One of my old college professors used to remind us students on every opportunity that “war is the great equalizer.” I had my doubts about this but, eventually, I came around accepting it (albeit with some reservation). Take, for example, the Russia vs. the “Free World” clash of arms in Ukraine. Both sides claim, almost daily, the opposing side is suffering crushing defeats—and predict that within the immediate future the enemy will be forced to eat crow. Right now, however, Russia, fighting against a massive enemy coalition, is scoring unusual “soft” victories that most erudite minds would, most likely, find rather impossible. Yet, the numbers are in and the Russian ruble, instead of cratering because of crippling Western sanctions, is currently the BEST PERFORMING CURRENCY worldwide. Gravidas delivers the analysis of how this can be possible below.
As if the SCOTUS ruling on abortion was not enough, the same Supreme Court released another “bombshell” ruling on firearm carrying striking out a New York state regulation requiring anyone trying to get a carry permit to present authorities with a CONVINCING need for routinely carrying a gun. This New York demand has no real ground in reality: “proving” you’re afraid of falling victim to violent crime cannot be demonstrated in any legalistic way before an authority imposing this restriction: if you are, for example, a regular carrier of large amounts of cash belonging to your employer you may have a case. But, what about the “average citizen” who, living in New York, is justifiably terrified of running into “oppressed minority” killer gangbangers, robbers, and gangsters that now infest most parts of the city? Falling back to the well-established principle of Constitutional Carry, this conservative SCOTUS simply re-energized an established constitutional right that has been fought tooth-and-claw by liberals, left-”progressives,” and communistic Democrats for the longest time. It goes without saying, of course, that IF you choose to carry a firearm, you must undergo proper instruction in use, maintenance, and “combat deployment” of your firepower. Bottom line: more oil pouring on the raging fires of US bitter politico-social divisions.
Putin’s war on Ukraine is the most defining armed conflict since WWII and stands to shape the future of warfare in many fundamental and radical ways. Indeed, Putin’s war, according to Michael Hirsh, “is the biggest test of [Western] power and integrity in the 77 years since Nazi Germany surrendered.” In some ways, Putin’s gambit may be an even bigger test than Adolf Hitler’s, since Russia possesses nuclear weapons and Putin has suggested he might use them if the West strikes back. The West is thus presented with urgent and radical questions of redefining almost everything from top to bottom when it comes to modern warfare. The opening phase of Putin’s war saw an unexpected failure of armor, as the offensive spearhead, watched as artillery of all shapes and sizes assumed point in crushing the Ukrainians into the ground, and realigned special forces from a basically “raiding” role to the status of front-line battlefield formations. Mark Urban, an acclaimed military historian, and currently the BBC Newsnight’s defense editor, scoured Russian and Ukrainian accounts online and spoke to expert observers to discover more about what those early lessons might be.
Since July 1974, and Turkey’s piratical invasion and occupation of half of Greek Cyprus, the perennial “Greek-Turkish dispute” in the Aegean is a most dangerous potential flash point in the Eastern Mediterranean that taxes NATO cohesion, threatens the EU’s attempts to maintain peace and security on its southeastern flank, and complicates further US-Turkish relations, which are presently at one of their lowest points in recent memory. On June 13, 2022, the Turkish Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) convened a Greek-Turkish online workshop to bring together Turkish and Greek experts for a discussion of the Greek-Turkish crisis. SETA is a Turkish government financed entity and, therefore, within neosultan Erdogan’s iron grip. Nevertheless, the discussion avoided extremes and maintained a basic decorum which, under the circumstances, may be counted as a positive outcome.