Ukrainian victory is ‘impossible’ – Orban
RT | June 27, 2023
The idea that Western military aid would enable Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield is wrong, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.
“I stand on the grounds of reality. The reality is that the nature of cooperation between Ukraine and the West is a failure,” Orban said in an interview with German tabloid Bild on Tuesday.
Suggesting that the weapons, funding and intelligence being provided to Kiev by the US and its EU allies would allow Ukraine to win “is a misunderstanding of the situation. That’s impossible,” he argued.
“The problem is that the Ukrainians will run out of soldiers earlier than the Russians, and this will be the deciding factor eventually,” the prime minister said.
He rejected the interviewer’s contention that all of Ukraine would have been captured by Russia without NATO aid, describing this as “a hypothesis to which there’s no evidence.”
According to Orban, a ceasefire must be reached in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev as soon as possible or Ukraine will “lose a huge amount of wealth and many lives, and unimaginable destruction will happen. That’s why peace is the only solution at this moment.”
However, he said fighting would not stop until Kiev’s main backer, Washington, decides that there should be peace.
“What really matters is what Americans want to do. Ukraine is no longer a sovereign country. They don’t have any money. They have no weapons. They can only fight because we in the West support them,” the Hungarian leader explained.
He criticized EU sanctions imposed on Moscow over the conflict, saying they failed in both “bringing Russia to its knees” and in achieving peace in Ukraine. “Sanctions have not worked. I am surprised that we turned out to be incapable of formulating them appropriately,” he said.
Budapest has been one of the few EU capitals to maintain business relations with Moscow because it was “good for the Hungarian people,” Orban said. “I’m fighting for Hungary. I don’t care about [Russia’s President Vladimir] Putin. I don’t care about Russia. I take care of Hungary.”
He also commented on the failed revolt by the Wagner private military company, which occurred in Russia last week. “I don’t see much significance in this event” because it has no effect on “the most important thing,” which is the prospect of achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine, he stated.
“NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK” THANKS EU FOR SANCTIONS COMENDATION
New Eastern Outlook – June 23, 2023
In connection with the inclusion of New Eastern Outlook in the EU’s 11th sanctions package, we sincerely appreciate the free and effective promotion of our journal.
For many years, New Eastern Outlook has been an open forum for experts from different countries to express their views on a wide range of political, economic and social issues. We have honestly and consistently reported on the neocolonial policies of the EU and the United States in various regions of the world, and we consider the sanctions policy against us to be our highest commendation.
We note that since the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on us, the geography of our readers has expanded considerably and the number of our readers has grown steadily.
Thank you, European dictators! Have a safe journey into your troubled future!
We appreciate your sincere interest in our publications.
Polish-German dispute on the rise
By Uriel Araujo | June 23, 2023
German-Polish relations have been in a crisis, and the climate just keeps getting uglier, as exemplified by recent developments. For instance, Alice Weidel, spokesperson for Alternative for Germany (AfD), Germany’s third-strongest political force today, called in a tweet the area of former East Germany a “Central Germany” – thus implying that territories which today belong to Poland are German lands. This has sparked outrage: Poland’s former PM Beata Szydło, in response, said the AfD could in the future power over all of Germany, thus creating a “dangerous scenario for Europe”, because, she claims, it is a party “whose leaders openly negate the existing borders.” She added that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has recently demanded the abolition of the right of veto within the EU and asked: “Should Europe go in this direction? Towards a German-dominated federation?” This provocation from a German political figure takes place in the context of a rising Polish campaign against Berlin.
Meanwhile, two families of Polish WWII victims are suing German companies Bayer and Henschel for €4.3 million over the persecution of Polish businessmen during the Nazi occupation of Poland. Brzozowska-Pasieka, head of the War Compensation Foundation (Fundacja Odszkodowań Wojennych), the Polish organization which represents the claimants, claims that these lawsuits are groundbreaking because they have been filed against private companies instead of the German state. Further claims on behalf of other families are being prepared. Commenting on the lawsuits, deputy culture minister Jarisław Sellin, lent his support, saying that “German companies which used forced laborers and actually participated in crimes during World War Two were never legally held accountable for what they did.”
Considering that Polish officials back these initiatives, one must see them as also part of a larger trend and context. Last month I wrote on the legal campaign Warsaw has been launching against Berlin for wartime reparations. It is accompanied by harsh anti-German rhetoric, which often describes Germany’s prominent role within the European Union as a “Fourth Reich”.
Polish discourse on the issue is not without its dose of hypocrisy: while criticizing Ukraine for celebrating genocidal Nazis, as recently as 2019, with Polish President Andrzej Duda’s support, Warsaw opened ceremonies honoring the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade of the National Armed Forces – an underground force which, in the end of Second World War, collaborated with the Nazis in their anti-Soviet struggle. This was denounced by Poland’s chief rabbi as “dangerous revisionism”. Moreover, Warsaw so far has refused to publish state archives which would expose the degree of Polish collaboration with the Nazi persecution of Jews. It is no wonder the German ambassador to Poland, Thomas Bagger, warned the country not to “open Pandora’s box”.
Behind the weaponization of WWII resentments lie also geopolitical goals. As I wrote in September 2022, Washington has apparently been promoting Warsaw’s ambitions regarding regional hegemony as mainly a means to counter Berlin, Poland in turn also benefits from this situation. For a while, Warsaw has, for example, been urging Washington to support the Three Seas Initiative (3SI) as a Western “counterweight” to Chinese investments in “critical infrastructure” – as Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau and his Romanian counterpart, Bogdan Aurescu, both wrote in a June 2021 piece published in Francis Fukuyama’s “American Purpose”.
Already in 2020, during the “Defender Europe 2020” military exercises, it had become clear that Poland aspired to become the main stronghold of American military presence in Eastern Europe – and the current conflict in Ukraine, since February 2022, has opened a window of opportunity in that regard.
By doing so, Poland aspires to establish itself as a new EU geopolitical center, while challenging Germany’s leading role in the continent. From a German perspective, this is ironic in itself, considering the fact that Berlin’s contribution to the EU budget has been the highest of any other member state, and therefore one could argue that the more recent EU member states such as Poland itself have been able to implement sustainable development policies largely thanks to Berlin’s disproportionate financial injections into the European budget. Therefore, according to this reasoning, Warsaw basically strives to get the maximum financial and economic benefits from its EU membership, at the expense of its “allies”, Germany especially.
For decades, Poland has arguably been on the path of refusing to contribute with the building of an intra-European system of relations. Warsaw pursues exclusively its own interests and shows no interest in building pan-European cooperation within a framework of mutual respect. Germany and France today are potentially forces for strategy autonomy in the European bloc (at least up to a certain point); Poland, on the other hand, is perhaps the main promoter of European “alignmentism”.
Warsaw, for instance, actively opposed the (now gone) Russian-German gas pipeline Nord Stream 2. The pipeline’s still unexplained explosion, denounced by journalist Seymour Hersh as an act of sabotage carried out by Washinton, remains an open wound in Germany – and a German investigation into allegations that Poland could have been used as a hub for the sabotage only make German-Polish tensions even worse. The Polish National Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that such suspicions are “not supported by the evidence.”
In any case, Polish-German and intra-Europeans tensions in all likelihood will keep building up, because the Polish government weaponizes anti-German feelings, as it also does with Russophobia, in its rewriting of history. These tensions mirror a short-circuit in the European narratives as well as the continent’s own ideological and geopolitical contradictions.
The ramifications of EU efforts to isolate China
Press TV – June 22, 2023
The European Commission is proposing a €10 billion fund to develop strategic technologies in order to become less dependent on high tech imports from China.
It also wants to block EU nations from dealing with China when it comes to so called sensitive technologies. The claim is that it’s to reduce risk.
It would appear that positive ties being advanced outside of the West’s control are putting Washington and Brussels on edge.
Trade between the EU and China is worth an incredible 2.3 billion euro per day. Some analysts believe the US is trying to scupper this vital economic link.
During recent European Parliament debates, lawmakers have heavily criticized the EU’s policy towards Russia and China.
The fallout from energy sanctions against Moscow is severely harming EU citizens and businesses.
At a time of dire economic pressures, the European Commission wants to prioritize the government in Kyiv.
Analysts say vested interests in the United States are benefiting most from deteriorating EU-Russia and EU-China relations.
EU leaders are due to hold a summit at the end of next week to discuss the Commission’s trade proposals.
It’s already clear there are major concerns in member states because current arrangements with China are so lucrative.
It is reported that some EU countries believe the European Commission is overstepping the mark.
EU Transfers to Ukraine Another $1.6Bln in Financial Assistance – Von der Leyen
Sputnik – 22.06.2023
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Thursday the European Union have transferred to Ukraine another 1.5 billion euros ($1.6 billion) in financial assistance to support its infrastructure.
“Today we disburse another €1.5 bn for Ukraine in macro-financial assistance. We help keep Ukraine’s services and infrastructure afloat in its brave fight for freedom,” von der Leyen tweeted.
She also promised to give Kiev more money, recalling the recently announced 50 billion euros of four-year financial reserves for Ukraine.
The head of the commission reiterated the EU was willing to provide Kiev with “long haul” support.
Earlier, the European Commission has reviewed the draft EU budget for the 2024-2027 period and asked member states to increase it by 66 billion euros ($72 billion), mostly to fund assistance for Ukraine.
Western countries have supplied Ukraine with military aid since the start of hostilities in February 2022. The support evolved from lighter artillery munitions and training in 2022 to heavier weapons, including tanks, later that year and in 2023.
EU preparing $55 billion bailout for Kiev – Bloomberg
RT | June 20, 2023
The European Commission wants member states to cough up €50 billion ($55 billion) to bankroll the Ukrainian government, so it can pay wages and pensions, and commence reconstruction projects, sources cited by Bloomberg have said.
The terms of the proposed bailout are subject to change pending an official announcement on Tuesday, the outlet reported on Tuesday. The package will be financed by direct contributions from member states, as opposed to borrowing from the market.
The aid will be provided in the form of grants, concessional loans and guarantees rather than some “burdensome reconstruction instrument,” the outlet said, adding that the money would be provided between 2024 and 2027.
The Ukrainian budget has been receiving cash injections from Western sponsors to keep it running. Washington and its allies have pledged to help Kiev “for as long as it takes” to defeat Russia, including through the provision of non-military support.
The US alone provided $26.4 billion in budgetary aid between January 2022 and February 2023, according to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. The aid package announced by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) on February 24 was worth $9.9 billion.
Critics of the policy have claimed Ukraine has a lengthy record of grafting and argued that the money could have been spent by Western nations at home to solve their own immediate problems. Bloomberg sources suggested that the EU funding would be made conditional on Kiev delivering reforms “to improve the rule of law and address corruption.”
According to Reuters, the European Commission is set to publish a report this week about Kiev’s effort, which will state that it has met two of the seven conditions to start membership negotiations. The milestones reportedly relate to judicial reform and media regulation.
Ukrainian Officials Increasingly Not Returning From Abroad – Russian Intelligence
Sputnik – 20.06.2023
The trend of non-return to Kiev of representatives of the Ukrainian interior, foreign and defense ministries and special services, who are completing long-term business trips abroad, is gaining momentum, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said on Tuesday.
“Along with the mass exodus of the working age population from Ukraine, the trend towards non-return to Kiev of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, special services and the Ministry of Internal Affairs is gaining momentum,” the SVR said in a statement.
“This is what many employees of Ukrainian diplomatic institutions accredited in the EU countries do. After completing a long-term business trip, they remain in the host countries, changing their diplomatic status to refugee status,” the SVR said, adding that employees of foreign missions of Ukraine in the countries of the Asia-Pacific region do the same.
Additionally, the SVR said that “mop-ups” are underway in the foreign institutions of Ukraine as Kiev seeks to identify disloyal employees and ensure their early return to their homeland.
AfD politician speaks out against arming Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | June 19, 2023
Berlin is one of the biggest supporters of Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime, sending money and weapons in large sums so that the anti-Russian war machine remains active. However, not all German politicians seem to follow this bellicose mentality. In a recent speech in the German Parliament, an opposition deputy made clear his dissatisfaction with the current policy of sending weapons to Ukraine, showing that there is still a realistic and rational approach among local representatives.
The criticisms were made by Markus Frohnmaier, a deputy linked to the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. He questioned in his speech Germany’s real aims with its funding of Ukrainian activities. Frohnmaier classified Berlin’s policy as “carefree” and claimed that the people would be “fed up” with the irresponsible measures taken by the government. He also emphasized that Germans do not want to “pay for Kiev forever”.
The main targets of Frohnmaier’s criticism were German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Economic Affairs Minister Robert Habeck. The legislator even ironically questioned whether they were “Germans or Ukrainians”, in addition to mocking the names of the officials, mixing them with the names of Ukrainian political figures:
“Are you [Robert Habeck] the German or Ukrainian Minister of Economy? (…) This government, these Bandera-Baerbocks, these Volodymyr Habecks, these foreign administrators, they don’t give a damn about Germany”, he said.
Indeed, the parliamentarian’s targets are justified, considering the intensity with which both German officials work in defense of the interests of NATO and its proxy neo-Nazi regime. Annalena Baerbock has been one of the most prominent anti-Russian activists since the start of the special military operation, even going so far as to say that the European Union was “at war with Russia” during a speech in January. She has also been an emphatic instigator of war against Moscow, using her role as head of German diplomacy to encourage neutral countries to adopt anti-Russian measures, as seen in her recent visit to Brazil.
In the same vein, Robert Habeck’s administration has been disastrous. Prioritizing a liberal ideological agenda over the country’s strategic interests, Habeck has been one of those most responsible for the economic and energy crisis that hit Germany, in addition to being seen with strong opposition by the local population. He is, for example, the author of the unpopular proposal to replace oil and gas heating systems by green sources – a project that simultaneously meets the Western radical environmentalist plans and the anti-Russian agenda, as it endorses the end of energy cooperation between the two countries. A recent survey showed an 80% rejection to Habeck’s proposal among Germans, which shows how local people see his administration.
So, considering these facts, it is really justified for the AfD’s deputy to criticize the officials and denounce the government’s subservience to Ukrainian and Western interests. Germany has been one of the countries most affected by the diplomatic crisis that currently marks relations between Russia and the West, which is why it is urgent that there be a reconsideration of Berlin’s policy concerning its support for Ukraine.
One of the parties that has worked most in favor of these changes has been precisely the AfD. As well as Markus Frohnmaier, there are other party members who advocate a sovereign policy for Germany. As a party linked to the so-called “Eurosceptic movement”, the AfD strives to pressure the government to prioritize national interests over EU and US, which has driven a quest to improve ties with Russia.
For example, in September last year, the AfD sent a delegation of five affiliated politicians to visit Russia, including the four reintegrated regions, in a gesture of diplomatic goodwill in opposition to the hostility of the German state. As expected, these measures were enough for the mainstream media to describe the organization as “pro-Russia” and inaccurately accuse it of spreading “Kremlin propaganda“. The AfD is also often referred to as “right-wing extremist” because of its Eurosceptic stance, while ironically the Ukrainian neo-Nazism remains fully supported by the German government.
A curious fact is that this realistic and diplomatic approach that has been adopted by the AfD has contributed a lot to the increase in the party’s popularity. In a recent poll, the number of respondents saying that they would never vote for AfD dropped from 60% to 53.9%. The same survey also showed a drop in the preference for the Greens (a pro-government party to which both Baerbock and Habeck belong), who are in their worst position in the popularity ranking in five years. In practice, the numbers show that the more pro-war and anti-Russian politicians are, the less the German people support them.
In fact, despite popular support for rational and friendly relations with Russia, Berlin is strongly coerced by the US to act in a subservient way. The inertia of the country’s authorities in the face of evidence of American responsibility for the attack on the Nord Stream is a clear example of how Germany is currently not a truly sovereign state. However, the growth of a realistic and Eurosceptic mentality shows that changes can occur in the near future, generating hope for the local people.
Europe is shielding Israel under guise of combating anti-Semitism, new report finds
By Nasim Ahmed | MEMO | June 16, 2023
The chilling repercussions of the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism have been revealed in a recent report by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC). Titled “Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism”, the report by the independent Dutch-based organisation uncovered shocking examples of the IHRA’s weaponisation against critics of Israel and the suppression of free speech under the guise of combatting anti-Semitism.
Using dozens of case studies from across Europe, ELSC showed that the endorsement, adoption and implementation of the IHRA in the European Union, its member states and the UK, has led to widespread restrictions of the right of assembly and freedom of expression. Despite strong opposition and warning against its adoption by Jewish groups, experts on anti-Semitism, academics and activists, the controversial definition has been implemented by public and private bodies as if the IHRA is legally binding. Despite qualification by advocates of the IHRA that it is “non-legally binding”, a definition of anti-Semitism which conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish racism has been placed at the centre of regulatory frameworks across Europe.
Some of the shocking findings include the following: Advocates of Palestinian rights who are targeted using the IHRA suffer a range of unjust and harmful consequences, including loss of employment and reputational damage; advocates of Israel routinely weaponise the IHRA to intimidate and silence people defending Palestinian rights; allegations of anti-Semitism that invoke the IHRA within the documented cases uncovered by the ELSC found that they are overwhelmingly used to target Palestinians and Jewish people opposed to Israel’s brutal occupation.
In one of the many remarkable findings, ELSC discovered that, not only was there a failure to carry out a risk assessment prior to IHRA’s adoption, the EU appeared to lie about the checks it had conducted. When asked if the Commission had conducted a risk assessment of the implications of the IHRA on fundamental rights, the EU Commissioner on anti-Semitism, Katharina von Schnurbein, affirmed that an assessment of the consequences had indeed been carried out. “Yes, we assessed“, said Schnurbein in a tweet on 23 November 2022, in response to critics who accused the Commission of failing to carry out basic due diligence.
However, responding on 9 December 2022 to a Freedom of Information request, the European Commission acknowledged it “has not conducted ‘any fundamental rights assessment or scrutiny (…) into the human rights implications of its endorsement and/or promotion of the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.” Details of the misleading information by the Commissioner on anti-Semitism were covered at length by the advocacy group, Law for Palestine.
Misinformation about risk assessment is just one of the many examples of underhanded practices revealed by the ELSC report. The European Commission also failed to address and reflect the diversity of positions regarding definitions of anti-Semitism. The EC not only ignored that the IHRA is highly controversial and contested, it completely ignored less controversial definitions of anti-Semitism such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism, and the Nexus Document. In contrast to the EU, the US has referenced other controversial definitions of anti-Semitism.
In sharp contrast to the IHRA definition, the Jerusalem Declaration states that, “Even if contentious, it is not anti-Semitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.” The Nexus Document is equally explicit. It states that “Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism.”
The US also appears to favour a less politicised definition that is not centred on shielding Israel and the political ideology of Zionism. In detailing its plan to combat the rise of anti-Jewish racism, the White House opted for the following definition: “Anti-Semitism is a stereotypical and negative perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred of Jews” said the strategy document, without mentioning Israel once. “It is prejudice, bias, hostility, discrimination or violence against Jews for being Jews or Jewish institutions or property for being Jewish or perceived as Jewish. Anti-Semitism can manifest as a form of racial, religious, national origin, and/or ethnic discrimination, bias, or hatred; or, a combination thereof. However, anti-Semitism is not simply a form of prejudice or hate. It is also a pernicious conspiracy theory that often features myths about Jewish power and control.”
Questions were also raised over why the EU adopted a definition that had been discarded because of its threat to fundamental rights to free expression. In 2004-2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) published a “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism”. This definition, according to the ELSC report, featured “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism”, including examples relating to the State of Israel. The examples were criticised due to its conflation between opposition to Israel and anti-Semitism. The definition was abandoned by the EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), which removed it from its website in 2013. In its explanation for discarding the IHRA, FRA explained that it had “never been viewed as a valid definition of anti-Semitism; that the Agency was not aware of any official EU definition of anti-Semitism; and that the document was removed in a clear-out of non-official documents.”
The most serious bad-faith attempt to mislead the public in order to roll out the IHRA is the claim that the definition is “non-legally binding”. Despite promoting the IHRA as “non-legally binding”, most of the EU Member States have endorsed the IHRA as the authoritative instrument for addressing anti-Semitism which, according to the ELSC, has given the definition centred on shielding Israel and Zionism “soft law power”. EU statements and policies through which the IHRA is being applied, is said to show that it has gained law like force and impact.
“Hard-core advocates of the IHRA always intended it to have binding legal status and force” said ELSC. “The ‘non-legally binding’ provision was only added to secure its adoption by the IHRA Plenary in May 2016. Efforts have been made since, in some Member States to introduce the IHRA as a basis for legislation.
The real-life impact has been devastating for critics of Israel. The IHRA has been implemented in the UK, Austria and Germany by public and private bodies in ways that have led to widespread infringement of the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly, ELSC found. Advocates of Palestinian rights, who are targeted, are said to suffer a range of unjust and harmful consequences, including loss of employment and reputational damage. IHRA is often found to be weaponised by pro-Israel advocates to intimidate and silence those advocating for Palestinian rights.
The good news is that, when challenged in court, most of the allegations of anti-Semitism based on the IHRA are found to be unsubstantiated and thrown out. Though this is a silver lining, the adoption of the IHRA has created a perverse situation which undermines democracy and the principal of “innocent until proven guilty”. In this toxic culture, some sections of the population are having to go to court to protect basic freedoms, like the right to free speech. According to the ELSC report, even though most challenges to the implementation of the IHRA were successful, the disciplinary procedures and litigation resulting from false allegations of anti-Semitism have produced a “chilling effect” on the freedom of expression and assembly.
The Collective West is more united than ever against China
By Bakhtiar Urusov – New Eastern Outlook – 14.06.2023
The US and the EU have now developed the closest positions on the PRC for the past three decades, according to the US Department of State.
On Tuesday, May 30, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was visiting Sweden, made a very ambiguous statement regarding China. At a joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the port Lulea, the head of the US Department of State said that the countries of the Collective West have developed the closest positions on the PRC in recent decades.
“In about 30 years of my work, I really haven’t seen a time when there has been greater overlap in approaches to China between the United States and Europe and key partners in Asia,” said Antony Blinken.
According to the Secretary of State, the US and the EU do not support economic separation from Beijing, but are in favor of neutralizing risks in relations with China. As you may recall, the Western interpretation of risk and threat is anything that contradicts its unconditional dominance and the reign of the “rule-based order.”
In this light, Blinken’s further exhortations that the West is applying various restrictive measures against Beijing “not to stop Chinese investment or sever ties,” but to ensure its own security, stop China’s “non-market economic practices” and that the West “does not seek to contain China” sound completely unconvincing and are unlikely to deceive the sophisticated reader.
“I believe that unity in approach to Beijing is deeply in our common interests – Europe, the United States and key Asian countries,” the head of the State Department stresses. It should be understood that the approach of the Collective West can be called neocolonial rather than friendly to the PRC.
Recall that earlier, during the G7 summit in Hiroshima that ended on May 21 this year, the heads of the most developed countries of the world have already demonstrated their common approach to China, which resulted in outright attacks on Beijing in the spirit of the Cold War. The communiqué issued after the summit focused “heavily” on the G7’s concerns about Taiwan, the South China Sea, as well as human rights and the PRC’s “non-market practices.” In response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry strongly protested to Tokyo for denigrating the PRC and interfering in the country’s internal affairs. Beijing noted that the G7 has a confrontational and Cold War mentality, and the biggest source of risk to the international order and the functioning of the world economy at the moment is the United States itself.
