Update: ICC Arrest Warrants; Significance Of Boeing's Troubles

I need to be brief today. Regarding the ICC, the prosecutors involved in the Gaza case have applied for arrest warrants against both Hamas (3) and Israel (2). The warrant applications against Israel (Netanyahu and Gallant) are the ones that are attracting the most attention, for obvious reasons that MoA spells out in a thorough but too the point post:

ICC Prosecutor Asks For Arrest Warrants For Netanyahoo, Gallant And Others

Should the arrest warrants against Netanyahoo and Galant be granted they will have to end all travel to or through those many countries which are member states of the Rome statute. (The U.S., Israel, Russia and Sudan have signed the Rome statute but did not become member states.)

Member states are under obligation to fulfill arrest warrants should the ICC prosecutor have valid ones. There is also a stigma coming with the warrants that will prevent pro-Zionist politicians from Europe and elsewhere from meeting with Netanyahoo or other involved persons.

Over the last several days the Netanyahu government in Israel has come under increasing fire from within. On the one hand, the the members whom Netanyahu relies upon to keep him in power (Ben Gvir, Smotrich, etc.) continue to press for full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing—nothing less. On the other hand, others (Benny Gantz) are openly saying that Netanyahu has, predictably, lost the war. Not only in Gaza but, critically, in the north, where Hezbollah has forced widespread evacuations and continues to attrit Israeli military personnel as well as surveillance capabilities. They criticize Netanyahu for damaging relations with the US and are calling for the US’s preferred solution—the two state solution. This solution, however, depends upon normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia. That is a tricky matter for a number of reasons, including KSA’s close relations with important BRICS countries and its fear of damaging its standing in the Muslim world. The possibility of ICC warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant are part of the drip, drip process that is key to the strategy the Axis of Resistance has been successfully following. How the death of Iran’s president Raisi plays into this remains to be seen. If at all.

---

Regarding Boeing, Larry Johnson’s site features today what seems to me to be a smart assessment of what Boeing’s troubles mean for US geopolitics and NatSec strategy. This is an area well beyond my pay grade, but it’s clearly important for many of the areas we stress here at MIH. Readers with knowledge of aviation issues generally or how those issues intersect with geopolitics may wish to weigh in:

A DEEP STATE FAILURE

I’ll briefly summarize a few key points and then excerpt the conclusion to this article, which covers a lot of ground.

First, the author outlines the importance of the Boeing 737 to the air travel sector, and why it’s having all these problems. He also discusses the Airbus alternatives, which have some problems of their own—although not to the same extent.

Next, the author discusses the significance of Boeing’s decline. As you’ll quickly realize, this looks like a very big deal:

NATIONAL SECURITY

According to Wikipedia, Boeing is the largest exporter in the US by dollar value and the fourth largest defense contractor in the world based on 2022 revenue.  These statistics indicate the importance of Boeing to the US economy.  Exports  provide revenue to help with the balance of payments, provide well-paying jobs for many factory workers, engineers,  and other employees, as well as providing a multiplier effect on the US economy.  For foreign policy, the Boeing/Airbus duopoly helps to strengthen the NATO advantage in world affairs.  It causes enormous problems for other countries that do not manufacture their own aircraft.  Passenger and freight aircraft are essential for a modern economy, so it is very damaging for a country to have its supply of aircraft and parts interrupted by sanctions and other restrictions.  It is clear, from a national security standpoint, that the US must continue to produce modern civil aircraft in large numbers.

The author goes on in this section to discuss Chinese efforts to free themselves from dependence on the Boeing/Airbus duopoly. The Chinese efforts may bear fruit but will still rely on foreign parts—as much as 50% of the parts. Russia, on the other hand, with its strong aviation sector, is in a better position:

...  An attempt to place sanctions on China concerning civil aircraft would likely have a similar result as the sanctions on Russia.  In the Russian case, the country responded to sanctions by designing and building an airliner, the Yakovlev MC-21, to compete with the Boeing 737 and making it entirely with Russian parts.  It is a difficult task, but it seems that Russia will have a fully ‘Russified’ plane for delivery to Aeroflot in 2025 or 2026.  Russia is also re-starting production and updating the Tupolev Tu-214 passenger plane that was built during the time of the Soviet Union.  It is a very similar to the Boeing 757 and used for larger passenger loads and longer flights.

This perhaps relates to the importance of the Belousov appointment, as Minister of Defense. Putin is relying upon Belousov to handle a smooth integration of the military and civilian sectors of the Russian economy, which iis Belousov’s area of expertise. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this is not a rebuke to Shoigu’s handling of the Special Military Operation. It is, rather, a recognition of the complexity of Russia’s way forward in a period of global conflict. Belousov has the skill set that is needed to manage this task of integration and innovation.

The author then, within the same section, addresses how Boeing’s problems relate to the large problems facing the US economic model—the so-called “capitalist” system:

...

At the Boeing annual general meeting of shareholders on May 17, 2024,  the chairman reportedly retained his seat on the Board and his alleged 32 million dollar salary, despite critics’ efforts to the contrary.  The high salary was supposedly defended as being normal for an enterprise of the size of Boeing.  One would have thought that such a rule would only apply if the enterprise was making normal profits and had normal problems and issues.  That is not the case with Boeing, which has numerous difficulties, disasters, and mistakes.  Under a supposed ‘capitalist’ system, the buck stops at the top of the enterprise and the chief is out of a job when things go very badly.  In Boeing’s case, it appears to be more like ‘crony capitalism’ or ‘finance capitalism’ at play.  It is not clear why BlackRock, with approximately 5.6 percent Boeing stock ownership, or Vanguard with approximately 7.7 percent, did not arrange for a fresh team at the top of Boeing a long time ago.

In any event, the result for the US is the following:

INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE: Boeing is in bad shape, but it is not entirely clear as to what label to place on the culprits.  Pundits like to toss around capitalism, communism, socialism, mercantilism, and versions thereof, without really adding much clarification.  There are very serious questions concerning stock-buybacks, stock options, bonuses, capital gains taxes, claw backs, bubbles, monetary and fiscal policies, and other financial features of the American system.   Regardless of the reasons, however, something really went off the rails as far as Boeing’s place in the American economy. ... 

GOVERNMENT FAILURE: During most of the last century, the US was the world champion in passenger aircraft design and production.  Boeing was the US standard bearer, all the competitors having fallen by the wayside.  … US government agencies … should have made major efforts to keep the system running smoothly by questioning what was going on inside Boeing.  Instead, the government seemed to be oblivious to the dry rot slowly consuming the national champion.  Even the National Security Council must have been asleep at the switch.

DEEP STATE FAILURE: Whatever and whoever makes up the so-called ‘Deep State’ is controversial.  What is clear, however, is that it has failed to handle the Boeing case properly. It should have paid more attention to the experts and critics who had been pointing out the deficiencies at Boeing for many years.  The Deep State should have been doing serious research into why the institutional system in the US  has been so defective and has been producing results contrary to the national interest.  It boggles the mind to think that the US can expect to issue rules for setting and controlling the world order and can apply those rules to some 200 countries, while being unable to manage a single aircraft manufacturing company within its own borders.

Here’s my two cents. I believe that the Deep State has been eating itself. The woke stranglehold over our politics and our legal system, which stems from historical and cultural factors, and its takeover of government staffing has led to an overwhelming emphasis on ideology at the cost of competence and rational response to the realities facing the US. Obviously we see this manifested in almost every area of our civic life. We also see it in our response to changing geopolitical realities. These challenges are, rationally speaking, entirely manageable—but not based on a liberal/woke/prog war on reality. It is America’s great cultural weakness that it appears unable to formulate a response to these ideologies that are destabilizing our nation and our civic life. It is unrealistic to expect one man—the POTUS—to overcome this deepseated deficiencies. What will come of this …

The strength of Russian culture is shown in its ability to embrace a man with a vision for the national future.