If one is looking for high-level meetings to blame for the Cold War-era division of Europe, then Moscow and Potsdam come to the fore, not Yalta. It was in Moscow that Churchill and Stalin agreed to divide the Balkans in October 1944, while in Potsdam, at the prompting of James Byrnes, the new American president accepted the deal that divided Germany into distinct zones of occupation and offered Western recognition to Stalin’s puppet governments in Eastern Europe. At Yalta Roosevelt and Churchill approved the establishment of a Soviet sphere of influence in northeastern China, but it was only in Potsdam that America and Britain tacitly accepted Stalin’s control of Eastern Europe.

—Serhii Plokhy, Yalta, (London: Penguin, 2010), Epilogue.

Brendan O’Neill, spiked:

Indeed, the rebels’ letters of resignation were primarily aimed at the media. They were for the BBC and the Guardian and social media, not for us in the now broken and disregarded realm of what used to be called public life. This is why they all first appeared on Twitter – where else? – and why they were written in such media-speak. Because the audience was the media elites, not the people. A clear symbiotic relationship has now developed between an isolated political class searching for a new public realm in which to execute its business and a media that can sniff the power it accidentally enjoys in the post-party, post-ideological age.

Ω Ω Ω

In cheering Boris’s demise the left is being incredibly short-sighted. For what we’re witnessing is not really a political event but the further unravelling of political life. The further corrosion of the public sphere. And the further empowerment of isolated technocrats and media operators. Boris’s government ran out of steam, for sure, but the lonely faction that pushed Boris out doesn’t even have steam. It is more a void than a blob, more a manifestation of the end of politics than a political movement.

New York Times:

“I do feel it’s inappropriate to seek that office after you’re 80 or in your 80s,” said David Gergen, a top adviser to four presidents. “I have just turned 80 and I have found over the last two or three years I think it would have been unwise for me to try to run any organization. You’re not quite as sharp as you once were.”

…

In a June survey by Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies and the Harris Poll, 64 percent of voters believed he was showing that he is too old to be president, including 60 percent of respondents 65 or older.

Mr. Biden’s public appearances have fueled that perception. His speeches can be flat and listless. He sometimes loses his train of thought, has trouble summoning names or appears momentarily confused. More than once, he has promoted Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her “President Harris.” Mr. Biden, who overcame a childhood stutter, stumbles over words like “kleptocracy.” He has said Iranian when he meant Ukrainian and several times called Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, “John,” confusing him with the late Republican senator of that name from Virginia.

Republicans and conservative media gleefully highlight such moments, posting viral videos, sometimes exaggerated or distorted to make Mr. Biden look even worse. But the White House has had to walk back some of his ad-libbed comments, such as when he vowed a military response if China attacks Taiwan or declared that President Vladimir V. Putin “cannot remain in power” in Russia.

Mr. Biden was famously prone to gaffes even as a younger man, and aides point to his marathon meetings with families of mass shooting victims or his working the rope line during a trip to Cleveland this past week as evidence of stamina.

…

During his European trip last month, foreign leaders followed his lead while protectively treating him like a distinguished elderly relative. At a photo opportunity, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany gently pointed Mr. Biden in the direction of the cameras. Just before a meeting, a reporter twice shouted a question about getting grain out of Ukraine. When Mr. Biden could not hear the question, Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, rescued him. “We’re working on it,” Mr. Johnson responded.

To sum up: According to the New York Times the United States President, famously prone to gaffes even as a younger man, sometimes loses his train of thought, has trouble summoning names or appears momentarily confused, but engages in marathon meetings, which provides evidence of stamina. Leaders of the G7 „protectively treat him like a distinguished elderly relative.“ He is gently guided by Olaf Scholz and Boris Johnson. The President of the United States is bailed out by Boris Johnson.

BBC:

Some demonstrators tied themselves to the White House fence, risking arrest

An estimated 10,000 people gathered from across the US, organisers said.

Lauren Pierce, 33, an attorney from Dallas, was among them, travelling some 1,300 miles (2,100km) to attend the demonstration.

„There’s nothing, to me, more worth fighting for than this cause – our fundamental right to have bodily autonomy,“ she said. „If that means taking up space and getting arrested then I think it’s worth it.“

These women and men are unafraid, and they are ungovernable. You might think they are governable, but if you think that, you’re wrong. They are ungovernable. They are so ungovernable, in fact, that they have gone to the White House, residence of the head of the executive branch of government to loudly shout that they don’t care about the government they’ve gone to the center of to declare their lack of interest. Some of these people are so ungovernable that they have taken the radical step of tying themselves to the White House fence, impeding access to that fence for anyone who might want to climb over at that point. They might face arrest, fines, possibly even a few days in jail, but these possible penalties are worth the powerful statement made by loudly tying oneself to a fence. These are some pissed people. They will take up space. The powers that be may not want that space taken up, but these are ungovernable people. They will take up space. They will take up space, they will wear green, and they will be ungovernable.

Francesca Newton, Tribune:

Johnson is currently expecting to head out of Number 10 in the autumn. As that autumn turns to winter, millions of people will be facing another £800 hike on their energy bills. Food banks are at capacity. Children across the country are going hungry. There is only really one thing to say about a media and political class that has spent years conspiring to bring us to this point, and would do so again in a second: don’t let them get away with it.

„Them“ is here referring to the political actors who control wealth, power, and so the media in the UK. The paragraph above closes an article detailing how the UK’s wealthy classes are able to rehabilitate the reputations of members of the ruling party while fending off any threat to existing power structures. Newton draws a contrast between the UK’s state and that of „a functional political culture“: the UK is dysfunctional, and no prospective challenge is on the horizon.

I don’t disagree with her assessment of the UK’s situation, however that makes her closing sentence quite a non sequitur. Given a Labour which threw over Corbyn for Starmer these millions of people facing another £800 hike on their energy bills are not in a position to prevent „them“ from getting away with anything.

Tribune:

The successors to Boris Johnson are already lining up – but none of the ghouls who might follow him will tackle the cost of living crisis that is tearing the country apart.

…

Amazingly, Jeremy Corbyn remains the spectre at the establishment’s feast, more than two years after his tenure as Labour leader ended. Hence Nadhim Zahawi—Chancellor for all of forty-eight hours this week—smeared Corbyn as a ‘dangerous antisemite’ in his resignation statement, though without mentioning his name. Outgoing health secretary Sajid Javid, meanwhile, thanked Johnson for ‘seeing off the threat of Corbynism’; certainly, the ‘threat’ of a functioning welfare state, publicly-owned utilities, and trade union rights has been seen off, at least for now.

…

It was left to Jeremy Corbyn, inevitably, to make the obvious point that the reason the Tories have gone through so many leaders in recent years is that none of them have any substantial answers to the major crises facing the country, economic and environmental. Instead, they continually rebrand themselves to hoodwink the electorate, each time giving the impression of a fundamental shift in direction every time they choose a new leader.

Mohamed Elmaazi, Consortium News:

The British Parliament is debating a national security bill which could undermine the basis of national security reporting and ultimately throw journalists in jail for life.

A person convicted under the new offense of “obtaining or disclosing protected information,” defined in Section 1 of National Security Bill 2022, faces a fine, life imprisonment, or both, if convicted following a jury trial.

A review of the parliamentary debate on the bill makes clear that work by press outlets such as WikiLeaks is at the heart of Tory and Labour MPs’ thinking as they push to make the bill law.

As currently written, direct-action protests, such as those conducted by Palestine Action against U.K.-based Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems Ltd, could also be captured under the offences of “sabotage” and entering “prohibited places” sections of the bill.

Whistleblowers, journalists and publishers focusing on national security related matters may be most at risk of being prosecuted, though any person who “copies,” “retains,” “discloses,” “distributes” or “provides access to” so called protected information could be prosecuted.

“Protected information” is defined as any “restricted material” and it need not even be classified.

Under this bill, leakers, whistleblowers, journalists or everyday members of the public, face a potential life sentence if they receive or share “protected information” which is widely defined.

That does not mean imprisonment from one day “up to” a life sentence. If a judge determines a fine isn’t suitable enough punishment the only alternative is life in prison. Following a conviction, a judge would have no choice but to either issue a fine or hand down a life sentence, or both.

There is no public interest or journalistic defense in the bill, a fact noted by some of the parliamentarians during the debates.

Ω Ω Ω

The bill can be seen as part of a growing crackdown in both Britain and the United States against legitimate journalism that challenges establishment narratives.

In many respects, the proposed law, which applies to people both inside and outside the U.K., shares many elements with the draconian 1917 Espionage Act, which the U.S. government is using to prosecute WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

Ω Ω Ω

As is the case with the U.S.’ Espionage Act, no evidence of actual harm needs to be proven by prosecutors in order to secure a conviction under the National Security Bill.

There is a broad test of whether the defendant knows or “ought reasonably to know” that their conduct is “prejudicial to safety or interests of the U.K.”

What is, or is not, “prejudicial” to the “safety” or “interests” of the U.K. is also to be determined by the government of the day, according to long established case law from the U.K.’s highest court.

This could include anything from environmental, energy, climate and housing policy, to policing, foreign affairs or military policy.