LV 210: There is no magic weapon | Will the rear end hold ? | Lorgnette : Israeli-Palestinian peace process

Posted on by A M

Letter from La Vigie, dated 1st FEB 2023

There is no magic weapon

The recent decision by the Europeans and Americans to supply tanks to Ukraine was intended as a show of unity in favour of Kiev. The difficulties in achieving this, and the relief that resulted, show that the issue remains fragile. Above all, it is based on an illusion: that arms alone can change the course of the war, whether by their quality or their quantity. Beyond that, a concern is surreptitiously emerging: is it still about winning or is it now about not losing?

To read the article, click here

Will the rear end hold?

If the fortunes of the weapons mainly decide the fate of a war, it is essential to also worry about the rear: if the combatants develop a certain and indispensable self-sufficiency, this is the result of the efforts made by the rear. The war in Ukraine shows us, however, that the notion of the rear is not as simple as one might think, and that the rear can also have a certain geographical depth.

To read the article, click here

Lorgnette: Israeli-Palestinian peace process

Recent events in Palestine have once again put the Palestinian question at the heart of the news. While it is likely that everyone will do their best to ignore it, it is important to note that it is still there because no solution has been found. The Abraham Accords promoted by D. Trump explicitly ignored it, organising a peace between Israel and certain Arab countries while agreeing to ignore the Palestinian question. Without going back to the triggering element of this week’s incidents, let us observe that the lukewarmness of international reactions is justified by the assumption that there is a peace process that is taking its course. This is obviously false.

It should be remembered that this is not (despite the use by some of the word terrorism equated with jihadism) a religious issue but a question of national liberation – and therefore of the freedom of peoples to self-determination – and of the political control of a population and of territories by an occupier. This is the original objective of the peace process. That it is obviously not working means that there is no peace. But who draws the conclusions? The EU looks the other way, as it is so quick to agitate for values. It is a sign of its hypocrisy and thus loses its credit.

JOCVP

Subscribers: click directly on the links to read online or download the pdf issue (here), always with your login/password. New readers: read the article by issue, by clicking on each article (€2.5), or subscribe (discovery subscription €17, annual subscription €70, orga. subscription €300 excl. tax): here, the different options.

Photo credit: UNDP Ukraine on Visualhunt

La Vigie Nr 193 : Technologising armies | What is the outcome of the war? | Lorgnette: Taiwan’s defence

Posted on by A M

Leter from La Vigie, dated 25th May 2022

Technologising armies

The technologisation of modern armies, which is supposed to give them a significant advantage over their enemies, is showing signs of running out of steam with the Ukraine campaign. Already threatened by the asymmetric response of improvised devices, these armies are also facing a strain on their basic components. Supplies and their delivery no longer seem to be secure in a conflict with global repercussions.

To read the article, click here

What is the outcome of the war?

Traditionally, wars were concluded with peace treaties because the enemy was not demonised. Since the 20th century, the enemy is often portrayed as an evil that must be annihilated: it therefore seems difficult to deal with him. However, war most often requires an end to be reached, and this is achieved through negotiations: one must know how to end a war.

To read the article, click here

Lorgnette: Taiwan’s defence

In response to a question about the US military commitment in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, US President J. Biden said on Monday: “Yes, that is what we are committed to”. This statement is a departure from the usual ambiguity: since the Taiwan Relation Act of 1979, Washington had always left uncertainty as to the nature of its support for Taipei but also its respect for the Chinese doctrine of “one China”.

Is this a new outing to which J. Biden has become accustomed, using words and expressions that are often undiplomatic? In any case, his administration was keen to correct the president’s remarks. Several interpretations are possible: there is a difference of opinion between the President and his administration, or following Ukraine the President wants to assure his allies of the solidity of his support or, even more subtle, to be ambiguous in the exit of ambiguity towards China.

One last hypothesis is not mentioned but is worrying: J. Biden is allowing himself to speak without consulting his entourage, a criticism that was long made of his predecessor. This would be worrying.

Subscribers: click directly on the links to read online or download the pdf issue (here), always with your login/password. New readers: read the article by issue, by clicking on each article (€2.5), or subscribe (discovery subscription €17, annual subscription €70, orga. subscription €300 excl. tax): here, the different options.

JOCVP

photo credit: Visual hunt