History in the Making - A Livre Ouvert

If all roads lead to Munich 1938, then our foreign policy options are restricted to belligerence or betrayal. In the absence of American muscle power, shouldn’t the EU, explore the fine art of diplomacy? Neo-Conservatism is an ideology that adheres firmly to the view that military might-not diplomacy or negotiations must achieve foreign policy goals. But is Neo-conservatism, allied with Neo-Liberalism today, in foreign policy prudent for the EU that has virtually no military might apart from NATO which is heavily if not entirely dependant on the US?

Zone into Africa and you will notice that Rwanda’s neighbours are Burundi (slightly larger than Rwanda) Uganda (9 times bigger than Rwanda), Tanzania (35 times bigger than Rwanda), and Congo (89 times bigger than Rwanda). Rwanda is the smallest in size, but over the years because of military backing from the West, ( mainly the US) Rwanda has managed to bully all its neighbours, including the largest of them; the DRC or Congo. When my wife heard that she threw her hands up in exasperation and quipped, “ That’s like if Luxembourg were to bully Germany”. As baffling as it is, I am going to get into why and how Rwanda is doing this, but first I would like to give you some context. One must bear in mind that African borders were drawn in the most senseless and crude manner by western colonisers who invaded Africa ( a continent 3 times the size of Europe ) and merged 10,000 polities (political entities) into just 40 colonies. The new territories were artificial territories that paid no attention the diversity of the people, their monarchies, their chiefdoms, their ethnicities. People who shared no common language, history and even religion inherited what the west thought was a modern Africa. Most colonisers practised the divide and rule policy which basically meant privileging one minority ethnicity over the majority. When the Western colonisers left, it was evident that powerful ethnicities would try to subjugate weaker ethnicities and today certain conflicts quite often has led to ethnic pogroms and genocide.

The Special envoy for Ukraine, retired lieutenant General Kellogg has laid out America's shift in foreign policy; it draws inspiration from Prof. Paul Kennedy's book,The rise and fall of Great powers.Trump unlike his predecessor does not want war with Russia because his administration believe that great powers historically fail when they get entangled in strategic overreach or military overreach. Prof. Kennedy refereed to this as Imperial overreach. I should add just because they cite Prof. Kennedy, it does not mean that the renowned Prof. is the mastermind behind their thoughts, it just means, they are aware of his work and are drawing conclusions from it. As of now, the sum total of the United States’ global interests and global obligations far larger than the country’s power to defend them simultaneously especially if China and Russia consolidate their forces. Israel needs US’s attention and trouble is brewing in Taiwan. Ukraine, under these circumstances will not be on the US defence list.In addition, The Trump administration’s stance on making a business deal before they deliver or promise any security guarantees, has shocked many people, but a closer reading of US history of invasions and interventions gives one whole picture of how almost every US administration (irrespective of democrats or Republicans) quickly orders an exit strategy with a profitable deal to take away on their drive out when things work against their interests. It is becoming increasingly clear that Ukraine was not all that much about freedom, democracy and sovereignty, but largely about a security conflict involving NATO and snapping up Ukrainian resources. Some of us had our suspicions when the Rand Corporation, an influential think tank closest to the Pentagon, published their ideas through a research paper readily available on their website. It was titled , Extending Russia: Competing from advantageous ground. The report gives solicited advice on how to exploit the vulnerabilities of Russia. The Rand cooperation is funded by the US government and big arms manufacturers too. Again, these details are available on their website in their About Us section. The idea was to stretch Russia thin by exploiting her anxieties, but the think tank did explicitly state that Russia could well escalate matters. Oddly, a lot of how the invasion played out can be matched to the paper published back in 2019. Now the ugly truth is that the greatest experts of the Cold war had repeatedly warned the West against NATO expansion especially to Ukraine. George Kennan, that most astute of Russia observers, described NATO expansion as “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era”. William Burns, US ambassador (and CIA director until January 2025 ) advised Washington that Ukrainian inclusion in NATO was “the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite. But Russia isn’t even a peer competitor when it comes to the US. It’s a distant third if we were to rate it. But Can the EU face Russia without the US? Is Strategic overreach something the EU can afford? For the text version please visit alivreouvert.substack.com

The Democrats have betrayed themselves for decades to the point that they synchronised the vicious circle with the Republicans that gave Trump his triumphant victory. The current American political scene should serve as a wake up call for the rest of the West. Up until now it made sense for the collective West to rally behind the US and look up to their leadership in terms of freedom and democracy. Russia’s values were so starkly different, so outdated, and so distorted that the quasi-totalité of the ex-USSR bloc signed up for US leadership. But with Elon Musk poised to play a pivotal role in the US administration, how different is the American model now from the much- despised Russian oligarchy that rose from the Soviet rubble in the 90’s?

What, in your opinion, is truly the driving force behind the democratic process in America? Well, one of the key factors for me is the PAC and the Super PAC. A political action committee is a tax exempt entity that collects funding from contributors for its political causes. Although money cannot be handed directly to the candidates, unlimited funding can be poured into groups and organisations who can take up their causes. ⁠Despite the fact the PACs shape American politics, barely 40% of Americans could even define a Super PAC, a Pew research study showed. The cherry on the cake is that much of the ⁠legislation on Super PAC was endorsed by Barack Obama. ⁠The structure is such that ⁠deep pocketed⁠ donors now have an unprecedented role in shaping American politics. A report by two American professors ⁠Martin Gilens ⁠and ⁠Benjamin Page⁠, showed that the ⁠average American has virtually no impact on shaping policy. Last week, Harris and Trump entertained audiences worldwide, but proved the report right; average Americans have no stake in the democratic process, they simply cast a vote and let the plutocratic process take the reigns. Corporate America masquerading as national security interests has made individuals disproportionately more powerful than the nation itself. Listen in to find out more. For detailed links pleas visit alivreouvert.substack.com

On the 22nd of September, President Zelensky addressed the Canadian Parliament and shortly after his speech the speaker of the House, Anthony Rota, made references of a Ukrainian hero called Yaroslav Hunka. The Parliament broke into thundering applause. However, barely 24 hours later it emerged that Mr. Hunka was a member of the SS Galician or the 14th Waffen Grenadier which is also known as the First Ukrainian division and has a troubled history of voluntarily collaborating with Nazis. Justin Trudeau apologised for this 'deeply embarrassing' moment of their liberal democracy and Anthony Rota resigned. But how ill-informed are our leaders? Do they do any due diligence and why does Canada pass off Nazis as nationalists and terrorists and freedom fighters?

Did you know that the constitution of India says, "India, that is Bharat"? Where does India get her name from? And for that matter where does Bharat come from? Listen in to get an idea of the bizarre battle to change India into Bharat.

On the 20th of September 1973, Billie Jean King took on the proud male chauvinist Bobby Riggs in a heavily publicised match called the Battle of the Sexes. On that day Billie Jean King won in straight sets, but she was fighting the wider malaise of social injustice. She might have won the battle, but the war still rages on. Can equality be likened to fairness? The desire to perform or rather outperform has forced the sport industry to redefine its performance in terms of nanomoles and athletes now have a biological passport. Testosterone as a performance hormone in the field of sports has pushed the limits and revolutionised gender and sex within the world of sport and beyond.

Who were the Greenshirts and the Blueshirts? How far did Nazi ideology spread? And Who funded the Nazis? History books rarely cover these two aspects of WWII. Hitler rose to power in 1933 through a dodgy backroom political deal that effectively announced the demise of Weimar democracy. This was at a time when German pride was at its lowest, but Hitler had held out the promise of bringing back the glorious German days. However, Race and ethnicity was central to the great German comeback. And so on the 15th of September 1935, the Nuremberg race laws were passed. This we know. But how did they pull off the greatest crime in the history of Germany? We know how the Nazis set about dismantling and diluting the German constitution owing to a brilliant book titled, The Dual State by Ernst Fraenkel, a Jewish lawyer who fled Germany in 1938, but not without gathering evidence of the crime of murdering democracy. Lawyers and Jurists owe a great debt to his works, but so does Civil society. His work is a must read for those in the field of law. But who funded the Nazis? Who enabled them? This is seldom discussed in books, but recently a book by David De Jong titled, Nazi Billionaires tells this story with groundbreaking investigative work. BMW fans might want to know that Günter Quandt (the Quandt family still owns the company) benefitted from funding the Nazis. The other posh car company obviously had to join in too so the Porsche–Piëch family made their contributions and received the benefits of forced labour. The Von Finks who own the insurance company Allianz raised 5 million Reichsmark for the SA (Sturmabteilung) in 1931 itself, in order to stop any putsch that would overthrow Hitler. It was not just heavy industry but even food companies like Oetkar or the Kaselowsky family who were enthusiastic and ideological supporters of the Nazis. You might know them from the frozen pizzas you pop into your oven on an odd night. The best example was the Friedrich Flick who became a member of the Keppler circle, later called the Circle of Friends of the ⁠Reichsführer-SS⁠, a group of German industrialists whose aim was to strengthen the ties between the Nazi Party and business and industry. On the bright side, Bosch was one of the few industrialists who vehemently opposed the Nazis, he even funded the Bosch circle that attempted to assassinate Hitler. The Nazi ideology spread through the middle east and as far as even China through the influence of Chiang Kai‐shek who was backed by the United States of America. The Nazis were able to gloss over race and focus on nationalism when it came to these populations and nationalism fell victim to this ideology.

Today marks the first death anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II. The thing that stood out for me during her funeral was that only two people read lessons for her ceremony, one of course was the then prime minister Liz Truss, but the other was Baroness Scotland, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth. That itself should give us an idea of how important a place the Commonwealth had in the Queen's mind. So what is the Commonwealth and how important is the past to the future of the British monarchy? While Louis XVI lost his head during the French revolution, and the Romanovs were brutally shot down by a firing squad, the British monarchy stayed calm and carried on. How has the British monarchy managed to survive so long? This particular family in question has a heritage that goes back 1,200 years to Edward Longshanks or Edward I. So who are they and how do they? As Little Britain would put it.

What are the Opiums wars? Why do they continue to flame modern Chinese nationalism ? In the early nineteenth century, the opium trade from India to China became a significant source of British income, but the Son of Heaven outlawed the use of opium because his population had grown excessively addicted to it. Despite the ban, the British and the Americans were using illegal routes to trade their opium. In July 1839, Commissioner Lin Zexu formally addressed a letter to Queen Victoria where he outlined the harmful effects of the drug on his populations and urged her to stop the trade of opium. He ended with a threat to decapitate those who continued the trade. That very year, Queen Victoria, barely 20, retaliated by ordering her first ocean-going warship, the Nemesis, to bombard China’s coast in what came to be known as the First Opium War. The Chinese suffered a crushing defeat and were forced to sign to Treaty of Nanking, which effectively handed over Hong Kong to the British and also opened five other ports to trade in 1842. The Opium wars shaped Chinese nationalism and laid the foundations of unhealthy interactions.

How did women contribute to WWI? WWI forced millions of men into fighting on different fronts and inadvertently left women to run factories, trams, trains, postal services, fields and farms. Every place they were once told they were too dainty, to delicate, too inadequate to even frequent was now up and running thanks to the weaker sex. The French socialist leader René Viviani made a passionate call, L'appel aux femmes françaises and called on French women to take on fill in for the men who had left for the fighting. Jobs that were once qualified as 'off limits' and 'not her place', by the French Republic. In 1914, the German armament producer employed virtually no women, but by 1917 over 30% of their workforce were women. The hour of need turned the weaker sex into wonder women. A staggering 80 % of all weapons and shells used during WWI were made by women. Corporates made huge profits because women worked for half the price of men. But what did women get in return? Music coursey:commons wikimedia: souce https://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?nq=1&query_type=author&query=Tilley,+Vesta

On 20th August 1968, in the horrors of Operation Danube unfolded on the peoples of Czechoslovakia. This Podcast is dedicated to all those to lost their lives in the 1968 Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion. The Historian Prokop Tomek puts that figure at 137 but hopes and dreams of millions were crushed by the invasion. Under the leadership of Alexander Dubček, the communist party in Czechoslovakia took a giant leap and started reforms that would attract the wrath of hardliners, both at home and in Moscow. But what were these reforms? Dubček and his entourage wanted to reform the party from within, they wanted to give socialism a human face. Dubček captured the imagination of hungry democratic minds and even ended up of the cover of Time magazine. He ushered a period of hope and the stifled populations could finally feel a breath of fresh air. The Prague Spring was born! Sadly, the events in August 1968 brought the reforms to the grinding halt. Czechoslovakia fought on and hard, in its own way, until the Berlin wall came crumbling down. History, as we know it tends to glorify violence and death. We are guilty of not admiring the power of the powerless. Music coursey: Wikicommons Music The Czech anthem, instrumental version. The Prague National Theatre Orchestra

Seventy-six years ago, on this very day, India got her independence. The death of the British Raj at least in the Indian subcontinent led to the birth of India and Pakistan. In 1947, India was partitioned on religious grounds. The Muslims of the Indian subcontinent felt they would be better off under Islamic law in their own land. On the 15th of August, India declared herself as secular, but on the 14th of August a day before India, Pakistan embarked on its journey under Sharia. If we are to understand India at 76, then it is essential that we bear in mind that Indian and Pakistani independence are both deeply entrenched in religious divides.  The challenges that lie ahead for India are multiple. But here are four paired aspects to dwell on. 1.     Democracy & Demography 2.     Nationalism & Narratives 3.     Broadcasting & Billionaires 4.     Religion & Riots As India turns 76 and proudly takes its place as the world’s largest democracy, it begs the question, Can India evolve into a liberal, just and enlightened nation or will its sheer numbers end up diluting democracy.

At the outset, I'd like to dedicate this podcast to Frits Veerman, the Dutch Whistleblower. This episode explores Oppenheimer's fears of a global nuclear race. How did North Korea get its Nuclear Bomb? Did you know that Gaddafi, the despot gave up his nuclear technology in exchange for closer ties to the West? Listen to the episode learn more!

When Great democracies peddle lies, despots, dictators, and theocrats are empowered to undermine the very idea of democracy. Two lessons to take away from Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 This was the first war that went live on CNN. The virtualization of war took away information and analysis and left people glued to their television sets. It set the stage for war as entertainment (as long as your people were not involved) The Nayirah Testimony (where a nurse claimed that Saddam’s soldiers had killed babies in hospitals) turned out to be a stream of lies , and yet, it was instrumental in galvanising public opinion against the despot, Saddam. The lie became irrelevant in the narrative to defeat Saddam. The theory of any means to suit our end was successfully tested.

Too Many Books, too Few Centuries! When I read Franz Fischer’s book titled, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, I was left with the impression that Germany was indeed guilty as charged. History is a narrative best sold with facts, but historians or even writers (for that matter) use a certain set of facts to garrison their narrative and they naturally tend to drop the facts not useful to their storyline or narrative. I have a deep sense of admiration for his book, his work omits every other great power and firmly focuses on Germany. What with over 25, 000 books and academic articles, you'd think we've got WWI all sorted. But WWI is a perfect case of, the more we know the less we understand. For my part, apart from Fischer, I've read Max Hastings’, Catastrophe 1914 Europe goes to war, Margaret Macmillan’s, The War that ended peace, the Road to 1914, and Sean McMeekin, July 1914 Countdown to War amongst others. However, the two books I hungrily devoured were, The Deluge by Adam Tooze, ( who incidentally has his own podcast, I am doing a bit of well-deserved publicity of him) and the brilliant Christopher Clark’s, The Sleepwalkers How Europe went to war in 1914. I also find the urge to do une petite publicité ( a little publicity as we say) for francophones. For those interested in widening their knowledge on this topic, please consider reading  the prolific French historian Jean-Jacques Becker who sadly passed away about two weeks ago, but not without leaving us his great works on WWI. The bulk of the historians laid blame on Germany, but with passing time, new historians have revisited the scene of the crime and they paint a more plausible picture of the past. WW1 was a collision of Great powers who had a trust deficit, and their poor diplomatic skills could only spell doom. Thus, the Hawks took off and doves took cover.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was enormous in size only second to Russia, but a lot weaker than Germany, France, Russia and  of course, Great Britain. Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm was Queen Victoria's oldest grandson and until 1914 had enjoyed great popularity in Great Britain. Not a soul could imagine that Great Britain would go to war with Germany. But the Balance of powers in the region was changing But by 1914, Serbia had doubled in size since its victory in the first Balkan Wars and its mere rise in power was threatening Austro-Hungarian dominance in Geopolitical terms.  Austria fired its first shot on 28th Of July 1914 with the Kaiser's backing, but the war would only end four years later and would hand down a guilty verdict to Kaiser Wilhelm II.  Versaille Assigned war guilt and criminalised the Kaiser.  Historians still struggle with Kriegsschuldfrage, or  question de la responsabilité dans la guerre or the question of war guilt. The War as we know ended in 1918 with poppies and promises of peace. But who really stood to gain from Europe's folly? Britain went from being amongst the greatest creditors to greatest debtors. By 1916, the horrors of Verdun and Somme would be etched in British, French and German minds forever. By the end of 1921, Britain owned the US taxPayer 4. 5 Billion, France 3:5 billion, Italy 1.8 billion.  The United States stayed neutral from 1914 to April 1917 until they decided they had to fight a moral crusade for Freedom and democracy, rather lofty ideals at times when Great Britain had about 57 colonies, France at its peak had 72. Why even brave little Belgium had managed to seize Congo a territory 77 times its size!  WWI shaped a new global order and it elevated America's status to a great power in the great game.

Welcome to A livre Ouvert with me Avanti Victoire, A Livre Ouvert literally means an open book, but it also implies the promise of transparency and knowledge. If you are exhausted with Left or Right electoral politics & wish to explore different views on current affairs, then your journey begins here. My first episode is titled , To French or not to French. I wrote this article in the aftermath of the June riots in 2023. It has become imperative to specify which riot because rioting, it seems, comes easy to us French. However, this riot is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a deeper malaise we suffer in France due to poor integration and assimilation. I've titled this one To French or not to French because I believe that a New France is on the rise and it is at loggerheads with an Old France. More alarmingly, our core French values of liberté égalité fraternité and laïcité are ebbing fast.