Carney’s Double Standard: Lofty Principles at the Podium, Quiet Submission in Practice by Javed Akbar

In January at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mark Carney delivered what many hailed as a defining address. He spoke of a fractured world order, of resilience amid geopolitical turbulence, and of the responsibility of middle powers to anchor global stability in law and principle. The speech was polished, thoughtful, and met with a rare standing ovation. Across political and financial circles around the globe, it was praised as courageous and visionary.

Weeks later, that vision lies in stark contradiction with his conduct.

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military attack on Iran. This joint offensive – involving airstrikes, missiles, and other military assets – targeted strategic sites across Iran, including in Tehran and other major cities, and was described by the U.S. and Israeli officials as aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities and leadership. It was widely described by numerous global actors as escalatory and in violation of international law — Carney did not invoke the language of restraint he had championed in Davos. Instead, his government affirmed support for the strikes under the familiar pretext of nuclear containment.

This reversal is not merely realpolitik. It is a rupture of credibility.

At Davos, Carney extolled a rules-based order grounded in sovereignty, human rights, and the sanctity of international law. Yet when those principles were tested by bombs falling on sovereign territory, his response was not principled opposition but calibrated alignment. He spoke of civilian protection while endorsing the very military campaign generating civilian peril. The rhetorical symmetry collapsed under the weight of events.

Such inconsistency cannot be dismissed as diplomatic nuance.

Where was the unambiguous outrage when schools and hospitals were reduced to rubble? When Gaza was starved of food and water and subjected to relentless, indiscriminate bombardment by Israeli forces, reduced in vast swathes to rubble and ruin. Entire neighbourhoods vanished beneath smoke and concrete, and a civilian population was left to endure devastation without refuge or reprieve. Reports from human rights monitors detail the deaths of schoolchildren, including scores of girls killed in airstrikes — children whose lives were extinguished in conflicts not of their making. If the protection of innocents is universal, it cannot be selective. It was declared a genocide by people of conscience around the world.

Carney once urged the world to summon moral clarity in defense of the vulnerable. That summons now echoes unanswered.

What emerges is a familiar pattern in Western foreign policy: principles articulated eloquently in global forums, then quietly subordinated when geopolitical alliances are at stake. One vocabulary for Davos; another for the battlefield. Values, it seems, are immutable only when they are cost-free.

This is not diplomacy. It is a moral equivocation.

If global applause were the measure of statesmanship, Davos would suffice. But leadership is not tested in conference halls; it is tested when power acts and a leader must decide whether to echo it or restrain it. A credible commitment to international law requires consistency — applying its standards to adversaries and allies alike.

To instead offer reflexive condemnation of Iran while muting outrage over documented excesses by Israel is not balanced. It is selective morality. It signals that some violations demand thunder, while others merit contextual footnotes.

Such a posture is profoundly un-Canadian.

For the most part, Canada’s foreign policy has been staged from a moral high ground. Canada has not historically been a reflexive appendage to American militarism. When the drums of war thundered in 2003, it was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who refused the call of George W. Bush to join the invasion of Iraq — a war later exposed as catastrophic and founded on false premises. Chrétien’s historic words to Bush in the oval office: ‘Show me the evidence’ demonstrated that alliance does not mean obedience, and that moral clarity sometimes requires standing apart from even one’s closest partner. He was a bold, and intellectually assured statesman – guided by a quiet but unmistakable dignity.

That was leadership anchored in judgment, not proximity to power.

By contrast, Carney’s stance projects compliance rather than conviction. To stand beside governments repeatedly accused by international bodies of disproportionate force — without equally forceful scrutiny — is not strategic sophistication. It is appeasement disguised as pragmatism.

If a rules-based order is to mean anything, it must bind friends as firmly as foes. Otherwise, it is reduced to rhetorical currency — applauded in Davos, abandoned in crisis.

Canada deserves better than performative principles. It deserves leadership with backbone — leadership willing to defend international law consistently, not conveniently. History does not remember those who echo power. It remembers those who resist it when conscience demands.

On that measure, the contrast is no longer subtle. It is stark.

---

Javed Akbar is a freelance writer with published works in the Toronto Star and across diverse digital platforms.

The silence we are creating by Shanna Shepard

Every year on World Wildlife Day we are encouraged to celebrate biodiversity, the extraordinary variety of life that shares this planet with us. We post photographs of elephants, polar bears, coral reefs and rainforests. We speak of conservation, sustainability and hope. Yet behind the symbolism lies a brutal reality, scientists project that Earth may be losing between 150 and 200 species every single day. The extinction rate today is estimated to be 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the natural background rate. Celebration feels increasingly like denial.

The modern extinction crisis is not a distant ecological issue. It is a mirror reflecting humanity’s priorities in the 21st century. Never before has a single species reshaped the planet so completely, so rapidly and so carelessly. Forests fall to make room for agriculture and infrastructure. Oceans are stripped faster than they can regenerate. Climate systems destabilize under relentless emissions. Wildlife is not simply disappearing; it is being pushed aside by a global economy that treats nature as expendable.

What makes this moment especially troubling is that we cannot claim ignorance. Previous mass extinctions were driven by volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts or natural climate shifts. This one carries a different signature, human decision-making. We know the consequences of habitat destruction. We understand overfishing, pollution and warming temperatures. The science is clear, the warnings constant and yet meaningful action remains hesitant and fragmented.

Part of the problem lies in how extinction is perceived. Species vanish quietly. There are no emergency broadcasts when the last frog of its kind disappears, no global mourning when an insect essential to pollination vanishes forever. Extinction happens in silence, far from cities and screens, making it easy to ignore. Humanity reacts quickly to sudden disasters but struggles to confront slow-moving catastrophes, even when they are irreversible.

There is also a dangerous assumption that technology will eventually save us. Innovation is powerful but it cannot recreate ecosystems built over millions of years. Artificial solutions cannot replace the complexity of forests, wetlands, coral reefs and grasslands functioning together. Once lost, biodiversity is not restored by invention; it is remembered only through archives and museum displays.

The economic argument against aggressive conservation is equally flawed. Healthy ecosystems are not luxuries; they are infrastructure. Pollinators sustain food systems. Forests regulate climate and water cycles. Oceans produce oxygen and absorb carbon. The destruction of wildlife is ultimately self-destructive. Humanity is dismantling the very systems that make civilization possible, often in pursuit of short-term growth measured in quarterly profits rather than generational survival.

Yet despair alone serves no purpose. The same species capable of causing this crisis is also capable of reversing course. Conservation successes already exist where political will, local communities and global cooperation align. Species once on the brink have recovered when protection became a genuine priority rather than a symbolic gesture.

World Wildlife Day should not be a comfortable celebration; it should be an uncomfortable reckoning. It asks a simple question: what kind of ancestors do we intend to be? Future generations will inherit either a living planet rich with diversity or a quieter world shaped by absence.

The tragedy of extinction is not only the loss of animals and plants. It is the loss of wonder, resilience, and balance. Every species erased narrows the story of life itself. The silence spreading across ecosystems is not inevitable. It is chosen and that means it can still be unchosen.

Mexico between bullets and narratives by Mia Rodríguez

Mexico has long lived with two battles unfolding at once, one fought in the shadows of cartel violence, and another waged in the realm of perception. Now with the death of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, better known as El Mencho, the country faces both conflicts intensified. While rival criminal organizations maneuver to seize territory and influence left behind by one of the most powerful cartel leaders in modern history, Mexico must also confront a familiar storm of political rhetoric from north of the border.

The power vacuum left by El Mencho’s demise is not merely symbolic. Cartels do not dissolve when leaders fall; they fracture, mutate and compete. History shows that the removal of a kingpin often produces short-term instability rather than peace. Smaller factions emerge, alliances shift overnight and violence spikes as new actors attempt to prove dominance. Communities already living under pressure become unwilling spectators to territorial chess games played with real lives.

Yet beyond the immediate security challenges lies another struggle, one involving reputation, sovereignty and dignity. Once again Mexico finds itself portrayed in sweeping terms as a failed state dominated entirely by gangs and drug lords. The narrative resurfaces with remarkable predictability whenever American politics heats up and once again Donald Trump has returned to framing Mexico primarily as a source of danger rather than as a complex partner and neighbor.

Such rhetoric may resonate with political audiences but it obscures reality. Mexico is neither a utopia nor a collapsed nation. It is a country of over 120 million people, a top global manufacturing hub, a cultural powerhouse and a democracy wrestling with deep structural challenges. To reduce it to cartel headlines is to ignore the millions of ordinary citizens, entrepreneurs, journalists, teachers and public servants working daily to strengthen institutions under enormous strain.

The irony is unavoidable, cartel violence is not solely a Mexican problem. Demand for narcotics, cross-border weapons trafficking, and economic inequality bind both countries into a shared responsibility. Simplistic blame serves campaign speeches but solves nothing. Mexico’s security crisis exists within an interconnected North American reality, not within isolated national borders.

Inside Mexico, authorities face a delicate balancing act. Crackdowns risk triggering violent retaliation; inaction risks emboldening criminal groups. Local governments, often underfunded and exposed, must rebuild trust in areas where fear has become routine. Civil society organizations continue pushing for transparency and accountability, knowing that the fight against organized crime is as much about institutions as it is about arrests.

Meanwhile, Mexican society demonstrates a resilience rarely acknowledged abroad. Cities continue growing, innovation expands and cultural life thrives despite the headlines. The nation’s identity refuses to be defined exclusively by violence. Mexicans themselves increasingly challenge both internal corruption and external stereotypes, insisting on a narrative that reflects complexity rather than caricature.

What is unfolding now is not just a cartel succession struggle, it is a test of Mexico’s ability to assert control over its future while resisting external attempts to define it through fear. Political attacks from abroad may generate applause in certain arenas, but they risk undermining cooperation precisely when collaboration is most needed.

Mexico stands at a crossroads shaped by security pressures and political storytelling. The outcome will depend not only on how effectively the state manages cartel fragmentation, but also on whether international discourse evolves beyond easy slogans. Nations, like people, deserve to be judged by their full reality, not by the loudest accusations echoing across a border.

Me My Mind & I #09: Gende based Medicare #Cartoon by Patrick McWade

 

A different way to check internal and external ...thoughts!
'Me My Mind & I' is a cartoon series by Patrick McWade.
For more 'Me My Mind & I' HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

OSCE Ministerial Aftermath: Europe’s Hard Choice - Selective or Collective Security? By Silvie Drahošová

The return of armed conflict to Europe raises questions about the endurance of the foundations of Europe’s post–Cold War security architecture. For decades, European security relied on the assumption that dialogue, restraint, and shared norms could mitigate rivalry and prevent escalation. This assumption was rooted in what has often been described as the Helsinki spirit, which embodies commitment to cooperative, comprehensive, and indivisible security.

The 32nd Ministerial Council of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), held on the 4^th and 5^th of December 2025 in Vienna under the Finnish Chairpersonship(“OSCE Ministerial Council Reaffirms Continued Relevance of Helsinki Principles and Sets the Path for Reforms to Strengthen the Organization | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe” 2025), took place amid persistent geopolitical tensions and ongoing conflicts within the OSCE area. While Participating States reaffirmed OSCE’s foundational principles(“OSCE Ministerial Council Reaffirms Continued Relevance of Helsinki Principles and Sets the Path for Reforms to Strengthen the Organization | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe” 2025), the gap between declared commitments and prevailing realities was evident. This article examines the relationship between the gradual weakening of cooperative security practices and Europe’s current crisis, using the Ministerial Council as a key analytical point of reference.

The Helsinki Spirit and the Foundations of Cooperative Security

The Helsinki spirit originated in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, which established a multilateral framework for managing political and military rivalry between the East and the West through dialogue rather than confrontation. The Helsinki Final Act was a child of detente, which was used as a tool of comprehensive relaxation of geopolitical and ideological tensions between the superpowers at the time, the Soviet Union and the United Statesintact(Bajrektarevic 2014).Its core idea was that security could not be durable without mutual restraint, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and adherence to human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Helsinki principles were deliberately formulated in broad terms to allow states with divergent political systems, historical experiences, and security perceptions to coexist within a shared geographical space through the mutual recognition of all borders in Europe – and hence acceptance to coexist in geography and with ideology of its own choice(Bajrektarevic 2017).

After the end of the Cold War, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe(CSCE) set on a new course in managing the historic change taking place in Europe and responding to the new challenges of the post-Cold War period. CSCE was not created as an enforcement mechanism (even though certain elements could have been enforced) but as a confidence and dialogue-building process(“Reviving the Helsinki Spirit” 2024). Hence, in its elements, the Helsinki spirit was a norm-setting entity with a monitoring compliance mechanism. The Helsinki spirit, therefore, followed geopolitical and ideological dynamics of overextension of superpowers, hence it migrated from political will/accord, into legal and normative order. In December 1994, CSCE became institutionalized as OSCE by a decision of the Budapest Summit of Heads of State or Government, which gave it its current institutional form we know today.(“History | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe,”)

Early Fractures in the European Security Order

Debates about the current crisis focus on its most visible manifestations, particularly the full-scale warin Ukraine. However, from a structural perspective, the erosion of cooperative security is debated to have begunfar earlier than 2022. Competing interpretations identify critical turning points in 2014 (the annexation of Crimea), or even in the immediate post–Cold War period (the early 1990s), and the Yugoslav crisis (1990s).

However, the fractures can be traced even to an earlier point, which was the non-compliance with the 1945 Potsdam conference decisions (Oxford Public International Law 2009).Allied forces agreed to demilitarize and neutralize Germany at the conference. Instead, the 3 Western occupation forces (UK, USA, France) decided to form Western Germany and to remilitarize it by forming a military alliance in Europe, NATO(NATO History | NATO), which was directly contradictory to the Potsdam Conference Peace Treaty.

During the period of German reunification (1990s), discussionsabout the future of European security architecturewere led amongWestern leadersandthe Soviet leadership. These talks, while not in the form of international treaties, included repeated assurances that NATO would not expand eastward beyond the territory of the former German Democratic Republic(“NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard | National Security Archive,”). This was also reaffirmed by the Federal Chancellor of West Germany, Helmut Kohl, and the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of West Germany, Hans-Dietrich Genscher at the time. These statements, however,have since become part of a contested historical recordin light of subsequent developments(Němcová et al. 2013).

From a diplomatic and legal standpoint, the absence of formal treaty obligations complicates retrospective assessment. Nevertheless, the divergence between political assurances and subsequent institutional developments contributed to a growing perception, particularly in Moscow, that the principle of indivisible security was being appliedunevenly.

Selective Application of Collective Security

The question of inclusive European security predates the end of the Cold War. At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, Allied powers agreed on the demilitarization and neutralization of Germany as the key to postwar stability(Oxford Public International Law 2009). Yet in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the western occupation zones evolved into the Federal Republic of Germany, which was rearmed and subsequently integrated into NATO.

In contrast, Austria (which was under four-power occupation: US, UK, France, Soviet Union) emerged as a unified, demilitarized, and permanently neutral state in 1955(Oxford Public International Law 2024). This arrangement, accepted by all four occupying powers, three Western and the Soviet Union, contributed to Austria’s long-term stability and regional predictability. These differing outcomes illustrate an early divergence between collective and selective approaches to European security.

These historical precedents illuminate a recurring tension between security arrangements designed to include all actors equally and those used to consolidate security for some while generating insecurity for others. This gradual shift from inclusive to selective security practices has been and remains a structural challenge to the Helsinki security framework.

Then came Federal Socialist Yugoslavia: External actions that intensified confrontational forces within Yugoslavia, the manner in which the implosion of that country was handled by European actors, and the subsequent external bombing campaign — which reportedly included strikes on civilian infrastructure and the alleged use of munitions containing depleted plutonium — represented another major blow to the collective security architecture in Europe, particularly within the OSCE framework.

To multiply controversies and unfortunate symbolics; The NATO bombing of Belgrade – city were the Nonaligned Movement was born in 1961, and that was carried out without authorization from the UN Security Council (nicknamed‘Merciful Angel’ !?!), marked the first bombing of the city since the Nazi attacks in the 1940s.

The intervention, conducted without UN endorsement, ultimately led to the separation of part of Serbia’s territory and induced recognition of Kosovo as an independent – but still today non-UN member, state. These violent episodes remain a source of significant controversy today and continue to lack broad consensus in both academic and political spheres, being very often cited by the defenders of the Crimea annexation that came 15 years after.

The OSCE as a Forum and Its Structural Constraints

The OSCE continues to function as the principal multilateral framework in which European states, alongside partners from North America and Central Asia, engage on an equal and inclusive basis. OSCE’s annual Ministerial Council is intended to set political direction, reaffirm commitments, and provide strategic guidance (“Secretary General Feridun H. Sinirlioğlu’s Report to the 32nd OSCE Ministerial Council | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe” 2025). Therefore, both International Institute IFIMES and GAFG (Global Academy for Future Governance) closely follow and support the work of the OSCE; It regularly by organizing their own side events at major annual OSCE forums and summits.

At the same time, the 32nd Ministerial Council showed the growing limitations of the OSCE’s consensus-based decision-making model. While consensus preserves inclusiveness and procedural equality of the organization, it also constrains collective action in periods of deep political disagreement. The council's outcomes reaffirmed institutional continuity, but substantive outcomes remained limited, reflecting a broader pattern of dialogue without convergence.

Ukraine and the Return of War to Europe

The war in Ukraine has dominated the OSCE’s agenda for several years, and reaffirmed support for Ukraine was featured prominently in ministerial statements in 2025(“31st OSCE Ministerial Council | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe,”; “Secretary General Feridun H. Sinirlioğlu’s Report to the 32nd OSCE Ministerial Council | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe” 2025). While the conflict escalated dramatically in 2022, its roots are embedded in earlier political, security, and institutional developments. The Ministerial Council’s discussions reflected both shared humanitarian concern and profound disagreement over responsibility, causality, and resolution pathways.

The persistence of war within a region governed by cooperative security norms underscores a central paradox, which is that principles designed to prevent conflict continue to be reaffirmed, even as their practical application becomes increasingly contested and constrained.

Fragmentation of Shared Meaning

Despite repeated reaffirmations of Helsinki principles, their interpretation now varies significantly among Participating States. The states hold diverging threat perceptions, historical narratives, and security priorities, which have fragmented the shared understanding of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the non-use of force.

This fragmentationrepresents one of the most serious challenges to cooperative security. As several scholars, including Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, have argued, norms lose their stabilizing function when their meaning starts to disappear, even if their language remains formally intact finally bringing the devolution of security – from collective to selective(Bajrektarevic 2014).

The 32nd Ministerial Council,however, demonstrated that cooperation persists in specific areas, such as humanitarian protection, media freedom, countering human trafficking, youth participation in mediation, and arms control(“OSCE Ministerial Council Reaffirms Continued Relevance of Helsinki Principles and Sets the Path for Reforms to Strengthen the Organization | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe” 2025). These initiatives reflect the continued relevance of the OSCE’s human dimension and preserve essential elements of the Helsinki spirit.

Nonetheless, such cooperation increasingly occurs in compartmentalized settings, largely detached from the core questions of military security and strategic stability. While these efforts are valuable, theyalone cannot substitute for a shared vision of collective security.

Continuity Without Convergence, reversing the Security devolution trend

The Vienna meeting symbolized institutional continuity amid strategic divergence. Procedural resilience and leadership transition are preserved. Nevertheless, shared strategic direction remains absent. The endurance of dialogue with a weakening collective agreement within the OSCEcan be described as continuity without convergence. Aquestion remains as to how continuity can be sustained over time, particularly in the face of deepening differences.

The 32nd OSCE Ministerial Council suggests that Europe’s security crisis is not the result of a single rupture but of a cumulative weakening of cooperative security practices. The Helsinki spirit has not disappeared or been abandoned.The Helsinki spirit has been instead sidelined as security has become increasingly selective rather than collective.

The OSCE remains a necessary platform for dialogue and normative reference. Yet the return of war to Europe highlights the limits of institutional frameworks when inclusivity, trust, and indivisible security are no longer interpreted in the same way. The Helsinki principles remain a possible foundation for renewed engagement. Whether those principles can once again function as the organizing principle of Europe’s security order depends on political will and a recommitment to truly collective security by all states.

---

Bibliography:

“31st OSCE Ministerial Council | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.” n.d. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.osce.org/event/mc_2024.

Bajrektarevic, Anis H. 2014. Critical Similarities and Differences in Security Structures of Asia and Europe.

Bajrektarevic, Anis H. 2017. “We win, they lose” – Wonderful world of Binary categorizations, IFIMES VIII 17

“History | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.” n.d. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.osce.org/who/87.

“NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard | National Security Archive.” n.d. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard.

NATO History | NATO. n.d. “A Short History of NATO.” Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/nato-history/a-short-history-of-nato.

Němcová, Alice, Alice Němcová, USA, Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, and OSZE Sekretariat, eds. 2013. CSCE Testimonies: Causes and Consequences of the Helsinki Final Act ; 1972 - 1989. CSCE Oral History Project. Prague Office of the OSCE Secretariat.

“OSCE Ministerial Council Reaffirms Continued Relevance of Helsinki Principles and Sets the Path for Reforms to Strengthen the Organization | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.” 2025. December 5. https://www.osce.org/chairpersonship/661131.

Oxford Public International Law. 2009. “Potsdam Conference (1945).” https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e379?d=%2F10.1093%2Flaw%3Aepil%2F9780199231690%2Flaw-9780199231690-e379&p=emailA4C2DdVGXO6X.

Oxford Public International Law. 2011. “Helsinki Final Act (1975).” https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1051?prd=OPIL.

International Institute FIMES Press Release, IFIMES calls on OSCE Member States IV (2) 2025

Oxford Public International Law. 2024. “Austrian State Treaty (1955).” https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e248?prd=OPIL.

“Reviving the Helsinki Spirit: 40 Years of the Helsinki Final Act | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.” 2024. November 15. https://www.osce.org/magazine/170891.

“Secretary General Feridun H. Sinirlioğlu’s Report to the 32nd OSCE Ministerial Council | Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe.” 2025. December 4. https://www.osce.org/secretary-general/661068.

---

Silvie Drahošová is a Vienna-based, Central European University fellow (CEU Culture, Politics, and Society) with experience in research, strategy, communications, and project coordination across international organizations. She recently joined the Global Advisory for Future Governance (GAFG) as a Project Officer, where she supports research activities, conference development, and stakeholder engagement.

Ephemera #148 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Ephemera: a word with ancient Greek roots meaning:
‘something that is produced or created that
is never meant to last or be remembered’.

For more Ephemera, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The devotion of the doomed by Thanos Kalamidas

Every generation insists it stands closer to the brink than the last. Yet lately the language of catastrophe feels less metaphorical, less theatrical. Another war threatens to ignite while another war burns Middle East, another alliance fractures, another strongman promises salvation through domination. The drums of conflict no longer sound distant; they hum constantly beneath daily life like machinery we have learned to ignore even as it overheats.

What remains astonishing is not merely the persistence of war, but the loyalty it commands from those who stand to lose the most.

History has rarely been shaped by the many acting in clear self-interest. Instead, it moves through a peculiar paradox, the powerless often become the fiercest defenders of systems that ultimately endanger them. The modern version of this paradox is visible in populist movements across democratic societies, particularly among segments of the working class that rally behind leaders who promise strength while quietly consolidating power upward.

Greed alone does not explain it. Greed is too simple, too personal a vice. The real currency of authoritarian politics is belonging. Power offers narrative. Wealth offers mythology. Ego offers certainty. And certainty, in an age of economic anxiety and cultural dislocation, becomes irresistible.

Authoritarian leaders understand something liberal democracies frequently forget, people do not live by policy outcomes alone. They live by stories about dignity, resentment and identity. When institutions fail to deliver stability or respect, anger seeks a vessel. The strongman arrives not as a tyrant but as a translator of grievance.

It is tempting to dismiss supporters of such movements as manipulated or irrational. That temptation is comforting and dangerously incomplete. Many followers are not ignorant of risk; they are exhausted by complexity. Globalization promised prosperity yet delivered insecurity. Technological progress expanded wealth while hollowing out communities. Political elites spoke the language of inclusion while appearing increasingly distant from everyday precarity.

Into this vacuum steps a politics that replaces nuance with confrontation. War becomes proof of strength. International cooperation becomes weakness. Compromise becomes betrayal.

The tragedy is that those most drawn to this rhetoric, the economically vulnerable, the socially anxious, the politically alienated, would almost certainly suffer first in any real catastrophe. Wars do not devastate investment portfolios before they devastate working families. Authoritarian systems rarely punish oligarchs before they silence ordinary citizens.

Yet support persists because catastrophe feels abstract while identity feels immediate. A distant future collapse cannot compete emotionally with the promise of restored pride today.

There is also a darker psychological comfort at work. Decline is easier to accept when framed as heroic struggle rather than systemic failure. If the world must burn, at least one can believe it burned for a righteous cause. Leaders who traffic in existential conflict offer meaning where modern life often feels devoid of it.

Democracy, by contrast, is slow, procedural, and profoundly unsatisfying. It asks patience instead of passion. It rewards compromise rather than victory. It rarely produces the emotional catharsis that populism provides so effortlessly.

But democracy’s dullness is precisely its virtue. It disperses power because concentrated power has always led humanity toward disaster. The lesson repeats across centuries, yet each era convinces itself that this time the strong leader will be different, the confrontation necessary, the escalation controlled.

The deeper crisis is not ideological but moral. We have grown accustomed to viewing politics as spectacle rather than consequence. War is debated like entertainment, alliances like rival sports teams, existential risks like distant weather forecasts. Meanwhile, decisions made by a few individuals, driven by ambition, insecurity or ego, carry stakes measured in civilizations.

The most unsettling truth is that catastrophe rarely arrives against popular will. It arrives with applause, with flags waving, with ordinary people convinced they are defending their future rather than gambling it away.

And when history finally tallies the cost, regret becomes irrelevant. The devotion of the doomed is always sincere. That sincerity does not save them.

WAR: Aggression & the Useful Enemy #Thoughts by David Sparenberg

War is organized political mass murder. Once a politician kills and gets away with it, he will kill again. Political murder becomes a self-generating exercise in the game of politics. Politicians play with committing permissible crimes of murder. They become reliant on the usefulness of killing.

Killers with political power (often men with malignant resentment) maintain a “useful enemy.” A useful enemy can be domestic or foreign, or both. The language of politics gets used to identify human targets as military assets and too justify the politics of murder. Noncompliant and non-submissive opposition is labeled as unpatriotic, radical, subversive, less than human, terrorists, and expendable. Why? Because they are noncompliant. And the elements of justice and the humanity of oppositional resistance goes unheard and will not be tolerated.

The organized murder of war—a prevailing assertion in the will to power: excessive, authoritarian domination and abject subjugation—relies on normalizing intolerance and feeding emotions on the steroids of hatred.

Politicians who kill and get away with it, kill again. They use war. War is organized political mass murder. To justify and support aggressive war is to be complicit in crime. Crime and complicity in the atrocities of crimes against humanity eventually have consequences on social cohesion and moral conscience.

We continue to be traumatized/victimized by the history, and presence, of war. By militarized aggression and the propaganda of manipulation again a dehumanized “useful enemy.”

Waging war—paving the road to perdition—is the politics by which a nation becomes a terrorist state.

---

David Sparenberg is a humanitarian and eco poet, an international essayist and storyteller. He published four eBooks with OVI Books (Sweden) and the Word Press in 2025, the fourth of which was TROUBADOUR & the Earth on Fire. David will have a fifth OVI eBook, MANIFESTO: Ecology, Spirituality & Politics in a Higher Octave, published in early spring, 2026. David Sparenberg lives in Seattle, WA in the Pacific Northwest of the United States but identifies as an Ecotopian Citizen of Creation.

The tightrope walker without a net by Avani Devi

There is something quietly astonishing about watching Narendra Modi conduct foreign policy as though it were a high-wire performance staged for multiple audiences at once. India’s prime minister is simultaneously deepening trade ties with the European Union, negotiating agreements with Canada, flattering Donald Trump’s nationalist instincts and continuing to purchase discounted oil from Vladimir Putin. The spectacle resembles diplomacy only at first glance. Look closer and it feels more like improvisational theater; part pragmatism, part ambition and part calculated contradiction.

Modi’s defenders call this strategic autonomy, a phrase that sounds noble and carefully thought out. In practice, it often looks like geopolitical multitasking driven less by ideology than by opportunity. India today is a country determined to avoid choosing sides in an increasingly polarized world. Unlike Cold War leaders who were forced into rigid alliances, Modi is attempting to harvest advantages from every camp simultaneously. Europe wants India as a democratic counterweight to China. Canada seeks economic engagement despite political tensions. Washington courts New Delhi as a strategic partner in Asia. Meanwhile, Moscow remains a convenient supplier of cheap energy.

The result is an almost surreal diplomatic choreography. In Brussels, Modi speaks the language of shared democratic values and economic cooperation. In North America, he presents India as a reliable partner in innovation and trade. In conversations tied to Trump-era politics, he leans into nationalist camaraderie and strongman symbolism. And when it comes to Russia, principles give way to practical arithmetic; cheap oil fuels a growing economy.

Critics argue that this balancing act reveals inconsistency, even hypocrisy. How can a leader praise democratic solidarity while maintaining close economic relations with an authoritarian regime engaged in war? How can India claim moral leadership in global forums while refusing to decisively distance itself from Moscow? These questions linger precisely because Modi’s diplomacy resists the neat moral frameworks Western observers prefer.

Yet dismissing the strategy as incoherent misses the deeper point. Modi understands that India’s moment may finally have arrived. With China facing economic headwinds, Europe searching for new partners and the United States eager to diversify alliances in Asia, India occupies an enviable position. For decades, global powers dictated terms to New Delhi. Now, Modi behaves as though India sets the terms instead.

Still, there is risk in believing one can forever please everyone. International politics rarely rewards permanent ambiguity. Europe expects alignment on values. North America expects predictability. Russia expects loyalty from customers who benefit from its resources. Each relationship carries unspoken demands and eventually those demands collide.

Modi’s diplomatic style mirrors his domestic political persona: assertive, self-assured, and deeply attentive to optics. He projects confidence in India’s rise while avoiding commitments that might limit manoeuvrability. The performance works, at least for now, because global instability gives middle powers unusual leverage. When major players distrust one another, the country willing to speak to all sides gains influence.

But balancing acts depend on timing as much as skill. Economic downturns, geopolitical crises or shifts in leadership abroad could quickly transform flexibility into vulnerability. A strategy built on simultaneous friendships risks appearing opportunistic when tensions sharpen. Allies may begin to wonder whether partnership with India comes with shared purpose or merely shared convenience.

Modi is not juggling for entertainment; he is attempting to redefine India’s role in the world. The question is whether this careful equilibrium represents strategic genius or temporary fortune. History tends to favour leaders who choose decisive directions rather than endless calibration.

For now, Modi walks the rope confidently, collecting applause from multiple corners of the globe. Whether he reaches the other side or discovers that the rope itself was never stable, remains the unanswered drama of India’s foreign policy moment.

Berserk Alert! #089 #Cartoon by Tony Zuvela

 

Tony Zuvela and his view of the world around us in a constant berserk alert!
For more Berserk Alert! HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Worming #125 #cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

A family of worms and all their worm friends worming in new adventures.

For more Worming, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---