Gearóid Ó Loinsigh ☭ writing in Substack on 1-October-2025.

Photo: Petro as Clinton’s chauffeur in Colombia 2013.

The recent speech by the Colombian president to the UN general assembly quickly went viral and rightly so. The speech was direct and spoke various truths to Trump and Netanyahu. It was well received by the majority of those in attendance and enraged the spoilt child in the Whitehouse. He dealt with various issues during his intervention, but perhaps the two most outstanding were Palestine and the eternal issue of drugs, both of which I will deal with.

Due to its style and also content, it would seem that Petro was conscious that this speech formed part of his political legacy as president of Colombia and was also cognizant of the setting. Though there are certain demagogic elements to what he said, there are also various truthful aspects but as usual mixed in with inaccuracies that ignore his own past and political positions that he adopted.

First of all, Petro raised his voice in defence of Palestine when he said:

There is no master race, gentlemen. There is no chosen people of God. It is not the USA nor Israel. Ignorant right-wing fundamentalists think like that. God’s chosen people is all of humanity.[1] 

Thus, he compared, rightly so, Zionism with Nazism. He also called to raise an army and bring the genocide to an end and free Palestine. It is unlikely to happen, though that is not reason enough to criticise it, as a president declaring the Israeli state to be an enemy of humanity is progress and says a lot about the deterioration of Israel’s image. Like it or not, Petro legitimised a certain approach to the USA and Israel, whilst we know that on his own Petro is not going to do much.

Humanity cannot permit one more day of genocide nor that the genocidaires of Netanyahu, nor his allies in the USA and Europe be allowed go free. The UN should enforce the decisions of the international tribunals of justice, international law which is the basis of civilisation and the wisdom of humanity condensed in history and should make their sentences enforced. 

Palestine has to be freed. I call upon the armies of Asia, of the Slavic peoples that so heroically defeated Hitler, the Latin-American armies of Bolivar, of Garabaldi who had one in Italy, of Martí, Artigas and Santa Cruz… they are not just going to bombard Gaza, not just the Caribbean as they are already doing, but all of humanity that cries out for freedom, because Washington and NATO murder democracy and rekindle tyranny and totalitarianism around the globe.[2]

There is some hyperbole mixed with messianic visions but one would like to think that there was a chance of such an army being raised, but those countries are not going to do it. Sooner or later their governments will return to realpolitik. They have been mute witnesses, silent, timid and fearful of the oppression of the Palestinians when they are not directly participating in it through their companies, business deals and agreements. 

Petro also has an erroneous view of the UN Peace Keepers. He says that the army that he wants to raise cannot be like them, it has to be well trained etc. First of all, he believes that the UN missions in the Arab world have failed and it is due to a lack of professionalism and military capacity. The UN missions in Lebanon are comprised of professional armies, amongst them China, Indonesia, Nepal and member states of NATO such as France, Spain and Italy, this last one being the country that has sent most troops.[3] They didn’t fail due to a lack of military ability, in fact they didn’t fail. Their formal mission was to help the Lebanese government restore its mandate in the area and monitor the cease fire with Israel, something it never does when Israel decides otherwise. And its real mission can be summed up as Contain the Resistance. And that they do comply with. It is worrying that Petro does not understand the reach and real goals of the UN missions when it comes to raising an army that he naively believes will do something different.

Though there is an army that could be raised, despite the political and organisational problems to do so: the working class. Italy demonstrated the power that a national strike can have. That is the only army that can be trusted, that could block all trade with Israel from one day to the next, but for decades we have seen the trade union bureaucracy demobilise workers and sign disadvantageous deals with the bosses and so we find ourselves at a point in which unions have little voice and less to say and do regarding a live streamed genocide. Politicians such as Starmer have blood on their hands due to their complicity, others due to their silence and in the trade union movement there are also those who have their hands stained with blood. In Ireland, for example, Shay Cody the former general secretary of one of the biggest unions in the country, Fórsa, sits on the Central Bank Commission. No union has said anything despite the sale of Israeli bonds to finance the genocide by this bank. When they are not silent, they take part.

In any case, Petro’s speech guaranteed him at the very least a footnote in the history of the UN. When he turned to the issue of drugs at the UN and in his later statements the reality and weakness of Petro is to be seen. Tough talk, but in practice, what exactly?

He denounced murder on the high seas by Trump and rightly pointed out that they never attack the real drug traffickers who are Trump’s neighbours, that live in the USA. This is true, but it was also so under Biden, Obama and his dear friend Bill Clinton - and Petro never waved that argument against them. He once again rightly asked what moral authority Trump has to decertify Colombia in the war on drugs. It is a good question, but Petro won’t like the answer. In the moral sense of the word, Trump is nobody. In the legal sense, well certification is US policy and it is sovereign when it comes to evaluating Colombia’s efforts, though it is still an imperialist act of interference in the affairs of the country. But Trump has the same moral authority, or lack thereof, as Obama, Biden, and Bush who certified Colombia and also the same moral authority as Clinton who decertified Colombia in 1996.

Clinton later in the name of the war on drugs launched Plan Colombia on the basis of false Trump-like figures. In a message to the Colombian people, he claimed that drugs killed more than 50,000 people per year in his country,[4] when the reality was that in 1997, 15,973 died from the abuse of All drugs including the abuse of pharmaceuticals.[5] They were the most recent data that Clinton had to hand when he lied like he was Trump. When Clinton visited Colombia as a private citizen in 2013, the person who offered to be his chauffer was none other than Petro himself. It is fine for him to say the US has no moral authority on the issue, but did Petro whisper in the ear of his platonic love, Bill Clinton, when he drove him around and about? If Petro is serious, then he has to act seriously against all of them and not just a few and implement policies that back that up and not limit himself to speeches at the UN when there are little more than six months to go for the Congressional elections in Colombia. Of course, if we reject the moral authority of the world’s biggest drugs consumer, or we decertify it, if you prefer, there are economic consequences to that. But when you fight, you fight.

Petro speaks of dignity

Colombia will not hand over its sovereignty. Liberals and conservatives that signed a communiqué today, surrendered that sovereignty when they sold Panama, when they handed over the Amazon jungle, when they handed over large parts of the Caribbean Sea, but we are not that class of people.[6]

Well, that is not quite true. Of course, all those that lived through the loss of Panama are dead and the same for those who saw Colombia lose parts of the Amazon. But nowadays, I wonder whether Colombia is sovereign and does not bow the knee to anyone as Petro claimed. The reality of his presidency says otherwise. Following Petro’s election it received no end of visits from high-ranking US military officers. Less than a month after his swearing in as president he met with the head of the Southern Command, General Richardson, and shortly after Colombia received a Military medical mission from the US in Cartagena. If he bows the knee to no one, then

  • Why did he propose to Biden that the US take care of the Colombian Amazon jungle?
  • Why are there still seven US military bases in Colombia?
  • Why is Petro going ahead with the building of a military base that will be used by the DEA, amongst others, on the Gorgona Island, a national park and a place of great ecological importance and biodiversity?

Those bases will be the launching pad for an invasion of Venezuela; they will be used against neighbouring countries and even represent a danger to the internal security of the country. Petro likes to talk a lot about the desires of the putrid Colombian right to overthrow him, and it never occurred to him that at some point those bases could play a role.

Let’s move on from nice words, and they were nice, to beautiful bold acts, shut down the bases! Do not let the Yanks have control of the Amazon! And reverse the decision on the Gorgona island!

Dignity starts at home.

References

[1] Gustavo Petro (23/09/2025) Intervención del presidente Gustavo Petro en el 80 Periodo Ordinario de Sesiones de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. 

[2] Ibíd.

[3] See.

[4] CDC (1999). National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol 47, No.19. 

[5] CDC (1999). National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol 47, No.19. 

[6] Gustavo Petro (17/09/2025) Alocución del presidente de la República, Gustavo Petro Urrego sobre la descertificación del gobierno de Estados Unidos a Colombia. 

⏩ Gearóid Ó Loingsigh is a political and human rights activist with extensive experience in Latin America.

The Hits And Misses Of Petro At The UN

Anthony McIntyre We made it early so managed to get seats beneath the roof. 


Not that it mattered because it was a dry evening, mild as well. Jay predicted a 1-0 victory for Drogheda as we made our way through the streets of the town in Paddy's car. He invariably favours Drogheda but would at the same time have them conceding a goal, so factoring in a clean sheet was a vote of confidence in the defence. Not being just as adventurous I played safe and went for the draw. I guess if I was a gambling guy I would make more from the bookies predicting draws than any other outcome.

Given what was at stake for Derry I thought there would be quite a turnout from their fans. They have a strong chance of featuring in Europe next season. When we reached the carpark it seemed that way because the only spaces available were much further to the rear than usual. As we left the car to walk over to the stadium we noticed a few Derry supporters, whom we exchanged pleasantries with. But it was all a false reading. The lure of Europe seemed not after all to have enticed the bulk of their travelling support to make the long journey by road from the Brandywell to Sullivan and Lambe Park, where the home support was top heavy. The Derry area of the stadium could not be described as densely populated. 

Three teams had an interest in the outcome of this match. Had it ended in a victory for Drogheda, last year's winners, Shelbourne, would have been replaced as league champions by a rampant Shamrock Rovers. Coming away with that solitary point meant that, mathematically, Derry can still win the title. While it would take the equivalent mental capacity of a Young Earth Creationist to believe it possible, it nevertheless left the champagne bottles at Tallaght with their corks still firmly in place. The Drogs would have benefitted greatly from a victory as it would have seen them breathing down the neck of Derry in the chase for European football. A draw, which is how it turned out, suited Derry much better than the home side as it prevents any closing of the gap. So in a sense the two losers on the night were Drogheda and Shamrock Rovers, the latter facing only a temporary blip in their quest to once again become champions. 

Photo @ Fiona Farrell

There was a feeling that the Candy Stripes would come with one eye on securing that European slot and the other on exacting revenge for their recent cup exit at the hands of the Claret and Blue. If so, the script didn't run quite as envisaged. A great strike by Dara Kareem - following the perfect chest down from Conor Keeley - his second in front of home fans in four days - gave the Windmill Road team a one goal advantage which they carried into the second half. If the young striker continues to deliver goals of this quality he seems destined to come on the radar of overseas scouts. 

Back on field after the interval, Derry seemed more energetic, and determined to get a point at least. When Danny Mullen pulled the sides level on the 54th minute, the European horizon receded into the distance for the home support, and almost slid out of view altogether but for woodwork which repulsed a Derry strike close to the final whistle.

As things stand, the Drogs lie fourth in the table, a vast improvement on last season when top drawer survival was not guaranteed until the very last match of the season - a playoff against Bray Wanderers. They are three points behind Bohs and trail Derry by four. If they can just get their nose ahead of the Dalymount Park outfit, they can make Europe. To do that they need to shed the draw mentality which so pegs them back. A possible three points tonight away to second from bottom Waterford is no longer on the cards, the match postponed due to to a waterlogged pitch. A wash out in Waterford means for this week anyway the Drogs will have to keep their powder dry in the hope that it will load their big guns for the crucial battles that remain as the season draws to a close. 

Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Drogs ⚽ Derry ⚽ Draw

Christopher Owens 🔖 When modern problems have been addressed in modern literature, the results haven't been favourable.


Be it the youth, urban professionals, social media moderators and universities, the humble novel has certainly tried to examine and embrace the online/real life brain rot that has slowly engulfed us all for the past 15 years but very few writers have been able to depict it so succinctly.

With discussions around how the internet has rewired the dating/sex/relationship landscape, it makes sense for a writer like Tony Tulathimutte to tackle such issues. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work.

Beginning life as an acclaimed short story called ‘The Feminist’ (immediately you can see where this is going), the first chapter is about a right on male feminist whose lack of success with women leads him down the obligatory “red pill” path. So far, so predictable.

But Christopher, I hear you say, surely the writing would allow for a subtle and nuanced look at such a character?

Here’s a segment from page 2:

The women he tries to date offer him friendship instead, so once again, most of his friends are women. This is fine: it's their prerogative, and anyway, lots of relationships begin platonically—especially for guys with narrow shoulders. But soon a pattern emerges. The first time, as he is leaving his friend's dorm room, he surprises himself by saying: Hey, this might be super random, and she can totally say no, but he's attracted to her, so did she want to go on a "date" date, sometime? In a casual and normal voice. And she says, "Oh," and filibusters—she had no idea he felt that way, and she doesn't want to risk spoiling the good thing they have by making it a thing, she thinks it'll be best if they just stay . . .  and he rushes to assure her that it's valid, no, totally valid, he knows friendship isn't a downgrade, sorry for being weird. Ugh!

Yes, that is an excerpt. I know, it reads like a third-rate Reddit parody.

Hang on, it gets worse.

Dragging his virginity like a body bag into his midtwenties, he watches a certain amount of dom-oriented porn, probably due to internalized sexism, but he’s read that porn is a safe, healthy venue to explore kink, that sexuality is neither a choice nor shameful, especially if the studios follow good labor and aftercare practices. His female friends agree, though he does not mention that he seeks out actresses that look like them, which he deems acceptable as long as he consumes it critically, demarcating fantasy from reality. He’s more worried about physical desensitization: he doesn’t use lubrication, because his roommates would overhear it. He comes to prefer the intensity of this “dry” method, but feels the friction is somehow eroding his psyche, and possibly dulling his penis nerves. He resolves to masturbate with a condom to wean himself. He wonders in what other ways touch, or the lack of it, has warped him. He’s read about that study of baby monkeys who were denied soft physical contact and grew up disturbed and sickly. It’s hard for him to believe chastity was ever associated with purity, when it feels like putrescence, his blood browning and saliva clouding with pus, each passing day rendering him more leprously foul to the senses. What about those venerable virgo intacta like Kant, Dickinson, Newton? Their virginity was a matter of will. They believed God loved them for it.

The voice of frustrated youth, eh?

As the novel progresses, we are introduced to the following stereotypes who (alongside the male feminist) are linked through various interactions:

🕮 A lonely young woman

🕮 A deeply repressed gay man

🕮 A self-obsessed work bro

🕮 An agender internet troll

Fascinating stuff


Unsurprisingly, at its core, the book is an earnest read. Rip away the faux detachment, the humour, the sexual masochism and what you see is a writer trying to negotiate what it means to be a confused and sexually frustrated misfit in 21st century America. While that’s an admirable ambition, Tulathimutte’s writing simply does not allow any chance for nuance or piercing insights into his characters. They are merely two-dimensional types who believe being repressed is their identity.

On top of that, the two main heterosexual male characters (the male feminist and an Andrew Tate/Elon Musk hybrid) are even worse: one is a snivelling wretch, and the other is a bland sociopath. It’s clear that Tulathimutte has no empathy or sympathy for them but does for the other non-straight white male characters. While it’s not necessary to have sympathetic villains, the fact that they are so over the top in their depiction negates the more sympathetic portrayals of the other characters.

Discussing 2022’s Fuccboi, Ann Manov’s description of it fits Rejection: A Novel like a glove in that it

 …accurately represent the cretinous depravity of the Millennial generation, as well as the self-aggrandising cult of martyrdom — increasingly by self-diagnosed mental or physical illness — with which my generation shirks the responsibilities historically incumbent upon the civilised mind…They are averse to or incapable of subjectivity and depth. What little allowance is made for human feeling is exclusively of pharmaceutical origin. These are not works of art; they are simply unremarkable descriptions of unremarkable lives. In the glib generational determinism so popular today, one excuses this shallowness of character and failure to depict any interpersonal conflict as a “real” and “relatable” mirror of the “autism” of the young generation…However, these writers, and the thinly disguised stand-ins that populate their autofiction, are not autistic. They are merely permanent adolescents, incapable of empathising with any experience outside of their own and comfortably withdrawn into a profound egotism.

Just say no to Rejection: A Novel.

Tony Tulathimutte, 2025, Rejection: A Novel. 4th Estate. ISBN-13: 978-0008759414


⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist and is the author of A Vortex of Securocrats and “dethrone god”.

Rejection 📚 A Novel

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Thirty Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 2902

 

A Morning Thought @ 2901

Anthony McIntyre  😼 Left presidential candidate Catherine Connolly is being pilloried in conservative circles because she offered a job as an administrative support worker to a former republican prisoner in 2018.

It is hard to see much in the way of sincerity in this criticism. It is, as Eamon O'Cuiv suggested, a puff of smoke, indeed a smoke signal conveying  a touch of alarm in the wake of the first televised presidential debate. Of the three candidates in the race Catherine Connolly was the most presidential. Jim Gavin was a wooden one, fielding questions like a boring Brussels bureaucrat with a key in his back. Heather Humphreys' standout moment of the night was solely down to her attire. I facetiously commented to my son while we watched the debate that her sash was a different colour from what some of her detractors anticipated.

Gardai, who might be responsible for leaking the information, are reported to have blocked the person sought by Connolly for the position. A specialist in the field of the Irish language - an area neither of Connolly's rivals for the presidency seem to know much about - Ursula Ní Shionnáin is clearly capable: notched up in her CV are a Trinity primary degree, a Galway Masters and a PhD. She would have brought a lot of erudition to the post. That she has a conviction for republican activity should not have excluded her from either applying or being considered for the job. She hardly posed a threat to anyone in Leinster House. There have been enough former IRA members who have sat in the Dail chamber in the presence of Micheal Martin and Simon Harris. Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris, Dessie Ellis all had long careers in the Provisional IRA, the first two at senior leadership levels. 

While, standard fare for the electioneering season, there is an element of chutzpah to Micheal Martin in his criticisms of Connolly. He claimed she displayed a “serious lack of judgement”. I guess we are supposed to take from such an observation that he and Simon Harris displayed better judgement by allowing Michael Lowry a kingmaker role in the makeup of the current government. It is understandable that the Fianna Fail leader might prefer people in the Dail if they support the peace process. But it seems he is just as embracive of those who support the fleece process. 

Moreover, it was a deputy leader of Fianna Fail and former government minister who strongly recommended Ms Ní Shionnáin to Catherine Connolly. Eamon O'Cuiv also vented his surprise that Micheal Martin did not speak to him first before making his statement given that he had frequently visited imprisoned republicans.

Catherine Connolly has stated her own abhorrence of violence and there is no reason to doubt her. Her credentials showing that she speaks for the marginalised in society would have been called into question had she decided to marginalise former prisoners even further than they already are. It is not as if Ursula Ní Shionnáin is a convicted paedophile applying for a job in a school. She wanted to work in an environment which already houses former republican prisoners serving as legislators.

There just might be fewer voters upset by Catherine Connolly's pick than there are by that of Micheal Martin and Simon Harris, feeling that Lowry much less than Ní Shionnáin should be gracing the corridors of Leinster House.

Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

The Appointment

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ In 2029, assuming the incumbent government last, the electorate of Britain will be due to go to the polls to elect a new government in a general election. 

At the moment the incumbent Labour administration appear not to be riding too high in the polls. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is at an all-time low in the popularity stakes and all in all things are not looking too good for the administration despite winning the 2024 general election by a landslide. 

One of the problems perhaps being this Labour Party is not the organisation I and most of my generation we were brought up with. Their policies have little if anything in common with the party of James Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, and Harold Wilson. On the contrary the modern variant is trying to govern the affairs of British capitalism while maintaining the façade of being of the old Clause IV school. 

That said, the party riding high in the polls are the far-right Reform UK led by Nigel Farage. This party are a neo-fascist far-right organisation and should not in any way be trusted. Their leader Farage was in the Conservative and Unionist Party under Margaret Thatcher, herself holding many far-right views, and he supported her anti-trade union political position. Reform UK are in a position it would appear to be calling the shots whether in government or not. Already the Labour government have been forced into proposing some of the fascists' policies themselves in order to appease the electorate into not voting in 2029 for Farage and his gang. The main opposition party, the Conservative and Unionist Party, led by Kemi Badenoch, are also bending over themselves to wear the clothing of the fascist Reform UK. Reform UK advocate, if they get into power, the use of MOD property to use as camps to lock up all immigrants, legal or otherwise, using troops as guards. The government of Starmer have been quick to ape such policies. These camps will be akin to the Nazi concentration camps in the early years of the Third Reich. The frightening thing is; Farage could get his way whether he is in Number Ten or not simply by dragging the parliamentary political axis to the right thus forcing some of his policies through by the ‘back door’! The British Labour Party supports, against many of its left-wing MPs views, the deportation of illegal immigrants but this does not include the vast majority of migrants in Britain lawfully.

On Sunday 28th September I watched the BBC Programme, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, which was in Liverpool for the Labour Party Annual Conference. The chief guest on the programme was Keir Starmer who for once gave a credible account of his vision. Again, not in the old Labour Party way but, nevertheless, by comparisons with some of his interviews he was credible. He concentrated on the achievements his government had succeeded during their fourteen months of office. That is, at present, one month for every year of the Tory misrule which lasted fourteen years. He emphasised the achievements in the National Health Service (NHS) creating “five million new places for patients” and his success in securing “fifteen years shipbuilding on Clydeside” along with their nationalisation of the remaining British Steel Industry. That in such a period is not too bad and compared with the alternatives, Reform UK and/or the Conservative and Unionist Party, for these days is progressive. He described Reform UK's policies of expelling all immigrants, legal or otherwise, as “racist and immoral” and that such policies would “tear Britain apart”. 

The Prime Minister pointed out that many immigrants have lived and worked in Britain for generations and to start deporting these people would “destroy” the NHS. That would not bother Nigel Farage and Reform UK as they are not supporters of the NHS and never have been. In fact they would in all probability privatise the service and they may see mass deportations of migrant Doctors and Nurses as killing two birds with one stone. Could that be their aim? Despite these gains made by the Labour administration they are still way behind Reform UK in the polls. If an election was called tomorrow, they are estimated to achieve upwards of 350 seats which is more than enough to form a government. Thereby hangs the question; could that be the last election Britain sees for some time?

Nigel Farage by his own tongue has stated; “we lack experience in government which is our only setback”. But that would not bother Farage because him and his party intend running Britain like a business, certainly on business lines, and not a political entity in its liberal democratic sense at all. This form of governance often called ‘corporatism’ and is a major component factor of fascism. It was the way Mussolini governed Italy, Franco Spain, and Hitler Germany. Trade unions and workers right to strike along with the right to negotiate will possibly be things of the past and with most people dancing in the streets like demented chimps over the mass deportations all these factors will go unnoticed, for a period! By the time people have caught themselves on it could be far too late to do anything about the new ‘corporate’ fascist state. Many of Reform UK's supporters have been interviewed on television and all showed a desire to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Do these people not realise, are they too fucking stupid, that by leaving the ECHR it may well pave the way to deport people easier but it also could lead to denying every citizen the rights they presently enjoy! Is this really what people want? I agree with Keir Starmer; the policies of reform are “racist and immoral”. The Prime Minister did stop short of calling Reform UK ‘fascist’ which in my view is what they are.

The leader of the British opposition Ms Kemi Badenoch is what could be described as a black Margaret Thatcher. She has jumped on the right-wing populist bandwagon aften aping some of Nigel Farage’s policies. Perhaps what Kemi Badenoch should consider if Reform UK win the 2029 election, and I hope they do not, where could that leave her? Her family would be of immigrant stock and assuming Farage would not need her to prop up his administration could she herself be deported or worse? The election of 2029 could well be a date with destiny as since Colin Jordan and his fringe party of Nazis tried to make an impact an openly fascist party are possibly on the verge of taking power. Jordan’s National Socialist Movement (NSM) of the early nineteen-sixties were a fringe organisation with little support, and not until the early nineteen-eighties did the British National Party (BNP) make some minor gains in local authority elections. Farage is now mainstream, not fringe, and should - unlike his predecessors - be taken seriously! If he should win the 2029 election such victory will have repercussions for Ireland as renegotiating (or ripping up) the Good Friday Agreement is high on Reform UKs agenda! And that may just be the beginning!
 
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

British Election 2029 🪶 A Date with Destiny?

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Thirty Eight

 

A Morning Thought @ 2900

 

A Morning Thought @ 2899

Jim Duffy ✍ The trouble often with world wars is that often people don't know if they are in one until after the event. 

Historians still debate whether World War I really started in 1914. Many argue that it started in 1912 when the Balkan League declared war on, and defeated, the Ottoman Empire in the first of two Balkan wars between 1912 and 1914, with those wars setting the scene for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914.

The idea that it started in 1914 is very much a western European and American perspective as they weren't in any conflict before 1914 or later in the case of the US.
 


 
Similarly with World War II, did it start in September 1939, March 1939 or in 1938? Some even say earlier. Some date it to the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. Some date it to the annexation of Austria. Western Europe dates it to September 1939 and Nazi-Russian invasion of Poland, as that is what involved the west in a war.
 
If one asked many people even in August 1914 were they in a world war they would say "no. Of course not!" Then again, was World War I even the first world war? Arguably there were wars earlier that could be called world wars as they involved people on multiple continents through European empires.
There is general though reluctant agreement that Putin is determined to start a full war, and that his hybrid war is a form of war just marginally below the legal threshold but which at any time could step over that threshold. Had the attempt by Russia to cause the plane of the President of the European Commission to crash in Bulgaria succeeded we would be in a full war now. That would legally be a casus belli.
 
The hybrid war is targeting every country in Europe, neutrals and NATO alike. Ireland has been targeted at least once, while Russian spy ships have been gathering data on underwater cables and interconnectors on critical infrastructure Ireland depends on and which could cause chaos in Ireland (causing long-term power-cuts, shutting down businesses and banks, etc). Try running Ireland when it loses 50%+ of its electricity generation ability at a time when it can barely generate enough electricity!!!
 
Every neutral bar tiny geographically irrelevant Malta has been targeted in hybrid attacks. Ireland has. Switzerland has. Austria has. Cyprus has. Add to that Russia's attempts to plant incendiaries on planes flying from Europe to North America, with quick timers which suggest they wanted the planes to crash either in the Benelux Countries, Britain or Ireland. They were timed to ignite while over land, not the Atlantic. Russian state-run TV gloated over a piece on it by a long-time Putin mouthpiece on Ukraine threatening to let off a nuclear bomb off the coast of Donegal to destroy Ireland.
 
The Taoiseach said that the Irish population was "blissfully unaware" of the threat to Ireland, and drunk on neutrality delusions. It is. So are some of his ministers. Thankfully the Minister for Defence isn't.
Most countries now believe Putin is so intent on causing a war that it is unavoidable, just as Hitler was so intent on causing one that it was unavoidable though Chamberlain desperately tried to avoid it until he realised it was impossible to. Denmark, hardly a warlike nation, predicts a war within three to five years. Germany predicts possibly as soon as eighteen months. Putin's behaviour is so explicit and aggressive that it seems he is determined to cause one, though it is the last thing other countries want.
France and Germany have both ordered major upgrading of their health service to be ready to deal with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of injured people. It is the last thing they want, but given Putin's behaviour (including massing large numbers of troops on the Finnish border) they realised it would be reckless not to prepare their health services.
 
They hope it doesn't happen, but suspect it is going to, and as history shows, no matter how much a country tries to avoid a war, it becomes unavoidable if a bad actor is intent on causing one that engulfs them. You can say all you want that you don't want one, but it becomes unavoidable when your state is attacked directly or indirectly or you know it is about to be.
 
Ukraine signed the Bucharest Memorandum to avoid war, giving its nuclear weapons to Russia and agreeing to put neutrality in its constitution. Putin broke it and every other deal. They quickly realised neutrality means nothing to Putin except that he considers you an easy target. He invaded Ukraine, forcing it to try to join NATO for protection. When Merkel blocked it that left Ukraine a sitting duck for Putin and he invaded a second time in 2022 and has to fight to preserve its independence.
 
So, no matter how much you don't want war, a bad actor determined to cause one will, and drag you in. Putin has made explicit threats to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova and a host of other countries. When he questioned Finland's right to be independent after a century of independence, Finland, like Sweden, once they see him attack Ukraine a second time concluded neutrality is dead and they needed to join NATO. Cyprus also wants to join NATO, but its enemy Turkey is blocking it.
 
The likelihood, tragically, is that a war is highly likely. As in the past, often countries may not know they are in a major war, or even a world war, until it has started and they are in it. Historians will then look to see could the attack on Ukraine in 2022 be regarded as the beginning of the war.
 
The best advice on how to avoid war remains the 4th or 5th century AD 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' by Publius (or Flavius) Vegetius Renatus, known as Vegetius. It means "If you want peace, prepare for war." In other words, be sufficiently well armed and protected that your enemy will not dare attack you. In modern parlance it is 'peace through strength'. That is why NATO members and neutrals are all significantly increasing defence spending - as a deterrent. Austria has raised its defence spend to 1% of GDP. Switzerland will reach that in 2030. Cyprus is at 1.8%. Ireland, naturally is at 0.24% of GDP, or 0.4% of GNI.
 
Either number is damning. It is also damning that after a century of independence Ireland still has to rely on Britain to do its basic air and sea defences for it. A core duty of every state is to be able to protect its air, sea and land. Yet independent Ireland has flunked it.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Hybrid War

Labour Heartlands ☭ Written by Paul Knaggs.

This is not socialism, it’s liberalism in a red dress. Sultana’s Purity Politics…

Zarah Sultana’s recent interview revealed a troubling authoritarian streak beneath her carefully burnished image of grassroots democracy. Before Your Party has held a single meeting or drafted a single policy, she has already drawn rigid ideological boundaries. “There is no room for socially conservative views in a socialist left-wing party. Period,” she declared, before Nish Kumar sneered that those who disagree should “join the Conservative Party and watch a Ricky Gervais Netflix special.” So much for the democratic part of democratic socialism.

But what she really said was there’s no room for anyone that’s not Pro-Trans…

The sleight of hand here is plain. The dividing line for entry into her “movement” is not opposition to austerity, nor resistance to monopoly capitalism, nor any of the material struggles that once defined socialism. It is conformity to a liberal position on transgender ideology. Class war has been quietly displaced by culture war.

And listen to the language she uses to enforce it:

I’ve always stood with the trans community, and I always will. The same forces targeting migrants and Muslims are attacking LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people. Our safety is in solidarity. None of us are free until all of us are free. That’s the new party we’re building. Bigotry has no place in it.

Stirring words, until you notice the sleight of tongue. In one sweeping gesture, racism, Islamophobia, and legitimate concerns about sex-based rights are folded into the same toxic category of “bigotry.” Women raising questions about safe spaces, fairness in sport, or the Orwellian erasure of language itself are dismissed as indistinguishable from far-right cranks.

Socialism Or Liberalism? The Trans Ideology Litmus Test Dividing The Left