Agrégateur de flux

DÉCRYPTAGE - La gauche, comme le RN, veut abroger la réforme des retraites. La menace est en tout cas prise au sérieux dans l’exécutif.

Le géant des matériaux de construction a annoncé ce jeudi une hausse de 14,5% de son bénéfice net au premier semestre et prévoit « une très belle année » pour 2024. Néanmoins, son chiffre d'affaires est en baisse de 6% en raison du recul de la construction neuve en Europe.

The geopolitics of Formula 1, daring women journalists of the Vietnam War, and other page-turners for the beach.

A growing chorus of establishment pundits and policymakers have taken to branding anyone who calls for prioritizing diplomacy over force in U.S. foreign policy as “isolationist.”  

In official Washington, labeling an analyst, advocate, or organization isolationist is essentially an effort to convince the public at large that they are naive, and therefore not to be taken seriously. But recent history suggests that the “military first” (and second and third) approach favored by the Washington establishment is in fact the stance that is the most naive.

The direct U.S. wars of this century, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, have done more harm than good, consuming vast quantities of blood and treasure in the process— $8 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention millions of displaced people, all  according to estimates by Brown University’s Costs of War project.  America’s slightly less direct wars – those we fund or supply with bombers and bombs – in Yemen, Gaza, and Ukraine are devastating and costly financially, environmentally, and in humanitarian impact. 

Interventionists – and their cheerleaders in the media and think tanks – are never held to account for their failures.   

Moreover, most advocates of greater restraint are not opposed to all uses of force. For example, U.S. support for Ukraine’s effort to fend off Russia’s invasion of their country is essential. But it must be accompanied by a diplomatic track aimed at preventing a long, grinding war that causes more death and destruction and precludes rebuilding, while constantly risking escalation to a direct U.S.-Russia or NATO-Russia conflict.  This view appears to be gaining traction with at least some U.S. officials. But when advocates of a diplomatic track raised the idea early in the conflict, many experts and policy advocates within the DC establishment mislabeled it as isolationist.

Given the challenges we face, from thwarting Russian aggression in Ukraine, to taking a balanced approach to the challenges posed by China, to stopping the slaughter in Gaza and heading off a region-wide Middle East war, America desperately needs a serious debate on what policies to pursue in a rapidly changing global security environment.  That means evaluating proposals grounded in a policy of restraint seriously, not dismissing them with misleading labels.  

A critical component of a more effective, more affordable approach to national security should be a more realistic view of the challenges posed by China. Unfortunately, many top U.S. officials are doing more to promote exaggerated views of a hostile Chinese regime bent on global domination than they are to encourage a factual assessment of Beijing’s intentions and capabilities. For example, at the recent Aspen Security Forum, Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Charles Brown warned that if the U.S. lapsed into isolationism – a term he did not define – it “opens the door to Xi Jinping and others who want to do unprovoked aggression . . .We have credibility at stake.”

The tensions between the United States and China are real, but there is little evidence to suggest that Beijing is chomping at the bit to invade its neighbors if the U.S. shifts to a more restrained, realistic strategy.  The most contentious issue –the future status of Taiwan – would be best addressed via diplomacy, in the form of a revival of the “One China” policy that has kept the peace in the Taiwan Straits for the past five decades.  The policy holds that the United States will not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation, and that it will maintain informal relations with Taipei and refrain from treating it as if it were a treaty ally. For its part, China would pledge to pursue unification with Taiwan via peaceful means only.

There are larger problems in the U.S.-China relationship, most notably an action-reaction cycle based on each side’s worst case assessment of the other’s motives and military might.  While neither side is actively seeking conflict, there is a danger that the two sides might stumble into war if they remain on their current paths. In this context, a truly defensive strategy in East Asia that seeks to deter Chinese military action against its neighbors while abandoning the more dangerous and costly goal of being able to “win” a war with that nation is the course most likely to establish stability in the region.

As we elect a new President and Congress, we should debate the future of U.S. foreign policy.  But let’s do it honestly, without throwing around misleading labels intended to shut down debate and to keep us mired in a deadly, expensive and counterproductive approach to world affairs.

About the Author: 

William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

DÉCRYPTAGE - Fraîchement élu à la tête des députés macronistes, le premier ministre démissionnaire pourrait tenter de s’imposer comme le patron de Renaissance en vue de 2027.

Today’s stronger-than-expected GDP numbers make it very unlikely that the Federal Reserve will start an interest rate-cutting cycle at its policy meeting this week. This is a great pity, considering the multiple downside risks to the economic recovery that are now in plain sight. By the time the Fed starts cutting interest rates, it will likely be too late for the Fed to stave off an economic recession.

The distinguishing characteristic of the Jerome Powell Fed is its backward-looking monetary policy approach. In 2021, the Fed was inexcusably slow in raising interest rates at a time when there were clear signs of an acceleration in inflation. Today, the Fed is very slow in cutting interest rates. It is too slow at a time when there are clear signs that inflation is moderating and that downside risks to the economy are building.

A backward-looking Fed will likely say that today’s GDP numbers do not provide it with sufficient reassurance that inflation is coming down to its 2 percent inflation target on a sustainable basis. In defense of its position, the Fed will note that in the second quarter, GDP growth accelerated to a faster-than-expected 2.8 percent. It will also point out that the core personal consumer expenditure deflator, the Fed’s favorite inflation yardstick, ticked up 2.7 percent compared to a year ago.

The basic mistake that the Fed now appears to   shopping habits following the pandemic, commercial property prices are dropping, and property developers are already starting to default on the $900 billion in property loans that fall due this year. This will hit the banks especially hard at a time when high interest rates have wrought serious damage on their loan and bond portfolios. It is estimated that the banks are currently sitting on more than $1 trillion in mark-to-market losses on those portfolios.

According to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study, close to 400 small and medium-sized banks could fail due to high interest rates and the commercial property crisis. Were such failures to materialize, they would be reminiscent of the 1980s Savings and Loan Crisis, which contributed significantly to an economic recession.

Another risk that could derail the recovery is the United States’ drift toward protectionist policies, especially against China. One clear indication of this drift is the emphasis in the current election cycle on the need to protect American jobs from foreign competition. Donald Trump has made clear that if he wins the election, he will impose a 60 percent import tariff on China and a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all other countries’ exports. That would carry the risk of retaliation by our trade partners and a return to the economically destructive beggar-thy-neighbor policies of the 1930s.

Looking abroad, there is no shortage of political and economic risks to which the Fed should be paying attention. Russia is still engaged in its war with Ukraine, while the Israel-Hamas War could spill over to the rest of the Middle East. China, the world’s second-largest economy and, until recently, its main engine of economic growth, is struggling to cope with the fallout from the bursting of its massive housing and equity bubble. Meanwhile, a heavily indebted and ungovernable France raises the specter of another round of Eurozone sovereign debt crises.

In 2021, at a time when the economy was recovering strongly and receiving its largest peacetime stimulus on record, the Powell Fed maintained interest rates at zero to keep a strong recovery going. That allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle. Today, at a time when the Fed’s high interest rates have caused inflation to moderate sharply and at a time when downside risks to the economy are building, the Fed is choosing to stick to its hawkish monetary policy stance. This heightens the chance that the Powell Fed will end up with contributing not only to the inflationary surge to a multi-decade high in 2022 but to an economic recession by early next year.

About the Author: Desmind Lachman 

Desmond Lachman is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was previously a Deputy Director in the International Monetary Fund’s Policy Development and Review Department as well as the Chief Emerging-Market Economic Strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

Ireland reduce Zimbabwe from 121-1 to 210 all out to finish day one of the first Test match in Belfast in a strong position.

137 km/órás sebességgel száguldott egy fiatal sofőr Dunaszerdahelyen, 87 km/órával lépte át a sebességhatárt.

Avec une marge nette de près de 20 %, deux fois celle des plats de la restauration ordinaire, le burger fait figure de « cash-machine ». Très vite rentabilisé, vite préparé, vite avalé, il figurerait aujourd'hui à la carte de trois lieux de restauration sur quatre en France ; en 2023 dans l'Hexagone, on (...) / Agroalimentaire, Agriculture, Alimentation - 2024/07

DÉCRYPTAGE - Depuis 2016, au moins six appellations différentes ont désigné les troupes présidentielles. Un brouillard qui affaiblit son identification et entretient le flou sur la ligne politique.

Le choix du président américain est un processus long et complexe. Il commence par les primaires et finit par le choix, en novembre prochain, de celui qui devra diriger l'Amérique depuis la Maison Blanche durant les quatre (04) prochaines années.

Les Jeux olympiques commencent officiellement vendredi, dans une période marquée par de fortes tensions internationales. Un impressionnant dispositif sécuritaire a été mis en place pour garantir le bon déroulement de la compétition, mais les menaces sont nombreuses.

L’ancien président, qui avait quitté la Chambre Basse pour l’Élysée en 2012, reprend ses marques dans ce Palais Bourbon où il a tant manœuvré.

Le monde la culture se mobilise contre la mise à l’index dont a fait l’objet la chanteuse Zaho de Sagazan par les médias du groupe Bolloré, à la suite de propos hostiles à son présentateur vedette, Cyril Hanouna. Une pétition lancée « au nom de la liberté d’expression », fédère 580 artistes, écrivains et acteurs de la musique, dont Angèle, Bernard Lavilliers, Annie Ernaux ou Virginie Despentes.

The spectacle of recent electoral shifts in Britain and France, together with looming ones in the United States and elsewhere, raises the question of whether there is any common pattern here. The Left seems to be winning in some cases and losing in others. Clearly, incumbents are unpopular, regardless of ideology. Is there anything more to it than that?

One way to understand all these cases is to refer to the old English idea of a Court Party versus a Country Party. As described by Viscount Bolingbroke in the early eighteenth century, England’s Court Party was led by a Whig elite of the wealthiest aristocrats in alliance with the City of London. This party dominated the king’s ministry and used the resulting patronage to its own benefit. Bolingbroke argued for the legitimacy of an alternate faction, called the Country Party, with its base of support among the lesser nobles, yeomanry, and older faith of rural England. This party, he hoped, could rule in the interest of the whole nation rather than simply in the interest of its metropolitan establishment.

Over the past decade, electoral politics in nearly every Western nation has been upended by a new axis of division closely resembling Bolingbroke’s pairing of Court versus Country. Since this division cuts across the familiar one of Left versus Right, it confuses and frightens observers who misunderstand it. Most working-class, rural, and small-town voters feel that traditional party elites have stopped protecting the people’s interests—or even granting heartland voters a minimal degree of respect. This has encouraged the growth of Country Party insurgencies against besieged Court Party elites among conservatives as well as progressives.

The resulting political dynamic is best understood by picturing four political factions in competition with one another: Court Progressives, Court Conservatives, Country Progressives, and Country Conservatives. This competition is more complex than the simple dichotomy of Left versus Right, allowing for cross-cutting tensions and tactical alliances in different directions. Its exact outcomes vary greatly from one Western nation to the next, depending on local circumstances, including national leaders and the strategies they pursue.

France

Let’s start with the most recent electoral shift involving the case of France. President Emmanuel Macron created Ensemble, a socially progressive, pro-business coalition devoted to liberal technocratic governance. Further left, the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) emerged this year as an anti-establishment coalition featuring the Gallic version of a Country Progressive platform.

Les Republicains, a traditional center-right establishment party, represents Court Conservatives in France. Meanwhile, Country Conservatives have rallied to Marine Le Pen’s National Rally or Rassemblement National (RN), a movement opposed to continued mass migration from the Muslim world. While often described as far-right—including by the supposedly neutral Ministry of Interior—Le Pen has taken pains to distance herself from her father’s noxious anti-Semitism. In fact, she critiques Macron’s economic policies from the Left and supports liberal abortion laws while defending a distinctly French national identity.

In the first round of French parliamentary elections, held on June 30, Marine Le Pen’s coalition won a clear plurality of the vote. This triggered the creation of an alliance between Macronists and the NFP, whereby hundreds of candidates from both coalitions stepped down to allow for the strongest possible competitor versus the RN in each district. The tactic worked. Even though Le Pen’s coalition won an even bigger plurality in the second and final round of voting on July 7, Ensemble and the NFP each won more seats. Meanwhile, Les Republicains ran a distant fourth.

Most striking were the demographics of these results. According to Ipsos France, Le Pen’s RN-led alliance won a whopping 57 percent of blue-collar workers, far outpacing any other coalition. Meanwhile, the NFP found its greatest strength among big cities, younger voters, managers and professionals, those with postgraduate degrees, the non-religious, and those describing themselves as “upper class.” Ensemble dominated the vote only among septuagenarians.

The French case illustrates findings that ring true throughout much of the Western world. Objectively, the RN’s overall policy combination is now center-right. But it’s a version of center-right unacceptable to some traditional establishment conservatives. The RN-led alliance is therefore defined as “far right.” Furthermore, the self-imposed difficulties in getting Court Conservatives and Country Conservatives to cooperate against the Left are immense.

Meanwhile, French progressives have no such qualms. Working on the premise of no enemies to the Left, Court Progressives work tactically with Country Progressives to collectively achieve power. This leaves the Left in control despite overwhelming working-class support for Country Conservatives.

The United Kingdom

The UK’s general election held on July 4 suggests a similar pattern despite all the obvious differences with France. Britain’s Conservative or Tory Party worked under the disadvantage of having governed for too long in a way that alienated voters in nearly every direction. Their leader, Rishi Sunak, was a Court Conservative down to his fingertips. He was also unable to bring mass migration, high taxes, political correctness, a sluggish economy, or regulatory overkill under control. Under such conditions, why vote Tory? Nigel Farage, the cigarette-smoking English populist, therefore led Country Conservatives into his newborn creation, Reform UK. Reform did very well for a novel third party, winning 14 percent of the popular vote. Sunak’s Tories were left with a little less than 24 percent. However, the distribution of seats was such that Reform only won five seats in the House of the Commons, while the Tories won 121.

On the Left, Labour’s Keir Starmer was able to build and maintain a working alliance between Court Progressives and Country Progressives that was more than sufficient to win the election. However, this was not because Labour’s ideology was beloved by most Britons. Polling at less than 34 percent nationwide, it did not do especially well for a governing party in terms of the popular vote. Rather, the key—at least in England—was division among the Conservatives, along with the sheer unpopularity of Sunak’s government. Given the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system, Labor won a colossal 412 seats, while the Tory coalition splintered and collapsed. In truth, this was among the least exciting and most unrepresentative landslides in British history.

Looking ahead, small-c conservatives in Britain face four possible futures in the coming decade. First, the Tories may find a new leader who can win back Country Conservatives and sail to victory, as Boris Johnson did only a few years ago. Second, Reform UK and the Tory Party may continue to split center-right voters, Court versus Country, allowing indefinite rule by Labor. Third, Nigel Farage may succeed in absorbing most Court Conservatives into Reform UK, leaving the Tories as a minor remnant. Fourth, Farage and the Tories may agree to merge into a new party acceptable to all British conservatives. And while this last scenario may seem most unlikely, it has happened in the past. For an example of that, we turn to Canada.

Canada

In Canada—unlike Britain or the United States—the great split between Court and Country Conservatives occurred more than thirty years ago. The leading issues driving that split were not immigration, trade, or foreign policy but regional and constitutional. Canada’s Liberal Party ruled for thirteen years as a result. Once center-right political activists finally reunited in a newly formed Conservative Party, its leader, Stephen Harper, won the federal election of 2006. This helped to set the pattern for subsequent Tory leaders. Ever since Harper, Canada’s Court Conservatives have responded to Country Conservatives not by denouncing them but by staying closely in touch with their concerns. This process—also known as “politics”—has helped to maintain Tory unity through thick and thin.

Canada’s Liberals are the party of that nation’s Court Progressives, based in the downtown districts of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. In 2015, the Liberals won back power under Justin Trudeau. Initially hailed as a fresh face, he turned out to be a disaster, presiding over a period of inflation, scandal, dysfunction, and woke revolution. Most Canadians are thoroughly fed up with him. He maintains a working majority in the House of Commons only through the tactical forbearance of Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP)—a coalition of democratic socialists or Country Progressives. 

Trudeau must hold an election by October 2025 at the latest. The most recent polls have him winning 24 percent of the vote nationwide, reduced to something like 70 seats out of 338 in the Commons. Further to the Left, the NDP holds steady at around 20 percent in these polls, leaving them approximately twenty seats. The Conservatives, meanwhile, polled around 40 percent, winning them over 200 seats under current projections. A Quebec separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois, secured a plurality of seats in La Belle Province under current projections, as they usually have over the past generation.

The current Tory leader, Pierre Poilievre, is a fluently bilingual Albertan skilled at making his party’s case in a plucky, common-sense manner persuasive to ordinary people. He’s also on track to defeat Trudeau’s Liberals in a landslide next year. As a result, the media denounces him as “a conspiracy theorist.” Of course, he is nothing of the sort. Poilievre is a conservative pragmatist with populist, libertarian, and politically incorrect sensibilities. Or, to put it another way—take my word for it—he’s a typical Canadian prairie boy.

In the second part of this series, the author applies the framework of Court versus Country to the United States, with implications for the November election.

Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com. 

Summary and Key Points: Russia is increasing the deployment of its Vikhr air-launched anti-armor missile in Ukraine, utilizing its high precision and destructive power. Produced by Kalashnikov, the Vikhr can be fired from Ka-52 "Alligator" and Mi28N helicopters, effectively targeting armored vehicles, infantry, and fortified positions.

-Developed in the Soviet era, the Vikhr boasts a maximum range of 10 km and employs a tandem shaped-charge/HEAT warhead.

-As both sides rely heavily on advanced anti-tank weapons and drones, Russia's expanded use of the Vikhr missile underscores its strategic shift in the ongoing conflict.

Russia is Expanding the Use of its Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon

As Russian troops massed on the border of Ukraine in late 2021 and early 2022, there was speculation that Ukrainian militia would have to confront Russian T-90 tanks with more than Molotov cocktails (aka gasoline bombs). When the Kremlin did mount its unprovoked invasion under the guise of a "special military operation," Ukraine was able to stop the Russian tanks with Western-made man-portable rocket launchers like the American FGM-148 Javelin, British NLAW, and Swedish AT4.

Those weapons proved deadly to the Russian tanks, and the Kremlin was forced to regroup.

Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) including loitering munitions and other drones have also been credited with destroying thousands of tanks on both sides. There are now reports that Russia may expand the use of its Vikhr air-launched anti-armor missile.

According to a report from Russian state media outlet Tass, the military conglomerate Rostec has claimed the Vikhr can deliver "phenomenal hit precision," where "one missile is one destroyed target." The ordnance is being produced by the Kalashnikov Company and can be employed from the Ka-52 "Alligator" attack helicopter, while the Mi28N helicopter will soon be armed with the upgraded Vikhr-1.

"The missiles are effective in any time of the day and in bad weather. The engagement of Vikhr is expanding in the special military operation. They are used to destroy armor in shelters or in motion and strike at Ukrainian firing points and camouflaged and protected objects," Rostec stated.

The Vikhr in the Crosshairs

Development of 9K121 Vikhr (NATO reporting name AT-16 Scallion) began in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s but wasn't presented until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The laser-beam-riding anti-tank missile has a maximum daytime range of 10 km (6 miles) but is most effective at around 800 meters (half a mile). It has a maximum speed of 800 km/h (500 mph), while its tandem shaped-charge/High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warheads can reportedly penetrate up to 750mm of homogeneous armor, behind ERA. 

It is also equipped with a proximity fuse, which enables area-effect that allows it to target non-armored entities, including infantry, forward positions, buildings, and even helicopters – making it a multi-purpose missile.

A laser beam directs the missile to the target, and it employs an automatic sight until equipped with a video monitor for use in the daytime, and infrared for night. Both target tracking and missile control of the Vikhr are automated. According to Army Recognition, the Vikhr has a hit probability of up to 95% against stationary targets and up to 80% against moving targets – but "it is important to note that this missile's accuracy diminishes over long ranges due to the spread of the guiding laser beam."

A dozen Vikhr air-to-ground missiles can be carried on the Ka-52.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image Credit: Shutterstock. 

Après huit gardes à vue pour avoir collé des autocollants, quatre autres activistes d’Extinction Rébellion ont connu ce 25 juillet le même sort après avoir été perquisitionnés pour une affaire vieille de trois mois. Une répression accrue que des membres d’autres mouvements rapportent et dénoncent également. Symbole d’un durcissement d’État, avant le coup d’envoi des JO.

Alors qu’il devrait être reçu par Emmanuel Macron ce vendredi, le président Argentin représente l’antithèse des valeurs que la diplomatie française est supposée promouvoir. Entretien avec Paula Litvachky, directrice du Centre d’étude légale et sociale de Buenos Aires (CELS), qui l’accuse notamment de démanteler des décennies de politiques en faveur des droits humains.

Russian propaganda has actively spread many fakes about the EU and European leadership to demoralise Ukrainians but failed to influence their pro-European intentions.

Mintegy 545 kilogramm, az Egyesült Államokból származó metamfetamint foglaltak le a hatóságok a múlt héten Brüsszelben - közölte szerdán a szövetségi igazságügyi rendőrség.