Features
Russia, Ukraine and the West: Tragedy and farce all at once
“… All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice: … the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” – Karl Marx, 1851. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon.
by Rajan Philips
What was once Cold War is now all hot air. Today’s Russia is not the Soviet Union, and when the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, it also removed the reason for NATO’s being. Except that after the dissolution, Russia was recognized as the “legal successor” to the Soviet Union and its international commitments including debts and assets. Ukraine wanted a part of it, but it was brushed aside and had its nuclear arsenal, the world’s third in numbers, jointly neutered by the world’s first two, the US and Russia. And the ‘legal continuity’ of Russia has also served NATO’s military bureaucrats, letting them continue their career turfdom and the perks that go with it. After 1991, instead of mutual dissolution, NATO spread itself open inviting the former Warsaw Pact countries, but stopped short of letting in the former Soviet Republics, including Ukraine and Georgia among others. They are permanently “aspiring NATO members.”
Vladimir Putin wants assurances that Ukraine will never be admitted to NATO. NATO and the leaders of the West, led by the American President, have flatly rejected Putin’s demand. Both sides know that Ukraine may never become a NATO member, at least not in the lifetime of any of the current Western and Russian leaders. Putin is going to war with Ukraine apparently to pre-empt its NATO membership that may never come to pass. Ukraine can hardly fight back. The country has “no security,” its President Volodymyr Zelensky admitted recently. Former Soviet era Ukrainian commanders are blaming the 1991 removal of its nuclear arsenal that has left Ukraine with no bargaining power with anyone. It is defenseless against Russia, and it gets nothing by way of fighting support from the West other than sanctions against Russia.
Putin has been maniacally reckless in starting the current skirmish. One day he declared two southeastern regions of Ukraine to be “independent,” and sent Russian troops just to reinforce their independence. The next day he started a “special military operation” against Ukraine. Over two days, he provided rambling justifications for his actions against Ukraine. He questioned the existential entitlement of Ukraine that had once been a part of the old Russian Empire. He protested that Ukraine was robbed from Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed. He argued that he was not attacking Ukraine but only preventing a threat from Ukraine to Russia. He even addressed Ukraine’s military directly as “dear comrades,” and urged them not to “follow criminal orders” but “to lay down (your) weapons and go home.”
How far will Putin go, even he may not know. Will he annex the eastern parts of Ukraine the way he annexed Crimea in 2014? Will he mow down all of Ukraine and bring it again under Russia’s control? Will he just stop one day and dare NATO and its leaders to give him what he wants or face worse? He has warned the West in stark terms: “Whoever tries to interfere with us, and even more so, to create threats for our country, for our people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.” The warning is being interpreted as a nuclear threat to NATO and the West.
West flummoxed and isolated
Beyond hot air rhetoric and sanctions that Putin may have already factored, there is nothing much the West can do, or is willing to do, for Ukraine. The West’s real dilemma is that its people do not want to go to war anywhere anymore. The irony is that when people in western countries were not as opposed to wars as they are now, there were always political groups and peace organizations who stood up for peace and protested against wars. Nixon infamously unleashed his ‘silent majority’ of war mongers to attack students protesting against the Vietnam war. Now with the silent majority decidedly against wars, there is no restraint on the rhetoric of war in political discourse. Overall, the scope and any hope for diplomacy is lost in the rhetoric over war.
The Labour Party in Britain is daring Prime Minister Johnson to show how far he will go. It is easy for an opposition party to goad a government on war when it is known that the government will never send troops to the battlefield. In Canada, the governing Liberal Party has deviated from its longstanding policy of middle power diplomacy that was executed quite well during the Cold War era. In 2002-03, Canada refused to join the US invasion of Iraq. So did France and Germany and a number of other European and Western countries. As did Russia. Now Russia is the villain and the attacker. And Ukraine is as helpless now as Iraq was then. But unlike then, there is no division among NATO countries now.
Three weeks ago, Oxford University’s European Studies Professor Timothy Garton Ash wrote an opinion piece that “the West doesn’t know what it wants in Eastern Europe.” The West according to Professor Ash has been chasing after two conflicting models for the future of Europe. One is the Helsinki model, developed from 1975 and finalized after the Cold War, under Bush the elder, as “Europe, whole, free and at peace.”
The second model is the Yalta model based on the 1945 summit between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin in Yalta, Crimea (“oh irony of history,” as Ash noted). The Yalta model (or Yalta 2) will restore to Russia what was accorded to the Soviet Union, namely, a sphere of influence in Europe. Not necessarily the old Eastern Europe, but at least some or all of the former Soviet republics. At the least, just Ukraine. Putin will be happy.
Prof. Ash’s grouse is that the West is not vigorously and solely pursuing the Helsinki model. He blames that the West is somehow stuck in the Cold War era Ostpolitik mindset of West Germany (that was Chancellor Brandt’s ‘new eastern policy’ of reproachment towards East Germany). Ash is not quite calling for NATO’s military intervention in Ukraine, but blaming NATO of hypocrisy for not admitting Ukraine as a NATO member means just that. Prof. Ash is also not for permanently isolating Russia from the rest of Europe under the Helsinki model. Only so long as Putin is in control of Russia. Once Putin is gone, a “democratic Russia” should be welcomed to join and reinforce NATO – “in the face of an assertive Chinese superpower.” The cycle will go on. Farce and tragedy all at once!
China and India
But before the next cycle there might be an immediate need to get China’s help to checkmate Putin. There’s the rub. For there’s apparently no one else in the world whom Putin would listen to except China’s Xi Jinping. And Putin may have already cultivated China to be on his side on the Ukraine matter. He officially attended the Beijing Olympics even though Russian athletes were not allowed to participate in the games representing Russia. Away from the games, Putin and Xi produced a 5,000-word statement of solidarity that did not mention Ukraine.
On the other hand, the West’s attempt to ‘diplomatically’ boycott the Olympics while allowing the athletes to represent their countries ended in embarrassment. There has not been a shorter list of boycotting countries. The US, UK, Canada and Australia, the leading boycotters, were joined only by India, Lithuania, Kosovo, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia.
In contrast, on 16 December, the UN passed a resolution, with a 130-2 vote, against “the glorification of “Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism” in many western countries, against NATO admitting Ukraine, and calling for “West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.” That would be Yalta-2 for Professor Ash. Only two countries voted against the resolution – the US and Ukraine, while most NATO countries abstained from the vote.
In what is seen as a diplomatic victory for the US, the Western countries are now united on imposing sanctions against Russia. Even Germany, the most reluctant of them because of its 30% dependence on Russia for its natural gas supplies, has finally joined the sanction spree, stopping the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas line project for a direct connection between Russia and Germany. But for every sanctioned imposed on Russia, the western governments have been warning their people of equal and opposite reactions – in supply shortages and rising prices, especially in the fuel and energy sector. These effects will go beyond the west and some of them have already started.
The question is whether economic sanctions would be able to deter Putin and force him stop the attacks on Ukraine. Or will they lead to alternative supply line system predicated on Russia and China? The financial sanctions imposed on Russia are not expected to have much effect because Russia does not have large or worrisome debts. On the other hand, if financial sanctions were extended to cutting off Russia from the global (Swift) banking system, they may play into China’s hands and its desire to “de-dollarise the world’s financial architecture.”
As world opinion goes, the West, especially the US, may have been hoping to get India’s Modi government onside as an extension of their Quad fraternity against China. But India has chosen to limit its response at the UN Security Council, indicating concerns over the developments in Ukraine while stopping short of criticizing Russia. Russia has welcomed India’s ‘independent stand’ at the UN, even as it is welcoming Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan who could not have chosen a worse time to visit Moscow to make his Kashmir pitch.
Russia has indicated that there would be no change in its policy that Kashmir is “a bilateral dispute.” Just as it would like Ukraine to be treated as a bilateral dispute between two former fraternal republics. But Ukraine is not Kashmir and it is not going to be left alone like Kashmir for another 70 years. Putin may seem unstoppable for now, but whatever he ends up accomplishing may equally prove to be unsustainable. Equally, as well, it is not NATO or the West that are in a position to set Europe or any part of the world to be “whole, free and at peace.” Only, tragedy and farce all at once!
Features
Immediate industrial reforms critical for Sri Lanka’s future
Sri Lanka’s industrial sector has historically been an engine of growth, employment, and exports. Yet today, many industries face structural challenges, outdated practices, and intense global competition. Immediate and comprehensive policy reforms are, therefore, both urgent and essential—not only to revive growth but also to secure the future prosperity of the country.
Strengthening economic growth and diversification
Industries contribute significantly to GDP and export earnings. They create value-added products, reduce import dependency, and improve trade balances. Sri Lanka’s economy remains overly reliant on a few traditional sectors, such as garments and tea. Industrial reforms can encourage diversification into higher-value manufacturing, technology-driven production, and knowledge-based industries, increasing resilience against global shocks.
Job creation and social stability
The industrial sector is a major source of formal employment, particularly for youth and women. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provide both direct and indirect jobs. Without reforms, job creation is limited, pushing young people to seek opportunities abroad, which drains talent and exacerbates social and economic inequality. By modernising industries and supporting SME growth, the country can create high-quality, sustainable employment, reduce migration pressures, and promote social stability.
Competitiveness and export expansion
Sri Lanka faces stiff competition from countries such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and India in textiles, garments, and other manufacturing exports. Many local industries struggle with outdated technology, high production costs, and weak supply chains. Urgent reforms—such as improving industrial infrastructure, incentivising technology adoption, and simplifying trade regulations—are critical to enhancing competitiveness, retaining market share, and expanding exports.
Attracting domestic and foreign investment
Investors require clarity, stability, and efficient regulatory processes. Complex licensing, bureaucratic delays, and inconsistent policies deter both domestic and foreign investment. By implementing transparent and predictable industrial policies, the government can attract capital, encourage innovation, and accelerate industrial modernisation. Investment is not just about funding production—it is also about transferring technology and upgrading skills, which is essential for long-term industrial development.
Promoting innovation and technological upgrading
Many Sri Lankan industries continue to rely on outdated production methods and low-value processes, limiting productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness. Comprehensive industrial reforms can incentivise research and development, digitalisation, automation, and adoption of green technologies, enabling local industries to move up the value chain and produce higher-value goods. This is particularly urgent as global competitors are rapidly implementing Industry 4.0 standards, including AI-driven production, smart logistics, and sustainable manufacturing. Without modernisation, Sri Lanka risks not only losing export opportunities but also falling permanently behind in technological capabilities, undermining long-term industrial growth and economic resilience.
Strengthening supply chains and local linkages
Effective industrial reform can improve integration between agriculture, services, and manufacturing. For example, better industrial policies can ensure that local raw materials are efficiently used, logistics systems are modernised, and SMEs are integrated into global supply chains. This creates multiplier effects across the economy, stimulating productivity, innovation, and competitiveness beyond the industrial sector itself.
Environmental sustainability and resilience
Global trends demand green and sustainable industrial practices. Sri Lanka cannot afford to ignore climate-friendly production methods, energy efficiency, or waste management. Reforms that promote sustainable manufacturing, circular economy principles, and renewable energy adoption will future-proof industries, improve international market access, and ensure compliance with global trade standards.
Institutional capacity and governance
Industrial reforms are not just about incentives; they require strong institutions capable of policy design, monitoring, and enforcement. Weak governance, policy inconsistency, and politicisation have historically undermined industrial development in Sri Lanka. Strengthening industrial institutions, simplifying bureaucracy, and ensuring accountability are essential components of meaningful reform.
Responding to global technological and trade shifts
The industrial landscape is rapidly changing due to digitalisation, automation, AI, and new global trade patterns. Sri Lanka must adapt quickly to benefit from global industrial trends rather than risk falling behind regional competitors. Immediate reform will allow industries to adopt modern production systems, integrate with global value chains, and improve export competitiveness.
Conclusion
Industrial policy reforms in Sri Lanka are urgent because delays threaten employment, competitiveness, and investment. They are important because a modern, resilient industrial sector is crucial for economic growth, export expansion, technological advancement, social stability, and environmental sustainability. Strategic, forward-looking reforms will not only save existing industries but also position Sri Lanka for a prosperous, resilient, and inclusive future.
(The writer is a former senior public servant and policy specialist.)
BY Chinthaka Samarawickrama Lokuhetti
Features
How to insult friends and intimidate people!
US President Donald Trump is insulting friends and intimidating others. Perhaps. Following his rare feat of securing a non-consecutive second term, one would have expected Trump to be magnanimous, humble and strive to leave an imprint in world history as a statesman. However, considering the unfolding events, it is more likely that he will be leaving an imprint but for totally different reasons!
From the time of his re-election, Trump has apparently been determined to let the world know who the ‘boss’ is and wanted to Make America Great Again (MAGA) by economic measures that were detrimental even to his neighbours and friends, totally disregarding the impact it may have on the world economy. Some of his actions were risky and may well have backfired. Businessmen are accustomed to taking risks and he appears to behave as a businessman rather than as a politician. There was hardly any significant resistance to his arbitrary tariff increases except from China. He craved for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming to have ended and prevented wars and, and unashamedly posed for a picture when the Nobel Peace Prize was ‘presented’ to him by the winner! To add insult to injury, Trump demonstrated his ignorance by blaming the Norwegian Prime Minister for having overlooked him for the Nobel Peace Prize. He should surely have known, before the Norwegian PM pointed out, that the awardee was chosen by a non-governmental committee.
Trump’s erratic behaviour reached its climax in Davos. He came to Davos determined to railroad the European leaders into accepting his bid to acquire Greenland and seemed to do so by hurling insults left, right and centre! Even before he started the trip to Davos, Trump had already imposed a 10% tariff on imports from seven European countries including the UK, increasing to 25% from the beginning of February, until he was able to acquire Greenland. In a rambling speech, lasting over an hour, he referred to Greenland as Iceland on four different occasions.
Exaggerating the part played by the US in World War II Trump proclaimed “Without us right now, you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese”. After making a hideous claim that the US had handed Greenland to Denmark, after World War II, Trump said, “We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. You can say yes and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember”. A veiled threat, perhaps!
However, the remark that irked the UK most was his reference to the war in Afghanistan. He repeated the claim, made to Fox News, that NATO had sent ‘some troops’. but that they ‘had stayed a little back, a little off the front line’. On top of politicians, infuriated families of over 500 soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the front-lines in Afghanistan, started protesting which forced the British PM Keir Starmer to abandon the hitherto used tactic of flattery to win over Trump, to state that Trump’s remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling.” After a call from Starmer, Trump posted a praise on his Truth Social platform that UK troops are “among the greatest of all warriors”!
The resistance to Trump’s attempts at reverting to ‘unconstrained power of Great Powers’, which was replaced by the ‘rule-based-order’ after World War II, was spearheaded from an unlikely quarter. It was by Mark Carney, financier turned politician, PM of Canada. He was the Governor of the Bank of England, during the disastrous David Cameron administration, and left the post with hardly any impact but seems to have become a good politician. He apparently has hit Trump where it hurts most, as in his speech, Trump stated that Canada was living on USA and warned Carney about his language!
Mark Carney’s warning that this was a moment of “rupture” with the established rules-based international order giving way to a new world of Great Power politics and his rallying cry that “the middle powers” needed to act together, need to be taken seriously. What would the world come to, unless there is universal condemnation of actions like the forcible extraction of the Venezuelan President which, unfortunately, did not happen maybe because of the fear of Trump heaping more tariffs etc? What started in Venezuela can end up anywhere. Who appointed the US to be the policeman of the world?
With words, Trump gave false hope to protesters rebelling against the theocracy in Iran but started showing naval strength only after the regime crushed the rebellion by killing, according to some estimates, up to 25,000 protesters. If he decides to attack, Iran is bound to retaliate, triggering another war. In fact, Trump was crass enough to state that he no longer cares for peace as he was snubbed by the Nobel Peace committee! Trump is terrorising his own people as is happening in Minnesota but that is a different story.
Already the signs of unity, opposing Trump’s irrationalities, are visible. Almost all NATO members opposing Trump’s plans resulted in his withdrawal from Greenland acquisition plans. To save face, he gave the bogus excuse that he had reached an ever-lasting settlement! Rather than flattery, Trump’s idiosyncrasies need to be countered without fear, as well illustrated by the stance the British PM was forced to take on the Afghan war issue. For the sake of world peace, let us hope that Trump will be on the retreat from now.
Mark Carney’s pivotal speech received a well-deserved and rare standing ovation in Davos. One can only hope that he will practice what he preached to the world, when it comes to internal politics of his country. It is no secret that vote-bank politics is playing a significant role in Canadian politics. I do hope he will be able to curtail the actions of remnants of terrorist groups operating freely in Canada.
by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana
Features
Trump is a product of greed-laden American decadence
One wonders why the people of the US, who have built the most technologically and economically advanced country, ever elected Donald Trump as their President, not once, but twice. His mistakes and blunders in his first term are too numerous to mention, but a few of the most damaging to the working people are as follows:
Trump brought in tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the wealthy over the average worker. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law, at the end of 2017, provides a permanent cut in the corporate income tax rate that will overwhelmingly benefit capital owners and the top one percent. His new laws took billions out of workers’ pockets by weakening or abandoning regulations that protect their pay. In 2017 the Trump administration hurt workers’ pay in many ways, including acts to dismantle two key regulations that protect the pay of low- to middle-income workers. These failures to protect workers’ pay could cost workers an estimated $7 billion per year. In 2017, the Trump administration—in a virtually unprecedented move—switched sides in a case before the US Supreme Court and fought on the side of corporate interests and against workers.
Trump’s policies on climate change could ruin the global plans to cut down emissions and reduce warming, which has already affected the US equally badly as anywhere else in the world. Trump ridiculed the idea of man-made climate change, and repeatedly referred to his energy policy under the mantra “drill, baby, drill”. He said he would increase oil drilling on public lands and offer tax breaks to oil, gas, and coal producers, and stated his goal for the United States to have the lowest cost of electricity and energy of any country in the world. Trump also promised to roll back electric vehicle initiatives, proposed once again the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and rescind several environmental regulations. The implementation of Trump’s plans would add around 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2030, also having effects on the international level. If the policies do not change further, it would add 15 billion tons by 2040 and 27 billion by 2050. Although the exact calculation is difficult, researchers stated: “Regardless of the precise impact, a second Trump term that successfully dismantles Biden’s climate legacy would likely end any global hopes of keeping global warming below 1.5C.” ( Evans, et al, 2024). Despite all these anti-social policies Trump was voted into power for a second term.
Arguments suggesting the USA is a decadent society, defined as a wealthy civilisation in a state of stagnation, exhaustion, and decline, are increasingly common among commentators. Evidence cited includes political gridlock, economic stagnation since the 1970s, demographic decline, and a shift toward a “cultural doom loop” of repeating past ideas (Douthat, 2024, New York Times).
First, we will look at the economic aspect of the matter though the moral and spiritual degradation may be more important, for it is the latter that often causes the former . The reasons for the economic decline, characterised by increase in inequality, dates back to the seventies. Between 1973 and 2000, the average income of the bottom 90 percent of US taxpayers fell by seven percent. Incomes of the top one percent rose by 148 percent, the top 0.1 percent by 343 percent, and the top 0.01 percent rose by 599 percent. The redistribution of income and wealth was detrimental to most Americans.
If the income distribution had remained unchanged from the mid-1970s, by 2018, the median income would be 58 percent higher ($21,000 more a year). The decline in profits was halted, but at the expense of working families. Stagnant wages, massive debt and ever longer working hours became their fate.
Since 1973, the US has experienced slower growth, lower productivity, and a diminished share of global manufacturing, notes the (American Enterprise Institute). Despite the low growth, the rich have doubled their wealth. In our opinion this is due to the “unleash of a culture of greed” that Joseph Stiglitz spoke about.
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has frequently argued that the United States has unleashed a culture of greed, selfishness, and deregulation, which he blames for extreme inequality, financial crises, and environmental destruction.
Income stagnation is not the only quality of life indicator that suffered. In 1980, life expectancy in the US was about average for an affluent nation. By the 2020s, it dropped to the lowest among wealthy countries, even behind China or Chile, largely due to the stagnation of life expectancy for working-class people. With regard to quality of life the US has fallen to 41st in global, UN-aligned, sustainable development rankings, highlighting issues with infrastructure and social systems, (The Conversation). The political system is described as trapped in a “stale system” with high polarisation, resulting in inaction rather than progress, (Douthat, New York Times).
It is often the moral and spiritual degradation that causes an overall decline in all aspects of life, including the US economy. Statistics on crime, drug and alcohol addiction, suicide rate and mental health issues in the US, which are the indicators for moral and spiritual status of a society, are not very complimentary. The Crime Index in the US is 49 while it is 23 in China and 32 in Russia. Drug abuse rate is 16.8% in the US and alcohol addiction is 18%. Mental illness in adults is as common as 23%. Only about 31% follow a religion. Erich Fromm in his book, titled “Sane Society,” refers to these facts to make a case that the US and also other countries in the West are not sane societies.
Let us now look at Joseph Stiglitz’s thoughts on greed which is the single most important factor in the aetiology of moral degradation in the US society. Stiglitz has directly linked corporate greed and the pursuit of immediate, short-term profits to accelerating climate change and economic failure for the majority of Americans. He argues that “free” (unregulated) markets in the US have not led to growth, but rather to the exploitation of workers and consumers, allowing the top 1% to siphon wealth from the rest of society. Stiglitz argues that neoliberalism, which he calls “ersatz capitalism,” has fostered a moral system where banks are “too big to fail, but too big to be held accountable,” rewarding greedy, risky behaviour. He contends that US economic policies have been designed to favour the wealthy, creating a “rigged” economy where the middle class is shrinking. In essence, Stiglitz argues that the US has allowed a “neoliberal experiment” to turn capitalism into a system focused on greed, which is harming the economy, the environment, and the social fabric.
Big oil companies spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Donald Trump and Congress, a new analysis has found. These investments are “likely to pay dividends”, the report says, with Republicans holding control of the White House, House and Senate – as well as some key states. Trump unleashed dozens of pro-fossil fuel executive actions on his first day in office and is expected to pursue a vast array of others with cooperation from Congress (The Guardian, Jan 2025).
Trump himself has accumulated wealth just as much as the rest of billionaires, and his poor voters are becoming poorer. He is greedy for wealth and power. He is carving up the world and is striving to annex as much of it as possible at the expense of sovereignty of other countries, the US allies, and international law.
Greed is an inherent human character which when unfettered could result in psychopathic monsters like Hitler. A new world order will have to take into serious consideration this factor of greed and evolve a system that does not depend on greed as the driver of its economy.
by N. A. de S. Amaratunga
-
Business5 days agoClimate risks, poverty, and recovery financing in focus at CEPA policy panel
-
Opinion4 days agoSri Lanka, the Stars,and statesmen
-
Business3 days agoHayleys Mobility ushering in a new era of premium sustainable mobility
-
Business3 days agoAdvice Lab unveils new 13,000+ sqft office, marking major expansion in financial services BPO to Australia
-
Business3 days agoArpico NextGen Mattress gains recognition for innovation
-
Business2 days agoAltair issues over 100+ title deeds post ownership change
-
Business2 days agoSri Lanka opens first country pavilion at London exhibition
-
Editorial3 days agoGovt. provoking TUs
