A guest post by Matt Taibbi and Racket Staff Subscribe

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock this week, on entering a “new era of nefariousness”:

I say clearly and across the Atlantic, what is right and what is wrong shall never be irrelevant to us. No one wants and no one needs peace more than the Ukrainians and Ukraine. The diplomatic efforts of the U.S. are of course important here. But such a peace must be just and lasting and not just a pause until the next attack… We will never accept a perpetrator-victim reversal. A perpetrator-victim reversal would be… the end of security for the vast majority of countries. And it would be fatal for the future of the United States.

Baerbock’s declaration that a “perpetrator-victim reversal” (a Täteropferumkehr, I’m reliably informed) would be “fatal” to the U.S. was historic. It was accompanied by a promise that “as transatlantacists,” Europeans must “stand up for our own interests, our own values, and our own security.” Although new leaders are ready to take the reins in Germany, she said, there can be no waiting for the transfer of power. Immediately, “Germany must take the lead at this historic milestone.”

A few years ago Baerbock pleaded for patience with a British conservative who demanded to know why Germany wasn’t providing Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

Now, with Donald Trump cutting off weapons deliveries and shutting down access to ATACMS missiles, Baerbock’s speech is an expression of more enthusiastic European support for continued fighting.

The war in Ukraine is often called a proxy conflict between Russia and the West or Russia and the U.S., but it increasingly looks more like a fight between Baerbock’s “transatlanticists” and those who believe in “spheres of influence.” In preparing Racket’s accompanying “Timeline: The War in Ukraine,” I found both sides articulated this idea repeatedly.

In January, 2017, as he was preparing to relinquish his seat to Mike Pence, Joe Biden alluded to the recent election of Donald Trump in a speech at Davos. Describing the “dangerous willingness to revert to political small-mindedness” of “popular movements on both the left and right,” Biden explained:

We hear these voices in the West—but the greatest threats on this front spring from the distinct illiberalism of external actors who equate their success with a fracturing of the liberal international order. We see this in Asia and the Middle East… But I will not mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia.

Biden even then lumped Trump and Putin together, as enemies of the “liberal international order.” Russian counterparts like Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, spoke of a “post-West world order” where diplomatic relations would be based on “sovereignty” and the “national interests of partners.” These are two fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews. Was conflict inevitable, or could peace have held if Russia didn’t strike in 2022?

There’s no question who invaded whom. Hostilities began in February, 2022 with an angry speech by Vladimir Putin and bombs that landed minutes later in Ukraine. Little discussion of the “why” of the war took place in the West, however.

Phrases like “unprovoked aggression” became almost mandatory in Western coverage. Politico interviewed a range of experts and concluded that what Putin wanted was “a revanchist imperialist remaking of the globe to take control of the entire former Soviet space.” This diagnosis of Putin’s invasion as part of a Hitlerian quest for Lebensraum and a broader return to national glory might have merit, but it was also conspicuously uncontested. A differing article by University of Chicago professor John Mearshimer declaring the crisis “the West’s fault” made him, as The New Statesman just put it, “the world’s most hated thinker.” Few went there after.

Russians and Ukrainians don’t have the typical profiles of ancient warring tribes. They have a deeply intertwined history, with citizens of both countries retaining many of the same customs, jokes, and home remedies, while living in the same crumbling Soviet buildings, with fondness for the same cabbage soup and moonshine. There are huge numbers of mixed/bilingual families and many famous cultural figures (including my hero Nikolai Gogol) are claimed by both countries. They’ve fought before, but what jumped out reviewing this “Timeline” is how much it seemed that these old Slavic neighbors mostly fall out now over attitudes toward the West.

It’s hard looking back not to be struck by the superior tone of bodies like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), whose “reviews” of Ukrainian and Russian elections often read like zoological descriptions of inferior species. Same with a tsk-tsking report by a mission of visiting IMF economists in 2013, who were appalled by Ukrainian energy subsidies that were among of the few popular remnants of Soviet life.

These imperious Western assessments of childlike Slavs, and the panic and shame of some local officials before such foreign judgments, recall familiar satires in Russian literature (The Government Inspector comes to mind). Nationalists in both countries balked at this “advice,” and by the late nineties some came to the conclusion that the cost of cooperation with the West was greater than the benefit. These dynamics accelerated after the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan events of 2013-2014, which Russians still see as a West-backed coup and the beginning of the current war. Russians will say “first blood” was drawn in military operations against Donbass protesters around the same time. Those in the West will point at the 2014 annexation of Crimea as the beginning of territorial war.

The idea of Germany “taking the lead” in a war to secure the primacy of “transatlanticists” worries me more than trying to pronounce Täteropferumkehr. However, whether or not you think Baerbock is right, and a peace deal now would be a worthless “pause,” depends a lot on how you read this history. What do you think, and why?

Liberals Picks Mark Carney as their new leader and Calls It ‘Historic’—But Let’s Look at the Numbers

Oh, look—it’s the biggest non-event in Canadian politics: the Liberal Party leadership race! The CBC, bless their little subsidized hearts, have been hyping this up like it’s some kind of monumental moment for democracy. Like Canada is holding its breath to see who will replace Justin Trudeau.

And listen, I’ll say this—thank God we don’t have to watch Trudeau waffle around anymore. That guy spent nearly a decade embarrassing Canada on the world stage, throwing out empty platitudes, and burdening Canadians with crushing taxes while his buddies made millions off government contracts. Good riddance.

But here’s the thing: who are they replacing Trudeau with? Enter Mark Carney. The media is desperately trying to sell you this idea that he’s some kind of outsider. An outsider! Right. Because nothing says “outsider” like a guy whose signature is literally on the country’s currency.

Even John Stewart—who, once upon a time, was a sharp comedian but is now just another Democratic Party lapdog—got on The Daily Show and actually tried to push this nonsense. During the Liberal leadership debate, Carney himself got up there and tried to gaslight Canadians, claiming he’s not a politician, just a pragmatist. A pragmatist! Oh, of course. He’s not a career political insider—he’s just a guy who ran the Bank of Canada, then ran the Bank of England, then bounced around every globalist economic institution imaginable before parachuting into Ottawa. Just your average outsider, folks.

Mark, come on. You are literally the definition of an establishment insider. You’ve been embedded in the power structure of this country for decades. You’ve been making economic decisions that affect millions of Canadians while sitting in rooms with the wealthiest elites on the planet. But now, we’re supposed to believe you’re just a humble, practical guy stepping in to help? No, Mark—you’re running to be Prime Minister. That is literally the definition of being a politician. Own it.

Let’s talk about enthusiasm—or, more accurately, the total lack of it when it comes to the Liberal Party of Canada. The media is working overtime, trying to convince you that this party is roaring back to life after Trudeau’s exit, that a “new era” has begun, that Canadians are rallying behind their fresh new leader. And yet, when you actually look at the numbers, the whole thing falls apart faster than a Liberal campaign promise.

The Liberal leadership race—the big moment where the party supposedly reinvents itself, the grand rebirth, the resurrection the media won’t stop talking about—managed to pull in a whopping 151,899 votes. That’s everyone who participated. Just to be clear, this wasn’t some exclusive club—you didn’t have to pay to vote, you didn’t even have to show any real commitment. Memberships were free. The party was practically begging people to sign up. And still, after all the hype, all the coverage, all the desperate attempts to make this seem like a big deal, they couldn’t even break 152,000 votes.

Meanwhile, let’s rewind to 2022. The Conservative leadership race—where people actually had to pay money to vote—brought in 417,987 ballots. And just Pierre Poilievre alone? 285,000 votes. Let me repeat that—Poilievre, by himself, got almost twice as many votes as the entire Liberal Party could muster. But sure, let’s pretend there’s a massive groundswell of excitement for Mark Carney, a guy nobody outside the Laurentian elite even wanted in the first place.

And here’s where it gets even better. The polling—oh, the polling. For months, the Liberals have been sinking. Before Trudeau resigned, they were floundering at 24% support. Then, magically, within days of picking a new leader, they skyrocket to 33%? A 9-point jump in the blink of an eye? Wow, what a coincidence! You mean to tell me that the same Canadians who couldn’t be bothered to sign up for a free membership, the same Canadians who have overwhelmingly turned against this party, suddenly decided they’re on board again—just because the party swapped one out-of-touch elitist for another?

No. That’s not how this works. That’s not how enthusiasm works.

This isn’t some grand Liberal resurgence. This is the Liberal-friendly media manufacturing a comeback narrative because their government subsidies depend on it. The same journalists who screamed for years about the Conservative “far-right” threat are now bending over backwards to convince you that Mark Carney is a fresh outside

And you know what? Maybe if they had actually let Ruby Dhalla into this race, they would’ve stood a chance. Seriously. I had to do a double-take when I looked at her policies—supporting small business, tough on crime, actual immigration regulation—I mean, that’s how you win the center. That’s how you stop a Conservative majority and turn it into a minority government. If they had let her run, we’d be having a very different conversation right now.

But what did the Liberals do? Oh, they disqualified her over—get this—campaign finance irregularities. But guess what? They kept the money. That’s right. The party flagged “violations,” kicked her out, and then conveniently pocketed the cash. If that’s not the most Liberal Party thing I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is.

Instead, they’re giving us Mark Carney, a guy who has zero grassroots appeal, who has never won an election in his life, and who thinks he can waltz into power simply because the Laurentian elite think it’s his turn. That’s the play here, folks. The media is going to prop him up, the political insiders are going to rally around him, and the Liberals are hoping that Canadians just go along with it.

But here’s the truth: Canadians aren’t buying it. The numbers prove it. The excitement isn’t there. The support isn’t there. And come election time, the Liberals are going to get a very rude awakening.

source:

• Mark Carney detailed profile and political aspirations
• AP News article on Mark Carney’s leadership bid
• CTV News profile on Mark Carney’s leadership run
• Liberal Party membership numbers announcement
• CBC News Poll Tracker for Canadian elections
• Ruby Dhalla’s Wikipedia page with political history
• CBC News report on Ruby Dhalla’s disqualification
• CBC News guide on following Liberal leadership coverage