The Tribune

With CHARLIE HARPER

DOES it feel to you that the world has somehow become a less comfortable, secure and stable place since the death of Queen Elizabeth II just a week ago? Whether or not you feel The Bahamas should remain in the Commonwealth of Nations or follow the path of Barbados into republican status, the queen’s passing seemed to send a shock wave around the world. Her death, though at her age of 96 it was hardly unexpected, was an emotional tsunami. She had that kind of impact around the world.

In December, Barbados renounced Queen Elizabeth as head of state and declared itself a republic to be governed by a president. Barbados, however, remained as one of 56 members of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Bahamas, of course, retains its allegiance to the British monarch as head of state, as do 14 other members of the Commonwealth. Those include eight other Caribbean nations, two in the South Pacific, plus the “Big Four” of the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Prime Minister Davis has indicated that the possibility of republican status may be on the agenda of the future. Will popular sentiment coalesce around staying or leaving the Commonwealth? Time will tell whether this is a hot issue now or whether it has staying power beyond the next headline. For now, while the queen’s passing will no doubt reinvigorate discussions in our country and others about the status of the head of state, the fact that she is no longer with us weighs heavily on many minds.

For most Americans, without a royal family, the queen and her sometimes dysfunctional family have represented an elegant and compelling substitute. For the past week, CNN and some other TV outlets have devoted significant air time to documentary reviews of her 70-year reign. Many of them have been fascinating, and have reawakened long-dormant memories in American minds of a monarch whose manner and grace, perhaps even more than her longevity, elicited nationwide attention.

Roughly 275 million Americans have never lived at any time when Queen Elizabeth was not on the throne. And most of the remaining 55 million don’t remember her father, King George VI, or King Edward VIII, his brother, whose shocking abdication in December 1936 triggered events that would elevate princess Elizabeth to the throne in February 1952 at the age of 25.

Americans harbored benevolent feelings toward the queen, reacting nearly unanimously sympathetically to her family travails; the “annus horribilis” (1992), and other crises she encountered and dealt with.

To say the princess grew into her job as queen would be a massive understatement.

The British monarchy, and all the stability, tradition, pomp and circumstance it represents, would almost certainly be on shakier ground today were it not for Elizabeth’s steady, dedicated and thoughtful reign.

But in whatever fashion the republic debate turns out here and elsewhere, one can only wish the best for her son and heir, King Charles III.

A man of considerable thoughtfulness and humour himself, he deserves our best wishes and those of the world.

The effect of the Ukraine war on Europe’s coming winter

There was a news item in the American press the other day. The headline read: “Europe’s unity will help it weather the winter, says U.S. Secretary of State.” Really?

Over the weekend, America’s top diplomat Antony Blinken was in Brussels, where European Union ministers were meeting to address what feels very much like an existential crisis facing their countries in the near future as temperatures drop and energy to heat homes becomes more scarce and more expensive.

The EU has been discussing the winter to come and the unhealthy European dependence on Russian energy supplies for months. It’s been an uneasy discourse. The EU has suggested measures that for many will seem dramatic: A windfall tax on certain energy producers; a price cap on Russian gas imports; mandatory targets for energy consumption.

At the same time these possibly fanciful notions are being circulated, inflation continues to batter European voters. The European Central Bank has raised prime interest rates a whopping seven times already this year.

In a news conference with Blinken, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “in the coming months, our unity and solidarity will be tested, with increasing pressure on energy supplies and the soaring cost of living caused by Russia’s war.”

Blinken blithely responded with assurances that the US “won’t leave our European friends out in the cold. We will emerge stronger and that’s why it’s so important that we stay united.” Frankly, that’s easy for the American to say. The United States domestic market is not much threatened by Russia turning off its gas and oil spigots. Europe is. Blinken recognizes that “the challenge is to get through the coming winter.”

Before travelling to Brussels, the US Secretary of State visited Kyiv where he announced another $2 billion in “security assistance” to Ukraine.

The Ukraine war continues to feel like an international game of chicken in which Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden try to stare each other down with threats, atrocities, harassments, sanctions, arms shipments, tough talk and other measures designed to simultaneously provoke and intimidate each other. All the while, a vicious war continues to rage on the ground in eastern and southern Ukraine. And the temperatures on battlefields and in homes in Europe are dropping.

What should the U.S. and its NATO allies do? Most commentators in New York, Washington and elsewhere believe the Western allies should “stay the course,” meaning they should continue to provide assistance that will enable Ukraine to contain the conflict in Ukraine’s south and east. The prescription is to continue to strategically arm and rearm the Ukrainian forces so they can resist the invaders and push back the Russian army where it is practical to do so, and in general make this ill-advised war as unpalatable and insupportable for Moscow as possible. Reports from the battlefield this week suggest that Ukrainian forces are making significant gains in recapturing lands, towns and cities previously overrun by the Russian army.

Staying the course also means doing everything the NATO allies can manage to do to diminish the effects of current and future Russian energy blackmail attempts. This is so much easier to prescribe from across the Atlantic Ocean in Washington than it is to face in Europe, but the situation is well understood in London, Berlin, Paris and elsewhere on the economic front lines of this war.

As an architect and occasional spokesperson for Allied policy on the war, U.S. director of national intelligence Avril Haines, 53, is a well-respected professional who has also served as deputy director of the CIA and more recently as deputy national security adviser in the White House.

She has testified before Congress that the war in Ukraine is a classic “war of attrition” in which Moscow clearly seeks to dominate Ukraine and control its entire Black Sea coast. But, Haines said, Vladimir Putin lacks the conventional power to overwhelm his adversary and achieve these goals.

“This mismatch between Putin’s ambitions and capabilities could produce a more unpredictable and possibly more escalatory trajectory,” Haines said.

“We believe that Moscow continues to use nuclear rhetoric to deter the United States and the West from increasing lethal aid to Ukraine.”

Nonetheless, Haines echoes many other senior American officials in reminding her audience that Russia still possesses a large nuclear arsenal.

That gives Putin two powerful levers to employ against the West – his nuclear weaponry and potentially shutting off gas and oil export spigots.

Since these two levers won’t disappear anytime soon, neither is this war likely to end anytime soon.

Speaking of Avril Haines, she has not followed the traditional path to national security prominence in Washington, though she does possess a law degree from Georgetown and work toward a PhD at Johns Hopkins University.

Haines majored in theoretical physics, took flying lessons and repaired vehicle engines at a suburban Chicago truck stop while she was in college as a University of Chicago undergraduate. Thirty years ago, she co-owned with her husband a progressive book shop in gentrifying Fells Point, a trendy neighbourhood along Baltimore’s inner harbour.

That was then. Now, Haines and her American and Western colleagues face winter and the Russian Army. Good luck to them as they also face decisions that could determine Europe’s fate for generations to come.