Vlad's Sociopolitical Update 240120

Hello, fellow Publishers :) 

Here is the recent version of "Vlad's sociopolitical update" regarding developments worldwide. I am now focusing on migration, refugees, governments, and human rights. I am interested in different topics, and if you have a favorite topic, please write to me about it, and I will try to publish it later. Here are some of my recent reads. 
 
European Council On Foreign Affairs:  Beyond the counter-offensive: Attrition, stalemate, and the future of the war in Ukraine

Russia and Ukraine are engaged in a war of attrition, which Russia is set to win on current projections. Ukraine can only achieve its war aims if it moves to a war of maneuver; with this, it can regain its lost territory.

Western supplies and efforts at defense-industrial consolidation need to provide Ukraine with the replacement armaments it needs to survive the war of attrition and switch to maneuver warfare. The West and Europeans, in particular, need to overhaul their financial regulations and create economies of scale to radically stimulate the production of drones, ammunition, armored fighting vehicles, and more.

Only if they carefully absorb the lessons learned from this war will Europeans be ready for the types of great power confrontation that are becoming more likely in the 21st century
 
Open Global Rights: The right to a healthy environment joins the pantheon of human rights. On July 28, 2022, the UN General Assembly recognized the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, a significant milestone despite the resolution-legally binding resolution cognition underscores the international Community's belief in the importance of a healthy environment for human flourishing, akin to other human rights. The aim is to establish a universal standard towards which all efforts should be directed.

This newly recognized right joins a select group of internationally acknowledged rights, a rare occurrence since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. Since then, the General Assembly has added only a few rights as fundamental and autonomous, not derivative of existing rights. For instance, the right to non-discrimination and prohibition of torture, stated in the UDHR and the International Covenants, are elaborated in specific treaties.
In the 75 years since the UDHR, new autonomous rights have been rarely recognized. The right to self-determination in the Covenants and the right to development recognized in 1986 are notable examples. The right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, recognized in 2010, was later affirmed by the Human Rights Council as being derived from other established rights.

Acknowledging the right to a healthy environment was long overdue, considering the well-established link between human rights and environmental protection, highlighted since the first international environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972. By 2022, most UN members had already acknowledged this right in their national constitutions or regional treaties.
The General Assembly's overwhelming vote of 161-0, with eight abstentions, to recognize this right underscores its significant global support. This level of backing, 95.9% of voting member states, is remarkably high compared to other human rights instruments, like the 2019 UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and the 2010 resolution on the right to water and sanitation.

The pursuit of unanimous agreement in recognizing human rights is impractical, given the diverse commitments of world governments to human rights. The UDHR itself should have been adopted unanimously. However, for a new right to be considered part of the essential human rights pantheon, widespread recognition by states is crucial.

The recognition of the right to a healthy environment represents a noteworthy achievement by the coalition of states and civil society organizations.
Yet, the real challenge lies ahead: actualizing this right universally ensuring a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for all.


The Persuasion: A former Trump administration official warns about his plans for a second term.
During Donald Trump's first term as President, the United States military faced various challenges stemming from its commander-in-chief's actions. Trump and his staff attempted to politicize the military, notably by using uniformed personnel at campaign events and the 2020 GOP convention. His disdain for Senator McCain led to a request to cover up the USS McCain's name. Trump's demands for a North Korean-style military parade and the unethical use of military funds at his properties further strained military norms. Controversially, Trump, who avoided military service in Vietnam, openly expressed disdain for service members, including those wounded or killed in action.

Trump's handling of military affairs took a more serious turn with his alleged retaliation against Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who blew the whistle on Trump's attempt to coerce Ukraine's President Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden. This incident was a critical factor in Trump's first impeachment. Trump also compromised security by tweeting military secrets and was indicted under the Espionage Act for mishandling classified documents. His suggestion of using excessive military force against migrants in 2018 was blocked by then Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

Trump showed a particular interest in the Insurrection Act of 1807, considering its use to deploy the military against rioters and protesters following George Floyd's murder in 2020. This proposal was rejected by Mattis' successor, Mark Esper. Unsealed indictments reveal that Trump's attorney considered using the Act against protesters if Congress did not certify Biden's 2020 election victory. This led all living former defense secretaries to warn against military involvement in electoral disputes.

Despite these challenges, the U.S. military maintained its integrity and adherence to the law.
However, Trump's views and those of his advisors have become increasingly extreme. This was highlighted in a recent court discussion where Trump's defense lawyer entertained a hypothetical scenario of a president ordering an assassination of a political opponent, suggesting immunity from prosecution post-presidency unless impeached and convicted.
Trump's win in the Republican Iowa caucus signals his potential candidacy against Joe Biden later this year. If re-elected, Trump might implement policies within his discretion that military leaders may disagree with, such as troop withdrawals from NATO countries and pressuring Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. Beyond this, there are concerns about plans to use the Insurrection Act for quelling domestic protests, recalling retired generals for prosecution, employing the National Guard in internal immigration enforcement, and targeting political opponents.

Trump's musings about serving a third term, which is unconstitutional, add to these concerns.
While Joe Biden's relationship with the military has imperfections, including ignoring military advice on Afghanistan, the risks posed by a second Trump term appear significantly higher. If the military complies with Trump's plans, it risks being seen as an authoritarian instrument, damaging its public standing. Conversely, refusal to comply could undermine the principle of civilian control of the armed forces.

Military leaders may face dilemmas akin to those confronted by the Justice Department during the Watergate scandal. They might have to choose between obeying potentially illegal orders, resigning, or facing court-martial. This situation could lead to accusations of failing in duty or succumbing to personal ambitions.

The U.S. military has historically been a force for good. Still, its role could be severely tested in a second Trump administration. Despite calls from senior retired officers, Congress still needs to provide additional legal safeguards to maintain proper civil-military relations. The possibility of a constitutional crisis is accurate, and the best way to avoid this is for voters to choose a commander-in-chief who respects and understands the role and limitations of the military.
 
 
Center For European Reform: Can European Defence Take Off? 
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 served as a stark reminder of Europe's unpreparedness for large-scale conflicts. This realization prompted European nations to ramp up their defense spending significantly. Alongside this, the European Union (EU) deepened its involvement in defense matters, engaging in activities ranging from defense research to fostering joint procurement and financing the expansion of defense production.

Despite these efforts, Europe's capacity to support Ukraine militarily remains limited, especially in comparison to Russia's escalating production capabilities. This imbalance underscores the urgent need for European countries to intensify their efforts if they wish to influence the war's outcome. The EU's defense industrial policies will determine Europe's ability to augment support for Ukraine and bolster its deterrence capabilities.

The EU has made significant strides in defense, yet its initiatives show a mixed record of success. Many EU defense instruments are small-scale and need deep integration into national defense planning. Predominantly, the EU's defense involvement focuses on the long-term strengthening of the European defense industry rather than the immediate enhancement of military capabilities.

The EU must allocate more resources and attention to immediate priorities to address current challenges. This includes enhancing joint procurement of existing equipment and expanding production capacities for critical defense materials like ground-based air defense interceptors and long-range missiles. While EU investments in research and development are crucial for long-term goals, they will likely impact the ongoing conflict in Ukraine after some time.
Securing additional funding for EU defense initiatives is a daunting task. The EU budget has limited spare capacity, and many member states are hesitant about joint borrowing.

Alternative funding methods, such as off-budget options, are being considered. Maximizing the efficiency of existing funds, including cohesion funds and the post-COVID Recovery and Resilience Facility, could aid in expanding military capabilities. Encouraging increased lending to the defense sector is another avenue EU leaders should explore.

Failure to strengthen EU defense capabilities could severely limit Europe's ability to continue supporting Ukraine. This might significantly lead to Russia gaining a strategic advantage if U.S. support dwindles. A scenario where Donald Trump is re-elected, raising doubts about the U.S. commitment to defend its allies, or a situation where the U.S. is preoccupied with conflicts in Asia, could encourage Russia to challenge NATO defenses.

The EU is at a critical juncture where decisive action and strategic investment in defense are imperative to support Ukraine and safeguard European security against future aggressions.
 
Thanks for reading. You can support and reward me via: 
Pay Pal — lauvlad89@gmail.com
Algo — NCG6LBALQHENQUSR77KOR6SS42FGK54BZ5L2HFDSBGQVLGYIOVWYDXFDI4
ADA — addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz
Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2
ETH — 0x8982cdb97bd23f092f78a16a4fc93c5c4607a285
Seeds — vladlausevic
Skycoin — ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8
Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM