift boxes by Yoffi are packaged in a factory that employs visually impaired people, and the toys and souvenirs that are added to the boxes help provide for new olim and people with special needs.

“We are olim ourselves,” says Arkady, “and we know from our own experiences how difficult it is to get used to a new country and start a business from scratch. Therefore, we strive to help people like us. In addition, in Russia we have participated in many different charitable projects.

OVER the past few years, Yoffi has expanded its product line and now produces and sells colorful postcards from Israel.

Over the past 50 years, says Arkady, several thousand artists have made their aliya from the former Soviet Union. Yoffi commissioned leading artists to produce various sets, and today the company sells five different sets, each containing 12 colorful postcards that combine ancient and modern scenes from the Land of Israel, including designs by Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. All postcards were created by FSU olim, and they are signed in English and Russian.

“We want to revive the beautiful tradition of sending hand-signed postcards. In our computerized age, a personal message is particularly valuable, ”says Arkady. The postcard series quickly became one of Yoffi’s most popular products.

Arkady and his family decided to share Israel’s colorful postcards with the general public. The company organized an exhibition showcasing the talents of Israeli artists of Soviet origin. Thirty-six artists were invited to draw their vision of Israel through their eyes. Their art reflects their own perspectives on local figures, historical monuments and breathtaking landscapes, alongside the marvels of advancing high technology. Illustrators combine both their view of the country with an outside perspective, as foreigners and travelers see Israel.

The original images and sketches from the exhibition will be printed as colorful postcards and sold individually, as well as enclosed in Yoffi gift wrap.

From October 20 to November 15, the Skizza Gallery, facing the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, on Route 12 to Hebron, will present the works of these talented illustrators in an exhibition entitled “Yoffi shel Israel”, the beauty of Israel.

The Skizza Gallery, founded 15 years ago, is an important center of cultural life for Russian-speaking Israel. The gallery exhibits artists who have made their alyah from the countries of the former USSR who unite Jewish and universal values ​​in their creative work.

The exhibition, which is supported by Russian-Israeli businessman Roman Abramovich, is a joint venture of Yoffi in collaboration with The Jerusalem Post.

IN ONLY five years, Arkady Mayofis has come full circle, from head of Russian media to supplier of elegant culinary gifts to the world that reflect the beauty of Israel. Could his ancestors have imagined that their descendants would settle in Israel?

“My ancestors couldn’t even dream of it,” he says.

Arkady reports that he found his family’s file of their exile in Siberia in the KGB archives. In archival documents, his grandfather said he regretted not having left for Palestine sooner and expressed remorse that he would never live to see it.

“He really didn’t have the chance to see Eretz Israel,” says Arkady. “Now we live here for all of our ancestors. “

“Make tasty things beautiful” is Yoffi’s motto. Arkady Mayofis and his family have not only succeeded in making Israel’s food attractive, but also made the Land of Israel more attractive, with their series of Israeli postcards and the “Yoffi shel Israel” exhibition, which opens the October 20 at the Skizza. Gallery in Jerusalem.

This article was written in collaboration with Yoffi.


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/the-journey-of-a-siberian-family-to-israel-and-a-business-owner/feed/ 0
Lessons in a costly mishap http://uaoc.net/lessons-in-a-costly-mishap/ http://uaoc.net/lessons-in-a-costly-mishap/#respond Sat, 18 Sep 2021 06:40:26 +0000 http://uaoc.net/lessons-in-a-costly-mishap/ Michael adkins We should always think twice before insulting someone. My daughter’s teenage grandson recently put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Daddy, you are bald. I replied, “Grandson, don’t you understand genetics? Likewise, at his age, I told an uncle he was fat. It is now obvious to me that he does not […]]]>

We should always think twice before insulting someone. My daughter’s teenage grandson recently put his hand on my shoulder and said, “Daddy, you are bald. I replied, “Grandson, don’t you understand genetics? Likewise, at his age, I told an uncle he was fat. It is now obvious to me that he does not weigh more than I do now. What I mean is poorly crafted statements often come back to bite your butt.

I thought about it when I started criticizing President Biden for his withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many on the right criticized him, although they remained silent when President Trump announced the deadline for the withdrawal. We can say that the pullout was botched, but when you look at the numbers of Americans and Afghans flown in, the results have been quite remarkable. I’m not happy that we didn’t take out all the Afghans who helped us, but at least we didn’t completely abandon them like America did the Kurds when Trump abandoned our Syrian base to the Russians.

Frankly, there is no perfect way to get out of a war that has lasted 20 years. Biden was right in deciding not to leave this unnecessary war to another president.

Arguably, we made a huge miscalculation in invading Afghanistan. Of course, we wanted to have Bin Laden and punish the Taliban for helping him. But bin Laden, we now know, was in hiding in Pakistan, as this “ally” most likely knew. Looking back, why attack the Taliban for helping Bin Laden with a temporary home when the vast majority of his support came from our other ally, Saudi Arabia? We managed to drive the Taliban leadership to – guess where – Pakistan. Of course, they returned within 18 months and reestablished their control over much of the country. Why have we not then destroyed their ability to fight? First, because that has never been our mission. So why not go years ago? Three US Presidents, Bush, Obama, and Trump were dishonest when they each said we were not engaging in a nation-building effort. The truth is, we were there making a half-hearted effort to build democracy in this former backward country. We have wasted billions of dollars doing it. We have formed a pathetic army with men who enlisted primarily for money, not for a cause, as their lack of effort showed when we left.

A very knowledgeable local writer, Linda Dunn, in a recent column for this article, explained the problem of this war better than I did. We have poured millions upon millions into the military industrial complex with no clear purpose for a nation whose age-old culture has firmly opposed change. The best that can be said about our involvement there is that, unlike the Soviet Union, we were not there to support a puppet government. There were, of course, many Americans who sought to do their best for these people. But America never solidified our goals there.

There are lessons to be learned from our misguided Afghan enterprise, but we Americans tend to correct our mistakes only after repeating them. Historians are likely to view our response to the 9/11 attacks as poorly done. If we had relied almost entirely on covert operations, this is how we found and killed bin Laden, rather than waging a 20 year war in Afghanistan, rather than invading Iraq and destroying it there. government, which led to the creation of the Islamic State, imagine how much we could have saved economically and from a world perspective. In the meantime, let’s all be cautious about our criticisms and think deeply about it first.

Michael Adkins was previously chairman of the Hancock County Democratic Party.


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/lessons-in-a-costly-mishap/feed/ 0
Senator Mitt Romney urges Americans to protect constitutional freedoms http://uaoc.net/senator-mitt-romney-urges-americans-to-protect-constitutional-freedoms/ http://uaoc.net/senator-mitt-romney-urges-americans-to-protect-constitutional-freedoms/#respond Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:28:14 +0000 http://uaoc.net/senator-mitt-romney-urges-americans-to-protect-constitutional-freedoms/ Governor Spencer Cox moderates a discussion with Senator Mitt Romney on Friday, September 17. Romney spoke at the Hinckley Center and urged Americans to protect their constitutional freedoms against authoritarianism. (Addie Blacker) Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, gave a message encouraging Americans to “stand up for the Constitution” in his Constitution Day address Friday morning at […]]]>
Governor Spencer Cox moderates a discussion with Senator Mitt Romney on Friday, September 17. Romney spoke at the Hinckley Center and urged Americans to protect their constitutional freedoms against authoritarianism. (Addie Blacker)

Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, gave a message encouraging Americans to “stand up for the Constitution” in his Constitution Day address Friday morning at the Hinckley Center.

Romney began his speech by explaining that the task of the nation’s founders was to create a government “that would thread the needle” between autocracy and “pure and runaway democracy.” He said the founders solved this problem by creating the Constitution, which was “a radical change from history.”

“History has reaffirmed itself with vengeance,” Romney said in his Wheatley Institution-sponsored speech. He provided two reasons for this, claiming that today’s authoritarians are stronger against the United States than the Soviet Union was in the past. America’s resolve against authoritarianism on the one hand and pure democracy on the other is not as strong.

Romney cited China, Russia, Syria, the Afghan Taliban and Venezuela as examples of modern authoritarian regimes, discussing the power they wield. “What is even more surprising than the appalling brutality of authoritarian regimes is their relative economic and military strength,” Romney said,

Romney explained that, through its institutions and through the Constitution, America has avoided authoritarianism and pure democracy until now. Romney has warned that America’s resolve to follow the path of the Constitution is faltering.

Constitutional safeguards are in jeopardy in Washington, Romney said. He gave an example of politicians arguing for the elimination of filibuster, saying it would forever change the key institution that controls the power of the majority and protects the power of the minority.

Romney has offered solutions to protect constitutional freedoms, including taking action against China and its “economic might and its predatory means” by joining forces with those of other nations.

The nation can protect its freedoms by modernizing the military, striving to make its businesses more prosperous and competitive, and investing in new technology, Romney said.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox moderated a discussion with Romney immediately after his speech. Members of the public have put questions to him for him to answer.

An audience member asked Romney how the United States deals with modern problems that remain unanswered in the Constitution. Romney said the Constitution provides “ample opportunity” for the United States to adapt to the situations it faces today.

Romney closed the discussion by saying that Americans are a good people. “The hearts of the American people are good and healthy. “

User-friendly printing, PDF and email


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/senator-mitt-romney-urges-americans-to-protect-constitutional-freedoms/feed/ 0
The Biden Doctrine has not yet emerged. Beware of those who claim otherwise http://uaoc.net/the-biden-doctrine-has-not-yet-emerged-beware-of-those-who-claim-otherwise/ http://uaoc.net/the-biden-doctrine-has-not-yet-emerged-beware-of-those-who-claim-otherwise/#respond Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:42:22 +0000 http://uaoc.net/the-biden-doctrine-has-not-yet-emerged-beware-of-those-who-claim-otherwise/ Sep 18, 2021 ANDREI GROMYKO. And that was during the Cold War, a period of relatively calm American political analysis. To what extent does Gromyko’s observation seem more applicable to the first eight months of Joe Biden’s presidency. Half a dozen different versions of the Biden Doctrine had been described by foreign policy commentators even […]]]>

ANDREI GROMYKO. And that was during the Cold War, a period of relatively calm American political analysis. To what extent does Gromyko’s observation seem more applicable to the first eight months of Joe Biden’s presidency. Half a dozen different versions of the Biden Doctrine had been described by foreign policy commentators even before the president gave a major foreign policy speech.

Listen to this story

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on ios Where Android.

Analyzing the president’s campaign statements, some have suggested that the alleged doctrine was a return to the pre-Trump status quo, with a warm embrace from allies and international order. Other prognosticators, focusing on Mr. Biden’s skepticism of military intervention and his party’s protectionism, predicted a more diplomatic version of Donald Trump’s scatter cannon nativism. Some stressed the president’s interest in strengthening democracy; or his rhetoric about prioritizing policies that benefit American workers. How to make sense of all this? “Biden’s Doctrine of Everything” was the verdict of an essay in Foreign Affairs.

An alternative response might be to question the usefulness, as Gromyko did, of the competitive race to codify foreign policy in this way. Spreading this skeptical view around Washington, CC, this week has been embarrassing at times; several of the foreign policy experts Lexington consulted turned out to have written at least one column of the Biden Doctrine, if not three. Yet much of what they described will not only inevitably turn out to be wrong; it’s not really a doctrine at all.

Strategy experts, a rare breed in the Washington Menagerie, are raising the bar for the word. For them, it describes a declaration of national interests so fundamental that it is likely to survive multiple administrations and events. Only three foreign policy doctrines are considered to have reached this level. The first was the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a declaration of American primacy in the Western Hemisphere that is arguably still relevant today. The second was the Truman Doctrine, according to which America took responsibility for containing the Soviet Union. The third, less boldly articulated, was the post-Cold War belief in American hegemony that underpinned the foreign policies of the 1990s and 2000s.

This did not prevent the galloping inflation of the doctrine for many decades. Most presidents since Truman have been credited with a single doctrine, including all of the more recent ones. Although the content of the doctrines of Barack Obama and Donald Trump is still disputed. (A proponent of the so-called Trump doctrine, Michael Anton, suggests that it is summed up by a line from the Wizard of Oz: “There is no place like home.”) Most of these presidential doctrines cannot usefully be compared to the three fundamental doctrines, or even to each other.

For the most part, they represent relatively minor changes to the foreign policy status quo; or new methods to maintain it. The Eisenhower Doctrine extended containment to the Middle East; the Carter Doctrine decreed that America would use military might there if necessary. Many so-called doctrines also confuse presidential aspirations with results. Mr. Obama was above all anxious to avoid the mistakes of his predecessor. Mr. Trump’s nativism was less a guide to his foreign policy than his zeal to undo everything Mr. Obama had done. It is difficult to detect the strategic foundations that purists insist on in recent additions to the canon, such as the Bush Doctrine of Preventive War or the Clinton Doctrine, a commitment to expand the realm of democracy and human rights. .

Whether Gromyko was right to view Washington’s obsessive doctrine as an obstacle to good policy is debatable. But he clearly propagated a misleading notion of presidential power. Far from being the unfettered “chief decision-maker” that George W. Bush briefly was after 9/11, presidents tend to be almost as bound by public opinion in foreign affairs as they are at home. . So Franklin Roosevelt moved from isolationism to engagement as his majorities grew. But “of course, voters prefer not to take responsibility for their influence on foreign policy,” writes foreign policy expert Robert Kagan. “Hence the emphasis on the president.”

Another weakness of Washington’s foreign policy babbling is that, by elevating the mundane, it makes important moments in US and world affairs harder to identify. And (at the risk of contributing to the bloviating) now can be such a time.

American hegemony is over; China’s bid for supremacy in the Asia-Pacific region is inescapable. The failure of the “war on terror”, the aftershocks of which have distracted Mr. Bush’s two immediate successors, is no longer a priority. So it falls to Mr Biden, a long-standing foreign policy mess but arguably the first adult president of the post-unipolar era, to construct a heavy enough response. Containment cannot be his guide. Climate change and economic integration require much more cooperation between rival powers than during the Cold War. Meanwhile, the impetus to strengthen alliances is leading Australia to arm nuclear submarines, in part as a counterweight to China. And Mr. Biden’s ability to shape public opinion is limited.

The Truman Show

Strategy experts are in awe of the intellectual and political challenge this represents. “This is Truman level stuff,” says Andrew Krepinevich, a veteran strategist at the Pentagon and elsewhere. There is no doubt that tackling it is the administration’s priority; Senior Biden officials discuss the Chinese two-way challenge all the time. But again, lofty aspirations don’t predict positive outcomes. A Biden doctrine worthy of the name could still see the light of day. This is not yet the case.

For more information on Joe Biden’s presidency, visit our dedicated hub

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the title “Beware of False Doctrines.”


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/the-biden-doctrine-has-not-yet-emerged-beware-of-those-who-claim-otherwise/feed/ 0
Two NATO fighters accidentally flew behind the Iron Curtain 60 years ago today http://uaoc.net/two-nato-fighters-accidentally-flew-behind-the-iron-curtain-60-years-ago-today/ http://uaoc.net/two-nato-fighters-accidentally-flew-behind-the-iron-curtain-60-years-ago-today/#respond Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:41:15 +0000 http://uaoc.net/two-nato-fighters-accidentally-flew-behind-the-iron-curtain-60-years-ago-today/ While the American, British and French allies all maintained airports in the West Berlin enclave, these were closed to West German air traffic, military or otherwise, due to Four-Power regulations governing the divided city. Not expecting West German fighter jets to fly over East German territory, French air traffic controllers at Tegel Airport in the […]]]>

While the American, British and French allies all maintained airports in the West Berlin enclave, these were closed to West German air traffic, military or otherwise, due to Four-Power regulations governing the divided city. Not expecting West German fighter jets to fly over East German territory, French air traffic controllers at Tegel Airport in the French sector assumed that the Luftwaffe planes were civilian aircraft. lost and suggested they land at Tempelhof, the US air base in Berlin.

At Tempelhof, it appears the controllers were too busy with a Pan Am DC-6 airliner arriving from Frankfurt that they did not notice the Luftwaffe jets. However, once the presence of the lost airmen became evident, the Tempelhof controllers instead asked the Thunderstreaks to land at Tegel. As both pilots considered turning around and heading back west, Tempelhof controllers knew the MiGs were now chasing them and instructed the F-84Fs to descend over Berlin, aiming for Tegel. .

Not only did Tegel Airport have a much longer runway, it was also less frequented by other aircraft movements. Perhaps more importantly, it was further out of town than the centrally located Tempelhof, making the F-84Fs less likely to be spotted. After all, as West German aircraft, they were prohibited from entering the airspace over Berlin.

At 3:29 p.m. local time, the two Thunderstreaks landed at Tegel in the French sector of Berlin. Then begins a frantic effort to conceal the arrival of the jets, and they are quickly put in hangars. The French told the Soviet representative at the Allied Air Safety Center that the Tegel landing was an emergency, the result of an unforeseen technical failure.

Pfefferkorn and Eberl were undoubtedly lucky to come out unscathed. The downing of NATO planes that crossed borders in Warsaw Pact airspace was by no means unusual at this time. In 1964, a similar incident, in which a member of the US Air Force T-39 Sabreliner training jet flew in East German airspace, ended with the American jet being shot down by a MiG, and its three crew members were killed. Two years later, a similar fate fell on the US Air Force RB-66 Destroyer recon roll, although his crew survived.

As it stood, Pfefferkorn and Eberl, and their two jets, had escaped the attention of Warsaw Pact air defenses but had nevertheless created an international incident. The West German government in Bonn issued an apology, describing the incident as the result of “human and technical failure” and pointing to the failure of the compass system in both planes.

The Soviets were still unhappy, formally protesting what they called “premeditated provocation” and threatening to shoot down NATO planes if it happened again. It is a threat, as already noted, that they would follow through.

As for the F-84Fs, it was decided to leave them there. After being cannibalized for their engines and, ironically, their navigation systems, the jets were unceremoniously buried south of the Tegel runway.

The pilots, both arrested by French authorities due to their unplanned visit to Berlin, only returned home after nearly five weeks. Their mistake was to cost their careers dearly: both were demoted to ground crew roles. The situation of their commander, Oberstleutnant Siegfried Barth, who had flown for Nazi Germany during World War II, was, at least initially, even worse. He was relieved of his post until West German Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss gave in due to legal pressure and reinstated him.

Unsurprisingly, the implications of the incident have raised concerns in East and West Germany. In the east, the fact that two NATO planes flew to the capital without being stopped was alarming. For the West, questions were raised at the highest level as to how the F-84Fs had managed to penetrate so far into enemy airspace at a time of grave tension, when it was known that this could have resulted in their assassination or, worse yet, convincing the East Germans and the Soviets that they were under attack. As part of its response, the Luftwaffe said any subsequent incursion into Warsaw Pact airspace would result in the immediate dismissal of the responsible commander.

In a conflict punctuated by close calls and where the expansion of nuclear arsenals on both sides meant that the threat of annihilation was very real, the incident of September 14, 1961 was a reminder of how high the stakes were.

Contact the author: thomas@thedrive.com


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/two-nato-fighters-accidentally-flew-behind-the-iron-curtain-60-years-ago-today/feed/ 0
United States cannot blame Pakistan for failure in Afghanistan – The Diplomat http://uaoc.net/united-states-cannot-blame-pakistan-for-failure-in-afghanistan-the-diplomat/ http://uaoc.net/united-states-cannot-blame-pakistan-for-failure-in-afghanistan-the-diplomat/#respond Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:18:33 +0000 http://uaoc.net/united-states-cannot-blame-pakistan-for-failure-in-afghanistan-the-diplomat/ Advertising As the Taliban inflict a humiliating defeat on the United States after 20 years of nation-building efforts, with the rapid collapse of the Afghan government, some are desperate for a scapegoat. Since the announcement of the withdrawal of American forces, a vicious propaganda campaign has been launched against Pakistan, as the leaders of the […]]]>

As the Taliban inflict a humiliating defeat on the United States after 20 years of nation-building efforts, with the rapid collapse of the Afghan government, some are desperate for a scapegoat. Since the announcement of the withdrawal of American forces, a vicious propaganda campaign has been launched against Pakistan, as the leaders of the United States, Britain, Canada and Europe are unable to explain the loss of precious lives and billions of dollars over the past two decades. to their audience. Now that it is clear that these countries have accomplished nothing in Afghanistan, who will they blame? This is where Pakistan comes in.

The argument is simple: the Taliban have beaten the United States and Pakistan supports the Taliban. In this story, Pakistan is the juggernaut that helped the Taliban defeat Afghanistan. The narrative intentionally ignores the role of other neighboring countries, such as Iran, which supported the Taliban in Helmand to control the Helmand River, which provides water to a million people in Iran. Instead, the Taliban are described as a creation of Pakistan, which Pakistan continues to fund with the roughly $ 30 billion it has received from the United States since 2001. Ironically, the $ 1 trillion spent by the United States in Afghanistan during the same period failed to reverse the effect of the $ 30 billion given to Pakistan.

This fairy tale propagated in the Western media aims to mask the real causes that fueled the resistance movement, which point to what was previously called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. ISAF was commonly referred to as “I Saw Americans Fighting” by American forces, because the other countries of the Western Alliance never believed in the American project and never engaged in combat. The British tried for a short time but quickly backed down, handing all responsibility for the response back to the United States, as their withdrawal from Sangin in 2010. symbolized as these foreign soldiers dreamed of returning home thousands of miles away far away, for the Taliban – a local and indigenous insurgency – Afghanistan is their home. This lack of engagement in combat, further compounded by the “green-on-blue attacks” by Afghan forces, has resulted in non-US ISAF forces spending most of their time inside their bases. . This is one of the many reasons the West was never going to win.

Another factor that contributed to the defeat was the United States’ local Afghan partners, according to the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Reconstruction of Afghanistan (SIGAR), an office established by the United States Congress to monitor spending. Americans in Afghanistan. SIGAR’s annual reports often contained scathing criticism of the Afghan government. He said the corruption of US Afghan partners was key to undermining US strategic goals. Washington had allied itself with criminal warlords who committed heinous crimes against the local population, but they were allowed to behave with impunity simply because they were America’s partners.

A classic example was Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of former Afghan President Hamid Karzai. On the CIA payroll, he was the epitome of corruption and criminality, as he ravaged the local population. Warlords like Wali Karzai allowed the Taliban to take control of the rural districts, which are home to the majority of the Afghan population. Local population saw the Taliban as a better alternative to the rulers imposed on them by the United States. Even before the announcement of the US withdrawal, the Taliban controlled much of Afghanistan, running their own shadow government. According to US estimates, in 2018 the Afghan government controlled only 54% of Afghan districts.

Do you like this article ? Click here to subscribe for full access. Only $ 5 per month.

When it comes to funding the Taliban, the West continues to focus on the $ 30 billion given to Pakistan over 20 years, ignoring the $ 144 billion spent on rebuilding Afghanistan, some of which has instead benefited governments. Taliban because of corruption in the Afghan government. In addition, the Taliban collected tax revenues in areas they controlled and financed their resistance through drug trafficking. Due to the localized nature of the Taliban, they were adept at developing and maintaining their own sources of funds, without the need for significant outside assistance. Despite the availability of this information, the focus seems to be on financing Pakistan.

However, the single most important factor behind the Taliban’s success was the occupation itself – the presence of people on Afghan land who did not belong. This fact alone made ordinary Afghans join the Taliban. The occupying forces brutalized the Afghans in nocturnal raids, despised them and regarded them as belonging to an inferior culture. For the imperialist, the occupation is their gift to the “uncivilized”. Such men can never understand the unworthiness of the occupation or the real cause of their failure: their very existence as armed invaders in a foreign land, where they have never been welcomed. The United States gave itself an impossible mission in Afghanistan and when that failed, they looked for every excuse, when they only had to look in the mirror. It took two decades for Americans to realize they were the fuel for the fire, and the only solution was to back down.

Unfortunately, Pakistan cannot withdraw as it shares a border of over 2,600 kilometers with Afghanistan. He doesn’t have the luxury of packing up and leaving like the Soviet Union or the United States. Instead, Islamabad must strive for the best possible outcome for itself, given the actions of the foreign invaders who have devastated Afghanistan. Indeed, over the past five decades, Pakistan has reacted only to the realities created by the world superpowers, first with the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and then later by the United States. United. He had little choice in either case, for his politics were dictated by existential concerns.

If the Soviet occupation of landlocked Afghanistan had been successful, Pakistan would have come next, providing the Soviets with access to warm waters. Pakistan had no choice but to support the Mojahedin resistance. Likewise, when the United States invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan lent assistance, leading to an early victory. But then the United States opened Afghanistan to India – Pakistan’s deadly enemy – before signing a nuclear deal with India, signaling it as the United States’ new strategic partner in the region. Pakistan now faces the threat of strategic encirclement. Once again, the choice of Pakistan had been made for him, by another superpower.

In response, Pakistan has increased its cooperation with China and has never looked back. The United States must have understood that Pakistan is not going to act against its own interests, creating an existential threat by empowering India in Afghanistan, at the behest of a superpower that abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal in the United States. 1990s. Ironically, the consequence of the abandonment of Afghanistan by the United States in the early 1990s paved the way for the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban.

Contrary to popular opinion, Pakistan did not create the Taliban, only deciding to support the group after they seemed likely to succeed against the Mujahedin. The Taliban put an end to the brutal civil war of the 1990s. Their only demand in Pakistan at the time was not to support the Mujahedin against the Taliban and not to disrupt their supply lines. Pakistan accepted the request, asking the Taliban to ensure that India is not allowed to use Afghanistan as a base to attack Pakistan under Taliban rule.

This was exactly the request made by Pakistan to the United States after the invasion of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, after the initial success in Afghanistan and Iraq, as the United States began to focus on China, it decided to ally with India to counter China and their relationship with Pakistan was damaged. the victims. Washington continued to ask Pakistan to “do more” while rewarding India, and thus lost Pakistan as an ally in Afghanistan. The United States has made its most important ally in Afghanistan a rival, albeit implicitly. Just as President George W. Bush lost Iran’s support for Afghanistan by calling them the “axis of evil,” so the United States lost Pakistan by failing to maintain balance in the country. their relations between India and Pakistan.

Despite the above, a $ 20 trillion economy continues to blame a $ 300 billion economy for its own failures. It might help American politicians to generate support for the policies against Pakistan, but it will not change the situation in Afghanistan. Pakistan was a factor, but by no means the most important, in the early Taliban takeover. The main reason for resistance had always been foreign occupation, and even without Pakistani support, the Taliban would have survived and prospered. However, a true alliance with Pakistan would have allowed the United States to withdraw sooner, at a lower cost in terms of lives and money, and with a significantly better post-war arrangement in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, it is time for the United States to realize that it cannot force Pakistan to act against its own interests or hold it accountable for its own failures. And if it continues down this path, its relationship with Pakistan could only worsen, as the United States focuses its attention on its Chinese competitor, having eliminated the distractions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have allowed China two decades of unhindered growth. As China’s closest ally, Pakistan will continue to challenge the United States for decades to come.

However, if Washington is to change the math, then it must start by ending the propaganda campaign against Pakistan and accepting the consequences of its policies, which forced Pakistan to recalibrate its position on Afghanistan and pushed it. in the arms of China. Continuing to slander Pakistan has not worked for the past two decades. Expecting that to change would be the definition of insanity.


Source link

]]>
http://uaoc.net/united-states-cannot-blame-pakistan-for-failure-in-afghanistan-the-diplomat/feed/ 0