Is This It for Boris Johnson? ~ die Rechte koop

View this email in your browser

Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good

Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Subscribe here.

July 6, 2022

Is This It for Boris Johnson?

It's not the first time this question has been asked, but many are asking it again, in serious tones: Is UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's premiership doomed?

Following a string of resignations, Johnson's "government is in deep crisis, engulfed once more in a scandal that is at least in part of the Prime Minister's own making," writes CNN's Luke McGee. "And this time, it's a lot worse than all the other times." British opinion pages are rife with predictions of Johnson's political demise—and certain conclusions that, despite past brushes, he has finally met a scandal he can't overcome.

The scandal centers on 10 Downing's evolving answers as to what Johnson knew, and when he knew it, about past sexual-misconduct allegations against his deputy chief parliamentary whip. "Johnson's character, once his greatest asset, is now viewed by many in the party as his biggest problem," writes The Spectator's deputy political editor, Katy Balls. The Guardian's Martin Kettle emphasizes that Johnson can be expected to fight to the end.

If this is really it for Johnson, what might come next?

"If he goes, the leadership contest that follows will be vicious, and the task the victor will face of trying to lead the parliamentary party daunting," Balls writes for The Guardian. As for policy, Kettle predicts that if Johnson exits, Tories will "rekindle a form of low-tax, low-regulation Conservatism that most of those who grew up in the Thatcher era, or in its shadow, see as the route to prosperity and government."

A 'Transitional' Moment in Ukraine

"The current stage of the war (in Ukraine) is best understood as a transitional one," Lawrence Freedman writes for The New Statesman. "The Russians are exploring opportunities to advance, but are preparing to defend; while the Ukrainians are gearing themselves up for counter-offensives."

With Russia having seized the final city in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine, Freedman sees both sides "adapt(ing)" their tactics and plotting next moves.

One question involves geography. Kyiv and Moscow each must choose how much to focus on Ukraine's east vs. its south, retired Australian Major General Mick Ryan wrote in a recent Twitter thread, as Freedman notes. We can expect a tactical divergence, too, Freedman suggests: "It's an oversimplification but the Russians seem to be becoming more of a 20th-century army while the Ukrainians are becoming more of a 21st-century army. The Ukrainian adaption process will take longer but the prospect is of a much more capable force." Ukraine can't and won't mirror Russia's high-volume artillery assault, particularly as it seeks to retake still-intact civilian areas, Freedman writes; rather, Kyiv's forces will have to employ precision strikes on Russian "supply lines, bases, and command centers"; guerrilla warfare; and insurgency.

On the first of those points, a recent daily assessment from the Institute for the Study of War suggested Ukrainian forces are using US-supplied precision rockets effectively.

Winning a Long War

"Does a protracted war favour Russia or Ukraine?" The Economist asks that question and offers a mixed assessment in response.

Ukraine has the soldiers, but Russia has the weapons and ammunition. The West has already given much, the magazine writes, raising concerns about its capacity to make enough munitions. (To that point, as the magazine notes, Alex Vershinin wrote last month for the defense think tank RUSI that America's annual production of artillery shells would be exhausted in about two weeks, if fired at the current rate Russia is shelling Ukrainian positions, by Vershinin's own calculations.) Meanwhile, Ukraine's economy is in more trouble than Russia's, the magazine writes.

As have others, The Economist suggests sustained Western support will be key to Ukraine's fate. In case resolve begins to waver, The Economist warns in its current cover story of high stakes: "You can see where Mr Putin is heading. He will take as much of Ukraine as he can, declare victory and then call on Western nations to impose his terms on Ukraine. In exchange, he will spare the rest of the world from ruin, hunger, cold and the threat of nuclear Armageddon. To accept that deal would be a grave miscalculation. … He will fight tomorrow with whatever weapons work for him today. That means resorting to war crimes and nuclear threats, starving the world and freezing Europe. The best way to prevent the next war is to defeat him in this one."

Should the Supreme Court Have Less Power?

Yes, according to a recent Atlantic essay by Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan.

Before the court's recent string of major rulings, Bowie and Renan inveighed against the "mystical ritual each June" (when the court's term concludes and decisions are issued) wherein nine justices divine the true meaning of the Constitution. The court didn't always hold this much sway over American public life, they write: In disputes that preceded the Civil War, Bowie and Renan recount, the idea of slavery's ultimate adjudication by the Supreme Court was "ridiculed … as implausible" by senators in 1848.

The court rose in influence on White opposition to Reconstruction, and its ascendant power has always been "revanchist," they argue, consistently wielded "to insulate the wealthy and powerful." (In major decisions that cut the other way—Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges—the court overturned state laws, not federal ones, they point out, drawing a distinction.) Point being: the court's unelected nature seems to run counter to the American spirit, Bowie and Renan write, arguing the US should set its policies legislatively, through "the hard, messy work of American politics year-round."