| | | | Putin's Speech Should Be Scary…for Russians | | Vladimir Putin's claim in his state of the nation address Thursday that Russia has developed an "invincible" missile sounded ominous to Western ears. But it should worry Russians, too, suggests Leonid Bershidsky for Bloomberg View. Putin is bound to be re-elected, and judging by his saber-rattling speech, "Russia is in for another six years of muscle-flexing and stagnation."
"The problem is not so much with the modern weapons—a country as big as Russia needs military strength—as with what the weapons are needed to defend. Without a coherent vision of the future or an attractive model for others to imitate, without any soft power to speak of, without an economic model that can ensure sustainable growth or keep people out of poverty, the missile-rattling is a terrifying but hollow sound," Bershidsky writes. "In the context of a mock election with a predetermined result, Russia's growing military might means better protection for an unaccountable, oppressive regime that doesn't have to keep any of the promises it makes. It's muscle without hope or substance."
"Modernizing weaponry is fine as long as the rest of the country also undergoes modernization and sheds the features of a mafia state. That's a tougher job and one Putin knows is required; he just isn't particularly excited about it…"
| | Why Winnie the Pooh Gets Under Chinese Censors' Skin | | | Chinese censors went into overdrive in the wake of news that the Communist Party plans to drop term limits for the presidency. The extraordinary efforts to tamp down online criticism of the move would be funny if the implications weren't so serious, writes Fergus Ryan for The Strategist.
"Some of the top words to face the chopping block on Monday morning included 'Winnie' from 'Winnie the Pooh', who has, since 2013, been used to mock [Chinese President Xi Jinping's] appearance. With it banned, censors then had to block references to 'Disney China', the company that owns the rights to the famously cuddly bear.
"Chinese netizens then began to plumb the depths of both low and high culture to find new allusions—using screenshots as varied as those from popular TV shows…As the news spread, the list of banned words blew out to a ridiculous degree, to include 'I disagree', 'boarding a plane' and the title of George Orwell's dystopian classic, Animal farm. Even the Roman alphabet letter 'N' was blocked."
"Behind the gallows humor is growing despair. Those Chinese internet users looking for ways to emigrate surely know in their bones what Jerome Cohen, a Chinese legal expert and New York University professor, wrote in a blog post yesterday: 'The Chinese Communist Party's proposed abolition of China's presidential term limit means that it has forgotten one of the main lessons of Mao's long despotism. [The two-term limit's] abolition signals the likelihood of another long period of severe repression.'" | | Trump's Throwback Thursday Trade Policy | | President Donald Trump's announcement Thursday that his administration will impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports roiled markets and could "affect relationships with allies," Jonathan Swan writes for Axios.
"Trump is also touching the third rail of international trade law—he's using an arcane trade law known as Section 232 to justify his actions. He's saying 'F You' to the World Trade Organization and arguing the global overproduction of steel and aluminum constitutes a national security threat to the US." - We've been here before. Justin Worland writes for TIME that the Trump tariffs bear an uncanny resemblance to a George W. Bush era move. Guess how that worked out?
The imposition of tariffs on foreign steel "set off a chain reaction. The European Union responded with tariffs of its own and a number of countries disputed the tariffs at the World Trade Organization. Less than a year after the announced tariffs, the WTO ultimately ruled that the US had violated international trade agreements by imposing the tariffs, opening the door for sanctions and retaliation.
"And, in fact, the European Union ended up hitting Bush where it hurt. The bloc planned tariffs on a wide range of products, including many produced in key swing states where job losses could hurt Bush's chances of re-election. In late 2003, Bush reversed the sanctions in a move that would be branded as a flip flop."
| | Elections Are Coming to the
Middle East. Nothing to See Here… | | | Election season is coming to the Middle East. But don't get too excited, argues Yaroslav Trofimov for the Wall Street Journal. The "authoritarian restoration and sectarian conflict" since the Arab Spring seven years ago have largely dashed hopes that anything much will change. "The Arab world's most populous country—Egypt—is holding a presidential election this month. Lebanon will pick a new parliament and government on May 6, its first national election in nearly a decade. A week later, Iraqis will go to the polls for the first time since Islamic State's spread and defeat upended the country's politics," Trofimov writes. "In none of these cases is the direction of the countries holding the vote likely to change significantly—either because the elections themselves have turned into a meaningless ritual (as in Egypt), or because the fractured nature of societies and the power of armed militias make electoral results secondary to deal-making among sectarian and political factions (as in Lebanon and Iraq)." | | The Trouble with the Anti-Plastic Movement | | A Dutch supermarket made headlines this week with the launch of a plastic-free aisle. But the focus on slashing plastic use in the West is at best simplistic—and could even be counterproductive, The Economist argues in a leader.
"The effects of plastic on nature and human health are hard to gauge. Most polymers are chemically inert. That makes them durable. It also makes them less likely to be a health risk to humans and beasts. As a pollutant, their impact is much lower than less tangible menaces," The Economist says.
"By one estimate, the environmental and social costs of plastic run to $139 billion a year, chiefly from the greenhouse gases produced in its production and transport. The figure for farming is $3 trillion. Fertilizer run-off alone causes $200 billion to 800 billion worth of damage to the ocean, compared with $13 billion from plastic marine litter. Then look at the alternatives. A cotton tote bag must be used 131 times before its carbon footprint improves on that of a throwaway carrier bag."
"This does not stop plastic from being a problem. But bans and penalties on plastic bags in rich countries may be better for the conscience than for the environment.
"Using less is at best a partial solution. A better answer is to collect more—especially in Asia." | | | | | | |
