I've taken the paywall off or @cosmo_globalist's weekend review so that everyone who follows me can see how comprehensive and helpful it is and then run, not walk, to subscribe.
Let me explain what it is: Global Eyes is a premium feature for subscribers to the Cosmopolitan Globalist. (You also get access to the magazine, podcasts, book club, Zoom calls, and much more.) We send it out several times a week. cosmopolitanglobalist.com
If you read Global Eyes regularly, you'll know everything you need to know about what's happening in the wider world to be a reasonably well-informed person.
We organize it by regions, to which we give equal weight: Asia-Pacific, Africa, Middle East, Europe, Americas.
Since 2/24, we've also had a section for Ukraine and another for Russia.
The "Global" section treats--well, that's self-evident.
We also devote a section each to choice items from the Chinese and Russian media, translated to English.
It's a cultivated list of the most interesting things we read in the entire world's newspapers, wires, think tanks, NGOs, foreign office communiqués, social media posts, and more. We choose from English and foreign-language outlets.
Many hugely significant stories receive almost no coverage in the Anglophone media. (Africa, especially, is painfully neglected.) There *is* outstanding reporting to be found in every part of the world, almost, but you have to spend a lot of time looking for it.
And we do.
We read foreign-language newspapers in every major language, via Google Translate (which is astonishingly good now), and we follow key social media accounts around the world--diplomats, journalists, people who strike us as interesting and informed.
We add commentary, emails, and social media posts from our correspondents and from other reliable observers. (And a lot of my own commentary, too.)
Another bonus if you subscribe: You can join our discussion section.
That's one of the more civilized places to discuss global affairs on the Internet. Our readers range across the saner part of the political spectrum. They often disagree, but the discussion has so far been courteous. We haven't yet had to kick someone off for being an imbecile.
Though we would, without hesitation.
Does CG have an editorial stance? Yes.
We're on the side of the decent and the peaceable, and the world's beleaguered liberal democracies.
We abhor cruelty and authoritarianism. We're horrified by war, despotism, political lunacy, and the reemergence, the world around, of ideologies that should long ago have been consigned forever to the sewer.
(We are not, however, pacifists. We believe the only way to deter a bully is by punching him in the nose or putting a J-DAM down his smokestack.)
We're interested in, and we cover, the whole world. We figure other reporters have the Mar-a-Lago beat covered, so we don't need to.
For a host of economic, cultural, and structural reasons, foreign news coverage has all but disappeared from the Anglophone media. That's the gap we're try to fill.
Is there a market for this? We hope so. We're not yet pulling in the big bucks, but we're absolutely sure there are more people like us out there. We just need to find them.
I also included @RadioFreeTom's piece on the new era of political violence in the US (if you follow me, you already know what I said about that), and Lt. Col. Will Selber's article about the aftermath of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, published in @BulwarkOnline;
Then I discussed @EddyWax's article in @POLITICOEurope about the coming famine, adding @PeterZeihan's thoughts about this. Deeply grim.
Finally, @meduza_en published very revealing complaints submitted to Russia’s military.
I agree with pretty much every word here, @RadioFreeTom. It struck me fresh on reading it, though, how utterly dystopian this is, and how truly strange it is that this would be the fate of the United States of America. theatlantic.com/newsletters/ar…
@CJHandmer, you wrote to me yesterday that my predictive record was "uncannily accurate." But to the contrary: Had you asked me even ten years ago if this might happen, I would have bet everything--if necessary, my life--that this scenario was impossible.
There are many people who, in retrospect, had a great deal more insight into my country than I did. I thought they were fantasists. I saw the US as solid, sturdy, Protestant, decent, practical, generous, immensely blessed, and basically indestructible.
@HawleyMO, your comments suggest that you are exceedingly naive about international affairs and national security. You also lack judgment, wisdom, and maturity. #WeAreNATO
You have, I presume, staked out this position because you like the attention. I imagine you're congratulating yourself for being such a free-thinking iconoclast.
But in reality, the reason all of your colleagues support expanding NATO is that it is *so obviously* in our interest.
Your position--not to put too fine a point on it--is idiotic.
If our military is stretched too thin in Asia, what does it suggest? It suggests we need more allies to bear the burden in Europe. More men, under arms, on our side, sharing the responsibility for Europe's defense.
Cher @Chronopost,
Je vous écris ici en désespoir de cause. J'attendais la livraison d'un colis qui aurait dû être livré il y a dix jours. J'ai payé la livraison express. Le jour où il devait être livré, personne n'est venu - ni personne n'a appelé -
mais j'ai reçu un SMS m'informant que la livraison avait échoué parce que j'étais "absente", bien que j'étais chez moi le jour entier.
Lorsque j'ai reprogrammé la livraison pour le lendemain, la même chose s'est produite. Je l'ai reprogrammé à nouveau. Rien.
Maintenant, quant à votre site web, le colis est "Stocké en attente de consigne client", où il est depuis plus d'une semaine, malgré que je le reprogramme *tous les jours* depuis lors.
He got within striking distance of leading the UK government--and clearly he's not too shy to keep opining. Yet he gives every impression of not having so much as skimmed the news from Ukraine for months if not years. Where does this misplaced confidence come from?
If I knew nothing about this war and hadn't read a thing about it since it began, I'd be hesitant to offer my opinion about it in public. I'd be worried I'd sound like an idiot. But he's completely sanguine about that prospect.
Where does this species of serene, misplaced self-assurance come from? I keep seeing examples of it. So many people feel it's appropriate to make proclamations like these.Sometimes they're randos on Twitter, sometimes they're former leaders of a major political party.
We have here the assertion that the Soviet Union committed "no atrocities" during the Cold War. Along with the suggestion that we've imprisoned "working class Republicans" for "protesting an election."
I don't fault someone--especially if he or she is young--for being unfamiliar with the history of the Cold War or the near-unfathomable horror of Soviet occupation. The deportations. The gulags. The terror.
We do a terrible job of teaching this.
But I do fault someone who clearly doesn't know a *thing* about the Soviet Union, or the suffering, starvation, misery, terror, and death it visited upon tens of millions of innocents, and nonetheless *holds a strong opinion* about the nature of life behind the Iron Curtain.