radiofree.asia

Author: John V. Walsh

  • Jewish Students Opposing Gaza Genocide, a Powerful Antidote to Antisemitism

    Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

    The many Jewish students in the campus encampments, along with other Jews protesting the Gaza phase of the Palestinian Genocide, deserve the highest praise for many reasons.  One reason is that by their deeds they are countering what might otherwise turn into a wave of antisemitism.

    The portrait of the encampments in much of the mass media and at Congressional hearings is a seething cauldron of anti-Jewish hatred and bigotry.  Joe Biden has joined the chorus, labelling the students’ actions to oppose Israel’s genocide as “antisemitic protests”! This charge is false amounting to a smear of the protests and an easy way to dismiss the them.  And it is dangerous because it de-legitimizes a movement that may help to stop a genocide.  But it is dangerous in another respect, for it increases the possibility of a real wave of antisemitic backlash.

    Let’s begin with the slaughter of Gazans which is simply the latest phase of a long slow genocide of the Palestinian people which began with the Nakba of 1948, the forced expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes accompanied by a campaign of terror and atrocities.   The Nakba and the ethnic  cleansing of Palestinians from historic Palestine, aka Greater Israel, over the following 76 years, have largely been hidden from view.  In contrast, as has been widely remarked, the present massacre in Gaza is highly visible over alternative media on the internet.  The more than 35, 000 deaths, the majority of them women and children, and the bombed-out, smoking rubble that once was cities, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals and homes and even cemeteries are there for all the world to see.

    The Biden administration has provided the weaponry for this genocide.  And since US taxpayers are footing the bill for the bombs, US citizens have the right and responsibility to raise their voices in opposition.  And the students have led the way in doing just that.

    Those who oppose the protests, whether Congresspersons of both Parties, pundits, both liberal and conservative, AIPAC or Joe Biden tell us that the protests are antisemitic.  What is their justification for this charge?  Because, they say, Israel and Jewry are one and the same, and to condemn Israel’s policies and actions is to condemn all Jews.   Declaring that anti-Zionism amounts to antisemitism is another way of saying the same thing.  But this equation of Jews and Israel is not only false,  it will come back to bite.  Why? Because the acceptance of this false equation can easily lead to blaming all Jews for the atrocities committed by the state of Israel.  And this in turn can generate a great deal of hatred of Jews in the world.  Have those who equate Jewry and Israel understood this?  Do they care that their view can lead to a wave of antisemitism?  Do those in Congress who spout this view in public hearings know the consequences of what they are doing?  Does Genocide Joe have a clue about it?

    Jewish organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow and others are participants in the protests and are often among the leaders.  Senior US government officials from the Interior Department and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency who are Jewish have resigned in protest over the Biden administration’s support of Israel’s genocide.  And both cited their Jewish heritage as reasons for so doing.  And there are certainly many more who feel the same way but, for any number of reasons, do not resign. In the face of this, how is it possible to say that opposition to the Biden administration’s policies is antisemitic?

    When we see the Zionist government of Israel carry out genocide in full view of the entire world, we must conclude that the government of Israel cares less about Jews than it does about the Zionist project.  And that may well be the most decisive refutation of the equation between Israel and Jewry.

    Finally, those who cry antisemitism when there is none  and use the charge for their immediate political purposes, cheapen the suffering caused by real antisemitism.   And like the boy that cries wolf, they render warnings of the real thing impotent when it comes along.

    This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com

    The post Jewish Students Opposing Gaza Genocide, a Powerful Antidote to Antisemitism appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • US Is Losing In Ukraine.  Blame China, Says Blinken

    At the close of his recent trip to China, on April 26 while still in Beijing, Sec. of State, Anthony Blinken, made an extremely bellicose statement to the press.  Blinken’s words marked a new phase in the narrative to prepare the American and European public for more conflict with China.   As Caitlin Johnstone has reminded us, “Before they drop the bombs, they drop the narrative.”  What, then, is the narrative that Blinken dropped?

    Blinken alleges that China’s support for Russia accounts for its success in Ukraine.

    In his statement, Blinken tells us that the US has “serious concern” over “components” from China that are “powering” Russia’s war with Ukraine.  He goes on to say that China is the top supplier “of dual use items that Moscow is using to ramp up its industrial base, a defense industrial base…”  It is widely accepted that the US is losing its Ukraine proxy war.  Blinken now informs us that the US-installed Ukrainian regime is losing because China is aiding Russia.  Blaming China is nothing new in the argot of the West, but here it is put to a new use, as an excuse for yet another embarrassing defeat for the US.

    Blinken lists “machine tools, microelectronics, nitrocellulose” as key components that China provides to Russia.  But “dual use items” is an ill-defined and malleable category.  Potentially, every item of trade can be subsumed under the term.  For example, if Russia imports Chinese machine tools to make cars, then it can readily be claimed that they are being used to build tanks.  Or if Russia imports nitrocellulose to make fingernail polish, it can be charged that the chemical is being used for gun powder or explosives.  So, when the US demands that China stop “indirect” support for Russia’s war effort, it is ultimately demanding that China cut off all trade with Russia.

    Blinken offers no evidence that such “dual use” items are responsible for the drubbing that its Ukraine proxies are taking.  And China has no obligation to curtail its commerce with Russia.  As with India and other genuinely sovereign nations which continue to trade with Russia, China is not bound by the edicts of the United States.

    What in fact is China’s stance on the Ukraine proxy war?  First of all, China says that it is providing no weapons or direct support to Russia’s war effort.  And the US does not try to contest this; it is a given.  In contrast, US and the EU are throwing billions in weapons at the war in Ukraine.

    Similarly, the US insists that it will provide “whatever it takes” for “as long as it takes” for Ukraine to win the war. In sharp contrast China has called for negotiations to end the conflict and offered to serve as a mediator.  A negotiated solution would certainly end the conflict that has consumed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and a large but unknown number of Russians.  One might think that China’s call would be universally welcomed.

    “Blame China” emerging as a new propaganda line on the Ukraine proxy war

    Blaming China for the US failure in Ukraine is not simply a quick talking point inserted into a Blinken speech.  It is being echoed by others in the Administration and beyond it in NATO.  And it is the reason given for a new round of anti-China sanctions. In short it has all the earmarks of a well-planned propaganda campaign.

    In fact, Blinken was not the first to present this view.  In a little noticed talk about 3 weeks earlier, on April 3 at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), Deputy Secretary of State, Kurt Campbell, the architect of the “Pivot” to East Asia under Obama and now Biden’s “Asia czar” and second in command at State made the same point.  As Business Insider reported, “Campbell said Moscow suffered initial setbacks during the Ukraine war but has ‘retooled and now poses a threat to Ukraine.’ ‘But not just to Ukraine,’ Campbell said. ‘Its newfound capabilities pose a longer-term challenge to stability in Europe and threatens NATO allies.’ The Deputy Secretary pointed to Russia’s receiving industrial and commercial support from China as he spoke in a larger discussion on Indo-Pacific security.”

    Sure enough, four days later, on May 1,  Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen followed up on Campbell’s talk and Blinken’s threat by announcing new sanctions against 280 “targets” with emphasis on the PRC but also including entities in Azerbaijan, Belgium, Slovakia, Türkiye, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    And there was also coordination with NATO on this message. On April 25, one day before Blinken’s statement, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg had scolded China for the misdeed of trading with Russia.  It is not hard to see that the campaign linking China to the Ukraine proxy war has been in the works for a while and is a priority for the Biden Administration.

    Piggybacking Sinophobia to an intense Russophobia in the West.

    Blinken made clear that his remarks were also meant to draw NATO into his anti-China crusade, saying: “In my meetings with NATO Allies earlier this month and with our G7 partners just last week, I heard that same message: fueling Russia’s defense industrial base not only threatens Ukrainian security; it threatens European security.  Beijing cannot achieve better relations with Europe while supporting the greatest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War.  As we’ve told China for some time, ensuring transatlantic security is a core U.S. interest.”   Blinken then concludes this segment of his statement, sounding very much like that great diplomat Don Corleone, “In our discussions today, I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will.”  This declaration drew international attention because of its aggressiveness.

    The message linking China to Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine is aimed squarely at the American and European public.  Russia and its leaders, at this moment Putin, have been successfully portrayed as the embodiment of aggressive evil in the West for a long time.  This Russophobia has roots going back to the Great Schism of Christianity of 1054 and, with only brief respites, is found in one form or another up to the present moment. In recent years it has intensified again, beginning with Russiagate, long since definitively discredited as a hoax by the Mueller and Durham investigations and by scholars like the late, great Stephen F. Cohen.  But the myth lives on strengthened by the other bête noir of the Establishment, Donald Trump, the bosom buddy of Putin according to the Russiagate mythology.  Russophobia and demonization of Putin have been used to justify the Eastward expansion of NATO and the current proxy war in Ukraine.

    Linking this Russophobia to China helps the US to enlist its EU vassal states in its crusade against China. The message is simple, “If you dislike Russia, you should hate China.  And you should love sanctions levelled on China.”

     An escape from the humiliation of defeat at the hands of a “gas station”

    The new narrative also saves the US and its Eurovassals from an embarrassing moment as Russia, often dismissed as a “gas station masquerading as a country” defeats Ukraine, even though Ukraine is heavily backed by money, weapons, intelligence and military “advisors”.  How humiliating it is for the US to be defeated by a “gas station”!  A rout of this sort will certainly not help the US as it scours the planet in search of other countries to serve in its goal of total global hegemony, a goal set in the years just before the US entered WWII.

    But have Blinken and his colleagues thought this through?  After all they are saying that the US and EU backed Ukraine, while China backed Russia; and Russia won.  In its quest to secure anti-China allies, this is not a good look for the US.

    The strategy of linking China to Russia also harbors a contradiction.  The US has proclaimed since at least 2011 that China is its main adversary, but it keeps getting distracted, stuck to various Tar Babies, the most prominent being Russia.  (Some others have been Libya, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, the Gaza genocide.) By linking China to Russia, the US signals once again its inability to shake off its obsession with Russia, leaving it with multiple adversaries rather than one.  This is the typical predicament of an overextended Empire.

    Blinken’s remarks in light of the Gaza genocide

    In the course of his statement in Beijing, Blinken implied that he and the US have high minded concerns over Putin’s “brutal” war that has “taken the lives of innocent children, women and men.” But upon hearing those words, Gaza intrudes on one’s thoughts. And at once Blinken’s words ring hollow, to put it mildly, coming from a man who has been a leading figure in supporting and arming the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. This massacre is but the latest phase in the long slow genocide of the Palestinian people which the West has supported since its beginning with the Nakba of 1948.  As of this writing a minimum of 34, 000 Gazans have been slaughtered, 42% of them children, in a little over 6 months.  Gaza is a “mask off moment” as Anya Parampil has put it which illuminates lays bare the brutal visage of the US Empire which is at work in so many corners of the planet.  It affects how we look at everything, including the US proxy war in Ukraine.

    This article first appeared at Antiwar.com

    The post US Is Losing In Ukraine.  Blame China, Says Blinken appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Cut Off Funds for Genocide and War By Stopping the Congressional Discharge Petition

    Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

    Nothing can justify a genocide.  And nothing can justify providing weaponry and support for those conducting a genocide.

    Nevertheless, the US Senate on February 13 passed a bill that provides billions for Israel’s slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians.  It authorizes $14 billion dollars in military aid for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.  And it passed the Senate on February 13 by a vote of 70 to 29.  Of those opposing this heinous bill, whose names can be found here, 26 were Republican; only three were not.  One of that tiny trio, Senator Merkley commented, “I cannot vote to send more bombs and shells to Israel when they are using them in an indiscriminate manner against Palestinian civilians.”  His stance is to be applauded although the term “indiscriminate” is not simply the understatement of the century but blatantly euphemistic since Israel’s bombardments are carefully targeted.

    However, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent, those who took a stand against the war and genocide that this Senate bill represents deserve praise.  The establishment of both major Parties favored it as did many pressure groups, including pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian voices.  So those opposing the bill will certainly be targeted and pay a price unless they receive support.  So, look for your Senator on the list of “Yeas” and “Nays” for the bill.  The “Nays” deserve praise and support, both public and private, and the “Yeas” a solid dose of opprobrium.

    The bill also provides $61 billion to fund the Ukraine proxy war to “weaken” Russia, in the words of DOD Secretary Lloyd Austin, and $5 billion to Taiwan and other US allies as part of the  military portion of the “Pivot” to China’s neighborhood.   We shall return to these provisions below.

    The Discharge Petition

    The Senate bill has now been forwarded to the House.  And there it has encountered an impasse, because Speaker Johnson has refused to bring the measure to the floor of the House for a vote.  And a small band of MAGA Republicans has committed to remove him from Speakership if he does so.  If challenged Speaker, Johnson needs a majority vote, that is, 218 votes, to remain as Speaker.  But the GOP has a razor thin majority, only 219 members; and so, a very small, determined minority can remove a Speaker, as former Speaker Kevin McCarthy ruefully learned.  Such a minority has emerged and has promised to remove the Speaker if he brings the Senate bill to the floor of the House.

    In response, the pro-genocide, prowar forces have hit on a way to bypass Speaker Johnson and get a vote on the Senate bill.  They are employing a time-honored, but not widely known, element of Roberts Rules, a “Discharge Petition” which works in the following way in the House.  If a majority of House members sign a petition to bring a bill out of a committee where it is being considered (that is, “discharge” the committee of responsibility and put the matter in the hands of the entire House), then the bill comes to the floor for a vote.  Thus, the Speaker can be bypassed if a majority signs such a petition.

    Such a Discharge Petition has been initiated by the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, James McGovern.  McGovern signed and began to circulate the Petition on March 12, and as of March 22, it had garnered 191 signatures, all but one of them Democrats!

    Progressives for Genocide and War

    The 191 Democrat signatures (out of 213 in the House) on the nefarious Discharge Petition is yet another body blow to the idea that the Democrat Party is a party of peace.  But what about the Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus?  Among their goals they list: “Ending our forever wars, cutting the bloated Pentagon budget, and prioritizing diplomacy.”

    There are about 96 voting House members in the Progressive Caucus and 74 of these have signed on to the Discharge Petition!  Only 22 members of the Progressive Caucus, a distinct minority, have not signed the pro-genocide, prowar Petition.  We should encourage these 22 to stick to their position; without them the Discharge Petition may gather enough support to pass.

    This is of such importance that it is worth providing a list of the courageous Representatives that deserve support in their opposition to the Discharge Petition.  Here they are (in alphabetical order):

    Bowman, Jamaal, (NY); Bush, Cori, (MO); Carson, Andre, (IN); Casar, Greg, (TX);

    Castro, Joaquín, (TX); Cherfilus-McCormack, Sheila, (FL); Dingell, Debbie, (MI); Frost, Maxwell, (FL); Garcia, Jesus G. “Chuy,” (IL); Grijalva, Raul, (CA); Gomez, Jimmy, (CA); Khanna, Ro, (CA); Lee, Barbara, (CA); Lee, Summer, (PA); Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandra, (NY); Omar, Ilhan (MN); Pocan, Mark, (WI); Presley, Ayanna, (MA); Ramirez, Delia, (IL); Tlaib, Rashida, (MI); Velazquez, Nydia, (NY); Watson-Coleman, Bonnie, (NJ).  If any of these is your Congressperson, contact them and tell them you respect and support their position on the Discharge Petition.  But if your Congressional Rep is one of the 191 who have signed onto the petition, then tell them to remove their signature before it is too late.

    Contact your Representatives Here.

    What about support for the Ukraine proxy war?  Nothing can justify omnicide

    Unfortunately, there are many inside and Congress and out who support the Ukraine proxy war.  Some of them argue that they support the Senate bill because it has funding for arms to Ukraine.  But because the same bill contains arms for Israel, this comes down to arguing that supporting a genocide is justified in order to get support for the Ukraine proxy war.  Remember what we said at the very outset.  Nothing can justify support for a genocide – and certainly support for another war cannot do so.

    In fact, there is one thing that is worse than genocide and that is omnicide, the destruction or near destruction of the human species in a nuclear war.  And the Ukraine proxy war puts us on the road to nuclear war with the world’s most powerful nuclear armed force, Russia.  Similarly, arming of Taiwan against China puts us on the road to nuclear Armageddon.

    So, let’s get to work.  Call upon your Congressional Rep to oppose the pro-genocide, pro-omnicide Discharge Petition and refuse to sign it.  If they have already refused to sign the Petition, praise them to the skies.  And ask them to call on other Reps to do the same.  If they have signed the nefarious petition, call on them to withdraw their signatures.

    Defeat of the Discharge Petition is a big step forward for those who wish end the genocide in Gaza, terminate the endless wars and put us on the road to peace.

    This article first appeared at Antiwar.com

    The post Cut Off Funds for Genocide and War By Stopping the Congressional Discharge Petition appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Putin Explains Why Russia Doesn’t Pose a Threat to Europe

    Photograph Source: Администраия президента России – CC BY 4.0

    Tucker Carlson began his interview of President Vladimir Putin with the words, “On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started….”  Clearly the war in Ukraine was the motivation and central topic for the interview.  But precisely what Mr. Putin had to say about the Ukraine war and its bearing on the future has been lost amidst frantic cries that Carlson is a “traitor” or “useful idiot” for so much as speaking with the Russian President.

    Putin Declares Russia Not a Threat to the EU

    The interview comes at a time when near apocalyptic warnings are being issued by the foreign policy establishment.  Should Putin prevail in Ukraine, we are warned, he will next occupy nearby nations like Poland and the Baltics. Then, the story goes, he will march across the European continent in a frenzy of conquest, requiring the US to send US troops to fight in Europe.  The message is, “Be very afraid – and pony up the tax money for mission Ukraine.”

    Is this all too familiar call to fund a war in a far-away place with no clear importance for the US reasonable?  Tucker raised this crucial question in a simple and pointed way, and Putin’s reply was unambiguous and unequivocal.  Here is the relevant exchange from the transcript (Italics jw):

     “Vladimir Putin: …… They (NATO) are trying to fuel the Russian threat.

    “Tucker Carlson: The threat I think you were referring to is Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia – expansionist behaviour. Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?

    “Vladimir Putin: Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.

    “Tucker Carlson: Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine – he has territorial aims across the continent. And you are saying unequivocally, you don’t?

    “Vladimir Putin: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don’t have to be any kind of analyst, it goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of global war. And a global war will bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction. It’s obvious.”

    Putin Cites Bismarck’s Opinion on “Potentials” of a Nation

    Are we to believe what Putin says?  There are many reasons why we should.  But perhaps the most powerful of them comes in another segment of the interview which at first glance is unrelated to Ukraine.  In that segment Putin cites Bismarck in reply to an assertion of Carlson’s about China. This reply provides us a look into how Putin thinks about international relations.  Here it is:

    “Tucker Carlson: ….And many in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be fine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, at the core. But the opposite happened. But you have never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China that the West doesn’t seem to be very afraid of. What about Russia, what do you think convinced the policymakers to take it down?

    “Vladimir Putin: The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds — over five percent a year, it used to be even more. But that’s enough for China. As Bismarck once put it, potentials are most important. China’s potential is enormous — it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a fast clip.”  (In 2023 the US economy grew at a rate of 2.5%; China’s grew at 5.2% of a larger economy. Jw)

    Putin cites Bismarck approvingly for identifying the “potentials” of nations as the “most important” factor.  And Putin uses two parameters to assess “potential”:  the size of the economy and the size of the population.  These are the two pillars on which a country’s military might rests.

    What are the potentials of the EU or NATO versus Russia

    Let’s apply this thinking to the outcome of a conflict between Russia and the other European nations, using the same criteria Putin does.  It is quite simple.  Russia has a population of ~150 million as Putin says; that of the EU+UK is over 500 million.   The PPP-GDP of Russia is ~$5 trillion;  that of the EU+ UK is ~$30 trillion.  These numbers put Russia in a most unenviable position.

    A  comparison with the whole of NATO leaves Russia in an even worse position.  The population of NATO is 960 million; over six times larger than Russia’s.  NATO’s PPP-GDP is a bit over $50 trillion, 10 times that of Russia.  Moreover, NATO has a total of 3.4 million military personnel; Russia has 1.15 million with a plan to expand to 1.5 million by 2026.

    Based on these numbers Russia would be insane to get into a war with the EU nations or with NATO.  And whatever one may think of Putin, he is not insane.  Watch the interview and you will see a very intelligent man, quite measured in his responses.  (Unless you are a history buff, you might want to skip Putin’s history lesson at the outset and begin at the 25-minute mark.)

    These numbers defining the military “potential” not only show that Russia is no threat to the rest of Europe.  Quite the contrary.  The EU countries alone or in concert with the US as NATO are grave threats to Russia.  And the record shows that the threat is real.  The US has pushed NATO eastward; the fake Russian “threat” has been hyped endlessly in the Western press and by most Western politicians. From the Balkans to Afghanistan to Libya and beyond, NATO has shown that, far from being a defensive organization, it is an aggressor.  And now as in the days of the old colonialism, NATO also has cast its eye on East Asia and an “Indo-Pacific NATO.”

    Far from being a “threat,” Russia has every reason to feel threatened.  Backed into a corner with NATO on its doorstep, it is no surprise that Russia acted to prevent Ukraine from becoming a platform for invasion from the West as it was twice in the 20th Century and as it could be again as a member of NATO.

    This article first appeared on Antiwar.com

    The post Putin Explains Why Russia Doesn’t Pose a Threat to Europe appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • An American Appeals to Taiwan: Don’t Vote to be Ukraine 2.0

    “American bullets, Taiwanese blood” is an Evil Bargain

    On January 13, the people of Taiwan, officially designated the Republic of China (ROC), will elect a new President and unicameral legislature known as the Legislative Yuan.  The election hinges on the question of Taiwan’s policy toward the Mainland, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). That policy will have a profound impact on East Asia – and the world.

    The major threat to peace in the area is a move by Taiwan to break with the One China Policy and declare independence from the Mainland.  The PRC’s policy is to reunite with Taiwan by peaceful means sometime in the future – barring a formal declaration of independence by Taiwan, which could well lead to war.

    Taiwanese Opinion on Seceding from the Mainland

    How do the people of Taiwan feel about secession versus the status quo?  In 2023 polling by Taiwan’s National Chengchi University’s Election Study a record 32.1% said they preferred to “maintain the status quo indefinitely” (the largest category); 28.6% chose the status quo to “decide (Taiwan’s fate) at a later date” (the second largest category); 21.4% opted for the status quo with a view to “move toward independence”; and 6.0% , the status quo with a view to “move to unification.”  A total of   88.1% favor the status quo for now, and 60.7% (the top two categories) want to maintain the status quo with no specific goal for the future!

    In contrast only 1.6% want “unification as soon as possible” and only 4.5% “independence as soon as possible.”  On this issue, the US has failed to win the hearts and minds of Taiwanese.

    How Does the Presidential Election Stack Up so far?

    Three main parties contending for the Presidency are the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP); the Kuomintang (KMT) and the relatively new Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).  The Presidential candidates are William Lai (DPP); Hou Yu-ih (KMT); and Ko Wen -je (TPP). Whereas the leaders of the DPP are bent on independence, hostile to the PRC and very close to the US. foreign policy elite, the other two seek to develop understanding with the Mainland and preserve the status quo.

    What does polling about the election tell us?  The DPP is the front runner now but by an ever decreasing margin. A very recent poll on January 2 gave DPP’s Lai 38.9%, KMT’s Hou 35.8% and TPP’s Ko 22.4%. The combined vote for the Mainland friendly parties, the KMT and TPP, was 58.2%.  But that’s not the end of the story.

    In Taiwan’s system, victory requires only a plurality.  Consequently, as a result of the opposition’s split between KMT and TPP, the front-running DPP could win.  Nevertheless, the opposition should easily command a majority in the Legislative Yuan providing some brakes on the DPP.

    Opinions on US intervention in armed conflict over Taiwan

    Turning to American opinion on possible armed conflict in Taiwan, the latest of surveys by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs tells us : “As in past surveys, a majority of Americans (56%) oppose sending US troops to Taiwan to help the Taiwanese government…” (Italics, jw)

    That percentage will surely increase as the war drags on as has happened with the Ukraine proxy war.  Sentiment against more funding for Ukraine is growing in Congress, especially among Republicans, a reflection of growing anti-interventionist sentiment in their base.

    How does the American political class feel about foreigners who die for the goals of the US?  Here are the widely quoted words of the minority leader of the US Senate, Mitch McConnell: “No Americans are getting killed in Ukraine. We’re rebuilding our industrial base (for producing weapons, jw). The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals. I have a hard time finding anything wrong with that”(italics, jw).  He does not mention the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who are being sacrificed to “weaken” Russia, to use the phrase of the US Secretary of Defense. This disregard for human life is cruel and barbaric in the extreme.

    A US anti-China proxy war in Taiwan – “American bullets, Taiwanese blood”

    As with Ukraine, a proxy war in Taiwan would be waged with “Our bullets, their blood” in the words of one Oliver North.  In fact the DPP has already made a decisive step in the direction of turning young Taiwanese into U.S. cannon fodder by extending the period of compulsory military service from 4 months to one year, beginning in 2024.  That is the “blood” part.

    As for the “bullets” part, Taiwan has buying billions in weapons from the US since 1979.  Recently the Biden administration began giving weapons to Taiwan, meaning American taxes pay for them.  That is on top of the enormous expenditure on US bases, naval exercises and “freedom of navigation” maneuvers. If fighting erupts and the expenditures grow, how long before America tires of paying and wants to opt out?  After all the US is safely on the other side of the vast Pacific.

    The basic US plan seems to be to provoke the PRC into military action to harm its reputation in the eyes of its neighbors, encouraging them to build up their military and join US-led, anti-China alliances.  If that does not occur, the US will not shrink from a false flag operation or an outright fabrication.  Think of the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin incident which won Congressional approval for Vietnam war that consumed millions of lives.

    On December 13, the people of Taiwan can take a big step to a peaceful future.  If they vote for a government not captive to belligerent US foreign policy, many of us in America will be grateful.  And perhaps their vote will inspire us to elect more anti-interventionists here in the US.

    The post An American Appeals to Taiwan: Don’t Vote to be Ukraine 2.0 appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Arming Taiwan is an Insane Provocation

    The Island of Taiwan has been turned into a “powder keg” by the infusion of U.S. weaponry, pushing the Taiwanese people into the “abyss of disaster.”  These are the words of the Chinese Defense Ministry in reaction to the recent $440 million sale of U.S. arms to the island.  And now the U.S.is also giving, not selling, arms to Taiwan, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

    The “First Island Chain” Strategy of the U.S.

    Taiwan is but one in a series of islands along the Chinese coast, often called “The First Island Chain,” which now bristles with advanced U.S. weapons. These are accompanied by tens of thousands of supporting U.S. military personnel and combat troops.  The “First Island Chain” extends from Japan in the north southward through Japan’s Ryukyu islands which include Okinawa, to Taiwan and on to the northern Philippines.  (U.S. ally, South Korea, with a military of 500,000 active duty personnel and 3 million reserves is a powerful adjunct to this chain.)  In US military doctrine the First Island Chain is a base to “project power” and restrict sea access to China.

    Taiwan is at the center this string of islands and is considered the focal point of The First Island Chain strategy.  When the fiercely hawkish Cold Warrior, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, conceived the strategy in 1951, he dubbed Taiwan America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

    Taiwan is now one source of contention between the U.S. and China.  As is often said but rarely done, the pursuit of peace demands that we understand the point of view of those who are marked as our adversaries.  And, in China’s eyes, Taiwan and the rest of these armed isles look like both chain and noose.

    How would the U.S. react in a similar circumstance? Cuba is about the same distance from the U.S. as the width of the Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from the Mainland.  Consider the recent U.S. reaction to rumors that China was setting up a listening post in Cuba.  There was a bipartisan reaction of alarm in Congress and a bipartisan statement that such an installation is “unacceptable.”  What would be the reaction if China armed Cuba to the teeth or sent hundreds of soldiers there as the U.S. has done to Taiwan?  It is not hard to imagine.  One immediately thinks of the U.S. sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and later the Cuban missile crisis.

    Clearly the arming of Taiwan is a provocative act that pushes the U.S. closer to war with China, a nuclear power.

    The Secessionist Movement in Taiwan

    According to the One China Policy, the official policy of the U.S., Taiwan is part of China.  The UN took the same position in 1971 with passage of Resolution 2758 (also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking) which recognized the Peoples Republic of China as the legitimate government of all of China and its sole representative in the UN.

    In recent decades a secessionist movement has developed on the island of Taiwan, a sentiment represented by the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party).  Currently Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP is President.  But in the local elections of 2022, the DPP lost very badly to the KMT (Kuomintang) which is friendly to the Mainland and wishes to preserve the status quo or “strategic ambiguity,” as it is called. Tsai built the DPP’s 2022 campaign on hostility to Beijing, not on local issues.  And at the same time her government passed legislation to increase the compulsory service time for young Taiwanese males from 6 months to a year.  Needless to say, this hawkish move was not popular with the under 30 set.

    Polling in 2022 showed that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese now want to preserve the status quo.  Only 1.3% want immediate unification and only 5.3% want immediate independence.  Compared to previous years, a record 28.6 percent of those polled said they preferred to “maintain the status quo indefinitely,” while 28.3 percent chose the status quo to “decide at a later date,” and 25.2 percent opted for the status quo with a view to “move toward independence.”  Thus, a total of 82.1% now favor the status quo!  Not surprisingly, every prominent presidential candidate professes to be in favor of the status quo.  However, DPP candidates also contend there is no need to declare independence since in their eyes Taiwan is already independent.

    The stated policy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is to seek peaceful reunification with Taiwan.  Only if the secessionist movement formally declares independence does Beijing threaten to use force.  Clearly the Taiwanese do not wish to find themselves in the position of Ukrainians, cannon fodder in a U.S. proxy war.

    Here we might once more consider how the alleged enemy of the U.S., China, sees things and might react to a formal act of secession and declaration of independence by Taiwan.  And again, we might be guided by our own history.  When the Confederate States seceded from the Union, the U.S. descended into the bloodiest war in its history with 620,000 soldiers dead.   Moreover, a secessionist Taiwan, as an armed ally of the U.S., represents to China a return to the “Century of Humiliation” at the hands of the colonial West.  Given these circumstances, arming Taiwan clearly creates a “powder keg.” A single spark could ignite it.

    It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. is trying to gin up a proxy war that would engulf East Asia, damaging not only China but other U.S. economic competitors like Japan and South Korea.  The US would come out on top.  It is the neocon Wolfowitz Doctrine put into play.  But in the nuclear age such stratagems amount to total insanity.

    If some Taiwanese hope that the U.S. will come to its aid, they should ponder carefully the tragedy of Ukraine.  Somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have lost their lives so far and millions turned into refugees.  A similar U.S. proxy war in Taiwan could easily turn into a full-scale conflict between the world’s two largest economies, certainly triggering a global depression and perhaps a nuclear exchange.  And Biden has committed to send troops to fight the Peoples Liberation Army should hostilities break out.  So, the situation is even more perilous than the one in Ukraine!

    No arms to Taiwan

    When all this is considered, arming Taiwan is asking for trouble on a global scale.  Taiwan and Beijing can settle their disagreements by themselves.  Frankly put, disagreements between the two are none of America’s business.

    So, we in the U.S. must stop our government from arming Taiwan.  And we need to get our military out of East Asia.  It is an ocean away, and no power there is threatening the U.S.  We do not have Chinese warships off our Pacific Coast, nor do we have Chinese troops or Chinese military bases anywhere in our entire hemisphere.

    China calls for peaceful coexistence and a win-win set of relationships between us.  Let’s take them up on that.

    And let’s bring all those troops, submarines, bombers, rockets and warships out of East Asia before they stumble into a conflict or become the instrument of a false flag operation.  We should keep in mind the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, a fake report of a Vietnamese attack on a U.S. ship that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a de facto declaration of war against Vietnam.  In the end millions lost their lives in Southeast Asia in that brutal, horrific war.  Even that will look like a schoolyard squabble compared to the conflagration unleashed by a U.S.-China war.

    • This article was first published at Antiwar.com

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Arming Taiwan is an Insane Provocation: For the Sake of Our Survival it Must Stop

    The Island of Taiwan has been turned into a “powder keg” by the infusion of U.S. weaponry, pushing the Taiwanese people into the “abyss of disaster.” These are the words of the Chinese Defense Ministry in reaction to the recent $440 million sale of U.S. arms to the island. And now the U.S.is also giving, More

    The post Arming Taiwan is an Insane Provocation: For the Sake of Our Survival it Must Stop appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Taiwan’s US Representative Not “Satisfied” with Biden’s Support

    Bi-khim Hsiao, Taiwan’s Representative in the United States, is a familiar figure in the halls of power but she does not often make public speeches. So a recent talk and press conference by Ms. Hsiao deserve some attention.

    The One China Policy, endorsed by the US and UN, does not recognize Taiwan Island as an independent country but as part of China, with the government in Beijing providing the official ambassadors to the US and UN. Hence Hsiao is not an “ambassador” but a “representative,” and her organization is known as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO). Her presence and activities in the US are sensitive points in the US-China relationship, which is why she does not often make public appearances.

    We might expect therefore that Hsiao had something of considerable consequence to communicate to an American audience. And so she did, but her message did not center exclusively on Taiwan. Hsiao and the reporters in attendance wished to discuss a country over 8000 km away from Taiwan, almost at the opposite end of Eurasia – Ukraine.

    The “Tragedy” of Ukraine in the eyes of Taipei’s Representative

    In her opening remarks, Hsiao stated: “The Ukraine war has actually generated a lot more attention and interest in … Taiwan’s defense needs. And so there has been an increase in… initiatives to find ways to support Taiwan so that that tragedy will not be repeated in our scenario.”

    “Tragedy” indeed. Hsiao, like everyone else in the world, is well aware of the devastation that has been visited on Ukraine as a result of Biden’s cruel proxy war on Russia using Ukrainians as cannon fodder. The “tragedy” of Ukraine has focused not only Hsiao’s mind but mightily distressed all the people of Taiwan Island. This led to the landslide defeat in the 2022 local elections of Hsiao’s Party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the home of secessionist sentiment and hostility to Beijing. The DPP was soundly thrashed by the Kuomintang (KMT), the Party that wishes to maintain the status quo with the mainland, leave in place the “strategic ambiguity” of the One China Policy and take a peaceful approach to Beijing.

    The first thing that struck me about the press conference was the unreality of Hsiao’s purpose, bordering on insanity. Here we had Taiwan’s envoy discussing war with Mainland China which has the largest PPP-GDP in the world and 18% of all of humanity. Taiwan’s population is 24 million, and it is the size of Maryland.

    The bureau chief of the Christian Science Monitor, and host of the event, expressed a similar incredulity, asking in the opening question: “Russia versus Ukraine is one thing, but China versus Taiwan is a much more extreme example in terms of proportions…. How do you fight back against that?” The unstated assumption is that Taiwan can succeed with the support of the US. But just how true is that? How sound is Biden’s support for Ukraine?

    Asked whether she was “satisfied” with Biden’s commitment to Taiwan, Hsiao demurred

    Was she “satisfied” with Joe Biden’s commitment to defend Taiwan, queried another reporter. Hsiao demurred, did not answer “yes,” but instead opined that “in the long run, nothing is ever completely satisfactory.” Here Hsiao seemed to be channeling Volodymyr Zelensky, always demanding more, ever disappointed. Such is the unenviable position of a proxy whose function in the end is to be used, not championed.

    Hsiao sounded very much like someone who had doubts about US support – doubts perhaps aroused after the resounding and very bloody defeat of the US proxy, Ukraine, in Bakhmut. We can be sure that the same doubts are cropping up in the minds of the Taiwan electorate. And such doubts are likely to play a decisive role in the upcoming elections in 2024 for President and Legislative Yuan, the unicameral legislature for the entire island. Will the more pacific policies supported by the electorate in the 2022 local elections prevail again in choosing island wide officials in 2024?

    US arms to Taiwan Island, a provocation to war, must end

    Several reporters raised the question whether the US arming of Taiwan Island could be seen as a provocation. In itself this is a step forward for the US press which might be awakening to the fact that US tactics did indeed provoke the war as in Ukraine. Hsiao dodged that question by ignoring the US dimension and speaking instead of Taiwan’s efforts at increased militarization. Of course, little Taiwan acting on its own can scarcely be seen as a threat or serious provocation to China. But it is quite a different story when the weapons and personnel come from the US. After all the US has an enormous military presence in the region and has declared as a matter of policy that its aim is to bring down China. In this circumstance US weapons, military personnel and actions in Taiwan can be a serious provocation indeed.

    Although Hsiao spoke in terms of defense not provocation, she herself undermined that way of regarding the US on Taiwan Island. Asked by another reporter whether there was any evidence for Chinese preparation of an invasion of Taiwan Island, Hsiao said there was none. This is hardly surprising since China’s policy is to re-unite peacefully with the Island, a long-term goal.

    One clear and simple lesson of the Hsiao press conference is that Mainland China quite reasonably perceives the US arming of Taiwan as a threat and provocation. Thus, the way to peace is to end the US arming of Taiwan. This should be a top priority in the US peace movement, but unfortunately, it does not often receive so much as a mention.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Taiwan’s US Representative Not “Satisfied” With Biden’s Support

    Bi-khim Hsiao, Taiwan’s Representative in the United States, is a familiar figure in the halls of power but she does not often make public speeches.  So a recent talk and press conference by Ms. Hsiao deserve some attention. The One China Policy, endorsed by the US and UN, does not recognize Taiwan Island as an independent More

    The post Taiwan’s US Representative Not “Satisfied” With Biden’s Support appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Senate Leaves 2001 AUMF For Secret Wars In Force, Rejects Paul and Hawley Proposals.

    On March 29, the Senate voted to repeal two Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, (AUMF’s), one passed in 1991 and another in 2002.  The repeal now goes to the House.  But those Authorizations are irrelevant to the present; they apply only to the Iraq war.  But a third AUMF, passed in 2001, was More

    The post Senate Leaves 2001 AUMF For Secret Wars In Force, Rejects Paul and Hawley Proposals. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Protest at the White House, March 18, Against US Proxy War In Ukraine

    Protests and Popular Sentiment growing for “Peace In Ukraine – No weapons, no money for the Ukraine War.” On March 18 protesters will gather at the White House to call for an end to Joe Biden’s cruel proxy war. “Cruel” is the operative word, because the war cynically uses Ukrainians as cannon fodder to weaken More

    The post Protest at the White House, March 18, Against US Proxy War In Ukraine appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Protest at the White House, March 18, Against US Proxy War in Ukraine

    On March 18, protesters will gather at the White House to call for an end to Joe Biden’s cruel proxy war. “Cruel” is the operative word, because the war cynically uses Ukrainians as cannon fodder to weaken Russia and bring about regime change.

    We should all be there – or at one of the 5 sister demonstrations in other cities listed here.

    The March 18 Rally is organized by a variety of progressive organizations, including ANSWER Coalition, Black Alliance for Peace, Code Pink , The People’s Forum and UNAC (United National Antiwar Coalition). (A more complete list may be found here.)

    Only a month ago on February 19, the first national demonstration to oppose the US proxy against Russia in Ukraine broke the ice and drew thousands to Washington under the banner of Rage Against the War Machine. It was organized by the leftist Peoples Party and the Libertarian Party to organize an anti-interventionist movement across the entire political spectrum. Continuing its effort for the broadest possible antiwar movement, Rage Against the War Machine has also called for joining the March 18 demonstration. Everyone in; nobody out!

    The broad array of social forces represented by these two rallies is breathtaking. They reflect the growing dissatisfaction with the US proxy war, the fear of its careening out of control into a nuclear Armageddon and a dissatisfaction with squandering well over $100 billion in the cruel killing fields of Ukraine. This growing antiwar sentiment is also showing up in polling. (See below.) Potentially the power of this antiwar movement and the popular sentiment it represents is enormous, holding out the promise of actually stopping this war.

    The Demands

    The demands of the March 18 rally as listed by ANSWER and CodePink are:

    • Peace in Ukraine – Negotiations not escalation!
    • Abolish NATO – End U.S. militarism & sanctions on Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iran and many other nations
    • Fund people’s needs, not the war machine!
    • No war with China!
    • End U.S. aid to racist apartheid Israel!
    • Fight racism & bigotry at home, not other peoples!
    • U.S. hands off Haiti!
    • End AFRICOM!
    • End the siege on Syria!
    • Free all political prisoners – Mumia Abu-Jamal, Julian Assange, Leonard Peltier, and many others.

    The March 18 coalition deserves kudos for including “No War with China”, because the intensity of anti-China sentiment is growing, fueled by unrelenting anti-China rhetoric by Biden and both Parties. We see this in the Justice Department’s assault on Chinese and Chinese American scientists known as “The China Initiative,” which has had its name removed but proceeds apace sans name. And we see it dramatically in the street assaults on Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans. These results of the anti-China rhetoric coming out of Washington are all signs of war with China on the horizon. And that danger, another conflict with a major nuclear power, deserves mention at every turn.

    UNAC has a somewhat different wording for the first of these demands; it reads “Peace in Ukraine – No weapons, no money for the Ukraine War.” This formulation appeals directly to the concerns of the American public over the war, as shown in the February, 2023, polling by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. In June, 2023, a minority, 48%, supported sending weapons to Ukraine, down from 60% in May, 2022. And a smaller minority, 37%, supported sending government funds directly to Ukraine, down from 44% in May, 2022.

    A majority of Americans now support the demand of “No weapons, no money for the Ukraine War.” Significantly the first demand of the February 19 Rage Against the War Machine Rally is the virtually the same, “Not one penny more for the war in Ukraine.” There is convergence among the main demands of the protest movements and the sentiment of the American people. A convergence of this kind shows that the war in Ukraine can be ended! It is reason for optimism in what has seemed a hopeless situation.

    Antiwar sentiment spreads

    This popular antiwar sentiment has percolated up from the grass roots and is now showing up in Congress where Rep. Matt Gaetz and gained 15 co-sponsors have introduced a sense of the House resolution “The Ukraine Fatigue Resolution.” It quite simply calls for the U.S. to “end its financial and military aid to Ukraine.” This is another first in the growing antiwar sentiment.

    The same antiwar attitudes are growing in Europe whose support is essential if Biden and his fellow neocons are to continue their dangerous drive for hegemony. For example, in Germany, the most important EU ally of the US in the proxy war, over 80% now feel it is more important to end the war with negotiations than for Ukraine to win! Asked whether the problems of Ukraine matter enough to Germany that it should be involved, only a minority agreed, 43% down 11% from a year ago.

    And in the streets of Europe the war and its effects are bringing out protesters by the tens of thousands. This has been chronicled recently in the GrayZone by Stavroula Pabst and Max Blumenthal in an article entitled “European antiwar protests gain strength as NATO’s proxy war escalates.” They discuss protests in Athens, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Chișinău, Tirana, Vienna, London and Prague. Some of these protests are directed at the economic straits in which Europeans find themselves, a blowback from sanctions imposed by the war. In others demonstrators aimed their anger directly at the war itself, the US and NATO.

    A Grand Convergence is developing. We can stop the cruel US proxy war in Ukraine. The next step forward will be taken at the White House on March 18. Let’s all take that step!

    • This article was originally published on Antiwar.com.
    The post Protest at the White House, March 18, Against US Proxy War in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • February 19 Rage Against War Rally: A Historic Success

    Thousands of people assembled at the Lincoln Memorial on February 19 to protest the US proxy war using Ukrainians as cannon fodder to bring down Russia. It took as its name “Rage Against The War Machine.” And it sought to bring together people of all political persuasions in opposing the war. “Everyone in; no one out,” an invitation might have been framed.

    Not only was it the first national demonstration against Joe Biden’s cruel proxy war; it was the first to be live streamed and is now archived here with all the speeches. A very 21st Century event!

    The crowd in DC was estimated variously from 2000 to 5000, with sister rallies in 19 other cities. This was a remarkable achievement as the first action for a fledging. Its success is testimony to the hunger for such a broad-based movement.

    And broad-based it was, another first, bringing together people from across the political spectrum to oppose the war. The lead organizations were the leftist Peoples Party and the Libertarian Party. The broad base was reflected by four former presidential candidates, well known national figures, among the many speakers: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard. No other antiwar protest in the U.S. even aspires to such inclusivity.

    Without such an inclusive anti-interventionist movement, it is virtually impossible for popular forces in the U.S. to end the war in Ukraine, let alone wider wars with Russia or China. This kind of popular movement must succeed if we are to get off the road to nuclear war, WWIII. We have no other alternative as we face a threat to our very existence. It must grow if we are to survive.

    The February 19 protest was the first to raise as its lead demand “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.” This is simple, direct and captures the nature of the growing discontent over the war. Previous, smaller, local demonstrations most often called for “Peace In Ukraine,” a sentiment, not a demand, and one that can easily be co-opted by warhawks. After all, Joe Biden is for “Peace in Ukraine” – once Russia has been brought to its knees, the goal of the war as Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, and Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, state openly.

    “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” is directed at the role of our government, the only one we can influence. If that demand were met, then a negotiated settlement would have to be undertaken. As the second demand of the demonstration, “Negotiate Peace,” states: “The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.”

    “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” addresses the needs of Americans whose support it was designed to develop. Most Americans feel this war in their pocketbooks, and the last thing we need is more tax dollars on top of the more than $113 billion allotted in 2022. It is a demand meant for the ears of the US government – and of the American people.

    Average Americans feel the effects of this war in their daily lives. They are strapped by inflation worsened by the war; by an economy slipping into recession, by neglected disasters like the toxic spill in Palestine, Ohio; by rising national debt; by the crisis of homelessness; and by a health care system that grows ever more expensive, less comprehensive and less universal.

    This demand is so eminently practical that is now embodied in a Resolution has been introduced in the House, aptly named “The Ukraine Fatigue Resolution.” It is authored by Rep. Matt Gaetz and gained 15 co-sponsors so far. It quite simply calls for the U.S. to “end its financial and military aid to Ukraine.” (A weakness of the bill is that it is only “a sense of the House,” not a law that is binding. A strength is that a vote on it would force Representatives to stand up and be counted. Most importantly, it is a beginning and shows that antiwar sentiment is growing. A binding law is the next step.)

    Tellingly, Gaetz and all co-sponsors of the bill are Republicans, a rebuff to the idea that all antiwar sentiment exists only on the “left.” The desire to end this war can be universal if politics and ideology would get out of the way. The next step is for some – even one – progressive in Congress to sign onto the Gaetz bill. That way, the Congress would mirror the universalist sentiment we saw in the streets on Feb. 19.

    Finally, a broad-based movement like RageAgainstWar is part of a growing international trend, as Max Blumenthal discussed here beginning at the 1hr, 37 min mark. As one example, six days after the Feb. 19 rally, Sarah Wagenknecht, member of the Bundestag (federal Parliament) and of the German Party Die Linke (The Left), and feminist activist, Alice Schwarzer, led a demonstration of tens of thousands at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. It too called for an end to military funding for Ukraine. When Wagenkenknecht was asked if members of the right wing AfD, (Alternativ fur Deutschland) were welcome, she declared they were if they opposed the war. And Schwarzer said it is time to look beyond left and right.

    Schwarzer’s plea to look beyond left and right should constitute watchwords not only for Germans, but for Americans and the entire West as we face the peril of nuclear war that could easily be triggered by this cruel U.S. proxy war.

    The post February 19 Rage Against War Rally: A Historic Success first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • First National Rally Against War in Ukraine

    We in the United States are on the brink of war with a major nuclear power, Russia. If that is not a dire emergency, an acute existential threat, what is? This situation has persisted for a year now without a national protest to stop the slide to Armageddon.

    Given the proximity of nuclear Armageddon, the reaction that sanity dictates has now materialized for the first time. On February 19 in Washington DC, a demonstration against the war, RageAgainstWar, will take place, with sister rallies occurring in cities distant from DC, like San Francisco, Seattle, LA, Minneapolis and others. (Full list of sister rallies here.)

    But its organization and composition of this rally represent a radical departure from the peace movements of the last 40 years. The organizational framework for Feb. 19 has leapt the bounds of conventional political discourse. The effort is being led by a broad coalition of forces from “left” to “right.” The Peoples Party, a new progressive Party growing out of dissatisfaction with the Bernie Sanders campaigns and forfeited promises, and the Libertarian Party have taken the lead, represented by Nick Brana and Angela McCardle, respectively.

    Here is a brief interview with McCardle and Brana conducted by David Swanson of World Beyond War, himself one of the featured speakers at the rally. It reveals two competent and inspiring leaders who provide an eloquent and clear exposition of the event. A full list of the speakers at the rally with their bios is found here and includes Jill Stein, Tulsi Gabbard, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Dan McKnight, Garland Nixon, Daniel McAdams, Chris Hedges and many others.

    The lead demand of the demonstration is simple, straightforward and unequivocal: “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.” It summarizes the point of unity among the politically diverse forces that come together for this event. And it directs the attention of this American protest to our own government, the only one which we can hope to influence in the real world.

    Furthermore, the lead demand of the event recognizes that the US is not simply a bystander in this event. The war in Ukraine is our war, a war ginned up by the neocon-dominated foreign policy Establishment. It is a proxy war waged by the US, cruelly and cynically using Ukrainians as cannon fodder. Its purpose, as the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin blurted out, is to “weaken” Russia. In the words of the second demand of the rally, “Negotiate Peace,”

    The US instigated the war with a coup on its democratically-elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March, 2022. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.

    A brief and complete history of the genesis of this war can be found in pamphlet sized books here and here, beginning with the expansion of NATO and the US-backed 2014 coup. In fact the beginning of the US assault on Russia antedates those events going all the way back to the 1990s with the US-engineered Russian Great Depression, worse than our own in the 1930s.

    There is also material reason for the public to oppose the war. The war itself and blowback from US sanctions are hurting the US population and threaten to worsen inflation, trigger recession or even both, the dread stagflation. The third demand of the protest, “Stop the War Inflation” makes this clear and it reads:

    This war is accelerating inflation and increasing food, gas and energy prices. (Anyone who fills a gas tank or shopped at a supermarket recently knows that full well. Jw) The US blew up Russian gas pipelines to Europe, starving them of energy and deindustrializing their countries. End the war and stop increasing prices.

    All ten demands put forward by the rally can be found here.

    Given all these facts it is not surprising that the US public is growing increasingly skeptical of the war. The ground is fertile for a movement to get us out from under this threat. Polling here and here now shows that support for arms and aid to Ukraine, while still a majority opinion, is falling. Interestingly and worthy of more exploration, Democrats rather than Republicans or Independents hold the most hawkish opinions in these polls, and this is consistent with the policies and actions of the Democratic Party.

    So it comes as no surprise that recent legislation to end the funding for the Ukraine Proxy War comes from the Republican side of the aisle in the form of “Ukraine Fatigue” Resolution introduced in the House by Republican Matt Gaetz with all ten co-sponsors GOP members. In part here is what Responsible Statecraft has to say about this bill:

    “The resolution states that ‘the United States must end its military and financial aid to Ukraine, and urges all combatants to reach a peace agreement.’

    “President Joe Biden must have forgotten his prediction from March 2022, suggesting that arming Ukraine with military equipment will escalate the conflict to ‘World War III.’ America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war. We must suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately,” Gaetz said in a statement

    As the resolution notes, the United States has been “top contributor of military aid to Ukraine compared to its counterparts,” having appropriated more than $110 billion in humanitarian, financial, and military aid.

    “Earlier this week, Gaetz criticized President Joe Biden and a ‘bipartisan coalition’ in Congress for dragging the U.S. into a war that was costing taxpayers and not advancing American interests.”

    Perhaps the time is ripe for the two major parties to engage in an all-out tussle to win the peace vote. Wouldn’t that be nice? A relatively small and determined minority of peace activists could decide elections in such an environment.

    It is clear that the US government has responsibility for ginning up this war. US support and weapons, and those of its NATO dependencies, make the proxy war possible. Without that support the brutal slaughter of Ukrainians and Russians will not continue. The US government can stop this potentially omnicidal war, and Americans can move the US government. It is our right and responsibility to do so.

    The post First National Rally Against War in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Right & Left to Join in D.C. Protest: “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.

    February 19, New Anti-Interventionist Coalition To March To White House from Lincoln Memorial. On February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from past demonstrations.  The lead demand is simple and direct, “Not One More Penny for war in Ukraine.”  It is a demand that More

    The post Right & Left to Join in D.C. Protest: “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Right & Left to Join in DC Protest: “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.”

    On February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from past demonstrations. The lead demand is simple and direct, “Not One More Penny for war in Ukraine.” It is a demand that emphasizes what we in the US can do to end the war, not what others can do. After all, the only government we have the power to influence is our own.

    Above and beyond that demand, the potential power of this unique and promising movement arises from the nature of the sponsoring organizations – The Peoples Party, a progressive new Party, and the Libertarian Party. It is in fact what much of the press would term a “right-left” Coalition, spanning a spectrum broad enough to actually bring the proxy war in Ukraine to an end. Fittingly, the organizers are calling the protest “Rage Against the War Machine.” With the war in Ukraine putting us on the precipice of nuclear Armageddon, “rage” might be considered a mild reaction.

    A New Right-Left Coalition to Oppose the War

    The Peoples Party is probably the lesser known of the two sponsoring organizations, because it’s newer. Its founder and National Chair is Nick Brana, a lead organizer of the protest. Brana was National Coordinator of the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign but has turned his back on the Democrats in disgust over the failure of progressive Democratic pols to fight for the promises they made. Among the speakers at the Party’s founding convention in 2020 were Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore and Nina Turner (co-chair of the Sanders 2020 campaign).

    The Libertarian Party is better known. It has been around longer and, though small, is the third largest political party in the US by voter registration. The present National Chair, Angela McCardle, is the other lead organizer of the DC protest. In American political life, probably, the best known representative of libertarian values, most notably a principled anti-interventionist stance in foreign policy, is Ron Paul.

    A call for ending US support for the proxy war in Ukraine is realistic; a substantial and growing segment of the American people support this demand.

    The lead demand “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” is finding ever more support among Americans. A survey in November by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed that 35% of Americans oppose sending more arms to Ukraine and 34% oppose sending more economic aid. (When it comes to sending US troops, 68% are opposed!) These numbers grew from the previous survey in July, revealing a growing anti-interventionist sentiment. While this is not a majority, over one third of the populace is a base substantial enough to build an antiwar majority. Only 16% more needs to be won over to reach a majority. The number one demand of the February demonstration is not utopian -it is realistic!

    The Demands of the Demonstration

    It is worthwhile to look at all ten of the demands of the February protest which are found here. But the first four deserve special attention because they spell out the spirit and leading ideas of the movement. Here they are as worded on the website for the protest:

    Not One More Penny for War in Ukraine.

    The Democrats and Republicans have armed Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and military aid. The war has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and is pushing us toward a nuclear WW3. Stop funding the war.

    Negotiate Peace.

    The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.

    Stop the War Inflation.

    The war is accelerating inflation and increasing food, gas and energy prices. The US blew up Russian gas pipelines to Europe, starving them of energy and deindustrializing their countries. End the war and stop increasing prices.

    Disband NATO.

    NATO expansion to Russia’s border provoked the war in Ukraine. NATO is a warmongering relic of the Cold War. Disband it like the Warsaw Pact.

    The other six demands are: Global Nuclear De-Escalation; Slash the Pentagon Budget; Abolish the CIA and Military-Industrial Deep State; Abolish War and Empire; Restore Civil Liberties; and Free Julian Assange.

    Make plans now to get to Washington on February 19. Lend your presence to this potent new coalition of forces. The demonstration will gather at the Washington Monument and then march to the White House. Watch for more details, and sign up for updates here in the coming weeks.

    Let’s do this. Time is running out as the threat of nuclear war grows with each day and each new escalation in Ukraine. A broad coalition can end it. Enough of the forever wars!

    The post Right & Left to Join in DC Protest: “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine.” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The First US Onslaught to “Weaken” Post-Cold War Russia.

    Even Before NATO Expansion, the West Sought to Strangle Russia Economically. The first post-cold war assault on Russia by the West began in the early 1990s well before the expansion of NATO. It took the form of a U.S.-induced economic depression in Russia that was deeper and more disastrous than the Great Depression that devastated More

    The post The First US Onslaught to “Weaken” Post-Cold War Russia. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The First US Onslaught to “Weaken” Post-Cold War Russia

    The first post-cold war assault on Russia by the West began in the early 1990s well before the expansion of NATO. It took the form of a U.S.-induced economic depression in Russia that was deeper and more disastrous than the Great Depression that devastated the U.S. in the 1930s. And it came at a time when Russians were naively talking of a “Common European Home” and a common European security structure that would include Russia.

    The Disastrous Russian Depression Resulting from Western supervised “Shock Therapy.”

    The magnitude of this economic catastrophe was spelled out tersely in a recent essay by Paul Krugman who wondered whether many Americans are aware of the enormous disaster it was for Russia. Krugman is quite accurate in describing it – but not in identifying its cause.

    The graph below shows what happened to Russia beginning in the early 1990s as a result of the economic policies that were put in place under the guidance of U.S. advisors, the economist Jeffrey Sachs, perhaps the foremost among them. Sachs describes his contribution here. These policies drive an economy abruptly from a centrally planned economy with price controls to an economy where prices are determined by the market. This process is often described as “shock therapy.”

    The plot shown above is from the World Bank (The link is here.) in accord with the standards set by the World Bank under the policies of Creative Commons.

    The plot shows that, upon the onset of “shock therapy” in 1991, the economy of Russia crumbled to 57% of its level in 1989, a decline of 43%! By comparison the U.S. economy in the Great Depression of the 1930s fell to 70% of its pre-Depression level, a decline of 30%. The life expectancy dropped by roughly 4 years in Russia during that period. Poverty and hopelessness became the norm. From my experience, few Americans know of this, and fewer still understand its magnitude.

    “Shock Therapy” Applied to Poland Did Not Result in Prolonged Depression. Why?

    The data for Poland are also shown for comparison in the chart above. Why? Because “shock therapy” was also carried out in Poland beginning two years earlier than Russia, in 1989. A glance at the graph above shows the striking difference between the two and the graph below reinforces that view. Below the real GDP’s for both Russia and Poland normalized to a value of 100 for the first year of their transitions to a market economy are shown in a 2001 IMF staff paper by Gerard Roland, “Ten Years After…Transition and Economics.” (China is also included by Roland. One lesson is that China moved to a market economy without “shock therapy,” did so with astonishing success and without putting itself at the mercy of the largesse of the U.S.)

    Roland, Gérard. “Ten Years after … Transition and Economics.” IMF Staff Papers 48 (2001): 29–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4621689. Figure 1. Cited by Krugman here.

    It is immediately clear that Poland went through a brief downturn lasting two years but recovered quickly, unlike Russia which continued in a slump for 16 years. Why the difference between the two? A big part of the answer is provided by economist Jeffrey Sachs who was in the forefront of advisors for the transitions in both countries and hence is a man who knows whereof he speaks. As Sachs put it in an interview here on DemocracyNow!, he was present during a “controlled experiment” where he could observe what led to such different outcomes. He says:

    I had a controlled experiment, because I was economic adviser both to Poland and to the Soviet Union in the last year of President Gorbachev and to President Yeltsin in the first two years of Russian independence, 1992, ’93. My job was finance, to actually help Russia find a way to address, as you (the interviewer, Juan Gonzalez) described it, a massive financial crisis. And my basic recommendation in Poland, and then in Soviet Union and in Russia, was: To avoid a societal crisis and a geopolitical crisis, the rich Western world should help to tamp down this extraordinary financial crisis that was taking place with the breakdown of the former Soviet Union.

    Well, interestingly, in the case of Poland, I made a series of very specific recommendations, and they were all accepted by the U.S. government — creating a stabilization fund, canceling part of Poland’s debts, allowing many financial maneuvers to get Poland out of the difficulty. And, you know, I patted myself on the back. ‘Oh, look at this!’

    I make a recommendation, and one of them, for a billion dollars, stabilization fund, was accepted within eight hours by the White House. So, I thought, ‘Pretty good.’

    Then came the analogous appeal on behalf of, first, Gorbachev, in the final days, and then President Yeltsin. Everything I recommended, which was on the same basis of economic dynamics, was rejected flat out by the White House. I didn’t understand it, I have to tell you, at the time. I said, ‘But it worked in Poland.’ And they’d stare at me blankly. In fact, an acting secretary of state in 1992 said, ‘Professor Sachs, it doesn’t even matter whether I agree with you or not. It’s not going to happen.’

    And it took me, actually, quite a while to understand the underlying geopolitics. Those were exactly the days of Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and what became the Project for the New American Century, meaning for the continuation of American hegemony. I didn’t see it at the moment, because I was thinking as an economist, how to help overcome a financial crisis. But the unipolar politics was taking shape, and it was devastating. Of course, it left Russia in a massive financial crisis that led to a lot of instability that had its own implications for years to come.

    But even more than that, what these people were planning, early on, despite explicit promises to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, was the expansion of NATO. And Clinton started the expansion of NATO with the three countries of Central Europe — Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic — and then George W. Bush Jr. added seven countries — Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the three Baltic states — but right up against Russia…

    The Neocons at Work, Carrying Out “The Wolfowitz Doctrine,” the Latest Expression of the Post-WWII U.S. Drive for Total Global Domination.

    It is quite clear that the goal of the United States was not to help Russia but to bring it down, and Sachs correctly links that to the US quest for global hegemony first set forth in the months before Pearl Harbor and reiterated by the neocons who are now its champions. Among them Sachs mentions Paul Wolfowitz whose “doctrine” sums up the goals of the post-Soviet era with the words:

    Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

    We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

    What better way to achieve this goal than to reduce the economy of Russia to a basket case? Sachs draws a direct line from the Great Russian Depression of the 1990’s and early 2000’s to the expansion of NATO, the U.S. backed coup of a duly elected President in Ukraine in 2014 and on to the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine, also designed to “weaken” Russia. The hand of the US was at work every step of the way.

    NYT’s Krugman Fails to Discuss the Hand of the US in the Great Russian Depression – not part of the Narrative That’s Fit to Print.

    In his article Krugman describes the difference in outcomes between Poland and Russia but he does not describe different factors that distinguish the two countries and might serve as causes of the different outcomes. Sachs points out one such cause which he witnessed firsthand.

    Krugman makes no mention of Sachs’s experience which Sachs himself has discussed repeatedly in interviews (like the one quoted for example, here) and in various written accounts going back to 1993 and a lengthy account in 2012 wherein he describes the lack of aid from the West as his “greatest frustration.” Sachs’s account is no secret and certainly a competent economist would know of it.

    Certainly there were other factors contributing to this tragedy which Sachs himself discusses here. But there is no doubt that the actions of the US and the West were critical factors in the Great Russian Depression. An understanding of this goes a long way in making sense of events leading up to the present moment of U.S. proxy war in Ukraine and the brutal sanctions imposed on Russia. This understanding, however, does not fit the narrative to which the NYT confines itself – and its readers.

    The post The First US Onslaught to “Weaken” Post-Cold War Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • If Zelensky Called Taiwan’s President Tsai After Her Electoral Rout …

    In recent local elections in Taiwan, the Party of President Tsai Ing-wen, the US-allied, pro-secessionist candidate lost badly. We have obtained a recording of a phone conversation that she received from Ukraine’s Volodymor Zelensky in the wake of that defeat. Zelensky: Tsai, how are you doing? We have not spoken in months. Sorry for the More

    The post If Zelensky Called Taiwan’s President Tsai After Her Electoral Rout … appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • If Zelensky Called Taiwan’s Prez Tsai after Her Electoral Rout …


    In recent local elections in Taiwan, the Party of President Tsai Ing-wen, the US-allied, pro-secessionist candidate lost badly. We have obtained a recording of a phone conversation that she received from Ukraine’s Volodymor Zelensky in the wake of that defeat.

    Volodymor Zelensky: Tsai, how are you doing? We have not spoken in months. Sorry for the delay in answering your call earlier. We were in another photoshoot for Vogue.

    Tsai Ing-wen: (Sobs into the phone). Hello, Voldodya.

    Zelensky: Get hold of yourself, Tsai. Why are you crying? Last time we spoke, I was the one crying over NATO’s refusal to admit us, a refusal that stands and leaves us holding the bag.

    Tsai (Sobs more): On November 26, we had island-wide local elections for mayors and county officials. My Party, the Democratic Peoples Party, DPP, the heart of the US-backed secessionist movement lost in a landslide. The Mainland friendly KMT (Kuomintang) won overwhelmingly. It was a catastrophe – both for me and the DPP.

    Zelensky: Tsai, don’t be so upset. How bad was it?

    Tsai: Volodya, It was a blood bath. There are 6 key municipalities; we lost 4, including two key ones, Taipei, the capital, and Taoyuan, both in the populous north.

    Of the total of 21 county and municipal jurisdictions, we won only 5!

    Zelensky: I’m astonished to hear that. I knew nothing about it. I keep up with the American press, even slog through the tedious NYT every day.

    Tsai: (Cheers up a bit, with a smile in her voice). Well the Western media coverage, or should I say non-coverage, is a bright spot. You know: If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, etc. I don’t know how the Western governments control the info so well.

    The Western press gave this debacle a brief, one day, back page story – a relief for me. Most outlets said nothing of it. I saw not a word of it in the print edition of the NYT which I also trudge through daily. Quite amazing since we have become the front line of the US effort to bring down China.

    Zelensky: Yes, we proxies for the US get great coverage – never the bad, only the good.

    I can almost dictate the stories to the Western media on Ukraine.

    But look Tsai, those were only local elections with local issues.

    Don’t consider it a referendum on your noble efforts at secession. It seems to me that these are entirely different matters.

    Tsai: Not exactly, Volodya. I campaigned for the Party’s candidates on the basis of my secessionist policy. I turned the elections into a referendum on my Party’s policy!

    Let me read you this assessment quoted by the South China Morning Post:

    Wang Kung-yi, head of the Taiwan International Strategic Study Society, a Taipei-based think tank, said the results indicated voters were punishing the Tsai administration. “The election campaign turned into a patriotism race in the latter stages after Tsai defined the polls as a way of standing up to Beijing and safeguarding Taiwan.”

    Zelensky: Tsai! Why did you do that? I thought that the overwhelming majority in Taiwan wanted to maintain the status quo, the One China Principle,” Strategic Ambiguity,” as the American pundits call it. That has long been the case.

    Tsai: Well, Volodya, my approach is to poke the Panda every chance I get. It keeps the dollars and weapons flowing in.

    But you have a point. In fact, as of last June the number favoring the status quo stood at a staggering 82.1%, a sentiment which has been much the same for decades. And you will be interested to know that the number was unchanged from last November before the war in Ukraine. So the coverage of the war in Ukraine has certainly not made Taiwanese eager to be Ukraine 2.0.

    In addition, my Party, the DPP, had also been discussing the idea of increasing mandatory military service. Needless to say, that is not a popular idea among young voters on whom my Party is relying. But there is always a push by the neocon Americans in charge to do such things. Of course, I want to push more militarization – as I see it, you can never get enough. I thought, however, this was not the most opportune time for that approach. But it is difficult to disagree with the CIA operatives. You know, the Americans make you an offer you cannot refuse.

    Zelensky: I sure do. I got one of those offers after I ran as a peace candidate and was told to change course. And I got another such “offer” from Boris Johnson last April in Istanbul when we nearly came to an agreement with Russia. He was a messenger boy for the US. It was not the course that we were choosing but one that was imposed upon us.

    That sabotage of negotiations has cost us dearly – in tens of thousands of soldiers lost. I cannot give you the numbers – breach of secrets. But I can say that European Commission President Von der Leyen put it at 100,000 in a recent speech that was quickly altered on the web to omit that segment. 100,000, Tsai!

    That is stirring up discontent; makes it harder to march troops into the artillery barrages. Not good for my career. And if your citizens see that, I suspect that they will have considerably less appetite for a role as US proxy. I am not surprised that the video was scrubbed in the blink of an eye. It is not a good message to be sending out to future proxies.

    Tsai: I wish you had not mentioned Boris Johnson. After I led my Party to those huge losses, I had to resign the Party leadership. It was that bad. I was completely humiliated. I remain President but now I am without real power – just like Boris was for weeks before his final ouster. And I can’t run again in 2024; I am term limited out. I am now useless to the US – and that is very scary. I know very well what happened to President Diem of Vietnam when the Americans came to see him as a liability. (Her voice quakes noticeably with fear.)

    Zelensky: Well, to paraphrase Kissinger, to be an ally of the US can be dangerous – as the Europeans have learned. To be a proxy can be fatal. But the celebrity status and money are great! Another kind of offer that is hard to refuse. The largesse of the US MIC knows few bounds. I don’t know how they get the taxpayers to swallow it.

    And I salute you on your noble efforts at secession. Of course, that does not apply to the secessions of Donetsk and Luhansk. Entirely different matters.

    I must go, Tsai. My CIA “advisor” has summoned me. And I have to look at brochures for some properties in Monaco.

    Tsai: Good-bye, Volodya. I must visit more people to make apologies for the debacle. And I should really be looking into those cushy sinecures at Harvard and Stanford. That will get me out of here before the false flag op to be pinned on Beijing. Maybe I can also do some photoshoots then.

    Note to the cult of the literal minded. The above is satire.

    Image credit: Global Times.

    The post If Zelensky Called Taiwan’s Prez Tsai after Her Electoral Rout … first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • The Democratic Party, Now the Leading Party of War.

    Last May a remarkable column by Stephen Kinzer appeared in the Boston Globe.  It was headlined: “Republicans Return To Their Roots As The Antiwar Party.” More significantly, the subheading ran: “Since the Vietnam era, Americans have come to expect antiwar rhetoric from liberal Democrats. Cancel that.” It began: “With Americans now engulfed in passion for More

    The post The Democratic Party, Now the Leading Party of War. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Democratic Party, Now the Leading Party of War

    Last May a remarkable column by Stephen Kinzer appeared in the Boston Globe. It was headlined: “Republicans Return To Their Roots As The Antiwar Party.”

    More significantly, the subheading ran: “Since the Vietnam era, Americans have come to expect antiwar rhetoric from liberal Democrats. Cancel that.” It began:

    “With Americans now engulfed in passion for Ukraine, it wasn’t surprising that President Biden proposed sending $33 billion worth of weaponry and other aid to Ukraine’s beleaguered military. Nor was it surprising that Congress raised the number to $40 billion, or that both the Senate and House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor. Hidden within that lopsided vote, though, was a shocker: Every single “no” vote — 11 in the Senate and 57 in the House — came from a Republican.

    “Since the Vietnam era, Americans have come to expect antiwar rhetoric from liberal Democrats. Cancel that. This month’s votes in Washington signal a dramatic role reversal. Suddenly it is conservative Republicans who oppose US involvement in foreign wars.”

    Strikingly not only did the “conservative” Democrats vote for the $40 billion that included more weapons of death and destruction for Joe Biden’s cruel proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian. All the “progressives” did so, including AOC and The Squad, Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee and all the rest. It was a clean sweep.

    Second, this was not a one-off event. There is another vote coming up in the next few weeks for another $13.7 billion for Ukraine with over $7 billion for weapons. What is the response of the 100 Democrats to this request by Biden? The answer came during the September 11 Week Of Action called for by Code Pink and the progressive Peace In Ukraine Coalition reported here as follows:

    In the nation’s capital CODEPINK co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, togetherwith Colonel Ann Wright and other activists, kicked off the Week of Action, going door to door to the offices of the House Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), …. While some members of the caucus call for much-needed diplomacy and raise concerns about the risk of nuclear war – either through a miscalculation or an intentional first strike – not one member of the nearly 100-member CPC will commit to voting against more weapons for Ukraine. (Emphasis, jw)

    This was also acknowledged in a very dispiriting interview by the GrayZone with prominent activists after the lobbying effort.

    The prowar mentality among the progressive Dem pols is not limited to Biden’s cruel proxy war to the last Ukrainian. It extends to a second proxy war now being ginned up in Taiwan. When Nancy Pelosi recently visited the island to stir up secessionist sentiment, not a single progressive Democrat in Congress made so much as a peep of protest. In fact Rep. Ro Khanna, Co-chair of Bernie Sanders’s 2020 Presidential campaign boosted it in rants on CNN and Twitter.

    Both of these proxy wars bring the US into conflict with two other major global nuclear powers. If the progressive pols cannot be against military escalation in cases like this, it is hard to see that they have any claim to be for peace. And yet all too many activists in the progressive antiwar movement are loyal to them. In fact some peace organizations have gone so far as to endorse them for election in 2022, even after their vote for the $40 billion to Ukraine for example here!

    Moreover this support for the proxy war in Ukraine shows up among rank and file Democrats as well. By every measure in a recent Ipsos poll taken after 6 months of war, support for intervention in Ukraine was higher among Democrats than among Republicans or Independents. IF the roots of this are partisan in nature, that is deeply disturbing because it means that Democrats will follow warhawks simply because they are Dems. Biden may be a case in point for such misplaced loyalty.

    Let me end on a personal note. Working in peace organizations and coalitions, I find many activists who labor mightily for the cause of peace also maintain loyalty to the Democratic Party. And that loyalty extends especially to the “progressive” Democratic politicians. This is most disturbing because on the most important issues of war and peace, these peace activists get nothing in return. And since there is no price to pay for their hawkish votes, these politicians will simply ignore such activists. This is an abusive relationship and ought to be terminated forthwith.

    The minimal policy of those who work for peace should be quite simple: no votes for politicians who vote to fund war in Ukraine – no matter the Party. Otherwise those who support war and US unipolarity will continue to ignore those who work for peace.

    The post The Democratic Party, Now the Leading Party of War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Democratic Party, Now the Leading Party of War

     Last May a remarkable column by Stephen Kinzer appeared in the Boston Globe.  It was headlined: “Republicans Return To Their Roots As The Antiwar Party.”

    More significantly, the subheading ran: “Since the Vietnam era, Americans have come to expect antiwar rhetoric from liberal Democrats. Cancel that.” It began:

    With Americans now engulfed in passion for Ukraine, it wasn’t surprising that President Biden proposed sending $33 billion worth of weaponry and other aid to Ukraine’s beleaguered military. Nor was it surprising that Congress raised the number to $40 billion, or that both the Senate and House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor. Hidden within that lopsided vote, though, was a shocker: Every single “no” vote — 11 in the Senate and 57 in the House — came from a Republican.

    Since the Vietnam era, Americans have come to expect antiwar rhetoric from liberal Democrats. Cancel that. This month’s votes in Washington signal a dramatic role reversal. Suddenly it is conservative Republicans who oppose US involvement in foreign wars.

    Strikingly not only did the “conservative” Democrats vote for the $40 billion that included more weapons of death and destruction for Joe Biden’s cruel proxy war against Russia to the last Ukrainian.  All the “progressives” did so, including AOC and The Squad, Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee and all the rest.  It was a clean sweep.

    Second, this was not a one-off event.  There is another vote coming up in the next few weeks for another $13.7 billion for Ukraine with over $7 billion for weapons.  What is the response of the 100 Democrats to this request by Biden?  The answer came during the September 11 Week Of Action called for by Code Pink and the progressive Peace In Ukraine Coalition reported here as follows:

    In the nation’s capital CODEPINK co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, together with Colonel Ann Wright and other activists, kicked off the Week of Action, going door to door to the offices of the House Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), …. While some members of the caucus call for much-needed diplomacy and raise concerns about the risk of nuclear war – either through a miscalculation or an intentional first strike – not one member of the nearly 100-member CPC will commit to voting against more weapons for Ukraine. (Emphasis, jw)

    This was also acknowledged in a very dispiriting interview by The Grayzone with prominent activists after the lobbying effort.

    The prowar mentality among the progressive Dem pols is not limited to Biden’s cruel proxy war to the last Ukrainian.  It extends to a second proxy war now being ginned up in Taiwan.  When Nancy Pelosi recently visited the island to stir up secessionist sentiment, not a single progressive Democrat in Congress made so much as a peep of protest.  In fact, Rep. Ro Khanna, Co-chair of Bernie Sanders’s 2020 Presidential campaign, boosted it in rants on CNN and Twitter.

    Both of these proxy wars bring the US into conflict with two other major global nuclear powers.  If the progressive pols cannot be against military escalation in cases like this, it is hard to see that they have any claim to be for peace.  And yet all too many activists in the progressive antiwar movement are loyal to them.  In fact, some peace organizations have gone so far as to endorse them for election in 2022, even after their vote for the $40 billion to Ukraine for example here!

    Moreover this support for the proxy war in Ukraine shows up among rank and file  Democrats as well.  By every measure in a recent Ipsos poll taken after 6 months of war, support for intervention in Ukraine was higher among Democrats than among Republicans or Independents.  IF the roots of this are partisan in nature, that is deeply disturbing because it means that Democrats will follow war hawks simply because they are Dems.  Biden may be a case in point for such misplaced loyalty.

    Let me end on a personal note.  Working in peace organizations and coalitions, I find many activists who labor mightily for the cause of peace also maintain loyalty to the Democratic Party.  And that loyalty extends especially to the “progressive” Democratic politicians.  This is most disturbing because on the most important issues of war and peace, these peace activists get nothing in return.  And since there is no price to pay for their hawkish votes, these politicians will simply ignore such activists. This is an abusive relationship and ought to be terminated forthwith.

    The minimal policy of those who work for peace should be quite simple: no votes for politicians who vote to fund war in Ukraine – no matter the Party.  Otherwise those who support war and US unipolarity will continue to ignore those who work for peace.

    The post The Democratic Party, Now the Leading Party of War first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Biden, Pelosi: Postmortem on Taiwan Trip

    (President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Sec of State Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and White House aide Tara Write)

    Biden: Let me bring this small meeting to order.  We are all here.  And this is a new White House Aide, Tara Write, who will provide visuals if we need them. The purpose of this meeting is… by gosh what is the purpose of this meeting?

    (Sullivan and Blinken raise their eyebrows, glance at one another.)

    Nancy, what is the agenda?

    Pelosi: It is, it is…it has slipped my mind.

    Jake Sullivan: (Eagerly raising his hand). The purpose is to do a postmortem on Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan.

    Pelosi: (Irritated):  I knew that!

    (Mumbling under her breath). Smarty pants.

    And for your information, the trip was a great success.

    I had the support of every Democrat in the Congress – even the progressives. Ro Khanna tweeted support for the trip – and you can’t get much more progressive than that.

    And it is not the first time that I delivered this crowd.  Remember the $40 billion with military aid to Ukraine?  I got every Democrat in the House on board – again including all the progressives, The Squad, Jayapal, Khanna, Bernie’s former campaign manager -even Barbara Lee, a real icon.  And she even went to Ukraine with me to boost our proxy war – I mean our stand for freedom and democracy.

    Biden:  With all due respect, Nancy, that’s nothing to brag about.  They’re pushovers.  We got all the Dems in the Senate on that $40 billion for war, er, I mean democracy.  Schumer says he didn’t have to lift a finger.  Bernie came running.  Another pushover – no spine, just like in 2016 and 2020.

    And, Nancy, you should not be so quick to boast.  You had 57 Republicans vote against that $40 billion.  That’s a lot of Congressional Reps for the FBI to investigate. But don’t worry; we’re already on it.  And the 11 GOP Senators who opposed it are also on our list.

    Sullivan:  Sir, don’t you think we should evaluate the success of the trip?

    It was a great success in my opinion and we have to give you credit for thinking it up. The ploy of having Speaker Pelosi play the good cop and you the bad cop was brilliant, sir.

    You gave the Panda a good poke in the eye.

    Biden:  Thanks, Jake.  You are just the kind of man who will be a Secretary of State some day.

    Pelosi:  Could we get onto my trip to Taiwan, Puleeze?

    Tara Write (the aide):  May I put something on our screens?  There it is – and also projected on the big screen in front of us.  As you can see it is a map of East Asia.

    Let’s look South and then North of Taiwan along the coast of China.

    Looking South of Taiwan we see Southeast Asia, the home to the 10 nations of ASEAN, the Association of South East Asian Nations – almost 700 million people, roughly the population of the US and EU combined.  Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.  We need them as allies for our proxy war against China in Taiwan.

    The day after Speaker Pelosi landed, they issued a statement from the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting reiterating the One China policy, an idea that we must stamp out, and calling for peace and stability.  That was before China’s response so it is pretty clear that the statement was aimed at the Speaker’s visit. That is a setback for us.

    The Deputy PM of Singapore and PM was quite blunt on the matter, saying on August 15 in response to a question about the Speaker’s visit:

    “ We are not an ally to America – we conduct our own foreign policy based on our own vital and core interests in a principled manner. We have always upheld our one-China policy and we oppose Taiwanese independence..”

    That seems to capture a lot of sentiment among ASEAN nations.

    Next let’s look north of Taiwan.  We see three major countries, North Korea, South Korea and Japan.  We rely on South Korea and Japan to be our allies against China in our proxy war in Taiwan.  The newly elected South Korean President refused to meet with Speaker Pelosi as did the Foreign Minister. Then the following week the same FM went on to meet with the Chinese FM in Qingdao.  That is adding insult to insult to insult. This was followed on August 13 by a demonstration of at least 10,000 in Seoul calling for an end to the US-South Korea military alliance and expulsion of US troops!

    Going farther North we see Japan – and here we have our most reliable ally. But the new PM Kishida is not the hawk that the late PM Abe was.  And east of Japan is mainland Russia and immediately north of it is Russia’s Sakhalin and Kuril islands – and Russia is, of course, an ally of China.

    In short, we do not have a good situation in East Asia for our proxy war in Taiwan.  The East Asians are not the patsies that the Europeans have turned out to be with the Ukraine proxy.

    And a sober analysis would say that Speaker Pelosi’s visit did not help the situation.  We look like the trouble maker in East Asia.

    Pelosi:  Who is this young woman?  She is speaking out of turn.  She should stick to her maps and keep quiet.

    Biden: Absolutely. Who hired this woman?

    Sullivan:  I cannot tell a lie.  Blinken did.

    Blinken:  That is a big fat lie – Jake did.

    Pelosi: Who cares?  This whole sorry episode was Joe’s idea and I am the one looking like the idiot.  I’ve been had.

    (Storms out of the room.)

    Biden: Jake and Tony, we cannot ignore this.  Take care of it.  Tell the press to stop mentioning the Pelosi visit.

    Blinken:  I have taken care of it, boss.  The NYT was already on it even before I called. They know what is expected of them.

    Biden: Good.  We don’t want this played up any more before November.

    This meeting is over.

    (He gets up, starts to leave, pauses, bends over to smell Tara’s hair.

     She winces.  

    He exits and wanders off with a distorted smile on his face.)

    The post Biden, Pelosi: Postmortem on Taiwan Trip first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Covid deaths in the US (over 1 million) and China (about 5000)

    “History Should Judge Us” – and it will. In May and June of 2022 two milestones were passed in the world’s battle with Covid and were widely noted in the press, one in the US and one in China. They invite a comparison between the two countries and their approach to combatting Covid-19. The first More

    The post Covid deaths in the US (over 1 million) and China (about 5000) appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Covid Deaths in the US (over 1 million) and China (about 5000)

    In May and June of 2022 two milestones were passed in the world’s battle with Covid and were widely noted in the press, one in the US and one in China. They invite a comparison between the two countries and their approach to combatting Covid-19.

    The first milestone was passed on May 12 when the United States registered over 1 million total deaths (1,008,377 as of June 19, 2022, when this is written) due to Covid, the highest of any country in the world. Web MD expressed its sentiment in a piece headlined: “US Covid Deaths Hit 1 Million: ‘History Should Judge Us.’”

    Second, on June 1, China emerged from its 60-day lockdown in Shanghai in response to an outbreak there, the most serious since the Wuhan outbreak at the onset of the pandemic. The total number of deaths in Mainland China since the beginning of the epidemic in January 2020 now stands at a total of 5226 as of June 19,2022.

    To put that in perspective, that is 3042 deaths per million population in the US versus 3.7 deaths in China due to Covid. 3042 vs. 3.7! Had China followed the same course as the US, it would have experienced at least 4 million deaths. Had the US followed China’s course it would have had only 1306 deaths total!

    The EU did not fare not much better than the US with 2434 deaths per million as of June 19.

    When confronted with these numbers, the response of the Western media has all too often been denial that China’s numbers were valid. But China’s data have been backed by counts of excess deaths during the period of the pandemic as the New York Times illustrated in a recent article. Actually this is old news. The validity of China’s numbers, as shown by counts of excess deaths, was validated long ago in a February 2021 study by a by a group at Oxford University and the Chinese CDC. This was published in the prestigious BMJ (British Medical Journal) and discussed in detail here.

    What about the economy?

    Clearly China put the saving of lives above the advance of the economy with its “dynamic zero Covid policy.” But contrary to what was believed in the West at the time, saving lives also turned out to be better for the economy, as shown in the following data from the World Bank:

    During the first year of the pandemic, 2020, China’s economy continued to grow albeit at a slower rate. In contrast the US economy contracted dramatically, dropping all the way back, not simply to 2019 levels, but to pre-2018 levels!

    Interestingly the plot also shows the year that the Chinese PPP-GDP surpassed that of the United States, 2017, heralding a new era for the Global South.

    The World Bank has not yet released data for 2021, but the IMF has PPP-GDP data for 2021 shown here. The U.S. economy grew at 5.97 percent and China’s at 8.02 percent. Unlike the World Bank data shown in the graph above for the years up to 2020, these data for 2021 are not corrected for inflation which for 2021 ran at 4.7% in the U.S. whereas China’s was 0.85%. So China’s growth would be even greater in comparison to the US, were inflation taken into account.

    The bottom line is that for the first two years of the pandemic through 2021, China’s growth was always positive and greater than that of the US. China’s policy not only saved lives but protected the economy. Win-win, one might say.

    Is China’s dynamic zero Covid policy “sustainable”in the face of the Omicron variant? The Shanghai Lockdown.

    The period of the recent Shanghai lockdown which we can date from April 1, 2022, ended on June 1, and was the second largest outbreak in China since the original outbreak in January, 2020, in Wuhan. Each resulted in major lockdowns, the first in Wuhan lasted about 76 days and the second in Shanghai about 60 days. The first in Wuhan was due to the original variant and the second was due to the much more infectious Omicron.

    During the recent lockdown in Shanghai, the Western press was awash with proclamations, all too many laced with an unseemly Schadenfreude, that China’s dynamic Zero Covid policy was not sustainable. This is all too reminiscent of decades of predictions that China’s extraordinary success in developing its economy to number one in the world in terms of PPP-GDP was a passing phase, a Ponzi Scheme that was – what else – “not sustainable. Recently the same press has gone silent, always a sign that China has met with success. So what are the results?

    The Shanghai Lockdown ended on June 1 and from that day until today, June 19, there have been no deaths due to Covid on the Chinese Mainland. Cases nationwide are also way down to 183 per day from the peak of 26,000 on April 15. That was the largest number of cases in a single day for the entire period of the pandemic in China. For comparison, the peak in the US was 800,000 in a single day.

    Both the Wuhan and Shanghai lockdowns demanded sacrifices and patience over the roughly two-month period for each. However, these difficulties are generally exaggerated In the West and based on anecdotes of the worst of the difficulties encountered. Such sordid journalism reached rock bottom in a NYT piece equating China’s hard working health care workers to Adolph Eichmann!

    As an antidote to this kind of hit piece and to gain a feeling of life in the cities that were under lockdown during the Wuhan outbreak, Peter Hessler’s March, 2020, account in the New Yorker, “Life on Lockdown in China,” is enlightening and will dispel many misconceptions. Hessler was living and teaching in Chengdu, Sichuan, at the time.

    For the moment China’s approach has succeeded although we cannot say what the future holds. But the public health measures that have worked so well in Mainland China should not be lightly dismissed let alone be the subject of mean-spirited attacks. Such measures may be a means of saving millions of lives when the next variant or the next pandemic strikes.

    The US Needs a People’s Tribunal on the Handling of Covid-19.

    Turning again to the US, what does it say when the US, one of the richest nations in the world, spending over $1 trillion a year on its “national security” budget, could not muster the means to deal with Covid-19 and ended up with more deaths than any other nation on earth? China’s handling of the pandemic certainly shows a completely different outcome is possible. The US death toll was not an inescapable act of nature.

    That being so, should there not be a People’s Tribunal to investigate those in charge in the US government over the course of three administrations? That, and not an official white wash, is certainly needed? And should not punishment appropriate for a crime against humanity be meted out? The one million dead deserve no less.

    The post Covid Deaths in the US (over 1 million) and China (about 5000) first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • June 23 Oakland Protest Against Barbara Lee’s Vote for $40 billion to fund War in Ukraine.  Join Us.

    On Thursday June 23 people will gather outside Rep Barbara Lee’s office in Oakland at 11:30 am to protest her recent vote for $40 billion for the war in Ukraine. The demonstration is called in conjunction with the International Day of Action for Peace in Ukraine called by the Peace in Ukraine Coalition.  There will be a companion demonstration on the same day in at the Northampton, MA, office of Rep. Jimmy McGovern who also voted for the murderous $40 billion, and accompanied Pelosi in her recent visit to Ukraine.

    This massive funding package represents a clear escalation of the war in Ukraine by the government of the United States using the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in a proxy war with Russia.  The funding pours fuel on the flames of that war.  It will prolong the war, resulting in thousands more Ukrainian and Russian deaths, at the very least.

    And this funding is one more step in escalating and widening the scope of the war – up to and including nuclear war.

    WHAT: Protest of Barbara Lee’s vote for $40 Billion for the War in Ukraine. This protest is in conjunction with a global day of action against the war, preceding the NATO summit in Madrid, called by the Peace in Ukraine Coalition.

    WHERE: 1 Kaiser Plaza, Oakland, California. (Barbara Lee’s Oakland Office)

    WHEN: Thursday, June 23rd at 11:30 am.

    WHO: Community and AntiWar activists and organizations including Code Pink, Democratic Socialists of American (DSA), East Bay Vets for Peace, Peace in Ukraine Coalition, United Against War & Militarism.

    Despite promising just two months ago to “work relentlessly toward de-escalation” of the war in Ukraine, California Congresswoman Barbara Lee voted in lockstep with every Democrat in Congress behind President Biden’s war policy.  This includes not only Barbara Lee but all the other self-styled progressives in Congress, including Bernie Sanders, AOC and the rest of the “Squad.”

    Barbara Lee because of her lone vote in opposing the two decade war in Afghanistan, is held up as an icon proving that there are progressive Democratic politicians who will vote for peace.  The promise held out by Lee and her Democratic colleagues that they could be a force for peace now lies in ruins.

    Why U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine must be opposed.

    One can look at the war in several ways.

    If it is a war between Russia and Ukraine, then it is no business of the United States.

    If one believes that it is a war by an idealistic to US to defend sovereignty and national borders, ask the people of Iraq if the US respects sovereignty – or the people of Afghanistan or Libya or Vietnam or Venezuela … the list goes on and on.

    If one believes that this is a war to defend democracy, then ask the Palestinians suffering under Apartheid imposed by Israel which is supported by the US government or the people of Saudi Arabia or the many other dictatorships around the world that the US has supported.

    No, this is a proxy war of the US against Russia being waged to the last Ukrainian.  If that has not been evident since the role of the US in backing the violent coup in 2014 against a duly elected Ukrainian President, then it is beyond doubt now with the declaration of Defense Secretary Austin that the goal of the US is to “weaken” Russia, the declaration of Joe Biden that Putin must not be allowed to govern and the declaration of Nancy Pelosi that the US must have total “victory” over Russia.  The Biden administration has chosen to confront another major nuclear weapons power, Russia – and that confrontation constitutes an existential threat to all of humanity.

    Ukraine now wages war only to improve its bargaining power at the inevitable negotiations which will end the conflict admitted David Arakhamia, who leads Ukraine’s negotiations with Russia and is one of Volodymyr Zelensky’s closest advisers. 200-500 Ukrainian soldiers dying each day with a total of 1000 dead or wounded daily, the latest numbers given by Ukraine, simply to improve a negotiating position is a highly immoral exercise.  Ukraine has now become essentially a puppet state at the mercy of the US for arms and aid.  It is naïve beyond belief to believe that Ukraine proceeds in this immoral fashion without approval of the US – or even perhaps coercion by the US to fight on so as to save face for its patron Biden.

    The Biden administration can stop the proxy war.  And we have the power to influence the Biden administration and the pols who support it.  It is our right and responsibility to exercise that power and stop this war.

    Who benefits from the war and who is damaged?

    Cui bono? Billions in funding for the war serves the interests of weapons manufacturers, military contractors, who pocket untold profits from the war in Ukraine.  Some of these dollars go to funding the endless proliferation of hawkish think tanks whose well paid employees show up as talking heads or op-ed writers in the mainstream media doing all in their power to convince us that “the other” is evil and that war is the answer.  These are media manikins and are ideologues driven by a desire for US world domination and therefore very dangerous

    At the same time funding cannot be found for the many problems we face in the US – homelessness, inadequately funded schools, crumbling infrastructure, failure to deal adequately with climate change and now even shortages of baby formula!  Inflation in the U.S. was already running at over 7% before the conflict began due to the tragically inadequate response to Covid-19 and out of control “quantitative easing”; i.e., printing money with abandon.  But the war and sanctions have worsened the inflation which is now running at over 8%.  The average American sees this daily at the gas station and supermarket where soaring prices are now the rule.

    Beyond that we must look to the entire world and especially the Global South both of which are suffering beyond belief from inflation and food shortages due to the US sanctions and the continuation of the war.  Led by India, China and nations representing the overwhelming majority of humanity, the world has refused to respect the illegal sanctions.  That leaves only the US and its European allies, former colonial powers, in supporting the US proxy war.  It is not Russia but the US that is isolated.

    • No weapons for war in Ukraine
    • No Proxy War with Russia
    • No to Nuclear War
    The post June 23 Oakland Protest Against Barbara Lee’s Vote for $40 billion to fund War in Ukraine.  Join Us. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New York Times Repudiates Drive for “Decisive Military Victory” in Ukraine, Calls for Peace Negotiations.

    A week ago, we made note of a May 11 New York Times news article, documenting that all was not going well for the U.S. in Ukraine, and a companion opinion piece hinting that a shift in direction might be in order. Now on May 19, “THE EDITORIAL BOARD,” the full Magisterium of the Times, More

    The post New York Times Repudiates Drive for “Decisive Military Victory” in Ukraine, Calls for Peace Negotiations. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • New York Times Repudiates Drive for “Decisive Military Victory” in Ukraine, Calls for Peace Negotiations

    A week ago, we made note of a May 11 New York Times news article, documenting that all was not going well for the U.S. in Ukraine, and a companion opinion piece hinting that a shift in direction might be in order.

    Now on May 19, “THE EDITORIAL BOARD,” the full Magisterium of the Times, has moved from hints to a clarion call for a change in direction in an editorial uninformatively titled, “The War Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready.”  From atop the Opinion page the Editorial Board has declared that “total victory” over Russia is not possible and that Ukraine will have to negotiate a peace in a way that reflects a “realistic assessment” and the “limits” of U.S. commitment.  The Times serves as one of the main shapers of public opinion for the Elite and so its pronouncements are not to be taken lightly.

    Ukrainians will have to adjust to US “limits” and make sacrifices for newfound U.S. realism

    The Times May editorial dictum contains the following key passages:

    “ In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. …”

    “That goal cannot shift, but in the end, it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions (emphasis, jw).”

    To ensure that there is no ambiguity, the editorial declares that:

    “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal. … Russia remains too strong…”

    To make certain that President Biden and the Ukrainians understand what they should do, the EDITORIAL BOARD goes on to say:

    “… Mr. Biden should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain (emphasis, jw).”

    As Volodymyr Zelensky reads those words, he must surely begin to sweat.  The voice of his masters is telling him that he and Ukraine will have to make some sacrifices for the US to save face.  As he contemplates his options, his thoughts must surely run back to February, 2014, and the U.S. backed Maidan coup that culminated in the hasty exit of President Yanukovych from his office, his country and almost from this earth.

    Ukraine is a proxy war that is all too dangerous

    In the eyes of the Times editorial writers, the war has become a U.S. proxy war against Russia using Ukrainians as cannon fodder – and it is careening out of control:

    “The current moment is a messy one in this conflict, which may explain President Biden and his cabinet’s reluctance to put down clear goal posts.”

    “The United States and NATO are already deeply involved, militarily and economically. Unrealistic expectations could draw them ever deeper into a costly, drawn-out war..”

    “Recent bellicose statements from Washington — President Biden’s assertion that Mr. Putin ‘cannot remain in power,’ Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s comment that Russia must be ‘weakened’ and the pledge by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that the United States would support Ukraine ‘until victory is won’ — may be rousing proclamations of support, but they do not bring negotiations any closer.”

    While the Times dismisses these statements as “rousing proclamations,” it is all too clear that for the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, the goal has always been a proxy war to bring down Russia. This has not become a proxy war; it has always been a proxy war. The neocons operate by the Wolfowitz Doctrine, enunciated in 1992, soon after the end of Cold War 1.0, by the necoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense:

    “We endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

    “We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power.”

    Clearly if Russia is “too strong” to be defeated in Ukraine, it is too strong to be brought down as a superpower.

    The Times has shifted its opinion from March to May. What Has Changed?

    After 7 years of slaughter in the Donbass and 3 months of warfare in Southern Ukraine, has the Times editorial board suddenly had a rush of compassion for all the victims of the war and the destruction of Ukraine and changed its opinion?  Given the record of the Times over the decades, it would seem that other factors are at work.

    First of all, Russia has handled the situation unexpectedly well compared to dire predictions from the West.

    President Putin’s support exceeds 80%.

    165 of 195 nations, including India and China with 35% of the world’s population, have refused to join sanctions against Russia, leaving the U.S., not Russia, relatively isolated in the world.

    The ruble, which Biden said would be “rubble” has not only returned to its pre-February levels but is valued at a 2 year high, today at 59 rubles to the dollar compared to 150 in March.

    Russia is expecting a bumper harvest and the world is eager for its wheat and fertilizer, oil and gas all of which provide substantial revenue.

    The  EU has largely succumbed to Russia’s demand to be paid for gas in rubles.  Treasury Secretary Yellin is warning the suicidal Europeans that an embargo of Russian oil will further damage the economies of the West.

    Russian forces are making slow but steady progress across southern and eastern Ukraine after winning in Mariupol, the biggest battle of the war so far, and a demoralizing defeat for Ukraine.

    In the US inflation, which was already high before the Ukraine crisis, has been driven even higher and reached over 8% with the Fed now scrambling to control it by raising interest rates.  Partly as a result of this, the stock market has come close to bear territory.  As the war progresses, many have joined Ben Bernanke, former Fed Chair, in predicting a period of high unemployment, high inflation and low growth – the dread stagflation.

    Domestically, there are signs of deterioration in support of the war.  Most strikingly, 57 House Republicans and 11 Senate Republicans voted against the latest package of weaponry to Ukraine, bundled with considerable pork and hidden bonanzas for the war profiteers.  (Strikingly no Democrat, not a single one, not even the most “progressive” voted against pouring fuel on the fire of war raging in Ukraine.  But that is another story.)

    And while U.S. public opinion remains in favor of U.S. involvement in Ukraine there are signs of slippage.  For example, Pew reports that those feeling the U.S. is not doing enough declined from March to May.  As more stagflation takes hold with gas and food prices growing and voices like those of Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul pointing out the connection between the inflation and the war, discontent is certain to grow.

    Finally, as the war becomes less popular and it takes its toll, an electoral disaster looms ahead in 2022 and 2024 for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, for which the Times serves as a mouthpiece.

    The NYT editorial signals alarm over the insane goal of the neoconservatives

    There is a note of panic in this appeal to find a negotiated solution now.  The U.S. and Russia are the world’s major nuclear powers with thousands of nuclear missiles on Launch On Warning, aka Hair Trigger Alert.  At moments of high tension, the possibilities of Accidental Nuclear Armageddon are all too real.

    President Biden’s ability to stay in command of events is in question. Many people of his age can handle a situation like this, but many cannot and he seems to be in the latter category.

    Alarm is warranted and panic is understandable.

    The neocons are now in control of the foreign policy of the Biden administration, the Democratic Party and most of the Republican Party. But will the neocons in charge give up and move in a reasonable and peaceful direction as the Times editorial demands?  This is a fantasy of the first order.  As one commenter observed, the hawks like Nuland, Blinken and Sullivan have no reverse gear; they always double down. They do not serve the interests of humanity nor do they serve the interests of the American people.  They are in reality traitors to the U.S.  They must be exposed, discredited and pushed aside.  Our survival depends on it.

    The post New York Times Repudiates Drive for “Decisive Military Victory” in Ukraine, Calls for Peace Negotiations first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • NY Times Shifts Prowar Narrative, Documents Failure of U.S. in Ukraine

    Suggests the U.S. End Its Proxy War on Russia The New York Times has a job to do – and it has done that job spectacularly well over the past few months. The Times is a leader, in the opinion of this writer, the leader in spelling out the US narrative on the war in Ukraine, More

    The post NY Times Shifts Prowar Narrative, Documents Failure of U.S. in Ukraine appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.