We start the press tour from the Sunday Times and a report written by Mark Galeotti entitled: “Putin is insulted in Kherson but Zelensky should beware of overconfidence.”
The writer says that Putin’s decision to withdraw from Kherson may be a turning point in the war, not because of the fate of this broken city, but for what might happen later.
Moscow hopes to slow the progress of Ukrainian forces, at a time when Kyiv smells of a major victory, and the West fears that the rapid and successful progress of the Ukrainians could push Putin to escalate.
The writer believes that the Ukrainian army was wise enough to force the Russian army to withdraw, after hitting its supply lines and besieging it.
He adds that the Russian generals knew from a period that Kherson was untenable, and Putin hesitated to take the step because of the city’s political importance, as it is the only regional capital that he succeeded in bringing down, and then declared that its citizens “are our citizens forever.”
The Russian hope was limited to implementing a successful withdrawal in order to use those forces to fortify new lines of defense.
Galeotti adds: Putin probably does not expect to win this war on the battlefield, so he seeks to deny Ukraine a quick victory, while noting that Russia is able to draw on its resources to keep the war going indefinitely, and therefore he hopes to destabilize The West’s willingness to continue arming and financing this conflict.
One of the nightmares of Western governments is, according to the author, the possibility that Ukrainians will see an opportunity for a direct attack on Crimea, which means a lot to Putin – and indeed to most Russians – not as much as the territories he recently annexed. Perhaps Putin considers the “potential loss of Crimea an existential threat to his power.”
The writer notes that the Russian president has proven that he can be a rational person and accept loss, as he did when he gave up control of the capital Kyiv – last March – and now with Kherson, and the fear is that if Crimea faces a sudden and unexpected threat, Putin may resort to tactical nuclear weapons.
The writer concludes his report by saying that the liberation of Kherson is undoubtedly a Ukrainian victory. However, there are growing disagreements behind the scenes between the Western allies and Kyiv and its supporters over when peace negotiations will take place and how the war might end.
Cold War with China
Under the headline “Europe Takes a Stand on the New Cold War with China”, Matthew Lane writes in the Sunday Telegraph that in the new Cold War, economy and trade will be constrained, technology will weave a fence and intellectual property will be vigorously protected.
Industrial capabilities will be built and supply chains will be brought closer to importers in order to ensure flexibility should anything go wrong, according to the author.
He adds that while relations between the West and China are deteriorating sharply, every developed country has to choose to side with it, and indeed it has become clear who the major powers in Europe – and the European Union – have chosen to stand next to. They chose China.
Over the past weeks, we have seen examples of increasing industrial and commercial ties with China, according to the author.
He gives an example of this in the partnership between the Renault (French) and Geely (Chinese) car companies, with the blessing of French President Emmanuel Macron, as well as the purchase by the Chinese Cosco Shipping Company of a large stake in the port of Hamburg in Germany.
With these investment decisions, Europe chose the East, Lynn envisioned.
The writer mentions the policies of China. It “restricts any attempt at democracy in Hong Kong, increases its control over its people by pursuing a zero-covid policy, harasss Taiwan and supports Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”
China, in light of its growing wealth, could turn into a liberal democratic country like South Korea, but this seems far from the present time, according to the writer.
The United States prepared to defend itself against a powerful China, increased its support for Taiwan, and imposed technologically harsh sanctions forcing American engineers to leave China and American companies to look for alternative suppliers, often at great cost.
The writer criticizes the discourse that calls for the union of the European position towards the growing Chinese influence at a time when economic ties between Europe and China are deepening at an accelerating pace. He points to the recent announcement by three Chinese companies of their plans to open factories in Portugal, Spain and Germany.
On the other hand, the European Union attacked, according to the author, the support enjoyed by American companies, in light of President Biden’s recent inflation reduction law, arguing that this gives an advantage to American products over European exports.
Goal “unreal forCombat Climate change“
We conclude our tour of the Observer with a report entitled: “Climate Summit Must Recognize 1.5°C An Unattainable Goal”.
Recognizing the unavoidable effects of climate change is essential for fossil fuel companies and governments to take serious steps, says Bill McGuire, the report’s author.
McGuire criticized British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for saying at the COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh that controlling global warming was still within reach, prompting many to wonder “on what planet does man live?”
A year after the Glasgow summit – COP26 – the picture looks bleak, with only 24 countries taking action to reduce their emissions, while global carbon emissions are on the rise.
The writer believes that the goal of reducing the Earth’s temperature by 1.5 degrees Celsius is “on ventilators and on the way to death.” He adds that the United Nations Environment Program said the same when it announced that there was no longer any credible path to achieving the 1.5°C target.
The writer went on to say: Achieving the 1.5°C goal requires reducing emissions by 45 percent in the next seven years, while we are on the way to increasing it by 10 percent, and achieving this goal was available seven years ago when the matter was discussed at the Paris summit. cup 21).
Working to stop any rise in the Earth’s temperature above 1.5 degrees Celsius, even by one tenth of a degree Celsius, will become, according to McGuire, critical, and preventing the emission of every ton of carbon dioxide or methane will become a vital gain.