Latest news with #LeagueofNations
Ammon
a day ago
- Business
- Ammon
When grand buildings signal institutional decay
Ammon News - PRINCETON — Central-bank independence, one of the late twentieth century's most consequential policy revolutions, led to a decline in inflation rates around the world. Today, however, the foundations of that institutional paradigm are eroding, particularly in the very countries that once epitomized it: the United Kingdom and the United States. While US President Donald Trump's attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell have been unusually abusive, tensions between the Fed and the White House are nothing new, especially when national security dominates the political agenda. During the Korean War, President Harry Truman pushed the Fed to keep interest rates low to help finance defense spending. President Richard Nixon openly bullied the hapless Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and even Ronald Reagan made no secret of his frustration with Paul Volcker's tight monetary policies. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the so-called 'peace dividend' and a much-improved fiscal position made US economic policymaking relatively harmonious. But today, persistent deficits and the prospect of a new Cold War with China have reignited the fundamental tension between the executive branch and the Fed. Trump's relentless barrage of insults directed at Powell, calling him a 'numbskull,' a 'stubborn mule,' and 'always too late' – adds a particularly pungent flavor to the relationship. His latest target is the cost of the ongoing renovation of the Fed's Washington headquarters, denouncing the 'palatial' project as needlessly extravagant and wildly over budget. Trump's new line of attack echoes a classic observation by British satirist C. Northcote Parkinson. Writing in the 1950s, Parkinson noted that lavish new headquarters often signal institutional decline. As he put it, 'a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse.' To illustrate his 'law of buildings,' Parkinson cited the example of Louis XIV, who moved his court to Versailles in 1682, just as France was reeling from a string of military defeats. He also pointed to the interwar League of Nations, which began construction of its bombastic Palais des Nations in Geneva in 1929 – at the onset of the Great Depression – and completed it in 1938, by which point the League had become irrelevant. Trump's new line of attack echoes a classic observation by British satirist C. Northcote Parkinson. Writing in the 1950s, Parkinson noted that lavish new headquarters often signal institutional decline. As he put it, 'a perfection of planned layout is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse.' To illustrate his 'law of buildings,' Parkinson cited the example of Louis XIV, who moved his court to Versailles in 1682, just as France was reeling from a string of military defeats. He also pointed to the interwar League of Nations, which began construction of its bombastic Palais des Nations in Geneva in 1929, at the onset of the Great Depression – and completed it in 1938, by which point the League had become irrelevant. Central banking offers several telling examples. In the 1930s, the then-privately owned Bank of England undertook a major reconstruction, designed by the architect Herbert Baker. The project, completed in 1939, coincided with the Bank's loss of credibility following its policy failures during the Great Depression. By 1946, its critics had succeeded in nationalizing it. Similarly, the German government built a new headquarters for the Reichsbank between 1933 and 1938, just as the institution was being transformed into an instrument of government spending and rearmament. By contrast, the most independent central banks of the postwar era occupy modest buildings: the Swiss National Bank remains in its original quarters, while the German Bundesbank still operates from an unattractive Brutalist structure built in the 1960s. The European Central Bank broke with that tradition. Its striking Frankfurt headquarters – designed by the architectural firm Coop Himmelb(l)au and completed in 2014 – was intended to embody 'transparency, communication, efficiency, and stability.' But a year later, the ECB launched a major quantitative easing (QE) program with little transparency, rendering the gleaming new building a symbolic substitute for policy effectiveness. During the COVID-19 pandemic, central banks around the world pursued QE, triggering a renewed surge in asset purchases. This significantly expanded their balance sheets and set the stage for structural challenges, particularly in the UK and the US: having taken on large amounts of long-term debt, central banks became vulnerable to substantial losses when interest rates rose. This risk can be managed through a formal government guarantee, as in the UK, where the Treasury explicitly covers the BOE's portfolio losses. Alternatively, it can be addressed through an implicit understanding, as in the US, where it is universally assumed that the Fed will never be allowed to fail. At the same time, government deficits widened, prompting a shift toward short-term debt and leading to a sharp rise in servicing costs. In the US, interest payments on the national debt increased from $223 billion in 2015 to $345 billion in 2020. This figure is projected to exceed $1 trillion in 2026 – surpassing even the defense budget. The UK's numbers are similarly striking, with £110 billion ($147 billion) of the £143 billion total borrowing requirement allocated to servicing existing debt. Governments and central banks thus find themselves increasingly interdependent, undermining the notion of true policy autonomy. The US, where the codependence between the government and the Fed lies at the heart of today's policy malaise, is a prime example. In this regard, Trump's aggressive rhetoric is likely a preview of how future administrations may behave. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent highlighted these tensions when he calledfor an inquiry into the 'entire Federal Reserve institution.' In a post on X, he warned that the Fed's policy autonomy 'is threatened by persistent mandate creep into areas beyond its core mission.' The phrase 'mandate creep' is another way of describing the entanglement between monetary and fiscal authorities, both operating within the constraints of a single, increasingly burdened government balance sheet. Bessent's remarks, while historically accurate, offered no path forward short of aggressive fiscal consolidation – a politically implausible solution. Architecture offers a symbolic lens through which to view the evolving relationship between governments and central banks. Notably, while the Trump administration criticizes the scale and opulence of the Fed's renovation, it is also planning a costly construction agenda of its own. One of Trump's first acts upon returning to the White House was to call for the redesign of federal buildings to 'respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage,' aiming to 'uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States and our system of self-government.' Is the federal government, then, falling prey to Parkinson's law? Should the obsession with neoclassical architecture be seen as a sign that the administration has entered its late-Louis XIV phase, characterized by extravagance and fiscal peril? All signs point in that direction. Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University. A specialist on German economic history and on globalization, he is a co-author of The Euro and The Battle of Ideas, and the author of The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History of the Legendary German Firm, Making the European Monetary Union, The War of Words, and, most recently, Seven Crashes: The Economic Crises That Shaped Globalisation (Yale University Press, 2023). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Why has it been so difficult for Britain to recognise the state of Palestine?
Keir Starmer's determination to recognise the state of Palestine begs a simple question. Not so much 'Why?' – for decades, a two-state solution that would see a Palestinian homeland established in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem has been the policy of successive UK governments, and one that was voted for, overwhelmingly, in the Commons 11 years ago. But, rather, how today's announcement following an emergency meeting of the Cabinet, that the British government – exasperated by the ongoing situation in Gaza and the dwindling prospects of a two-state solution with Israel – will formally recognise Palestine in September, could have been quite so long in the making. Britain has played a pivotal role in the pre-history of the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict, starting with the 1917 Balfour Declaration. The then-British foreign secretary's letter to Lord Rothschild promising support for a 'national home for the Jewish people' set our seal on a future Israeli state. While many Palestinians understandably see the Declaration as the root of all their travails, it was intended as a classic diplomatic fudge. It did not actually specify that it would mean a Jewish state in what was then still a division of the Ottoman Empire, but which would soon be under British control following General Allenby's victory over the Turks in the First World War. Moreover, Balfour promised that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine' – which is a quaint way of describing the existing, and then overwhelmingly Arab, population of Palestine. Nor did it say how this protection would be achieved. But none of this alters the fact that, more than a century later, this proviso is the the Balfour Declaration's great unfinished business. Fast forward to May 1948. The declaration of an independent state of Israel by its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, following the hasty abandonment of territory mandated to British control in 1920 by the League of Nations, and coupled with the Israeli army's successful defence against immediate invasion by five neighbouring Arab states, left the new nation in control of 78 per cent of what had once been British-administered Mandatory Palestine. The Balfour Declaration – along with the United Nations decision to divide the territory into two states, one Arab and one Jewish – would prove pivotal in creating a conflict that still scars the Middle East. But it is subsequent events that explain why formal recognition of an independent, sovereign state of Palestine has still not yet happened. For more than half a century, Western governments – Britain included – have said that there should be a Palestinian state that encompasses Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But in 1967, when the Six Day War broke out with its neighbours, Israel seized the former territory from Egypt and the latter two others from Jordan. The subsequent UN Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw in return for recognition by Arab states – but neither the pullback nor the recognition ever came to pass. At that point in time, Palestinians still hankered after sovereignty over the whole of historic 'Palestine' – including what had already been the state of Israel for almost 20 years, and from which more than 700,000 Palestinians had been forced to flee, in a displacement and dispossession known as the Nakba, meaning 'catastrophe' in Arabic. Israel, far from withdrawing from the territorial gains made during conflicts, has set up settlements, meaning that at least 620,000 Israelis now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Several of the most extreme members of the Netanyahu government are eager to resettle Gaza in the same way. In 1988, there was a dramatic change of thinking within the then-Palestinian leadership – it's so-called 'historic compromise'. Led by Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation would confine its aspiration to sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967. All negotiations that have taken place since then – at Oslo in 1993, at Camp David in 2000, and between Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas as part of a secret realignment plan that was never implemented – have envisaged, to some degree, a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side. Shortly after Arafat's historic compromise, 78 countries recognised the new Palestinian state. Today, the number declaring formal recognition stands at 147. Earlier this month – more than a decade after Sweden became the first EU country to formally acknowledge Palestinian sovereignty, a move followed last year by Ireland, Spain and Norway – the French president Emmanuel Macron became the first leader of a G7 country to promise he will seek to do the same at the UN General Assembly in September. As critics of recognition frequently, and correctly, point out; acknowledging a state of Palestine that includes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem is essentially notional, since, in the absence of a successful peace process, there is no state to recognise. Though the Palestinian Authority was granted observer status at the United Nations in 2012, along similar lines to that afforded to the Vatican, it has no voting rights. Moreover, the United States has consistently used its veto to block Palestine's full UN membership. As recently as April, the UK abstained in a Security Council resolution vote on the recommendation regarding the admission of Palestine into the UN. Nevertheless, France's move – which paved the way for today's announcement of a road map by Keir Starmer, which is supported by Macron and the German chancellor Friedrich Merz – is not an empty one. It registered growing outrage at the carnage, and the scale of the famine, perpetrated by Israel in Gaza in retaliation for brutal attacks by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 Israelis and took another 251 hostages. The French president is said to have been especially affected by his conversations with Palestinian survivors when he visited Egypt in April. France joining with Saudi Arabia in sponsoring the UN summit currently underway in New York to revive talks into a two-state solution sends a clear political message to Israel's leadership. It is also a reminder that, since 2002, Riyadh has promised to recognise Israel – as Egypt and Jordan have already done – but only if it agrees to a return to pre-1967 borders. Will Britain's belated recognition of a state of Palestine make any difference? It will certainly lend weight and credence to those hoping to change minds in Washington. It would also go some way as an acknowledgement of the UK's historic role and duty in the region. And we can only hope that it might help solve a conflict in which the destruction, killing and starvation in Gaza is but the latest – and direst – consequence.
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Tariff trouble: Multilateralism in the time of unilateral trade actions
iStock While many rue the powerlessness of the WTO, a germane question to ask is how come the multilateral trading system came to be seen as a villain or, worse still, a side actor in the saga of international trade. As nations frantically pursue trade deals with the US, many governments and trade experts have raised concerns regarding unilateral tariffs potentially violating the Articles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which serve as the foundation for the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The US government holds the view that the WTO regime has been unfair to their economy, and to redress the imbalance caused by trade helmed by WTO rules, the US needs tariff protection and fair market access to other countries. While many rue the powerlessness of the WTO, a germane question to ask is how come the multilateral trading system came to be seen as a villain or, worse still, a side actor in the saga of international trade. Souring on rules based free trade Any international body created by countries needs to reconcile the conflicting urges towards national sovereignty versus international welfare and fair play. In fact, before the founding of the WTO in 1995, there were fierce debates, especially in developing countries, about the potential surrender of economic sovereignty. A notable Opposition leader in India and ex-Prime Minister had stated at that time, 'It is the West's attempt to transgress on our sovereignty.' Prior to 1995 and later, the developed countries, including the US, led the charge in convincing developing countries that such surrender would lead to more trade and economic betterment. In the past decade, however, the US and some developing countries have openly expressed doubt about the benefits and efficacy of the WTO. The latest actions of the US government in imposing tariffs, based on its perception of national interest and negotiating strength, were waiting to happen. The current US administration only acted upon the thoughts that have been circulating for more than a decade. The fact that the dispute settlement understanding under the rules of the WTO is ineffective due to a defunct appellate body shows it up as an ineffectual organisation. Its claims to set and enforce a rules-based order for the world trade ring hollow. The consensus-based approach wherein even one dissenting member can defeat a proposal is another hurdle in effective multilateral action. A bystander in world tradeIf one looks at the history of international organisations, the WTO's failures have parallels in the League of Nations, which was formed after the First World War. While the League of Nations was primarily a political body, less concerned with trade, its demise does hold lessons for all international bodies. Leaving aside the onerous terms of peace imposed on Germany after the First World War, the League collapsed as it depended upon the consensus of all members and did not have an enforcement mechanism for its decisions. While it is early to foretell a similar collapse of the WTO, there is no doubt that recent events have reduced it to a bystander in world trade. The Future: A new multilateral trade regime Even as countries negotiate with the US for 'tariff deals,' they should not lose sight of the need of reviving and strengthening a rules-based world trade order. In the absence of a credible rules-based world trade regime, disruptions like the current one can happen with unpredictable frequency. A breakdown in international trade law would create chaos and a decline in trade as well as global prosperity. It remains to be seen which countries in the world will take the initiative to build a new WTO and how far they would succeed in convincing the others. Over the years, the jurisprudence and institutional knowledge generated by the WTO, together with bodies like the World Customs Organisation, have served international trade well. They cannot be allowed to go in vain. Examples are common standards on classification, valuation, origin of goods, agreement on technical barriers to trade, and agreements on subsidies and countervailing measures, to name a few. Even though they are not perfect tools, they have considerably reduced arbitrariness in trade governance across the world. The three pet peeves of some governments against the WTO seem to be a lack of a mechanism to set right trade imbalances, an inordinately long dispute resolution process, and dysfunction in its appellate body. Add to that the need for consensus in decision-making, which makes decisions on contentious issues a near impossibility. Yet another gap is the WTO's irrelevance in the global monetary system, components of which do impact global trade. Perhaps a reimagined multilateral trade organisation, which is much stronger and more agile and alive to its members' concerns than the WTO, is needed. The unilateral trade actions, reactions by some governments, and recent disruptions clearly underscore such a need. The writer is an independent trade expert.
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Blitzkrieg to Hiroshima: How the Second World War reshaped the global order
In a historic move, the UK and Germany signed their first bilateral treaty since the Second World War, pledging 'mutual assistance' in case of attack. This development warrants a look back at the Second World War, in which the UK was a major Allied power while Germany was an Axis. The first thing that strikes one about the Second World War is the small time gap that divides it from the First World War, a mere 21 years. The First World War ended on November 11, 1918, and the Second World War began on September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. The First World War was concluded with a very flawed peace agreement in the form of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. It was the failures of this peace agreement and the resentment felt by Germany at the unjust conditions imposed upon it that gave rise to the Second World War. The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945 and caused a staggering loss of between 40 to 50 million lives. The path to the Second World War was a steady, two-decade-long buildup. A combination of political and economic factors came together to pave the way for the rise of a politician like Adolf Hitler in Germany. After the First World War, the liberal Weimar Republic replaced the Wilhelmine monarchy in Germany. Throughout the 1920s, it was shaped by leaders like Gustav Stresemann, who adapted to the new realities of the Weimar Republic after the fall of the monarchy. Stresemann briefly served as Chancellor in 1923 and then as Foreign Minister until his death in 1929. He was opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, whose terms he found difficult to implement. Among the provisions of the treaty were the payment of war reparations to the victorious Allies and the demilitarisation of the Rhineland that lay on Germany's Western border with France. In 1923, Germany experienced hyper-inflation as it struggled to pay the war reparations that were imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Rifts appeared between Britain and France in terms of how to impose the measures of the treaty. At the same time, the famed and lofty idealism of the US President Woodrow Wilson came into play through his famous fourteen points. The last point created the League of Nations, which was to serve as the predecessor of the United Nations that was set up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War in October 1945. However, other aspects of Wilson's lofty idealism such as the right to national self-determination were to come crashing down on the harsh realities of European politics in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. Eventually, even the US Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles. There are perhaps three elements that define the build-up to the Second World War. The first was the unstable nature of the Weimar Republic, whose economic difficulties were exploited by a rising politician like Adolf Hitler. The Weimar Republic came to an end in 1933 when the Nazi party secured dominance in the German parliament, the Reichstag, and Hitler was appointed as Chancellor. The second factor was the harsh economic realities of the 1920s and 1930s. The Great Wall Street Crash of October 1929 was one of the world's first truly economic crises, whose adverse effects and reverberations were felt all around the world, and especially in Europe. The Wall Street crash ushered in a decade (the 1930s) seen in terms of economic depression and unemployment. In response to this crisis, British economist John Maynard Keynes produced his seminal work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. His ideas would later play a significant role in shaping the post-Second World War international economic order, particularly through the setting up of the Bretton Woods institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The third major factor leading to the Second World War was the policy of appeasement adopted by Great Britain towards the escalating demands of Germany. This policy is associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, especially as it played out at the Munich conference of 1938. Chamberlain believed that the policy of appeasement was the best way to avoid war and to buy time for Britain to prepare militarily. Signs of impending war became obvious as early as 1936, when Hitler decided to remilitarise the Rhineland in violation of one of the key provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. That same year in July, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy came together and backed General Francisco Franco's fascist assault against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. In 1938, Hitler signed the Anschluss or pact with Austria that resulted in the merger of Austria with Germany, which further consolidated his position. That same year, Hitler kept making the case for the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, using their minority status to persuade France and Britain that the Sudetenland must be ceded to Germany. This was followed the next year in 1939 by Germany's invasion and occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Second World War was very different from the First World War as far as the greater use of air power was concerned. The German air force or the Luftwaffe, conducted devastating air raids on London and other major British cities in the early stages of the war. The Battle of Britain, which took place between July and October 1940, saw the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the German Luftwaffe engage in intense aerial combat. The Allied powers – Great Britain, France, the US, and the Soviet Union – were pitted against the Axis powers – Germany, Italy and Japan. The early stages of the war saw German advances through overwhelming aerial strikes that were then rapidly followed by military and tank maneuvers on the ground. These tactics, known as the blitzkrieg ('lightning war'), allowed the Germans to overrun Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece in the short span between September 1939 and April 1941. The American entry into the war, following the Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, significantly turned the tide in favour of the Allied powers as the US was able to deploy massive amounts of military resources. The American entry into the war was preceded by the lend-lease agreement that allowed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to transfer large amounts of war material, supplies and munitions to the Allies. A decisive turning point came when the German offensive against Soviet Russia on the Eastern Front was thwarted at the famous Battle of Stalingrad that took place between August 23, 1942 and February 2, 1943. The Germans suffered other major reversals in the battlefields in Northern Africa, most famously the Second Battle of El-Alamein between October 23 and November 11, 1942, when the famous German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was defeated. As a result, Italian and German advances in North Africa, especially around the strategically significant Suez Canal, were checked. The Axis powers seemed to be doing better in East Asia. In February 1942, British-controlled Singapore fell to the Japanese Red Army, which continued its advance by taking over the Andaman Islands in March 1942. One of the most frequently talked about military turning points of the Second World War happened on June 6, 1944, with Operation Overlord that saw the landing of 1,56,000 men on the beaches of Normandy in northern France. This military operation was under the overall command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would go on to serve as US President in the next decade. As 1944 drew to a close and 1945 began, the war's trajectory was marked by advances of Allied powers, the US and British, from the West and the Soviet forces from the East as they closed in on Berlin, with the final fall happening in May 1945. Hitler himself committed suicide along with his mistress Eva Braun on April 30, 1945, when Soviet forces were on the verge of reaching Berlin. A few months later, the Second World War came to a conclusive end, with the dropping of atomic bombs by the US over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August 1945. The defeat of the Axis powers created a new world order that was defined by the hegemony of the US. In terms of the lineaments of the new world order, it gave rise to an international rules-based system. Landmark proceedings such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set important legal precedents by introducing concepts like war crimes and crimes against humanity. The horrors of the Holocaust and the concentration camps run by the Nazis gave rise to the Genocide Convention adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which emphasized the idea that such unspeakable crimes must 'never again' happen. In what ways did the Second World War differ from the First World War in terms of strategy, technology, and scale? To what extent was the German strategy of blitzkrieg responsible for early Axis victories? How did the entry of the US in WWII transform the balance of power? How did the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shape the post-war geopolitical landscape? In what ways did the Holocaust influence the formation of post-war human rights conventions and norms? Evaluate how the experiences of the Second World War shaped the creation of post-war multilateral institutions, such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. (Amir Ali is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
WWE RAW Results & Highlights (6/30/25): New Tag Team Champions, Crowned, Jey Uso takes down Paul Heyman Guys and more
Image via WWE The fallout edition of WWE RAW for Night of Champions took place at the PPG Paints Arena in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The road to their next major PLE, WWE Evolution, heated up with new matches added, a top faction claiming all gold, and an explosive tag team main event that saw a Uce even the odds against a dominant faction. Opening segment on WWE RAW Rhea Ripley and IYO Sky met in the opening segment of Monday Night RAW this week. The duo reignited their rivalry from earlier this year with SKY offering to put her WWE Women's World title on the line against Mami. She accepted it for the all-women's PLE coming up in Atlanta, Georgia, next month, WWE Evolution, which was made official. Kofi Kingston and Xavier Woods vs. Finn Bálor and JD McDonagh The New Day defended their WWE World Tag Team Championships against Finn Balor and JD McDonagh of the Judgment Day. Both teams produced a highly compelling tag team showdown that captivated the audience in Pittsburgh. The match came to its conclusion when Balor and McDonagh executed a combination of moonsault and Coup De Grace to win the match and become new champions. Sheamus vs Rusev This was the first time in many years that former League of Nations members, Sheamus and Rusev, were scheduled to battle in a one-on-one showdown. It was a hard-hitting affair between the two brutes of Monday Night RAW. From hard chops to power-packed moves, the duo left the audience mesmerized. The match came to an end when Rusev executed a thunderous Machka Kick for the win. Gunther & Seth Rollins segment Gunther came out for an in-ring segment and berated his upcoming Saturday Night's Main Event opponent, Goldberg. Amidst his address, Seth Rollins came out to the ring and recapped his almost successful Money in the Bank cash-in. However, CM Punk came out in anger to exact payback on Rollins, and they brawled. The Visionary escaped through the audience only to be stopped by LA Knight, who attacked him. Bayley vs. Lyra Valkyria This was a singles match to determine the No.1 contender for the WWE Women's Intercontinental title held by Becky Lynch. The former tag team partners went up against each other in full force as a huge opportunity hung in the balance. However, there was no clear winner as Bayley pinned Lyra Valkyria with her own shoulders to the mat as well, and the referee declared it a draw. Sami Zayn & Penta vs. Bron Breakker & Bronson Reed The tag team match was the main event of the night for Monday Night RAW. The match saw a great partnership between Sami Zayn and Penta going up against Bron Breakker and Bronson Reed, who displayed brute force. It was a highly enthralling showdown that led to huge 'This is Awesome' chants and ended with Breakker delivering a huge spear on Zayn to win the match for his team. After the bout, Reed and Breakker continued to assault them until Jey Uso came out with a chair to fend off the attack and aid his allies. Also read: WWE Undisputed Champion John Cena will return once more for Survivor Series: War Games Game On Season 1 continues with Mirabai Chanu's inspiring story. Watch Episode 2 here.
