Re: Blues for Europa
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 2:52 pm
Romania’s Draft Law On Dispatching Troops To Protect Its Compatriots Abroad Is Aimed At Moldova
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 04, 2024
There’s been talk since Moldova’s independence of merging with Romania on the basis of their shared ethno-linguistic heritage and to return to the latter’s interwar “natural” borders. Some also speculate that Moldovan President Maia Sandu and her team are dual citizens of Romania who are secretly trying to advance what they regard as the reunification of their countries.
The Romanian Ministry of Defense recently tabled a draft law that would allow the armed forces to intervene abroad in defense of their compatriots. This move is likely aimed against Moldova, where over 1.3 million people have Romanian citizenship due to their shared ethno-linguistic heritage, and not Ukraine despite the Romanian minority there being persecuted for not joining Kiev’s new “church”. It comes amidst the possibility of Russia achieving a military breakthrough across the front lines this year.
In that event, France and/or Poland might lead a conventional NATO intervention in order to prevent Russia from crossing the Dnieper, during which time Romania could annex Moldova on the pretext of defending its compatriots from Transnistrian-emanating Russian threats. Those moves would solidify Western military influence in the erstwhile USSR’s southwestern periphery and could be spun as a major victory ahead of Ukraine’s asymmetrical partition for ending the “war” as part of a compromise.
For as smoothly as some might imagine that these events would unfold, they’re actually fraught with danger since Russian missile strikes on the encroaching conventional NATO forces could be exploited by the bloc’s nuclear-armed members to flirt with World War III. Any NATO attack against Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria or the bloc’s backing of a large-scale Ukrainian one could also prompt the Kremlin to threaten nuclear retaliation in self-defense per its related doctrine and international law.
The same goes for if Romania annexes Moldova and Transnistria is then blockaded as blackmail to coerce a Russian military withdrawal. That unrecognized separatist entity that officially wants to join the Russian Federation but has thus far been rebuffed therefore functions as a tripwire for a wider war, which is why all developments in its region should be watched very carefully in case they risk spiking this scenario. It’s within this very sensitive context that the Romanian Ministry of Defense just tabled their draft law.
There’s been talk since Moldova’s independence of merging with Romania on the basis of their shared ethno-linguistic heritage and to return to the latter’s interwar “natural” borders. Some also speculate that Moldovan President Maia Sandu and her team are dual citizens of Romania who are secretly trying to advance what they regard as the reunification of their countries. Of likely relevance, she also agreed to a security pact with France early last month too, which already has troops and tanks in Romania.
The last-mentioned facts enable France to swiftly intervene in both Moldova and Ukraine, the first of which could see it carry out a joint operation with Romania, and it’s these possibilities that might have been touched upon by the French and Russian Defense Ministers during Wednesday’s conversation. The latter warned his counterpart that conventionally intervening in Ukraine could create problems for France itself, thus hinting that Russia would indeed strike the encroaching forces and not back off.
It's also important to mention that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told Sputnik the day after that “As a result of the adventurous actions of even one or two NATO member states, the Ukrainian crisis could go beyond its geographic boundaries and reach a completely different scale.” This remark probably isn’t limited to the scenario of a French conventional intervention in Ukraine but possibly also the complementary one of a Romanian and/or joint French intervention in Moldova.
Both scenarios risk a wider war since they could each lead to NATO-Russian clashes, with the Ukrainian one likely beginning with Russian missiles strikes on the encroaching NATO forces while the Moldovan one could start with a shootout along the Dniester if Transnistria is attacked, blockaded, or threatened. For however strongly some Romanians might feel about annexing/reunifying with Moldova, they’re therefore advised against it lest their country unwittingly becomes responsible for sparking a wider war.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/romanias ... ispatching
The Polish Reaction To Israel’s Bombing Of Foreign Aid Volunteers Isn’t “Anti-Semitic”
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 04, 2024
The Israeli Ambassador's scandalous tweet condemning those Poles who disagree with his government’s official story of this three-stage missile attack as “anti-Semites” was extremely offensive not only in and of itself, but also due to the continued Polish-Israeli dispute over responsibility for the Holocaust.
Israeli Ambassador to Poland Yacov Livne sparked an international scandal after tweeting that those Poles who describe his country’s bombing of foreign aid volunteers as “intentional murder” are “anti-Semites”. The IDF apologized for what it said was a “misidentification” after its forces carried out a three-stage missile strike against the World Central Kitchen’s convoy in Gaza. They were traveling along an agreed-upon route with clear identification, however, which is why many believe this was intentional.
Polish society is so vocal about what happened because one of their compatriots was killed during the attack. Livne’s tweet condemning those of them who disagree with his government’s official story as “anti-Semites” was extremely offensive not only in and of itself, but also due to the continued Polish-Israeli dispute over responsibility for the Holocaust. In brief, Israel believes that Poles as a whole are as guilty as the Nazis are, while the Poles themselves remind Israel that they were also the Nazis’ victims.
Interested readers can learn more about this issue here since it’s beyond the scope of the present analysis, but it’s important to add that while bonafide anti-Semitism exists in all societies just like other forms of bigotry do, what’s oftentimes described as “anti-Semitism” in Polish society is anything but. The Commonwealth elite’s reliance on Jews as property managers, tax collectors, and money lenders made that group unpopular with the locals for socio-economic reasons, not ethno-religious ones.
Israel’s historically revisionist twisting of negative Polish views about Jews over the centuries as supposedly being driven by ethno-religious bigotry instead of genuine socio-economic reasons is meant to manipulate foreign perceptions about them in order to blame Poles for the Holocaust. They also ignore the disproportionate Jewish representation in the “Polish People’s Republic’s” brutal secret police during that Soviet-imposed entity’s early years to lie that “anti-Semitism” continued after World War II.
About that, many of the interwar Second Polish Republic’s Jews were impoverished contrary to false stereotypes about what had at that time been the largest Jewish country in the world, which predisposed them to “revolutionary” ideologies like communism. Their involvement in the aforementioned secret police that were imposed onto Poland as part of the Western Allies’ “Neo-Realist” Faustian deal with the USSR was for political reasons, not ethno-religious supremacist ones.
It's therefore equally bigoted for Poles to blame all Jews for the crimes committed against them during the “Polish People’s Republic” as it is for Jews to blame all Poles for the crimes committed against them during the Holocaust. While many Poles realize this, many Israeli Jews still do not, hence why they still blame Poles as a whole for the Holocaust just because a few rogue ones sold some Jews out to the Nazis despite the Underground State’s death penalty against those Poles that betrayed their compatriots.
This extremely emotive context explains why Poles are so offended whenever they’re accused of “anti-Semitism”, the false claim of which Livne doubled down on in an interview shortly after his infamous tweet by smearing pro-Palestinian marches in Poland as “anti-Semitic demonstrations”. He also dodged a question about legal accountability for those IDF members who participated in the three-stage missile strike and whether the Polish victim’s families would receive any compensation from Israel.
His remarks infuriated Poles even more since they implied that perhaps their compatriot deserved to be killed because he might have supposedly been an “anti-Semite”, hence why Livne didn’t promise that those responsible would be held to account or that his family would receive compensation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s dismissive attitude earlier on Wednesday when he downplayed the attack as something that “happens in war” during a short video statement was also very offensive.
His Polish counterpart Donald Tusk tweeted the following in response: “Mr. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Mr. Ambassador Livne, the vast majority of Poles showed full solidarity with Israel after the Hamas attack. Today you are putting this solidarity to a really hard test. The tragic attack on volunteers and your reaction arouse understandable anger.” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also reacted earlier in the day to Livne’s tweet in a strongly worded statement that went as follows:
“I would advise the Israeli ambassador to Poland to exercise more restraint and humility. This is the time for him to apologize rather than to inflame emotions.
If it is true what the Israeli press writes, that a humanitarian convoy was deliberately attacked, thinking that there might have been one terrorist there, but one who did not pose an immediate threat to a large group of people, then I do not know of an ethical system in which this is justified, and it arouses my moral indignation.
There was a willingness to sacrifice the lives of seven civilians in order to kill one terrorist, then Israel should apologize for this and pay compensation.”
Livne was also summoned to the Polish Foreign Ministry to discuss the “new situation in Polish-Israeli relations and the moral, political and financial responsibility” according to Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Sejna. Despite all these official statements of displeasure that he himself was directly aware of, Livne still behaved as shamefully as he did during his interview later that day, thus prompting a sharp condemnation from Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz:
“The Israeli ambassador's interview, full of arrogance, proves that there is no reflection in his attitude. As a country, we say clearly: we demand a thorough and objective explanation of the case and compensation for the family of the victim - a volunteer who helped another person and who should never be the target of an attack.”
Each of these reactions is legitimate, and it’s dishonest and disrespectful for Livne to condemn everyone who disagrees with his government’s official story as “anti-Semites”, which by innuendo also includes those top Polish officials who shared their opinion on the matter. This response is worthy of him being declared persona non grata like many Poles on social media are now demanding and it risks lending false credence to actual anti-Semites by making people think that Jews hate Poles for ethno-religious reasons.
The extremely emotive context in which his inflammatory words were made, which concerns Israel’s counterfactual claim that Poles as a whole are as guilty of the Holocaust as the Nazis are, makes it easy for some Poles to be manipulated by bigots into reaching that conclusion. The best way to prevent actual anti-Semitism from spreading throughout Polish society is for Livne to apologize for his false accusations of “anti-Semitism” and be replaced alongside Israel promising to compensate the Polish victim’s family.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-poli ... ls-bombing
France Knows Better Than For Its Foreign Minister To Demand That China Condemns Russia
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 04, 2024
France’s top diplomat represents global interests and lacks any fundamental knowledge of the sphere in which he works.
New French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne told his counterpart Wang Yi during talks in Beijing on Monday that “we are clearly expecting that China will send very clear messages to Russia.” The larger context concerns the Ukrainian Conflict’s seemingly inevitable escalation ahead of Russia’s reportedly planned offensive, which precede Switzerland’s presently unscheduled peace talks this summer. Chinese President Xi Jinping is also expected to visit France sometime in early May before both probably happen.
France knows better than for its Foreign Minister to demand that China condemns Russia, however, but this latest faux pas just goes to show how much its diplomacy has changed its recent years. The Valdai Club just published an insightful report a few days prior that sheds light into why this happened. Titled “Crafting National Interests: How Diplomatic Training Impacts Sovereignty”, it compellingly argues that there’s a strong relationship between these two that’s worthy of closer study by interested observers.
According to their research, “The effectiveness of a country’s diplomatic corps, influenced by diplomatic personnel training, manifests itself differently based on its position in the international relations system.” France is assessed as having a “deep tradition of teaching international relations” characterized by a national epistemology and functional approach to diplomatic training, “but the diplomatic profession is experiencing a crisis in France amid reforms introduced by the Élysée Palace.”
They warned that “There is a possibility that this shift could lead the French school towards a more global functional approach, potentially diminishing the national tradition in the study of international relations.” With respect to newly appointed Foreign Minister Sejourne, he has no prior diplomatic experience and is therefore a radical example of this trend’s final manifestation. France’s top diplomat represents global interests and lacks any fundamental knowledge of the sphere in which he works.
To be sure, many of the permanent members of his country’s diplomatic bureaucracy still promote national interests as they’re broadly understood by this class as a whole to be and have extensive expertise, but they weren’t able to influence their boss during his trip to Beijing. This is proven by him demanding that China condemns Russia, which its career diplomats knew better than do, let alone express in a public statement. It’s very embarrassing and reflects poorly on all of France.
The reality is that China won’t condemn Russia since it practices a policy of principled neutrality towards this conflict and envisages itself competing for leadership of the Global South with India, which has the same approach for similarly pragmatic reasons. Neither wants to push Russia closer towards the other amidst their increasingly fierce rivalry, let alone risk discrediting themselves in the eyes of developing countries, some of whom have voted against Russia at the UN but only under Western pressure.
China is a Great Power that describes itself as a major country but functions as a superpower in the international system so any condemnation of Russia via the “very clear message” that France “clearly expects” that it’ll send to that country would amount to it complying with a much weaker country’s demand. That’s completely unacceptable for a proud millennia-long civilization-state that regarded itself as the center of the world for most of its history and is yet another reason why this won’t happen.
The takeaway from this incident is that French diplomacy is changing even more rapidly than the Valdai Club assessed, with the publication of its latest research into this subject being very timely since it helps observers better understand why this happened. France’s shift from a national to a global approach towards diplomatic training began before President Emmanuel Macron entered office seven years ago, but it accelerated under him to the point where its diplomacy is nowadays becoming unrecognizable.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/france-k ... an-for-its
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 04, 2024
There’s been talk since Moldova’s independence of merging with Romania on the basis of their shared ethno-linguistic heritage and to return to the latter’s interwar “natural” borders. Some also speculate that Moldovan President Maia Sandu and her team are dual citizens of Romania who are secretly trying to advance what they regard as the reunification of their countries.
The Romanian Ministry of Defense recently tabled a draft law that would allow the armed forces to intervene abroad in defense of their compatriots. This move is likely aimed against Moldova, where over 1.3 million people have Romanian citizenship due to their shared ethno-linguistic heritage, and not Ukraine despite the Romanian minority there being persecuted for not joining Kiev’s new “church”. It comes amidst the possibility of Russia achieving a military breakthrough across the front lines this year.
In that event, France and/or Poland might lead a conventional NATO intervention in order to prevent Russia from crossing the Dnieper, during which time Romania could annex Moldova on the pretext of defending its compatriots from Transnistrian-emanating Russian threats. Those moves would solidify Western military influence in the erstwhile USSR’s southwestern periphery and could be spun as a major victory ahead of Ukraine’s asymmetrical partition for ending the “war” as part of a compromise.
For as smoothly as some might imagine that these events would unfold, they’re actually fraught with danger since Russian missile strikes on the encroaching conventional NATO forces could be exploited by the bloc’s nuclear-armed members to flirt with World War III. Any NATO attack against Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria or the bloc’s backing of a large-scale Ukrainian one could also prompt the Kremlin to threaten nuclear retaliation in self-defense per its related doctrine and international law.
The same goes for if Romania annexes Moldova and Transnistria is then blockaded as blackmail to coerce a Russian military withdrawal. That unrecognized separatist entity that officially wants to join the Russian Federation but has thus far been rebuffed therefore functions as a tripwire for a wider war, which is why all developments in its region should be watched very carefully in case they risk spiking this scenario. It’s within this very sensitive context that the Romanian Ministry of Defense just tabled their draft law.
There’s been talk since Moldova’s independence of merging with Romania on the basis of their shared ethno-linguistic heritage and to return to the latter’s interwar “natural” borders. Some also speculate that Moldovan President Maia Sandu and her team are dual citizens of Romania who are secretly trying to advance what they regard as the reunification of their countries. Of likely relevance, she also agreed to a security pact with France early last month too, which already has troops and tanks in Romania.
The last-mentioned facts enable France to swiftly intervene in both Moldova and Ukraine, the first of which could see it carry out a joint operation with Romania, and it’s these possibilities that might have been touched upon by the French and Russian Defense Ministers during Wednesday’s conversation. The latter warned his counterpart that conventionally intervening in Ukraine could create problems for France itself, thus hinting that Russia would indeed strike the encroaching forces and not back off.
It's also important to mention that Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told Sputnik the day after that “As a result of the adventurous actions of even one or two NATO member states, the Ukrainian crisis could go beyond its geographic boundaries and reach a completely different scale.” This remark probably isn’t limited to the scenario of a French conventional intervention in Ukraine but possibly also the complementary one of a Romanian and/or joint French intervention in Moldova.
Both scenarios risk a wider war since they could each lead to NATO-Russian clashes, with the Ukrainian one likely beginning with Russian missiles strikes on the encroaching NATO forces while the Moldovan one could start with a shootout along the Dniester if Transnistria is attacked, blockaded, or threatened. For however strongly some Romanians might feel about annexing/reunifying with Moldova, they’re therefore advised against it lest their country unwittingly becomes responsible for sparking a wider war.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/romanias ... ispatching
The Polish Reaction To Israel’s Bombing Of Foreign Aid Volunteers Isn’t “Anti-Semitic”
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 04, 2024
The Israeli Ambassador's scandalous tweet condemning those Poles who disagree with his government’s official story of this three-stage missile attack as “anti-Semites” was extremely offensive not only in and of itself, but also due to the continued Polish-Israeli dispute over responsibility for the Holocaust.
Israeli Ambassador to Poland Yacov Livne sparked an international scandal after tweeting that those Poles who describe his country’s bombing of foreign aid volunteers as “intentional murder” are “anti-Semites”. The IDF apologized for what it said was a “misidentification” after its forces carried out a three-stage missile strike against the World Central Kitchen’s convoy in Gaza. They were traveling along an agreed-upon route with clear identification, however, which is why many believe this was intentional.
Polish society is so vocal about what happened because one of their compatriots was killed during the attack. Livne’s tweet condemning those of them who disagree with his government’s official story as “anti-Semites” was extremely offensive not only in and of itself, but also due to the continued Polish-Israeli dispute over responsibility for the Holocaust. In brief, Israel believes that Poles as a whole are as guilty as the Nazis are, while the Poles themselves remind Israel that they were also the Nazis’ victims.
Interested readers can learn more about this issue here since it’s beyond the scope of the present analysis, but it’s important to add that while bonafide anti-Semitism exists in all societies just like other forms of bigotry do, what’s oftentimes described as “anti-Semitism” in Polish society is anything but. The Commonwealth elite’s reliance on Jews as property managers, tax collectors, and money lenders made that group unpopular with the locals for socio-economic reasons, not ethno-religious ones.
Israel’s historically revisionist twisting of negative Polish views about Jews over the centuries as supposedly being driven by ethno-religious bigotry instead of genuine socio-economic reasons is meant to manipulate foreign perceptions about them in order to blame Poles for the Holocaust. They also ignore the disproportionate Jewish representation in the “Polish People’s Republic’s” brutal secret police during that Soviet-imposed entity’s early years to lie that “anti-Semitism” continued after World War II.
About that, many of the interwar Second Polish Republic’s Jews were impoverished contrary to false stereotypes about what had at that time been the largest Jewish country in the world, which predisposed them to “revolutionary” ideologies like communism. Their involvement in the aforementioned secret police that were imposed onto Poland as part of the Western Allies’ “Neo-Realist” Faustian deal with the USSR was for political reasons, not ethno-religious supremacist ones.
It's therefore equally bigoted for Poles to blame all Jews for the crimes committed against them during the “Polish People’s Republic” as it is for Jews to blame all Poles for the crimes committed against them during the Holocaust. While many Poles realize this, many Israeli Jews still do not, hence why they still blame Poles as a whole for the Holocaust just because a few rogue ones sold some Jews out to the Nazis despite the Underground State’s death penalty against those Poles that betrayed their compatriots.
This extremely emotive context explains why Poles are so offended whenever they’re accused of “anti-Semitism”, the false claim of which Livne doubled down on in an interview shortly after his infamous tweet by smearing pro-Palestinian marches in Poland as “anti-Semitic demonstrations”. He also dodged a question about legal accountability for those IDF members who participated in the three-stage missile strike and whether the Polish victim’s families would receive any compensation from Israel.
His remarks infuriated Poles even more since they implied that perhaps their compatriot deserved to be killed because he might have supposedly been an “anti-Semite”, hence why Livne didn’t promise that those responsible would be held to account or that his family would receive compensation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s dismissive attitude earlier on Wednesday when he downplayed the attack as something that “happens in war” during a short video statement was also very offensive.
His Polish counterpart Donald Tusk tweeted the following in response: “Mr. Prime Minister Netanyahu, Mr. Ambassador Livne, the vast majority of Poles showed full solidarity with Israel after the Hamas attack. Today you are putting this solidarity to a really hard test. The tragic attack on volunteers and your reaction arouse understandable anger.” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also reacted earlier in the day to Livne’s tweet in a strongly worded statement that went as follows:
“I would advise the Israeli ambassador to Poland to exercise more restraint and humility. This is the time for him to apologize rather than to inflame emotions.
If it is true what the Israeli press writes, that a humanitarian convoy was deliberately attacked, thinking that there might have been one terrorist there, but one who did not pose an immediate threat to a large group of people, then I do not know of an ethical system in which this is justified, and it arouses my moral indignation.
There was a willingness to sacrifice the lives of seven civilians in order to kill one terrorist, then Israel should apologize for this and pay compensation.”
Livne was also summoned to the Polish Foreign Ministry to discuss the “new situation in Polish-Israeli relations and the moral, political and financial responsibility” according to Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Sejna. Despite all these official statements of displeasure that he himself was directly aware of, Livne still behaved as shamefully as he did during his interview later that day, thus prompting a sharp condemnation from Defense Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz:
“The Israeli ambassador's interview, full of arrogance, proves that there is no reflection in his attitude. As a country, we say clearly: we demand a thorough and objective explanation of the case and compensation for the family of the victim - a volunteer who helped another person and who should never be the target of an attack.”
Each of these reactions is legitimate, and it’s dishonest and disrespectful for Livne to condemn everyone who disagrees with his government’s official story as “anti-Semites”, which by innuendo also includes those top Polish officials who shared their opinion on the matter. This response is worthy of him being declared persona non grata like many Poles on social media are now demanding and it risks lending false credence to actual anti-Semites by making people think that Jews hate Poles for ethno-religious reasons.
The extremely emotive context in which his inflammatory words were made, which concerns Israel’s counterfactual claim that Poles as a whole are as guilty of the Holocaust as the Nazis are, makes it easy for some Poles to be manipulated by bigots into reaching that conclusion. The best way to prevent actual anti-Semitism from spreading throughout Polish society is for Livne to apologize for his false accusations of “anti-Semitism” and be replaced alongside Israel promising to compensate the Polish victim’s family.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-poli ... ls-bombing
France Knows Better Than For Its Foreign Minister To Demand That China Condemns Russia
ANDREW KORYBKO
APR 04, 2024
France’s top diplomat represents global interests and lacks any fundamental knowledge of the sphere in which he works.
New French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne told his counterpart Wang Yi during talks in Beijing on Monday that “we are clearly expecting that China will send very clear messages to Russia.” The larger context concerns the Ukrainian Conflict’s seemingly inevitable escalation ahead of Russia’s reportedly planned offensive, which precede Switzerland’s presently unscheduled peace talks this summer. Chinese President Xi Jinping is also expected to visit France sometime in early May before both probably happen.
France knows better than for its Foreign Minister to demand that China condemns Russia, however, but this latest faux pas just goes to show how much its diplomacy has changed its recent years. The Valdai Club just published an insightful report a few days prior that sheds light into why this happened. Titled “Crafting National Interests: How Diplomatic Training Impacts Sovereignty”, it compellingly argues that there’s a strong relationship between these two that’s worthy of closer study by interested observers.
According to their research, “The effectiveness of a country’s diplomatic corps, influenced by diplomatic personnel training, manifests itself differently based on its position in the international relations system.” France is assessed as having a “deep tradition of teaching international relations” characterized by a national epistemology and functional approach to diplomatic training, “but the diplomatic profession is experiencing a crisis in France amid reforms introduced by the Élysée Palace.”
They warned that “There is a possibility that this shift could lead the French school towards a more global functional approach, potentially diminishing the national tradition in the study of international relations.” With respect to newly appointed Foreign Minister Sejourne, he has no prior diplomatic experience and is therefore a radical example of this trend’s final manifestation. France’s top diplomat represents global interests and lacks any fundamental knowledge of the sphere in which he works.
To be sure, many of the permanent members of his country’s diplomatic bureaucracy still promote national interests as they’re broadly understood by this class as a whole to be and have extensive expertise, but they weren’t able to influence their boss during his trip to Beijing. This is proven by him demanding that China condemns Russia, which its career diplomats knew better than do, let alone express in a public statement. It’s very embarrassing and reflects poorly on all of France.
The reality is that China won’t condemn Russia since it practices a policy of principled neutrality towards this conflict and envisages itself competing for leadership of the Global South with India, which has the same approach for similarly pragmatic reasons. Neither wants to push Russia closer towards the other amidst their increasingly fierce rivalry, let alone risk discrediting themselves in the eyes of developing countries, some of whom have voted against Russia at the UN but only under Western pressure.
China is a Great Power that describes itself as a major country but functions as a superpower in the international system so any condemnation of Russia via the “very clear message” that France “clearly expects” that it’ll send to that country would amount to it complying with a much weaker country’s demand. That’s completely unacceptable for a proud millennia-long civilization-state that regarded itself as the center of the world for most of its history and is yet another reason why this won’t happen.
The takeaway from this incident is that French diplomacy is changing even more rapidly than the Valdai Club assessed, with the publication of its latest research into this subject being very timely since it helps observers better understand why this happened. France’s shift from a national to a global approach towards diplomatic training began before President Emmanuel Macron entered office seven years ago, but it accelerated under him to the point where its diplomacy is nowadays becoming unrecognizable.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/france-k ... an-for-its