On Our "Virtual Route 66" : On the Week That Was In Our World

It has been quite a week.   Our team captured this visitor as we were in Community this week.

Russia's war with Ukraine has continued with no apparent end in sight.   This is as Russia continues threats against all who continue to participate in Sanctions as Russia has been kicked out of Swift, the US stopped its most favored trading status, and Russia's friends (including North Korea and Syria)  tried to be a conduit for Russian propaganda.   We released the first major interview between Putin's spokesman and SkyNews in our Weekly Perspective Property on Saturday.  China continues to maintain a curious silence as Chinse State Media serves as a conduit to pass on continued Russian Disinformation.  

The extent of the challenges by Russia is reflected by the power of Swift.  Swift, the international exchange managing daily transactions around the world, handles around 5 Trillion Dollars a day.   Chinese Alternative to Swift, CIPS (set up in 2015) is estimated to handle about 800 Trillion a Year-MIR, the Russian alternative, is even lower.    As such, Russia will continue to have profound challenges.    Beyond Russia, we have been assessing the Middle East as Yemen and the coalition led by Saudi Arabia have declared a 2-month truce and as Israel's Prime Minister has lost its' governing majority.  We also have been assessing the updates out of Pakistan as the Pakistan Supreme Court has restored Parliament which will in high probability hold a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, Imran Khan.

We present a curated snapshot of the week that was  with thoughts from GZero; Heather Cox Richardson; Financial Times; The Economist; The Atlantic Council; Haeertz and some closing thoughts courtesy of the Daily Stoic: 

Global Economy Vladimir Putin is taking global markets back to the noughties Russia’s war in Ukraine has revived the market preoccupation with central banks’ foreign reserves APRIL 9, 2022 by Katie Martin Politics Putin’s long shadow hangs over an unpredictable French election Le Pen closes in on Macron as the cost of living crisis trumps Ukraine in voters’ priorities APRIL 9, 2022 by Sylvie Kauffmann

Heather Cox Richardson

Today, former president Barack Obama returned to the White House at President Joe Biden’s invitation to talk about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare. He noted there have been changes in the White House since he left in 2017. For one thing, “[t]here’s a cat running around,” he joked, “which I guarantee you [his family’s dogs] Bo and Sunny would have been very unhappy about.”

Obama signed the ACA into law in 2010. Today, 31 million Americans have healthcare coverage thanks to it. They can’t be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. The ACA has lowered prescription drug costs for 12 million seniors, and it has enabled young people to stay on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26. It’s eliminated lifetime limits on benefits.

Republicans have loathed the ACA since Obama signed it into law in 2010. This is a modern-day stance, by the way: it was actually Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who first proposed universal healthcare at the beginning of the twentieth century, and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who first tried to muscle such a program into being with the help of the new department created under him: the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which in 1979 became the Department of Health and Human Services. Its declared mission was “improving the health, safety, and well-being of America.” In contrast to their forebears, today’s Republicans do not believe the government has such a role to play.

Last month, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) said the Republicans’ goal is to obstruct Biden and the Democrats until they retake power, and then immediately make good on old promises like repealing the ACA. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL), chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has proposed sunsetting all laws after five years and then passing the popular ones again. Since Republicans kill all social welfare bills with the filibuster, it’s not hard to imagine that Scott has the Affordable Care Act in his sights.

Enrollment in healthcare coverage under the ACA is at a record high since Biden took office, since he helped to push enrollment by opening special enrollment periods and dramatically increasing outreach. The law is popular: a poll last month by healthcare analysts Kaiser showed that 55% of Americans like it while 42% do not.

Today, Biden signed an executive order to increase outreach and coverage still further, and to urge Congress to deal with the “family glitch” in the law that determines eligibility for subsidies based on whether the primary enrollee can afford coverage for herself, rather than for her family. Fixing this glitch would lower costs for about 1 million Americans and open up coverage for another 200,000.

Before the signing, Obama, Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris used the ACA to talk about the difference between the two parties.

Harris noted that “the ACA is the most consequential healthcare legislation passed in generations in our country” and that it was more than just a law, it was “a statement of purpose; a statement about the nation we must be, where all people—no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn—can access the healthcare they need, no matter the cost.”

She called on Congress to pass legislation that would let Medicare directly negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies (as every other developed country does). With 60 million people enrolled in Medicare, the program would have significant bargaining power to negotiate prices.

The vice president also called on the 12 states refusing to expand Medicaid to do so, enrolling the 4 million people who are now excluded. Acknowledging those people determined to take away abortion rights, she noted that women without medical care during pregnancy are significantly more likely to die than those who do have it.

Obama then explained why the Democrats worked so hard to begin the process of getting healthcare coverage for Americans. “[W]e’re not supposed to do this just to occupy a seat or to hang on to power,” he said. “We’re supposed to do this because it’s making a difference in the lives of the people who sent us here.”

The ACA shows, he said, that “if you are driven by the core idea that, together, we can improve the lives of this generation and the next, and if you’re persistent—if you stay with it and are willing to work through the obstacles and the criticism and continually improve where you fall short, you can make America better—you can have an impact on millions of lives.”

Then Biden took the podium before signing the executive order, adding that passing the ACA was about dignity. It was about the “countless Americans lying in bed at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering, ‘My God—my God, what if I get really sick? What am I going to do? What is my family going to do? Will I lose the house?’ Discussions we had in my house with my dad when he lost his health insurance—’Who’s going to pay for it? Who’s going to take care of my family?’”

He warned that the Republicans want to get rid of the law. “[P]ay very close attention, folks,” he said. “If Republicans have their way, it means 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions can once again be denied healthcare coverage by their insurance companies. That’s what the law was before Obamacare. In addition, tens of millions of Americans could lose their coverage, including young people who will no longer be able to stay on their parents’ insurance policy to age 26. Premiums are going to go through the roof.”

“Instead of destroying the Affordable Care Act,” he said, “let’s keep building on it.”

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to double down on the culture wars that whip up their base. By a vote of 70 to 14, the Oklahoma legislature has just passed a Republican bill making it illegal for doctors to perform an abortion unless the patient’s life is in danger. Violating the law carries a punishment of up to 10 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. There was little discussion of the measure, since lawmakers unexpectedly added it to the agenda Monday night.

Abortion is a constitutional right, defined by the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. It is also popular in the U.S., with about 60% of Americans supporting Roe v. Wade and about 75% believing that abortion access should be between a woman and her doctor. Only 20% say that access should be regulated by law.

Those culture wars are pushing today’s right wing toward authoritarianism as they seek to enforce their views on the rest of the country.

Today, as we learned of more atrocities by Russian troops in Ukraine, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution that called on the U.S. government to uphold the founding democratic principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO): “individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.” Since those values “face external threats from authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China and internal threats from proponents of illiberalism,” and since NATO countries have called for a recommitment to the founding values of the alliance, the resolution supports the establishment of a Center for Democratic Resilience within NATO headquarters. The resolution reaffirmed the House’s “unequivocal support” for NATO.

The resolution was introduced by Gerry Connolly (D-VA), who sits on both the Foreign Affairs and Government Oversight Committees, and had 35 other cosponsors from both parties. The vote in favor was bipartisan, with 219 Democrats and 142 Republicans voting yes. After all, what’s there to oppose in a nod to democratic values and diplomacy, when Ukraine is locked in a deadly battle to defend itself against an invasion and brutal occupation by Russian forces directed by authoritarian Russian president Vladimir Putin?

Sixty-three Republicans—those who tend to support former president Trump—voted against the resolution.

How Will the Russia-Ukraine War Reshape the World? Here are four possible futures. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of choice in Ukraine is a world-historical event, marking the final act of the post-Cold War period and the start of a new era, yet unwritten. The spectrum of possible outcomes ranges from a volatile new cold or hot war involving the United States, Russia, and China; to a frozen conflict in Ukraine; to a post-Putin settlement in which Russia becomes part of a revised European security architecture. How Will the Russia-Ukraine War Reshape the World? outlines four scenarios for how this war could conclude and the alternative geopolitical futures that might result, transforming international relations over the course of the next two to three years. These scenarios were developed not to predict the future but to help decision makers imagine what could happen next and devise ways to prevent the worst case.

Read more

Biden Has Laid Out a New Vision for Democracies to Succeed. Here’s How to Implement It. In his recent speech in Warsaw, Biden described Putin's brazen assault on Ukraine not only as a threat to European security but as “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.” He added: “We need to steel ourselves for the long fight ahead.” Biden Has Laid Out a New Vision for Democracies to Succeed. Here’s How to Implement It. argues that Biden’s address could be the most consequential foreign-policy speech of his presidency, serving to frame the United States’ role in the world and its relationship with allies for years to come.

Read more

How NATO Can Curb Russia’s Chemical Weapons Threat Amid growing speculation that Russia could employ chemical weapons in its war against Ukraine, NATO has collectively voiced its concern over such an escalation, saying it would “result in severe consequences.” The Alliance has also pledged to increase protective equipment for Ukraine while enhancing its readiness against any chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. But how serious are the chemical threats, and what exactly should NATO do to prepare? How NATO Can Curb Russia’s Chemical Weapons Threat argues that, to preempt Russia’s use of chemical weapons, the United States and its NATO allies must publicly demonstrate that the West takes this threat seriously and are prepared to respond.

Read more

Reality Check #11: America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy Requires Tough Choices In a world of intensifying great-power competition, limited resources require painful choices. The Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy largely avoids these hard decisions about whether to pursue national interests or values, whether to prioritize economic statecraft or domestic political concerns, and how to reconcile political objectives with constraints on national resources and coalition-building. Reality Check #11: America’s Indo-Pacific Strategy Requires Tough Choices offers three recommendations to policymakers as the administration continues to build its Indo-Pacific agenda.

Read more

World In Bucha, grisly work begins of gathering evidence of atrocities Ukrainian authorities show foreign media some of tragedies uncovered after Russian withdrawal from around Kyiv APRIL 4, 2022 by Roman Olearchyk in Motyzhyn and Bucha and Andres Schipani in Kyiv Looking in the side-mirror Omicron is dealing a big blow to China’s economy For a timely take, analysts are turning to unconventional indicators 1843 magazine What Vladimir Putin misunderstood about Ukrainians Russia’s president thought Ukraine would fold when invaded. History shows its people come together in adversity The Economist explains A new IPCC report says the window to meet UN climate targets is vanishing Emissions must peak by 2025 to keep global warming well below the 2°C limit set by the Paris agreement Hungary’s election Viktor Orban’s victory is a triumph for illiberal nationalism After an unfair fight, the opposition parties start to blame each other Schumpeter Is cancel culture coming to free trade? The risks from Russia extend to globalisation

GZERO World with Ian Bremmer     Is Putin's war in Ukraine genocide?   Maybe, but it's hard to prove and even harder to punish.   Ian Bremmer Apr 06   Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO World with Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week. Like this newsletter? Share it with others you think would enjoy it, too. Over the weekend, as Ukrainian forces retook the Kyiv region and Russian troops began retreating to (and expanding fighting in) eastern and southern Ukraine, gruesome images emerged of dead civilians littering the streets of Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. According to Ukrainian officials and independent reports, the victims included not just fighting-age men, but countless women, children, and elderly people. Hundreds had been allegedly beaten, raped, tortured, and tied up by Russian soldiers before being executed and left to rot on the street, buried in mass graves, or burned. Others were shot in the back and killed while riding their bikes and carrying groceries, for no apparent military reason. Twitter See @Podolyak_M's post on Twitter. twitter.com/Podolyak_M The bodies of more than 400 civilians have been recovered from towns surrounding Kyiv that were recently under Russian occupation so far, according to Ukraine’s prosecutor-general Iryna Venediktova. Russia has denied responsibility for the killings, claiming (without evidence) that they occurred after its soldiers withdrew from the area and were staged by Ukrainian forces as a “provocation.” Russia’s Defense Ministry said that "not a single civilian has faced any violent action by the Russian military" in Bucha. However, satellite images and eyewitness and survivor accounts suggest that the atrocities were in fact committed by occupying Russian troops in the weeks prior to their retreat from the region. Twitter See @ianbremmer's post on Twitter. twitter.com/ianbremmer Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who visited Bucha on Monday, called the Russian actions there a “genocide” against the Ukrainian people and nation. "We are citizens of Ukraine, and we don’t want to be subdued to the policy of [Russia]," he said in an interview with CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday. "This is the reason we are being destroyed and exterminated." Not everyone in the international community shares Zelensky’s assessment. President Biden condemned the killings and called for an international investigation and a trial of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he had called a “war criminal” weeks before reports of the Bucha massacre emerged. "[Putin] is brutal and what's happening in Bucha is outrageous and everyone's seen it," Biden said on Monday. However, while he and his national security advisor Jake Sullivan described the murders as “war crimes,” they refused to classify them as genocide, saying the US had “not yet seen a level of systematic deprivation of life of the Ukrainian people” that would warrant the designation. [INSTA POST OF BIDEN COMMENTS] So did NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. "It is a brutality against civilians we haven't seen in Europe for decades, and it's horrific and it's absolutely unacceptable that civilians are targeted and killed," Stoltenberg told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. Most other Western leaders have also denounced the killings as war crimes, with German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock calling for those responsible to be held accountable, UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss demanding an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation, and French President Emmanuel Macron tweeting that “the Russian authorities will have to answer for these crimes.” What’s the difference between war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide? International law considers an army to have committed “war crimes” if it is found to have intentionally and knowingly killed, mutilated, raped, tortured, deported, imprisoned, or otherwise mistreated civilians and certain types of combatants (e.g., captured, surrendered, wounded) in the course of war. “Crimes against humanity” are defined as comprising similar acts (e.g., murder, torture, rape, etc.) but only “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack” and “in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack.” That’s a higher bar. Finally, “genocide” encompasses a more limited set of acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” including: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Both war crimes and crimes against humanity refer to the targeting of individuals. The main difference between these two types of crime is one of scale and organizational premeditation. By contrast, genocide entails an effort to destroy a particular group of people. It is considered the gravest crime under international law. What happened in Bucha? There’s little doubt that Ukrainian civilians were unlawfully murdered by Russian forces in Bucha. At a minimum, these actions constitute war crimes, since it’s evident that many of those killed weren’t combatants and were not killed as part of a military operation. Twitter See @amnesty's post on Twitter. twitter.com/amnesty The key open questions are how widespread and systematic the Russian crimes are, how high up the responsibility for them goes, and whether the victims were targeted as individuals who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or as members of a national group (Ukrainians) that the perpetrators intended to destroy by virtue of belonging to such group. The first question is likely to be answered in the coming weeks, as more parts of Ukraine are (hopefully) liberated from Russian control and further evidence of atrocities comes to light. Already we’ve seen a pattern of horrific abuses committed by Russian troops against civilians in many of the towns they occupied aside from Bucha. Twitter See @PaulSonne's post on Twitter. twitter.com/PaulSonne Regarding the question of responsibility, given the way the Russian state works, it is plausible that President Putin himself ordered or acquiesced to the commission of the crimes. Proving that is another matter entirely. As for the third question, there’s not enough evidence to say one way or the other (yet). Could the facts on the ground we’ve seen so far be consistent with genocide? Sure. But they are also consistent with war crimes and crimes against humanity, and in no way can physical evidence be probative of genocidal intent. Twitter See @sumlenny's post on Twitter. twitter.com/sumlenny What might, however, be suggestive of it are certain Russian state-sanctioned statements that speak to the motivations behind the campaign in Ukraine. Such is the case of an article titled “What Russia must do with Ukraine” published in the Russian state-owned outlet RIA Novosti on April 3, which lays out a case for why the “de-nazification” of Ukraine—one of Russia’s primary objectives in the war—necessarily requires “de-Ukrainianization”. In other words, the elimination of the Ukrainian nation. If this document reflects the Kremlin’s thinking, then it’d be evidence, albeit not conclusive evidence, of genocidal intent. But short of that, judgement should be withheld. Intent can be incredibly difficult to figure out even with the benefit of hindsight, and we are still very much in the fog of war. This is a question for tomorrow’s historians. Could Putin be brought to justice? The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute in 1998, is the body with jurisdiction over individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Neither Russia, Ukraine, nor the US are state parties to the ICC (which makes the legitimacy of US government claims of war crimes more challenging), but Ukraine did accept the jurisdiction of the court over crimes committed on its territory following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of the Donbas in 2014. This means that technically, the ICC has the authority to go after any atrocities Russia may have committed in Ukraine since then. In fact, in late February (before Bucha), the ICC opened an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. And on March 4, the UN Human Rights Council established an independent inquiry commission to investigate alleged Russian human rights violations in Ukraine. Yet war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide have all been historically difficult charges to investigate and prosecute. It’s hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a given act intentionally and knowingly targeted civilians, and it’s even more challenging to determine who along the chain of command was responsible or complicit. Tying high-ranking officials like President Putin to the crimes would require strong evidence, such as direct orders or eyewitness testimony, linking the officials to the crimes in question. Even if Putin and/or other high-level officials could be shown to have ordered or been aware of the crimes, the ICC has no jurisdiction to arrest people in Russian territory. Since international criminal trials cannot occur in absentia, Putin or other Russian officials would have to be arrested in a country that accepts the jurisdiction of the court before they could be brought to trial. It's accordingly unlikely that Putin ever does jail time for his crimes in Ukraine as long as he remains in power. That’s not to say that he can’t be deposed and extradited by a future, more human rights-minded Russian government. Remember, there’s no statute of limitations for war crimes. Do these labels even matter? Practically, not much, for the reasons explained above. But symbolically, casting a world leader as a war criminal carries meaningful policy consequences. For one, it projects moral clarity and sends a message to the victims and perpetrators that what happened is beyond the pale of acceptable international norms and standards. It ensures that Putin’s break with the West is complete and irreversible. And it pressures the international community into acting more aggressively to bring about an end to the war, at the same time as it lowers the odds of a negotiated settlement and sanctions relief for Russia. Global Economy Shanghai lockdown ‘will have a global effect on almost every trade’ Restrictions across Chinese cities create a logistics logjam, threatening greater economic fallout APRIL 7, 2022 by Thomas Hale and Gloria Li in Hong Kong, Harry Dempsey in London and Eleanor Olcott in Taipei

News and views from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

Haaretz Most Read View in browser

Zelenskyy Says Post-war Ukraine Will Emulate Israel, Won’t Be ‘Liberal, European’ Sam Sokol | 05.04.2022     Israel's Ruling Coalition Loses Majority as Whip Steps Down Noa Shpigel, Michael Hauser Tov, Yossi Verter, Jonathan Lis, Josh Breiner | 06.04.2022

Martin Wolf America and China — the defining relationship Competitive co-operation or containment? Two books set out opposing views on how the US should approach its superpower rival APRIL 7, 2022 by Martin Wolf

Global Economy Will the mighty US dollar follow sterling’s path to obscurity? Modern lessons from the UK currency’s surprisingly slow but irresistible loss of the global reserve currency crown. APRIL 7, 2022 by Claire Jones

Ex-Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino held in contempt of Congress

The House voted largely along party lines to hold former senior Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the Jan. 6 select committee’s subpoenas on Wednesday. Read the full story here.

For a Lasting Peace, Europe Must Embrace Russia
By John Nagl and Paul Yingling

Russia, a great power inhabited by a great people, now stands humiliated on the world stage. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a crime against peace, and his conduct of that war is a crime against humanity. Putin may be adept at poisoning opponents and jailing dissenters, but his army cannot refuel tanks or fight at night. Having failed to conquer Ukraine in a swift coup de main, Russia turned to bombing hospitals and daycare centers in a failed effort to terrorize the indomitable Ukrainian population. Putin’s aggression has been rendered impotent by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a Churchill in an OD green t-shirt. 

Read more »

World Pakistan’s supreme court puts Imran Khan back on the brink Prime minister faces political demise after judges block bid to dissolve parliament APRIL 8, 2022 by Chloe Cornish in Mumbai and Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

Politics Emmanuel Macron reckons with anger and apathy as polling day looms President’s path to re-election complicated by abstentions and the lure of far-right and hard-left candidates APRIL 8, 2022 by Victor Mallet in Spézet and Sarah White in Douai

World Navalny documentary maker: ‘He believes Putin will fall and he will run for president’ Daniel Roher on how his thrilling film about the jailed Russian dissident came together in extreme circumstances APRIL 8, 2022 by Danny Leigh

Finland in fast lane to join NATO as war in Ukraine rages RZESZOW, Poland — Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempt to overthrow the Ukrainian government has spurred Finland into the fast lane to join NATO in defiance of Russian threats and Kremlin pressure to force a practical contraction of the trans-Atlantic alliance. Read the full story here. We close this edition of our weekly "Virtual Route 66" with the following: The last few years have shown us aspects of humanity, not-small parts of society, that repulse many of us. The events that have come to define these years have revealed the racists and the treasonous, the callous and the stupid. We’ve watched nihilists burn down our buildings and try to shut down our governments. We’ve watched anti-vaxxers and COVID-deniers overwhelm our hospitals and morgues. We’ve watched the self-righteous and the out-of-touch embarrass themselves with stupid slogans and impossibly wrongheaded policies. And? This surprises you? You need to remember: These people have always existed. Every era has had them. But more than that, as the Stoics would remind you, every era must have them. “All of us are working on the same project,” Marcus Aurelius writes in Meditations. “Some consciously, with understanding; some without knowing it. Some of us work in one way, and some in others. And those who complain and try to obstruct and thwart things…the world needs them too.” The world needs these types for many reasons. First, because a diversity of opinion is, in the aggregate, better than homogeneity. Second, because the obnoxious and the shameless and the evil do more for us than we think. They remind us of what virtue is. They give us something to struggle against. They prevent us from becoming complacent. They illustrate the terrible costs of being like them. They are, as Marcus Aurelius’s famous passage about obstacles was written about, the adversity that shows us the way. By all means, fight against them. By all means, denounce what they represent. Just don’t buy the fantasy that they can ever be made to disappear. They can’t. And they shouldn’t. We need them. And they need us.