Latest news with #Pyrrhic
The National
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Peace in Sudan is to be found at the negotiating table, not in the courtroom
Today's decision by the International Court of Justice to dismiss a case brought against the UAE by Sudan is the right one. However, the case – which accused the Emirates of backing the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in a war that has devastated Sudan since April 2023 – represents a disappointing waste of time, money and political capital that would have been better used trying to end this tragic and damaging conflict. It is the second time in little over a week that unpersuasive allegations about the UAE from Sudan's military-backed leadership have failed to find support. On April 29, The National saw a copy of a 42-page report compiled by the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan and submitted to the Security Council that detailed many alarming atrocities carried out by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF but contained no findings against the Emirates. Dr Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, said the report debunked 'false SAF accusations against the UAE'. Those who took the case to The Hague on March 6 may have believed that, despite it having little chance of success, it would deflect attention away from the Sudanese military's own detrimental role in the war. There are plenty of reasons why such a deflection needed to be a powerful one, capable of capturing international attention. The rise of Islamist elements on the SAF's watch, taking advantage of the chaos to impose their agenda, poses a serious threat to Sudan's future not only by perpetuating the current war but by sowing the seeds of future conflict. Last week, it was reported that the UAE had thwarted a plot to smuggle weapons and military equipment to the Sudanese army involving a private plane, five million rounds of machinegun ammunition and a list of notable Sudanese intelligence and business figures. Meanwhile, Sudan's people continue to suffer. This week, Sudanese refugees told The National about their return to the capital, Khartoum. The war-torn city lacks electricity and running water amid sky-high food prices, scarce healthcare services and a precarious security situation. When such accounts are added to regular reports from international humanitarian organisations warning about the anguish of Sudan's civilian population – UN figures say out of an estimated total population of 50 million, at least 13 million have been displaced by the war – one can understand the need to direct international attention elsewhere. Instead, today's events at The Hague highlight the real issues facing Sudan: the urgent need for an immediate ceasefire, meaningful talks to permanently end the war and restarting the process of building a civilian-led government. The alternative is a debilitating military stalemate that threatens to destabilise neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan, or a Pyrrhic victory for one side or another that will inherit a devastated and divided nation. The work to prevent either scenario should not take place in international courts – it should take place around the negotiating table and among the Sudanese themselves.
The National
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Peace in Sudan is to be found at the talks table, not in the courtroom
Today's decision by the International Court of Justice to dismiss a case brought against the UAE by Sudan is the right one. However, the case – which accused the Emirates of backing the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in a war that has devastated Sudan since April 2023 – represents a disappointing waste of time, money and political capital that would have been better used trying to end this tragic and damaging conflict. It is the second time in little over a week that unpersuasive allegations about the UAE from Sudan's military-backed leadership have failed to find support. On April 29, The National saw a copy of a 42-page report compiled by the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan and submitted to the Security Council that detailed many alarming atrocities carried out by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the RSF but contained no findings against the Emirates. Dr Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, said the report debunked 'false SAF accusations against the UAE'. Those who brought the case to The Hague on March 6 may have believed that, despite it having little chance of success, it would deflect attention away from the Sudanese military's own detrimental role in the war. There are plenty of reasons why such a deflection needed to be a powerful one, capable of capturing international attention. The rise of Islamist elements on the SAF's watch, taking advantage of the chaos to impose their agenda, poses a serious threat to Sudan's future not only by perpetuating the current war but by sowing the seeds of future conflict. Last week, it was reported that the UAE had thwarted a plot to smuggle weapons and military equipment to the Sudanese army involving a private plane, five million rounds of machinegun ammunition and a list of notable Sudanese intelligence and business figures. Meanwhile, Sudan's people continue to suffer. This week, Sudanese refugees told The National about their return to the capital, Khartoum. The war-torn city lacks electricity and running water amid sky-high food prices, scarce healthcare services and a precarious security situation. When such accounts are added to regular reports from international humanitarian organisations warning about the anguish of Sudan's civilian population – UN figures say out of an estimated total population of 50 million, at least 13 million have been displaced by the war – one can understand the need to direct international attention elsewhere. Instead, today's events at The Hauge highlight the real issues facing Sudan: the urgent need for an immediate ceasefire, meaningful talks to permanently end the war and restarting the process of building a civilian-led government. The alternative is a debilitating military stalemate that threatens to destabilise neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan, or a Pyrrhic victory for one side or another that will inherit a devastated and divided nation. The work to prevent either scenario should not talk place in international courts – it should take place around the talks table and among the Sudanese themselves.
Ottawa Citizen
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Ottawa Citizen
John Ivison: Conservatives used a meat grinder on the Liberals. They needed a wooden stake
The Liberal party was all but buried in early January, a stake driven through its heart by Conservative attacks. Article content Article content The Tories thought their job was done, prepared themselves for government and took off the cloves of garlic round their necks. Article content But they underestimated the Liberal party's ability to come back from the dead, impelled by an insatiate thirst for power. Article content Article content There's no doubt that President Donald Trump's intervention about the need for Canada to become the 51st state was the catalyst for the Liberal victory on Monday night. Article content But the conditions for that win were created long before the campaign started. Article content At the turn of the year, internal party polling showed that, were an election to be held, the Liberals would find themselves as the fourth party in Parliament. Article content That was an unacceptable prospect for the great, heartless machine that has governed Canada for much of its history. Article content The impediment to Liberal recovery in the polls was Justin Trudeau. Voters were sick of the sight of him, so there was no option: he had to go. Article content That fatigue and hostility didn't just happen organically; it was fomented by a bombardment of anti-Trudeau Conservative rhetoric and apocalyptic ads that pushed the idea it was time for change. Article content The campaign was successful, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, achieved at such cost it was rendered meaningless. Article content Article content The Conservatives pursued a similar scorched-earth approach to Jagmeet Singh, spending millions to persuade Canadians that the NDP leader was propping up the Liberals so that he could reap a lucrative parliamentary pension. They discarded the hard-won lesson that a healthy NDP was essential to Conservative success. Article content Article content Gerald Butts, the backroom strategist who crafted the narratives that brought former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty to power in 2003 and then repeated the feat with Trudeau in 2015, said that Pierre Poilievre and his campaign director, Jenni Byrne, appear to have only one mode of operating. 'They're like the Russian army. They pick a target and then grind them down with deeply personal attacks,' he said. Article content Mark Carney had been biding his time in the wings of the Liberal party, after his return from his tour of duty as governor of the Bank of England. He had long harboured ambitions to be prime minister — perhaps the only thing he has in common with Poilievre. But Carney was aware of the old political adage that he who wields the knife rarely wears the crown, and was wary of pushing too hard for Trudeau to go. As late as Christmas, friends say it was still unclear whether Carney was going to commit to politics. Article content Events could scarcely have worked out more neatly in his favour. Article content Carney announced his candidacy for the Liberal leadership in unremarkable fashion in mid-January in his hometown of Edmonton. The Conservatives still held a 20-to-25 point lead in most polls at the time, but Carney is never short of self-belief. He told me then he thought he had a chance of holding the Conservatives to a minority. Article content The NDP had an opportunity to present itself as the option to replace Trudeau, just as Tom Mulcair had done in 2015 with regard to then prime minister Stephen Harper. But Singh and the NDP were too beaten up by Poilievre's attack ads and failed to make a serious pitch to voters as a governing alternative. Article content Article content He was condemned as an environmental radical and an elitist who was more used to global boardrooms than shopping at Loblaws. Article content Article content But voters gave Carney the benefit of the doubt. Article content While Trudeau (and Poilievre) are purely political animals, Carney is more complex. Article content The stylistic differences with Trudeau were reinforced by Carney's decision to cancel the consumer carbon tax and the capital gains tax hike. Article content Carney was able to offer stability with change, a seemingly oxymoronic proposition that met the moment for many voters. Article content The pivot away from Trudeau-era policies reshaped the agenda and asked questions of the Conservatives. Article content The Liberals lacked credibility, but Carney lent them his own. He came across as more relatable than Trudeau — and Poilievre. Article content The Conservatives failed to establish the new leader's vulnerabilities and wasted the January to March period in terms of recasting Poilievre as a more prime ministerial figure. Article content That misstep was to have dramatic consequences. Carney consistently polled above his party, which is why he featured so prominently in all its advertising; Poilievre consistently polled below his party, which is why he didn't feature at all in the last two ads of the campaign. Article content Article content One mid-campaign Abacus Data poll suggested that nearly half of all women voters had a negative impression of Poilievre, while a similar number had a positive impression of the Liberal leader. Article content The Conservative campaign also ignored warnings that it needed to be prepared to respond to the unpredictable new resident in the White House, given the visceral dislike of Trump among Canadian voters. Article content The Conservative war room had a narrative crafted when Trudeau was still prime minister and was loath to pivot. Article content 'They fell in love with their strategy so much that they wouldn't move off it. It was an effective strategy to bulldoze opponents between elections, when they had a lot of time and money. But they weren't agile,' charged Butts. Article content By the time Carney won the Liberal party leadership in early March, Trump had mused about Canada as the 51st state and the Liberals were neck and neck with the Conservatives in the polls. Article content By the time he was sworn in as prime minister on March 14th, the Liberals were ahead in almost every poll. It was a lead they never relinquished. Article content Carney ran a solid, disciplined campaign, mostly avoiding controversy. Article content The candidate was not a rousing orator and the rallies were never as large or enthusiastic as those of Poilievre. But he was a quick study who improved his French, his ability to read a teleprompter and his timing. Article content The Conservatives did their best to undermine Carney, accusing him of being a plagiarist who simply appropriated Trudeau's playbook and his campaign team. It's true that many of the key players worked on previous campaigns, including executive director Tom Pitfield and co-campaign directors Andrew Bevan, Braeden Caley, Andrée-Lyne Hallé and Butts, who, remarkably, has never lost an election he's worked on. Article content But the ideas that formed the basis for the Liberal platform are mostly taken from Carney's book Value(s), which had input from Butts and policy advisor, Tim Krupa. Article content As the prospect of a trade war with the United States crystallized, Butts began crafting the narrative that became 'Trump wants to break us so he can own us.' Article content Article content But the central concept of the Liberals' 'Canada Strong' slogan— that the country has to build a single market and explore trading opportunities elsewhere as a means of increasing leverage for a trade negotiation with Trump — is all Carney. Article content It was Butts's job to turn that into a campaign narrative. He said he attended dozens of focus groups where voters rejected Poilievre, not because he was too like Trump, but because he was too inexperienced. Article content That formed the basis for the ballot question the Liberals pushed: 'Is Pierre Poilievre the person you want sitting across the table from Donald Trump?' Article content People who were motivated by their anxieties about a trade war invariably answered in the negative. Article content But the Conservative agenda, as represented by its anti-establishment, pro-worker 'boots not suits' policy, resonated with people who were unhappy with the status quo and the prospect of a fourth Liberal term. Article content They saw Poilievre as someone who would disrupt a system that wasn't working for them. The resilience of the Conservative vote on election night, particularly in blue-collar towns that hadn't voted Conservative in years like Sudbury and Stoney Creek in Ontario, suggests that the strategy wasn't entirely wrong. Article content Article content But even senior Conservatives concede that you can't build a winning coalition if you alienate women, boomers and university-educated voters. Article content The Liberals succeeded in neutralizing many Conservative initiatives by adopting similar positions when it came to income tax cuts or promising more timely approvals for energy projects. Article content By the time the campaigns hit Montreal for the leaders' debates, the election had settled into an uneasy stalemate. The Conservatives began to whittle away at the Liberal lead in steady increments, but one pollster estimated that at that rate, it would take until May 8th before they would catch up, well after election day. Article content Article content Poilievre needed an incendiary moment to blow up the Liberal trajectory and it looked as if he had one with Carney's platform, which promised $129 billion in new measures and deficits as far as the eye could see. Article content Poilievre's problem was that he had yet to release his own platform, and when he did, it was almost as profligate, with $109 billion in new measures. Article content The only other occasion that threatened to derail the Carney Express was the horrific car-ramming attack in Vancouver. The incident opened the door for the Conservatives to talk about their safe-streets policies, but all sides were aware that politicizing the tragedy would result in a backlash. Article content In the event, Caley, the campaign co-director, and former Vancouver mayor, Gregor Robertson, now a Liberal MP, were able to arrange for Carney to visit the site, alongside community members and B.C. Premier David Eby. Article content The Liberal campaign ended in Victoria, B.C., on Sunday night, three minutes before the election day cut-off. Article content The result has proven to be much closer than the Liberals thought it would be. Internal projections were in the range of high-180, mid-190-seat range. It now looks like the Liberals have fallen short of 172 seat majority status, though recounts may take them above the current count of 169. Article content There were Liberal reversals in places where the received wisdom suggested there would be successes because of the collapse of the NDP vote. Article content Article content In the Niagara region, for example, when Carney visited at the start of the final week, there were hopes the party would pick up an additional seat in Niagara Falls. On the night, they failed to win that seat from the Conservatives and lost Vance Badawey's seat of Niagara South to the Conservatives. This was the type of border community that 'should' have voted Liberal. Article content The Liberals gained 2.8 million new voters in this election, while the Conservatives added 2.2 million. Article content The national turnout was nearly five percentage points higher than the last election, adding two million voters from 2021. Article content But one of the stories of the night was the demise of the smaller parties. The NDP lost 1.8 million voters, the Greens lost 158,000 and the People's Party a whopping 702,000, compared to 2021. Article content Voters, it turns out, have minds of their own and a large number of former NDP supporters appear to have switched to the Conservatives. Article content The collapse of all the minor opposition parties, bar the Bloc Québécois, will have serious implications for future elections, particularly for the one party that needs smaller, progressive parties to draw votes from the Liberals. Article content Article content Poilievre and his team ran a disciplined and well-oiled campaign. But voters ultimately rejected the Conservative leader (literally, in the case of his former constituents in Carleton), while buying Carney's pitch for stability with moderate change. Article content But in large part, the 45th general election was over before it started, with the demolition of Trudeau and Singh.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
How the world's first-ever Pyrrhic victory went down
Pyrrhus of Epirus was a beloved king, benevolent leader, and one of the most successful generals of the ancient world. He was so successful that Hannibal of Carthage, who earned a name for himself by kicking around the Romans for a while, called him the second greatest military commander after Alexander the Great. But no one would know any of that because his name is really remembered for that one thing: his big wins against the Romans at the Battle of Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC, victories that nearly ended his army. To this day, his name is evoked for any great victory that cost so much that it might as well have been a defeat. The United States has been able to inflict such victories on its enemies at places like Bunker Hill, Chancellorsville, and the Chosin Reservoir. The enemy might have won the battlefield, but it cost an irreparable amount of lives to do it, and some would say cost them the war. Here's how they all came to be known as Pyrrhic victories. Pyrrhus had a rough time coming to and staying in power. Epirus was a Greek kingdom on the Ionian coast, just across from the 'heel' of the Italian peninsula and Pyrrhus came to power as a teenager. He was overthrown at 17, but managed to mount a comeback four years later. He would later rule Macedon and Syracuse as well, but his biggest enemy for a time was the upstart Roman Republic. In 280 BC, the Greek city of Tarentum, located in southern Italy, begged Pyrrhus for help in fending off the Romans, so Epirus answered the call. Pyrrhus, it turned out, wanted Sicily and southern Italy anyway, he just didn't want to start a war to get it. Most importantly, he owed Tarentum, because they'd helped him take what is today the island of Corfu. Now that he had an excuse to go to war, he was ready to take what he wanted while giving Rome a black eye. He sent troops as soon as he could raise an army. He arrived in Italy in 280 BC with 20,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry, 2,000 archers, 500 slingers, and 20 war elephants. Pyrrhus met the Romans at Heraclea that same year, where the Consul Publius Valerius Laevinus hoped to cut him off from joining an uprising against Rome. The Battle of Heraclea was important because it brought two legendary military formations against one another for the first time: the Roman Legion was squaring off against the Phalanx. The unstoppable force had finally met the immovable object, and the battle hung as the two sides fought to a stalemate. That's when Pyrrhus let his war elephants loose. The Roman broke at the sight of the creatures, and the Greek cavalry finished off the stragglers who could not escape across a nearby river. They lost between 7,000 and 15,000 troops (depending on the source) while the Greeks lost between 3,000 and 11,000. It was literally a Pyrrhic victory but it was also a figurative one. Rome could afford to lose those kinds of numbers, Pyrrhus could not. The disparity was even more apparent the next year, after the two sides met at Asculum. Both Roman consuls marched a massive 40,000-man army with 8,000 cavalry to meet Pyrrhus. The size of the Roman force shocked the Greeks after Heraclea. The Greeks had about equal numbers, but the terrain put their phalanxes at an operational disadvantage against the Roman legion. Even more troubling for Pyrrhus were the spiked wagons, some filled with fire throwers, the Romans built that were meant to counter his war elephants. When the battle started, however, the wagons proved useless. Roman cavalry engaged the Greeks as the legions crossed the river that divided the two forces. The troops in the wagons quickly abandoned those wagons as the elephants came to bear, which both disrupted the infantry and allowed the elephants to drive the legions back. The two infantry formations then fought into the night. Roman allies sacked his camp during the battle and his flank began to falter. As night fell, the Greeks were facing disaster. Both sides disengaged as darkness fell, but things looked bad for Pyrrhus. Instead of going to camp (he didn't have one), he reformed his army throughout the night. When the Romans woke up in the morning, they found the Greeks were now formed up in the open plains, and they would have to either retreat or fight the Greeks on their ideal ground. After a brief cavalry skirmish, the infantry met and the phalanxes began to push the Romans back. A devastating elephant charge sent the Romans running for the hills. But Pyrrhus had lost scores of irreplaceable men and most of his field commanders. He is reported to have said, 'If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.' Instead of continuing the fight against Rome, he moved south to Syracuse, which was facing pressure from Carthage. After three years of fighting, he dislodged all but one Carthaginian city, but could never take it. After trying to replenish his ranks with Greeks in Sicily, they all turned against him and he was forced to go to Southern Italy instead of taking the fight to Carthage in North Africa. The Roman Army defeated Pyrrhus at Beneventum, forcing him to return to Greece.
Sydney Morning Herald
22-04-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Will a US court break up Google in blockbuster case?
The US Justice Department says the best way to address Google's monopoly in internet search is to break up the $US1.81 trillion ($2.8 trillion) company, kicking off a three-week hearing that could reshape the technology giant and alter the power players in Silicon Valley. Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in August that Google had broken antitrust laws to maintain its dominance in online search. He is now hearing arguments from the government and the company over how to best fix Google's monopoly and is expected to order those measures, referred to as 'remedies', by the end of the summer. In an opening statement in the hearing on Monday, the government said Mehta should force Google to sell its popular Chrome web browser, which drives users to its search engine. Government lawyers also said the company should take steps to give competitors a leg up if the court wants to restore competition to the moribund market for online search. 'Your honour, we are not here for a Pyrrhic victory,' David Dahlquist, a Justice Department lawyer, said in his opening statement. 'This is the time for the court to tell Google and all other monopolists who are out there listening, and they are listening, that there are consequences when you break the antitrust laws.' Google's lawyers countered that Mehta should target his remedies narrowly. Specifically, they said, the court should look only at a group of deals that the company makes with Apple, Mozilla, Samsung and others to be the search engine that automatically appears in web browsers and smartphones. These deals were at the heart of the government's case against the company. Loading Google's proposal 'directly responds to this court's legal determinations, but it also does much more', said John Schmidtlein, Google's lead trial lawyer. The outcome in the case, US v Google, could drastically change the Silicon Valley behemoth. Google faces mounting challenges, including a break-up of its ad technology business after a different federal judge ruled last week that the company held a monopoly over some of the tools that websites use to sell open ad space. In 2023, Google also lost an antitrust suit brought by the maker of the video game Fortnite, which accused the tech giant of violating competition laws with its Play app store.
